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.