The Copenhagen Giraffe

I don't know why four cubs were put down, Aka, because I am not psychic. I am not avoiding the question, merely saying that I cannot comment without more facts. I shall see whether I can find out tomorrow from a reputable source I have, and will report back then.

Meanwhile Longleat has said that it was "after an increase in pregnancies, which staff said had caused "excessive violent behaviour" and "a lioness and her cubs were suffering from "neurological development disorders" and ruled euthanasia was the "responsible option".

So it looks as though they were put down because of their behaviour. In the wild the extra animals would move out and fight amongst themselves. That is not possible in a limited space where visitors could get hurt.

It apears that Henry was seriously injured, and that Louisa had passed on faulty genes to her cubs, which probably were in her because of the inbreeding of her ancestors. A search has shown an abnormal proportion of brain tumours in her relatives.

Here is the statement on their Facebook page I have to quote it in full from a secondary source because I am away from home and cannot log in to Facebook. -

""The lioness Louisa arrived at Longleat in 2011 as an 18-month-old cub.

"At the age of 13 months, at the collection where she was previously held, Louisa exhibited neurological clinical signs which were thought to have been caused by inadequate nutrition leading to hypovitaminosis A.

"This was treated at the time but never fully resolved itself and she continued to exhibit clinical signs of head tilt and tremors throughout her life.

"Despite suitable nutrition these neurological signs were present in her cubs, which were clearly distinct from other litters in the pride as they all individually exhibited adverse neurological signs such as ataxia, incoordination and odd aggressive behaviour that were not considered normal or appropriate compared to other animals within the collection.

"Reviewing the genetic lineage of Louisa and her cubs it was found both Louisa's parents exhibited relatively high levels of inbreeding, prior to arrival, at a grand parentage level and great-grand parentage level (in some cases grandparents and great grandparents being the same animals). "Further reviews of the pathology of related animals revealed a high level of brain tumours, which had not previously been reported in lions, as well as a general failure of normal neurological development.

"Longleat has never seen these problems in the many other cubs born here over the years and has an extremely good nutritional programme meaning that dietary inadequacies have never been an issue.

"The only consistent link with all these neurological developmental disorders has been Louisa and this was attributed to her confused and poorly managed genetic history prior to her arrival at Longleat.

"Longleat believes it would not have been responsible to translocate these animals to another collection, nor would any responsible zoological collection accept this particular group of lions, with the known high associated risks of neurological disorders and other genetically related health issues being passed on to later generations.

"After considering the pressures in the group, due to the recent increase in pregnancies, and the developmental disorders present in the cubs it was reluctantly decided that euthanasia was the responsible option for these individuals.

"Henry was a separate case, and his injuries were a result of aggression from both his brother and Louisa, who attacked him on the 7th January.

"His wounds were severe, and despite veterinary review and management, it was decided euthanasia was the only humane option on welfare grounds.

"These decisions involve communication with all of our current staff, management team and with independent external ethical reviews undertaken to ensure we are consistent with best practice."

Sounds like very good reasons for destroying them

Actually my response was in response to Bags query, but thank you for your reply. I've seen the excuses flung together statement issued after all the furore.

It all comes back to the same thing, indiscriminate breeding. If there was the slightest indication that the lioness was in any way unsuitable for breeding then steps ought to have been taken. Simple implants.

The fact is that the lion population has been allowed to escalate beyond a point where there can be harmony within and between the various families. Henry was a victim of this overpopulation and his increasing age made him a target for younger fitter lions.

Yes, indiscriminate breeding is bad. It does NOT take place in reputable zoos, certainly not in good British ones. I don't know where Louisa and her ancestors were bred.

I think I shall see whether I can find that out.

The data will be available to check, aka so if it is not true, that will be revealed.

Louisa came from Noah's Ark Zoo. "an animal collection with very poor standing within the animal management industry."

"Noah’s Ark zoo was kicked out of BIAZA (British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums) in 2009 after an undercover investigation by CAPS (The Captive Animals Protection Society) found that the zoo were secretly working with the last circus in the UK to use big cats, which is against BIAZA rules. It was discovered that a tiger on loan to Noah’s Ark from the Circus had died at the zoo and the owners had skinned the six year old female named Tira, removed her head and paws and then dumped the body in a nearby field."

from howtoskinatiger.tumblr.com/

I'd say that in this case the step that should have been taken years ago would have been to euthanase Louisa and not let her go on to breed. No doubt some would say she should have been sterilised and allowed to live out her days. Unfortunately, I don't think that prides of lionesses would have toerated her, and her neurological problems would have caused trouble sooner or later. If she had become violent, she would have faced euthanasia at that point - and a safari park like Longleat wouold have had to contain a possible risk to their human visitors.

Although I still don't condone what happened at Copenhagen Zoo, I wish the amount of anger aimed at the Danes could be harnessed and aimed, instead at the Chinese for allowing tigers to be killed for 'medicinal' purposes or those countries where they keep bears in crates for their bile.

Noah's ark is round the corner from me. It seems to be very popular. I would never visit it or take DGC s there. They preach creationism.

Well said Tegan

Galen and it does not seem than Noah's Ark even look at the science of their breeding policies. Perhaps they don't believe in DNA and heredity.

Thatbags You said above that keeping animals "not in animal sanctuaries" often involves unpleasant decisions. In reality, animal sanctuaries are not always havens of delight for the rescued animals. Some of them are run by and for people who cannot bear to have even a sick old pet humanely put down when it is the best thing that could happen to it. Difficult decisions are needed there too, at times. Also their funding can be irregular and dependent on fluctuating donations, and their helpers willing but not knowledgable.

There are many excellent ones, of course, but there are those that fall short.

Thank you, elegran.

What for, bags?

Information and well-reasoned arguments rather than unsupported emotional statements.

We still haven't espablished why the poor giraffe was allowed to be born in the first place. Which, to me is the main cause for concern.

Hear hear or here here?

There's nothing wrong with emotion bags, alongside information and reasoned argument. Life and death are subjects that generally raise emotions of one kind or another.

Absolutely, nightowl. It was the emotion without the back up that was problematic.

I don't think lions and giraffes can be "easily sterilised" so wanted some proof.

Perhaps the giraffe was born as a result of visitors wanting to see cute baby animals? Or because of the wish to have the adult animals living a "normal" life?

Or, in a Catch 22 sort of situation, the animals at the zoo are breeding more than expected because they are so well looked after and are happy, [given that unhappy animals won't breed].

Too successful?

Elegran - thanks for your contributions to this thread.

I agree with you, nightowl that there is nothing wrong with emotion, and without genuine affection from its owner/keeper/carer no animal is going to get the care it deserves. However the emotion must not cloud recognition of what is best for the animal, or for the whole species that animal belongs to

It can be better for the animal to be humanely killed than to be allowed inhumanely to live and suffer because no-one will take an unpopular decision.

At times it can even be better for the species that an individual animal does not breed or sometimes does not continue to live. That is an even more unpopular and difficult decision, but those responsible for animal welfare have to be prepared to face the possibility.

Cute babies and attractive furry things evoke oohs and aahs, naturally. But reptiles and creepy crawlies do not. Would there have been such an outcry if there had been a population explosion of naked mole rats who could not be found suitable homes and had to be euthanased? Are we more concerned about the dwindling numbers of giant pandas than we are about the similar danger to poison frogs (who are actually very pretty things) ? Are there hundreds of comments on Facebook about the male day-old chicks who can find no home and are used as animal food (they are cute, too, and appear on all the Easter cards)? Do we stop drinking milk because of the calves who must be born to keep the cows lactating?

Concern for animal welfare is very patchy, and not at all logical.