The Copenhagen Giraffe

Yes, Iam, cruelty is most distressing, and unnecessary. Cruelty has many faces, some of them disguises. Fat wheezing lapdogs, overloved and overfed, unable to waddle along and carried everywhere in their mistress's arms, with arthritis and failing livers and kidneys, and who knows what other ailments, are being treated more cruelly than the giraffe who was cut down suddenly and instantaneously in his prime just after he had received a treat from his friends.

He should not have been in a position where his death happened, and we can regret that, and be sad that he his life was not longer, but he was not treated cruelly.

Aka is splitting hairs because Thatbags left a slight vagueness in her usually tight logic which allowed her to do so. Not important.

Bags - I can't find any ethical difference between raising farm animals for human food, and zoo animals to feed zoo animals.

I haven't found your posts confusing Bags, far from it, direct and expressing your beliefs clearly.

One of the many changes in my mind and body as I've aged, as been that I find myself more easily distressed by cruelty. Not that I ever found it entertaining, or harmless I hasten to add. It's just I find mindless cruelty to animals can make my eyes tear up. I felt sad to read of the death of this young giraffe, and a bit shocked that he'd been slaughtered and butchered in public view. Once I'd got a grip, and read more, it became clear those who observed the butchering did so out of choice. I do agree with posters who say that if animals are bred in captivity, the humans caring for them have a responsibility to care for them humanely and compassionately. It's pretty clear that the huge beasts of prey have to be fed, huge amounts of meat, which has to come from somewhere. I feel sure the lions would have preferred the zoo keepers to simply allow live animals to wander in to be hunted.
Complicated, animal welfare isn't it. Just typing that thought had me thinking that I'm much more angered and distressed by the existence of puppy farms here in the UK, than this young giraffe.

For clarity (hopefully), since aka is so bothered about this:

Tegan Mon 10-Feb-14 17:13:28
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.
(my underlining)

thatbags Mon 10-Feb-14 17:23:54
I don't think lions and giraffes can be "easily sterilised" so wanted some proof.

I've explained above about physical difficulties I was thinking about when I posted that remark. I still think the physical logisitcs would be difficult i.e. not easy.

But yes, I agree that no-one said it was easy to sterilise a giraffe. Of course i agree that. I'm just puzzled as to why that mattered. I was never trying to state or deny it.

The remark about sterilising giraffes was not made "at you", aka. It was a response to something someone else said. They seemed to be asking why the young giraffe had been allowed to be born in the first place. I see now where the connection of ideas problem occurred for you. At least i think i do.

Whether anyone said it was easy to sterilise giraffes is irrelevant and not connected to my thinking they are not easy to sterilise (to prevent "surplus" births). I hope you understand that.

I have not apologised yet.

I apologise to everyone who feels in need of an apology now for inadvertently causing confusion by not being clear enough and I will endeavour to be clearer in future.

Meanwhile my question about the difference between raising farm animals for human food and raising zoo animals as zoo animal food remains unanswered. I do not think there is an ethical difference between the two. If anyone thinks there is an ethical difference, and what that difference is, I'd like to hear about it.

Because I'm interested in the ethics of it, not because one view is right and another wrong.

So let's agree then that no one said it was "easy" to sterilise a giraffe?
And I said lions (not lionesses) ... OK?

I accept your apology * Bags*

Gagagran that is not very nice to me. I was not 'having a go at Bags' any more than she was having a go at me. Perhaps before you 'take sides' you ought to read through this thread.

If you think it is logical to keep asking a question such as 'show me proof that it's easy to sterilise giraffes' when that statement was never made then you have a strange idea of logic. I simply challenged her to back up her repeated question.

Am I not to express my opinion or challenge those put words in my mouth that were never uttered?

In the shower just now another possible cause of misunderstanding occurred to me. When I said (and say) that I don't think sterilising lions is easy I was thinking of the oure physical logistics of sterilising zoo lions, not the surgical procedure. I was thinking of the physical problems associated with isolating, anaesthatising, lifting, etc such large, heavy animals.

The blood pressure difficulties for giraffes have also been mentioned, but i was thinking about the size of theanimals there too.

—-—

aka, this is what I said, since it seems important to you:

Please show evidence of the 'ease' of sterilising lionesses. - 12:38:34 Mon 12 Feb

Mon 10-Feb-14 17:23:54
I don't think lions and giraffes can be "easily sterilised" so wanted some proof.

I'm sorry you have a problem with my way of expressing myself but I fail to see what is rude or personal about those sentences. I intended them in a perfectly straighforward, non-offensive way in order to become better informed. This is not about you or me or anyone else being right or wrong (at least, it isn't for me), but a discussion of different views about killing a giraffe and feeding it to lions and all the ethical and emotional ramifications of that.

Aka why are you having such a go at Bags? Surely there is no need to make this interesting topic so personal? Bags is always the epitome of cool logic and the points she has made on here typify that. We all have views and opinions but some of us hesitate to post because of the over-strong responses they engender. Be nice!

Incidentally it appears that some people, especially in the USA, are having puppies spayed as early as 6 weeks. This is far too early.

I think it's the case that there is a fundamental difference in attitudes towards animals Iam.
There is the old biblical attitude that animals were simply put on this earth for the use of mankind and then there is the belief that animals are entitled to exist and have a place in the planet in their own right.

I don't know the answer to the question about sterilising lions bags. I do know that sterilising dogs and horses has an impact on personality/behaviour. There seems to be an increasing body of evidence that castrating dogs at too early an age, can lead to behavioural problems. If that's the case with lions, it'd be even more of a management issue than it is for dog owners. I'm with alternativegran, about the need to treat animals compassionately and ethically.
It's interesting how quickly discussions about animal welfare become polarised.

See there you go again Bags . Did you or did you not write

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

So why are you demanding asking for proof that giraffes can be easily sterilised if no one said it?

I find your lack of logic very strange in someone who purports to worship at this altar.

I'd understand if zoos had good reasons for not sterilising lions. I think there might be a few. Does anyone know?

I didn't demand proof. I asked for it. Any rudeness in my requests is what you have read into them. However, I will remember that and reword such requests in future to something like "Explain, please."

"Everyone knows it's different for giraffes". Er, no, everyone doesn't. There are lots of things I don't know and I won't be the only one.

Re someone saying it's easy to sterilise giraffes, i'm not aware that anyone said that, nor did i say anyone said it, I simply said that i didn't think it was easy. I hope that has clarified things for you. I'm glad to hear that sterilising lions is easy and i don't mind that i was wrong to think that it wasn't. This thread isn't about me, however....

I knew nothing about this giraffe so haven't been looking at this thread. I wish now I hadn't bothered as some of the posts are just nasty and rude without adding anything valuable to the discussion.

I said it's easy to sterilise lions. It's no different from sterilising domestic cats except for the obvious difficultly. Many male lions are sterilised while very young. The lion and other large cats are physically almost identical to the domestic cat.
What makes us cross Bags is the way you dismiss statements like that then, quite rudely IMO, demand proof, when common sense dictates that this is so. No not common sense, it's having a biological background.
Everyone knows the situation is different with giraffes.
Now you have several times demanded proof and yet when I apply the same tactic to you, you bottle out.
I asked you to tell me where 'someone' had said its easy to sterilise giraffes. You can't do that I think.
So don't accuse me of being cross, if you can't take it then dont dish it out,

I'd be worried if the The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, which monitors international standards had not supported Copenhagen Zoo's decision to kill the giraffe and use the meat to feed lions.

Nobody has said why this is different from farmed animals being bred and raised and killed for food. Essentially, I don't think it is different. An animal that can be used for food is not surplus, but useful.

Sorry, aka, I don't understand what you're so cross about. Me on a high horse?! I thought I was being viewed as the wicked one on this thread.
Re the sterilisation of lions and giraffes, someone said that it's easy to sterilise lions and someone else asked why the giraffe was allowed to be born (or words to that effect). I then said that I don't think it's easy to sterilise lions and giraffes, meaning that maybe that's why animals sometimes have to be culled because too many are born for the zoos' capacities. As someone else said, that (successfuk breeding) sounds like a success story. And, if the meat of those culled animals can be used as food, there is no 'waste'. Better to cull and use the meat than keep too many animals in the space available.

I don't think rewilding is an easy option either. In fact, I know it isn't. It's quite specialised and complicated and not all zoos will be set up to enable it.

The emotion I don't understand is that of viewing all these animals in the same light as our own species. I do not regard humane killing of other species, for reasons the EAZA fully supports, as unethical. I do not regard careful and caring farming of animals for food and humanely killing them as unetical. This is not high-horsism. It's just a lack of emotion about food from animal sources.

Now we have the Longleat Lions (if this has already been mentioned I apologise) although this is being put down to genetic problems. In the wild if the mother had suffered such problems she may have been killed long before the birth of her cubs.

I haven't come across Ingrid Newkirk nightowl but I agree with your paraphrase.

My concern is that unless we behave towards animals in a way that is both ethical and compassionate we somehow dehumanise ourselves, and history constantly shows us how dangerous that can be.

I think very few animals are destroyed because they are "surplus to requirements", nightowl. Apart from ethical considerations (and serious keepers of animals are generally very ethical) each animal represents an investment in money, space and time, and is not lightly "disposed of".

"Petting zoos" can be one of the places where that may happen, where a continuous supply of babies is needed to be cuddled and oohed over, and supply can exceed demand. Unfortunately, that is exactly the kind of establishment which is popular with parents of small children, and those who only see the "ooh aah how cute" aspect of animals.

Everyone should check that the animals they go to see are kept by an organisation that is a member of BIAZA (British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums) Their website is at www.biaza.org.uk/ and a map showing their members is at www.biaza.org.uk/find-a-zoo/

I agree with you to a point Elegran. The only bit I don't agree with is where you say it may sometimes be better for a species if an individual animal does not continue to live. I believe humans interfere too much with animals and try to play God too often. If we keep animals in captivity of any kind - including pet ownership - then we have a responsibility to ensure that particular animal's wellbeing, which may include sterilisation or euthanasia if the animal is ill or suffering. I don't believe it's right to destroy individual animals just because they are 'surplus to requirements'.

You are probably right to say there would not have been such an outcry about naked mole rats or day old chicks. That saddens me and I see the inconsistencies in all our thinking. I am outraged at all these things. To paraphrase Ingrid Newkirk (who I don't always agree with), in terms of the capacity for suffering, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. I think they are all worthy of our compassion.

The two-bricks method doesn't work. They won't stand still long enough.

OK Bags let's see you back up your statement. I haven't time to read through all this thread but where did anyone say that giraffes are easy to sterilise?