The Copenhagen Giraffe

I just feel sad that a young, healthy animal with its whole life ahead of it will now not get the opportunity to live that life through no fault of its own. I know it's not logical, but then I wouldn't eat veal either for the very same reason.

The reason I don't think there was any abuse of trust is because a giraffe, even one born in a zoo, is still a wild animal, not a domesticated one like a family dog or cat which does, one hopes, "trust" its human owners, though certainly not in all cases. I think that assuming it's the same trust between a wild zoo animal and its keepers is the anthropomorphism that anno mentioned, as is the minding its being fed to lions once dead. Plus the fact that nobody would have minded if it had been a rat.

It's a difficult one. The Copenhagen zoo had a valid point when they said thatthe British zoo who offered it a home should be taking in a more genetically useful giraffe. The main purpose of zoos should be to further the whole species. They shouldn't be just places for us to go and look at the animals.

It's the publicity that is upsetting. There was no need to butcher the animal in front of an audience. When surplus beef calves are sent for slaughter the general public is not invited.

Don't think it was a great idea to let those kids watch the autopsy. There are some weird people in this world. Mostly in other countries, thank the Lord.

crossed posts there merlotgran

This debate has probably run its course but I found the following link interesting. It seems that the Yorkshire Wildlife Park offered to take the giraffe to join their bachelor herd of male giraffes, so no danger of inbreeding. One of their giraffes came from the Danish zoo when he was the same age as Marius. It seems to me there was no good reason for the Danish zoo to refuse this offer. Not for them to say the wildlife park should have taken 'a genetically more important giraffe' whatever that means, since they are not breeding there anyway.

m.thestar.co.uk/news/giraffe-put-down-despite-attemtps-from-yorkshire-wildlife-park-to-save-him-1-6428310

Just read that 6 lions, a male, a female and four cubs were put down at Longleat Safari Park over this winter

There's a pattern here. If zoos or wildlife parks aren't prepared to keep animals then they have to limit their breeding programme.

I think people are giving zoo animals the same status as family pets. Aren't zoos run as businesses? Not saying I approve of that, or even of zoos (my feelings about zoos have always been ambivalent and still are), but it does make a difference. Zoos probably can't afford to keep geriatric animals, probably don't have the space either.

Zoos are animal displays for the public to pay for. The public probably doesn't want to look at old, sick animals.

[devil's advocate emoticon]

Cubs are not geriatric Bags. This is about irresponsible breeding.

It could be that this particular zoo is intensely into protecting wildlife species, in which case they might have had no patience with another zoo wanting to take up a giraffe 'space' with a genetically unimportant animal. They are saying they want a wider species of gene pool giraffes to be brought back.

I would think they are not at all like our "cuddly animals" type of zoo. That would be why they demonstrated the autopsy to the public. Because it's what they are all about.

On this occasion they were to full of their own worthiness. IMO.

They gave (sold) another of their giraffes to that particular zoo previously jingl so what's different this time?

I'm bowing out now too. There's a fundamental difference on this thread in our views about animals. I don't like zoos but I think as long as they exist they have a responsibility to breed responsibly. And I don't think that includes wilfully destroying healthy animals after they have been born.

Aka, I haven't eaten veal for donkey's years, and in fact I don't eat a lot of meat at all any more - it just somehow goes against the grain. The bear facts are that this giraffe was bred for one purpose only, to MAKE money when he was a baby, (fluffy bunny ahhhhh draws the crowds) and to SAVE money when he had outgrown THAT purpose, by feeding him to the Lions! All pre-planned! otherwise, why breed him in the first place? and if he was a mistake(?!!) why not let another Zoo/wildlife park outside this particular gene pool take him, even insisting on castrating him first if breeding was a concern. I understand that someone in America was willing to house him and pay ALL necessary bills to do so, but that too was refused!1 well! I wonder why?!!! hungry lions I guess!!!
This IS my final word, I'm now off to walk my elderly, nearly blind spaniel!

If you look at pictures of him he is surrounded by other young giraffes, so they must breed an awful lot of them. I'm still pondering about it, though. It's very much a culture thing as well, I think. I mean, look how we reacted over here to poor Victor when he went down. And I can't imagine children in this country wanting to stand up close to an animal that was being hacked to pieces. It's all very perplexing.

aka, if the story really is about irresponsible breeding, then I will add my voice to those who decry that. I'm not yet convinced that that is what the story is about. I'll try and read the relevant portioon of the zoo's website again to see if that throws more light on things.

And yes, I know the young giraffe wasn't geriatric, but someone mentioned letting animals live their lives out, presumably meaning into old age when they were past their public "use by" age. Sorry to put it so bluntly. As I said, I'm not a fervent supporter of zoos anyhow and all this troubles me too but if zoos are run as businesses for public 'consumption' rather than as animal sanctuaries there will always be unpleasant realities like this to face, I think.

Since it was food for the lions, at least this young giraffe was not "wasted".

The zoo website till won't load. There are some comments in the Australian press that seem to be coming from a similar perspective to mine. This, for instance:

"
Zoos don't take these kinds of decisions lightly. I'm not sure about the people involved in this particular case, but in general, zoos genuinely care for their animals. Animals are culled in the wild, and in captivity - this one just happened to make it to the news because the zoo is being open and honest about it, and offered interested members of the public access to what usually happens behind closed doors.

There is nothing wrong with an autopsy being on public display. People had the choice to view or not to view the autopsy. And with regards to children viewing it - that is entirely up to the parents. Much more horrific things can be seen on TV.

I think the issue here is that people feel a giraffe is a higher life form than the cows or the pigs slaughtered to feed the lions. What's the difference?

If the giraffe is surplus to breeding requirements (and my understanding is this is a species of giraffe with quite a healthy population), what choice od you have? Risk inbreeding (google the horrific white tiger inbreeding stories & how many are put down), or euthanase the animal and put the meat to good use?

I'm all for a zoo using surplus, non-endangered animals for meat. It's no different to the zoo purchasing cow or goat or pig meat, except that the animal is raised in conditions that are likely to be better than farmed meat."

They could not have kept him any longer. Giiraffes live in a herd containing either one alpha male and a lot of females, or in a bachelor herd. The males become sexually mature at about 2 years old, and are chased out of the breeding herd by the boss as soon as they start showing an interest in the girls. One lad at Edinburgh zoo was eighteen months old, and being kept just with an older female (not his mother) until he could be shipped out. She produced a foal.

So he would have had to leave anyway. It sounds as though there was not anyway suitable willing to take him. There are strict regulations on (good) zoos which are members of EAZA, and none of them would accept an animal they could not look after properly. I know nothing about the British one which offered, but I assume they could not do so.

European Endangered Species Program

Castration would involve anesthesia, which is dodgy with giraffes. Their blood pressure is tricky, with that long neck, and they often do not come out of the anesthetic. Even trimming their feet needs them to be knocked out, as it stressed them, they are rather prima donnas.

I don't like the public killing and dissection, it is a bit too near sensationalism for me. It should have been done before relevant observers and data recorded for the future, but not in front of the public. However, I don't feel it was cruel, once the decision had been made, to put him down instantaneously while he was happy and relaxed.

I am surprised that the meat was fed to other animals. That would not be permitted in this country, probably to prevent any breeding of youngsters just for predator food. Incidentally, a lot of day-old male chicks and specially bred mice are fed to the smaller carnivores (they must be dead first) All battery hens must be female (obviously) but the chicks which are hatched as replacemants by egg-producers are bothe female and male. What should happen to the male chicks?

Thanks, Elegran. Wasn't the problem with Victor that, having gone down he couldn't then get back up again [giraffes spending their lives on their feet]? I know a lot of horses die after operations, not due to the operation itself but when they come round and stand up [although they now have various ways and means of making it safer].

lioness and her cubs 'culled' at Longleat

This is irresponsible breeding Bags. Lions can easily be sterilised.

I know that they get them onto their feet as soon as they can, they are just not designed for lying down with their heads low. No animal is designed to be anaesthetised, actually, you can't tell them to take it easy as they come round, that they will be dizzy. That is why they train animals to open their mouths and to present their feet one by one for inspection, so that any small problem can be fixed at once without the need for an operation. It is also why sometimes an amimal is put down which does not appear to an outrsider to be particularly ill - it is not easy to nurse a large cat back to health when it is is in pain, dizzy from anaesthetic, and distinctly annoyed.

Please show evidence of the 'ease' of sterilising lionesses. At the moment, I'm agreeing with elegran, that it probably isn't easy at all. Lions are not pussy cats.

I think this has been a valuable story in showing people something more of how zoos work, and that zoo animals are not like family pets but more like farm animals only more difficult to deal with because they are not domesticated – mainly because they can't be domesticated. c/f Jared Diamond's books.

If you don't want lionesses to breed, you give them contraceptive implants - not sterilise them - under anaesthetic, with all the possible attendant problems.

I do agree, though, that it souinds as though the management of these two prides of lions could have been better. The population explosion could not have been all that sudden - we are not told how many cubs over what length of time.

Perhaps all the lionesses got successfully pregnant at about the same time? It would not be obvious until near the deliveries, as lionesses do not exactly wilt around saying that they have morning sickness.

I don't know how the Longleat lions are managed in general, so I will not comment.

Longleat is a member of BIAZA and EAZA. Copenhagen is a member of EAZA.

Henry had been vasectomised and I don't imagine he was the only male to be sterilised. And of course lions are not pussy cats (?) but they are anaethesthised like any old pussy cat. However I said lions not lionesses.

Seems to me you are trying to avoid the main issue. Why were four cubs put down?

Simple, they were surplus to requirements.