Edinburgh Zoo Red River Hogs culled

[Pygathrix]

I think I would rather see these animals (RRHogs or whatever other species) killed in a way (shooting?) they could then be fed to other animals- somehow to me, breeding them does not seem so purposeless in that case. Though I still find it difficult to accept they couldn't have been rehomed, I wonder why the EEP didn't want that to happen- genetic reasons?

If the animals are killed by chemical means then the meat cannot be fed to other animals. Conventional abattoir methods would be difficult on a non-docile wild animal.

I understand that continued breeding is necessary to maintain the reproductive health of many animals; hoofstock unbred for several years may have difficulty breeding at a later date when offspring are required. Ethically I think that if one eats pork then one cannot object to the euthanising of these hogs. It would be interesting to see whether this practice is extended to other species. The increasing surplus of difficult to place animals such as male gorillas and bull elephants conmes to mind.

 

[Maguari]

It would be interesting to see whether this practice is extended to other species. The increasing surplus of difficult to place animals such as male gorillas and bull elephants conmes to mind.

I think the possible distinction (for me) there is that Red River Hogs are in a much better position in the wild than either elephants or gorillas.

I suspect the distinction in the real world is that the public just care more about elephants and gorillas!

 

[Pygathrix]

I think the possible distinction (for me) there is that Red River Hogs are in a much better position in the wild than either elephants or gorillas.

True, but there have been instances of culling of extremely rare antelopes for example.

I suspect the distinction in the real world is that the public just care more about elephants and gorillas!

Yes I agree entirely, I think culling of elephants and apes would never happen, because it would be disastrous in PR terms, and I suspect that the bonds that zoo staff have with such animals would not allow it.

 

[Pertinax]

I think the possible distinction (for me) there is that Red River Hogs are in a much better position in the wild than either elephants or gorillas.

I wonder if they really are though- given the bushmeat trade and the recent discovery of previously unknown large Gorilla populations.

On another tack- if contraceptives for the females of Suidae species cause them problems, could the boars not required for breeding be castrated, to control production of these unwanted litters?

 

[RowanGreen]

It also probably helps that elephants and gorillas are generally slower breeding, even when successful, than antelopes and certainly than pigs. You only have babies every few years to deal with, rather than one or more a year.

A point I think worth throwing into the mix... To keep an even population of ANY animal (including us...) all you need is for 2 offspring of each breeding pair to survive to breed themselves. In nature the 'extras' tend to get killed of by preditors etc. Take away those predators in a zoo, and with fast breeding species (which tend to be those with a high death rate from predators...) you are going to have to do something to control numbers if you are not to end up with a population explosion.

Even if an animal is endangered, there's no point in breeding thousands if you can't put them back into the wild (which won't be widely possible until human overpopulation is solved...), as they don't add to the genetic diversity you have within your animals.

Of course, you have to consider whether it would be better to sterelise some animals in some cases. I'm not totally horified by the idea that in some cases it might be considered right to breed to cull later.

I certainly feel that where possible culled animals should be fed to predators within the zoo. There's no information given about what method was used in this case or what happened to the bodies. I doubt they'd be taken to slaughter even if easily handled: pigs (I assume including these), have to have paperwork before they can be moved due to the diseases they can carry (another obstacle to them being rehomed...). But I'm guessing it might have been possible to use a captive bolt gun, or normal gun if they couldn't get that close.

 

[Pertinax]

If the animals are killed by chemical means then the meat cannot be fed to other animals. Conventional abattoir methods would be difficult on a non-docile wild animal.

I understand that continued breeding is necessary to maintain the reproductive health of many animals; hoofstock unbred for several years may have difficulty breeding at a later date when offspring are required.

1. I wasn't suggesting abattoir methods for a wild species. Some Zoos used to routinely dispose of surplus hoofstock by killing/shooting them and feeding to carnivores. This is a perfectly legitimate form of control IMO and could even be viewed as an artificial form of the natural prey/predator relationship. I don't know if it is still allowed to do this though, it may not be? But this 'breed and cull' procedure, producing and then euthanasing them to no purpose at all apart from letting the parents continue breeding, achieves nothing and is what I find objectionable.

2. It sounds to me as if this species(Red River Hog) is never going to be in the category of 'more breeding required at a later date' from some individuals if there is now such a major surplus problem.

 

[RowanGreen]

1. I wasn't suggesting abattoir methods for a wild species. Some Zoos used to routinely dispose of surplus hoofstock by killing/shooting them and feeding to carnivores. This is a perfectly legitimate form of control IMO and could even be viewed as an artificial form of the natural prey/predator relationship. I don't know if it is still allowed to do this though, it may not be?

Glad to hear it, and certainly hope it is still allowed. My personal zoo plans include a farm to provide food for my zoo, possibly including some exotic hoofstock herds *G*

But this 'breed and cull' procedure, producing and then euthanasing them to no purpose at all apart from letting the parents continue breeding, achieves nothing and is what I find objectionable.

Just to clarify (not sure you need it, but there's a fair chance there's somebody reading who does), 'euthanaze' simply means kill. It doesn't mean an animal has been killed by injection. So for all we know these hogs were shot and fed to predators at the zoo. Or they may have been injected and cremated... we don't know.

 

[Pygathrix]

It also probably helps that elephants and gorillas are generally slower breeding, even when successful, than antelopes and certainly than pigs. You only have babies every few years to deal with, rather than one or more a year.

Elephants are slow breeders, but then they live a very long time, and housing and feeding one, especially a surplus mature bull, takes a lot of space and money. There aren't that many places able to hold bulls as it is, and bachelor groups which might solve the problem for gorillas and giraffes don't help with elephants. As elephant breeding is becoming commoner I can see this developing as a real problem.

 

[Pertinax]

So for all we know these hogs were shot and fed to predators at the zoo. Or they may have been injected and cremated... we don't know.

That is a good point. No where does it actually say, though the words 'put to sleep' and 'humanely euthanased' that are used might suggest an injection, or alternatively they could be euphamisms for a simpler (non- chemical) method which would allow them to be 'recycled'.

If nothing else this has highlighted the problem now faced by the captive Red River Hog population-rapid increase now means too many of them. Do other non-endangered Suidae species such as Warthog or Peccaries also have to be controlled this way, I wonder. And as more endangered species like Warty Pigs also seem to breed freely now, will their breeding programmes face a similar problem sometime in the future (or can they be reintroduced for example?)

 

[Javan Rhino]

Sorry this is harking back to an old post, but only just managed to get back onto my computer .

I think with elephants/gorillas etc it would be too difficult to hide. Whereas few people would have noticed the hogs (mind, Edinburgh made a news post about it, imo why draw attention to them if they knew they were to be killed? Or was this a different litter?). Anyway, how many people in the general public would notice the hogs disappearing (especially since they grow quicker and lose their 'baby colouration' within the space of months) as compared to the disappearance of a baby elephant or gorilla that gets higher press, names known by the public, and general 'stardom.'

In a way, it would be like a celebrity dieing if an elephant or gorilla went, whereas these hogs could be seen to represent an everyday person that dies every 3 seconds and few people other than those close to them know of it.

Just my 2 cents anyway

 

[Javan Rhino]

I don't know how many people are following, but this story has pretty much taken over the facebook page.

From Edinburgh themselves:

Edinburgh Zoo: We understand that this is a sensitive issue and in light of the recent public interest, we will be discussing our position further within the organisation lead by the Animal Welfare and Ethics Committee. Any clarification on our position will be highlighted in a future statement, but we can not offer you any further comment from RZSS at this time.

 

[johnstoni]

To maximise available variety, selective breeding considerations will have to take precedence over everything else in the social life of the zoo specimens.

really? Why do we need to maximise available variety of a species which is 'least concern' in the wild, in captivity? Especially if the pig and peccary TAG are concerned with lack of available space for more endangered suids.

Fertile pairs cannot be allowed to continue breeding freely at will, lest they unbalance the gene-pool. Contraception will be needed, and whether it is done by segregation, by hormone treatment, by vasectomy or by death it will have socially disturbing consequences.

I disagree. The large group of Bornean bearded pigs at London zoo have a quality of life that is enhanced by the large group in addition to enrichment provided by the keepers. I am led to believe the males are all castrated, would you argue that they are socially disturbed and should have been culled?

Again, where breeding is successful, there will simply be more animals than the zoo in question can afford to keep. Not all of them can be passed on to other zoos, if their habitat is still unfit to receive them, they are at present (like other surplus animals in zoos) either quietly killed or – still more disturbingly – passed on to research institutions for experimentation.

I don't think there is any risk of surplus EEP stock being funnelled out the back door to the vivisection industry.

As for habitat still being unfit to recieve them, there is no reason for them to be recieved in any in situ context anyway. I keep going back to the same species as to widen this into a general argument about euthanasia of managed zoo stock fails to observe some of the main objections raised on this thread. We are not talking about a species that is at risk in the wild, or at risk of being illegally traded if surplus stock are allowed to live.

 

[Pertinax]

I am led to believe the males are all castrated, would you argue that they are socially disturbed and should have been culled?

Interesting news. I mentioned above that castration of boars in RRHog could be a possible option. I wonder if its already been done(selectively) in the larger groups at all to prevent littermates from inbreeding? Could this be a better solution for the holders with space problems, rather than allowing them to simply continue breeding unnecessarily. It is quite commonplace practice in farmparks etc that keep domestic pigs for display.

 

[Simon McGlary]

So for all we know these hogs were shot and fed to predators at the zoo.

Zoo regulations prohibit feeding of animals that lived in one zoo being fed to carnivores in that same zoo. These aren't Edinburgh Zoo regulations, these are regulations set by DEFRA.

 

[RowanGreen]

You any idea why? It seems a waste if the animal is healthy.

 

[Simon McGlary]

You any idea why? It seems a waste if the animal is healthy.

They can be fed to animals at a different zoo. As to why not the same zoo? Pass, it's DEFRA, a government department and who knows how government departments work. In a way it would be like telling a farmer that he has to be sure that when he goes to a supermarket any meat products do not contain meat from his animals!

Though this whole process Edinburgh Zoo has done absolutely nothing wrong, merely carrying out instructions from higher up the chain!

One, what I see as a minor incident, has had a potentially major impact on everything else that happens at the zoo and the incredibly good and valuable work that they do! It's like accusing someone of animal cruelty because they kill perfectly healthy wild rats! That's my personal view on the subject.

 

[RowanGreen]

Hmmm... I do know there's laws against keeping carnivores in the same enclosure as their prey, basically aimed at stopping people staging hunts for the viewing public. Maybe it's about that and badly worded?

 

[Simon McGlary]

No, that's one of the other laws! There are masses of rules and regulations at all levels!

 

[Pertinax]

Zoo regulations prohibit feeding of animals that lived in one zoo being fed to carnivores in that same zoo. These aren't Edinburgh Zoo regulations, these are regulations set by DEFRA.

Could animals from Edinburgh be fed to ones at HWP? (despite being under same ownership)

 

[Simon McGlary]

Yes. Just as animals from London Zoo to Whipsnade and vice versa. Theoretically it could happen but I doubt very much that it would.