True that. Some good points, well made.
- Status
True that. Some good points, well made.
I think that is a very good summation of what probably happened.
True indeed. We already have castrated male Gorillas as a new alternative to bachelor groups, will euthanasia be the next step? And the burgeoning captive elephant population is producing many surplus males, that like the Gorilla males, are increasingly hard to find new homes for.
At the end of the day, what happened to the Giraffe has happened and no amount of talking is going to change things.
What I dont understand is, they say his genes are over represented then why did the stud book keeper say before this animal was even born, split the adults up as we dont need any more from that pairing.
They have split the lions at Paignton for precisely that reason they dont need any more from the female that Paignton holds.
What I dont understand is, they say his genes are over represented then why did the stud book keeper say before this animal was even born, split the adults up as we dont need any more from that pairing.
They have split the lions at Paignton for precisely that reason they dont need any more from the female that Paignton holds.
Just heard an explanation on the Radio as to why YWP weren't able to have him. Copenhagen(or perhaps the EAZA- or both?) said as they already have his brother from them, they should allot any space they had to a Giraffe from a different genetic background(I think that's the crux of it.) YWP say their offer wasn't responded to.
This story has received massive popular reaction apparently, as do any such similar 'animal' stories. Giraffes are popular. Anyone remember Victor?
This story has received massive popular reaction apparently, as do any such similar 'animal' stories. Giraffes are popular. Anyone remember Victor?
Is it not also the case - I heard this from a Danish media source and I think it was mentioned earlier here too - that they sent out a request some time ago for EAZA institutions to accept the giraffe and got no response?
If this is the case it seems to me that YWP just decided to do their 'heroic duty' as soon as it got into the media.
If this is the case it seems to me that YWP just decided to do their 'heroic duty' as soon as it got into the media.
Just heard an explanation on the Radio as to why YWP weren't able to have him. Copenhagen(or perhaps the EAZA- or both?) said as they already have his brother from them, they should allot any space they had to a Giraffe from a different genetic background(I think that's the crux of it.) YWP say their offer wasn't responded to.
This story has received massive popular reaction apparently, as do any such similar 'animal' stories. Giraffes are popular. Anyone remember Victor?
Yes, I remember poor Victor, around 1977 I think.
Yes, I also find the idea of taking ones children to see Marius being cut up sick. I remember when I was a child I was often taken to zoos to appreciate the animals in their living, breathing form. If my family had wanted me to see animals being butchered they could have simply taken me to the nearby slaughterhouse to observe the bullocks being dispatched, it would also have been a lot cheaper than travelling to and paying entrance fees at a zoo to observe this. One thing I will say though, is at least the management of this Danish zoo have been honest and open about their plans for Marius, a different attitude and way of thinking in Denmark of coarse. If this had been in the U.K. it would have been done quietly and discreetly, hoping that nobody would find out and go to the papers.
I don't know the facts on that but would find it perfectly believable and I suggested similar previously. In which case, when YWP 'stepped into the breach' at the last moment, its less surprising perhaps if Copenhagen ignored this last minute offer, and the scenario suggested above by Shorts, may have come into play also. If nowhere was prepared to take him previously via the normal channels i.e. through EAZA approved surplus listings, they weren't going to be forced into a last moment 'rescue' situation.
This is exactly the story I am hearing.
An excellent piece of writing, I think we have met on here before
He has stated he used to be 'Johnstonii', and before that 'Hadleigh.'
Glad he is back on, always a literal pleasure, I wish I was that good!
On the other hand could it not have been a case of YWP being initially aware of Marius being on the surplus list but thought that he would have taken in by another collection, never thinking that nobody would want him and he would end up being a live butchery sideshow one Sunday afternoon instead, and it was not until that they later became aware that nobody wanted him, he was therefore going to be slaughtered and fed to the lions. The park then offered him a good home with every good intention, the positive publicity they would have received by doing this would only have been a small bonus, not the main intention in taking Marius in. I do find it surprising on this zoo chat the cynical attitude that some members have taken towards this place, they started with very little, and have built the place up into a damn good place with good enclosures for their animals, but no, some are still not happy, suppose you can't please them all.
I find the whole situation terribly depressing.
The situation can only be understood if you take into account that many zoo people from Denmark really see nothing wrong with killing healthy animals. If euthanasia is a fine solution, then why go to the trouble and organize something else (castration, move to a bachelor group in another country or maybe both).
It is totally stupid that one genetically overrepresented giraffe is a threat to the giraffe EEP. Especially since Copenhagen will surely continue to breed with Marius parents. They just see nothing wrong with putting down another giraffe next year. Or a litter of hybrid lions or genetically overrepresented amur tigers.
I surely don`t sympathise with Peta and I am not even completely against euthanasia of zoo animals. But what they do in some danish zoos (and apparently in many safari parks with big cats), I am not ok with it. Zoos want people to connect with animals and to care for them - but that means you can`t just treat them like farm animals.
The situation can only be understood if you take into account that many zoo people from Denmark really see nothing wrong with killing healthy animals. If euthanasia is a fine solution, then why go to the trouble and organize something else (castration, move to a bachelor group in another country or maybe both).
It is totally stupid that one genetically overrepresented giraffe is a threat to the giraffe EEP. Especially since Copenhagen will surely continue to breed with Marius parents. They just see nothing wrong with putting down another giraffe next year. Or a litter of hybrid lions or genetically overrepresented amur tigers.
I surely don`t sympathise with Peta and I am not even completely against euthanasia of zoo animals. But what they do in some danish zoos (and apparently in many safari parks with big cats), I am not ok with it. Zoos want people to connect with animals and to care for them - but that means you can`t just treat them like farm animals.
If their intention should have been to avoid explanations of future controversial decisions, they have now achieved quite the opposite.
Discussions are raging even down to Italy. And probably in future they will be under much closer scrutiny than before.
It doesn't really come as surprise that Odense Zoo tries to help: But can anybody explain which educational value is connected with knowing the anatomy of a slaughtered animal? At least I can't see where it could support aims like conservation, implanting love for nature, or raising awareness for the plight of the species in the wild.
To me it boils down to bad population management. We aren't talking about a large herd of unmanaged deer that requires regular culling; it's a small herd of giraffes where breeding can be easily controlled in the first place. Marius should not have been bred. Period.
And Copenhagen follows it up with a textbook example of disastrous PR (feeding the chopped up carcass of a 'cute' baby giraffe to lions in plain view). Whatever the official and scientifically-sound explanation for euthanizing a healthy giraffe may be it still comes across as callous to the average person on the street and reinforces animal rights' argument that zoos treat their animals as disposable commodities used to make money.
And Copenhagen follows it up with a textbook example of disastrous PR (feeding the chopped up carcass of a 'cute' baby giraffe to lions in plain view). Whatever the official and scientifically-sound explanation for euthanizing a healthy giraffe may be it still comes across as callous to the average person on the street and reinforces animal rights' argument that zoos treat their animals as disposable commodities used to make money.
While I understand that sometimes surplus animals need to be culled, I always thought that this is the last resort.
I think this sends terribly bad message to children. Children treat animals as proxy to people.
The zoo says that that 'most ethical' is giraffes living in luxury at the expense of simply killing all giraffes extra to plans. Next will be elephants and great apes. When children grow up, they will transport this ethics to killing people who are elderly, sick, or simply don't conform to the vision of society.
Somebody with ethical background could analyze formally why the zoo is very unethical, this is just my gut feeling.
I think this sends terribly bad message to children. Children treat animals as proxy to people.
The zoo says that that 'most ethical' is giraffes living in luxury at the expense of simply killing all giraffes extra to plans. Next will be elephants and great apes. When children grow up, they will transport this ethics to killing people who are elderly, sick, or simply don't conform to the vision of society.
Somebody with ethical background could analyze formally why the zoo is very unethical, this is just my gut feeling.
This whole incident does not sit well with me and I find it very very disturbing - on a number of levels. In fact the more I think about it, the more disturbing I find it. While the stance taken by Copenhagen Zoo seems valid on the surface of it, the more I look at it, the more holes it seems to have in it and I feel that the following questions need to be raised:
1. If this giraffe was set to be killed all along, then why was it given a name? Naming an animal (intentionally or unintentionally) humanizes it to at least to some degree. If this animal was set to be killed, then it should not have been named with a human name in the first place. Farmers do not name their cattle or sheep as they eventually have them slaughtered, yet pet owners name their pets - but dont have them publically cut up. Zoos play a different role, but I feel that if an animal is given a name, then it is viewed more as a pet than an expendable farm animal.
2. If this giraffe was set to be killed all along, then why was it not killed at birth? I can understand if the reason was to allow the mother to suckle it, but other than this, I can not find a single reason to prolong its life to 18 months and then kill it. In doing this, the zoo simply opens itself up to the accusation that they have waited until the animal is no longer cute before killing it.
3. If this giraffe was set to be killed all along, then why were its parents allowed to breed together? Zoos have access to the studbooks of all species in their care and they know which animals have the required genetics etc - so why would a zoo breed this particular animal into existance knowing that they would kill it when it got to 18 months of age?
4. Why was this giraffes brother allowed to live despite having the same genetics?
5. Even if this giraffe is not an appropriate animal to breed with, why would it not be used as part of a bachelor herd in another zoo? As mentioned earlier in this thread, a bachelor herd of giraffes is perfectly suitable to the average zoo visitor who will not even know the sex of the animals anyway.
6. The zoo seems to be justifying this by stating that the giraffe can not be sent to live alone in Sweden as the weather would prove to be an unnatural environment for the giraffe to live in - but zoos themselves are unnatural envirnoments for animals to live in full stop. No animal in a zoo lives exactly the same lifestyle that their wild counterparts do, so why should these things matter (as long as the animal is healthy)? If we want to simulate the wild, then why dont we just house lions, giraffes, zebras, antelope species and cheetahs all together in one enclosure???
7. The giraffe was fed to lions (fair enough) yet why was it fed to tigers and polar bears also? That isnt simulation of the wild.....
8. If this giraffe was considered not fit for breeding, why were the lions considered fit for breeding if they also dont have great genetics?
9. Is this incident really in the spirit in which zoos are supposed to operate? In a sense this is the most important question. Why did all of us on this forum get onto this forum? Because we love zoos and animals - and why? Most likely because we visited them as children. When we were children did we go to the zoo to look at animals and admire them, or did we go to see them get killed and cut up? Of course zoos are conservation organisations these days - and so they should be, but this completely flys in the face of the spirit of what zoos are supposed to do.
10. What message does this send to children visiting zoos? Children do not necessarily make good choices in life (thats why they are not giving drivers licences etc). If a child goes home and decides to cut up their pet dog or cat (or even their soft toy giraffe), who is to blame for this? Is this an issue even?
11. Do children really need to see the autopsy of a giraffe? Note that the leg was not "examined" in the autopsy - it was just cut off and fed to the lions. If Copenhagen zoo really wanted to do an autopsy on a giraffe, why not wait until and older giraffe finally dies or is euthanised due to ill health and do an autopsy then? Why do this to a healthy young animal?
12. Does Copenhagen Zoo have a duty to other zoos to uphold a good image? There are a lot of people in the community of many countries who dont believe in zoos and a small minority who think zoos are evil etc. Copenhagen Zoos actions here have been bad publicity for all zoos around the world.
13. Is the specific species factor important? A number of people have mentioned that if this were a deer or an antelope then nobody would care - its only because its a giraffe that there is uproar. This is true, but I think that there is also good reason for the extra uproar. In many parts of the world, deer and antelope are eaten by humans regularly - they are a prey animal to humans or a farmed animal in some cases. A giraffe is not. Therefore whether we like it or not, this animal is an iconic, high profile species which people come to zoos to see. When a zoo does this sort of thing, a precedent changes and it becomes ok to kill a high profile species of animal. What is next, will it be ok to cut off a rhinos horns and sell them on the black market?
14. Where will this end? What is next? Will surplus elephants or surplus great apes also be killed? This thought is scary. At some point somewhere, we need to decide which species are close enough to our species that they are owed protection or "human rights" for lack of a better term.
15. It has been mentioned that the Danish public dont seem to care about the issue. However just because the public support or dont support something, this doesnt make it right. Note than a large percentage of Russians support Putin's anti-gay stand in Russia, but does this make them right? Many governments and other organisations have dubious (and sometimes crimal) policies - yet they still have public support but this does not make those policies right.
While some of these questions may have been answered already, too many havnt. Id like to think of them as food for thought....
I think its been a very sad incident in itself, a public relations disaster for zoos worldwide and the setting of a dangerous precedent...
1. If this giraffe was set to be killed all along, then why was it given a name? Naming an animal (intentionally or unintentionally) humanizes it to at least to some degree. If this animal was set to be killed, then it should not have been named with a human name in the first place. Farmers do not name their cattle or sheep as they eventually have them slaughtered, yet pet owners name their pets - but dont have them publically cut up. Zoos play a different role, but I feel that if an animal is given a name, then it is viewed more as a pet than an expendable farm animal.
2. If this giraffe was set to be killed all along, then why was it not killed at birth? I can understand if the reason was to allow the mother to suckle it, but other than this, I can not find a single reason to prolong its life to 18 months and then kill it. In doing this, the zoo simply opens itself up to the accusation that they have waited until the animal is no longer cute before killing it.
3. If this giraffe was set to be killed all along, then why were its parents allowed to breed together? Zoos have access to the studbooks of all species in their care and they know which animals have the required genetics etc - so why would a zoo breed this particular animal into existance knowing that they would kill it when it got to 18 months of age?
4. Why was this giraffes brother allowed to live despite having the same genetics?
5. Even if this giraffe is not an appropriate animal to breed with, why would it not be used as part of a bachelor herd in another zoo? As mentioned earlier in this thread, a bachelor herd of giraffes is perfectly suitable to the average zoo visitor who will not even know the sex of the animals anyway.
6. The zoo seems to be justifying this by stating that the giraffe can not be sent to live alone in Sweden as the weather would prove to be an unnatural environment for the giraffe to live in - but zoos themselves are unnatural envirnoments for animals to live in full stop. No animal in a zoo lives exactly the same lifestyle that their wild counterparts do, so why should these things matter (as long as the animal is healthy)? If we want to simulate the wild, then why dont we just house lions, giraffes, zebras, antelope species and cheetahs all together in one enclosure???
7. The giraffe was fed to lions (fair enough) yet why was it fed to tigers and polar bears also? That isnt simulation of the wild.....
8. If this giraffe was considered not fit for breeding, why were the lions considered fit for breeding if they also dont have great genetics?
9. Is this incident really in the spirit in which zoos are supposed to operate? In a sense this is the most important question. Why did all of us on this forum get onto this forum? Because we love zoos and animals - and why? Most likely because we visited them as children. When we were children did we go to the zoo to look at animals and admire them, or did we go to see them get killed and cut up? Of course zoos are conservation organisations these days - and so they should be, but this completely flys in the face of the spirit of what zoos are supposed to do.
10. What message does this send to children visiting zoos? Children do not necessarily make good choices in life (thats why they are not giving drivers licences etc). If a child goes home and decides to cut up their pet dog or cat (or even their soft toy giraffe), who is to blame for this? Is this an issue even?
11. Do children really need to see the autopsy of a giraffe? Note that the leg was not "examined" in the autopsy - it was just cut off and fed to the lions. If Copenhagen zoo really wanted to do an autopsy on a giraffe, why not wait until and older giraffe finally dies or is euthanised due to ill health and do an autopsy then? Why do this to a healthy young animal?
12. Does Copenhagen Zoo have a duty to other zoos to uphold a good image? There are a lot of people in the community of many countries who dont believe in zoos and a small minority who think zoos are evil etc. Copenhagen Zoos actions here have been bad publicity for all zoos around the world.
13. Is the specific species factor important? A number of people have mentioned that if this were a deer or an antelope then nobody would care - its only because its a giraffe that there is uproar. This is true, but I think that there is also good reason for the extra uproar. In many parts of the world, deer and antelope are eaten by humans regularly - they are a prey animal to humans or a farmed animal in some cases. A giraffe is not. Therefore whether we like it or not, this animal is an iconic, high profile species which people come to zoos to see. When a zoo does this sort of thing, a precedent changes and it becomes ok to kill a high profile species of animal. What is next, will it be ok to cut off a rhinos horns and sell them on the black market?
14. Where will this end? What is next? Will surplus elephants or surplus great apes also be killed? This thought is scary. At some point somewhere, we need to decide which species are close enough to our species that they are owed protection or "human rights" for lack of a better term.
15. It has been mentioned that the Danish public dont seem to care about the issue. However just because the public support or dont support something, this doesnt make it right. Note than a large percentage of Russians support Putin's anti-gay stand in Russia, but does this make them right? Many governments and other organisations have dubious (and sometimes crimal) policies - yet they still have public support but this does not make those policies right.
While some of these questions may have been answered already, too many havnt. Id like to think of them as food for thought....
I think its been a very sad incident in itself, a public relations disaster for zoos worldwide and the setting of a dangerous precedent...
- Status