Cruel or the Circle of Life?

Shoulda just stopped feeding the lions and put 'em in with the giraffes. Evolution will help breed a better giraffe after that....





To me, the biggest issue is that they made it a public spectacle.

Yeah, why waste a bullet?

in the US we keep records of our own zoo animals genetics AND those of animals about the world (were they do such recording)> I understand that the little community of Denmark is not part of the world network of animal genetics.
Then to publically euthanize by "whacking" and then to publically butcher and feed the animal chunks to the carnivores is waay kinda weird.
In US euthanizing of animals with close genetics isn't an option, we would normally sterilize the animal and let it live its life out . We do euthanize for unanawerable health problems (like they had to euthanize a couple of cervids with CWD at the National Zoo a couple years ago). They did it behind gates and away from the public.

Zookeeping ala the 1900's style apparently still goes on in the world.

It said in the article that castration was not an option -- I wonder why it wasn't an option as you state that in the US you sterilize. To me that would have made the most sense.

The funny thing if you look at the picture with the kids and other people (love the kids being held on the parents' sholders to get a better view and the guy holding up a camera to get a great shot) watching this guy with a knife getting ready to butcher the giraffe no one seems upset or alarmed - more a look of curiousity, or interest like watching something new on TV. Just really odd the reaction of those looking on.

Oh I get it -- I found this quote in another news report...

The zoo said it had no choice other than to prevent the animal from attaining adulthood, stating that castration was considered cruel with "undesirable effects"

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/marius-the-giraffe-killed-at-copenhagen-zoo-and-fed-to-lions-20140210-hvbqt.html#ixzz2sxKK37co

OK so castration is cruel - but killing is not? I guess I am cruel to my dog then for getting him fixed.

Neither. Getting slaughtered for science, lion food, and a healthy giraffe geen pool is no part of any wild giraffe's natural circle of life. The most natural death for it is to have its intestines ripped out by a pack of lions while it is still a life. This is immeasurably more cruel than what happened in the Copenhagen zoo.

That's a poor analogy IMO. One-size-fits-all, re: castration is hardly a sound argument.
Different zoos have different missions.
If you have seen the popular movie, Life of Pi, there is a scene where Pi's father sacrifices a goat to show his son the dangers of being close to a tiger and the savagery that exists just under it's soft purrs.

I find it fascinating when Americans insist the whole world must be just like us.

Because they didn't have room for a grownup male. Once fully grown, he would have gotten into fights with his father until one of them would have killed the other. How is this option more humane than the one the Zoo chose?

I'm not necessarily saying it is cruel to kill the giraffe or not - hardly being a specialist in the area - I am simply questioning - is it or is it not?

In nature out of necessity animals need to kill as you so nicely describe. It is a necessity. In the zoo, it is not. Not saying the option they choose is the best or not, but a human killing an animal is quite a bit different than an animal killing in the wild for its survival. You really cannot compare the two.

Honestly I am at least ok if it was the best option to kill the giraffe to feed it to the lions as the meat is not wasted. But was there another option? What is the best option? If they don't want more giraffes then why did they have them reproduce in the first place? I mean isn't that why it is suggested to have your dogs fixed?

Unless this is their way supplying food to the other animals ...

The other thing I find funny is the billionaire who wanted to buy him and keep him in his garden. Ha - now that would be cruel.

Actually the reason they said that castration and other types of contraceptives were because of the side effects - not the fights with other males (I mean once you castrate they are no longer going to have the fight issue).

They state contraceptives or castrating could have unwanted side effects on their internal organs.

I would be curious as to why in the US according to farmerman above we successfully sterlize and in Europe they cannot?

And if it is the case that this is preferred way of handling the situation, why isn't the zoo simply stating that - I guess it sounds to me like they are making excuses rather than saying, this is our preferred way of handling it.

I guess to me, unless what farmerman is saying is wrong, it sounds like an excuse that they do not sterlize, or castrate rather than saying we find killing the animal and using it to feed others preferred than to sterlize and continue paying for the animals upkeep. I suspect that is the real reason.

Because giraffes have hydraulics, so they can't reach them.

I think that's what the vet said.

Maybe you have longer step ladders.

now that makes sense

Seriously, I don't know enough about this specific case to state an opinion, but I know this sort of thing goes on with other animals in zoos all the time.
It was possibly an educational thing when they fed the lions in front of kids? The real world right in front of their eyes, rather than the disney cotton wool cosy world that is all nice and touchy feely, but innacurate.

Rats are fed to snakes, crickets to lizards, chicken beef and lamb to big cats. It just makes people uncomfortable when it is a giraffe. If they were on the serengeti, they would see newborn giraffes struggling for all their worth to get up immediately, otherwise the creatures of the night get it.

It would have been nice to see it farmed out somewhere else in the perfect world, but what would that have entailed? A solitary existence? Below par care?

I'm a bit split on this one.

we have vet schools all over the place . The Philly Zoo has an ongoing relationship with the University of PEnnsylvania's vet school and they are always doing operations on the megafauna and exotics . The vet school near Chatham pa is always looking for training opportunities . We have our sheep herd inspected for parasites every so often by their tick borne disease center at New Bolton Center.

I imagine that every big time vet school in the US has a similar arrangement with zoos.

Anyway, the mere whacking of an animal at a zoo has NO place in the big plan unless the damn thing was a danger or had some relly contagious disease (looks like he wasn't one of those). You don't have to necessarily operate on megafauna to sterilize males. They have Gonadocon and Zeuterin as chemical neutering agents.

The state game commissions try to keep deer herds down in suburban areas by administering chemical sterilizing shots(Beats the hell out of paying for sharpshooters to "cull herds" every three years

Killing a healthy animal because it's inconvenient, although not hostile and not actively doing harm except by existing, indicates a lack of empathy. They should have spent the money to find it another home. By the way, acting like you don't know what I'm going on about will also indicate a lack of empathy. If you have the empathy, you don't have to ask why it would have been worth the money.

I think the parents oughta be consulted on such a "visual treat"
"Hey kids, were gonna go to the zoo and their gonna assassinate a
giraffe and the hack im up for fish foo"
The damn Kids 'll be in analyses for years.

This is how I feel too, though I can understand people thinking differently.
But there were several zoos that offered to take the giraffe, one willing to build it a separate area, and at least one non zoo person.

I'm not keen in any case re the whack job for feeding. If you must show children showing up at a zoo an anatomical lesson they might be unready for, real dissection would be in order. Seems that wasn't the mode, but I'm not sure. I somewhat know how to dissect animals, though not a giraffe - or I did know back in comparative anatomy, years ago. Perhaps a classroom-at-the-zoo setting, on such occasions, for all those pre med and pre-vets - not as a surprise a child sees all of a sudden. Or maybe there were tickets.

Compassion for life shouldn't be dictated by a political boundary. My life Is a daily dealing with animals that will be used for food in some time. We try to be good steward nd have our charges safe, warm, well fed and comfortable.
I think it was just a stupid move on behalf of the Copenhagen zoo. Stupidity and insensitivity. To then do the deeds in front of families with impressionable kids is doubly stupid and callous. Why not get all the Danes interested in NASCAR or take em all out to a hiway and watch accidents? Or take the kids to SNUFF movies.

Theres no excuse for the whole thing, you guys are not very street smart when it comes to stewardship of animals under RESPONSIBLE CARE.
The dudes involved should be severely reprimanded and maybe even terminated for ******* with the zoos own charter (Ill bet the zoos charter says something against behavior like that from a bunch of "professionals")

But why did they feel the need to kill and carve up the giraffe's corpse under the watchful eyes' of the general public? Don't they have closed doors they could do this behind?