# 'Surplus' giraffe put down at Copenhagen Zoo



## 245T (Aug 14, 2013)

Giraffe killed and fed to lions, as his genetics were already 'well represented'.

Copenhagen zoo, eh? What a worthless bunch of scumbags.

BBC News - 'Surplus' giraffe put down at Copenhagen Zoo


----------



## vgorst (Sep 27, 2011)

While I agree that it's sad that a healthy, young animal was PTS, there are usually very good reasons behind it. 

If they were going to keep him, it would have meant either the snip or keeping him separate permanently. Operations are risky in general, and anesthetising a giraffe isn't easy - then they are left with a non-functioning male that serves no purpose. Simply another mouth to feed that takes up space; whether we like it or not, money is an issue. Keeping separate isn't in the interest of the animal either, as a young male he would still be fairly social and as an adult he would want to breed.

Moving a giraffe long distances isn't easy either, it requires lots of time and training (never mind money again). Then you have to think about genetics, sub-species, social groups, facilities, quarantine, disease etc. I've heard of zoos refusing to send away animals due to bad facilities, in which case they might have been doing the giraffe a favour. 

Sad, but it's a fairly common zoo practice and it's going to keep happening, especially where males are concerned. If anything, I think the way they disposed of the body was quite interesting and maybe should be more common place.


----------



## 245T (Aug 14, 2013)

_"Visitors, including children, were invited to watch while the giraffe was dissected and fed to the lions"_


----------



## vgorst (Sep 27, 2011)

Used as an educational tool too then, that's something I would have found very interesting to watch.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

It says in the article that people were invited to watch, they didn't just slap him down in the middle of the zoo and start cutting him up. The truth is zoos do have an 'ugly' side, but it's necessary. If people don't like it they shouldn't go to zoos or fund them. 

Personally, I don't think the giraffe should have been born. They should of known that with the genetics it would of had that it would need to be put down. But baby animals bring in funds, and funds feed and pay wages as well as go towards conservation. In the bigger picture, the loss of one animal to benefit the genetic integrity of captive giraffes is probably for the best. It's very sad, but when you can't sell outside a certain group of zoos, hands are tied. Very sad, but necessary.


----------



## 245T (Aug 14, 2013)

I can't help but wonder how much fanfare was made over the new arrival when he was born, and how much money was brought into the zoo's coffers by folk eager to see him, and how little that counted at the end. Maybe the zoo should learn not to give names to their disposable commodities at the risk of adding to further outrages?

Given the reactions these events have provoked, I'm happy to find myself in one of those rare instances when I seem to be on the same page as most everybody else.


----------



## vgorst (Sep 27, 2011)

The general public is idealistic. For a lot of zoos now, conservation and education are the main priorities, so chances are that the money gained from his birth would have gone towards conservation/educational projects, day-to-day running costs and improvements. Not saying it makes it better, but zoos do rely on baby animals, regardless of their fate.

The vast majority of zoos will cull surplus animals, personally I would rather that, and their bodies used for a good purpose, than go and see too many animals in too small a space and all the welfare/behavioural problems that go with overcrowding.

Personally I think the lions culled at Longleat is a worse case than the giraffe, they just did it all hush hush like most other zoos do.


----------



## 245T (Aug 14, 2013)

Given that there _were_ viable and acceptable alternative to the actions taken, and given that such events are not uncommon but rarely so widely publicised it does then beg the question of why this matter was not handled more discretely - was this a mistaken and ill-advised quest for honesty and transparency, simple stupidity and lack of the most basic foresight, or publicity-seeking at its most cruel and cynical?

Actions have consequences, cause and effect - simple reality - and what will the consequences and effects be here one has to wonder?

I'll happily admit that the giraffe is to me easily the most magnificent and wondrous creature that exists, so I'm biased and I'm hurting. This sucks, and they're scumbags.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

This article tells the story a bit better in my opinion. Marius the giraffe skinned and fed to lions as children look on at Copenhagen Zoo | Metro News 

The Zoo is a member of the European association of zoos, they have strict rules on inbreeding (as it says in the above link) Sending the giraffe to another Zoo outside of that association is prohibited. I think some peoples attitude towards this is naive and disgusting, people at the zoo had received death threats for crying out loud, I have friends on my facebook saying they'd of fed the keepers to the lions too, it's stupid... the giraffe had a far better life than the hundreds of thousands of cattle slaughtered every day, and probably a more humane death too. When conserving a species, tough decisions have to be made, it's tough and just the way it is, no matter how sad. I'm just glad that there are people out there who can make these tough decisions so other people don't have to. Our wildlife is already in an appauling state without having inbred captive populations to add the the problems...


----------



## vgorst (Sep 27, 2011)

245T said:


> Given that there _were_ viable and acceptable alternative to the actions taken, and given that such events are not uncommon but rarely so widely publicised it does then beg the question of why this matter was not handled more discretely - was this a mistaken and ill-advised quest for honesty and transparency, simple stupidity and lack of the most basic foresight, or publicity-seeking at its most cruel and cynical?
> 
> Actions have consequences, cause and effect - simple reality - and what will the consequences and effects be here one has to wonder?
> 
> I'll happily admit that the giraffe is to me easily the most magnificent and wondrous creature that exists, so I'm biased and I'm hurting. This sucks, and they're scumbags.


How acceptable were the alternatives? Can't have been that acceptable if they were refused, when I'm sure the zoos priority was the welfare of the animal. Like I said earlier, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Did the zoos that offered a place have good facilities? Group dynamics (most already have adult/breeder males)? Sub-species (plenty of culling happens due to hybrids)? Would they be able to have moved the animal before he becomes too mature (these things easily takes months, even years, of planning)? It may have been a case of the prospective zoo was fine but the zoo chose to make the giraffe an educational tool? Maybe it was running out of money and it was carnivore feeding day? I have no idea, I don't think I've seen a reason why they chose to cull instead of sending him away. I doubt they would have done this lightly knowing what the public would inevitably think. 

I doubt there would be much in the way of consequences, sure there will be a minority that boycott the zoo but others will go as usual. Plenty of other cases where culling has been made public; people forget/move on and the zoo carries on as normal. 

My friend absolutely loves giraffes, went out to Africa and studied them, currently works with them and surprisingly she agrees with me. Sorry, but that's zoo life.


----------



## 245T (Aug 14, 2013)

I'm really have no intention of getting into any kind of debate on this at the moment - no disrespect to either of you intended - as there is way too much of an emotional dimension involved and I prefer not to post under such baggage, and I'm not going to read the link you provided Drayvan because of this... 

_*Warning: Some people may find the images below upsetting*_

...appearing at the top. If you want to copy and paste without the images referred to then I'll read it.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I wonder why they let the parents breed in the first place? They would have known from the studbooks the parentage so surely this could have been prevented with contraception or sterilisation?


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

245T said:


> I'm really have no intention of getting into any kind of debate on this at the moment - no disrespect to either of you intended - as there is way too much of an emotional dimension involved and I prefer not to post under such baggage, and I'm not going to read the link you provided Drayvan because of this...
> 
> _*Warning: Some people may find the images below upsetting*_
> 
> ...appearing at the top. If you want to copy and paste without the images referred to then I'll read it.


Not a problem at all, the images contain one of the lion feeding which I can understand being upsetting, although they're not gory at all (in case you did want to see/look)

Basically it says:

The healthy young giraffe put down in a zoo to prevent it from breeding has been skinned and fed to lions in front of members of the public, including young children.
Eighteen-month-old Marius was shot in the head with a bolt pistol this morning at Copenhagen Zoo despite a petition calling for him to be spared attracting more than 20,000 signatures.
Other zoos offered a home for Marius, while a private individual said they would pay €500,000 (£415,000) for the giraffe, but all offers were rejected.
shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Next *Warning: Some people may find the images below upsetting*
Zoo visitors, including young children, look on as Marius is skinned (Picture: AFP/Getty) The healthy young giraffe put down in a zoo to prevent it from breeding has been skinned and fed to lions in front of members of the public, including young children.
Eighteen-month-old Marius was shot in the head with a bolt pistol this morning at Copenhagen Zoo despite a petition calling for him to be spared attracting more than 20,000 signatures.
Other zoos offered a home for Marius, while a private individual said they would pay €500,000 (£415,000) for the giraffe, but all offers were rejected.
After the young giraffe was killed, zoo visitors were invited to watch his autopsy, before his remains were given to the zoo’s lions.
Spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro said the zoo had seven giraffes left, many of whom had similar genes for breeding as Marius.
The giraffe was killed as the zoo is a member of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, which has strict rules on interbreeding.
Its membership also meant it could only sell the giraffe to a zoo or organisation that followed the same rules.
shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Next 
*Warning: Some people may find the images below upsetting*
Zoo visitors, including young children, look on as Marius is skinned (Picture: AFP/Getty) The healthy young giraffe put down in a zoo to prevent it from breeding has been skinned and fed to lions in front of members of the public, including young children.
Eighteen-month-old Marius was shot in the head with a bolt pistol this morning at Copenhagen Zoo despite a petition calling for him to be spared attracting more than 20,000 signatures.
Other zoos offered a home for Marius, while a private individual said they would pay €500,000 (£415,000) for the giraffe, but all offers were rejected.
Marius was killed despite being perfectly healthy (Picture: AFP/Getty) After the young giraffe was killed, zoo visitors were invited to watch his autopsy, before his remains were given to the zoo’s lions.
Spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro said the zoo had seven giraffes left, many of whom had similar genes for breeding as Marius.
The giraffe was killed as the zoo is a member of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, which has strict rules on interbreeding.
Its membership also meant it could only sell the giraffe to a zoo or organisation that followed the same rules.
The Danish zoo’s scientific director Bengt Holst said: ‘The most important factor must be that the animals are healthy physically and behaviourally and that they have a good life while they are living whether this life is long or short. This is something that Copenhagen Zoo believes strongly in.’
Animal Rights Sweden said Marius being put down illustrated why it was against zoos full stop.
‘It is no secret that animals are killed when there is no longer space, or if the animals don’t have genes that are interesting enough. The only way to stop this is to not visit zoos,’ the group said.
‘When the cute animal babies that attract visitors grow up they are not as interesting anymore.’

Edit...hopefully it posts without pictures...had to delete them a load of times after copying and pasting and it copying over some stuff twice -_-'


----------



## vgorst (Sep 27, 2011)

Drayvan's post explained why they had problems relocating the animal 

"The giraffe was killed as the zoo is a member of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, which has strict rules on interbreeding. Its membership also meant it could only sell the giraffe to a zoo or organisation that followed the same rules."

Colin, I believe contraceptives can have very bad side effects on giraffe internal organs and fertility. Also Copenhagen zoo believe that breeding and rearing young should be part of the animal's lives.


----------



## 245T (Aug 14, 2013)

Thanks for taking the time to do that, Drayvan - I honestly appreciate it - but nothing there changes my view, and that this is biological imperialism at its most offensive. This is just all too depressingly ugly.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

245T said:


> Thanks for taking the time to do that, Drayvan - I honestly appreciate it - but nothing there changes my view, and that this is biological imperialism at its most offensive. This is just all too depressingly ugly.


No worries  I'm not trying to change your mind with an attitude that 'you're wrong and I'm right' but I've been in your shoes and it's painful to think that it's how the world works, I'd hope I can show you that it was ultimately in the Giraffes best interest in the long run and make it easier for you. Morally though, it still doesn't make it acceptable for some people, and if you're one of them then that's fine :2thumb: it's an incredibly emotive subject so there's bound to be quite a few differing opinions on it, in an ideal world it wouldn't happen and I think everyone with an opinion on it would wish it were an ideal world


----------



## Khonsu (May 20, 2009)

I'm not a particularly pc person & far from being a tree hugger & I quite agree with avoiding interbreeding if there's a limited gene pool in the zoo pool but surely it could have been sterilised to prevent two headed off spring, I believe there was even a UK zoo with an enclosure available to take it.

Yet another EU directive up its own bum.


----------

