Radio 4 - The Report (programme on UK zoo euthanasia)

[Communityzoo]

For those interested, this programme contains further information about culling in UK zoos, as well as the Copenhagen case:

BBC Radio 4 - The Report, Marius the Giraffe: Zoogenics?

In addition, the following quote from a recent article in the Independent mentions the following about London Zoo:

"Last year, it put down eight Australian water rats, eight brown rats and 61 Seba’s bats out of a group of 200 to reduce “health and aggression issues”."

The killing of Marius the giraffe opens an important debate about genetics, animal rights and zoo inbreeding - Europe - World - The Independent

My starting comment to all this would be that 'breed and cull', translates as 'you're not in our club, so we'd sooner kill our stock than let you have any of it'.

I'm also wondering what became of the bachelor group of four Sulawesi macaques at Drusillas when they switched over to a breeding group a couple of years ago, given that Simon Tonge insists this species can't be kept in such a way (presumably the premise for abandoning their attempt at Newquay).

 

[zoogiraffe]

I listened to it last night,have to admit Simon Tonge came across very well and tried to put the zoo worlds point over about why sometimes animals have to be culled,but I felt that the reporter just wasn't interested in the reasoning behind it.

But the biggest laugh I had was the statement from another UK zoo saying that they don't put down healthy animals I am still laughing now!!!

 

[dean]

I wondered who would be the first to pick up on the "We don't but healthy animals down" quote I wonder if that was put in knowing it wasn't true? and if something comes to light later another program could be made Knocking zoo's.

I still feel though they tried to be balanced, there was an aroma of we don't approve of zoo's only the wild. Hardly anything was made of the captive breeding of at least a dozen well known species returned to the wild, with a passing mention of golden lion tamarins.
I think the reason they couldn't find people willing to speak was that the people would know they wouldn't be taken seriously. The BBC have an angle and that is what they aim for.
As always the last word went to an anti who thinks extinction (at the hands of man) is natural, and zoo's who are trying to prevent it aren't, and though she didn't say it directly it equated with z**s are b*d.
What no one picked up on is the amount of in situ work done by zoos around the world all funded by visitors to the zoo in the first place.

 

[Paradoxurus]

My starting comment to all this would be that 'breed and cull', translates as 'you're not in our club, so we'd sooner kill our stock than let you have any of it'.

I think there is a ring of truth to this. But equally it does prevent animals going to collections that are less well regulated.

If you read BIAZA literature, the group actively discourages the public from visiting non-BIAZA collections and, by inference, that non-members are 'bad'. If member zoos are seen to be dealing with collections that it confesses are poor (even if it is based purely on the fact that they are non-members) there is more than a hint of hypocrisy.

I wondered who would be the first to pick up on the "We don't but healthy animals down" quote I wonder if that was put in knowing it wasn't true? and if something comes to light later another program could be made Knocking zoo's.

What constitutes a healthy animal is surely a matter of opinion. I am sure that Chester's policy is never to let any animal die of old age. And if that is OK for Chester, why not for Twycross (I presume this is who the dig is aimed at)?

I still feel though they tried to be balanced, there was an aroma of we don't approve of zoo's only the wild. Hardly anything was made of the captive breeding of at least a dozen well known species returned to the wild, with a passing mention of golden lion tamarins.
I think the reason they couldn't find people willing to speak was that the people would know they wouldn't be taken seriously. The BBC have an angle and that is what they aim for.
As always the last word went to an anti who thinks extinction (at the hands of man) is natural, and zoo's who are trying to prevent it aren't, and though she didn't say it directly it equated with z**s are b*d.
What no one picked up on is the amount of in situ work done by zoos around the world all funded by visitors to the zoo in the first place.

I didn't feel that there was a disapproving air at all. The programme was not a general look at the work of zoos and within the topic of debate I don't think there was any need to give a round up of all the things that zoos have achieved over the years regarding in situ work. It simply was not relevant to the debate.

 

[Communityzoo]

I think the Twycross statement is encouraging, if only in the sense that I believe every zoo should have a stated policy on this issue which, with a little pressure from the public, could some day be something they actually demonstrate (in an open and transparent way), that they actually follow. Imagine, if Twycross published, even just in its annual report, stock inventory lists, which identified deaths as being adult or neonatal, and cause of death. I think respect for Twycross would grow if they publicly explained why they euthanased individuals. Were both Southern sea lions so ill that there was no other decision to be made? Or was one less ill but not strong enough to travel to another group, with there being little prospect for it other than to be kept alone until it died? This kind of information is both interesting to, and respectful of the paying public.

As for the programme, there were two points in Simon Tonge's interveiw that concerned me. Firstly, I wasn't comfortable about how he put on the table the idea that male gorillas are soon going to become a problem in captivity, I felt he was implying that, if castration and remaining in the natal group doesn't work long-term, that euthanasia may have to be considered. I hope my reading of that is wrong. Secondly, when talking about the routine euthanasia of male newborn antelopes, he mentioned 'our slaughterhouses', which I took to mean UK abbatoirs, in reference to this. It occured to me that its possible zoo's cannot 'field slaughter' certain species, especially if they are used for (animal) food. There has been an ongoing issue with bison farming in the UK for some years, where taking essentially wild animals to a slaughterhouse is widely felt to be a highly distressing experience for the animals, yet there have been legal issues with shooting a bison in the field, despite the clear benefits to individual welfare. It would have been good to have seen some clarification on whether young deer/antelope are (a) transported off-site and processed in abbatoirs as if domestic stock, and (b) whether they are used for feeding carnivores at the zoo.

I was disappointed that either the BBC chose not to interview either Monkey World or the Monkey Sanctuary for their take on the Sulawesi macaque issue at Newquay, and I was really making the 'nobody in our club wants these animals so we have to put them down rather than deal with the political complexity of looking beyond our membership' point in reference to this incident specifically. I wondered about castration and/or temporary medication (which has been tried successfully in integrating other primate groups in the past) to assimilate male macaques into a new group.

I felt that Dr. Dickie came across as defensive, and unable to explain why zoos are not transparent about this, arguing for this practice to be accepted as necessary, while dogding the issue of why zoos actually aren't open about this in the UK.

What I'd like to see is zoos coming out with clear, transparent policy on whether they have a 'no-cull' policy, or a policy in place for selected species, or indeed a 'breed and cull', publishing data relevant to this in a location accessible to the paying public. I think this would generate both a rethink of some culling, and a new understanding in the public mind for the rationale behind individual decisions to euthanase. To tread the anthropormorphic, cutesy path that so many zoos follow, while quietly killing healthy stock but having no regard for contextualising or explaining this to the the same public they've enticed in with ridiculous animal-related press releases every stocktake/halloween/easter/valentines day/international sporting event/christmas, is in my mind a hypocrasy that really needs to be dealt with. I would hope we start to see, one-by-one, zoos begin to break ranks with EAZA/BIAZA and come out with their policy on culling or, better still, a policy of transparency coming from those umbrella organisations themselves.

 

[Pertinax]

Firstly, I wasn't comfortable about how he put on the table the idea that male gorillas are soon going to become a problem in captivity, I felt he was implying that, if castration and remaining in the natal group doesn't work long-term, that euthanasia may have to be considered. I hope my reading of that is wrong.

To tread the anthropormorphic, cutesy path that so many zoos follow, while quietly killing healthy stock but having no regard for contextualising or explaining this to the the same public they've enticed in with ridiculous animal-related press releases every stocktake/halloween/easter/valentines day/international sporting event/christmas, is in my mind a hypocrasy that really needs to be dealt with.

Quote 1. They already have become a problem really. There's only capacity for so many males in bachelor groups and only so many new zoos willing to go to the considerable expense of creating the necessary housing for them. About 7 younger males have now been castrated to see if keeping them in their natal groups longterm is a realistic option. If breeding is not restricted- almost totally- then euthanasia of surplus males still remains a possibility on the horizon.

Quote 2. Very well said, there is a huge gulf between these two aspects that needs to be done away with somehow.

 

[Bele]

Secondly, when talking about the routine euthanasia of male newborn antelopes, he mentioned 'our slaughterhouses', which I took to mean UK abbatoirs, in reference to this. It occured to me that its possible zoo's cannot 'field slaughter' certain species, especially if they are used for (animal) food. There has been an ongoing issue with bison farming in the UK for some years, where taking essentially wild animals to a slaughterhouse is widely felt to be a highly distressing experience for the animals, yet there have been legal issues with shooting a bison in the field, despite the clear benefits to individual welfare. It would have been good to have seen some clarification on whether young deer/antelope are (a) transported off-site and processed in abbatoirs as if domestic stock, and (b) whether they are used for feeding carnivores at the zoo.

I have seen a TV programme where a 'knacker-man' visited a UK farm , shot some unwanted bull calves , then took the carcasses to the local Hunt kennels to be fed to the hounds . I assume this practice is still legal and so would , presumably , also apply to young antelope/deer being shot at a Zoo and fed to their carnivores .