Zoo kills healthy giraffe and feeds remains to carnivores

[mr friendly guy]

guess which country

Marius the giraffe put down at Copenhagen Zoo

COPENHAGEN Zoo turned down offers from other zoos and 500,000 euros (AU$760,000) from a private individual to save the life of a healthy giraffe before slaughtering it to follow inbreeding recommendations made by a European association.
The two-year-old male giraffe, named Marius, was put down on Sunday using a bolt pistol and its meat was fed to carnivores at the zoo, spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro said. Visitors, including children, were invited to watch while the giraffe was dissected

Marius’ plight triggered a wave of online protests and renewed debate about the conditions of zoo animals. Before the giraffe was killed, an online petition to save it had received more than 20,000 signatures.
Mr Stenbaek Bro said the zoo, which now has seven giraffes left, was recommended to put down Marius by the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria because there were already a lot of giraffes with similar genes in the organisation’s breeding program.
The Amsterdam-based EAZA has 347 members, including many large zoos in European capitals, and works to conserve global biodiversity and to achieve the highest standards of care and breeding for animals.

Mr Stenbaek Bro said EAZA membership isn’t mandatory, but most responsible zoos are members of the organisation.
Stenbaek Bro said Copenhagen Zoo turned down an offer from a private individual who wanted to buy Marius for 500,000 euros. Mr Stenbaek Bro said a significant part of EAZA membership is that the zoos don’t own the animals themselves, but govern them, and therefore can’t sell them to anyone outside the organisation that don’t follow the same set of rules.

He said that is important for the breeding programs to work.
When asked if other zoos had offered to take in Marius, the spokesman said yes but didn’t specify numbers or which ones.
The zoo’s scientific director Bengt Holst said the giraffe breeding program is similar to those used in deer parks, where red deer and fallow deer are culled to keep populations healthy.
“The most important factor must be that the animals are healthy physically and behaviourally and that they have a good life while they are living whether this life is long or short. This is something that Copenhagen Zoo believes strongly in,” he said in a statement.
Mr Holst said the zoo doesn’t give the giraffes contraceptives because they have “a number of unwanted side effects on the internal organs” and the zoo believes parental care is an important part of the animal’s natural behaviour.

The organisation Animal Rights Sweden said the case simply highlights what they believe zoos do to animals regularly.
“It is no secret that animals are killed when there is no longer space, or if the animals don’t have genes that are interesting enough,” the organisation said in a statement. “The only way to stop this is to not visit zoos.”
It pointed out some zoos work to preserve species of animals, but never individuals.
“When the cute animal babies that attract visitors grow up they are not as interesting anymore,” it said.

Silly question, but with these breeding programs, are there actually provisions to reintroduce these animals, parents with offspring back into the wild? Then some of these animals can have a chance in the wild rather than having no chance because they don't have unique genes.

[Simon_Jester]

There's a sort of... dark lunacy to the argument "we don't own the animals, we govern them, so we can't sell them, but we can kill them because we have no place for them."

[Alyrium Denryle]

Silly question, but with these breeding programs, are there actually provisions to reintroduce these animals, parents with offspring back into the wild? Then some of these animals can have a chance in the wild rather than having no chance because they don't have unique genes.

Depends on the animal. Endangered species, yes. Yes there are. But for a lot of the animals kept in zoos, the zoo acts sort of like a seed stock collection for plants. A backup in case something goes terribly terribly wrong, but no reintroduction protocol currently exists. Ultimately, there is limited space and thus a limited population size. And because zoos trade animals back and forth, if they have too many in the world zoo population with the same genes, they run the risk of background inbreeding (which is why Iceland has a geneology dating app. Just in case).

Needless to say, I dont have a problem with the cull. Also, Animals Rights Sweden can go fuck itself. Without zoos, there are numerous species that would be gone forever, and if a few individuals have to die to keep an entire species from going extinct, so fucking be it.

[mr friendly guy]

Wouldn't it be better then if some protocol exists to reintroduce some specimens back into the wild then? So that if we run out of space we don't have to cull them especially since they don't want to use contraception for the animals.

[Flagg]

Silly question, but with these breeding programs, are there actually provisions to reintroduce these animals, parents with offspring back into the wild? Then some of these animals can have a chance in the wild rather than having no chance because they don't have unique genes.

Depends on the animal. Endangered species, yes. Yes there are. But for a lot of the animals kept in zoos, the zoo acts sort of like a seed stock collection for plants. A backup in case something goes terribly terribly wrong, but no reintroduction protocol currently exists. Ultimately, there is limited space and thus a limited population size. And because zoos trade animals back and forth, if they have too many in the world zoo population with the same genes, they run the risk of background inbreeding (which is why Iceland has a geneology dating app. Just in case).

Needless to say, I dont have a problem with the cull. Also, Animals Rights Sweden can go fuck itself. Without zoos, there are numerous species that would be gone forever, and if a few individuals have to die to keep an entire species from going extinct, so fucking be it.

Finally someone who sees reason! This giraffe died a much easier and quicker death than in the wild and why waste the meat? I mean I feel bad they had to kill it, but if it needed doing it needed doing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wouldn't it be better then if some protocol exists to reintroduce some specimens back into the wild then? So that if we run out of space we don't have to cull them especially since they don't want to use contraception for the animals.

Zoos keep a lot of species, it is simply not possible to have reintroduction protocols for all of them.

[Darth Tanner]

Would the simpler answer not have been to neuter the animal if there were other zoos that requested the animal but there were concerns over the gene pool... giraffes after all are prize material for zoos.

The obvious concern would appear to be that the other zoos that requested the animal don’t already have their own giraffes so this one would be left alone and would suffer because of that. I'm also not trusting of the private buyer actually existing when there was a public outcry over the case, far more likely its some nutter putting in a false offer or again maybe some rich loon who completely lacks the facilities to take care of a giraffe.

I really don’t buy the zoo considering itself as not owning the animal though... I’m sure from a legal perspective it does have full ownership, any ethical concerns should at least have explored the alternatives to destruction of the animal.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Would the simpler answer not have been to neuter the animal if there were other zoos that requested the animal but there were concerns over the gene pool... giraffes after all are prize material for zoos

There is probably a reason they elected not to send the animal off to a given zoo. Every time an animal is moved, death from transport stress is risked, so unless there is a reason (the need for breeding stock etc) it is not usually done. Plus... well... some zoos are better than others. The Copenhagen Zoo is pretty good, IIRC. The zoos offering to take the Giraffe... may not be.

any ethical concerns should at least have explored the alternatives to destruction of the animal.

They do. Mandated by law.

[Broomstick]

Silly question, but with these breeding programs, are there actually provisions to reintroduce these animals, parents with offspring back into the wild? Then some of these animals can have a chance in the wild rather than having no chance because they don't have unique genes.

By "chance in the wild" did you mean "chance to be hunted and eaten by wild carnivores that will provide a death a lot less quick and may start eating the giraffe before the giraffe is dead" or "chance to be shot by poachers and eaten by humans" or "chance to experience disease or injury, followed shortly by becoming something else's dinner"? Only about 1/3 to 1/2 of wild giraffes survive their first year.

Wild giraffes may, in some sense, be "happier" than zoo giraffes, or maybe not, but their lives are far more dangerous and often shorter than a zoo giraffe's. Meanwhile, zoo carnivores subsist on meat, as it proper, but it's expensive as hell to feed them and if you're already putting down a prey animal it makes complete sense to feed said prey animal to its natural predators.

Marius had two years of protected life where he wasn't chased by things wanting to eat him, he had the company of his own kind, plenty of food and water, and little risk of injury. That's better than what most wild giraffes get.

Would the simpler answer not have been to neuter the animal if there were other zoos that requested the animal but there were concerns over the gene pool... giraffes after all are prize material for zoos.

They're also fairly common and zoo space is limited. Why keep a neutered male around when his spot could be taken by a breeding male?

It's natural for there to be a culling of animal populations. In the wild, it's predators, disease, injury, and weather and none of those are particularly merciful. If we are going to take it upon ourselves to keep animals captive then it's on us to do the culling, otherwise you wind up with the zoo equivalent of an animal hoarding situation. Culling means choosing which animals live and which animals die. If you want to keep a captive population healthy you have to do this. Limiting breeding is also a good idea, but you can't limit it too sharply because even the best kept animals can get sick, get hurt, or just up and die suddenly so you need a few "extra" ones around to keep the numbers up even as you cull to keep the numbers down.

[madd0ct0r]

just heard on the radio - yorkshire zoo offered to take marius, but was turned down since they already had marius's brother, and by the rules they needed to keep that space for a more genetically useful animal to keep the breeding program going.

Yorkshire zoo are quite angry about this - saying they have the right to manage their own affairs.

pics from the autopsy. those children look so traumatized.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/galler ... nhagen-zoo

[Edi]

Distasteful as the event was, Alyrium and Broomstick have explained why it is not wrong. Nobody has to like that things turned out this way (I doubt the Copenhagen zoo liked it either), but the masses who are used to anthropomorphizing animals will not want to listen. Cue outrage fuelled news stories that will do nothing to help.

[Broomstick]

pics from the autopsy. those children look so traumatized.

At some point children need to learn that the "circle of life" isn't all happy critters signing on a stage. Lions eating giraffes is a part of the natural world. Death is a part of life.

Maybe people need to see the food animals for carnivores killed and butchered on site daily as part of a zoo's educational programs. Not necessarily giraffes, of course, but cows, sheep, pigs, whatever the big cats and other meat-eaters are being fed that day.

Why no praise for the lions being fed an item that is entirely a natural part of their diet and in the freshest possible state?

[Alyrium Denryle]

just heard on the radio - yorkshire zoo offered to take marius, but was turned down since they already had marius's brother, and by the rules they needed to keep that space for a more genetically useful animal to keep the breeding program going.

Yorkshire zoo are quite angry about this - saying they have the right to manage their own affairs.

Oh, they certainly do. But the Copenhagen Zoo has the right to say "we will not be party to your fuckup. If you want Hapsburg Giraffes, go somewhere else."

pics from the autopsy. those children look so traumatized.

Looks like morbid curiosity to me. WHich is the proper response.

Also, those are some really happy looking lions.

[LaCroix]

There is even an option for horse owners to donate their dead horses to Zoos, as long as they haven't been medicated prior to dying. I've been mentally playing with that option for my horses for a long time - I prefer that over soap...

[Simon_Jester]

Needless to say, I dont have a problem with the cull. Also, Animals Rights Sweden can go fuck itself. Without zoos, there are numerous species that would be gone forever, and if a few individuals have to die to keep an entire species from going extinct, so fucking be it.

Personally I think there should at least be some plan for disposing of the giraffe that does not involve killing the giraffe.

It seems unfair to kill an animal purely because its genes are boring, while refusing to consider any other options.

Would the simpler answer not have been to neuter the animal if there were other zoos that requested the animal but there were concerns over the gene pool... giraffes after all are prize material for zoos

There is probably a reason they elected not to send the animal off to a given zoo. Every time an animal is moved, death from transport stress is risked, so unless there is a reason (the need for breeding stock etc) it is not usually done. Plus... well... some zoos are better than others. The Copenhagen Zoo is pretty good, IIRC. The zoos offering to take the Giraffe... may not be.

Is it that common for zoos to be fates worse than death, such that it is kinder to shoot the giraffe in the head than to transport it?

This seems... so counterintuitive as to raise suspicion in my mind, even knowing full well that raising animals is a difficult art of which I know little.

any ethical concerns should at least have explored the alternatives to destruction of the animal.

They do. Mandated by law.

I am honestly quite surprised that they consider 'death' the most humane thing the zoo could do to this giraffe, which was apparently healthy and suffering from no weakness other than "its genes are too common." Does this imply that the other giraffes in their zoo would be better off dead, and are being kept alive solely for biodiversity and breeding population concerns?

just heard on the radio - yorkshire zoo offered to take marius, but was turned down since they already had marius's brother, and by the rules they needed to keep that space for a more genetically useful animal to keep the breeding program going.

Yorkshire zoo are quite angry about this - saying they have the right to manage their own affairs.

pics from the autopsy. those children look so traumatized.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/galler ... nhagen-zoo

See, this ties into my concern. It's one thing for Copenhagen to decide that THEY need to keep a genetically diverse population of limited size, and therefore it would be better to kill a giraffe than support it. It's another matter for Copenhagen to make that decision for another zoo.

[Broomstick]

Needless to say, I dont have a problem with the cull. Also, Animals Rights Sweden can go fuck itself. Without zoos, there are numerous species that would be gone forever, and if a few individuals have to die to keep an entire species from going extinct, so fucking be it.

Personally I think there should at least be some plan for disposing of the giraffe that does not involve killing the giraffe.

It seems unfair to kill an animal purely because its genes are boring, while refusing to consider any other options.

The animal wasn't killed just because it had "boring" genes, it's also a matter of limited capacity for large animals. It takes a lot of space, food, and money to properly care for something the size of a giraffe.

Having seem what happens with just horses - a considerably smaller and easier to manage large animal - when people who don't really know what they're getting into take one in, an amateur struggling to keep a giraffe healthy and well fed is going to be a nightmare.

Is it that common for zoos to be fates worse than death, such that it is kinder to shoot the giraffe in the head than to transport it?

This seems... so counterintuitive as to raise suspicion in my mind, even knowing full well that raising animals is a difficult art of which I know little.

Transporting an animal that stands 6 meters tall and weighs 1200 kg is not a trivial matter. It is also not an animal you're going to be able to persuade to lay down for a a trip of any length. How are you going to get it past the average road overpass? How are you going to restrain it so it doesn't fall out of the truck that's transporting it? How do you keep it from panicking? Hmm...well maybe air transport, then? OK, how do you get it to the airport? Who pays for an airplane large enough to carry it?

Animals can and do die during transport, from a combination of stress/fear and injuries.

It's not that zoos are hellholes worse than death, it's that there is only so much room in zoos for giraffes. If we don't cull the animals, if we try to keep them all, then they will become hell holes. Fact is a male with "boring" genes has less value to the species than a male with "interesting" genes, or a breeding female. If we have to sacrifice an animal for the good of the herd and there are no obvious ill/aged/deformed candidates which specimen do you suggest we feed to the lions?

See, this ties into my concern. It's one thing for Copenhagen to decide that THEY need to keep a genetically diverse population of limited size, and therefore it would be better to kill a giraffe than support it. It's another matter for Copenhagen to make that decision for another zoo.

The problem is that NO zoo in the world can maintain a sufficiently large herd to truly maintain healthy genetic diversity. NONE. That's why this is managed by international agreements, so genetic material can be exchanged to prevent inbreeding. If one zoo starts taking in all the "surplus" animals then its "herd" will become overcrowded and, over time, inbred. This will not be healthy for their animals. It will not be kind.

In the case of a species like the California condor or the whooping crane where the worldwide numbers are so low that every single individual, "boring" genes or not, is essential to the population it makes sense to go to extraordinary measures and preserve every life. Although the natural range of the giraffe has shrunk and some sub-species are edging toward threatened status they are not, as a whole, endangered. There are still a lot of them in the wild. Given that, it makes no sense to risk the dangers of inbreeding and overcrowding in zoo populations.

[Thanas]

Maybe the killing was necessary.

But showing the killing to visitors was not and kinda gave one of those carnival vibes of it. Doing it in front of media was even worse.

[Broomstick]

OK, I can see that side of the argument.

On the other hand, I have issues with sanitizing killing for food, be that food for people or food for animals. If you're going to eat meat, or keep meat-eaters, you should know what slaughter and butchering look like. I can see an argument for keeping young children from seeing it, but by age 12 people should either come to grips with this part of the food cycle or go vegetarian.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Personally I think there should at least be some plan for disposing of the giraffe that does not involve killing the giraffe.

It seems unfair to kill an animal purely because its genes are boring, while refusing to consider any other options.

Did you not read? I expect better from you. That is the strawman created by Animal Rights Sweden. No. *hits you with rolled up newspaper* No!

He was killed to prevent background inbreeding. Giraffe zoo populations are finite. They can only be safety moved when juveniles, and even then only so far. So we are not even talking the world zoo population, but the regional zoo population. Say, northern and western europe. That population may consist of a few hundred animals. If you want to avoid having your group become inbred, you have to move the offspring around. But then, you end up homogenizing the regional population. This can happen very quickly in generational terms if no one is paying attention.

Far far less pleasant things have to get done when an animal is critically endangered and only one zoo has specimens. Would you like me to describe the Sequential Planned Inbreeding? I can do that.

As for other options... what, the zoo that has his brother? Or the zoo that would require dangerous sedation for multiple hours and that is logistically difficult and stressful at the best of times, now doing it in fucking winter? No, that does not risk a painful death at all (Giraffes are not transport friendly). Oh, maybe that private individual who has what facilities and training exactly?

I am honestly quite surprised that they consider 'death' the most humane thing the zoo could do to this giraffe, which was apparently healthy and suffering from no weakness other than "its genes are too common." Does this imply that the other giraffes in their zoo would be better off dead, and are being kept alive solely for biodiversity and breeding population concerns?

No. They have limited space. The Copenhagen zoo is good, but it is not the Phoenix Zoo. It does not have the space for a large herd of giraffe. You start overcrowding, and males get... testy.

Any other option risks a far less pleasant death than a captive bolt to the brain stem. His genes were not just over-represented at that zoo, but regionally, so moving him is not a good option if you are concerned about the long term health of european zoo giraffe populations.

Plus, by killing him, you allow vet students, comparative anatomists etc to observe the dissection, provide an educational opportunity to children (and the children who would want to see that are the sort who will not be traumatized by it), and you provide a boost to the quality of life for the lions.

The vets participating in the dissection is actually critical if you want to have zoo vets who know what the fuck they are doing.

See, this ties into my concern. It's one thing for Copenhagen to decide that THEY need to keep a genetically diverse population of limited size, and therefore it would be better to kill a giraffe than support it. It's another matter for Copenhagen to make that decision for another zoo.

If I am at a party and I have elected not to drive drunk, am I obliged to help someone else find their keys if they reach the opposite conclusion?

In the case of a species like the California condor or the whooping crane where the worldwide numbers are so low that every single individual, "boring" genes or not, is essential to the population it makes sense to go to extraordinary measures and preserve every life

Actually... uh... about that...

There was a case, some African rock-climbing antelope or in sub-saharan africa that was an endemic, endangered because a civil war was going on and the region was subject to bombardment and bush hunting by soldiers. Only a few dozen individuals survived because they were snapped up by researchers and zoos before they end came. Inbreeding was inevitable.

So they doubled down on it. Hard. They split the few dozen they had left into breeding trios and then kept them isolated. Sib mating and back-crossing for multiple generations, letting natural selection weed out the recessive lethals, then reshuffle the genetic deck. Over. And over. And Over. They managed to create a genetically healthy population of hundreds that they could reintroduce a couple decades later, but the price was animal welfare. Juvenile mortality rates were fucking horrific during the inbreeding phases.

You only do that in extreme cases. You dont let it happen by accident.

But showing the killing to visitors was not and kinda gave one of those carnival vibes of it.

It is interesting. But honestly, the Giraffe does not care, because it is dead. And the kids are not traumatized. The kids only get traumatized if they are told that they should be (it is almost as if I was dissecting roadkill as a kid...). Take the average 7 year old, and so long as you dont kill the animal in front of them, you can start dissecting it, and their response is going to be "Cooooooooool!".

[Welf]

Personally I think there should at least be some plan for disposing of the giraffe that does not involve killing the giraffe.

It seems unfair to kill an animal purely because its genes are boring, while refusing to consider any other options.

Yes, but that saved some poor cows life who wasn't fed to the lions.

[Thanas]

It is interesting. But honestly, the Giraffe does not care, because it is dead. And the kids are not traumatized. The kids only get traumatized if they are told that they should be (it is almost as if I was dissecting roadkill as a kid...). Take the average 7 year old, and so long as you dont kill the animal in front of them, you can start dissecting it, and their response is going to be "Cooooooooool!".

They can very much get traumatized if they feel an emotional connection to the animal in question.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is interesting. But honestly, the Giraffe does not care, because it is dead. And the kids are not traumatized. The kids only get traumatized if they are told that they should be (it is almost as if I was dissecting roadkill as a kid...). Take the average 7 year old, and so long as you dont kill the animal in front of them, you can start dissecting it, and their response is going to be "Cooooooooool!".

They can very much get traumatized if they feel an emotional connection to the animal in question.

Yeah. That is why you dont kill the animal in front of them. The zoo did not. It is also why you dont force them to see it. But just saying "hey kids, we are going to dissect a giraffe, you can watch if you want" weeds out the ones who might be traumatized. Those ones wont go.

[Grumman]

As for other options... what, the zoo that has his brother? Or the zoo that would require dangerous sedation for multiple hours and that is logistically difficult and stressful at the best of times, now doing it in fucking winter?

The problem wasn't time sensitive, was it? If moving the animal had been the best choice, waiting for better weather would have been an option worth considering.

[Batman]

They were invited to watch, not forced at gunpoint. Either the kids themselves or the people legally in a position to make them attend decided it was a good idea for them to attend, and I'm with Broomstick there. You wanna eat meat, somebody needs to be taken apart for it and the kids may as well know that's not a pretty process.

[Batman]

As for other options... what, the zoo that has his brother? Or the zoo that would require dangerous sedation for multiple hours and that is logistically difficult and stressful at the best of times, now doing it in fucking winter?

The problem wasn't time sensitive, was it? If moving the animal had been the best choice, waiting for better weather would have been an option worth considering.

Which wouldn't exactly have removed the problems of Marius needing to be sedated on account of being highly unlikely to lie down for transport, the stress factor and all the other complications associated with moving a giraffe, winter weather just made an already troublesome and hazardous operation somewhat more hazardous.