Remembering Dead Animals in Zoos

[ZooElephantMan]

Lately I had been thinking about how when animals die in zoos, there is usually never anything to remember them by.

When people die, we bury them and give them a gravestone. When zoo animals die, they are usually cremated or their skeleton is given to a museum, and there is rarely any type of plaque or stone or memorial to remember the animal.

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.

What are peoples' thoughts about this? Do you think that it is weird that zoos rarely provide any sort of memorial for dead animals? Or, if you do have examples of memorials for dead animals, feel free to mention them here.

 

[Tim May]

See the thread below:

Memorials to individual animals in zoos

 

[Andrew Swales]

I feel like some sort of memorial for dead zoo animals should be normalized

This is bizarre...!
We are a small zoo, yet we have approaching 1000 animals here today, and have been we have been open for 30 years.
The graveyard would be so large, we would have no room for live animals...
They are animals, not people.
Should farms (and even botanical gardens?) have such graveyards too, for their dead specimens?

 

[ZooElephantMan]

Animals are different from plants, because they have personalities, thoughts, feelings, ideas, and can have meaningful relationships with people. Imagine how someone feels when their pet dog dies, vs how they would feel when their houseplant that dies. Those are very different experiences.

Also, I understand that having a graveyard for every zoo animal would be impossible because it would take up too much room. That is why I put a focus on famous zoo animals, who probably deserve memorials more than others. Now that I see that there is already a thread about that, however, I guess can just look there. I guess I'd like to apologize to everyone for creating this new thread, since I should have looked up the other one beforehand and just read through that.

 

[Ursus]

Animals are different from plants, because they have personalities, thoughts, feelings, ideas, and can have meaningful relationships with people. Imagine how someone feels when their pet dog dies, vs how they would feel when their houseplant that dies. Those are very different experiences.

Most people I know don't bury their dog in a graveyard.

Also, there are sometimes memorials in the form of statues and what not to very popular animals.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

As @Tim May mentioned I created a thread for this topic so would be great to get your input on the subject of remembering dead animals in zoos on that thread @ZooElephantsMan.

My own thoughts on this kind of subject are quite nuanced really.

I basically strongly agree with @Andrew Swales about how impractical and ridiculous a "zoo graveyard" would be.

However, I also think that there are certain iconic animals which are both popular with the public, staff and sometimes emblematic for whatever reason for cities or nations.

In those cases I don't see any problem with both commemorating an animal's life and recording a bit of zoo history with a memorial.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Most people I know don't bury their dog in a graveyard.

Also, there are sometimes memorials in the form of statues and what not to very popular animals.

True about the memorial statues in zoos.

But actually the funerary practice of burying pet animals in tombs has likely been with us as a species since prehistoric times, through the great civilizations of the ancient world to Victorian times and right up till the present day.

However, throughout history it has always been something done by the elites and even today it is mostly something done by people who are absurdly wealthy and not by your average person.

 

[Andrew Swales]

This is bizarre...!
We are a small zoo, yet we have approaching 1000 animals here today, and have been we have been open for 30 years.
The graveyard would be so large, we would have no room for live animals...

Animals are different from plants, because they have personalities, thoughts, feelings, ideas, and can have meaningful relationships with people. Imagine how someone feels when their pet dog dies, vs how they would feel when their houseplant that dies. Those are very different experiences.

Also, I understand that having a graveyard for every zoo animal would be impossible because it would take up too much room. That is why I put a focus on famous zoo animals, who probably deserve memorials more than others. Now that I see that there is already a thread about that, however, I guess can just look there. I guess I'd like to apologize to everyone for creating this new thread, since I should have looked up the other one beforehand and just read through that.

I don't think there is any need to apologise, and yes of course animals are different to plants - but zoos are not (or shouldn't be) collections of pets.
Close personal relationships exist (and must exist) between people (keepers, manager and visitors) and individual animals, if not so much the other way around - but these vary to the n'th degree because they are personal. Personally I would consider singling out individuals for memorials as tasteless and inappropriate.
Featuring important species and individual animals, and zoo history; both within the zoo and wider - is quite another matter... and one which has not been promoted as much as it deserves.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Featuring important species and individual animals, and zoo history; both within the zoo and wider - is quite another matter... and one which has not been promoted as much as it deserves.

When you say featuring important individual animals within the zoo what do you mean ? Through signage or in guidebooks or in the wider media ?

 

[ZooElephantMan]

As @Tim May mentioned I created a thread for this topic so would be great to get your input on the subject of remembering dead animals in zoos on that thread @ZooElephantsMan.

My own thoughts on this kind of subject are quite nuanced really.

I basically strongly agree with @Andrew Swales about how impractical and ridiculous a "zoo graveyard" would be.

However, I also think that there are certain iconic animals which are both popular with the public, staff and sometimes emblematic for whatever reason for cities or nations.

In those cases I don't see any problem with both commemorating an animal's life and recording a bit of zoo history with a memorial.

Yes @Onychorhynchus coronatus, I agree with your nuanced approach, where a zoo graveyard would be ridiculous, but occasional memorials for particular animals can make sense and be meaningful. I just think it is not important to go too far in either direction. To me, @Andrew Swales goes too far in opposing animal memorials.

Personally I would consider singling out individuals for memorials as tasteless and inappropriate.

They are animals, not people.

@Andrew Swales My disagreement with you comes from the way that I feel you are objectifying animals. When you say that animals are not people, you are legally implying that animals are objects. And if animals are objects, then it would logically follow that a collection of 4000 zoo animals is comparable to a collection of 4000 snowglobes.

To me, animals are clearly not objects, as they are conscious, can feel pain, respond to stimuli, and have personalities and brains. For me, zoo animals are not just valuable as the stock of a zoo collection, or for their genetics or the preservation of their species-- They are also valuable intrinsically as individuals. Because I see animals as being valuable as individuals, I can find meaning in memorializing their lives.

 

[Sarus Crane]

I still think back in 2017 at Oregon Zoo Packy the elephant deserved to be mounted for their indooor museum type exhibit in Forest Hall. I hope other elephants' remains will be saved for exhibition upon their passings in the future.

 

[ZooElephantMan]

I still think back in 2017 at Oregon Zoo Packy the elephant deserved to be mounted for their indooor museum type exhibit in Forest Hall. I hope other elephants' remains will be saved for exhibition upon their passings in the future.

According to this article, he was actually buried, instead of being cremated like most zoo animals are, which I thought was interesting. It also says they had planned on building a life-size statue of him in his memory, although I have not been to the Oregon Zoo before so I do not know if it every actually was constructed.

 

[Crowthorne]

It's many years since I last visited so may not be remembering correctly, but I'm sure Woburn Safari Park had a corner in the wolf enclosure, very close to the drive-through exit, where passed wolves were buried, with markers with their names on. Shepreth Wildlife Park also has a small graveyard area for some of their passed inhabitants (can't recall species, but nothing large).

Zoo animals are not pets, but they are individuals whose lives had meaning. Not all animals can be afforded burial, and for larger species, and those with 'desirable' bodyparts, incineration/cremation is probably most appropriate. But, it is human nature to wish to honour the dead that have touched our lives, be they human or animal (and, in a world where more people live in small urban spaces not suitable to animal pets, houseplants may fill that emotional space, and be remembered by their owners. And I'm sure, if a particular, well known individual plant at a botanic garden were to die, such as Kew's Hurricane Oak or the 250 year old Palm died, they would be memorialised in some way, even if the plants were ultimately mulched down)

 

[Andrew Swales]

When you say featuring important individual animals within the zoo what do you mean ? Through signage or in guidebooks or in the wider media ?

Yes, any of those could be used.
Individual animals have even been used as models for children's toy; several of London's inhabitants have lived on in lead and plastic. Continental zoos, too...

 

[Andrew Swales]

Yes @Onychorhynchus coronatus, I agree with your nuanced approach, where a zoo graveyard would be ridiculous, but occasional memorials for particular animals can make sense and be meaningful. I just think it is not important to go too far in either direction. To me, @Andrew Swales goes too far in opposing animal memorials.





@Andrew Swales My disagreement with you comes from the way that I feel you are objectifying animals. When you say that animals are not people, you are legally implying that animals are objects. And if animals are objects, then it would logically follow that a collection of 4000 zoo animals is comparable to a collection of 4000 snowglobes.

To me, animals are clearly not objects, as they are conscious, can feel pain, respond to stimuli, and have personalities and brains. For me, zoo animals are not just valuable as the stock of a zoo collection, or for their genetics or the preservation of their species-- They are also valuable intrinsically as individuals. Because I see animals as being valuable as individuals, I can find meaning in memorializing their lives.

At no point did I 'legally imply' anything - and snowglobes have been introduced into this by you, not me.
Of course animals are important individually, and of course they are not objects - again I never said anything to the contrary.
In a large zoo, hundreds of staff have cared for and have been personally committed to many thousands of animals, for maybe hundreds of years. Everyone has had a different personal relationship with many of these. A graveyard is ridiculous. A chicken farmer producing thousands of birds for human consumption (or 'waste' chicks for zoo animal feed) would not have a statue of 'clucky'. Some animals in zoos are fed as live-food or dead-food to others, so how can these be 'valuable intrinsically as individuals' and suitable for memorials. Some zoos sell meat from their animals in zoo shops.
Animals are not humans.
Misquoting me though, is insulting.

 

[Batto]

that I feel you are objectifying animals. When you say that animals are not people, you are legally implying that animals are objects.

Then your feelings are incorrect. Just because @Andrew Swales has a more matter-of-fact approach (with which I completely agree, btw.) than you does not make him another René Descartes. Animals are not humans. And whenever humans anthromorphize animals, it usually does the animals more harm than good. That doesn't mean that you should treat them as objects, as no reasonable zoo pro would ever do.
When an animal dies at WdG, it usually does not get a funeral. If possible, I do a necropsy to determine the cause of death (unless I already know the cause). Otherwise, I donate the bodies to research projects or fledgling taxidermists. Or have them preserved for educational purposes. The demise of long-term residents is respectfully reported on the social media channels of WdG. Do I feel sad when an animal dies? Every ****** time. Doesn't mean that I will publicly lament about "sending it across the Bifröst" with lots of sad emojis, as some people deem appropriate.

As for cemeteries and zoos: there's a dog cemetery close to Lisboa zoo, and several zoos have built symbolic "graveyards" dedicated to species wiped out by humanity.

 

[Pertinax]

. Animals are not humans. And whenever humans anthromorphize animals, it usually does the animals more harm than good. That doesn't mean that you should treat them as objects, as no reasonable zoo pro would ever do.
...... Do I feel sad when an animal dies? Every ****** time. Doesn't mean that I will publicly lament about "sending it across the Bifröst" with lots of sad emojis, as some people deem appropriate.

Pleased to see someone make that comment. I am concerned at how people seem to view animals these days with increasing anthromorphism- IMO its both misguided and unhealthy, a sort of 'pet' mentality being spread across the animal kingdom- simple respect would be a far healthier emotion.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Doesn't mean that I will publicly lament about "sending it across the Bifröst" with lots of sad emojis, as some people deem appropriate.

Cue mental images of you giving a rattlesnake a Viking funeral, setting it adrift and aflame down the Salzach on a tiny longship

 

[Batto]

Pleased to see someone make that comment. I am concerned at how people seem to view animals these days with increasing anthromorphism- IMO its both misguided and unhealthy, a sort of 'pet' mentality being spread across the animal kingdom- simple respect would be a far healthier emotion.

It's mostly people that have little or only selected (i.e. pets) contact to animals that anthromorphize. Funny enough, they usually only choose certain species and show disdain, ignorance or even disgust towards anything else. Dead dog - "Poor angel". Dead snake - "Ugh. Good riddance."

 

[Batto]

Cue mental images of you giving a rattlesnake a Viking funeral, setting it adrift and aflame down the Salzach on a tiny longship

That'd be cultural appropriation...
and culturally insensitive, since rattlesnakes come from the Americas. So depending on the species, I would have to follow indigenous rituals - which would lead to more cultural appropriation...
The Vipera berus might get a viking funeral, though. Hopefully, far down the road.