The Copenhagen Giraffe

I think seeing a baby in a herd as an individual money spinner is the wrong way of looking at it. A herd is a herd is a herd, and by definition it contains babies. Without babies it is just a group of sterile females, with a frustrated male overseeing them.

Keep educating us, elegran . I'm enjoying it.

Pecking order seems commone in species that live in groups.

Re the African hunting dogs (aren't all wild dog species hunters?), I've seen film footage of that kind of behaviour. Can't remember what species it was, but there was certainly an order of eating. Am I mistaken in thinking the same applies to lion prides?

To continue The second aim (after education and information) is being prepared for the possibility of returning animals to the wild. That takes much time and care (not to mention money) so which individual would be best to release? One that has the best chance of its own survival and the best for the strength and viability of its genetic heritance for its progeny.

There may be no immediate need or possibility of releasing a given group back into its habitat (if that survives) but the future may not be as secure for its species. Did you know that one prediction is that chimpanzees could be extinct in ten or fifteen years because of the conflict of their needs with that of other species (man) who are taking over their habitat?

So yes, genetic concerns may well have featured in the decision not to keep this individual. It has happened before and will happen again. You can't say that animals should be returned to the wild without making sure that you do the best job possible of that return. If the returned group do not thrive, you have wasted time, trouble and, yes, money , for nothing.

There are other complications with preventing births. Sterilising the females and putting in contraceptive implants (with attendant anaesthesia risks) alters their behaviour and their hormones and affects their health. They are likely not to act naturally in the herd, or not smell right to the male (the male giraffe is very sensitive to female hormones - he checks his harem frequently by sniffing and licking them to see whether they are about to come into season) If there is a plan for females to breed in future years, they are far more likely to both become pregnant and be able to look after the young ones effectively if they have born young once already - the first time round they can be a bit useless at looking after the baby.

Thatbags I have seen a whole wild boar (dead) fed to a group of four African painted hunting dogs - two male and two female. Seeing them deal with it was a very instructive experience.

Boss Dog and Mrs Boss Dog ate first, starting with the juicy inside bits, then tearing chunks off and rapidly chewing at them and swallowing them down. Boss Dog was not very gallant, grabbing the best bits and growling, but he permitted his dearly beloved to eat as much as she wanted of the rest.

When they had had their fill they slowed down, still nibbling. Meanwhile the other two prowled around them at a respectful distance, slavering and anxious and clearly desperate to get at it. Every few minutes one of them would try to dart in and grab something, to be snarled and growled at and forced back to circle round again.

Eventually Mr and Mrs Boss retired for a little siesta, and Mr and Mrs Underling moved smartly in to finish off the remains. They ate very quickly, to get down as much as possible before Boss Dog returned to check whether he could manage any more ( "just a leetle waferrrrr" ) and chased them off again.

No, not that sort of money as you say the organisation concerned would have paid all those expenses, easily recouped particularly with summer round the corner and the visitors out and about. No, I have a sneaking suspicion that this little boy's card was marked before he was born as they must have known that his genes would be incompatible with any breeding programme, so perhaps he was a money spinner when he was a baby, and a money saver when he grew too big, or, perhaps he was deliberately bred for purposes of genetic research when he was old enough, and fed to the lions as a by product of this! Otherwise why on earth breed him in the first place, and if you have by mistake, why on earth not let him go. In the park in Yorkshire apparently there is a giraffe in their male group who came from Denmark, so if he can why not this baby?! hidden agenda? Ummmmm!!

Today I have been at a conservation class at my local zoo, and this was the first topic to be raised. I have learnt:-

Modern zoos aim to educate the public, so that they are not ignorant of the diversity of the lifestyles of the animals we share the world with, and to provide a reservoir of good genetic material for returning to the wild. For instance, they demonstrate that many animals do not follow the neat Mum/Dad/2.3 children pattern. In a giraffe herd with one male leader and many females, there are a lot of surplus males born, who struggle to get a chance to breed. Those who do not succeed spend their lives with other surplus males.

In the breeding herd, one dominant male mates with all the females of breeding age. The young are generally born round about the same time, as the females are all receptive at more or less the same time. He repeats this the next year, while his daughters from the previous year are too young to conceive. Meanwhile he chases out the young males who are approaching breeding age and getting too big for their boots. They go of to form or join a bachelor herd (visions of heavy drinking and Balti take-aways) which loses contact with the parents and could move a long way away.

After a couple of years of successful breeding, our original patriarch is aging a bit, and when a bold explorer from a passing bachelor herd chances his luck, he could replace Big Daddy and chase him off. He then mates with all those mothers and daughters, bringing in new genes to the herd.

To be continued

A not very hidden 'agenda' could be to remind people that young giraffe meat is natural lion food, along with zebra and wildebeest, among others.

I don't see why children seeing lions eating meat that's already been butchered (cut up when dead) is thought to be distressing. I don't think most children are distressed by seeing, say, their parents eating meat. What's the difference other than that humans usually cook it first (and sometimes use cutlery)?

Nellie Have you any theories about what the hidden agenda might be. It can't be money - surely the receiving organisation would pay the costs?

£20,000 is 2,000 visitors @ £10 each. For one animal in hundreds on display.

One of the zoos which would have taken him was in the States. Today I heard an informed estimate that it would cost at least £20,000 to transport a giraffe there. Perhaps that is why that option did not happen. I don't know why he could not go to Yorkshire Wildlife Park, neither did my informant.

I can perfectly understand feeding dead animals to the carnivores in the various zoos/wildlife parks. Our poor old horse when the time came was dispatched by the local huntsman, who was wonderful, and kindness itself, and fed to the hounds at the local kennels, again a case of waste not want not, all fair enough. But all along with this little giraffe I have had a sneaking feeling of a hidden agenda, otherwise why not let him go to one of the good homes offered to him, even castrating him first if they were worried about breeding, although I'm sure that wherever he had gone the people concerned would have been responsible enough to keep him in a bachelor group and well out of temptations way!!! - It stinks!!

I told my daughter about this today [it was the first she'd heard of it] and she was horrified. Although we both agreed that, as he had died it was better to use his body as food but in no way should they have made a public spectacle of his autopsy [especially in front of children].We also agreed that they had euthanised him in a humane way [eg if you compare it to what happens to animals going to abattoirs for slaughter].And both of us questioned why he had been born in the first place. It's good in a way that the zoo went public about it in that lessons will [hopefully] have been learned.

Killing him was unnecessary. First of all, two very good wildlife parks WANTED to take him.....in male bachelor groups so there was no chance of this supposed 'inbreeding'. Secondly, they admitted he could have been castrated, so again there was no inbreeding problem.
What their real reason for killing him was, I don't know, but it clearly wasn't anything to do with the quoted 'European Rules' on inbreeding. I found it very sad that they chose to kill him when there were other options; it quite upset me.
By the way all zoos and wildlife parks will feed dead animals to their carnivores and that is perfectly acceptable in my view. In front of children tho? Not my children or grandchildren; they don't need to see that.I am all for teaching them the realities of life; that doesn't mean they have to see it at close quarters.

I know things have improved in Zoos out of all recognition (well maybe!) over the years, but even so for me it is still a case of 'Robin Redbreast in a cage'. and for that reason I don't like Zoo's. Wild life Parks are a big improvement, but even so I think rehabilitation back into designated areas is by far the best programmes devised by humans and offer these creatures as much protection as we can. The work done in various countries is magnificent and they get my help and support every time. Breeding and killing surplus animals whatever their breed certainly does not!

I am a fairly frequent visitor to Chester Zoo, which is big on conservation and research. They have a group of Rothschild giraffes, of which there are only a few hundred left in the wild. They sign up to the same European breeding programme as do Copenhagen zoo and according to their website, have a successful programme and have sent some giraffes to other zoos. You can also 'adopt' a giraffe, amongst other animals. Individuals have adopted, but also many primary school classes, cub packs and so on. I imagine sponsorship would fall if people thought that 'their' giraffe was going to be publicly butchered and fed to the lions!

The only two I've visited in the last 20years are the zoo on Jersey founded by Gerald Durrell for conservation which is very successful in conserving and reestablishing endangered species, and Slimbridge of which I'm a member and bought membership for DD's family. DGD loves it there and is always up for a visit. Her favourites are the otters and flamingoes.

Iam64 This issue is one that has received a lot of attention. Far more is known now than used to be the case about the importance of suitable space and mental stimulation for animals.

The Highland Wildlife Park has two young male polar bears (Walker and Arktos) who live in a four-acre enclosure with a large natural pool. They are very active, play wrestling with each other, swimming, sliding down the hill, and generally behaving in a natural way. They have trees and bushes and rocks. They also have "toys" - tyres hung from trees, a plastic milk crate, and a series of builders' hard hats - a series because they destroy them very quickly.

Things have improved a lot since the old idea of bare concrete cages where there was nothing to do and nowhere to go.

On the contrary, nigglynellie, conservation is at the heart of modern zoo philosophy. Many people have an outdated image of zoos, not having visited one for thirty years or more.

Conservation and education are the two pillars of my local zoo's mission 'to excite and inspire our visitors with the wonder of living animals, and so to promote the conservation of threatened species and habitats.' It is a registered charity, and all income which is not used in running, maintaining and improving the animals and facilities is devoted to conservation projects.

There are no expensive tiers of management, and no shareholders to expect dividends. There is no income except gate money and members' subscriptions (no state subsidy) and when there is no income at all (as during the foot and mouth epidemic, when the zoo was closed to visitors, or in long spells of bad weather) all the expenses are as usual.

If you would like a link to more details of the conservation projects supported, do ask.

DEFRA have a chapter on the subject of zoos and conservation http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/zoos/documents/zoo-handbook/2.pdf

The subject of zoos is one one of my 'very difficult' lists. As you young sw I was once part of a group of 3 workers, and several children. You can imagine how long ago this was, because we were given a day to spend with a couple of children from our case loads, who needed a bit of a change (one way of putting it). The two male sw I worked with had already decided on Chester Zoo. The day was positive in terms of relationships with children,and their parents. We didn't lose any of them, always a relief. The thing that stayed with the 3 workers was the obvious distress of the one polar bear. He lived in a tiny, concrete enclosure, with access to a pool, which was possibly one and a half times his body length. The bear walked the length of his enclosure, turned swung his head several times, walked the length of his enclosure, turned swung his head several times, constantly. It was very distressing. We were all designated mental health social workers in those days, with a generic caseload. We three workers all agreed the bear was mentally ill, definitely depressed and in need of help. Two weeks later, we saw in the press that the bear had 'drowned' in his pool. We firmly believed he'd committed suicide.

It's obvious from reading these posts that some of us poles apart on this subject. Whether to sterilise or not, sentiment or not and so it goes on. Quite frankly from where I'm sitting that little giraffe should never have been born in the fist place, how to prevent that? well, I would have thought keeping boys away from girls, except where there is a proper selected pair to breed from, could be the answer, result, no unwanted, incompatible, surplus to requirements babies. Seems a simple solution to me, but perhaps I'm wrong. I can't help feeling too, that wild animals are best left where nature intended them to be, in the wild; sure they would become extinct but then so did others before them, to be replaced by future creatures, as has happened in the past, and perhaps as nature intends. Even with the best of intentions captivity is unnatural for these creatures, and, if we are honest, done mainly as money spinners with conservation to appease our conscious!!

Aka you hit the nail on the head when you spoke about the fundamental differences in attitudes to animals on this thread, which was the reason I bowed out earlier (but couldn't stay out). It's not about anthropomorphism (which incidentally has more to do with making cartoons or Disney movies where animals can speak than merely being sentimental about animals) or about being over emotional. I know that from a very early age I felt more of an affinity with animals of other species than some of my friends or other adults seemed to feel. I don't mean I felt I had any special powers, but I felt very aware that we were all 'in it together' so to speak. I don't believe humans are anything special as a species. I favour them over others but that's because I am one. But I don't believe we have any right to subjugate any other species for any purpose. I dont claim that I live perfectly by this ideal but I try. So perhaps my way of looking at Marius the giraffe is more extreme than most people's on here, which is why I'm bowing out yet again.

Whatever!

Thank you again, elegran. Also, iam. I've been thinking "red herrings" as I ate my breakfast.

I agree about cruelty being distressing. On the subject of the Copenhagen giraffe, I feel sure from all I've seen about the story, that he was not subjected to cruelty by his carers. Misfortune perhaps, depending on one's viewpoint, but not cruelty.