# Marius the Giraffe - Copenhagen Zoo



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

I don't know whether anyone has mentioned this or not, but if they haven't, then say what you will about this. I'm actually sickened, disgusted and utterly outraged that a zoo could do this to an animal that they didn't need anymore despite a British wildlife sanctuary offering to take him. Marius the giraffe killed at Copenhagen zoo despite worldwide protests | World news | The Guardian

If the link doesn't work - the giraffe was euthanised, chopped up in front of children, and then the meat was fed to hungry lions. Digusting.

Sorry, he wasn't euthanised. He was shot in the head. Lovely.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/wildlife/1019509-surplus-giraffe-put-down-copenhagen.html

My opinion hasn't changed. It was for the best, and no one was forced to watch. It would of been better to plan ahead and the giraffe to have not been born in the first place, but 'killing a healthy young animal' as everyone seems to be banging on about, is no different to the rows and rows of beef, pork or lamb in every supermarket around the world. Marius had a better life, more humane death and ultimately a more noble death than most animals in captivity.

Edit...I like how the guardian care enough about it to actually get his name right under the video...Darius the Giraffe eh?


----------



## mick83 (Jan 19, 2014)

think of what it would have cost to ship him to the UK.
Also think of the cost of feeding a pack of lions and how much they've saved by 'recycling' the giraffe.

This isn't 'new news'. This practice is commonplace in zoo around the world.

What might seem disgusting to you, was most likely a very difficult last resort for the zoo.

Genetically speaking, it wasn't viable to keep him. I'm sure they explored every option (neutering??), seperate enclosure, another zoo/conservation centre, etc.

Obviously in this case, euthanasia was the decision. Gruesome as it may seem, its just the way things go


----------



## deefa139 (Mar 9, 2008)

Seems the giraffe wasn't the only one to bite the bullet at a zoo recently.

BBC News - Six Longleat Safari Park lions destroyed due to violence


----------



## Zak (Jan 7, 2008)

deefa139 said:


> Seems the giraffe wasn't the only one to bite the bullet at a zoo recently.
> 
> BBC News - Six Longleat Safari Park lions destroyed due to violence


This is horrific timing on Longleats behalf. UK safari parks regularly cull their groups for management purposes and to reduce the risk of aggression and injury. Its unfortunate that their lion cull was timed to coincide with the big media storm around Marius. Any other time and this would have just gone unpublicised.

In my opinion Denmark have a much more progressive way of thinking when it comes to managing animals. In no way am I saying their standards are any lower, some Danish zoos a fantastic, but they realise that the environment is artificial and that the animals need to be managed accordingly. Better that giraffe is given an excellent life, which it was and then humanely destroyed. The fact they turned it into an education activity is even better. Teach children where food comes from and show them how evolution has shaped the giraffe. I'd be interested to know exactly how many Danish people signed the petition to save him or if it was mostly other countries with different views on animal management that pushed this.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Agree with a couple from above…..incredibly sad that it had to happen, but unfortunately there was no real alternative. Zoos don't just euthanise animals willy nilly….it's not as if they enjoy doing it.

This article is pretty good……http://zoo.dk/BesogZoo/Nyhedsarkiv/2014/Februar/Why Copenhagen Zoo euthanized a giraffe.aspx

As for the feeding to lions thing…..all zoos cull certain species and they're put into the freezer for later feeding. On my first day, I had to chop the head and feet off a screwhorn sheep to feed to the tigers (a grim job for a veggie, but it was a baptism of fire, and now I can cope with such things). As for the dissection….well we already all saw that happen on TV, so what's the difference in real life? So long as it was done for scientific education. They wouldn't have been forced to watch. Hardly the "chopping up in front of children" that the OP claims!

As for Longleat's problem…..rehoming a group of lions is not exactly the easiest thing to do, you know!


----------



## deefa139 (Mar 9, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> Agree with a couple from above…..incredibly sad that it had to happen, but unfortunately *there was no real alternative.* Zoos don't just euthanise animals willy nilly….it's not as if they enjoy doing it.
> 
> This article is pretty good……http://zoo.dk/BesogZoo/Nyhedsarkiv/2014/Februar/Why Copenhagen Zoo euthanized a giraffe.aspx
> 
> ...



So other wildlife parks offering to take him wasn't an alternative solution then ?


----------



## Zak (Jan 7, 2008)

deefa139 said:


> So other wildlife parks offering to take him wasn't an alternative solution then ?


A UK collection did come forward and offer him a home but if this was truly a viable solution it would have already happened. The coordinator for the giraffe breeding programme will already have another giraffe earmarked to go to that collection. As others said this really was the only viable option.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

deefa139 said:


> So other wildlife parks offering to take him wasn't an alternative solution then ?


Not really, no. Because you can't guarantee that he will never be bred from. That's what this was about. The order to cull would have come from the stud book manager, most likely because it was important his genes aren't passed on.

They didn't just kill him for fun, you know. It's important to manage captive populations of any species correctly, to ensure they are genetically viable so their future is safeguarded for years to come.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

The thing that was really troubling about this affair was how it was played out over the social media, really distastefully. A sign of the times, I suppose....but it's worrying because the AR lot will be able to jump on that bandwagon and turn it to their advantage, which could mean real problems for the future of zoos.


----------



## deefa139 (Mar 9, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> The thing that was really troubling about this affair was how it was played out over the social media, really distastefully. A sign of the times, I suppose....but it's worrying because the AR lot will be able to jump on that bandwagon and turn it to their advantage, which could mean real problems for the future of zoos.



Maybe this isn't such a bad thing and it's good that these practices are now being made public. It will certainly make me think twice about visiting and supporting any zoo in the future.

If as has been said they were worried about the giraffe being used for breeding then why not castrate it before it was moved to one of the several places offering to take it ?

Seems as though they took the 'easy' option and put a bullet in his head without exploring other options.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

deefa139 said:


> Maybe this isn't such a bad thing and it's good that these practices are now being made public. It will certainly make me think twice about visiting and supporting any zoo in the future.
> 
> If as has been said they were worried about the giraffe being used for breeding then why not castrate it before it was moved to one of the several places offering to take it ?
> 
> Seems as though they took the 'easy' option and put a bullet in his head without exploring other options.


Those are some BIG nuts to crack! 

Seriously though, sometimes people need to make difficult decisions. When those involve animals that people love, it's even harder. 

I'm sure that if anything else would have been viable, then they would have taken that route. But this age old argument just always highlights the difference between the professional keepers working towards the the greater good of a species, and the private pet keeper.


----------



## deefa139 (Mar 9, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> Those are some BIG nuts to crack!
> 
> Seriously though, sometimes people need to make difficult decisions. When those involve animals that people love, it's even harder.
> 
> I'm sure that if anything else would have been viable, then they would have taken that route. But this age old argument just always highlights the difference between the *professional keepers working towards the the greater good of a species*, and the private pet keeper.



Does make you wonder how 'professional' these people are. They breed an animal that is not endangered, there is no 'return to wild' program' currently and they surely must have known that if it was a male there would be a genetic problem.

I'm not having a go I'm just trying to understand the logic behind killing a perfectly healthy animal that has been bred on purpose.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

deefa139 said:


> Does make you wonder how 'professional' these people are. They breed an animal that is not endangered, there is no 'return to wild' program' currently and they surely must have known that if it was a male there would be a genetic problem.
> 
> I'm not having a go I'm just trying to understand the logic behind killing a perfectly healthy animal that has been bred on purpose.


Well, unfortunately it's pretty hard to make sure that you only ever get female giraffes born. 

As for "return to the wild"....modern zoos are pretty much aware that large captive animals from zoo settings can't be returned to the wild. But their function these days is more focused on education of the public to raise awareness, and to raise cash for in situ conservation efforts.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

But if he had a good life, a peaceful death and was put to good use after, how is that any different to the mice that you feed your snakes? Oh wait.....they didn't have a good rodenty life, did they?


----------



## GT2540 (Jan 31, 2012)

I think I brave choice under difficult circumstances.

Zoo's have come along way from their "stamp collecting" days.

If the animal has no genetic use to the captive population it would seem to be better to put it some use without being a drain on the limited resources that the zoo no doubt has. 

Far better to use what little resource you have in the most effective way. How much better can their funding be used if they do not have to maintain an animal for no other reason than being scarred of the P.R backlash.

New Tesco burgers on the way at a guess?:whistling2:


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

Lets be honest , many zoos breed their stock because baby animals draw in the public,it has no other purpose what so ever.I think it is more common than you imagine stock being destroyed because it has served its purpose,or they are sold on to european dealers.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

animalsbeebee said:


> Lets be honest , many zoos breed their stock because baby animals draw in the public,it has no other purpose what so ever.I think it is more common than you imagine stock being destroyed because it has served its purpose,or they are sold on to european dealers.


.......and drawing in those numbers is essential to the cash raising etc to achieve the ultimate goal. In effect, without those babies, the conservation work suffers. It's a really twisted way of looking at things, but definitely true.


----------



## Zak (Jan 7, 2008)

deefa139 said:


> Does make you wonder how 'professional' these people are. They breed an animal that is not endangered, there is no 'return to wild' program' currently and they surely must have known that if it was a male there would be a genetic problem.
> 
> I'm not having a go I'm just trying to understand the logic behind killing a perfectly healthy animal that has been bred on purpose.


It could simply have been the case that the female got pregnant when she shouldn't have, accidents occasionally do happen. 

Stopping giraffes breeding isnt an easy thing. Anaesthetising them is very risky, zoos do it relatively infrequently because of this so that's castration out of the question. Keeping the breeding male alone isn't the answer, his welfare would be severely compromised. It leaves you with one viable solution, breed and cull. The young giraffes have good lives and then killed humanely.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Many keepers would have been heartbroken as they get fond of them.
Its too easy a decition for zoos studbook etc .
Just kill it as we have no need.
Lemurs at 5 sisters.
Were same.
Edinburgh zoo had no use for them.
Agreed to give to 5 sisters.
But on a deadline.
They dont bother there rear end if the animal doesnt fit in there pretty picture.

They could house elsewhere.
Plan and time it.

If us as private keepers had there attitude we would get the jail.


----------



## Zak (Jan 7, 2008)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> Many keepers would have been heartbroken as they get fond of them.
> Its too easy a decition for zoos studbook etc .
> Just kill it as we have no need.
> Lemurs at 5 sisters.
> ...


I have to disagree with you here. I cant comment on Edinburgh zoo but can say that any studbook manager in Europe does it because of their love for that species, they're not paid extra to do it and most have to do the work for them in their own time. 

Breeding programmes exist to manage the populations of animals in Europe and ensure their genetic viability in generations to come. The programmes produce breeding recommendations based on how the genetics and demographics of the population. Zoos do not always listen to these recommendations and then what? If someone has planned out how things will work a suddenly there's an extra individual you haven't factored in what do you do? Its not easy for anyone to recommend an animal is euthanised but trust me it wasn't a decision the studbook keeper made lightly and it would have been one made in consultation with a lot of people.

Housing elsewhere isn't always an option. Zoos advertise their surplus stock, contact colleagues at other collections to take surplus but sometimes you cant move stock on. Certain populations in Europe are at saturation point, but people still want babies to drive visitor numbers. Whats the solution? Ship animals off to substandard zoos just because they have space/say they want that species?


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Zak said:


> I have to disagree with you here. I cant comment on Edinburgh zoo but can say that any studbook manager in Europe does it because of their love for that species, they're not paid extra to do it and most have to do the work for them in their own time.
> 
> Breeding programmes exist to manage the populations of animals in Europe and ensure their genetic viability in generations to come. The programmes produce breeding recommendations based on how the genetics and demographics of the population. Zoos do not always listen to these recommendations and then what? If someone has planned out how things will work a suddenly there's an extra individual you haven't factored in what do you do? Its not easy for anyone to recommend an animal is euthanised but trust me it wasn't a decision the studbook keeper made lightly and it would have been one made in consultation with a lot of people.
> 
> Housing elsewhere isn't always an option. Zoos advertise their surplus stock, contact colleagues at other collections to take surplus but sometimes you cant move stock on. Certain populations in Europe are at saturation point, but people still want babies to drive visitor numbers. Whats the solution? Ship animals off to substandard zoos just because they have space/say they want that species?



Castrate so it cant breed.
Why sub standard zoos.
Not all are..

Just cant get my head round how there love for the species can make the choice to kill.

And i do disagree.
Stud book keeper makes a hellava lot of shxx choices.
Not whats always best for species.

And they kill too easily.
Surplus to requirements.

Theres a species of antilope that they need females.
Keep breeding to obtain.
Males kept as young to amuse general public.
Then killed off as there surplis to requirements.

It stinks.
But each is gotta have there own views..

I was asked for bloodline of geoffs i have.
Offered a swap.

They wanted a male and female of the bloodline.
The ones i was to get would be implanted...

Clyde n bannana boat.


----------



## Zak (Jan 7, 2008)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> Castrate so it cant breed.
> Why sub standard zoos.
> Not all are..
> 
> ...


Castration - and keep him where? If he was kept with his father he would be severely injured/killed. Send to him to a bachelor group? This would have been the first thing that crossed the coordinators mind, there cant have been space to send him to one. If you can point out a reputable, accredited zoo who wants giraffes then i agree euthanasing Marius was the wrong thing to do but unfortunately they're such a thing doesn't exist.

What's worse? Keeping an alive animal but in substandard accommodation with compromised welfare or euthanising it?

The trouble is that a lot of species that are widely kept in zoos live naturally in biased sex ratio groupings. Many antelope species live 1 male to X females, subordinate males in the wild are chased off and can be injured/killed by the dominant male. This isn't a feasible solution in captivity so they form bachelor herds. Only so many zoos want non-breeding groups so then what do you do? Stop breeding altogether and compromise the future of the species in captivity? Or use culling as a management tool.


----------



## deefa139 (Mar 9, 2008)

Zak said:


> Castration - and keep him where? If he was kept with his father he would be severely injured/killed. Send to him to a bachelor group? This would have been the first thing that crossed the coordinators mind, there cant have been space to send him to one. If you can point out a reputable, accredited zoo who wants giraffes then i agree euthanasing Marius was the wrong thing to do but unfortunately they're such a thing doesn't exist.
> 
> *What's worse? Keeping an alive animal but in substandard accommodation with compromised welfare or euthanising it?*
> 
> The trouble is that a lot of species that are widely kept in zoos live naturally in biased sex ratio groupings. Many antelope species live 1 male to X females, subordinate males in the wild are chased off and can be injured/killed by the dominant male. This isn't a feasible solution in captivity so they form bachelor herds. Only so many zoos want non-breeding groups so then what do you do? Stop breeding altogether and compromise the future of the species in captivity? Or use culling as a management tool.



Shame we don't and are not allowed to show such 'compassion' for humans.

Maybe now is the time to start questioning whether zoo's as they are at the moment serve a rightful place in the way they seem to be managing captive animal populations.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Zak said:


> Castration - and keep him where? If he was kept with his father he would be severely injured/killed. Send to him to a bachelor group? This would have been the first thing that crossed the coordinators mind, there cant have been space to send him to one. If you can point out a reputable, accredited zoo who wants giraffes then i agree euthanasing Marius was the wrong thing to do but unfortunately they're such a thing doesn't exist.
> 
> What's worse? Keeping an alive animal but in substandard accommodation with compromised welfare or euthanising it?
> 
> The trouble is that a lot of species that are widely kept in zoos live naturally in biased sex ratio groupings. Many antelope species live 1 male to X females, subordinate males in the wild are chased off and can be injured/killed by the dominant male. This isn't a feasible solution in captivity so they form bachelor herds. Only so many zoos want non-breeding groups so then what do you do? Stop breeding altogether and compromise the future of the species in captivity? Or use culling as a management tool.


There was a zoo who wanted the animal.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

The zoo that offered to take him wasn't part of the same association. The zoo wouldn't of been allowed to send him there even if they had wanted to, and the zoo that offered knew that...just looking to look good in the papers. 

That sort of journey would have been very stressful for him, he still wouldn't of been able to breed with the zoos other giraffes, anesthetising a giraffe isn't an easy thing in order to castrate, contraceptives don't agree with giraffes organs... He would of had to live a life of solitude or live with other males that would of caused fights. 

All in all, euthenasia was the best course of action. Sometimes death is better. Conservation isn't like a Disney movie. Do Zoos have a place? Yes, because when conserving a species you must have as pure, non related blood line as possible in breeding populations...it baffles me how many can't see that. If we allow them all to breed willy nilly just because they aren't as rare as some doesn't mean 100 years down the line it wont cause problems. What if there is a sudden outbreak of disease that, because there was so little genetic diversity, wiped out every giraffe on the planet... is allowing inbreeding still a good idea now there's none left? 

I've seen so many people going on about boycotting the zoo because of this to close it down... to what means? The animals will all have to be euthenised then if they can't be moved on! How many of these people were concerned by giraffe welfare and conservation before this happened? How many will will bother to help with conservation after it to prevent it happening again? Not many I bet. People just like to be outraged by things no matter how little they understand about it...


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Drayvan said:


> The zoo that offered to take him wasn't part of the same association. The zoo wouldn't of been allowed to send him there even if they had wanted to, and the zoo that offered knew that...just looking to look good in the papers.
> 
> That sort of journey would have been very stressful for him, he still wouldn't of been able to breed with the zoos other giraffes, anesthetising a giraffe isn't an easy thing in order to castrate, contraceptives don't agree with giraffes organs... He would of had to live a life of solitude or live with other males that would of caused fights.
> 
> ...



Yea
But some of us are outraged by zoos ethics.
Not just this animal.

Death isnt allways the answer.
But sometimes its conviniant.

Debate on here a few times.

I once said to chris about hooved going to an estate or sumething rather than being killed.

It can be done with work.
But most zoos think theres nobody as good as them.
Not always the case.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> Yea
> But some of us are outraged by zoos ethics.
> Not just this animal.
> 
> ...


Can't argue with that, zoos get it wrong like everyone else. Sometimes they don't do the right thing. But in this case, they did the right thing.


----------



## Turaco (Jul 24, 2013)

It is sad but read this as it explains more in detail about why the giraffe was euthanised. And that is the correct term- how do you think your meat gets on your plate (unless you eat Halal- in which case it's throat slit and wait to bleed out). That giraffe will have had a pleasant life, just a bit short.

BBC News - Why did Copenhagen Zoo kill its giraffe?

It wasn't viable for giraffe to go to Yorkshire Wildlife park. 

Many people huff at zoos being places for entertainment/ freak shows. Yet when they do something to better conservation they are shot down in flames from those who don't understand how they work.

Funny, I reckon if it was a midwife toad, telfairs skink or almost any type of rare pigeon (something actually rare- If I'm right this giraffe was a reticulated and not under threat) being killed no-one would give a crap. It's just cos it's big and fluffy and has big eyes.

How many people here have squished a fly or spider or some bug cos it was in your way or you don't like them? What's the differance except in size and fluffyness? At least the giraffes body was not wasted. Those lion will have had the most natural meal they'd get!

Oh and the lion thing, again very sad, CRAP timing, but who would want a group of lions that have been proven to be violent and may kill other lions in a group they are intergrated into? If there is an inbalance in the pride other members may be injured= BIG vet bills and suffering. Even if not joining a group few zoos have a quality spare lion enclosure free. Or shall we send them to South Lakes where they can be penned up all day and only let out at feeding time?


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> There was a zoo who wanted the animal.


YWP are always on the crusade to rescue this and save that......couple of weeks ago it was a Mexican polar bear. They come out of it looking like shining stars!

But I'll tell you this, they wouldn't have paid for the transportation. They wouldn't even give me 20 quid for petrol when I was bringing them some free animals that they desperately wanted! The outcome? The animals went to someone else.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> YWP are always on the crusade to rescue this and save that......couple of weeks ago it was a Mexican polar bear. They come out of it looking like shining stars!
> 
> But I'll tell you this, they wouldn't have paid for the transportation. They wouldn't even give me 20 quid for petrol when I was bringing them some free animals that they desperately wanted! The outcome? They went to someone else.



Not doupting it chris.
But why just zoos.
Back to the same old mate.

They need to open up to other options.
Not just kill as they cant find a zoo.

Many zoos make major mistakes.
Major mistakes.

Lions eating bearcats etc.

But like i said all are entitled to there views.
I have good reasons for mine.
And only a miracle would sway me.

Too auld n crabit my friend.
Me that is.
Not you


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Can't think of too many people could house a fully grown bull giraffe though, eh? Not to mention finding friends to go with it! 

Here's the thing....take away the fact that it's a giraffe for a minute. If a cow doesn't fall pregnant one year, it becomes surplus to breeding requirements (like Marius), and is slaughtered. No one cares about that, do they?

Or deer in a deer park are regularly culled. Everyone understands why.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> Can't think of too many people could house a fully grown bull giraffe though, eh? Not to mention finding friends to go with it!
> 
> Here's the thing....take away the fact that it's a giraffe for a minute. If a cow doesn't fall pregnant one year, it becomes surplus to breeding requirements (like Marius), and is slaughtered. No one cares about that, do they?
> 
> Or deer in a deer park are regularly culled. Everyone understands why.


I cant think of anybody either.
But they could try.

Farms are farms.
Deerparks are deerparks.

You dont expect zoos to kill.

But its a debate that my opinion can go no further.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> I cant think of anybody either.
> But they could try.
> 
> Farms are farms.
> ...


Ok, another example. The zoo where I worked had 2 thriving herds of rare breed sheep, an ever expanding herd of sika deer, and various pigs. All had yearly culls to keep the numbers steady, and they had a freezer full of fresh meat for the cats, helping them in some small way towards being self sufficient. How is that different from buying in pigs, sheep and deer?


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Danes defend zoo's killing of giraffe - Telegraph

Here's another article for you to peruse….gives the Danes' point of view.


----------



## wilkinss77 (Sep 23, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> Well, unfortunately it's pretty hard to make sure that you only ever get female giraffes born.
> 
> As for "return to the wild"....modern zoos are pretty much aware that large captive animals from zoo settings can't be returned to the wild*. But their function these days is more focused on education of the public to raise awareness, and to raise cash for in situ conservation efforts.


*yes they can- the arabian oryx & black rhino were saved from the brink of extinction by intensive joint breeding programmes by london & cincinnati zoos, with the resulting progeny being gradually returned to the wild.


----------



## tinyfish (Nov 11, 2008)

I wish they had used the body (hide and skeleton) as taxidermy museum (or otherwise educational) specimens and just fed the meat and organs to the lions.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

I seen it this morning, I don't understand this, there were oppurtunities to house him elsewhere, there was no need to kill him, I question why he was even bred in the first place.

The keepers have a duty to secure the welfare of the animals in there care. 
This wasn't a last option, it wasn't a last resort, it was slaughter, there was options, options to rehome this animal and give it a good standard and quality of life, this in my opinion is disgusting. 

There is a difference between zoological animals, and the food industry animals, most zoos are participating in conservation efforts, every animal born in captivity, in zoos is valubale, captive effort is important, this animal was not raised for slaughter, it was bred in captivity to engage in captive effort, so there is the big question now, why was he bred in the first place? this zoo has to answer this, it also has to answer for why they didn't rehome this captive animal in another place when there was options, this is disgraceful, this zoo has failed to stand to it's responsibility to secure the welfare of a very healthy captive animal that was in it's care, instead, they took the easy way out, and slaughterd it and fed it to the lions, I am ashamed to be a human right now, I am disgusted at the actions of this zoo, this zoo had a responsibility to care for that animal, and I am sorry, but shooting an animal in the head, butchering it up, then feeding it, isn't what I call standing to their responsibility, to secure the welfare of that animal, there was much much more that could have been done for that animal, and this makes me ashamed to be a human right now.


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

This was all done in front of a group of children though. The Faeroe Islands are the same when they slaughter pilot whales, it's done in front of children.

It is as if the Copenhagen Zoo and the people of the Faeroe Islands believe that children should be de-sensitized to such violence and cruelty at an early age.

A quote from my idol on facebook - 



> It is troubling that the Danes and their protectorate the Faeroe Islands expose young children to the horror of slaughter and in the case of the Faeroes, allow the children to participate in the mutilation of the bodies.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Marcia said:


> This was all done in front of a group of children though. The Faeroe Islands are the same when they slaughter pilot whales, it's done in front of children.
> 
> It is as if the Copenhagen Zoo and the people of the Faeroe Islands believe that children should be de-sensitized to such violence and cruelty at an early age.
> 
> A quote from my idol on facebook -


They weren't forced though, people were invited to watch, and from all the footage I've seen the kids looked pretty interested. People have no right to be ignorant about how animals are killed, and dissection is extremely educational. A lot of people would give their right arm to be able to watch that kind of thing, as shown by the amount of people who viewed the 'Inside natures giants' programme.


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

I firmly believe that children should know where their meat comes from but as far as watching a 'live' show, i don't agree with it with children who are as young as they were during that time. How many of those children were potentially traumatised as a result?

Also, how many psychopaths and murderers started life mutilating and watching animals die? Most of them, i certainly wouldn't want my children exposed to such mindless cruelty at such a young age where they wouldn't understand.

We all have different opinions though, i'm not disagreeing with you, just stating how i feel


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

The footage I've watched had kids craning their necks to get a better view, I expect any who would possibly be traumatised would have left before the dissection even began. Apart from the head wound, there was no blood, no drama, just normal butchering/dissection type stuff. I don't think people were allowed to actually witness the euthenasia.

If it wasn't a giraffe, something else would of died to feed the lions, I don't understand the valuing one life over another? Marius had a great 18 months and then died, knowing nothing about it...there was no cruelty, he wasn't waiting in line hearing all the others in front of him like in an abattoir. 

It's perfectly fine disagreeing, I'm not saying you're wrong either opinions aren't fact so by that logic I'm by no means right! I'm just trying to understand peoples opinions on it, because I can't see how, given the way the world and conservation efforts work, how anything else could of been done differently :2thumb:


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Don't they dissect frogs, rats and dogfish at schools anymore?




The one point that I am unable to understand is why the zoo allowed the baby to be produced in the first place if they knew the lineage of the parents. At that stage they would have known that this giraffe would have been closely related to the others. Surely that is what the Studbooks are for?


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

HANG ON!!! Before you get your knickers in a knot, they didn't kill it in front of children.....that would have been done off show. 

They did a did a dissection for scientific education in front of a voluntary audience......that's no worse than us turning on the TV to watch Inside Natures Giants, which has been a massive success, and is used in schools all over the country.

It's a rare opportunity to see some really fascinating aspects of giraffe physiology!


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

Drayvan said:


> The footage I've watched had kids craning their necks to get a better view, I expect any who would possibly be traumatised would have left before the dissection even began. Apart from the head wound, there was no blood, no drama, just normal butchering/dissection type stuff. I don't think people were allowed to actually witness the euthenasia.
> 
> If it wasn't a giraffe, something else would of died to feed the lions, I don't understand the valuing one life over another? Marius had a great 18 months and then died, knowing nothing about it...there was no cruelty, he wasn't waiting in line hearing all the others in front of him like in an abattoir.
> 
> It's perfectly fine disagreeing, I'm not saying you're wrong either opinions aren't fact so by that logic I'm by no means right! I'm just trying to understand peoples opinions on it, because I can't see how, given the way the world and conservation efforts work, how anything else could of been done differently :2thumb:


There's always 2 sides to it  People will always agree/disagree, it's good mature discussions like this rather than arguing that i enjoy : victory:



colinm said:


> Don't they dissect frogs, rats and dogfish at schools anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A very valid point. Maybe the zoo can provide people with an explantion as to why this is the case?


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

mrcriss said:


> HANG ON!!! Before you get your knickers in a knot, they didn't kill it in front of children.....that would have been done off show.
> 
> They did a did a dissection for scientific education in front of a voluntary audience......that's no worse than us turning on the TV to watch Inside Natures Giants, which has been a massive success, and is used in schools all over the country.
> 
> It's a rare opportunity to see some really fascinating aspects of giraffe physiology!


You can't compare this to that tv series. The animals featured on that were not killed for that purpose. Only the polar bears were hunted by local people who are permitted to hunt a small quota of bears per year.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

colinm said:


> Don't they dissect frogs, rats and dogfish at schools anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I was at school we dissected a lambs heart, from tesco... That was about 10 years ago now so I'm not sure schools even do that any more. But I'm pretty sure there's no frog, fish etc dissections any more. I was in my 2nd year of college before any dissection of an entire carcass!

That's the main point that bothers me, he shouldn't of been born. But the way I understand it, the zoo likes to recreate the natural life cycle, including breeding. I'm still on the fence on that one...


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Marcia said:


> You can't compare this to that tv series. The animals featured on that were not killed for that purpose. Only the polar bears were hunted by local people who are permitted to hunt a small quota of bears per year.


This was killed because it couldn't be used for breeding. The dissection and feeding to the cats were just making good use of a sad situation. So yes, it can be compared!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

As for those saying it shouldn't have been born.....well it could have been born a female, and would then have been of use. It's no different to the chicken industry, and I'm sure you all love your KFC!


----------



## Marcia (Aug 23, 2009)

mrcriss said:


> This was killed because it couldn't be used for breeding. The dissection and feeding to the cats were just making good use of a sad situation. So yes, it can be compared!


They shouldn't have bred the animal in the first place. And when i said they couldn't be compared, i was refuring to animals that were dissected because they died from natural causes.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Its a long time since I worked at a zoo and at a very low level but the cynical me would say that baby animals are a good draw for the public. So assuming this is the case they probably didn`t know the lineage at the time of conception.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Marcia said:


> They shouldn't have bred the animal in the first place. And when i said they couldn't be compared, i was refuring to animals that were dissected because they died from natural causes.


They didn't all die from natural causes......the baboon was culled....as was the snake:whistling2:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

colinm said:


> Its a long time since I worked at a zoo and at a very low level but the cynical me would say that baby animals are a good draw for the public. So assuming this is the case they probably didn`t know the lineage at the time of conception.


Even if they did know the lineage, they couldn't possibly have known the SEX.....that's what's important here. How can you guarantee a female? But it's important to still try and breed females.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I disagree its not important to breed giraffe, there are plenty in zoos they don't release them back into the wild. Zoos are important for educational purposes but very few species are reintroduced due to a number of reasons ,mainly cost.

The calf could have been culled soon after birth without all this fuss and no one would have been any the wiser. A press release could have ben put out that it died of natural causes.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

What amazes me is that on an animal forum, where breeding is discussed constantly, that so many people fail to see the problem of having too many males from the same lineage within a limited population. It's astounding!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

colinm said:


> I disagree its not important to breed giraffe, there are plenty in zoos they don't release them back into the wild. Zoos are important for educational purposes but very few species are reintroduced due to a number of reasons ,mainly cost.
> 
> The calf could have been culled soon after birth without all this fuss and no one would have been any the wiser. A press release could have ben put out that it died of natural causes.


Babies are necessary to get bums on seats. Zoos need plenty of visitors to raise cash for in situ conservation work. 

At least he had a good 18 months of life!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

It seems that nobody is coming up with any decent arguments against the cull, other than "well it just shouldn't happen".


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

That's my whole point its all about getting visitors in to pay the revenue.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

colinm said:


> That's my whole point its all about getting visitors in to pay the revenue.


That's how businesses survive. And how zoos pay for projects in other countries.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

They do good work abroad, for sure. I am not anti zoo but neither do I see them through rose tinted glasses.


The very same thing struck me about the Panda pregnancy at Edinburgh.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

colinm said:


> They do good work abroad, for sure. I am not anti zoo but neither do I see them through rose tinted glasses.


Neither do I.......but as an ex-keeper, I can see the practicalities of this situation as well as the financial hardships that each zoo faces.

I'm a veggie, for Christ's sake, so I should be well up in arms! But I can completely understand what happened.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Perhaps they should be more business like then they could afford to pay their staff a decent wage, but I digress now.


----------



## Ophexis (Feb 19, 2010)

It's unfortunate that he had to die, but at least he had a happy, healthy 18 months of life. And his body was put to good use. 
Being an animal lover it pains me to know that this animal has had to be killed but these things happen. Unfortunately, as hard as it is, you don't need as many males as you would females and it's a real shame Marius was simply the wrong sex to be considered viable for breeding. 
The children were not forced to watch the dissection; and it looked they they were really quite fascinated. I would've been too, now and when I was little! 

I'm not going to lie; when I watched the video I did say to myself "Oh, that poor giraffe!" but at no point did I find myself thinking this was unnecessarily cruel. As I said it's a shame Marius had to die when he had done nothing wrong except for be a healthy young boy, but I can see why it was deemed necessary, and he passed without fear or pain, and he was used for both educational purposes and sustenance so his life did not go to waste.


----------



## samurai (Sep 9, 2009)

Although sad to think about, a giraffe in the wild would probably not live out it's full potential lifespan and at some point would be hunted by a predator for them and any scavengers to eat, so in a way it's a natural process being controlled by people. On the flip side I'm not sure if he could have been rehomed to another zoo and been castrated to avoid him breeding again, I can imagine most zoos want breedable animals.

Anyone who eats meat, has snakes, cats etc that eat meat it's really no different to those prey animals dying. Also it's better to avoid potential inbreeding for the future of the species. 

I find the lions being PTS more distressing as they shouldn't have been allowed to keep breeding if there wasn't space to prevent fights breaking out, I don't see why that allowed to happen. The article about them mentioned that other zoos use contraceptives to avoid excessive breeding (and I believe lions breed very well in captivity) so I don't see why that wasn't done but I doubt it was done lightly


----------



## Sylvi (Dec 30, 2008)

I am sure the zoo would have investigated all the possibilities for him before their descision to cull him. There will always be 2 sides to an argument. If he had been female the chances are he would have been added to another herd.

..............closer to home, think of those lovely fluffy Dartmoor and New Forest colts that you see wandering about on our national parks. They were purposely bred too, although not by a zoo, and they get sold to zoos to feed the cats.

The mistake here I feel was to invite the public to observe.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)




----------



## BMo1979 (Feb 13, 2012)

I must say, I find it really interesting to see a balanced discussion about the situation. It's especially good to see an insight from (Ex) Zoo keepers, too. I can't really contribute myself, as I don't know enough about how zoos/conservation work (+ as a meat eater I do enjoy the occasional lamb and veal) though it does make sense seeing it from this point of view.

"The children were not forced to watch the dissection; and it looked they they were really quite fascinated. I would've been too, now and when I was little" Ophexis

My 6 year old loves animals like most children, but he's also very fascinated by anything medical/ "bloody" (loves hospital or vets programs and even insisted on watching my second eldest having a tooth pulled - and now plays dentist, lol). I think he would actually be interested in watching a disection. I think it's mainly the adults and older children/teens that are the "squeamish" ones.


----------



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

What I don't understand, is if this is common practice in zoos around in Europe and so on, why was this needed to be in the news? Shouldn't that be like saying 'THAT SPIDER MONKEY IN CHESTER ZOO JUST BREATHED!' 

Am I missing something? Why did this particular case have to be publicized?


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

eoj89 said:


> What I don't understand, is if this is common practice in zoos around in Europe and so on, why was this needed to be in the news? Shouldn't that be like saying 'THAT SPIDER MONKEY IN CHESTER ZOO JUST BREATHED!'
> 
> Am I missing something? Why did this particular case have to be publicized?


Because the dissections aren't commonplace. Once it was advertised as an event, the social media would have got hold of it (no doubt helped along by animal rights groups), and it went viral....only to be twisted by the press (using inflammatory and incorrect phrases like "chopped up in front of children").


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Ok, so it's no secret that I think very little of South Lakes Safari Slum right? However, just for your interest, here's what they've just posted on their Facebook page concerning the giraffe. Though it pains me to say it, for the first time David Gill has put aside his usual petulant style, and is for once talking sense. If nothing else, it gives you the account from a zoo manager's point of view. Here you go:


"We have received a number of comments and questions about the euthanasia of a Giraffe at Copenhagen Zoo.
Here is our position and comment.
We are members of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, (EAZA). We have been for nearly 20 years, this is a group of European Zoos that have to be at the very highest standard of welfare and ethics and the accreditation is very seriously applied. Copenhagen Zoo is also one of those members and has a very strict welfare and ethics record and is a very highly regarded zoo in every aspect. It is very difficult for many people to understand fully the reasoning behind the euthanasia of any animal , we fully understand that, but it is recognised by responsible zoos as a last resort option to manage populations and inbreeding within the captive populations of wild animals just as the RSPCA would rather euthanase a healthy dog or cat than have it placed in a bad home as a last resort.
Copenhagen Zoo did not do this for entertainment nor did they do this without exploring every other option available to them for the giraffe. This animal was made available to all members of the European Breeding Programme (EEP ) for Giraffes for over a year and no other approved zoo offered to take him , he was maturing and would have fought and then inbred with his family in the zoo as giraffes disperse at 2 years old from their families. Despite all the media stories and comment from zoos who claim to have offered to help, it is wrong for these zoos to make these claims when they had plenty of time before hand to take the animal but did not offer then.
It is a very important policy of EAZA to only allow movement of EEP animals within the EAZA approved zoos. To let any animal be transferred outside of this organisation would potentially compromise its welfare and quality of life and possibly more controversy about whether zoos care about where and how their animals end up.
The public dissection of the giraffe was for educational purposes and research , whilst we would not consider this ourselves we can understand the positive aspects of education and the crowd who watched seemed to be interested in the anatomy. Channel 5 did a series of Inside Natures Giants a few years ago and dissected a giraffe from here that died from natural causes at Londons Royal Veterinary College to be shown on national TV because people are interested in the science of life. We did not think it inappropriate to educated people in this manner once the animal was sadly dead.
Copenhagen Zoo did not have space for the Giraffe as it was maturing and would have suffered from stress when being ejected from the group, its genetics were very well represented in the EEP population making it an animal that would not be allowed to breed in the future. The decision to euthanase would have been taken via the zoo's Ethics committee, veterinary advice and consultation with the animal staff. We support the position of EAZA fully on population management and welfare and ethics and whilst it is always a last resort euthenasia is a better option than being placed in a horrible zoo with low life quality and the danger of over represented genetics getting back into the very healthy and strong managed population for the benefit of species.
We absolutely love our animals and so do Copenhagen Zoo staff but sadly when media and emotions are involved then the real story is hard to find clearly.
Finally, we have had 2 male giraffes on the EAZA available list for over 4 years now, they were allocated to another EAZA zoo within the EEP 2 times and we were let down in both cases due to circumstances beyond our control, however we made a decision to separate the two sub species we hold as we are lucky enough to have two yards and housing. Sadly the zoos who claim to have offered the home to this giraffe after the event also failed to offer to home ours , they are in many ways responsible for the death for holding out instead of taking these surplus males, maybe they just wanted to cash in on publicity to gain public support because they dont really help the EEP or this giraffe by suddenly saying space is available when they never said anything previously.
We fully support and endorse the statement made by the EAZA office and Bengt Holst of Copenhagen Zoo on this matter and hope that understanding is given as options placed forward by the general public , whilst with good intentions, do not take care of the severe stress and trauma any giraffe would go through being placed in the wrong place or back to the wild as some suggest where the death would certainly be far more dramatic and awful at the hands of wild lions or unregulated zoos"


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

A further statement from Mr Gill…..it seems the man is having a rare moment of lucidity! Maybe he's totally sloshed, and becomes almost normal then. I expect normal insane practice to resume tomorrow. 

"We do not wish to labour this situation further but a few vital facts need to be cleared up and answers given.

The giraffe was not publicly killed, euthanasia was administered by an experienced veterinary surgeon out of sight of anyone.

The reason for the post mortem was to learn from the body as much as possible , it is just as vital to post mortem a healthy animal as an ill one as it is only by direct comparison we learn the changes and differences in healthy and non healthy animals just as in humans. The audience was there or watching on the internet because it wanted to be there and no one was forced or stumbled across the vets public post mortem examination. The children were there because their parents wanted them to learn.

They fed the meat to the lions as it would otherwise have been incinerated.

Castration of a male giraffe is not an easy procedure, we looked into this for our two surplus giraffe males with the top zoo vets in the world and concluded it was far too dangerous to attempt the operation due to the exceptionally high mortality risk from a dislocated neck or broken legs during sedation that is as high as 80% .

Many have said why allow it to be born? the fact is that it was 3 and a half years ago that the parents mated, at that time there was clearly available space in EAZA Zoos for giraffes, however the sex is not known until birth. Multi Males cannot be kept easily in breeding groups. Few zoos keep batchelor groups as we did for 12 years to assist the situation for 2 year old males. Contraception is not available for Giraffes at all. Separating sexes is all that can be done to prevent breeding but that also places an ethical question about removing the main purpose of life , reproduction and the rearing of young to dispersion.

Let this be clear, the animal was placed on the surplus listings for a very long time and no one wanted him including the zoo named by some on this posting until it was too late they had plenty of time previously to take the animal but did not for whatever reason. Clearly the EEP co ordinator was not made aware of the space available otherwise he would certainly have been placed there without any doubt well in advance of this situation.

Few places in Europe are licensed or have the specialist facilities to hold giraffes with high welfare conditions. The space was not available and Copenhagen like us would never allow an animal to be sent to a circus or un accredited zoo for sale or commercial activity to private people on a whim.

How many people visit farm parks and the like each year? they love to pet the calves and feed the lambs, see the chickens and see the farm animals eating the food or being milked. Everyone of those animals will die prematurely for food for humans or fed to dogs and cats in tinned foods,, not one will ever die of old age.
We do not boycott Farm parks when the farmer decides the perfectly healthy lambs or piglets are too big and strong to be fed by visitors anymore?

Whilst this is we totally agree been a very unfortunate situation for the giraffe, I can assure you that every other option was looked at with reason and care before the resulting euthanasia. We are certain that this will not appease everyone, but in Africa most giraffe populations are dying our from starvation, poaching and disease issues Zoo management is an important reserve away from the wild where no giraffe has real protection from nature or the cruelty of poaching.

EAZA Zoos follow strict ethical guidelines and we are solidly behind our colleagues in EAZA, without whom many species would be either extinct already or have no wild home to live. EAZA Zoos contribute a huge amount to wildlife conservation in the wild and what we learn in our zoos we can utilse in the wild to assist wild populations."


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> [URL="http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac65/salazareslytherin/true1_zps94c5a178.jpg"]image[/URL]


 This will sound far more harsh than it should because it's written in black and white, with no tone, but is that statement not emotive drivel? Anyone who believes all animals are equally important doesn't really have a very good understanding of the natural world do they?

It's a nice idea, but not very realistic.


----------



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

BBC News - Second Danish zoo may kill a giraffe called Marius - Can somebody just remind me, _never,_ to go to ANY zoo in Denmark at all?


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

*yawn*


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

I certainly think there are many worse places in the world associated with animal cruelty and wiping out endangered species. I hardly think Denmark features on that scale!


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

Then dont visit any zoo because most zoos are all the same




eoj89 said:


> BBC News - Second Danish zoo may kill a giraffe called Marius - Can somebody just remind me, _never,_ to go to ANY zoo in Denmark at all?


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

So what happens when a human is born to an incestuous relationship, should they be shot in the head too? Some of them are a result of rape, and it could not be helped.

Personally I think he should have been castrated and gone to another zoo or private collection, I bet a lot of people in the UAE would have been interested in paying for him, hence cutting the costs on the zoo, as they are BIG exotic animal collectors over there.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> So what happens when a human is born to an incestuous relationship, should they be shot in the head too? Some of them are a result of rape, and it could not be helped.
> _Utterly ridiculous statement!_
> 
> Personally I think he should have been castrated and gone to another zoo or private collection, I bet a lot of people in the UAE would have been interested in paying for him, hence cutting the costs on the zoo, as they are BIG exotic animal collectors over there.


Castration would have meant a general anaesthetic, which is expensive, extremely dangerous, and in no way guaranteed to work with giraffes. Also, you must be under the misapprehension that zoos have cash pouring out of their arses, because a giraffe (especially one that is unable to breed) is an incredibly expensive animal to keep. Do you know how much a large zoo costs to run? We're talking 10's of thousands a day!

"Another zoo" - Marius was on the surplus list since the day he was born (18 months), and wasn't claimed....how long were they expected to wait?

"Private collection" - would have to be someone with the facilities to keep a herd of giraffe...not many of those around. Would also need to guarantee that Marius couldn't breed at the private collection....not easy to do! Also, giving animals from zoos to private keepers goes against all the EAZA and BIAZA rules....rules which are put in place for very very good reasons! Of course some less high profile animals do find their ways into private collections on the quiet, but it would be impossible to keep such a newsworthy animal a secret.

Does this answer all of your points?


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ over life seems to be the consensus on this thread, is this how you people treat your pets? Once the vets bills start stacking up you 'euthanize' them?. We spent $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on a guinea pig just to lose her during surgery, it's the risk you must take to try to preserve life. If you're going to set up a zoo, and this was HUMAN error that his parents were allowed to breed in the first place, then you do have money yes it's called business, to them it's probably like Aldi losing 10,000 customers in one day. Many zoos get HUGE amounts of money in donations made via gift sales, and online donations. I keep pets, 6 rats one cat, hopefully something else soon, and I would spend every last penny I had to ensure their LIFE if it came to it. It can cost hundreds to repair a broken pelvis in a cat, but if my cat got injured, there ain't no way while there is still a chance, if a vet agrees surgery is an option, that he is being 'put down' because of £££££££££, we'd find it from somewhere. I was and always will be disgusted by this story as it was the most wicked animal on Earth that let him even be born, HUMANS. Do you think I let my rats inbreed? If I am planning a litter (which is rare as I don't usually breed) I go back across the lines to make sure not even third cousins mate, if I can do that with rats, zoos can do that with giraffes!. The wicked, corrupt EU may have had something to do with it, but it is still no excuse. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is never an excuse to end a life, I don't care what anyone said. How would you like it if your hospital said 'we're not going to treat that infection because it costs too much, we're going to kill you instead?. It scares me, as there are so many pet keepers on here, wish I had never signed up, as the consensus seems to me $$$$$$$$$ ££££££££££ over life. 

Also why is that a 'ridicules statement' it's true, it happens, it causes genetic malformations and birth defects just like it does in animals. Or are you forgetting humans are also ANIMALS too?. I am not saying that should happen but it is the same principle isn't it. 

Last time I visited Twycross Zoo I asked how many times they put animals down, and they said 'only if they are too sick to treat or injured beyond treatment, or in very old age and suffering old age related health issues, in no other case is an animal destroyed. They also have programs with other zoos to send off surplus animals into other breeding programs, and also take in a lot of animals. So called 'Safari parks' like Longleat are just as bad and I have no desire to visit one, as they 'cull' healthy animals. It's an un natural environment, not like wildlife control for animals such as deer, but culling so that humans can carry on bringing in ££££££££££££££££. It also sounds like they did this in front of the public and used it as a publicity stunt, how low can you go for ££££££££££ $$$$$$$$$$$ Could have at least given him the dignity of a private death. 

Glad you seem pro EU, I want my country out of the corrupt hell it has become :devil: so we can make our own rules. Did you know the stacks of EU rules are strangling our once flourishing farming industry?. Make small businesses very hard to start up, use your vote wisely come 22nd. I bet it was some 'act' (not law but not going into the legal stuff) that was forced upon them by the EU that made moving him so hard, NOT that nobody wanted him and some underpaid clerk didn't want to fill in all the paperwork. Yes other zoos DID want him. 

£ over life, something I will NEVER agree with. If you had a pet that was healthy, would YOU be able to do this? Animals in zoos are essentially pets, all domestic animals kept for observational purposes come under the genre pet, excluding livestock. If we can move cattle from one country to another, then why not a giraffe and there WERE plenty of offers. So don't give me that tripe.

There is a risk with ALL anesthetics, albeit a mouse or a giraffe or a human. Euthanasia should only be an option where SUFFERING outweighs quality of life. I wish the :devil: that the EU is would add this to their millions of 'acts'.


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Ophexis said:


> It's unfortunate that he had to die, but at least he had a happy, healthy 18 months of life. And his body was put to good use.
> Being an animal lover it pains me to know that this animal has had to be killed but these things happen. Unfortunately, as hard as it is, you don't need as many males as you would females and it's a real shame Marius was simply the wrong sex to be considered viable for breeding.
> The children were not forced to watch the dissection; and it looked they they were really quite fascinated. I would've been too, now and when I was little!
> 
> I'm not going to lie; when I watched the video I did say to myself "Oh, that poor giraffe!" but at no point did I find myself thinking this was unnecessarily cruel. As I said it's a shame Marius had to die when he had done nothing wrong except for be a healthy young boy, but I can see why it was deemed necessary, and he passed without fear or pain, and he was used for both educational purposes and sustenance so his life did not go to waste.


I have visited places where they only 'euthanize' sick, injured or very elderly animals with health complaints where vets have said suffering outweighs quality of life. They did say the meat is used to feed the big cats, no problem with that, but they are not chopped up in front of the public to make ££££££££££. When you watch lion and tiger feeding, all you see is a chunk of meat, just like you may buy in a supermarket. If it did come from a euthanized animal, then the 'chopping up' was done in private and the euthanasia done in private. 

If I 'accidentally' inbred a rat and killed him, chopped him up and fed him to my cat I'd be prosecuted! and rightly so!. I keep a 'stud book' to make sure this does not happen, even though I seldom ever breed my rats, it's to keep a record of the linage so inbreeding does not happen, not even third cousins!. Even if it did by accident I would have the offspring castrated/spayed. I do consider all animals equal, and all healthy animals have a right to live, specially after falling victim to human mistakes. Same as the lions at Longleat, they let their pride get too big and out of control, so instead of offering healthy lions to other zoos for breeding, they shot them. What a wonderful world we live in. NOT.


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Sylvi said:


> I am sure the zoo would have investigated all the possibilities for him before their descision to cull him. There will always be 2 sides to an argument. If he had been female the chances are he would have been added to another herd.
> 
> ..............closer to home, think of those lovely fluffy Dartmoor and New Forest colts that you see wandering about on our national parks. They were purposely bred too, although not by a zoo, and they get sold to zoos to feed the cats.
> 
> The mistake here I feel was to invite the public to observe.


That is wildlife management, just like deer and hog culling, to keep herds healthy by taking out older and weaker stock and to prevent other animals being pushed out of the food chain, we eat their meat, so I don't see an issue here. They are wild animals, not captive, the giraffe had no choice as he was caged, and a mistake was made. Obviously the fault of whoever kept the stud book. I do think every animal has the right to life, and every animal is equal, but this is more justifiable than 'euthanizing' a healthy giraffe and chopping him up so the public can pay £££$$$$$ to watch it. 
This is akin to hunting, which can actually help make animals stronger and more healthy by improving the gene pool. It is wrong yes, but at least when the big cats are fed all you see is meat and the zoo hasn't exploited it it to make ££££££££££££. They kept him alive to make £££££ $$$$$$ as baby animals bring in $$$$ £££££ then killed him, the whole thing is wrong. Captive and wild are worlds apart. I believe zoos should be moving away from 'humanizing' animals and working towards wild release programs, specially in the case of endangered species.


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> If I 'accidentally' inbred a rat and killed him, chopped him up and fed him to my cat I'd be prosecuted! and rightly so!. .


 
Can you give one example of case law where that has happened?


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

mrcriss said:


> Castration would have meant a general anaesthetic, which is expensive, extremely dangerous, and in no way guaranteed to work with giraffes. Also, you must be under the misapprehension that zoos have cash pouring out of their arses, because a giraffe (especially one that is unable to breed) is an incredibly expensive animal to keep. Do you know how much a large zoo costs to run? We're talking 10's of thousands a day!
> 
> "Another zoo" - Marius was on the surplus list since the day he was born (18 months), and wasn't claimed....how long were they expected to wait?
> 
> ...


No it doesn't, I don't know how you can think this is 'right', I am not trying to be nasty but you do seem to have a pretty poor attitude towards anyone who thinks differently to you. We are entitled to our opinions but silly comments like '*yawn*' I mean come on. If I killed one of my rats because he was inbred, chopped him up, invited my friends to pay £5 to watch and fed him to my cat I would be prosecuted and rightly so and that is just for a rat!. I would have the litter neutered/spayed once of the right age and give them to new pet homes as non breeders. So what gives zoos the special right to do this? Neither rat or giraffe is 'endangered'. Not that such a horrible thought would ever cross my mind. I honestly hope we get out of the EU ASAP, and other countries make the right choice too, as I think EU jargon has a LOT to do with it. Live feeding in the UK is actually illegal under the animal welfare act, which most people here should know, so is killing your pet. All captive animals can be considered 'pets' as they cannot survive without human help. This $$$$$$$ over life attitude you have, to be frank, is not a good one. Do you think my local petting farm kills animals in front of the public to feed to the reptiles and lets people watch them die? No they buy in, at their cost, frozen pre killed. Or if a sick animal has to be euthanized, they invite the public to watch them being chopped up to make a few bucks? No, they do not. It would drive people AWAY from visiting them and cause outrage.


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Mynki said:


> Can you give one example of case law where that has happened?


Just Google 'pet cruelty'! It is illegal to kill your pet, so why is it legal for a zoo to kill a healthy animal. The point I am making is if we did this to our pets, we'd be prosecuted for it! Inbred or not!.


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> Just Google 'pet cruelty'! It is illegal to kill your pet, so why is it legal for a zoo to kill a healthy animal. The point I am making is if we did this to our pets, we'd be prosecuted for it! Inbred or not!.


Serious question, can you please give one example of real life case law where a prosecution has happened in the manner you explain?

Googling pet cruelty means nothing. I'd like you to provide hard, factual evidence to back up your claim. An example of case law where this has been proved in a real court will do. Anything else is simply hearsay and innuendo.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

oh for goodness sake...
please wind your neck in and stop with the posts about rats being chopped up.
I'm not normally bothered by stuff like this and keep my nose out but crieky man.... the last 4 posts you have posted are just the same...
MrCriss clearly isn't on line so wind it in and give him chance to answer before you start on another post about rats, giraffes and stop putting oodles of £££££££££££££££££££££££ or $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Rach1 said:


> oh for goodness sake...
> please wind your neck in and stop with the posts about rats being chopped up.
> I'm not normally bothered by stuff like this and keep my nose out but crieky man.... the last 4 posts you have posted are just the same...
> MrCriss clearly isn't on line so wind it in and give him chance to answer before you start on another post about rats, giraffes and stop putting oodles of £££££££££££££££££££££££ or $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


The truth hurts doesn't it. Money over life. Don't worry, you will soon be able to pay to choose the sex of your baby. Money rules the world, not kindness or compassion, but money, and Marius was money, in more ways than one. Don't speak to me like that simply because you don't understand the point I am making, it is illegal to kill your pet in most countries (unless it is humane euthanasia performed by a vet after suffering outweighs quality of life) , so why is it legal for a zoo to kill a healthy giraffe.


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> The truth hurts doesn't it. Money over life. Don't worry, you will soon be able to pay to choose the sex of your baby. Money rules the world, not kindness or compassion, but money, and Marius was money, in more ways than one. Don't speak to me like that simply because you don't understand the point I am making, it is illegal to kill your pet in most countries (unless it is humane euthanasia performed by a vet after suffering outweighs quality of life) , so why is it legal for a zoo to kill a healthy giraffe.


If it is, then you can provide some proof. I'm not a google warrior, I don't believe everything I read on the net and need proof.

So where is yours. Failure to provide any will result in people thinking you're stating an opinion, and not fact. So, one last time, can you back up any of your claims?


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> The truth hurts doesn't it. Money over life. Don't worry, you will soon be able to pay to choose the sex of your baby. Money rules the world, not kindness or compassion, but money, and Marius was money, in more ways than one. Don't speak to me like that simply because you don't understand the point I am making, it is illegal to kill your pet in most countries (unless it is humane euthanasia performed by a vet after suffering outweighs quality of life) , so why is it legal for a zoo to kill a healthy giraffe.



Please don't assume I don't understand I am not a simpleton and also your post back to me is somewhat pot-kettle-black.
look at how you are speaking to other forumites!
And no the truth doesn't hurt because I have no feelings on this either way- I was simply fed up of reading the same post over and over again.
Oh and please don't also assume I am one of those types who would ever dream of choosing my babies sex... I didn't even ask at my scans, I didn't have tests to check for down's etc because it wasn't important to me.
you make a lot of assumptions and that is wrong...


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Hamster killer boyfriend escapes jail for throwing pet out of window - Daily Record just click one of the silly questions, it opens the article. 

You could say 'it's just a hamster', but it's still illegal.


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

That's it for me on this thread, I've had my say, made my points, and done. 

Some points are valid, others are not. Make of it what you will, an innocent healthy animal died and in my eyes that is wrong.

That's me done.


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> Hamster killer boyfriend escapes jail for throwing pet out of window - Daily Record just click one of the silly questions, it opens the article.
> 
> You could say 'it's just a hamster', but it's still illegal.


That's not the point you made though. You said it was illegal to kil an animal to feed to your pets. That's what I want to see proof for. I don't believe you know what ypou're talking about, but am giving you the chance to prove otherwise.


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Mynki said:


> That's not the point you made though. You said it was illegal to kil an animal to feed to your pets. That's what I want to see proof for. I don't believe you know what ypou're talking about, but am giving you the chance to prove otherwise.


It is illegal to kill a PET animal, whether it is a dog or a rat. You should already know this! This is what the animal welfare act covers. Live feeding of mammals is also illegal. 

If the said animal is a cow and it has been slaughtered and unwanted parts of it go into my cat's food, that is not illegal, but if I killed one of my own pets and did this, then it is! I can't understand how you don't know this already, every pet owner does!. The maximum sentence for killing your pet, no matter the reason is a 20k fine and or 6 months in prison. 

I think you misunderstand my point. Pets are captive, Marius was captive, what's the difference?


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> It is illegal to kill a PET animal, whether it is a dog or a rat. You should already know this! This is what the animal welfare act covers. Live feeding of mammals is also illegal.
> 
> If the said animal is a cow and it has been slaughtered and unwanted parts of it go into my cat's food, that is not illegal, but if I killed one of my own pets and did this, then it is! I can't understand how you don't know this already, every pet owner does!. The maximum sentence for killing your pet, no matter the reason is a 20k fine and or 6 months in prison.
> 
> I think you misunderstand my point. Pets are captive, Marius was captive, what's the difference?


I think it's time for you to be educated as you're quite clearly clueless. You have consistantly failed to provide any evidence of case law proving otherwise despite being given ample opportunity to prove otherwise.

Read this. 

http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/snakes/69279-live-feeding-laws.html

Although that was written some time ago you will find that there has never been a prosecution of someone live feeding an animal to another here in the UK. So all of your points are to be frank, complete and utter rubbish.


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Mynki said:


> I think it's time for you to be educated as you're quite clearly clueless. You have consistantly failed to provide any evidence of case law proving otherwise despite being given ample opportunity to prove otherwise.
> 
> Read this.
> 
> ...


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4


Indeed, there are a couple of members on this very forum Natrix and Chris Newman, representatives of the FBH who were involved in the creation of that very law. 

They've also advised on this very forum, many times that under that act it is still not unlawful to feed live. DEFRA have also advised that they would not prosecute those feeding live too. 

So you're still completely wrong. 

Next...


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Mynki said:


> Indeed, there are a couple of members on this very forum Natrix and Chris Newman, representatives of the FBH who were involved in the creation of that very law.
> 
> They've also advised on this very forum, many times that under that act it is still not unlawful to feed live. DEFRA have also advised that they would not prosecute those feeding live too.
> 
> ...


Maybe I am wrong, so what, I still can't believe I've met someone who does not think it is illegal to kill their pet!. 

Let it go. 

As I said I am out of this thread. RIP Marius, a tragic mistake of HUMAN making, and of course, money.


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> Maybe I am wrong, so what, I still can't believe I've met someone who does not think it is illegal to kill their pet!.
> 
> Let it go.
> 
> As I said I am out of this thread. RIP Marius, a tragic mistake of HUMAN making, and of course, money.


 
You're completely wrong on the law, and on a few other things too, but I couldn't be bothered to explain why on the other points.

Who believes it is right (from a moral perspective) to kill their pet? Are you assuming things again?


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Mynki said:


> You're completely wrong on the law, and on a few other things too, but I couldn't be bothered to explain why on the other points.
> 
> Who believes it is right (from a moral perspective) to kill their pet? Are you assuming things again?


Sick, psychopathic people, that's who, believe me, there are plenty of them. Just google things like 'dog hung' etc. Those are the types of people I refer to.

Now please, just drop it!:gasp:


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> Sick, psychopathic people, that's who, believe me, there are plenty of them. Just google things like 'dog hung' etc. Those are the types of people I refer to.
> 
> Now please, just drop it!:gasp:


I have no interest in psychopaths thanks.

However, what should people feed their pet which is an obligate live feeder?

Or a newly hatched snake which is refusing all forms of dead food and cannot be assist fed? Do you believe they are psychopaths too? Or are they just caring for an animal in their charge?


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Mynki said:


> I have no interest in psychopaths thanks.
> 
> However, what should people feed their pet which is an obligate live feeder?
> 
> Or a newly hatched snake which is refusing all forms of dead food and cannot be assist fed? Do you believe they are psychopaths too? Or are they just caring for an animal in their charge?


Caring for an animal in their charge, if it has to be, if the snake won't take dead food, then their job is to keep the snake alive, if that means feeding live, then I suppose it means feeding live, they have an obligation to reduce suffering to BOTH animals. Meaning only feeding the snake when it will make an instant kill.


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> Caring for an animal in their charge, if it has to be, if the snake won't take dead food, then their job is to keep the snake alive, if that means feeding live, then I suppose it means feeding live, they have an obligation to reduce suffering to BOTH animals. Meaning only feeding the snake when it will make an instant kill.


I would have thought you would have known that the majority of snakes constrict their prey before consuming it. This is far from instant. 

What do you have to say about that?


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

there seem to be a fair few points you are not 'not understanding' now much like you accused me of.
on a forum is it advisable to not spit your dummy out when someone offers alternative opinions but to listen and debate... not accuse and assume.
Mynki makes some good points and has offered tangible evidence to back himself up...


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Mynki said:


> I would have thought you would have known that the majority of snakes constrict their prey before consuming it. This is far from instant.
> 
> What do you have to say about that?


If it is a case of keeping the snake alive, you use designated feeder animals which come from a very weak gene pool, not your cat! That is the point I am trying to make, but you obviously don't get it so just please, let it go!


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chez86 said:


> If it is a case of keeping the snake alive, you use designated feeder animals which come from a very weak gene pool, not your cat! That is the point I am trying to make, but you obviously don't get it so just please, let it go!


OK, so why does the snake have any more right to be kept alive than a feeder animal? Why do you assign more importance to one than the other? 

In the case of a mouse being fed to a royal python, neither has more rights in law than an other. 

So I have to ask you why you believe one is more important than the other?


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

WOW!:gasp::gasp::gasp: I think someone needs to turn the crazy down a bit! 

You're right, Rachel, I've not been around to answer today....whilst I'd love to spend hours answering each and every insane argument raised about rats and all that guff, I have a job :2thumb:

Speaking of which, I don't even know where to start in answering this nutter's ramblings (or even if I want to), because I had hoped the whole Marius thing had been put to bed. 

All I will say is this in bullet point form:

1. Thingy (whathisname) compares anaesthesia and operating on a giraffe to surgery on a human or a mouse.....*are you for real?*

2. What's all this chopping up rats crap? You do realise that we're not talking about a little pet that takes up a tiny space and costs pennies to feed, even if it's a genetic waste of time?

3. They didn't euthanise Marius...he was culled. BIG difference!

4. Thingy clearly has had no experience working with large collections, or big livestock. If he had, then he would be able to see matters from a different angle. This isn't about pets, or slaughtering disabled people, or racism or anymore of your ridiculous rantings. Until you have educated yourself on the finer points of zoo and livestock management, the rules of BIAZA and EAZA (which as I said are in place for very good welfare reasons), or the history of this particular case (of which you seem to know none), then I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself, and cease to overuse your "£" and "$" buttons! 

I'm so done with this....it's going round in circles, has attracted some really CRAZY arguments, and is getting a bit boring now. FACT is....Marius was culled with good reason, it was dignified and he was put to good use afterwards. There is nothing different here to the cute little piglets on the open farm that my niece goes to being sent for slaughter. 

Nobody....that's *NOBODY*...has yet come up with a decent and rational argument to the contrary. : victory:


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

mrcriss said:


> WOW!:gasp::gasp::gasp: I think someone needs to turn the crazy down a bit!
> 
> You're right, Rachel, I've not been around to answer today....whilst I'd love to spend hours answering each and every insane argument raised about rats and all that guff, I have a job :2thumb:
> 
> ...


Bullet point is about right :censor: 

The EU put a lot of these 'laws' in place and I am voting for my country to leave the EU tomorrow morning. Without EU regulations and 'laws' each country would be free to make it's own laws concerning things like this. 

I loathe the EU, they've done nothing for me and want to take my E cig away so :censor: them at the ballot box tomorrow. 

The :devil: EU are responsible for more unnecessary 'culling' of zoo animals than anything else on Earth, so if you are an animal lover, vote OUT tomorrow. I want a government free to make it's own laws, including a referendum on the death sentence for serial killers and life meaning life etc, out of the EU, free to trade with whom we please, free to write our own bill of human rights that cannot be exploited by criminals :2thumb:

Copenhagen zoo didn't kill this animal, the EU did by leaving them with no other choice. They should rethink their studbook keeper too :whip: I keep rats and even I keep a studbook, even though I seldom breed it keeps a log of linage and what best genes to mix if I DO decide to breed as a one off occasionally. Most of my county's laws were not written by our government, but by a bunch of faceless men in Brussels, well tomorrow is the day to say OUT, and IN with our own freedoms to make laws which suit our people and our country.  

I am also rethinking my stance on zoos, I would prefer more protection for WILD animals IN THE WILD than in cages. Such as the Sumatran tiger and the snow leopard. Breeding them in zoos for people to gawp at is not solving the problem in the wild, where it is most important. I am more likely to support groups like WWF and other groups which promote saving the rainforests, saving the jaguar, and if you want to see big cats, see them from a safe distance in the wild, take a tour in Africa of the Serengeti National Park, see lions free, see giraffes free, see elephants and hippos free. Freedom is my thought now, we can still educate via the internet, and educate the next generation to help keep animals wild, and all captive breeding should have wild release programs attached to it. I hope zoos phase out in my life time and go into the history books, it's a Victorian concept that stuck. If you want to experience these animals, then you need to save up some cash and take a wild tour. 

I am sorry for how I spoke to you, but my stance on this issue stands, it should never have been allowed to happen in captivity, where HUMANS control the animals ability to breed. 

Peace,

~Chez


----------



## Archie1 (May 20, 2014)

You're a mentalist


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

Archie1 said:


> You're a mentalist


I prefer to go by Crazy  

Please read above


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Archie1 said:


> You're a mentalist


I second this motion. He is indeed a mentalist.

Just some little newbie flexing his teeny tiny forum muscles......blesssssss!


----------



## Chez86 (May 20, 2014)

mrcriss said:


> I second this motion. He is indeed a mentalist.
> 
> Just some little newbie flexing his teeny tiny forum muscles......blesssssss!


To whom do you refer? lol me or him?


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

This is a very emotive subject for pet keepers like us. But its going way off the subject.

Zoos are zoos ,as a whole they do some very good work but its not as simple as releasing captive animals back into the wild. They have to be acclimatised, checked for diseases and parasites, so it costs thousands of pounds. People still want to see a tiger or lion close up, You cannot get the smell or feel of an animal like that from a television programme. Most people are not fortunate enough to go to Africa or India to see them in the wild so can experience these animals in their local zoo.

Anyway I am closing this thread now before it gets too silly.


----------

