The zoo kills 700-800 deer a year according to their facebook which i for one did not know about but i don't think that's appropriate either :/
[note: above is from the other thread. I moved it and my reply because it was suggested that discussions are continued here]
No they don't (what zoo has space for that many deer anyway?). This was provided as an example of the different feelings involved in different animals being killed. The deer are in Dyrehaven, a big fenced in forest with several thousand semi-captive deer. Same part of the world as the zoo, but not connected in any other way. Population management of deer, or culling if you prefer, happens throughout much of Europe, including UK (where the rate also may rise substantially
soon).
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.
As I noted, I was simply repeating what I heard. I don't necessarily agree with the points. However, you're not quite right in all of the above.
1) Logistics: This was a decent sized giraffe. As noted in earlier posts, this makes transport more complicated, including preventing transport by plane and too tall for cargo allowed through the Channel tunnel. That leaves the more logitically challenging, but I guess still possible, boat for a tour to the British Isles.
2) Money: As you perhaps know, these sort of things are usually resolved during the deal, especially in non-standard cases like this. As the Yorkshire offer came so late, this made it more difficult, but of course they could postpone the whole thing and hope the matter would resolve. According to others posters on this forum, there have apparently also been talks of private people being willing to donate the money, but that may not be the most reliable. In any case I have some issues with that for reasons explained in post #43 on page 3.
3) Waste of space: If a serious zoo has space for more giraffes, it should, as far as possible, be maintained for genetically important individuals. As said before, there is plenty of giraffe breeding in European zoos. If any decent EAZA zoo has the space and want a giraffe, they don't have to wait long, even if disregarding animals such as the now-gone Copenhagen giraffe.
4) Law: Considering my field of education, I do enjoy being lectured on Danish law
. It has something to do with real Danish law. For example, a few years ago it was revealed, via hidden camera, that a small Danish zoo had been willing to transfer animals to private people (a non-organized zoo falls under this too). They had a nice little visit by the authorities later. It was a fairly small case and involving small, common animals, so it was resolved with a warning and a fine. A giraffe is in an entirely different category. Similarly, the small Odsherred Zoo had serious money problems and was very close to bankrupcy. Two weeks ago it was finally revealed that they had received enough donations to continue. Before it was realized that the zoo could be saved, it was revealed that many of their more common animals would have to be put down as a result of the closure. Other zoos simply didn't have space for all these very common zoo species (literally hundreds of individuals). Space for less common species had been found. As a result, several private people called them saying they'd take care of some of the animals. Though many of those were standard species that can be bought legally by private people in Denmark, the zoo had to turn down the offers because of the law. All a bit complicated, but generally a Danish zoo can't transfer non-domesticated mammals to non-organized zoos, except under very special circumstances. We might think this is such a case, but I doubt the transfer would be approved. Regardless, as I also mentioned before, this leave Yorkshire as a possibility. In contrast, EAZA rules and recommendations by studbook keepers aren't "real" laws, but zoos that violate them are usually in for a hard time.
5) Just because a species doesn't form stable relationships doesn't mean it should be kept alone. Giraffes are generally found in small groups in the wild. Even if these groups vary greatly over time, it is unclear to me why it would be fair to keep one alone in captivity. Using the same logic, most schooling fish are fine alone because they don't form stable relationships either. This single/group issue was only an issue with the Swedish zoo, of course. Yes, they might get more giraffes later, but that's a big "perhaps".
I should add that I've never visited this Swedish zoo and have no ill feelings towards it. From the photos I've seen it looks ok. If that impression is accurate, I hope they'll be approved for EAZA in the future.
Why the potential solutions to at least some of these issues weren't considered is not clear to me. Perhaps they were considered, but deemed unrealistic. Perhaps the Swedish zoo was relatively easy to exclude (based on the above), and the zoos that offered space very late in the process were simply considered too late; fearing a deal could fall through (e.g. due to money) and would have to do this whole thing again.
But this paragraph is pure speculation from my side and I could be completely wrong.
