Humans are animals, not sure you'd be keen if someone wanted to cull you for being over-represented or being male. Zoos aren't nature.
- Status
Humans are animals, not sure you'd be keen if someone wanted to cull you for being over-represented or being male. Zoos aren't nature.
You sum it up once again.
The primate, who considers himself the smartest, proves his superiority in endless wars, multiplying his genes in excess until the earth has finally collapsed, but feels nevertheless that he is the master of the universe, entitled to decide which creature has the right to live or die. For the sake of what: Money? Conservation and often debatable science? More or less very personal motivations to own a zoo, or to keep it running?
Elephas Maximus
Well-Known Member
Now that is heart-warming (despite the poor skull has a hole now).
But what happens to the skin?
*finds the video*
http://ekstrabladet.dk/
Oh noooo.... skin torn to pieces...
The wild giraffes are often scratched all over the legs, but Maruis was young and undamaged.
WHY didn't they skin him properly?! If you kill the animal you should use the most of it!
Danish zoos have totally different feelings regarding killing of healthy surplus animals then most people in most European countries. It is completely normal there to euthanize not just antilopes, deer ect., but also surplus lions, tigers and now giraffes. I am not sure if they make exeptions for big apes..
They regularly do it instead of birth control and they are open about it.
My feeling about this topic are very mixed - but I feel that euthanasia is a better solution then selling surplus animals to third country zoos, animal dealers, laboratories or circusses. I do prefer birth control, though - at least for the big cats.
They regularly do it instead of birth control and they are open about it.
My feeling about this topic are very mixed - but I feel that euthanasia is a better solution then selling surplus animals to third country zoos, animal dealers, laboratories or circusses. I do prefer birth control, though - at least for the big cats.
The skin doesn't have much scientific value and it is expensive to preserve a skin of that size (unlike bones and biochemical samples, which are much cheaper to preserve). There are already plenty of giraffe skins at the various big natural history museums around the world, incl. Copenhagen. For the most part, those skins also originate from wild animals, i.e. they have accurate location information, which generally is a requirement for taxonomic research. There might be private organisations that would like to have it, but that would be against the law (Danish, EU and international).
Elephas Maximus
Well-Known Member
But at least they could use it for the zoo's biofact collection...
poor skin
poor skin
EDIT: Kifara, essentially I agree. I was writing this post during the time where your post was added. Unfortunately I only saw it after I posted
------------------
Not entirely clear to me why you chose to quote my message in your comment. I have never suggested all-male giraffes groups for display are impossible/bad idea/etc. They can be quite excellent, especially if managed correctly. If you were under the impression that I was against those, please do check it–and the post I was responding to–again:
On a related issue, I read that there were three offers of rehousing, but only one was confirmed (a Swedish zoo) and the two others, if confirmed, were in the very last hour (despite the zoo sending out the request a long time ago).
According to various articles, the following reasons have been provided by the zoo for turning down the offeres: Logistisc (it was a reasonably sized giraffe, and one of the zoos would require plane/boat journey), money (who'd pay transport), waste of space (giraffes breed at a good rate in Europe, and any space taken up by an animal with well-represente genes is a waste), breeding program guidelines, legal issues (laws preventing transfer to non-organized zoos; I assume this wasn't related to Yorkshire, which is EAZA, but the Swedish isn't) and life in solitude for a social animal (the Swedish zoo doesn't have any other giraffes).
------------------
Not entirely clear to me why you chose to quote my message in your comment. I have never suggested all-male giraffes groups for display are impossible/bad idea/etc. They can be quite excellent, especially if managed correctly. If you were under the impression that I was against those, please do check it–and the post I was responding to–again:
On a related issue, I read that there were three offers of rehousing, but only one was confirmed (a Swedish zoo) and the two others, if confirmed, were in the very last hour (despite the zoo sending out the request a long time ago).
According to various articles, the following reasons have been provided by the zoo for turning down the offeres: Logistisc (it was a reasonably sized giraffe, and one of the zoos would require plane/boat journey), money (who'd pay transport), waste of space (giraffes breed at a good rate in Europe, and any space taken up by an animal with well-represente genes is a waste), breeding program guidelines, legal issues (laws preventing transfer to non-organized zoos; I assume this wasn't related to Yorkshire, which is EAZA, but the Swedish isn't) and life in solitude for a social animal (the Swedish zoo doesn't have any other giraffes).
Last edited:
What people are either forgetting or do not realise, I suspect, is that it is likely that the vast majority of European collections have followed this exact policy in the past, and still do to this day - it is only noticed by people when it happens to the "charismatic" animals!
Sometimes, as with this example, it is due to over-representation of a genetic line.
Sometimes it is due to the need to save money when the collection is in a financial pinch and has a number of elderly animals which are deemed to be costing more money than they are bringing into the collection through visitors.
Sometimes it is because of disease or illnesses which the general public are completely unaware of.
In short, it happens. The one point I disagree with in the various posts in this thread also expressing this view is the implication by Sooty that the attempt by YWP to obtain the giraffe in this particular case somehow undermines their claim to be a serious collection - as a collection which is keeping a batchelor herd of non-breeding animals, I cannot see any harm nor foul in their offering to take another one - although I do suspect they made the offer without any real expectation it would be accepted!
Sometimes, as with this example, it is due to over-representation of a genetic line.
Sometimes it is due to the need to save money when the collection is in a financial pinch and has a number of elderly animals which are deemed to be costing more money than they are bringing into the collection through visitors.
Sometimes it is because of disease or illnesses which the general public are completely unaware of.
In short, it happens. The one point I disagree with in the various posts in this thread also expressing this view is the implication by Sooty that the attempt by YWP to obtain the giraffe in this particular case somehow undermines their claim to be a serious collection - as a collection which is keeping a batchelor herd of non-breeding animals, I cannot see any harm nor foul in their offering to take another one - although I do suspect they made the offer without any real expectation it would be accepted!
Cross-posting the reply I left in the "Help save Marius" thread, which I will either be closing or repurposing for use as a general thread for discussion of the euthanasia issue depending on how people react to the choice.
And with that, I agree with KB that the issue should probably be left alone in this thread. I'll move any further posts into the other thread as noted above, whether it is locked or repurposed.
And with that, I agree with KB that the issue should probably be left alone in this thread. I'll move any further posts into the other thread as noted above, whether it is locked or repurposed.
As the giraffe in question has now been euthanised, and this debate is going on in a few threads, the thread has served it's original purpose.
As such, here is a choice for people to decide on. Would you rather:
1) This thread be closed.
2) This thread be renamed something more general regarding the euthanasia debate, and the various posts on the matter all moved into this thread?
As such, here is a choice for people to decide on. Would you rather:
1) This thread be closed.
2) This thread be renamed something more general regarding the euthanasia debate, and the various posts on the matter all moved into this thread?
No, I was merely pointing out that 'value for breeding' isn't the only reason for keeping (or putting down) a Giraffe- value as a display is equally relevant and is one of the two functions particularly for those Zoos that only hold males. I wasn't infering you think male groups are bad.
Setting aside the ethics debate, I suspect this is one of those cases where zoos only started offering a place for this Giraffe when Copenhagen's intention was announced, and by then it was already too late.
"The absurd attitude towards animals held by so many", By many perhaps, but not by all, there are many people who do not eat pieces of dead cow, pig etc. because they do not agree with killing animals, as well as healthy young giraffes, red river hogs etc. I find it surprising that this zoo in Copenhagen state that they had tried to find a suitable home for Marius, if that was the case then I would have thought that the Yorkshire Wildlife Park would have been on the top of their list of phone calls, they recently took another surplus male from this zoo, to be housed in their new, very good bachelor facility, And yes, perhaps they would have gained a good bit of publicity out of it, if Marius had been sent there instead of being shot with a captive bolt gun, cut up and fed to the tigers, what is wrong with that?, similarly what they did a few years ago by taking all those lions which had been living in very bad conditions. I also find it sad that this zoo, even after being contacted by the people from "that field in Doncaster" as you recently described YWP, decide not to allow Marius to be sent there, his transport costs were even going to be met by members of the public concerned about his plight. Also regarding the culling of zoo animals, on another thread recently started by Jane Doe, regarding the two gibbons that have recently been put down at Twycross Zoo, the initial replies were very much criticising her and saying what is all the fuss about, I am pleased to see that as this thread progressed, not everyone else was in agreement, the opposite in fact, I also find it encouraging to read posts by younger members on here who do not agree with this "playing god" attitude that some of these zoos have not only at a Danish zoo, where attitudes to animals may be different to ours here in the U.K., but at zoological collections here, right on there own doorsteps.
Nor can I, though as I mentioned on the Copenhagen thread where this has also been discussed, I suspect the Zoos (including YWP) offering the Giraffe a home only did so after Copenhagen's intention was announced, and by then it was too late. If Copenhagen did offer him previously e.g. on surplus lists, then presumably no-one was genuinely interested.
An rather patronising attitude I see on Zoochat from the people who see themselves as the zoo A-listers about things that some people don't like - eg breed & cull, euthanasing bed-blockers, I mean 'cage-blockers', is a kind of pride in the fact that If you knew what really goes on in zoos, naive kitty/bear/giraffe-hugging members of the public, you wouldn't believe it. You don't understand the dark arts hidden behind the stand-off barriers.
However the alternative is that if the majority of the public saw this stuff that they are naive enough to not expect to be happening, they might find it unacceptable and vote with their feet!
However the alternative is that if the majority of the public saw this stuff that they are naive enough to not expect to be happening, they might find it unacceptable and vote with their feet!
Personally - Close it... enough is enough.
I don't think it should be closed, it is an important question, it's a significantly frequent occurance that should rightly be able to be discussed on here and not swept under the carpet and dismissed as an issue only for the nutty animal rights people.
Possibly merge all the relevant posts in one thread.
Possibly merge all the relevant posts in one thread.
One vote for each option then 
I'll wait until the end of the day or an overwhelming sentiment in one direction or the other.
I'll wait until the end of the day or an overwhelming sentiment in one direction or the other.
Marius the giraffe
A perfectly healthy young giraffe has been shot dead at Copenhagen zoo to prevent in-breeding, despite an online petition to save it signed by thousands of animal lovers.
Marius, an 18-month-old giraffe, was put down with a bolt gun, zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro confirmed.
The body of the giraffe, which was killed in a bid to prevent in-breeding, will be chopped up and fed to lions at the zoo.
"It was put down at 9.20am. It went as planned. It's always the people's right to protest. But of course we have been surprised," Stenbaek Bro told AFP.
The zoo explained that it had no choice other than to prevent the animal attaining adulthood.
Under European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) rules, in-breeding between giraffes is to be avoided.
Although Marius is healthy, his genes are already well represented at the zoo and he cannot be taken in by the 300 other EAZA-affiliated zoos.
Castration is considered cruel with "undesirable effects", while releasing him in the wild is thought unlikely to succeed.
The giraffe's impending death sparked outrage online, with more than 5,000 people signing a "Save Marius" Facebook petition.
More than 3,000 people signed a similar Danish-language online petition and nearly 24,000 an English-language version.
There were reportedly several attempts made to save Marius.
A Swedish zoo, which is not part of the EAZA network, tried in vain to get Marius transferred, the Expressen daily reported.
And another daily, Denmark's Ekstrabladet, quoted a Danish promoter living in Los Angeles, Claus Hjelmbak, as saying he had found a buyer for the animal.
"One of my close friends, a billionaire, said that he wanted to transfer a few million so we could save the giraffe," Mr Hjelmbak was quoted as saying.
"He could easily have lived in his garden in Beverly Hills, but the zoo director was not interested in a sale. I'm angry," the promoter added.
The zoo had made clear from the beginning of the protest that its policy was not to sell the animals.
A perfectly healthy young giraffe has been shot dead at Copenhagen zoo to prevent in-breeding, despite an online petition to save it signed by thousands of animal lovers.
Marius, an 18-month-old giraffe, was put down with a bolt gun, zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro confirmed.
The body of the giraffe, which was killed in a bid to prevent in-breeding, will be chopped up and fed to lions at the zoo.
"It was put down at 9.20am. It went as planned. It's always the people's right to protest. But of course we have been surprised," Stenbaek Bro told AFP.
The zoo explained that it had no choice other than to prevent the animal attaining adulthood.
Under European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) rules, in-breeding between giraffes is to be avoided.
Although Marius is healthy, his genes are already well represented at the zoo and he cannot be taken in by the 300 other EAZA-affiliated zoos.
Castration is considered cruel with "undesirable effects", while releasing him in the wild is thought unlikely to succeed.
The giraffe's impending death sparked outrage online, with more than 5,000 people signing a "Save Marius" Facebook petition.
More than 3,000 people signed a similar Danish-language online petition and nearly 24,000 an English-language version.
There were reportedly several attempts made to save Marius.
A Swedish zoo, which is not part of the EAZA network, tried in vain to get Marius transferred, the Expressen daily reported.
And another daily, Denmark's Ekstrabladet, quoted a Danish promoter living in Los Angeles, Claus Hjelmbak, as saying he had found a buyer for the animal.
"One of my close friends, a billionaire, said that he wanted to transfer a few million so we could save the giraffe," Mr Hjelmbak was quoted as saying.
"He could easily have lived in his garden in Beverly Hills, but the zoo director was not interested in a sale. I'm angry," the promoter added.
The zoo had made clear from the beginning of the protest that its policy was not to sell the animals.
Last edited by a moderator:
We've got one thread all about the topic already, plus heavy discussion in the Copenhagen thread and some discussion of it in the Twycross thread.
Enough methinks.
Enough methinks.
- Status