Inbreeding Rules Kill Giraffe

[Cody]

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.

You keep using the cows/sheep argument. Those animals are bred for eating and there is no risk of them becoming an extinct species.

[Guest donatella]

Why did they wait until he was 18 months old? Was he nice and juicy by then? He should have been aborted if he was never needed for the program.

[LisaCC]

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?

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.

Yes they do use shelter animals in anatomy classes, well in ours anyway.

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 use to have to skin chicken carcasses to remove the feathers before cutting them up for the crocs at work so that they didn't 'look like chickens' because people get all squeamish if there is the suggestion that a piece of chicken meat may once have been a real, live chicken I'm pretty sure some people do think meat grows in plastic trays with cling wrap over it!

I remember preparing rabbits for lions, they had to be skinned, cut in half and head removed so they didn't look like cute fluffy bunnies.

Edited February 12, 2014 by LisaCC

[OSoSwift]

Copenhagen Zoo does not give giraffes contraceptives or castrate them because that could have unwanted side effects on their internal organs, and the zoo regards parental care as important, Holst said.

I found this interesting and whilst off topic, is that their stance on all animals or only ones in zoo's?

[CrazyCresties]

So I'm guessing that no one expressing their horror at people viewing the dissection watched any of the shows 'Inside Nature's Giants' when it was aired over here?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/inside-natures-giants

I'm certainly not saying I agree with the breeding of him to start with, or not having found an alternative to euthanasia, but I know as a child/younger person I would have found the dissection fascinating - does that make me a morbid freak

[LisaCC]

So I'm guessing that no one expressing their horror at people viewing the dissection watched any of the shows 'Inside Nature's Giants' when it was aired over here?

http://www.channel4....-natures-giants

I'm certainly not saying I agree with the breeding of him to start with, or not having found an alternative to euthanasia, but I know as a child/younger person I would have found the dissection fascinating - does that make me a morbid freak

It makes you like me. We can be freaks together

I own the DVDs of that show. It's amazing.

[Cody]

So I'm guessing that no one expressing their horror at people viewing the dissection watched any of the shows 'Inside Nature's Giants' when it was aired over here?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/inside-natures-giants

I'm certainly not saying I agree with the breeding of him to start with, or not having found an alternative to euthanasia, but I know as a child/younger person I would have found the dissection fascinating - does that make me a morbid freak

Those animals died because they were sick. And autopsies were performed.

[CrazyCresties]

Nope, not true.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/inside-natures-giants/articles/all/the-making-of-inside-natures-giants

How do you avoid/manage any difficult ethical issues?

We are always completely open about the circumstances in which the animal died and how it ended up being dissected. All the animals filmed so far have died in captivity or in the wild. Occasionally, animals in extreme pain have been put down by vets and sometimes animals are culled as part of a controlled management programme. But we only use animals that would have died anyway.

And our Burmese python came from a cull organised by the Everglades park authorities in Florida,

What about the polar bear?

The polar bears were not killed specifically for the programme (and nor are any other animals). Local people are permitted to hunt a small quota of bears per year and the programme collaborated with them. The hunting is strictly controlled, using traditional methods and avoiding mothers with cubs.

[Cody]

Ah yes, that's right. The Elephant was euthanised though because she had severe arthritis.

[Steve]

Although my preference would be for spay/neuter/ or some form of birth control; I don't think that just because people were there watching means that it was done inhumanely, or that it wasn't done without respect to the animal. In fact, I'm glad the zoo was open and honest about what they were doing, and how they were doing it and didn't try to hide it from the public.

My issue isnt with whether it was done humanely or that the animal suffered - dead is not suffering my issue is with the fact that instead of determining this was the best option and doing it quietly and getting the exact same result for the animals involved its about the human element .

And of course only idiots go to attacking the zoo and issuing death threats etc and if any dog owner decided they wanted to put on a live show to show how their dog could be killed and chopped up and fed out to another animal or used for blood and bone etc I would understand why they were criticised.

Any way no point in arguing this nothing that is said and no amount of logic is going to change how I feel about this - even if I cant really understand why I feel like this .just think if you have to shoot something you shouldnt glorify it.

[Jumabaar]

I was speaking to a keeper at an open air museum in Sweden about a male moose they had. They bred the pair of moose in the hopes of a female offspring that could be used in the program, but they got a male. Males are difficult to place however they were looking at options for him but once he reached sexual maturity then they would need to decide what happened about his future.

I am not saying it is the case but this zoo may have breed with the aims of producing a female rather than a male and thus have been justified in the actual breeding of this animal.

As with all stories we are only getting part of it and it may have been completely inappropriate to breed him but we don't actually know that.

[Akayla]

Maybe making it public gave the people who loved him a chance to show respect. Plus having people there and in his udual place would be the most normal and less stressful. Id imagine a live giraffe would be difficult to move around.

[Akayla]

Maybe making it public gave the people who loved him a chance to show respect. Plus having people there and in his udual place would be the most normal and less stressful. Id imagine a live giraffe would be difficult to move around.

[_PL_]

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?

a) If that was the case then maybe all children have learned is either animals are just meat waiting to be used ... or that zoos are horrifying places who 'acquire and dispose' of their residents.

b) And I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say that people should go to the pound, see a dog shot (because the lethabarb would make meat unusable) witness a dismemberment and enjoy the circle of life as the carcasses are fed to the dogs still impounded -- environmental enrichment and an educational day out for the whole family.

[Simply Grand]

Plenty of people surrender dogs to a shelter, are given the option of being told beforehand if the animal is to be euthanased with the option to take it back and choose not to be told, preferring to either assume it didn't happen to,their dog or just not willing to know about it. People know it happens whether sometimes whether they see it or not and I suspect seeing it wouldn't actually change their behaviour in the future if they were in the same situation again tbh.

[kelpiecuddles]

I don't think having the public there is a circus, by coincidence my children just watched a TV show cut up a pigs eye 30 minutes ago to demonstrate the different parts of the eye. They were very interested and amazed at how the lens sat inside the eye and were fully aware that it was part of a real animal. Having an interest in anatomy isn't a bad thing and making the opportunity available for education in between the giraffes death and him being fed out made the most of the opportunity. I for one would have been quite interested to see the unusual vertebrae of a giraffe, I'm not sure if that aspect was shown but it's a part of a giraffes anatomy which is both important and also pretty cool.

[Steve]

Its not about anatomy or the food chain its about humanity and just as some cant understand why Im disgusted by this I cant understand why others cant see the difference.

[Simply Grand]

Yes and yes Steve, I agree. I've been trying to think logically about what it is that bothers me about this and to be honest I think it is something beyond logic and practicality. I don't have a particular problem with Marius being killed as it does sound like it was done quickly, humanely and he wouldn't have known what was happening, and I certainly have no problem with him being fed to the lions. I admit I was a bit taken aback at the pictures of the beautiful giraffe skin on the chunks of meat however I can easily overcome that with the realisation that that is exactly how it would be in the wild.

My feelings are coloured by my experiences being with shelter dogs as they are euthanased, in both shelter and zoo situations we as humans have put these animals into a highly unnatural situation and taken away all control they have over their lives and I therefore feel that we have a huge responsibility to do out best for them and that includes acknowledging that the decision and act of taking their lives are significant and to be taken seriously.

To me making it a public event where anyone can just turn up to watch for whatever reason suits them doesn't do that. I even feel it's different to the responsibility we have to our own pets - we (as decent pet owners) give them a life they are supposed to have as domestic pets, a stable home environment, attention, exercise, an extent of freedom to do the things they want to do etc etc so to me we then have more of a right to decide on the circumstances of their death (who is there, what happens afterwards etc). Shelter and I assume zoo animals form close bonds with the people who spend the most time with them and feel most comfortable and happy with those people, not with the people who come and look at them from outside their enclosure, so those are the people who should be there to share their last moments, not all and sundry who feel like turning up. I know it isn't very logical as technically I know the giraffe and our shelter dogs don't know that they are about to have their last moments, but can't we go beyond pure logic in certain situations?

I can certainly see the value in people who eat meat going to a farm and watching an animal that humans in their part of the world actually eat and that has been raised for food being killed and butchered, although I still don't feel comfortable with it being a "come one, come all, slaughter at 3pm" type event, but I don't think using a giraffe that is to be fed to lions in a zoo is really comparable to that.

sorry for the rambling, I'm finding it hard to get my thoughts completely into words on this one.

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.

Making me think again! I guess the only way I can really accept being involved in the intentional death of animals is by 1) being confident that we do consider all options and that I personally am confident that rehoming is not, for whatever reason, a positive outcome for that animal (I by no means have final say although I am lucky that my views are very much taken into account) and 2) being of the opinion that a calm, minimal stress, respectful death is not the worst thing that could happen to an animal. I have to remain confident in the fact that I (and my colleagues) NEVER take the responsibility lightly and always keep the welfare of the animal in mind. To me, part of that is making sure the death of the animal is managed so that stress for that particular animal is minimised and that the person or people they are closest to/calmest with are there at the time, for the animals sake.

As some others have expressed, I hope that the people who knew Marius best and he was most comfortable with were happy with this situation. I find it hard to believe that he was at his happiest and most relaxed in a small yard with an audience and vets present, although perhaps he was, so again I hope those who knew him best had a say.

Re. what's right and just, there are plenty of people out there who form their opinion and WILL NOT listen to anyone else, and whilst I am willing to be open about any decision I made along these lines and why, and to listen to opposing views, if someone is not willing to consider the other side's position at al, particularly if they were not involved in the situation then they are not someone whose opinion I place any value in, whatever the issue. People do however have a right to their opinions, whether they are based on facts or not. Although I have confidence in my opinions I can't make everyone think the same as me

[Rebanne]

Its not about anatomy or the food chain its about humanity and just as some cant understand why Im disgusted by this I cant understand why others cant see the difference.

Totally agree.

I don't care how much certain people keep prattling on about how good it is and what's the difference between a giraffe and a cow etc. It's a bloody big difference as far as I am concerned and think the whole thing is disgusting.

[OSoSwift]

Its not about anatomy or the food chain its about humanity and just as some cant understand why Im disgusted by this I cant understand why others cant see the difference.

Agreed