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.

for which

I accept that that is your opinion, merlot. I disagree. The animal would not have been alive but for the zoo's work and I don't think it was killed just because it was "an inconvenience". I think the health of other animals of which the zoo is repsonsible was also part of the decision.

I wasn't referring to the manner in which he was killed, thatbags. Breeding an animal in captivity means you have to be responsible for its well being and ultimately its future. Deciding that an animal is an inconvenience and ending its healthy life because a mistake has been made is also abuse.

Humane treatment is designed to prevent abuse.

The giraffe was not abused. Humane killing is not abuse.

There is a link to a "detailed justification" of the zoo's actions on the zoo's website in the Guardian article. I haven't been able to load it yet.

There is also this in the article: "The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, which monitors international standards and of which Copenhagen is a member, said it fully supported the decision of the zoo."

Exactly, Tegan. It's the trust that has been broken and that is what has upset so many people. Animals in captivity have to rely on man to care for them so what right have we to abuse them so.

I think a boundary has been crossed here. I watch a lot of wildlife programmes. I know a lot of people don't watch them because they hate to see animals being killed, but I'm ok with that [most of the time] because the death of one animal means life for another; it's nature. But the rule with wildlife photographers is not to meddle; not to get involved...film what happens but don't interfere with nature itself. This giraffe was born in captivity; the people at the zoo were responsible for his life. The lions he was fed to wouldn't have starved had he not been killed. He was shown human kindness and given a name and an identity. The people that looked after him must surely be feeling more pain than we are?? If they aren't then why are they working with animals? I still won't judge them to harshly, but I'd still like to understand more about the reasoning behind it.

So, a young creature that gets killed in the wild as food for another creature... that's OK.

A young (or older) creature that gets raised and then killed by humans for human food... that's OK too.

But a young creature known to be good lion food that is killed humanely (and in public so the humaneness could not be doubted) (humanely means the animal does not suffer) and then used as lion food... that's not OK.

I'm afraid the jump in the logic of that argument has eluded me.

I eat meat, all of which comes from the butchers these days. The animals and birds are bred for human consumption and I hope that they are all raised and killed humanely. In the past we kept chickens, ducks, geese and rabbits ourselves, all of which had good lives and many of which ended up in our freezer after a quick end, so we are not squeamish.

I know that in nature animals prey on each other. I shall never forget, as a young chap in Africa a long time ago, witnessing the occasion when a lion jumped on the back of a large buck, which reacted by impaling the lion on its long sharp horns and seriously injuring it. One up to the hunted!

The case of Marius the giraffe is different. How any normal person could have had this poor, trusting young creature so needlessly and callously killed and then publicly dismembered is beyond me and sickens me. I would seriously question the activities of the zoo and its management in this case.

Quite honestly I can't be bothered to discuss it any more so am bowing out of this conversation. Bottom line for me is, that if it was known, (as it must have been) that this baby's parents would produce an offspring that would be incompatible with the breeding programme, why in Gods name breed him in the first place?

It is not anthropomorphism to believe that animals are sentient beings with a right to life.

Reminds me of the sad saga of Knut the polar bear. It's difficult to know what's right for an animal once it's been anthropomorphised by the media [and the zoo's PR department]. What would have happened if he had been a female giraffe? Would the gene pool reason not have been a problem then? I'm not totally opposed to what has happened, given that the people that have taken his life have done much for giraffes in general than I have ever done and [I would assume] know far more about the species and what's good for it in the future, but this public forensic part of it I find sickening; at least let him have some dignity now that he's dead. I'd like to know what the opinion of the people at Gerald Durell's zoo in Jersey is.

In bred is not likely to be totally healthy.

Yes, anno I'm with you there.

I haven't got the impression he was bred deliberately for food. But even if he were, so what? We breed lots of animals for food. Also lots of animals that are not bred for food end up as food. That's life.

I expect the public display was for education purposes. There would be no need to do it publicly otherwise. People wouldn't come if they weren't interested. It's fascinating to watch skilful people skin an animal.

Would those of you who object be objecting if it were rats or some other animal that is regarded as a pest? I suspect not, and that's why I think the cuteness factor has got the better of you.

Although I don't like the thought of a fit and healthy young animal being put down, I do feel that there's a certain amount of unnecessary anthropomorphism going on in the thread.

Yes, anno, I know a large giraffe could do severe damage to a lion, or several lions come to that, but lions can and do bring down the occasional young giraffe. I'm sure i've seen wonderful footage of a mother giraffe protecting her young from attacking lions.

As you say nightowl, why was he bred in the first place (deliberately for food?!) and like you I don't consider 18months a 'good' life!! If the Zoo can't afford to feed its carnivorous animals, then shut the d###d place down. Yes we do breed animals for food, but not many farmers I know make pets of them, gain their trust and then trick them to their deaths as a pre-planned action. My B.I.L had a piglet who was a runt, so needed some extra TLC - you've got it when the time came that little piggy didn't go to market! far to personal, he turned into a family pet (was castrated!!) and lived to a ripe old age!! soppy maybe particularly for a farmer, BUT - he had a name, trusted the family so the moral of that is NEVER become personal (fond) of your farm animals. This little giraffe was betrayed by the very people he trusted - disgusting!

Not 'soppy' Bags. And definitely not just because he's 'cute'. I feel that if humans are going to intervene in nature by breeding animals and keeping them in zoos they have a responsibility to ensure those animals can live out their natural lifespan. Even the non-cute ones.

Bags, a giraffe is more likely to kill a lion with a good kick than a lion is likely to eat it. Lions go for smaller (or at least lower) prey and even a baby giraffe would be reasonably safe from predators because of the protection of the mother.

I do not think this is so terrible at all but I am not sure about butchering it front of the public I wonder if they warned in advance?

I would suggest those who object to this do not take children to Zoos.
Zoos themselves are very much the cause of this problem.
They breed these animals. They can swap animals between zoos but there must be a lot of inbreeding if you just continue swapping a relatively small population of captive bred animals around European Zoos and Zoo parks.

However if you do not like this you should not let children or sensitive souls watch any wildlife programs. There you see giraffe and other "pretty" animals being eaten alive by big cat predators and those very "ugly" hyenas.

It sounds as though it was humanely killed.

If that Zoo has too many animals and no other local zoos have space, would it be fair to transport that particular awkwardly shaped animal many miles to another facility? That in itself would be very stressful.

If that animal had to be culled they then it makes perfect sense to use the meat it provided for the type of animal which would be its usual prey. It would not be acceptable just to destroy the carcase.

Land owners have to cull populations of British Deer or the numbers would grow so big that the food sources they rely on would be destroyed.

We need some reality here. If you have too many animals in a restricted area they will eventually use up their usual food resources and many will die of starvation.

In the wild there is a hierarchy of predators which if all goes well keeps everything under control. Zoos seriously interfere with that natural process. How else do we cope with that?

I am sure Zoos etc breed, or buy in captive bred mice to feed their birds of prey. How else do you think they are fed?

From that point of view, surely it is just a matter of scaling up the size of the prey to suit the predator?

People only mind cos young giraffes are "cute".

People can make mistakes. I don't know the details of the inbreeding or how it occurred.

A bolt gun is probably the most humane way of killing a large animal. They will have been careful to keep the animal unstressed just beforehand.

A good eighteen months is a good life. In the wild he might not have lasted that long.

Why is it wrong to feed giraffe meat to animals that would eat such food in the wild?

Why is it wrong to let children see what is involved in caring for carnivorous animals? Nature programmes show hunting animals on the kill. "Natural methods" are far less humane than a bolt gun in the correct part of the anatomy ensuring instant death.

Get real and stop being so soppy about one animal.