Zoo kills healthy giraffe and feeds remains to carnivores

[Panzersharkcat]

Would you like me to describe the Sequential Planned Inbreeding? I can do that.

Yes, actually. It sounds interesting. Unless that was what went on with the antelope you mentioned. Then, you know, redundant.

[Flagg]

So now the zookeepers are getting death threats. It's a fucking Giraffe, people. Christ.

However I do think its sick that they did this in front of people and not in private or at least behind a screen.

[Darmalus]

However I do think its sick that they did this in front of people and not in private or at least behind a screen.

I'm curious why? From what I understand it was done so that only those who wanted to see the dissection would be there.

[Broomstick]

So now the zookeepers are getting death threats. It's a fucking Giraffe, people. Christ.

However I do think its sick that they did this in front of people and not in private or at least behind a screen.

And then they'd be accused of hiding something. No, really, full disclosure is good.

Seriously, people - at the age of 8 I was killing fish I caught and cleaning them (first time with assistance from dad) and while we didn't slaughter chickens mom bought them whole and at the same age I was butchering them, identifying and removing organs for specialty dishes, and prepping the rest for dinner. It used to be an accepted part of childhood training to teach kids these things, when did we start feeling a need to hide this stuff?

If you eat meat killing and butchering are done by someone. Hiding it doesn't make it go away.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

The weather just made an already dangerous stressful proposition worse. Then, there is the question of where you will move him to. The farther the travel distance, the more dangerous it is. His genes were already over-represented into the european zoo population. What is the alternative? Sedate him for days and ship him across the atlantic? Anesthesia is dangerous. There is a reason when you go for otherwise non risky surgery, there is an anesthesiologist in the room, and a code team standing by.

Yes, actually. It sounds interesting. Unless that was what went on with the antelope you mentioned. Then, you know, redundant.

It was

However I do think its sick that they did this in front of people and not in private or at least behind a screen.

Then they are "hiding something". Plus, it was in semi-public. Open to anyone who wants to watch, but not out in full view of passers by. The photos you see are of them moving the Giraffe. If for no other reason than you want better lighting than a cloudy day during the danish winter.

[LaCroix]

To double down on Aly's argument - you can't even safely sedate a horse for a transport - you risk death doing that. They could die of heart failure, there is a distinct chance of colic (which is bad for most herbivores), and you have a high risk of injuries because they would roll around, and/or kick around (because of stress induced by being unable to stand up - it's horror to them), breaking legs when hitting the trailer.

If you don't believe me about stress - it's a know fact that too light a sedation can make a lovey-dovey horse a deadly threat, fighting against anything you do, simply due to the panic of "I feel dizzy - somebody will eat me while I can't defend myself". With some medicaments (Sedalin, for instance) it is well known among riders that you have a fifty-fifty peaceful vs. fight for your life reaction - and that is the strongest sedation any vet would dare to use for a horse transport.

Now try this with an animal that has a 20 foot neck the sedated heart still needs to pump the blood trough, and has to lay down carefully even when awake because the drop would be high enough to break bones. Also, they are a species that isn't made for naps longer than ten minutes, (they rarely lay down for that) and do not sleep more than ~2 hours a day (Mostly due to being absolutely defenseless while lying down - so their stress level would be equal to a horse's). And on top, Having them lay down would put enourmous weight on their internal organs, with all the fun stuff this would cause on top of a digestive failure (colic) which is practically a given with an animal that size, and to put some icing on the shit-cake, they kick much, much harder than a horse...

Honestly, the only way to transport a giraffe is when it is still smaller than 3-4m tall, and still fits in a "normal" trailer. An adult couldn't even be safely walked out of the zoo&city without removing power lines and careful planing, they are that tall.

[Flagg]

The "hiding something" argument is compelling, but if you look at the pictures of them moving and cutting up the corpse, there are young children watching. Then again I guess it's nothing a young child growing up on a farm wouldn't see with pigs and cattle routinely so I'm probably just being over sensitive. I think "sick" is too strong a word and "inappropriate" would be more accurate. But that's my opinion and your mileage may vary.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The "hiding something" argument is compelling, but if you look at the pictures of them moving and cutting up the corpse, there are young children watching. Then again I guess it's nothing a young child growing up on a farm wouldn't see with pigs and cattle routinely so I'm probably just being over sensitive. I think "sick" is too strong a word and "inappropriate" would be more accurate. But that's my opinion and your mileage may vary.

It is in a semi-enclosed area. Unexpecting passers by wont see it. No kid who does not think anatomy is cool will stick around. No problem.

Seriously man, I was dissecting road kill and collecting skulls at that age. I still have trouble killing a vertebrate I know (unless it is euthanasia for humane purposes. Have had to do that a few times with road-struck snakes and turtles), but once it is dead? Pfft.

You are projecting your issues on kids. Kids are curious. You (and others) projecting such issues on kids and shielding them from this sort of thing crushes their curiosity. That is bad.

[Thanas]

You are projecting your issues on kids. Kids are curious. You (and others) projecting such issues on kids and shielding them from this sort of thing crushes their curiosity. That is bad.

I resent that characterization. It is both unfair and unfounded.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm.

Well, I must confess my ignorance of some of the specific difficulties of transporting large flighty ungulates, especially giraffes. I had sort of taken for granted that transporting a giraffe wasn't inherently harder than, say, transporting an elephant... which is difficult but can be DONE or circuses wouldn't make such a routine operation of it. That does change the calculation a good deal.

Also, Alyrium, while I accept the fundamental logic of the situation, I do hope you can understand why I find the situation... perverse, as I said. It goes against the grain for me to say "it is better to simply kill this creature than try to move it to another place where it would be welcome."

[Wing Commander MAD]

Out of curiosity what would the reason for keeping it this long be? Presumably, issues of genetic biodiversity would be known before-hand, so the probable need to cull the animal would be known. Is there a bonding period between mother and calf that normally lasts two years, and that which interrupting would be detrimental to the mother? Also, wouldn't it make more sense to kill the animal as soon as possible, and above all not give it a name which helps anthropomophize it, in the intervening time? I can't help but imagine if it hadn't been around for a period of time, presumably as an attraction at the zoo, and having gone so far as to have a publicly known name for the individual, there probably wouldn't be all the controversy.

[Scrib]

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.

The "hiding something" argument is compelling, but if you look at the pictures of them moving and cutting up the corpse, there are young children watching. Then again I guess it's nothing a young child growing up on a farm wouldn't see with pigs and cattle routinely so I'm probably just being over sensitive. I think "sick" is too strong a word and "inappropriate" would be more accurate. But that's my opinion and your mileage may vary.

Seriously man, I was dissecting road kill and collecting skulls at that age. I still have trouble killing a vertebrate I know (unless it is euthanasia for humane purposes. Have had to do that a few times with road-struck snakes and turtles), but once it is dead? Pfft.

Not gonna lie, my experience with dead animals has bred a certain amount of...impatience in me for Westerners and their selective disgust. Am I self-righteous? Surly. This is what happens to animals in our care. Sorry.

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with showing the reality of animal's biology and bondage. Kids should learn.If they don't want to learn they can not go. There's something extremely bizarre to me about the focus (not just on this forum) on this weird form of decorum where we can kill the thing, skin it and feed it to someone else, but in a manner that is PG-13. It's like a particularly weird code of chivalry or something, where the death is accepted but all these other tangential,meaningless rules must be followed to the letter lest we dirty ourselves with the reality. It's kinda like burning women so no one can see up their skirt no? (Don't know if this happened, don't care, sounds vaguely like something I once heard so I will use it)

[Flagg]

You know, I think my issue is mostly with the fact that the zoo handled it so badly that it's become a huge PR disaster. If they wanted transparency, videotape the culling, butchering, and then release it on their website for anyone to view after feeding the unidentifiable meat to the carnivore population.

It's the circus atmosphere and now the death threats that bother me, not that the kids were exposed to it the more I think about it.

[Scrib]

You know, I think my issue is mostly with the fact that the zoo handled it so badly that it's become a huge PR disaster. If they wanted transparency, videotape the culling, butchering, and then release it on their website for anyone to view after feeding the unidentifiable meat to the carnivore population.

It's the circus atmosphere and now the death threats that bother me, not that the kids were exposed to it the more I think about it.

Given the aformentioned PR issue wouldn't videotaping it STILL run into these problems? Once someone creates a PR shitstorm that argument (that it's giraffesploitation) will always be there.

As for the whole circus thing:YMMV obviously. It is definitely an attraction,I just don't see much wrong with it. Different strokes.

[Flagg]

You know, I think my issue is mostly with the fact that the zoo handled it so badly that it's become a huge PR disaster. If they wanted transparency, videotape the culling, butchering, and then release it on their website for anyone to view after feeding the unidentifiable meat to the carnivore population.

It's the circus atmosphere and now the death threats that bother me, not that the kids were exposed to it the more I think about it.

Given the aformentioned PR issue wouldn't videotaping it STILL run into these problems? Once someone creates a PR shitstorm that argument (that it's giraffesploitation) will always be there.

As for the whole circus thing:YMMV obviously. It is definitely an attraction,I just don't see much wrong with it. Different strokes.

I eat meat and have forced myself to watch the animals I eat being slaughtered and butchered. I won't eat the meat of an animal I won't watch being killed and butchered. I think putting ones head in the sand about the realities of life and death is at best dangerously naive and at worst downright immoral. I've never seen a mammal slaughtered in person however and I'm sure it's a much different experience (I've killed and plucked and gutted a chicken before) because you get the smell of the blood and shit and piss, and the reek of the offal. And to do that publicly while laudable for its transparency... I dunno. I have more of an issue with the circus like atmosphere it created than with the actions themselves. In fact I don't take issue with the actions as far as the culling, butchering, and feeding of the giraffe to other animals. It's life.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You are projecting your issues on kids. Kids are curious. You (and others) projecting such issues on kids and shielding them from this sort of thing crushes their curiosity. That is bad.

I resent that characterization. It is both unfair and unfounded.

Based on what? Do you happen to have extensive experience showing children things that adults are afraid of/disturbed by? I do.

Snakes: fear is learned
Spiders: fear is learned
Dissection: the "eww gross" reaction is learned.

Kids take their cues on these things from adults. If the adult shields their eyes or something like that, the kid picks that up as "this is something bad".

Take a look at the video in the OP. Do those kids look terrified to you? No. They are fascinated. Your "this is not appropriate for children" response is YOUR squeamishness. Not any sort of trauma inflicted upon them by what they see.

Out of curiosity what would the reason for keeping it this long be? Presumably, issues of genetic biodiversity would be known before-hand, so the probable need to cull the animal would be known. Is there a bonding period between mother and calf that normally lasts two years, and that which interrupting would be detrimental to the mother?

11 months to ween. I am not sure on the exact procedure. I suspect there was a genetic audit that revealed the over-prevalence of his lineage in the european zoo population. Then the Danes had to decide on a course of action in consultation with the zoo association, then go through their animal ethics committee.

I had sort of taken for granted that transporting a giraffe wasn't inherently harder than, say, transporting an elephant... which is difficult but can be DONE or circuses wouldn't make such a routine operation of it. That does change the calculation a good deal.

Each animal is a bit different. Elephants in circuses are accustomed to being transported. You dont want to do it with effectively wild elephants.

You know, I think my issue is mostly with the fact that the zoo handled it so badly that it's become a huge PR disaster. If they wanted transparency, videotape the culling, butchering, and then release it on their website for anyone to view after feeding the unidentifiable meat to the carnivore population.

It's the circus atmosphere and now the death threats that bother me, not that the kids were exposed to it the more I think about it.

Oh come on. Zoos do cull animals. While it is not routine, it is pretty common (not something that happens every day, but any given zoo will need to do it from time to time). This is something that got told to the press (not necessarily by the zoo), and the press went wild. Read the articles. The writing style betrays that their intentions are not mere reporting.

Take a look at the reuters video. What the zoo is doing, is dissecting the giraffe in front of an audience while explaining why it was done, and then giving a live lecture on giraffe anatomy. For fuck's sake, the BBC has a documentary series on the dissection of megafauna, often performed out in the open on public beaches (because there is no other way of dissecting a beached whale...)

[madd0ct0r]

for the record, my comment 'those kids look so traumatised' was sarcasm.

it was voluntary attendance, parental discretion yadda yadda yadda. Kids should see things like this.

[mr friendly guy]

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.

I just figured 1/2 to 2/3 chance of survival is better than zero. Look I can understand the arguments about preserving the species, but if we the point of keeping a stock of animals is in case things turn bad in the wild, by gradually increasing the numbers in the wild the need to keep a stock is lessened.

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.[/quote]

[Irbis]

So now the zookeepers are getting death threats. It's a fucking Giraffe, people. Christ.

One thing I wonder about is this quote:

Zookeeper and TV personality Jack Hanna, who is also director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium in Ohio, joined the chorus of outrage Monday, calling the Copenhagen Zoo's decision "the most abominable, insensitive, ridiculous thing I've ever heard of."

He also questioned why the Copenhagen Zoo would keep breeding animals for which it didn't have room. The Columbus Zoo would never put down an animal in this manner, Hanna said, and he wouldn't condone showing an animal consume another animal to children.

"I know it's natural in nature. I'm not an idiot," he said, "but I don't need to have some 2- and 3- and 6-year-olds -- they cannot understand at that age. You understand they don't understand nature. They haven't been to Africa, so that's what we do at the zoos. We try to educate people at zoos on what happens in the wild."

Do US zoos have different procedures or do they have the same and it is just damage control/foreign bashing?

[Flagg]

Hey AD, what part of my last post are you trying to refute? What is the big difference between doing exactly what they did in the middle of a crowd of curious onlookers only behind closed doors and on video? Desensitizing kids to carnage? I mean this is hyperbole on my part but should kindergarteners be taken on tours of morgues and shown human autopsies too?

And as to your point about teaching kids what to be afraid of... Are you fucking serious? Do you not think adults should teach kids that maybe fucking with a poisonous spider or snake is dangerous or do you just not have an issue with kids getting seriously injured or killed? Because I went to school with a kid that had a pet Pygmy rattler as a pet and when he went to milk it one day it bit above the protective glove and not only did he lose a bunch of flesh to necrosis, his idiot mother had a heart attack over it and died. But hey, let's not teach kids what to be afraid of! Fucking dink.

[Scrib]

You know, I think my issue is mostly with the fact that the zoo handled it so badly that it's become a huge PR disaster. If they wanted transparency, videotape the culling, butchering, and then release it on their website for anyone to view after feeding the unidentifiable meat to the carnivore population.

It's the circus atmosphere and now the death threats that bother me, not that the kids were exposed to it the more I think about it.

Given the aformentioned PR issue wouldn't videotaping it STILL run into these problems? Once someone creates a PR shitstorm that argument (that it's giraffesploitation) will always be there.

As for the whole circus thing:YMMV obviously. It is definitely an attraction,I just don't see much wrong with it. Different strokes.

I eat meat and have forced myself to watch the animals I eat being slaughtered and butchered. I won't eat the meat of an animal I won't watch being killed and butchered. I think putting ones head in the sand about the realities of life and death is at best dangerously naive and at worst downright immoral. I've never seen a mammal slaughtered in person however and I'm sure it's a much different experience (I've killed and plucked and gutted a chicken before) because you get the smell of the blood and shit and piss, and the reek of the offal. And to do that publicly while laudable for its transparency... I dunno. I have more of an issue with the circus like atmosphere it created than with the actions themselves. In fact I don't take issue with the actions as far as the culling, butchering, and feeding of the giraffe to other animals. It's life.

I hear you. It simply doesn't register emotionally with me. The "it's like a circus" argument just can't find purchase on my soul because it's you verbalizing a squeamishness I simply do not possess. I think that this should be public, I think that kids -with parental supervision- should be exposed to the world they so happily live in*. So it looking like a circus (which it will do to you if the above happen) just doesn't resonate because I see nothing wrong with it. So, like I said before, YMMV. Quite frankly after the killing and culling and breeding of animals it just seems so...trivial a complaint.

*Perhaps we should show adults where their iPhones come from? Just a thought.

[Broomstick]

Well, I must confess my ignorance of some of the specific difficulties of transporting large flighty ungulates, especially giraffes. I had sort of taken for granted that transporting a giraffe wasn't inherently harder than, say, transporting an elephant... which is difficult but can be DONE or circuses wouldn't make such a routine operation of it. That does change the calculation a good deal.

While elephants are unquestionably heavy creatures they aren't as tall as giraffes, in fact, they're half the height of a full grown giraffe, which reduces one of the complications of moving them. Elephants are also less flighty/prone to spook. A giraffe has only two defenses: "kick" and "run like hell". Elephants, on the other hand, not only have a retreat option but they have natural weapons in the form of tusks, extremely thick hide, and have been known to stand their ground or even go on the offensive. I am guessing this makes them less inclined to panic. They have options other than "FLEE!".

Elephants are also more social animals than giraffes. Adult giraffes don't seem to have a lot of bonding between them. Elephants do, they will work cooperatively, they will defend each other, and have decades-long relationships. This can transfer to human handlers who, when transporting an elephant, can act as a reassuring presence for the animal. Since you're never going to force an animal the size and strength of an elephant to do what you want having a relationship with a handler that can ask the elephant to do something is vitally important, but also makes transporting them much easier (though the process still have inherent difficulties). Giraffes do not form such bonds with people.

And, as noted, circus elephants are accustomed from an early age to frequent transport. There is a routine, their trailers are familiar, and they are with a "herd" of other elephants, people, and animals. This is a lot different than transporting an inherently more skittish, more physically fragile, lone animal that has never been moved before.

Transporting a wild-caught adult elephant, separated from its herd, probably mad as hell, that doesn't know or trust human beings would, of course, be incredibly difficult and hazardous.

[Flagg]

So now the zookeepers are getting death threats. It's a fucking Giraffe, people. Christ.

One thing I wonder about is this quote:

Zookeeper and TV personality Jack Hanna, who is also director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium in Ohio, joined the chorus of outrage Monday, calling the Copenhagen Zoo's decision "the most abominable, insensitive, ridiculous thing I've ever heard of."

He also questioned why the Copenhagen Zoo would keep breeding animals for which it didn't have room. The Columbus Zoo would never put down an animal in this manner, Hanna said, and he wouldn't condone showing an animal consume another animal to children.

"I know it's natural in nature. I'm not an idiot," he said, "but I don't need to have some 2- and 3- and 6-year-olds -- they cannot understand at that age. You understand they don't understand nature. They haven't been to Africa, so that's what we do at the zoos. We try to educate people at zoos on what happens in the wild."

Do US zoos have different procedures or do they have the same and it is just damage control/foreign bashing?

I assume this is directed at me. I have no fucking clue. It could be a bit of both but I think his point about breeding animals for which they didn't have room may be a good argument, but I'm no authority on zoo operations. I agree with some of what Hanna is saying from a moral standpoint, but as I've stated I really have no issue with the zoo culling, butchering, and feeding the giraffe to their carnivorous animals. I just take issue with the manner in which they went about it. Seeing as how it's totally blown up in their face it doesn't seem like they made the right call as far as carving the dead beast up in front of toddlers.

[Irbis]

Hey AD, what part of my last post are you trying to refute? What is the big difference between doing exactly what they did in the middle of a crowd of curious onlookers only behind closed doors and on video? Desensitizing kids to carnage?

For one, the fact the zoo can't control who sees it on video, but can collect explicit agreements from all people present at autopsy? Do you think they forced anyone to watch?

I was a bit uneasy about autopsy part, but upon rethinking it after reading this thread, I'd probably watch it too. My parents and grandparents did "autopsies" of fish, chicken and rabbits for dinner occasionally as long as I remember, and while I rarely looked at it (it's kind of disgusting) I am familiar with the process and I don't think it traumatized me in any way.

I assume this is directed at me.

No? Was just genuinely curious if anyone knows the answer.

[Broomstick]

Do US zoos have different procedures or do they have the same and it is just damage control/foreign bashing?

US zoos have more ROOM. Not always in the sense of their physical footprint, but there is ample space in the US to set up large animal sanctuaries for unwanted/unneeded animals including African megafauna. There would still be the risk of transport, but once you get past there actually are places for something the size of a giraffe. An animal like Maurius would be less likely to displace another animal.

The other thing to remember is Jack Hana is just one person, he has a sizable ego, and his own bias. He does not speak for all zoos in the US.