I was not under the impression that zoo's killed the animals they keep to feed the carnivores. Obviously if an animal dies naturally etc then i can fully understand it.
All carnivorans eat meat and that meat is the result of a dead animal. If you're suggesting the primary reason this giraffe was killed was to get the meat, you've either been mislead or you're trying to mislead others. However, if an otherwise healthy ungulate is put to sleep in a zoo, many zoos around the world will use it as food instead of wasting the meat by throwing it out. In many parts of the world the zoos just don't say it publicly (more on that below). In contrast, feeding carnivorans with animals that died naturally is often avoided, as zoos have to be completely sure about the reason of the death; avoiding risk of transmitting a disease.
If all zoo's ran by this etiquette all the time then where would that leave the captive population of animals other than the main carnivores who get these animals killed and fed to them?
One of the main arguments for putting him to sleep was the well-being of the captive population; avoiding inbreeding. In the breeding pool, his genes are well represented. People could make arguments for keeping him alive (value of life, feelings, etc), but value as a breeding animal definitely isn't one of them.
And the fact that they want to do a public necropsy (whats the point you put a bullet in his head, cause of death solved) makes me think he exists for less then honourable reasons.
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.
This is neither the first nor likely to be the last time the zoo will do something like this. In the end, it is a discussion about the benefits of letting an animal breed (behavioral, disease, and maintaining breeding potential) vs. having to put down the offspring because it is a surplus animal.
I doubt this story will cause much of an uproar in Denmark; at most for a day a two. Perhaps the most obvious signs of this are the online petition and a demonstation in front of the zoo earlier today. I just checked the last 2000 signatures - 7 were from Denmark. The demonstration in front of the zoo consisted of c. 15 people.
