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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jurek7 said:
Certainly NOT and please don't extend Danish strange interpretation of ethics to other countries.
Click to expand...

I realise that this is an emotional debate for many people but there is no reason to start country-bashing. That is just pointless. But yes, this does happen all over the world.

Jurek7 said:
Certainly it is NOT normal to generally deny any value to the life of animal and pretend that killing animals is perfectly OK if it is painless.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that it is NOT normal to cut short animal lives? I sincerely hope that you are a vegan if you are to make such a statement.
Billions of farm animals are killed every day most of whom have led appalling lives. I know many people would like to think that the meat on their plates come from old animals who died natural deaths and volunteered to be in your meal in the first place but it does not quite work like that.
In Denmark we have some of the highest standards for livestock keeping in the world, certainly higher than most of Europe. And we all really could be better.

Jurek7 said:
Certainly, it is NOT normal to kill elderly large mammals just to make place to the new ones. Many or most zoos in Germany let elderly animals live until their natural death, unless they develop severe painful or debilitating ailments. It is common and accepted that this delays zoo plans.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that is also quite normal. And yes I am quite aware of the German practice. While it is all good in a lot of cases it also creates A LOT of "adorable" animals that have to suffer for years of painful health problems because the public won't accept a zoo putting down something as adorable as a polar bear even if it is past 30 years old and has severe arthritis.
In Denmark we measure an animal's life in how the daily welfare of the animal has been not the span of said life.

Jurek7 said:
Certainly it is NOT normal to breed young animals knowing that no place will be available for them.
Click to expand...

That is unfortunately also a very normal practice. Some "zoos" do it merely to have cute tiger cubs and such ready for a new season.

Jurek7 said:
Certainly it is NOT commonly accepted that contraception of well-breeding animals like lions or giraffe is less preferable than killing the young.

Cetainly it is NOT normal to treat zoo animals simply as "bags of genes" when majority of the public sees quality of care as an offset justifying the concept of public zoos, plus develops emotional attachment to individual animals.

And certainly it is NOT normal how some Zoochatters do, trying to shift the problem from "is it wrong to do something" to "is it wrong to let the public know rather than keep it secret".

Besides, Copenhagen Zoo is not somehow super-transparent or super- honest. It would in any case be obliged to give information about the fate of its animals to the public on demand. There is a law especially to force public institutions in the EU not to act double-faced.
Click to expand...

Jurek7 said:
Certainly it is NOT commonly accepted that contraception of well-breeding animals like lions or giraffe is less preferable than killing the young.
Click to expand...

It is a well accepted opinion in this part of the world that most contraceptive devices come with some sort of side-effects, be they hormonal or other. Also it is an important and natural part of an animal's life to be able to rear young.

Jurek7 said:
Cetainly it is NOT normal to treat zoo animals simply as "bags of genes" when majority of the public sees quality of care as an offset justifying the concept of public zoos, plus develops emotional attachment to individual animals.
Click to expand...

Having to euthanise an animal is always a difficult and hard decision and not one made lightly by zoo staff. Also I must once again point out the sick and twisted attitude that the life of a lion or giraffe is somehow worth more that the life of a pig or cow simply because we say so.

Jurek7 said:
Besides, Copenhagen Zoo is not somehow super-transparent or super- honest. It would in any case be obliged to give information about the fate of its animals to the public on demand. There is a law especially to force public institutions in the EU not to act double-faced.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, København Zoo shares this information without being asked believing that the educational aspect of this is vital to the puclic.
 
Taisha said:
Some European zoodirectors consider breeding as enrichment, an offer with often fatal consequences for the animal concerned.
Remains the question, why don't they use their creativity to improve their facilities instead?
"If we take away their parenting behavior, they have not much left."
True in far too many cases.
Click to expand...

Life and death are the most natural things in this world. They are ever present in the natural world and in the wild habitats and so they should be in zoos. Not edited to a Disney like world but shown as they are. Only then can we learn from them.
 
Toddy said:
Life and death are the most natural things in this world. They are ever present in the natural world and in the wild habitats and so they should be in zoos. Only then can we learn from them.
Click to expand...

Life in a zoo can never be natural, nor do the living conditions connect much to life in the wild. To breed for culling and to dispose of old animals is the normal course of life only in a zoo. Or would you be so eager to dispose of your grandparents when they complain about arthritis? I have also no idea what people should learn from hearing about or watching the euthanasing of animals.

I am also sick and tired to hear always the same argument used as excuse: "Do you eat meat?" "Do you know how all the livestock is suffering?"
Even if the first would be answered with yes, the second with no, there is no justification for sticking to the rules of a zoo from the past.
 
Taisha said:
Life in a zoo can never be natural, nor do the living conditions connect much to life in the wild. To breed for culling and to dispose of old animals is the normal course of life only in a zoo. Or would you be so eager to dispose of your grandparents when they complain about arthritis? I have also no idea what people should learn from hearing about or watching the euthanasing of animals.

I am also sick and tired to hear always the same argument used as excuse: "Do you eat meat?" "Do you know how all the livestock is suffering?"
Even if the first would be answered with yes, the second with no, there is no justification for sticking to the rules of a zoo from the past.
Click to expand...

To that first sentence, I can't help but say South Lakes anyone?:p

But seriously, the old animals are what get naturally culled more often than not. And we have medication for people with Arthritis, not for animals much of the time. And it's not like the animals are suffering like livestock do in zoos, they often live long and good lives.

Sometimes letting them live is worst for the animal. Case in point, the South Lakes giraffe calf. The poor thing should've been put down weeks ago. For anyone unaware, the calf has an injured leg and is struggling to walk. There's nothing the zoo can do but the owner knows the public wants to see a cute cuddly giraffe calf so he's not putting her down and she suffers.

~Thylo:cool:
 
Toddy said:
Are you saying that it is NOT normal to cut short animal lives? I sincerely hope that you are a vegan if you are to make such a statement.
Billions of farm animals are killed every day
Click to expand...

You are wrong on two levels.

First, there is a justification of killing farm animals - for meat. But is not extended into killing animals for entertainment or education. And zoo amounts to it.

If you see no difference, I don't know where to start - like telling a caveman that it is wrong to hit people with a club.

Second level, actions of others are never a justification to doing the same. So whatever farms do with their animals doesn't give a zoo right to do the same.
 
Taisha said:
Life in a zoo can never be natural, nor do the living conditions connect much to life in the wild. To breed for culling and to dispose of old animals is the normal course of life only in a zoo.
Click to expand...
Because it will never be completely natural is no excuse for not making it as natural as possible. And in the wild there is a far higher death rate amongst young animals than in the zoo whilst old animals are picked off a lot sooner. And very few of these deaths are quick and humane.

Taisha said:
Or would you be so eager to dispose of your grandparents when they complain about arthritis? I have also no idea what people should learn from hearing about or watching the euthanasing of animals.
Click to expand...
No, because my grandparents are people and different rules apply to ones own species because we see things differently. My grandparents can be explained why they are in pain and what can be done to help them. This is not the case with animals.

Taisha said:
I have also no idea what people should learn from hearing about or watching the euthanasing of animals.
Click to expand...
That death is a natural part of life?

Taisha said:
I am also sick and tired to hear always the same argument used as excuse: "Do you eat meat?" "Do you know how all the livestock is suffering?"
Even if the first would be answered with yes, the second with no, there is no justification for sticking to the rules of a zoo from the past.
Click to expand...
While it may be a tiresome argument for some it is nonetheless the most valid one in a debate like this. A LOT of people have completely forgotten where food comes from. I have no problem with eating meat but when people forget where meat comes from? Now THAT is barbaric.

I struggle to see why it is so wrong to feed the lions with a healthy giraffe that as led a very good life in a caring and protected environment and is euthanised quickly and painlessly before it even realizes anything is different. It's last thought probably being something like: "Yum, ryebread!"

But then totally fine to feed them a cow that has struggled through life at a dairy farm before being transported for 48 hours to the slaughterhouse in a very stressful process?
 
Jurek7 said:
First, there is a justification of killing farm animals - for meat. But is not extended into killing animals for entertainment or education. And zoo amounts to it.
Click to expand...
First of all I do believe that the giraffe in question actually did become a meal for someone else (e.g. lions)

Jurek7 said:
If you see no difference, I don't know where to start - like telling a caveman that it is wrong to hit people with a club.
Click to expand...
I guess I just really don't see why one animal's life is worth more than another's? Also, having this opinion makes me a caveman?

Jurek7 said:
Second level, actions of others are never a justification to doing the same. So whatever farms do with their animals doesn't give a zoo right to do the same.
Click to expand...
I get the principle of the first sentence in that quote but didn't you just state that what goes on at farms are completely fine? So why is it not fine when it happens at a zoo?
 
Last edited:
Jurek7 said:
First, there is a justification of killing farm animals - for meat.
Click to expand...

First, as mentioned before, they giraffe was fed to the Lions and not just destroyed.

Second, so would you be okay with zoos euthanizing animals if they were then fed to the general public? If not, why? Because they're cute and cuddly and aren't your everyday cow, chicken, or pig? Why is the death of a giraffe any more tragic than the death of a cow? Especially when the giraffe had a much, much, much better life than most livestock.

~Thylo:cool:
 
Taisha said:
Life in a zoo can never be natural, nor do the living conditions connect much to life in the wild. To breed for culling and to dispose of old animals is the normal course of life only in a zoo. Or would you be so eager to dispose of your grandparents when they complain about arthritis? I have also no idea what people should learn from hearing about or watching the euthanasing of animals.
Click to expand...

I had the same thought.

Children learn also about the functioning of human society, not just zoology. Copenhagen zoo can teach children very deep hyporysy. I wouldn't want my son to ask questions like this:

'If old animal can be killed to save resources, so why elderly people want expensive medical care? Certainly you can kill grandmother at least as painlessly as a giraffe in a zoo.'

'If several giraffes live in big comfort at the price of killing any surplus young giraffe, so what is wrong that rich Europeans live in comfort at the price of African children suffering and dying?'
 
By the way, I would be very uncomfortable if my local zoo send any animals to Copenhagen. Are there plans to send any new animals from abroad to Copenhagen?

And congratulations for EAZA zoos for the choice of their ethics guy.
 
Toddy said:
While it may be a tiresome argument for some it is nonetheless the most valid one in a debate like this. A LOT of people have completely forgotten where food comes from.
Click to expand...

If you want to change topic into ethics of farming, please start a new thread.
 
Jurek7 said:
If you want to change topic into ethics of farming, please start a new thread.
Click to expand...

Why? They're still animals that get put down. Except they're slaughtered, not euthanized.

You're the one talking about killing elderly people here....

~Thylo:cool:
 
The difference between zoo animals and farm animals is that zoos exist with the purpose to connect people with animals - zoo visitors do care for the animals they see, and that exactly what zoos want. But if you make people care about animals, you can`t just slaugther them when they get old or become "surplus" due to management decisions. I am pretty sure danish people do not routinely slaugther their pet dogs and cats and then tell their sad kids that this is all nature!! I am all for euthanasia when an animal is in severe pain, but these lions were all healthy.
 
My whole problem with this is, they replace the mix-lions again with mix-lions. Like this it seems they just want to breed to get visitors, because a logical attempt would be to cull the mix-lions to get a pure subspecies. But like this it has a bitter taste and plays right into the cards of the anti-zoo-groups.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
First, as mentioned before, they giraffe was fed to the Lions and not just destroyed.

Second, so would you be okay with zoos euthanizing animals if they were then fed to the general public? If not, why? Because they're cute and cuddly and aren't your everyday cow, chicken, or pig? Why is the death of a giraffe any more tragic than the death of a cow? Especially when the giraffe had a much, much, much better life than most livestock.

~Thylo:cool:
Click to expand...

As someone who does actively farm, the animals are raised to be farmed. A giraffe being a wild animal kept as an animal on exhibit that is killed to be feed to the lions seems to cross several basic ethical barriers. Are they raising Giraffe and Oryx at the zoo for the collection or the feed the predators? If so why do they buy chicken and beef?
 
I think this is essentially a moral argument. One can pull up practical issues, husbandry, enrichment, even cute babies, but in the end what everyone is reacting to is "Is this action by a zoo moral?"
So here are a couple of pieces of wood to throw onto that fire:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...91229-tigers-butchered-chinese-zoos-pictures/
Is the Copenhagen Zoo practice morally different from these Chinese zoos?

Is Breeding Pandas in Captivity Worth It?
So why are these animals even here, in the zoo? And what are the moral implications of breeding them?
 
The educational value of the killing of animals in the zoo:
I am sure that everybody has the chance to see a dead animal elsewhere, be it in the countryside, on the highway, or even in big cities.
Teaching humans about death could also mean, that humans relearn to confront themselves with the dead bodies of their relatives, friends, something they usually try to avoid. Nature.

Some time ago somebody posted a questionable AZA study: "How educated do visitors leave the zoo?" Result: very much so, of course...
I was surprised that nobody from those who might have done a similar work, a valid evaluation with significant statistics, voiced any criticism.
As it is obvious that we may differ in our opinion about the educational potential of zoos, we may however agree about some of the goals:
To raise awareness, love and respect for animals and nature.
Respect in the way we treat animals.
Here the livestock debate and the zoo debate do meet.
Why have zoos never tried to teach their visitors about the horrible aspects of livestock husbandry? Even some zoochatters ridiculed vegetarians and vegans, knowing, or not knowing, that these often abstain from meat because of the suffering inflicted on animals.
Is there any zoo prepared to fight against the powerful meat industry? After all, they too should have a special bond often having pigs, cows and poultry on display.

Should rules be different for humans and animals?
No, because regarding the human primate as the utmost superior is an outdated view. And humans and animals alike would want to live their natural lifespan, given favorable conditions.

An animal killed in the zoo doesn't differ from the cow you eat. I agree.
Only, is it more ethical to kill your neigbour for his possessions, because around you rages a war, killing many all the time?

And who is going to decide for us which morale we have to follow?
EAZA with their chairman who happens to be director of the Copenhagen zoo?

All my hope is with a future generation of zoo directors, I am sure 50 years ahead we will have quite a different zoo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top