Zoo København Marius - Giraffe at Copenhagen

[Brum]

One vote for each option then I'll wait until the end of the day or an overwhelming sentiment in one direction or the other.

Well we've had this debate several times on various threads, currently there's this giraffe, the Twycross debate and Longleat's culling of the lion cubs. In the past there has been Edinburgh and the infamous red river hogs, the Knowsley mass cull of deer males and I'm sure there are others that have escaped me at the minute.

What I'm saying is maybe we should have a thread dedicated to the topic with possibly a poll attached but if people feel it has been covered to death (no pun intended) then let's just leave all the threads to peter out of their own accord or until they turn nasty!

 

[Elephas Maximus]

Cross-posting the reply I left in the "Help save Marius" thread, which I will either be closing or repurposing for use as a general thread for discussion of the euthanasia issue depending on how react to the choice.

Save this thread from being closed!

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

Nor can I, though as I mentioned on the Copenhagen thread where this has also been discussed, I suspect the Zoos (including YWP) offering the Giraffe a home only did so after Copenhagen's intention was announced, and by then it was too late. If Copenhagen did offer him previously e.g. on surplus lists, then presumably no-one was genuinely interested.

Thanks, Pertinax … another obvious issue that some of our forumsters conveniently forget. This is all part and parcel of EAZA and zoo surplus and wanted lists. It is not a case of Koebenhavn (not Copenhagen) Zoo picking up the phone and phoning every collection with giraffes or even an inkling of an interest in giraffe for their zoo with "Do you have space for another …?". It simply does not work that way.

If YWP had put down their interest in more giraffe for their bachelor herd in the first place perhaps this particular reticulata giraffe might have ended up in "that field in Doncaster". Well then, it was never to be then!

To put forward a bid at more than the eleventh hour, than they could / would have known that was not going to happen anymore as the long and hard decision making process between zoo and species coordinator had already come to a forgone conclusion at that particular point.

I personally would say close the thread and continue under a more general zoo ethics and euthanasia policy thread. The latter - if people are at all interested to discuss this particular case and others - as I do not wish to prevent any forumsters from having an opportunity to discuss valid arguments for or against.

On this particular thread I feel everyone has said what they had to say already and it has served its purpose and come to a dead end street with those in favor and those not in favor.

Best of luck to ye judgement zoo admins!

 

[TZFan]

Poor Marius did not receive a list minute miracle. Hopefully he didnt suffere when they shot him... I know we all like to think its instantaneous and theres no suffering but honestly theres no way to know with any death of any animal (us included) in any form of death because no one who dies can tell us.

I dont oppose using the body for science and food. Its a better that his needless death serve some purpose. If something can be learned from his body that will better help zoos make giraffe lives better or help protect their wild cousins thats fantastic. And if the meat can be used that fine.

I just dont like that it seems common practice to do this. Willingly allow genetically valueless animals to be born and then kill them when they are no longer cute when you could send them to other zoos. Any offer is better than death. These animals dont ask for life. Humans allowed them to be created. If mom and dad shouldnt be breed then they should be kept seperately or have one transferred or sterilized.

I was just as ticked off when my own home town zoo, Toronto, was killing newborn male reindeer calves because they couldnt place their males. They allowed breeding knowing they couldnt keep the male calves. Thankfully after they were savagely bashed they did something about it. The older males and another newborn male were taken in by a small CAZA zoo, who Im fairly sure would have been asked before to take them but only changed their mind for the good press (it tends to be a self serving zoo). The outcry also made the zoo take a second look at its policy. They decided they needed to do better preventing births they didnt want. I believe they either castrated the breeding male or just kept him seperate from the females during breeding season. No calves have been born since then so they have done the responsible thing.

Im not sure I buy the let ungulates breed because they do so every year. You are right in the wild they do. But in the wild they dont have to deal with the results of a nearly 100% survival rate and extended lifespans. A female might have a calf every year but survival rates are signifcantly lower. It might take her several breeding seasons to produce an baby who lives to adulthood and possibly a few more for that baby to produce their own successful adult offspring. Zoos cannot handle the enromous volume of animals produced if the zoo lets nature take its course. Breeding of any animal should be carefully planned given the limited space available. The most genetically valuable pairings should be made and any pairing that wont produce vaulable offspring should be avoided because once they are born most zoos will do almost anything to see that animal survives and will live a long healthy life. Just look at captive lifespans. Most animals have significantly longer lifespans in zoos than in the wild where predators, injury, disease and old age keep life shorter. Combine higher survival rates and longer life spans in animals that can breed every year and live for years beyond their normal lifespan and zoos can have a big problem. Breeding needs to be managed to meet both the genetic needs and space needs of all the zoos in the breeding program. Just my personal thoughts on that issue.

I fully admit my attitude towards this issue is probably shaped by my Canadian culture. If its common practice to do those things in Europe then it might be harsh of me to judge by Canadian standards. I just hope they use this incident to reconsider how the manage breeding because its more of a breeding issue.

In the end it was all about one poor giraffe who ended up dying well before his time. I hope Marius rests in peace.

Danish Zoo Kills Giraffe to Prevent Inbreeding - ABC News

 

[condor]

EDIT: Well, I did it again . Evidently I'm too slow at writing comments! I missed the latest posts, and was under the impression that this was the thread that should remain active. Evidently it isn't settled; I don't have a strong opinion on what thread should remain active, if any.

----------------------

According to a Danish news report the zoo have responded by saying that they do not care about the offer

Either you're deliberately misrepresenting what was said, or (more likely) you don't read Danish and relied on google translate/second hand info by a British newspaper.

YWP already have a giraffe from Copenhagen in their bachelor herd so in my opinion they have no valid reason to turn down this offer. Especially as many animal lovers have stated they would donate towards travel costs etc.

When I was directly involved in wildlife conservation, getting enough money was an eternal problem and here we're talking about species that are heading rapidly towards extinction (unlike the giraffe, which remains common in many protected areas of Africa and has a big captive population). I find it saddening that people would be willing to donate thousands of $$$ on moving a single giraffe that isn't of breeding value, but getting money to save entire species that actually are heading rapidly towards extinction is so difficult.

Otherwise, below are my comment on this from the other thread. Note that I am simply forwarding the below info; not saying I think these are good or bad arguments.

I read that there were three offers of rehousing, but only one was confirmed (a Swedish zoo) and the two others, if confirmed, were in the very last hour (despite the zoo sending out the request a long time ago through relevant zoo channels).
According to various articles, the following reasons have been provided by Copenhagen for turning down the offeres: Logistics (it was a reasonably sized giraffe, and one of the zoos would require plane [size limits]/boat journey), money (who'd pay transport), waste of space (giraffes breed at a good rate in Europe, and any space taken up by an animal with well-represente genes is a waste), breeding program guidelines, legal issues (laws preventing transfer to non-organized zoos; I assume this wasn't related to Yorkshire, which is EAZA, but the Swedish isn't) and life in solitude for a social animal (the Swedish zoo doesn't have any other giraffes).

However, regardless of everything else, I do agree on the PR issues in this case. This seems to be related to two main things:
1) Some of the British/US news articles I've read only provide a few bits of information from the Danish media, or rely entirely on the articles in Ekstra Bladet (a Danish tabloid similar to the The Sun of UK).
2) Copenhagen simply was not prepared for having to provide a big defence of their actions to the worldwide media. It's also the only time I've seen them translate a news item on the zoo's homepage to English. There is a quite different approach and acceptance of animal deaths in zoos in Denmark than many other countries. They're also much more open about it than zoos in many other countries where info similar to this is kept quiet. From the other thread:

Compared to North America, there is a far more liberal approach to the death in zoos in Denmark. Not sensationalistic, but in the sense that death is a part of nature and science. This ranges from necropsies to feeding of carnivorans. For example, it is common for Danish zoos to use entire animal carcasses (head and everything) when feeding their big cats. This is not some strange attempt of macabre entertainment, but simply because it is considered natural. Consequently Danish zoos also seem to be far more open when it comes to informing the public about animal deaths (natural or not) compared to North American.

Interestingly, there are no indications that this will be a really "big thing" in Denmark either. It will likely be news for a day or two, and that's it. As I mentioned elsewhere, a tiny percentage of the people signing the online pertition are Danish (I checked 2000 and found 7 from Denmark) and a demonstration in front of the zoo this morning had about 15 people. Another illustration of this divergence in coverage can be seen on TV2, arguably the serious television news channel in Denmark. Translated headlines in brackets

Udlandet raser: I må ikke aflive Marius, Danmark! (People abroad furious: Don't put Marius to sleep Denmark!)
Nu skriver australske medier også om Marius (Australian media are now also writing about Marius)

The big news related to this in Berlinske, one of the main serious newspapers in Denmark:

Både min familie og jeg bliver truet på livet (My family and I [zoo director] have received death threats).

The serious (non-tabloid) media have articles that cover both sides of the argument and all the issues related to this case. However, as should be evident from the above headlines, the media coverage of this in other countries has itself become some of the main news in Denmark, and another big focus has been the threats received by the zoo director.

It'll be interesting to see if the "intense" interest, especially from abroad will change the open approach of Danish zoos so it ends up resembling that of many other countries. The zoo director has said they'll continue to provide this sort of info and I do hope that's true; I prefer zoos being up-front instead of hiding info.

 

[Taisha]

I don't think it should be closed, it is an important question, it's a significantly frequent occurance that should rightly be able to be discussed on here and not swept under the carpet and dismissed as an issue only for the nutty animal rights people.

Possibly merge all the relevant posts in one thread.

I doubt that any further discussion here would clarify anything.
After joining ZooChat because I needed help with a specific question I fairly soon found myself in a quarrel about Berlin Zoo, with a member insisting I had only just joined to stir up trouble as part of an animal activist group.
He neither believed me, that I was only speaking for myself, nor did he ever apologize afterwards when he must have found out how wrong he was.
Being myself no friend of PETA it made me wonder how some ZooChatters would disregard any criticism that questioned their own standards by quickly attributing it to the view of an animal activist, what seems to be a term of abuse in itself.
My absolute highlight today in another thread: Animal Welfarist Mob

However reading all the posts f.i. in the Guardian today, or in German newspapers it gives me hope, that the wind of change is blowing and people are changing their attitudes in becoming morecompassionate with

 

[TARZAN]

Thanks, Pertinax … another obvious issue that some of our forumsters conveniently forget. This is all part and parcel of EAZA and zoo surplus and wanted lists. It is not a case of Koebenhavn (not Copenhagen) Zoo picking up the phone and phoning every collection with giraffes or even an inkling of an interest in giraffe for their zoo with "Do you have space for another …?". It simply does not work that way.

If YWP had put down their interest in more giraffe for their bachelor herd in the first place perhaps this particular reticulata giraffe might have ended up in "that field in Doncaster". Well then, it was never to be then!

To put forward a bid at more than the eleventh hour, than they could / would have known that was not going to happen anymore as the long and hard decision making process between zoo and species coordinator had already come to a forgone conclusion at that particular point.

I personally would say close the thread and continue under a more general zoo ethics and euthanasia policy thread. The latter - if people are at all interested to discuss this particular case and others - as I do not wish to prevent any forumsters from having an opportunity to discuss valid arguments for or against.

On this particular thread I feel everyone has said what they had to say already and it has served its purpose and come to a dead end street with those in favor and those not in favor.

Best of luck to ye judgement zoo admins!

And thank you, as someone who praises this zoo in Copenhagen and its management to the hilt, yes lets close it and hopefully people will forget all about it and get back to bashing Twycross tomorrow.

 

[Elephas Maximus]

I hope Marius rests in peace.

He does indeed. Being eaten by the king of beasts is a honor.
but those stupid cats could live without giraffe skin and be happy with meat only!
I also suspect that leg bones were fed too

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Not helping, Elephas Maximus. I realise you have a.... unique..... sense of humour, but do you really think that photograph is appropriate?

 

[TARZAN]

I doubt that any further discussion here would clarify anything.
After joining ZooChat because I needed help with a specific question I fairly soon found myself in a quarrel about Berlin Zoo, with a member insisting I had only just joined to stir up trouble as part of an animal activist group.
He neither believed me, that I was only speaking for myself, nor did he ever apologize afterwards when he must have found out how wrong he was.
Being myself no friend of PETA it made me wonder how some ZooChatters would disregard any criticism that questioned their own standards by quickly attributing it to the view of an animal activist, what seems to be a term of abuse in itself.
My absolute highlight today in another thread: Animal Welfarist Mob

However reading all the posts f.i. in the Guardian today, or in German newspapers it gives me hope, that the wind of change is blowing and people are changing their attitudes in becoming morecompassionate with

Well if you just give up posting because a certain element do not like what you have to say, they have won, my advice would be to keep on posting and air your views, they usually just ignore you then when they realise they are fighting a loosing battle, that is in my experience on here anyway, having said that there are some decent people who come on here, even though I enjoy having a difference of opinion with some of them, it is still enjoyable

 

[Elephas Maximus]

Did I hurt the feelings of lion fans?
And we are used to say RIP about incinerated animals that were turned into ashes or fertilizer, niot having an anthropomorphic 'grave' at all...

 

[TeaLovingDave]

It is not tactful nor appropriate to post a photograph of a lion eating the remains of a giraffe when the overall environment in the thread is so tense at present.

 

[Shirokuma]

Tense? I think that's ridiculous. We are having a civil discussion. Has the photo been censored? I assume so as I can't see it now. If so I think it's outrageous.

 

[dean]

I too think it may as well stay open until it turns nasty, I read the daily mail on line article today and some pop promoter is annoyed because a friend of his had wanted to buy the giraffe and is furious it didn't happen!!! Sadly so much good work at zoos around the world can be undone in an instant due to stories like this.
I forgott to add a change of title may be necessery though.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

I forgott to add a change of title may be necessery though.

Has already happened have merged the bulk of the discussion from today into this single thread whilst I was at it.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Tense? I think that's ridiculous. We are having a civil discussion. Has the photo been censored? I assume so as I can't see it now. If so I think it's outrageous.

The discussion is indeed civil at present - however, I felt that Elephas Maximus posting a giant photograph of the lions eating the giraffe risked causing problems.

If you want to judge for yourself, the image can be seen here.

 

[Jurek7]

I find that killing a healthy animal is better than transfering it to another zoo is totally perverse and abhorrent logic. Smacks of euthanasia of old people, because they also take valuable resources and don't have enough quality of life.

I agree it may be truly impossible to find space for animals which are common and fast breeding, eg. deer. For giraffes, which are valuable exhibit animals and breed slowly, there should be better options. In fact, options were found, but Copenhagen Zoo was simply not willing to pursue them.

According to various articles, the following reasons have been provided by the zoo for turning down the offeres: Logistisc (it was a reasonably sized giraffe, and one of the zoos would require plane/boat journey), money (who'd pay transport), waste of space (giraffes breed at a good rate in Europe, and any space taken up by an animal with well-represente genes is a waste), breeding program guidelines, legal issues (laws preventing transfer to non-organized zoos; I assume this wasn't related to Yorkshire, which is EAZA, but the Swedish isn't) and life in solitude for a social animal (the Swedish zoo doesn't have any other giraffes).

None of these arguments is true.

Logistic and money - transport is always paid by the receiving zoo. The zoo offering to house the giraffe must have known it.

Waste of space - there was space offered, also in non-EAZA zoo

legal issues (laws preventing transfer to non-organized zoos) - These are exclusively internal regulations of EAZA, not grounded in any real law.

life in solitude for a social animal - giraffes DO NOT form stable social groups in the wild. Besides, it might be possible to be joined by other giraffe in future.

 

[Nisha]

A statement from EAZA regarding the weekends events: I think they sum it up perfectly...

It's never easy to have to euthanize an animal, but EAZA is firmly behind Copenhagen Zoo's decision to humanely put down its young giraffe. Great zoos, such as Copenhagen, which work tirelessly to protect the future of vulnerable species from the depradations of human development, have to make difficult decisions in order to ensure that future generations will share their world with these magnificent animals. EAZA and its members do not euthanize animals lightly, and only a tiny fraction of those animals are destroyed due to concerns of conservation management; most are humanely put down due to reasons of ill health.

Given the limited space and resources within our network for the housing of endangered animals, we have the responsibility to preserve the most diverse and healthy population of animals possible to ensure the future of the species. Until human activity ceases to destroy the habitats of animals in the wild, these difficult decisions will have to continue to be made. We applaud the transparency of Copenhagen Zoo's decision, and its exemplary use of the giraffe, killed out of necessity, to educate the over 7000 visitors that came to the zoo today, and many of whom witnessed the autopsy carried out. The information gathered from this autopsy will aid us in understanding more about this incredible species, and how to protect it from extinction in healthy and genetically diverse populations.

EAZA campaigns tirelessly for the environment and the protection of animals. Copenhagen zoo is a key part of those struggles, and is a great example of a humane, educational and responsible zoo

 

[tennisfan]

... the giraffe, killed out of necessity,

Really

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

OrangePerson said somewhere: "For some people on ZooChat animals are just a bag filled with genes."
I still hope this concerns only a minority, as the discussion around Twycross seems to prove something different.

Zooman and Kifaru Bwana, do you think there may be better solutions than culling in the case of just unwanted or elderly animals in the zoo of the future?
I believe the opposition to ideas as mentioned in the quote will be growing even faster in times to come.

@Taisha, I have been thinking about the latter bit, which is a bit sidestepping from the main subject of the thread:

I choose to break it down like this - if you do not mind -.
A) Unwanted individual animals remains a difficult one as the first word more or less conveys the issue.
B) Elderly animals remain the responsibility of the zoo housing these. I do believe we have a moral responsibility to the point at which animal welfare can no longer be met and a certain quality of life is lost beyond repair. In these circumstances, euthanasia is the only "coup de grace" way out.

As to future population management options, I would increasingly hope that upon successful reproduction and having reached a conservation breeding equilibrium of gene diversity …, meaning that some animals are surplus to requirements that we would:
1) Provide other zoo regions where this species might be a welcome addition within the breeding program with individual animals. Issue: there must be a commitment down to do so and logistics of transport.
2) Provide individual animals for release / reintroduction schemes with good science and population management. Issue: there must be a project on the ground that seeks sustainability and long haul approach (+ 25 years) and funding mechanisms in place.

What I definitely would not advocate is opportunistic off-loading of individual animals on non-accredited institutions (f.i. backyard- and roadside zoos and also zoos not member to any zoo and aquaria membership). This is exactly what has been suggested here by various parties, including some billionaire in California.

Another thing that has not been helpful is that the facts are being misinterpreted, certainly by media abroad and often by just reposting excerpts from the originating papers that are usually just out for writing up some freakish storyline. More often than not even the foreign newspapers do not check their facts back with the direct party involved and the whole thing goes viral over the internet. Consequently, there seems little room for any good discussion of the subject matter in hand and most posters go haywire over some quotes without reading much further. What underlines this is the very fact that the Koebenhavn scientific director and his family have now received death threats. That is where I really draw the line.

I can also assure you that the qualification that some people on Zoochat see animals just as "a bag of genes" as some what have us believe certainly does no way convey how I personally feel about animals and the natural world and what we should do about it.

Another subject brought up: You mentioned that in the future opposition to euthanasia may well increase.
I would personally wish for all people to invest more of their efforts into supporting both the conservation work zoos do and donating time and money towards in situ conservation or contributing towards it. I find these petitions for individual animals and for which even EAZA has stuck its neck out why Koebenhavn Zoo is doing the right thing - you may agree to disagree - are unhelpful if we are to save our Planet, our species, our habitats and sustainable populations of plants and animals both in the wilds and in zoos.