Zoo kills giraffe and feeds it to the lions - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Zoo kills giraffe and feeds it to the lions

  1. #21
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I had to re read this a few times thinking it must have been a typo. We love going to the zoo. In a little over a year for a zoology study for my girls we have went to the Erie PA zoo, the National Zoo in DC, The Atlanta Zoo, Animal Kingdom in Fla, and our local zoo on a weekly basis. It is a great educational tool for my children. Also, many of the animals at zoo's can not live in the wild for various reasons. For example, twin cougars were found after there mother was somehow killed. Those cougars would have died in the wild. They were brought to are zoo and are being taken care of. An owl was found with only one wing and badly damaged. In the wild it would have died. In our zoo it is being taken care of. Our local zoo's do great work of rescuing animals that would otherwise not survive. They also belong to an organisation that trades animals with other zoos to make sure that there are no in breading problems. Our local zoo has camps, field trips, and educational story times. Every Tuesday morning that take one educational animal out and read a story to the children then teach about the animal. This past week they brought out baby foxes. My girls were able to see and pet the baby fox. That was a great experience for our children. They also take some of the money they make and put it back into the animals natural habitat. There are always signs and places to donate at the zoo for different projects that they have going for particular forests or jungles.
    I am not saying that zoos cannot be educational or fun...i'm not saying they don't provide exciting experiences. What I am saying is if people don't like the realities of what problems arise because of their existence, then they should not be in support of them. And I don't think there would be any huge loss if they did not exist, at least in the form that we have them now. Perhaps there are better ways to create a business plan that is not so oriented on public display to rake in the money.

    As for the educational experience...yep, its wonderful. But is it necessary? I'd say no. Thats why its a question of priorities. If someone takes issue with this giraffe being euthanized...but then goes to Animal Kindgom during their trip to Disney, welllllll. Thats hypocritical to me.

    I am sure as in all things there are some places that are corrupt. That is not to say that all zoos are corrupt and should not be allowed.
    This has nothing to do with corruption. This has to do with a successful captive breeding program and the inability to keep ALLL the animals. The ones that provide the most benefit to the gene pool are kept, and ones like this little guy are not. If it were not him, it would be someone else. This has to do with science and knowing what is best for the pool of giraffes living in captivity as a whole.

    As for killing a giraffe, I am sure there are many zoos that would have been willing and glad to take it and that would have been a better option.
    There were not many. There were some. Some did not promise that they would not sell it off to another place, like a circus or less reputable park. THey were decided against. Others contained family members of the same gene pool as this giraffe. It was the same issue and decided that it was NOT in the best interest of the pool of captive giraffes as a whole to keep him there. Neutering of male giraffes is risky and can lead to severe trauma which would require euthanization.

    If the giraffe had died naturally, I would not have had a problem with them feeding the lion privately, but I think it was disrespectful to do it so publicly. We do think of giraffes differently. Would you be ok with feeding a lion a beloved cat or dog in front of your kids? I doubt it. It is the same idea with giraffes.
    Its arbitrary to treat a giraffe or a dog or cat differently, or presume that because people 'love giraffes' that they should not be euthanized when they are a hinderence to a human created breeding program and problematic situation. I mean you can choose to put that emotional investment into these animals....but to expect biologists and people who are going to be running these places that you just praised so much to disregard what is best to provide the best enviroment they can for these giraffes for years to come....in favor of a socially constructed affinity? I think thats wrong.

    If you like these places, let these people do their jobs. Also no one was forced to go and watch, so if you are horrified by it, then don't go.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 02-11-2014 at 10:24 AM.

  2. #22
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    I don't believe that watching the dissection of the giraffe or the feeding of the giraffe to the lion was educational. At least no more educational than studing giraffe biology in a book or on a website, or watching the lion be fed a dead rabbit or chicken. The photos showed a pretty big chunk of him that the lion was gnawing on, so it seems they didn't "dissect" him that much anyway. And the fact that the "visitors" to the zoo for this occasion paid a premium for the privilege of watching this, in a country that has banned frog dissection for crying out loud, it just screams of hypocrisy and greed and... something like selling out... that's not the word I'm looking for but my brain is done for today.
    It is in the realization of what it takes to manage a zoo and what it actually means that one animal eats another. I wholeheartedly believe that humans are ridiculously far removed away from the animal food chain, both their own and what it means for other animals as well. If we are going to love zoos, then let the public know up front and personal what it means to run a zoo.

    I see a huge double standard here. We think that people need to see animals in person to admire them face to face and get a great 'educational experience'....but then learning about the underbelly or less pleasant parts of captive wildlife management, we can just 'hear about it' from books and websites. What went on there was not some sort of freak show....it was a captive wildlife management decision.

    Maybe its just that people don't want to face the fact that managing wildlife in captivity is an ugly business with tough decisions that challenge our ethical fiber. I mean if we don't expose anyone to it....we can just keep enjoying all the fun and pretty animals face to face without feeling bad about it.

    ETA: Forgot to address the frog dissection thing. I don't think that has anything to do with this at all. This animal was going to die anyway. And letting people watch was not meant to be an anatomy lesson.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 02-11-2014 at 10:28 AM.

  3. #23
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,107

    Default

    I stand corrected

    here is the statement from the zoo, it mainly was meant to be an anatomy lesson

    http://www.zoo.dk/BesogZoo/Nyhedsark...20giraffe.aspx

    Anywho, i don't see how this conflicts with their policy on school dissection. If i understand correctly, that is due to the supply industry for school dissection, not because they are ethically opposed to children seeing the anatomy of an animal. So this seems to be a rare opoprtunity to actually get to see the anatomy lesson in person, only con would be the poor visibility for those not upfront. Is in person important or not? I don't know...people seem to think its important to see them not dissected in person and that tv or computers isn't enough, so i'm not sure why that doesn't apply in this situation too.

    I also still maintain that it is an excellent lesson in wildlife management...so that people can better decide how okay they really are with the concept of zoos, instead of hiding it away for no one to really realize.

  4. #24
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    I am not saying that zoos cannot be educational or fun...i'm not saying they don't provide exciting experiences. What I am saying is if people don't like the realities of what problems arise because of their existence, then they should not be in support of them. And I don't think there would be any huge loss if they did not exist, at least in the form that we have them now. Perhaps there are better ways to create a business plan that is not so oriented on public display to rake in the money.

    As for the educational experience...yep, its wonderful. But is it necessary? I'd say no. Thats why its a question of priorities. If someone takes issue with this giraffe being euthanized...but then goes to Animal Kindgom during their trip to Disney, welllllll. Thats hypocritical to me.



    This has nothing to do with corruption. This has to do with a successful captive breeding program and the inability to keep ALLL the animals. The ones that provide the most benefit to the gene pool are kept, and ones like this little guy are not. If it were not him, it would be someone else. This has to do with science and knowing what is best for the pool of giraffes living in captivity as a whole.



    There were not many. There were some. Some did not promise that they would not sell it off to another place, like a circus or less reputable park. THey were decided against. Others contained family members of the same gene pool as this giraffe. It was the same issue and decided that it was NOT in the best interest of the pool of captive giraffes as a whole to keep him there. Neutering of male giraffes is risky and can lead to severe trauma which would require euthanization.



    Its arbitrary to treat a giraffe or a dog or cat differently, or presume that because people 'love giraffes' that they should not be euthanized when they are a hinderence to a human created breeding program and problematic situation. I mean you can choose to put that emotional investment into these animals....but to expect biologists and people who are going to be running these places that you just praised so much to disregard what is best to provide the best enviroment they can for these giraffes for years to come....in favor of a socially constructed affinity? I think thats wrong.

    If you like these places, let these people do their jobs. Also no one was forced to go and watch, so if you are horrified by it, then don't go.
    I did not say that it was wrong to euthanize a giraffe it was necessary. And we do put down cats and dogs. I was saying it was not necessary to do it in the manor they did and then feed it to the lions publicly. At our zoo if they have an animal they do not want to breed, they separate them. I do think they could have found another place for the giraffe.

    ~Bonita~

  5. #25
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I did not say that it was wrong to euthanize a giraffe it was necessary. And we do put down cats and dogs. I was saying it was not necessary to do it in the manor they did and then feed it to the lions publicly. At our zoo if they have an animal they do not want to breed, they separate them. I do think they could have found another place for the giraffe.
    You think they could have found another place....exactly what is that based on. Your gut?

    As for the manor they did it in...they tried to make it as purposeful as one could. They provided an educational lesson to those who wanted it and they fed it to one of its natural predators.

    To do nothing at all with it would have been far more disrespectful. It would be no better than trophy hunting.

  6. #26
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,468

    Default

    Read the OP. The Copenhagen Zoo had offers from other zoos. They chose not to accept them.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  7. #27
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,107

    Default

    I shouldn't have bothered trying to bold anything...its all pertinent and valuable information. I don't agree with the outrage. Its overly simplistic to think they should have just moved this giraffe around. This to me is an issue of people not realizing what it takes to get something they like. And thats fine if you like them....but please, lets not pretend that its all hearts and rainbows. (Hey zoos are fun! I've been to a few zoos over the course of my life time!) When a zoo decides not to hide from you what they have to do to to be responsible about the species they have taken in, at the very least learn about the why's before we decide to fly off the handle.

    Marius The Giraffe Not The Only Animal Culled By Zoos | TIME.com

    The killing of Marius the giraffe at a zoo in Copenhagen surprised many people around the world ? and shocked quite a few ? but it was no isolated incident. [b]Also put down by European zoos in the name of genetic diversity in recent years: Zebra, antelopes, bison, pygmy hippos, and tiny Red River hog piglets.

    Although zoo officials may not publicize the fact, culling is often a normal part of a zoo?s breeding program and conservation efforts. But as those breeding programs become more successful ? especially with popular animals like giraffes ? euthanasia is also becoming more controversial.

    ?As a conservation organization, we realize that there?s a crisis in the natural world, and that we have an obligation to protect species in the wild from human actions,? says David Williams-Mitchell, communications and membership manager for the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). ?One of the ways we do that is through breeding programs. But we have limited space within EAZA to carry out that, and we need to prioritize animals that can contribute to future of the species.?

    The killing of animals under the protection of zoos is the ironic price of success: a zoo whose breeding program manages to produce enough healthy offspring may find itself having to put down some of those individuals in order to make room for species in greater danger of extinction. Zoos, after all, only have so much space. ?You have to understand that zoos today are in a position to go deeper into conservation,? says Friederike von Houwald, curator of Switzerland?s Zoo Basel. ?We can very precisely identify not just an entire species, but a particular line of species that needs protection.?

    Marius was not from one of those lines and that sealed his fate. But he is hardly alone. Although considered a last resort (?we don?t do it even once a year,? says von Houwald of her zoo), euthanasia is a regular tool for biodiversity and population management in many European zoos. In the past few years, river hog piglets, pygmy hippos, tigers, antelopes, bison, and zebra have all been put down in European zoos for biodiversity reasons. Although EAZA has figures from recent years, it does not release them because of their sensitivity. ?We?re not ashamed of euthanizing animals,? says Williams-Mitchell. ?But we don?t want to publicize it either. ?

    Although Marius was the first giraffe to be put down at the Copenhagen zoo, members of other much-loved species have been euthanized. In the spring of 2012, the zoo put down, via lethal injection, two leopard cubs whose genetics were over-represented. ?We cull antelopes and wild boar at the zoo every year for the same reason,? says Bengt Holst, the zoo?s scientific director. ?I don?t understand the outrage.?


    But as breeding programs meet ever greater success, outrage is increasingly the reaction to these policies, especially when the animal being put down is popular or especially adorable. In 2010, the decision by officials at Edinburgh zoo to put down two hog piglets named Sammi and Becca sparked protests. That same year, a court in Germany ruled that the Magdeburg zoo director and three workers were guilty of violating animal rights law for putting down three tiger cubs. Marius? death also provoked ire from animal rights organizations and social media exploded in rage and sadness, as people around the world criticized the zoo for callously disregarding the animal?s welfare. Nearly 30,000 people signed an online petition asking that the young giraffe?s life be spared.

    Yet zoo experts maintain that euthanasia ? even of a healthy animal ? is frequently the most responsible course. Neutering and contraception prevent the animal from performing behaviors that are critical to its sense of well-being ? namely reproduction and parenting. And even separating males and females for a length of time can have unpredictable outcomes: rhinos who have been prevented from mating for a few years have not been able to reproduce once the males and females were reunited.

    Other alternatives are similarly problematic. ?Releasing a giraffe that had spent his entire life in captivity into the wild would have been a death sentence,? says Williams-Mitchell. ?It may sound counter-intuitive; why not let the giraffe take its chances? But it seems needlessly cruel to ship an animal thousands of miles, only to release it to what is the same outcome it would have at home.?

    Nor does space in another zoo necessarily equal a solution. In Marius? case, one of the zoos that offered was rejected because, as a member of EAZA, it faced the same genetic over-representation as Copenhagen. Another was not an EAZA member, which is a problem in its own right: there was no guarantee that the new zoo complies with animal welfare standards. That same problem applies to individuals who have offered to help, including the anonymous person who offered 50,000 euros for Marius.

    ?We had the same thing happen with one of our zebras a few years ago that we planned to euthanize because of overrepresentation,? says von Houwald. ?Someone wrote to say, ?I can take the zebra because I have room in my horse stable. But as a zoo you have a huge responsibility to make sure this living creature is properly cared for. A zebra isn?t the same as a horse.?

    That zebra, like Marius, became lion food. Another thing many people don?t realize about zoos: most euthanize animals regularly for meat to feed their carnivores.

    One of the things distinguished Marius? case was the Copenhagen zoo?s openness about it. Although the giraffe was anesthetized and shot in a private area of the zoo, his autopsy was held outdoors, in an area specially opened for visitors who wished to observe the procedure. Although some critics saw this as further evidence of a lack of empathy, the zoo itself has said it was important to opt for transparency.

    That?s a sentiment with which EAZA agrees. ?[The euthanasia] is a reminder of the cost of human actions,? says Williams-Mitchell. ?The reason that zoos have to protect species in the first place is only partly due to poaching and illegal trade. It is also because of climate change and the wholesale pillaging of these animals? natural habitat. Until people start to take responsibility for their actions and their lifestyle decisions, scientists who want to protect animals like Marius will continue to have to make hard decisions.?

    Last edited by KimPossible; 02-11-2014 at 03:38 PM.

  8. #28
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    Read the OP. The Copenhagen Zoo had offers from other zoos. They chose not to accept them.
    Read WHY...the original article is sorely lacking in information. And you must have skipped a lot in between the last time you read this thread and that post of mine you responded to because I already talked about their offers.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 02-11-2014 at 03:46 PM.

  9. #29
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,468

    Default

    I do get that sometimes extra animals need to be culled. I do get that this giraffe's genes are over-represented in EAZA zoos. But rather than let this giraffe out of the EAZA breeding program and into another well-respected zoo that didn't have a giraffe with his genes, they killed him. And that's what I don't get. He wasn't "extra" and he wasn't "over-represented." He was simply not in the right place, and that isn't a good reason to kill him.
    AlyssaEimers likes this.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  10. #30
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    I do get that sometimes extra animals need to be culled. I do get that this giraffe's genes are over-represented in EAZA zoos. But rather than let this giraffe out of the EAZA breeding program and into another well-respected zoo that didn't have a giraffe with his genes, they killed him. And that's what I don't get. He wasn't "extra" and he wasn't "over-represented." He was simply not in the right place, and that isn't a good reason to kill him.
    He absolutely was extra and over represented. The reason they do not go out of the EAZA program is explained in my link above from the zoo itself.

    If you get that sometimes animals need to be euthanized in unique situations, then at most, you could possibly disagree with their belief that it is important to stick to the EAZA rules. This means that they are trying to make a responsible decision, not some careless and flippant money making scheme...one that you might disagree with but that they fully believe is important when it comes to captive wildlife management, the actual business that they are in every day.

    To disagree with their attempt to make what they believe is a decision about responsibility is one thing. To be outraged (which seems to be what the media is reporting...and encouraging I'd say) by their best attempts to run their business mindfully is another.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 02-11-2014 at 04:40 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions