Remembering Dead Animals in Zoos

[Pootle]

The famous Bristol gorilla, Alfred, first of his kind to attain maturity in a U.K. zoo, is stuffed and on show. He fills the dual roles of a zoological specimen and a local celebrity

This is an example of something to be proud of and it should be celebrated within the zoo world, this one at Bristol. It's an achievement for all involved to be proud of, better than him being 6 foot under or incinerated, in my book. Positive examples of zoos helping conservation.

 

[ZooElephantMan]

No, the initial comment said 'I feel that some sort of memorial for dead zoo animals should be normalized' - it did not differentiate a rattlesnake from a locust, or a panda or an okapi...

@Andrew Swales, I would assume that @Pootle was referring to the second half of that sentence, which I believe added nuance to my point: "I feel like some sort of memorial for dead zoo animals should be normalized, especially for when there is an animal (Like Packy or Colo, for instance) who is historic or really famous or who everyone knew or loves."

 

[Pootle]

No, the initial comment said 'I feel that some sort of memorial for dead zoo animals should be normalized' - it did not differentiate a rattlesnake from a locust, or a panda or an okapi...
Even if you accept this principle, you would never reach an agreement on which 99% to deny such a memorial. Everyone would have a different list, depending on what they had worked with and what relationships had developed...

As I just recently posted replying to @FBBirds example of 'Alfred at Bristol' this is (in my opinion) better than him not being in a taxidermal state. This is a plus for zoo progress, I'm sure you will agree?
I interpreted the original post as focusing on these zoo achievements, not every animal to have been kept within a zoo. I can see the reasoning of your post and others similar too Andrew.

 

[Pootle]

@Andrew Swales, I would assume that @Pootle was referring to the second half of that sentence, which I believe added nuance to my point: "I feel like some sort of memorial for dead zoo animals should be normalized, especially for when there is an animal (Like Packy or Colo, for instance) who is historic or really famous or who everyone knew or loves."

That's weird, you in Massachusetts and me in England replying to @Andrew Swales at the same time! I think we are in agreement anyhow.
Also, not saying you read it wrong Andrew!

 

[Andrew Swales]

It can be the sincerest form of respect. I have had several of my own birds stuffed after their natural death, the necessary qualifications being that they were good examples of their species rather than pets.
I wouldn’t have one of the dogs stuffed.
The famous Bristol gorilla, Alfred, first of his kind to attain maturity in a U.K. zoo, is stuffed and on show. He fills the dual roles of a zoological specimen and a local celebrity

Chi-Chi is at the Natural History Museum too, or at least its extreme outer layer!
I've never been that fond of taxidermy, but have no objections to it. So often it is not done well and some spp (cats, dogs, owls...) they often seem to have problems with. Your drawing the line at dogs reminds me of a pair of rather poorly mounted Chihuahuas my Grandmother had in a case behind the music stand of a piano in her drawing room. Very spooky for a young child, I regret not ever daring to ask what their significance was.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Chi-Chi is at the Natural History Museum too, or at least its extreme outer layer!
I've never been that fond of taxidermy, but have no objections to it. So often it is not done well and some spp (cats, dogs, owls...) they often seem to have problems with. Your drawing the line at dogs reminds me of a pair of rather poorly mounted Chihuahuas my Grandmother had in a case behind the music stand of a piano in her drawing room. Very spooky for a young child, I regret not ever daring to ask what their significance was.

Chihuahuas are rather spooky / sinister / hateful alive let alone as dodgy taxidermy specimens.

 

[Terry Thomas]

It can be the sincerest form of respect. I have had several of my own birds stuffed after their natural death, the necessary qualifications being that they were good examples of their species rather than pets.
I wouldn’t have one of the dogs stuffed.
The famous Bristol gorilla, Alfred, first of his kind to attain maturity in a U.K. zoo, is stuffed and on show. He fills the dual roles of a zoological specimen and a local celebrity

Why not the dog? Why not pets? I hope no-one respects me that much!

 

[Terry Thomas]

That would be another case of anthropomorphization, based on individual preference. I doubt that any animal understands the concept of disrespect in regard to its afterlife or longs for a funeral.
For the purpose of education, a expertly done preservation might do more good than just burying the body.

Are you are saying that animals do not count for much, compared to humans, and do not deserve enough respect to be disposed of after death, instead of being stuffed and put on display. Surely that respect is not anthropormophic?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

In case anyone was still curious, I found this short article (Opinion | Should Chimpanzees Be Considered ‘Persons’? (Published 2018)) about personhood in animals, written by the director of the animal studies program at NYU. Even if you disagree with the argument, it may be interesting to read just to see their point of view.

I think my earlier comment on the link you posted might have come across as a bit abrasive so I wanted to offer an explanation of what I meant.

The problem at the moment is that academics / academia are currently obsessed with both very tiring and pointless semantic games of the minutiae of language.

This bleeds out from academia / the ivory tower into the wider world and into the discourse of activist movements like "animal rights" which often take their ideological cues from academia.

So you have endless arguments / debates about non-issues such as the validity of granting great apes "personhood". However, even if there are changes in legislation that grant this status what does that ultimately achieve for these species except more meaningless platitudes, wordgames and a few academics publishing papers ?

A lot has already been achieved in the way of giving these animals legal protection in the "first world" during the 20th / 21st century. For example, most countries have already banned experimentation on great apes in laboratories, most zoos (though there are of course exceptions out there) take very seriously the subject of the wellbeing of these animals and husbandry is improving all the time, most people oppose the use of these primates in circuses and in television advertisements.

It strikes me that what is urgently / critically important is not this ivory tower nonsense with debates over words and not animal rights activism but what we do right now to reduce the anthropogenic pressures on wild great ape populations and mitigate their risk of extinction through effective conservation of these animals as species.

This means prioritizing concrete real world actions in both the field and within policymaking to combat stressors such as the bushmeat trade, deforestation due to natural resource exploitation and agricultural expansion, human-wildlife conflict and spillover from diseases like ebola and now COVID-19.

 

[Zoofan15]

Thinking Outside the Box

I’m always interested to see alternatives to the usual statues, plaques and taxidermy. Some alternatives I’ve seen:

Auckland Zoo have a plaza named after the Indian elephant Jamuna, who lived at the zoo from 1923 until her death in 1965. They also held a memorial service for another elephant, Kashin, who died in 2009.

Auckland and Wellington Zoo have renovated their elephant houses into restaurants. Wellington Zoo have named their’s after the last elephant to live at the zoo. Auckland Zoo have the name plates of the elephants above their old stalls (though one of these is alive and well in the current exhibit).

Adelaide Zoo fundraised to build a guard post to protect wild orangutans in honour of their female orangutan, Karta, who died tragically in 2017.

At Singapore Zoo, their beloved orangutan Ah Meng got the full works - the next orangutan born at the zoo (her grandaughter) was named after her; a Durian tree was planted at her grave; a restaurant was named after her; and she got the requisite statue. This was in addition to a memorial service.

 

[Batto]

Are you are saying that animals do not count for much, compared to humans, and do not deserve enough respect to be disposed of after death, instead of being stuffed and put on display. Surely that respect is not anthropormophic?

Millions of animal species with uncountable numbers of individual specimens live on this planet. Their individual worth is often defined by the local value / significance they have for humans, which differs culturally and individually. While it is currently socially accepted in some Western countries to lament the passing of an individual pet dog or cat and give it a funeral comparable to humans, doing the same for the cattle used to feed said cat or dog isn't. Neither would be elegies or funerals for the endo- and ectoparasites of the cat / dog killed by the respective veterinarian, wouldn't they?

Animals are animals, not humans. That does not mean that you should treat them disrespectfully or even mistreat them. There is, however, little to no evidence that animals understand the concept of an afterlife, respect for a dead body (your beloved dog, and most definitely the cat, would probably dine on your corpse if starving) or see the necessity of a funeral ritual. The latter is first and foremost a human necessity in most cultures / societies. To bury dead pets properly is both important for individual human grief coping and Public Health. Public Health, disease control and hygiene are also the main reasons for disposing of animal corpses in populated areas. Just keep in mind that in some countries, privately taking away roadkill to give it a funeral could be considered poaching, once huntable wildlife is concerned.

If the corpse of an animal can have an educative or memorial purpose, I see no disrespect in having it prepared professionally.

 

[ZooElephantMan]

I think my earlier comment on the link you posted might have come across as a bit abrasive so I wanted to offer an explanation of what I meant.

The problem at the moment is that academics / academia are currently obsessed with both very tiring and pointless semantic games of the minutiae of language.

This bleeds out from academia / the ivory tower into the wider world and into the discourse of activist movements like "animal rights" which often take their ideological cues from academia.

So you have endless arguments / debates about non-issues such as the validity of granting great apes "personhood". However, even if there are changes in legislation that grant this status what does that ultimately achieve for these species except more meaningless platitudes, wordgames and a few academics publishing papers ?

A lot has already been achieved in the way of giving these animals legal protection in the "first world" during the 20th / 21st century. For example, most countries have already banned experimentation on great apes in laboratories, most zoos (though there are of course exceptions out there) take very seriously the subject of the wellbeing of these animals and husbandry is improving all the time, most people oppose the use of these primates in circuses and in television advertisements.

It strikes me that what is urgently / critically important is not this ivory tower nonsense with debates over words and not animal rights activism but what we do right now to reduce the anthropogenic pressures on wild great ape populations and mitigate their risk of extinction through effective conservation of these animals as species.

This means prioritizing concrete real world actions in both the field and within policymaking to combat stressors such as the bushmeat trade, deforestation due to natural resource exploitation and agricultural expansion, human-wildlife conflict and spillover from diseases like ebola and now COVID-19.

I am inclined to agree with you; much of what animal rights advocates do is pretentious, irrelevant, or superfluous. Another strong example of this would be the advocates who oppose the use of animals in idioms, such as "kill to birds with one stone" or "beat a dead horse," because they find it offensive to suggest killing birds and beating dead horses. Like in the case of ape personhood, stopping using animals in idioms would not ultimately achieve much of anything in the grand scheme of things, and it would be much smarter to dedicate time and resources to meaningful conservation efforts, instead.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I am inclined to agree with you; much of what animal rights advocates do is pretentious, irrelevant, or superfluous. Another strong example of this would be the advocates who oppose the use of animals in idioms, such as "kill to birds with one stone" or "beat a dead horse," because they find it offensive to suggest killing birds and beating dead horses. Like in the case of ape personhood, stopping using animals in idioms would not ultimately achieve much of anything in the grand scheme of things, and it would be much smarter to dedicate time and resources to meaningful conservation efforts, instead.

About the "animal rights activists" who oppose the use of animals in idioms, did you ever see this video (which apparently is not a spoof ) ?

 

[Terry Thomas]

Millions of animal species with uncountable numbers of individual specimens live on this planet. Their individual worth is often defined by the local value / significance they have for humans, which differs culturally and individually. While it is currently socially accepted in some Western countries to lament the passing of an individual pet dog or cat and give it a funeral comparable to humans, doing the same for the cattle used to feed said cat or dog isn't. Neither would be elegies or funerals for the endo- and ectoparasites of the cat / dog killed by the respective veterinarian, wouldn't they?

Animals are animals, not humans. That does not mean that you should treat them disrespectfully or even mistreat them. There is, however, little to no evidence that animals understand the concept of an afterlife, respect for a dead body (your beloved dog, and most definitely the cat, would probably dine on your corpse if starving) or see the necessity of a funeral ritual. The latter is first and foremost a human necessity in most cultures / societies. To bury dead pets properly is both important for individual human grief coping and Public Health. Public Health, disease control and hygiene are also the main reasons for disposing of animal corpses in populated areas. Just keep in mind that in some countries, privately taking away roadkill to give it a funeral could be considered poaching, once huntable wildlife is concerned.

If the corpse of an animal can have an educative or memorial purpose, I see no disrespect in having it prepared professionally.

You credit me with having said things that I did not say or infer! At no point have I said anything about funerals for animals, or consumption of meat, neither have I said that there is no case for having dead animals kept and preserved for research etc.. I worked closely with a wide variety of animals, mammals, birds and reptiles, for over thirty years and during that time many of the animals died, for a variety of reasons.

I am not a raging 'greeny', and if my comments upset you - tough luck!!

 

[CheeseChameleon1945]

animals are animals, not humans

Ah, but humans are Animals.

 

[Batto]

Ah, but humans are Animals.

What's true for you might not be true for others...

 

[CheeseChameleon1945]

Fair enough.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Ah, but humans are Animals.

What's true for you might not be true for others...

I think you are both right with what you say.

Humans are both animals and yet there are some important distinctions between animal and human to be made in terms of the cognition , cultural sophistication (I would include funerary rites in that) and advanced language / syntax ability of our species.

Current evidence suggests that animals (elephants, crows, jays, chimpanzees, gorillas, baboons, dolphins and possibly giraffes) do mourn / grieve their dead and visit the bodies of the deceased in a manner which is often described as being like a "funeral", however, unlike humans they do not leave monuments nor do they perform funerary rites.

This is because as far as we know these kinds of complex rituals are dependent on the ability of symbolic cognition and there is no evidence that animals other than humans have developed this cognitive ability.

It could be that only humans have developed the symbolic cognitive ability to construct elaborate rituals around death as there is a longstanding and fierce debate on whether other hominid species like the neanderthals practiced funerary rites.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

It can be the sincerest form of respect. I have had several of my own birds stuffed after their natural death, the necessary qualifications being that they were good examples of their species rather than pets.
I wouldn’t have one of the dogs stuffed.
The famous Bristol gorilla, Alfred, first of his kind to attain maturity in a U.K. zoo, is stuffed and on show. He fills the dual roles of a zoological specimen and a local celebrity

Only tangentially related with what you've said about taxidermy as a gesture of respect but it has even occurred in human societies with dead humans.

You could say that this was done with a similar sentiment (but for propaganda) to showcase an "exemplary" specimen of a human being (not making any judgement of you or taxidermy just sort of comparing and contrasting the similarities between taxidermy practice as a cultural phenomenon).

For example in communist countries like the Soviet Union and China and Vietnam and North Korea you had leaders like Lenin and Mao and Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il Sung who were essentially taxidermied after death.

Even outside of communist countries in Argentina in the case of Eva Peron it was done.

 

[Pootle]

Why not the dog? Why not pets? I hope no-one respects me that much!

Why not the dog/pets?
Because the dog is a pet, in some cases a member of the family and loved in different way to animals you breed at home as a 'hobby' or zoo animals.

@FBBird says he has had some of his own birds stuffed after death. This (in my opinion) is because keeping and breeding birds is a hobby, something you enjoy in life and his success can be enjoyed after the birds death by doing this. A pet, as I stated above is not a hobby.

I see the two as quite different, that's my opinion for what its worth.