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?
Lack of audience questions and participation. Seeing a dissection on video and being able to observe and ask questions in real time are entirely different things. I of all people here would know, given that I have seen both with humans under the knife.
I mean this is hyperbole on my part but should kindergarteners be taken on tours of morgues and shown human autopsies too?
Maybe not in Kindergarten, because a five year old does not usually have a concrete grasp on death. I was 14 when I saw my first human cadaver dissection. Some people reacted badly to the preservative (the bodies were less than fresh, you see. Wintergreen scented), but other than that no issues. Sometime between those ages it would probably be OK. Depending on the kid in question.
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?
There is a difference between senseless "Will someone please think of the children!?" outrage over the parent's own issues, teaching kids to be afraid of a broad class of mostly non-dangerous things that includes some dangerous things, and teaching them about dangerous things.
Here, let me lay this out for you.
Unless adults teach their kids that this dissection is bad/evil/horrific/gross (whatever), the reaction of most kids (unless they were attached to the animal or have naturally squeamish temperments) will default to curiosity. They will ask questions. They will ask what that organ is and what it does, where the blood comes from, why they have long necks.
Now for snakes. Most snakes are not dangerous. At all. Children are not naturally afraid of snakes (you show a kid a corn snake at five and they love it. Ten years later that same kid is afraid of corn snakes. Yes, the fear research has been done on that. Gee, I wonder where that comes from?). It is responsible of adults to teach their kids that SOME snakes are dangerous and should not be messed with. However, the way this is often done is to pass on the parent's learned fear and hatred of ALL snakes. That is not how things should be done.
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.
Ah. I see you conflate "responsible parenting" with "instilling fear". As opposed to "instilling respect and caution". Good to know.
Irbis wrote:
He also questioned why the Copenhagen Zoo would keep breeding animals for which it didn't have room.
The zoo explained that. They keep their animals in mixed groups because they do better that way. Giraffe birth control is not a thing.
Hanna wrote:The Columbus Zoo would never put down an animal in this manner
What? Do they use crueler methods than a captive bolt? Because every zoo ever has to kill something from time to time.
On the other hand, while I do respect the work he did getting the Columbus Zoo... into the status of Not Being Horrific, the dude has no formal training in biology or animal husbandry. None. Even when he was the zoo director, the actual day to day business of the zoo would be left to subordinates who did.
Hanna said, and he wouldn't condone showing an animal consume another animal to children.
This coming from the man who hosted a nature documentary show for years that showed predation in the wild?
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."
Oh look. A self-contradiction.
Irbis wrote:
Do US zoos have different procedures or do they have the same and it is just damage control/foreign bashing?
The Columbus zoo might be a special snowflake.
Broomstick wrote: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.
Nailed it. On it, and Elephant transport.
