Ethics in zoos and farms - a response to Toddy

[Jurek7]

In the thread about Copenhagen zoo killing giraffe and lions, Toddy wondered about several things, which can be summed into one question.

- Why it is wrong for a zoo to kill healthy animals, if farms kill healthy animals?

Not to highjack a thread about Copenhagen zoo into a thread about farming, there are three arguments:

1. Different animals ARE treated differently. Zoos raise food animals different than display animals. One can raise, kill and eat his chicken, but killing and eating a dog would be punished by Danish law. Many farmers who kill hundreds of cattle have pet dogs and cats, and treat them well.

2. The ethical value of an action is not based on similar actions of others. Examples to illustrate: if a farm kills 100 animals, this does not justify a zoo killing 100 animals. If a zoo in Asia displays animals in dirt and concrete cages, this doe not justify a zoo in Denmark doing the same. If a murderer murdered somebody, this does not justify somebody else also murdering others.

3. The ethical value of an action is partially based on one's ability to act. So if one cannot prevent 100 animals being killed somewhere (because of distance, resources, lack of time etc), this does not justify not helping those animals one can.

4. Children treat behaviour towards animals as a proxy of behaviour towards humans. This is well established rule that children harming animals correlates with agression towards people and psychological disorders. Zoo, as an educational organization, must take care not to promote cruelty towards animals. Even if the zoo aims to teach only biological facts of giraffe anatomy (frankly, claims of why COpenhagen Zoo breeds and kills animals are very dubious).

 

[mrcriss]

Zoos raise food animals different than display animals.

WRONG!

The zoo where I was a keeper had 2 herds of rare breed sheep of varieties that I've never seen anywhere else, a herd of deer, and various species of goat and pig. ALL were used as exhibits in the zoo and were treated exactly the same as the tigers, leopards, zebra, and seals...they were there for the punters to look at. But all had a yearly cull to keep the numbers steady, to stop inbreeding, and to provide food for the big cats. I'm pretty certain that this isn't the only zoo to do so!

If you are going to make sweeping generalisations and pass them off as blind fact without leaving it open for discussion, then at least make sure that your "facts" hold water.

 

[Jurek7]

The zoo where I was

It is very nice that domestic animals in one zoo are given very good care, but you probably agree this was unusual zoo.

In fact, law regulations for zoo animals are stronger than for food animals.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

It is very nice that domestic animals in one zoo are given very good care, but you probably agree this was unusual zoo.

In fact, law regulations for zoo animals are stronger than for food animals.

For the fact that he said he's certain more zoos do this I don't think he agrees this is unusual for a zoo. And it's not. Zoos don't treat domestics differently just because they're domestics.

~Thylo

 

[TeaLovingDave]

It is very nice that domestic animals in one zoo are given very good care, but you probably agree this was unusual zoo.

I believe this is called the "no true scotsman" fallacy

 

[Jurek7]

Zoos does treat domestics differently just because they're domestics.

Thanks for agreeing the point: not all animals are treated equal.

I know of no zoo which raises food mice, rats and rabbits in exhibit-quality enclosures. And if TeaLovingDave suggests that all zoos in Britain keep herds of domestic pigs and sheep, please provide photographs.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Thanks for agreeing the point: not all animals are treated equal.

I know of no zoo ewhich raises food mice, rats and rabbits in exhibit-quality enclosures. ANd if TeaLovingDave suggests that all zoos in Britain keep herds of domestic pigs and sheep, please provide photographs.

I meant 'don't'

And I don't think TLD has suggested anything here

~Thylo

 

[Jurek7]

Toddy also had another pint:

In Denmark we measure an animal's life in how the daily welfare of the animal has been not the span of said life.

Interesting viewpoint. Do you realize it leads to paradoxes?

For all animals feel pain at least occasionally and from unexpected causes, new animals born perpetuate more suffering, so the best lifespan is zero. The conclusion of 'Danish viewpoint' is that most ethical action possible is killing all domestic and wild animals as soon as possible.

Wild animals suffer even more than domestic ones, both from actions of man and hunger, cold, parasites and predators. Surely, rabbit killed by a wild hawk feels at least as much pain as a domestic rabbit killed by a farmer? So allowing wild rabbits and hawks to live means allowing suffering by inaction. Under 'Danish viewpoint' protecting nature eg. by national parks is unethical creating lots of cruelty to animals.

Naturally, welfare-based extinction of all animals would make life on Earth impossible, and final result will be extinction of mankind.

So, I am afraid, this viewpoint leads to paradoxes. It was perhaps invented by a philosopher who knew little about real animals. I will not follow it and I don't think others should, either. I follow the alternative, that life itself has substantial value. I accept that practical causes may require ending animal life, that suffering may outweigh the value of life, and that animals don't understand the concept of death.

Besides, there is a well established fact, that in most people, compassion to animals is correlated with compassion to fellow people. So putting no value in animal life may lead towards crimes to people, whose life may be also deemed less valuable than pleasure/suffering ratio.

 

[mrcriss]

The thing is this.......zoo staff and management are all animal lovers. Their raison d'être is to provide the best of care for the animals in their charge. They don't delight in killing animals, each life taken affects the staff.....so they don't go around willy nilly saying "right kill that one, and that one, and that one" as the tabloid press would have you believe! These decisions are not taken lightly, and if you've been suckered in by this stupid sensationalist reporting, then you're an idiot.

So, the keeper of the rats and mice and feeder animals cares just as much about his section as those working on the elephant section. My sheep, deer and pigs were all important to me. I hand-reared one sheep, named it, bonded with it, took it home, played with it and had it follow me everywhere, with the knowledge that it may one day become food for something else. Did I treat it any differently? Absolutely not.

(It's very early, and i've not really woken up, so I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this and I'm rambling, but you get the point).

Now not all zoos raise herds of sheep etc, but quite a lot do.....many of them off site. For the record, I've seen many a zoo raise rats in the pets corner section in proper public viewing enclosures, and you can bet your bottom dollar that those are used for feeders!

 

[tschandler71]

As a farmer and hunter I consider the ethics of animal care to involve utility. Killing Marius to me was pointless because he was an exhibit animal, though some utility was scrapped together by feeding him. Though it brings up the question, was that the most effective use of that animals life? If I take down an animal in the hunt I will derive utility from it by eating it. That is what separates the killing of a deer for food from just shooting the neighbors German Shepherd. Just like keeping my grass fed, pasture raised Hereford and Bison in good health and in good condition until they are harvested.

 

[mrcriss]

. Killing Marius to me was pointless because he was an exhibit animal

Well then you clearly think that zoos have money coming our of their arses, because you don't seem to understand how expensive it is to keep a spare giraffe that can't be used for breeding! As Marius had been on the surplus list unclaimed for a dreadfully long time (as had the recent lions), what other option did they have but to cull him? Now a giraffe is a HUGE great big hunk of meat, an extremely valuable resource! It's even less rare than the two species of sheep I cared for......so what's the diff?

(as you're a hunter though, and routinely kill things just for a laugh, I couldn't expect you to understand the finer details of this decision.)

 

[Chlidonias]

remember to keep the thread civil gentlemen

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

Thanks, Chlidonias!

But essentially, I do agree with mrcriss in all finer points. I personally have no issue with euthanasia (mind all animals ..) or hunting when there is a scientific rationale behind it. I am aware it is an emotive subject, but that should not let us astray on the road from agreeing to disagree to vilifying those that hold different - equally well informed - views (and action).

 

[mrcriss]

Sorry for flying off the handle. I just get riled when someone goes out every weekend to kill stuff and still claims to be an animal lover.

 

[dean]

Mmm Speaking from my own point of view the big thing in this debate boils down to one of personal perception
Firstly I don't think the zoo should have been so blatant about the death of the giraffe, once upon a time that would have been fine, the Danish people may be more enlightened, sadly we live in a viral world nothing happens within a confined space any more and things are magnified a million percent and distorted to fit the varius interested parties anti, pro what ever.
Secondly It was wrong of other collections to come to the rescue at the last minute, if as mrcriss says and I believe him, the details had been circulated for some time both for the giraffe and the lions without any takers no one should have tried to act as the hero of the hour, it didn't do any one any good at the 11th hour, especially Copenhagen zoo who was made to look uncaring.
Thirdly farmed live stock is just that farmed for a reason, to feed mankind, and zoo animals, if the zoo can be ethical and farm there own or use sapless stock that is fine by me, but don't be so blunt about it. think of others reactions, I wonder if it was say London or Twycross zoo if the resulting out cry would have ended up closing the zoo, at least indirectly with a fall off in visitor numbers.

Euthanasia in man is always stated as a no no, but I know my late partner who was dying of an AIDS related illness was helped in his final hours, in cold print this sounds horrific, but to those around his bedside it was the greatest of mercies and I hope when my time comes I could have the same treatment, but 20 years on this seams unlikely as no one would dare any more, after all we live in more enlightened times don't we?

 

[mrcriss]

You're right about the viral thing. This practice has been going on for years, but with twitter and all that malarky now, it was played out all the more publicly, which was a shame. No doubt it was helped along by the likes of Born Free and flamin' PETA!!!

Once the zoo advertised to do a public dissection, the antis would have got hold of it and with some clever wording, it gave them all the ammunition they need.

In my opinion, anyone that is a big zoo supporter (as I'm sure everyone on this forum is) should be forming ranks against the wave of haters that are currently having a field day....NOT bickering amongst themselves about the right and wrong of it all, when it should come as no surprise to anyone that it's always happened this way.

 

[tschandler71]

Mmm Speaking from my own point of view the big thing in this debate boils down to one of personal perception
Firstly I don't think the zoo should have been so blatant about the death of the giraffe, once upon a time that would have been fine, the Danish people may be more enlightened, sadly we live in a viral world nothing happens within a confined space any more and things are magnified a million percent and distorted to fit the varius interested parties anti, pro what ever.
Secondly It was wrong of other collections to come to the rescue at the last minute, if as mrcriss says and I believe him, the details had been circulated for some time both for the giraffe and the lions without any takers no one should have tried to act as the hero of the hour, it didn't do any one any good at the 11th hour, especially Copenhagen zoo who was made to look uncaring.
Thirdly farmed live stock is just that farmed for a reason, to feed mankind, and zoo animals, if the zoo can be ethical and farm there own or use sapless stock that is fine by me, but don't be so blunt about it. think of others reactions, I wonder if it was say London or Twycross zoo if the resulting out cry would have ended up closing the zoo, at least indirectly with a fall off in visitor numbers.

Euthanasia in man is always stated as a no no, but I know my late partner who was dying of an AIDS related illness was helped in his final hours, in cold print this sounds horrific, but to those around his bedside it was the greatest of mercies and I hope when my time comes I could have the same treatment, but 20 years on this seams unlikely as no one would dare any more, after all we live in more enlightened times don't we?

I'm sorry for your loss.

I don't know why people chose to fly off the handle. Like few here I do regularly handle life and death with animals. I disagreed with the Marius decision like you did from a matter of public relations and frankly coldness. When it comes to a healthy animal that wasn't a hunted animal or raised specifically for harvest I do have a ethical quandry with that. When I put down an animal (I have put down my dogs, cattle but never had to fortunately with our bison they are hardy animals and we've only had a herd 4 years) it was to end its suffering. It is a heart breaking loss to lose a family pet. It is sometimes a back breaking loss to lose an animal to culling before it is ready for harvest.

When I harvested an animal by hunting (I don't kill the bison/cattle we raise, they are processed) there is definitely utility from that. I don't kill fawns for instance.

I eat meat, I am not ashamed to say that. By practicality I raise animals to eat and I hunt. But I do have a problem with Zoos (not a farm) breeding to kill and simply Culling for space reasons. That like I said is culling a healthy animal. While some utility was made by feeding Marius to the lions, did they feed the new lions the old lions? If not then culling healthy animals that exist because you bred them is simply wrong. That is the thing about ethics though, they are something personal.

The concept of Breed to Cull in European Zoos is yet another example of why I scoff at the idea Europeans are more progressive than American zoos in this instance.

If I have no desire to breed a particular young bull, he becomes a steer. Its not the idea that the Zoo was wrong for culling as much as they considered Culling more acceptable that sterilization. For both the lions and the Giraffe. That was simply getting rid of Marius to breed another baby for DISPLAY. There is the real ethical quandary to me. That says that Marius was not worth anything to them other than as a baby. That is like 18th century circus ethics for Animal husbandry.

I sometimes wonder the way the person making the decisions/interviewed by the media talks in the interviews (granted it may be lost in the Danish to English translation) but (excuse me and let me be country for a minute) came off like an ******* who sucks at Public Relations. Its almost like he wants to give the anti Zoo people the ammo through the whole situation. Had he handled the public relations with better tact and candor (and discretion) this would never be an international story we are talking about what 6 weeks later?

 

[lintworm]

Sorry Tschandler, but in Europe there is no "breed to cull" mentality, the mentality is breed to entertain & provide enrichment & keep a healthy population.

In especially hoofstock it is indeed common that offspring (especially males) are culled in Europe and I honestly do not think that in the US that is very different...

Some zoos are more open about it then others that this happens, with the Danish being abouth the most open. But are the animals bred with the idea to cull them later, NO!

You can either stop breeding a species if you are not sure that you can place the male offspring, females are less a problem. But if you do this than you have the risk of the zoo population getting to old on average, you withhold females, potential mothers, from very important natural behaviour and the public simply likes "baby animals".

It is better imo to keep on breeding, maybe not on full potential, with the risk that you will not get rid off all the young born in the past year, so that they IN THE END have to be put down. Then they can still function for educational purposes or as a very healthy food source...

 

[mrcriss]

Sorry Tschandler, but in Europe there is no "breed to cull" mentality, the mentality is breed to entertain & provide enrichment & keep a healthy population.

In especially hoofstock it is indeed common that offspring (especially males) are culled in Europe and I honestly do not think that in the US that is very different...

Some zoos are more open about it then others that this happens, with the Danish being abouth the most open. But are the animals bred with the idea to cull them later, NO!

You can either stop breeding a species if you are not sure that you can place the male offspring, females are less a problem. But if you do this than you have the risk of the zoo population getting to old on average, you withhold females, potential mothers, from very important natural behaviour and the public simply likes "baby animals".

It is better imo to keep on breeding, maybe not on full potential, with the risk that you will not get rid off all the young born in the past year, so that they IN THE END have to be put down. Then they can still function for educational purposes or as a very healthy food source...

Very well said!

 

[tschandler71]

Ethics are an individual thing Lintworm, but surely you don't see that animals can have value in the Zoo context as individuals? After all we name Zoo animals, just like I named Huckleberry my labrador. Marius was said to have no genetic value to the EEP but that the "space" he was taking up would not be filled by anything but another overrepresented hybrid. It is the throw away attitude toward an animal in this context we have (perhaps wrongly) assigned greater value to by individualizing it. I will kill a coyote that is threatening a calf of ours, but I would be shocked if someone shot my neighbors Dog (or Huckleberry. I ship steers to the processor on a regular basis, but I would still press charges if a drunk shot one of my Breeder bulls. We assign ethical (and economical) value to individual animals. Hence killing a wild coyote that threatens an arabian oryx calf at the San Diego Wild Animal Park.

Like I said my problems stem not from necessarily culling (though as an individual I do have something against culling healthy animals) but the attitudes among those making the decisions and their public relations failures.

It isn't culling Marius as much as the ease and coldness of their decision.