Euthanasia of healthy animals in zoos, and "Breed to Cull"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Former CEO of Wildlife Reserves Singapore, and someone who is familiar with Copenhagen Zoo's management, gives her view of the Marius saga. Note that her background is in marketing and not zoology. I quote from the article published in The Straits Times:

"Given this background, I fully empathise with the Copenhagen Zoo’s scientific and pragmatic point of view.

However, a zoo is beyond a mere scientific, education and conservation institution or just a place for recreation and entertainment. It is also a place to stimulate visitors’ love for nature and wildlife. It is a source of inspiration and fascination for children having seen all the weird and wonderful creatures. It is tangible proof that the magnificent nature does exist out there, and that it is worth protecting.

No matter how scientifically correct and rational it is, dissecting a healthy baby giraffe and then feeding it to lions in front of children and the public, while ignoring petitions signed by more than 30,000 people and offers from potential adopters, is an insensitive act.

It demonstrates a lack of emotional connection with the people they are trying to influence to have a positive impact. The zoo comes across as cold, arrogant, provocative and evil, which, of course, is contrary to the real intentions. It damages the reputation and reaffirms animosity among those who dislike zoos."

You can read her full statement from the link below.

Giraffe controversy: To kill or not to kill? Former S'pore Zoo chief Fanny Lai weighs in

I note as well many comments from Zoochatters that Danes in general are unperturbed by the culling and public dissection. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but Copenhagen needs to understand that its actions will have an impact on the global zoo community.
 
Taisha said:
Some figures:

Only 8% of all zoos and animal parcs in Europe are EAZA members.
The breeding program of EAZA lists 825 giraffes, of which 138 are hybrids and 48 of unknown subspecies status.
Means, that almost a quarter doesn't qualify for genetic breeding.

In the last days quite a number of European zoo directors have critzised what has happened, how many of them may just be angry, that the spotlight has been turned on culling?
Click to expand...

You are right, and I think a whole can of worms has been opened up here. Which other zoos, and possibly EAZA itself, will not appreciate I am sure.
Also we must not forget that some certain anti-zoo organisations will be rubbing their hands with glee over this incident.
It is well and truly in the spotlight , as much as the whole "Blackfish" issue is, I would say it is not about to go away any time soon.
I think Copenhagen and others need to look seriously at what they are doing, and I would even go further and say that EAZA itself need to take a serious look at their own policies, some of which I think are questionable.

I have worked in the zoo industry for many, many years and I understand fully that euthanasia is sometimes needed, it is unfortunately an excepted part of captive animal husbandry, however it must not be used for the wrong purposes, it is not a quick fix to sort out problems that have been previously created by bad animal management! I am not against the Danes by the way, they have simply brought it all on themselves.
 
EAZA policy of rather killing animals then passing them to a good non-EAZA zoo is morally indefensible. EAZA attempt to keep monopoly on certain species has no ground in any law. And it turns, EAZA itself makes a lousy job at welfare and managing populations.

Killing animals rather than vasecotimzing them is morally indefensible. Danes say that giraffe is no better than a cow, but oxen are castrated, isn't it? Copenhagen zoo by its own metaphores comes as worse for animals than a simple farm.

And yes, I am deeply worried of careless breeding and killing many other species in Denmark.
 
Breeding and culling is common practice. game parks across Africa cull many species annually as part of responsible management and tourists flock there. Families hurtle around reserves hoping to see a kill as the high point of there trip. Richmond Park in London have there own marksmen to shoot surplus red and fallow deer each year.
The only sad part of this giraffes death is the media circus taking attention away from serious global wildlife issues.
 
pinkback said:
The only sad part of this giraffes death is the media circus taking attention away from serious global wildlife issues.
Click to expand...

Yes
And that was the choice of the Copenhagen Zoo... whether intentional or not. The reaction was completely to be expected. It is this that has zoo professionals concerned.
 
Yes some zoo professionals indeed, having read that drivel from Singapore.
I have watched at Copenhagen while they fed a whole culled eland to their pride of lions and logically explained there belief that allowing their animals to breed is the best natural enrichment they can have. The visitors listened to this with interest and seemed to enjoy a family of lions tearing an antelope apart. While some zoo directors wish to portray themselves as a utopian Disneyland where animals only die of a peaceful old age the media will continue to have a field day with this sort of story.
 
Being a giraffe lover i feel that my views are somewhat influenced by that so i have refrained from posting about it for a few days in which i have considered it and come to a few conclusions - purely opinionated though.

I have read a lot of articles and seen the interview with Bengt Holst himself and i can fully understand the conservation side of it in that killing one male helps to stop inbreeding and therefore is beneficial to the giraffe population on the whole. And i also can understand wanting to educate people regarding the science of a giraffe as they are wonderful animals which people probably would benefit from knowing a bit more about

But ... personally i don't like the way the whole thing was handled or carried out. Firstly, it seems to me like it is a case of breeding one young animal simply to kill it further down the line, to then allow the same pair to breed and create another youngster that is in the same position. This to me isn't right and i have a feeling if certain other zoo directors were partaking in this then the whole situation would be looked at in a different light. Regardless of the animal i personally do not feel that they should be bred purely to lull visitors into the zoo to see baby animals which will be killed and fed to other animals later on. As well as baby animals being cute surely they are a something that people who are maybe not as interested in zoo's/animals/conservation can relate to ... a family with a baby which will grow up and have a family of its own. Not everybody will stop and thinking about gene's and inbreeding...

Secondly, i agree it was the parents choice for the children to be present but i would definitely not imagine it to do them any good in the long run, as they may not have physically shown signs of being distressed by it who knows what is going through their mind and how they perceive it. If there is an 18 rating on movies in which blood and gore is shown then why were young children allowed in for this event which was a hell of a lot more real than a movie? If we are trying to encourage children and young people to grow up being respectful of animals and to fight for conservation then i fail to understand how publicly dissecting an animal in front of them is going to help towards that goal? Children simply do not think to themselves the reasons behind that one giraffe dying, so in the future when they are asked to consider conservation and they respond with the logic that a zoo can willingly kill and dissect animals publicly then how are they going to be encouraged to fight to keep animals alive?

I am not stupid and i do understand that putting animals to sleep happens everywhere and for a variety of reasons but both the bad PR handling of this event and the fact that to the public/outsiders it looked very much as if the zoo were determined to kill this young giraffe regardless of any help offered or anybody's views.

I don't think the whole situation has helped with the matter of zoo's being seen in a good light at all and if people won't attend zoo's or if they do they're going in with a "it doesn't matter anyway because they kill animals" attitude how are they ever going to care enough for animals to bother doing anything to help support the zoo's and therefore the conservation.
 
SmallestGiraffe said:
Being a giraffe lover i feel that my views are somewhat influenced by that so i have refrained from posting about it for a few days in which i have considered it and come to a few conclusions - purely opinionated though.
Click to expand...

Best policy, I reckon :) with emotive subjects like this I think it is always beneficial to take a step back and consider all the evidence and facts before coming to a personal opinion on the matter - and this applies for either side of the argument, really.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
Best policy, I reckon :) with emotive subjects like this I think it is always beneficial to take a step back and consider all the evidence and facts before coming to a personal opinion on the matter - and this applies for either side of the argument, really.
Click to expand...

I still am not completely 'for' the act, but now i can at least see both sides rather than being heavily influence by my love of the giraffes in general :)
 
With regards to the second Marius now facing a possible death, I contacted Parc Safari (the ones who tried to offer a home to Marius 1) and they emailed back saying they were in the process of trying to contact the second zoo with an offer to take Marius 2 in. I wonder if the second zoo has mentioned their possible plan with the hopes that in the wake of the Copenhagen situation they can find him a good alternative home before it comes to euthanasia. Im sure Parc Safari isnt alone now in making offers to save Marius 2.
 
TZFan said:
Given the outcry over his death I really dont think any institution would have a problem raising the funds for transport if they simply asked for donations to save him. Canadians are very giving. There was a massive swell of support and fund raising last summer when Calgary Zoo was flooded and forced to have the majority of the zoo closed for 6 months. Saving a healthy young giraffe from a death most Canadians have seen as horribly tragic and unnecessary would be a cause people would get behind. Wouldnt take long before they had more than enough to bring over Marius and renovate the exhibit (needed or not).

I cant say how far out the zoo knew this was a possiblity. All I know is there were no reports of the impending death until Saturday. Whether the AZA or CAZA were contacted in advance I dont know. Parc Safari is closed now for the winter so its not like they will get a boost in visitors because they tried to save Marius. They gain little if anything from coming forward. If it was spring or summer when they were open it might be more suspect.
Click to expand...

Not sure about Canada, but its nearly impossible to import ungulates into the US right now. They've limited zoos just a very small handful of imports a year at this moment.
 
Im fairly sure we are more open in Canada. We seem to get animals in from Europe and Japan as ways to bolster our populations in species where the US might not be willing or able to send up animals. Its not a constant stream or huge numbers but we dont have a lot of big zoos either in comparison to the states. I cant speak to any regulations on specific species but I know we do bring in European animals. Calgary is expecting European Indian rhino this year I believe. Granby just imported a male african elephant (who is totally unneeded in Canada given that we only have a pair of 31 year old unbred cows and a 31 year old bull). Im sure there are other examples Im forgetting. But one cant also forget that public pressure can make laws bend.
 
SmallestGiraffe said:
Secondly, i agree it was the parents choice for the children to be present but i would definitely not imagine it to do them any good in the long run, as they may not have physically shown signs of being distressed by it who knows what is going through their mind and how they perceive it. If there is an 18 rating on movies in which blood and gore is shown then why were young children allowed in for this event which was a hell of a lot more real than a movie?
Click to expand...

As a serious aficionado of horror films in my youth I was frustrated by this argument then and still am today. It's my expectation that most people view age-restricted materials before the "powers that be" deem them old enough to do so* and, in my opinion, in the vast majority of cases this has absolutely no ill effect for the individual or society.

Myself and friends watched absolutely loads of 18-rated (and banned, later to be un-banned) films way before we were 18 and we all turned out into well-rounded contributing members of society. We put the things we saw into context and possible the only long-term effects of consuming them is that we are all liberal, open-minded, individuals (maybe seeing things we shouldn't have, to no ill effect, gave us a a questioning nature when confronted with perceived "truths"?).

I accept that a minority of individuals could be "disturbed" viewing certain things and that there have to be boundaries to protect these but I rally against the patronising idea that all children are fragile vessels that can be damaged so easily -after all, we all survived school which can be "brutal" psychologically (bullying, cliques, etc.).

Basically, I refute the idea that children witnessing the event would be damaged in any way and assume parents know well enough to prevent any of their children who would be upset from viewing it. In my opinion it's not a million miles different from a natural history documentary showing a pack of carnivores hunt and tear prey apart -some children will watch fascinated (as I did) and parents (or the children themselves) know to switch the tv off if the child is of a more sensitive nature.

* Is there anyone under 50 who's not seen an age restricted film before they "should have"?
 
In my view the current discussion deals with two entirely different topics. On one side the EAZA rules with their claim to know best how to handle the genetic pool, on the other side the question, how should zoo visitors be taught about nature.
The Copenhagen Zoo, and some other zoos speaking up these days, consider it their duty to save their guests from Dineyisation, although Denmark seems to be the only country to offer this specific kind of support with slaughter in public.
Now I wonder: Did anybody of us ever met a child coming to the zoo with expectations like a handshake with the lion, or antelope and leopard singing together with human voices?
Not only in Denmark requests from visitors for improvements have been met with the rebuke: "You are just anthropomorphizing." Which could also be translated into: Don't feel with the animals. Any emotion is out of place.
Even after pioneers like Jane Goodall have proved many times how much insight might be gained by an approach with empathy, some zoo managements continue to prefer to look on animals as mere objects.
Certainly a way to save money and reflection.
To compare the culling of farm animals, or wildlife management in safari parcs with a zoo doesn't turn wrong into right. It is also beside the point.

Zoos have to set an example. They have an obligation to pass on knowledge about the species they are responsible for, as well as to give a helping hand to vistors, for the development of empathy, to understand the animals better.
Nobody can be won over for conservation by just watching a dissection, and those interested in anatomy should have no difficulty in finding an animal that died of natural causes.
 
Shorts said:
As a serious aficionado of horror films in my youth I was frustrated by this argument then and still am today. It's my expectation that most people view age-restricted materials before the "powers that be" deem them old enough to do so* and, in my opinion, in the vast majority of cases this has absolutely no ill effect for the individual or society.

I accept that a minority of individuals could be "disturbed" viewing certain things and that there have to be boundaries to protect these but I rally against the patronising idea that all children are fragile vessels that can be damaged so easily -after all, we all survived school which can be "brutal" psychologically (bullying, cliques, etc.).
Click to expand...

Using the age rated films was an example, as i think that watching the autopsy was obviously more real than any film for the children as they watched it physically happening. I work with children and know how every thing that goes on around them influences them in some way regardless of how small that influence might be. Personally, i wouldn't have wanted any children to view that.
Children do not deal with dissection until they are teenagers and even then it is optional as certain individuals don't deal well with things like that. In this instance i have a feeling it may have been a case of the parents wanting to watch and the children simply being there as well, maybe not for everyone but certainly for a minority of them. Not all children will show physical symptoms of being upset or distressed about something.
 
Marius2 is saved: Statement from Jyllands Park Zoo

PROBLEM SOLVED

The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) have announced that Jyllands Park Zoo is not to recieve a female giraffe any time soon as part of the programme.
As a result of this we will of course keep both our giraffes, as we have stated all along. There is no plan, and there has never been a plan to neither move or euthanize any of our giraffes. The media stories are only based on a hypothetical situation, which we have answered questions about. This situation now seems to be eliminated.

Have a nice weekend
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top