BlackJaq

You could also do an ovary sparing spay. Significantly lowers risk of pyo (I am told the stump where the uterus used to attach could rarely still get it? Something to discuss with a vet)

Possibly because all dogs need to be registered for DOG TAX in Germany. This tax is supposed to go to things like dog poop collection and other costs that may be caused by your dog. Sadly, I have never seen anyone collect dog poop because they were paid to do so despite growing up in Munich and only leaving there in 2006. If I had to pay several hundred bucks a year in tax to own a dog, I'd damn well want someone to collect the dog poop in my area

.

Didn't have one in the first place

I actually feel very similarly to you. I am not really trying to argue a point and I see nothing wrong in asking difficult questions, I actually think it is necessary sometimes. Personally, as I said before, I don't really agree with the whole zoo concept and I actually felt pretty strongly (in a negative way) about this story when I first read about it. However, after thinking about it I could not really find any logical reason to fault the zoo for their actions. I guess I am kind of asking questions to see if anybody has reasonable arguments to either legitimize or refute my own opinion. Nobody has to feel or think the same way I do but by getting to read lots of other people's opinions I actually feel like my understanding is being enhanced, both of the logical and the emotional issue. I am not trying to convince anybody that this is the way all zoos should do things or that this is the best idea since sliced bread, I am just trying to understand the reasoning behind why this is not ok but other things are. Some people seem to be getting a little miffed because they cannot really explain their feelings. I don't think there is anything wrong with not being able to explain feelings, that is, after-all the nature of feelings, no need to get all irritated. I guess some people perhaps don't really want to think about difficult questions of ethics, and that is fine, too. I guess I kind of feel like I do things that other people might find questionable on ethical grounds and so do other people and I am trying to find some answers. Why are certain things ok, but others aren't, when there is only a marginal difference in circumstance. Where and how do people draw a line? Why is t not ok to question this? Not sure if I am doing a good job explaining this at all, I guess it's late and we've probably all had a long day. Nobody is forced to participate in this discussion and everybody is free to leave any time they like of course.

No I was addressing Rebanne who felt it was necessary to use words like "prattling" since they apparently lack the words to properly express themselves. Everybody is free to disagree of course. I don't mind. I guess we better stop all public education that involves death then, including anatomy classes, taxidermy workshops, home butchery seminars, perhaps even skeletons in museums etc since any and all members of the public can turn up to those and bring popcorn and chips :)

Ok so they somehow deserve to be killed but Marius didn't.. Obviously there were enough of his genes available already in other animals or he would not have been culled. ETA: Corrected to remove false information after doing more reading :)

OK so just out of curiosity, would you feel differently if this animal was called giraffe #7 and had been bred for the explicit purpose of providing meat for the zoo's carnivores and everybody was told this from the beginning and perhaps he was killed behind a curtain like the racehorses if they fatally break down on the track? I am honestly trying to understand the issue some people are having. Fortunately we all get to prattle on about our questions and opinions as much as we like as long as we manage to stay objective, which some people seem to lack the maturity to do with this topic :laugh:

I am actually quite positively surprised at the discussion so far. I appreciate that most people have responded in a calm manner and actually invested some thought into my arguments, rather than just shutting down and refusing to think about difficult issues.

Yes, we certainly can go beyond pure logic in some situations and people routinely do exactly that. However, surely you can not be upset when people apply the same principal to you? For example (sorry, here I go with the examples again) I have seen so called "crazies" on animal rights pages cursing shelter staff and vets for putting down animals, instead of refusing to participate in this act where innocent animals are killed for no reason at all. How do you feel about this? Do you feel it is right and just for those people to ignore your reasons for participating or would you prefer if those people listened to your reasons with an open mind and perhaps acknowledged that you were not being a cruel and heartless person, but did what you felt was best for XYZ reasons? Do you prefer that people judge you based on their emotions in that very first moment of hearing your story or would you prefer they go beyond their initially startled emotions and perhaps confront the facts behind your actions? I do not mean to attack anybody personally but the whole "do not judge lest ye be judged" and "rocks in a glass house" and all those other sayings seem pretty appropriate to me.

Sorry I must have added more to my post after you'd started to respond. What exactly is the "circus" that is being referred to? Are people bothered by the fact that you can buy food and drinks in a zoo and people might have brought them? That would no be very hygienic, I suppose. I see no indication of any kind of inappropriate decorations, jokes being made or anything else. I have since found a video and the crowd looks and sounds quiet and attentive. What should they be doing? Sobbing in disbelief? Anyway, as I said, nobody was forced to go and since all other aspects of this event were apparently fine, except that it is public, then perhaps simply avoiding it would be the best measure to take. However, the fact that threats and harassment are being directed at the zoo staff is the actual disgusting part of this whole story. The zoo staff probably didn't just decide ont he day to knack Marius in front of an unsuspecting crowd and spray blood at everyone for everyone's entertainment. I have not seen any mention of whether he was killed in front of a crowd or if he was killed in private and only the dissection was public. If it was mentioned somewhere perhaps somebody could point it out to me.

But how do you know or tell the difference why these people were there? How do you know they weren't there for education? Just because it is not their job to cut up animals? You just said yourself, if your kids wanted to be there when one of your animals is killed then you would let them, yet you would forbid the parents of those children who attended this to make that decision? Do you only breed your meat animals when you want to keep them as pets? No of course not, you breed them for meat so you basically breed them to be killed. Judging by your post you obviously feel something for your stock and perhaps you interact with them and maybe some even have names. I really don';t understand how you can feel your animals are any different than this animal, other than perhaps people aren't paying you to come and look at your animals while they are alive. I don't understand how that makes a difference though. I would appreciate it if you could explain.

Everybody is of course free to disagree with what this zoo did but the outrage and general hatred being poured onto the zoo and their staff is way out of proportion in my opinion. Do you write death threats to people who raise cows and sheep for meat as well because they choose to have their animals slaughtered instead of sending them to sanctuaries? I believe some of the people in this thread not only eat meat, but raise animals for human consumption as well. Do you think those people should be judged in a similar manner? What about people who raise breeds that were docked in the past and docked their pups? Many people find this cruel and inhumane, too. Do those breeders deserve this kind of hate mail? Even if they feel they acted in the best interests of their pups? What about the people who have previously mentioned they would like some or all of their pets PTS when they die to save them from an unknown fate or unsuitable home? It's a slippery slope so I am extra careful before making decisions on right and wrong based on emotion alone.

Yes and the giraffe they already had was a brother of this animal so had very similar genes. I don't know why that was an issue for them, whether the did not have a bachelor group or what, I cannot explain all their reasons. However, they chose to slaughter their giraffe instead and make use of its body through educating some zoo patrons and feeding its meat to the carnivores. I cannot see a problem with that. It was their giraffe and they can do with it what they please so long as they stay within the law and treat it humanely. Is there a law that says they have to sell a giraffe or another zoo animal on and they are not allowed to butcher if for meat, in public or private?

Personally I am happy when somebody asks to be there and watch as we kill and butcher an animal for our and their consumption. Obviously I am not allowed to sell them any of the meat as it wasn't killed in an approved abattoir, but as far as I know there is no reason they cannot eat some of it while dining with us at our place. A lot of people have never seen it done and they are interested, but do not have the opportunity to see it done elsewhere. I guess there are videos of it on youtube, but if somebody is going to learn to hunt for example, I prefer to show them in person rather than letting them learn by watching videos and "learning by doing". I am going to a taxidermy workshop this weekend. The animals will already be dead, but that is more of a matter of circumstance than preference because it is easier to freeze the animal when it is available, rather than trying to find one on the day. It will also be a big public spectacle. Is that wrong, too? We will be working on a goat and a pig btw but if we had a zebra or a giraffe I bet we would use that instead. There is nothing wrong in my opinion with showing people who eat meat and use animal products what happens to the animals and where those products come from. If you never show people they will only get more estranged and that is how factory housing and mass slaughter came about in the first place. In times long gone, everybody would have a smoke house and when somebody killed an animal people would buy part of the animal to take home and smoke or whatever. There is nothing unnatural or disrespectful about it, in my personal opinion. It is not something to be hidden away and kept secret. It is part of life (or should be) for anybody who eats meat. You don't need to enjoy killing an animal to feel the need to educate people about death, meat, butchering and whatnot. Only if the animal is not used after it is being killed do I feel the kill is disrespectful. If you are going to bury it or throw it away to rot then yes, that is disrespectful in my opinion. Animals eating other animals is also very natural and I don't understand why this should not be part of the zoo experience? Should animals be hidden away when they go to the toilet or when they tend their young as well? Some people already feel that public breast feeding should not be allowed and that it needs to be kept out of sight. Same with disciplining children in whatever manner. Dogs should be kept away from the public, too. Aren't there enough things being hidden from "the public" already? Anyway, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I don't know. I find that question very interesting, and also what somebody else mentioned before, that some zoo staff would like to feed whole carcasses but won't due to the public reaction. I would certainly be interested in any kind of dissection guided by somebody who knows what they are looking at so long as the animal involved was killed humanely. I realize this is not everybody's cup of tea but I bet everybody is happy to have a vet treat their animal and do surgery on it after studying anatomy extensively, rather than just having seen a picture once in a book or being told about it before performing a spay or whatever. People are happy to make use of any knowledge that is useful to them yet they are happy to judge people trying to gain such knowledge. The hypocrisy more than anything in this thread is what I find silly and disappointing. Reminds me of the docking debates.

And watch them be cut up? I'm not sure what the issue is with cutting them up. I realize you don't support cutting up any animal, being a vegan, but animals are being dissected in vet class, biology and a bunch of other situations every day. If it is ok for those animals, why is it not ok for this giraffe? Cats and dogs who are put down in shelters and pounds are the ones being dissected in vet class most of the time as far as I know, so they are already doing that. Nobody is forced to watch it. I doubt any one of those people watching that giraffe cut up was held there against their will.

Well there you go, being a vegan you are at least not being a hypocrite. I bet most other posters here in this thread can not say the same for themselves.

Perhaps children would grow to be a bit more responsible with how they treat their pets and how they acquire and dispose of them if they had to watch them being put down in a shelter. Isn't that exactly what people on here keep saying needs to happen to those people who dump their pets or treat them badly? To work a day in a shelter and have to put down a bunch of unwanted pets?

As I said, I am open to valid reasons that can be explained by logic but the arguments that are being brought up now are neither

He has no descendants, that is the whole point. Genetic diversity is important in all species and his "descendants" were not needed/wanted as they might lead to too much inbreeding

I have judged it on its own merits and according to the details given I can see no issue. The animal was killed humanely and there was no suffering. The main issue people have given is that it was a "public spectacle". I see no issue with that as it was a great educational opportunity and if this was a cow or pig or a piece of meat without a name at Taronga zoo (which happens to be fed out in front of a crowd regularly) then nobody would have blinked. ETA: I found people's emotional investment with this particular animal very strange. As I said, I am wondering how this animal is more important than a cow? I don't understand how "The majority of decent caring people have found this whole thing abhorrent - why then doe people find it necessary to start pushing other sorts of killings at them" this is in any way relevant. Plenty of people find things wrong but have no valid reason for finding it wrong, other than their own emotions. I am not sure how I can illustrate my point without making comparisons since the only difference is the species of this animal. How do you decide who are "decent caring people"? Plenty of people I have spoken to also find no issue. I find they are all decent and caring. They treat their animals humanely.

double post

One article I read mentioned that all offers came from zoos who do not operate under the same strict guidelines as this zoo and there was apparently some concern that an animal going to such a zoo might end up in a private collection. I am not intimate with conditions in private collections around Europe but I know some Eastern European zoos are a disgrace. Nothing is stopping a non member zoo from selling this animal on to another non member zoo.. Perhaps they had concerns for where this animal might end up, just like our ethical dog breeders here. Would you sell a dog to a potential puppy mill rather than PTS if that was the situation at hand? Would you sell an animal to a hoarder, just because it was neutered? I also think somebody else mentioned that perhaps under the guidelines they were not allowed to sell to non members. I don't really think we have enough details on the situation to be able to make the kind of judgements that have been made in this thread.

I don't really agree with the whole zoo concept, as I said earlier (I gave reasons, too) so no, I do not agree with milking the public to see animals kept in a poor imitation of their natural habitat but I have yet to find a real argument against preserving some species which may be extremely threatened in the wild. This argument only applies to those species which are actually being re-released into the wild so it probably doesn't apply to giraffes. I think many zoos keep animals in very substandard conditions, too small enclosures and with little to no enrichment. I think the whole idea of keeping large carnivores in captivity for the entertainment of the masses is wrong. However, I see nothing wrong with humanely raising surplus animals to be fed to other animals in the zoo as a way to reduce or even avoid purchasing meats that were raised and killed inhumanely. I find the arguments given by many here not very logical or downright hypocritical. People on this forum regularly complain about animal rights activists arguing about their practices for emotional reasons and not reasons of logic and then the same people go ahead and act in the same manner because it is a topic that does not affect them or their hobbies personally. I found that disappointing. And no, personally I would not like to form a bond with an animal and then kill it and dissect it and feed it to lions but I have not found many of the reasons given here to be based on reason but only emotion. I do agree with Steve's argument, that killing an animal for entertainment purposes can quickly lead to a decline into blood sports such as dog fighting, bull baiting, animal tripping etc, however all those blood sports are inherently inhumane. Killing an animal quickly and cleanly with a captive bolt gun and a well placed bolt is exactly how animals are (or should be) killed in most western abattoirs. It is commonly accepted as a humane way to slaughter an animal. Somebody else brought a good argument, which was "not teaching children respect for animals" and I cannot say whether this event was conducted in a way as to teach children respect or not because I was not there and have not seen any video footage of it, so I do not know the exact details. We get our kids to dissect entire frogs in school. Done the wrong way this will also reduce the respect they have for that animal. I have seen people in school chase each other around with parts of their brain or frog or whatever with no respect for the creature at all, but I have also been in class with a teacher who had a very good way of explaining what and why they were dissecting animals and how to treat those animals even after their death. I don't think we can judge how this went down from the news stories as they are written in a very sensationalist manner and give no real details to allow us to judge the event. I see nobody laughing in the photos, everybody looks interested and quiet to me.