Zoo Kills Young Giraffe, Invites Children to Watch It Be Chopped Up, Fed to Lion

[Octavian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENnNNVOEDZ4

Zoo director of science being interviewed by Channel 4

[Ideologue]

they see themselves more as a repository of animal DNA than a weekend entertainment for families. 

Me too!

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Copenhagen Zoo has done this before (they cull 25 animals a year, according to a non-scholarly About.com article http://endangeredspecies.about.com/od/endangeredspeciesconflicts/a/Euthanasia-In-Zoos.htm

Veteran zookeeper Peter Dickenson wrote an article about this four years ago: http://zoonewsdigest.blogspot.com/2010/11/good-zoo-and-euthanasia.html

Time magazine talks about how common this is, as well: http://world.time.com/2014/02/10/marius-the-giraffe-not-the-only-animal-zoos-have-culled/.  the article refers to several examples of zoos all over Europe culling healthy animals.

I suppose that it is possible that Otto's un-named "experts" simply are unaware of what is actually happening in zoos, but I suspect that he is either not looking at real experts, or not understanding what he is reading.  the Copenhagen Zoo's ethics board looked at this decision and approved it; they would seem to be far more expert than some random internet dudes.

Now, one can argue the ethics of allowing this giraffe to even be born, knowing that it would be surplus and have to be euthanized.  There are arguments for and against.  But there isn't any evidence that the Copenhagen Zoo did anything that was contrary to normal zoo practices, other than, perhaps, act in a more open manner than zoos usually do in cases like this.

Loser, I hope you had fun looking up that garbage you just cited. At your age I'd think you'd want to be making productive use of your time being quite the limited commodity and all, I won't click on any links posted by a troll who has to change his depends every morning but I can be 100% sure none of them refute what I said.

[sbr]

The appears to be a statement the zoo released before the killing, explaining their decision to euthanize the giraffe.

http://zoo.dk/BesogZoo/Nyhedsarkiv/2014/Februar/Why%20Copenhagen%20Zoo%20euthanized%20a%20giraffe.aspx

[Razgovory]

The fish see the hook and leaves in disgust.  The Grumbler will now declare victory over the fish reasoning he has defended the bait on his hook with naught but his fearsome presence.

[HVC]

So, did grumbler run over otto's cat or something?

[Eddie Teach]

So, did grumbler run over otto's cat or something?

Drivers of grumbler's age are a menace. Well, grumbler is, not sure if there are any others still around. 

[Jacob]

So, did grumbler run over otto's cat or something?

Not yet, but give him time.

[Neil]

So, did grumbler run over otto's cat or something?

Not yet, but give him time.

There's nothing that grumbler wouldn't do to try and win one of his arguments but I think that might be going too far, even for him.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The appears to be a statement the zoo released before the killing, explaining their decision to euthanize the giraffe.

http://zoo.dk/BesogZoo/Nyhedsarkiv/2014/Februar/Why%20Copenhagen%20Zoo%20euthanized%20a%20giraffe.aspx

As a point of reference, I don't believe anyone has said zoos never cull animals. (A crazed, very stupid person posted some articles earlier showing that zoos cull animals, I'm assuming that individual thought he was refuting something that had been stated here when of course, that's not the case.) What the head of the American Zookeepers Association has said, and Jack Hannah has said, is they've never heard of a giraffe being euthanized that was a healthy specimen, solely for genetic reasons. Especially because the entirety of the American zoo keeping association and apparently most of the international organization believe you first have a responsibility to try and re-home animals in that scenario. If you can't re-home, but you have the resources to care for the animal, some form of neutering would be preferred over euthanasia. Culling is only really acceptable when you don't have the resources to handle the animal and after doing some due diligence you can find no other place to home the animal. That's a realistic enough scenario and happens all the time, but the reason zoological professionals in the United States appear up in arms is because accredited zoos had offered to home the animal and the Copenhagen Zoo declined to let it go there. Even the Copenhagen Zoo's statement offers no reason as to why they would turn that down, but only explains why they wouldn't sell the zoo to a private buyer or give the animal to some random organization. There's nothing in the breeding program that would have precluded giving the giraffe to another accredited zoo willing to keep the animal.

The larger the animal the less likely it would be to just randomly get culled FWIW, a healthy male giraffe actually has a good bit of value to many accredited zoos which leads me to think the guy running the Copenhagen Zoo had some sort of weird agenda in place here. Normal zookeepers cull animals when necessary as that's reality, when there is no need to do so and they do it anyway is probably why it's gotten attention. If it was a requirement of the breeding program that the giraffes be euthanized and never given to any other group, then you'd have seen lots of culled giraffes--but giraffe culling isn't common to the point some professionals in the industry have said this is the first time they've really heard of a healthy young male being euthanized in a scenario such as this.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There's nothing that grumbler wouldn't do to try and win one of his arguments but I think that might be going too far, even for him.

Grumbler doesn't have arguments, as a senile pedophile he just has sexually frustrated temper tantrums.

[Neil]

So, the Americans feel one way.  Has the European equivalent to the AZA commented?

[Octavian]

So, the Americans feel one way.  Has the European equivalent to the AZA commented?

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/10/opinion/giraffe-cull-argument-for/

Editor's note: Lesley Dickie is Executive Director of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his.
(CNN)

The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) takes very seriously its duty of protecting endangered and vulnerable species from extinction.
Our European Endangered Species Programmes (EEP) have been established to ensure a viable future for endangered animals -- including giraffes -- despite the destruction of their habitats and rampant poaching of wild animals.
More than 700 giraffes are kept within our institutions to the highest possible standards of welfare and care by zoos such as Copenhagen, and EAZA monitors breeding closely to ensure that the species has the genetic diversity it needs to have the best possible chance of survival in the long term.
While we understand that some members of the public are upset by the euthanization of the giraffe at Copenhagen zoo, the protection of the species as a whole must be our priority.

Our resources are regrettably finite, and as a result, the EEP must prioritize animals which can contribute to the overall genetic health of the captive population.
This means that in rare cases (five in the case of giraffes in EAZA zoos since records began in 1828), animals must be removed from the population by management euthanasia.
Compare this to the 60 billion+ healthy, young animals killed each year worldwide for human consumption. In-breeding is a serious problem that can lead to genes being passed on that increase the population's susceptibility to disease and other chronic conditions which threaten the future of the species in our care.

As for alternative solutions, we cannot in good conscience recommend the transfer of animals under our protection to zoos which are not our members and therefore not subject to our strict standards of animal husbandry and welfare; transfer within our network does not represent a solution to the unsuitability of the individual animal for breeding. Contraception is difficult and in its infancy for female giraffes, and can be irreversible.

Castration of a male animal can have also undesirable side-effects, and a place that could otherwise be reserved for an animal that can contribute to its species' future is lost.
Release into the wild of this single individual would almost certainly result in early death for the animal, after a long and stressful journey of thousands of kilometers -- reintroduction is an intensive and complicated matter and we would not countenance this unless recommended to by the IUCN, the paramount global body for nature conservation.
All of these alternatives were explored, and none were found to be viable; in addition, EAZA's position is supported by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
EAZA members do not euthanize animals lightly, and we are saddened by the death of any animal in our care.
Nonetheless, we strongly support Copenhagen Zoo, which has an exemplary record of animal welfare, education, research and conservation, and which took great pains to be transparent about the situation -- 7,000 visitors came to Copenhagen Zoo on Sunday, while 15 protesters stood outside.
The Copenhagen public spoke with their tickets to the zoo and left knowing far more about the real threats to conservation of giraffes in the wild.

[grumbler]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/10/opinion/giraffe-cull-argument-for/

Editor's note: Lesley Dickie is Executive Director of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his.
(snip)

Who to believe:  Otto or a zoo expert? 

I think it is clear why Otto never proves links to what he claims are the opinions of experts, and instead just gives us his own interpretations of what they are saying; the experts are against him.

And, Otto, if you are reading this, please include another lame ad hom in your response.  Those add so much to your credibility!

[OttoVonBismarck]

If I was interested in having a debate about this issue I might care that I've not posted links. But since I made it clear I wasn't from the very beginning I don't see why you think you can goad me into citing stuff. I've mentioned who I was repeating, I just haven't bothered to provide links. What exactly is the downside for me here? You think less of me, Languish thinks less of me? Please. This isn't a forum for serious discussions and you're the last person I'd engage in serious discourse with based on years of you basically being the biggest troll here in how you conduct yourself.

Note Octavian that the EAZA article hasn't explicitly said that what Copenhagen did was good or bad, just that they support the zoo. They're being diplomatic, especially since we know the zoo in London which is a member of the same organization offered to house the giraffe and pay for its transport which removes basically 100% of any problems there might have been with a transfer. The issue of castration is also pretty clear cut, mammals have been castrated for pretty much as long as humans have kept them in various states of captivity or domestication, while it has some negative side effects the idea that it's some risky thing that is worse than euthanasia is pretty unsupported.

I've never said culling isn't appropriate, just that typically in America it's only done when there aren't other options (which does happen frequently), what has many professionals apparently in both the U.S. and U.K. at least confused is why the Copenhagen Zoo chose to euthanize when it did actually have genuine other options. Which leads me to believe the guy running the giraffe operation in Copenhagen has some strange agenda he wanted to push.