# Not Good For Any Zoo Animal Called Marius At The Moment



## deefa139 (Mar 9, 2008)

Another zoo planning on shooting a giraffe I see.

BBC News - Second Danish zoo may kill a giraffe called Marius


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Kind of a bizarre move, considering the s***storm following last weekend, but the reasons remain just…..possibly even more so as this is a hybrid giraffe. Not really the best thing to have around.


----------



## Snake Island Reptiles (Feb 6, 2014)

Whats it hybrid with?


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Snake Island Reptiles said:


> Whats it hybrid with?


2 subspecies of giraffe. It's genetically useless for breeding programmes. Too many hybrids around and you end up with the tiger problem in the US, where most are just generic "tigers" of no particular subspecies.


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Snake Island Reptiles said:


> Whats it hybrid with?


It's not actually a hybrid, it's an intergrade. An intergrade is a cross between two seperate sub species. A hybrid is a cross between two seperate species. 

However as has been said, because it's not genetically sound it is no good for breeding.


----------



## deefa139 (Mar 9, 2008)

Mynki said:


> It's not actually a hybrid, it's an intergrade. An intergrade is a cross between two seperate sub species. A hybrid is a cross between two seperate species.
> 
> However as has been said, because it's not genetically sound it is no good for breeding.



If it is either a hybrid or an intergrade as you say then surely that makes it worse. They would surely have known that any resulting births of interbreeding species or sub species would be useless for future breeding or am I missing something ?


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

deefa139 said:


> If it is either a hybrid or an intergrade as you say then surely that makes it worse. They would surely have known that any resulting births of interbreeding species or sub species would be useless for future breeding or am I missing something ?


 
I don't know who bred it and for what purpose. But if the BBC are correct it is an integrade and thus useless. 

Look on here at the amount of BCC x BCI boas for sale. I honestly don't understand why people cross breed these, your resulting snake is genetic crap, but people do.

Both species of Orangutans are endangered, and in captivity all around the world you'll find many hybrids of these too. So they can not be used in captive breeding plans to save the species. Hopefully people will wise up more and people will give more attention to the animals they breed from in future.


----------



## Snake Island Reptiles (Feb 6, 2014)

Shouldnt they find collector or sumthin that is willing to adopt it or buy it must be worth a fair ammount surely? this is a horriable thing to do to a living animal its like murder it eats it breathes it walks poo's it pee's its a living animal no animal should suffer


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Snake Island Reptiles said:


> Shouldnt they find collector or sumthin that is willing to adopt it or buy it must be worth a fair ammount surely? this is a horriable thing to do to a living animal its like murder it eats it breathes it walks poo's it pee's its a living animal no animal should suffer


I refer you to the last couple of posts on the other giraffe thread, and you'll see all the reasons why it's not possible.


----------



## Ophexis (Feb 19, 2010)

Well that's just bad timing!


----------



## Sanika (Dec 3, 2011)

They have a valid reason for what they're doing. The animal serves no purpose and if a bad zoo gets hold of him and breeds him, it could be detrimental to the species in captivity.
Contraception, like in any species doesn't always work. It really isn't worth the risk of inbreeding. 

I do believe in BIAZA (British and Irish Association of Zoo's and Aquairums, states it's illegal to feed your own livestock to your animals. Unsure about EAZA's policy though.

As for cutting the corpse up infront of childen... Very educational, they should do more of that.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Not forgetting that there is no such thing as giraffe contraception


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

.......and it's quite hard explaining the rhythm method to something that large


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

the only issue i can see with this is that it had cause to be born in the first place, but accidents happen and babies = money.

i really dont see what all the fuss is about, its had a far better life than farmed meat animals ever will and likely a far more humane death. plus lions have to eat too. 

if all the people up in arms about this put their energies into campaigning for animal welfare in farming, they might accomplish something that would benefit millions of animals, rather than the tiny percentage in zoo's. 

and thats before i even start on the number of people who will have chosen their snake/lizard frozen food supplier on price rather than ethics.


----------



## Adam B Jones (Jan 17, 2011)

miss_ferret said:


> if all the people up in arms about this put their energies into campaigning for animal welfare in farming, they might accomplish something that would benefit millions of animals, rather than the tiny percentage in zoo's.


I'd agree - But it's the big cute popular animals that people care about, as they occur *so* regularly in our everyday lives, unlike these pesky battery farmed chickens that bear no significance to us whatsoever as long as we don't have to see it, yet have no problem flushing the remnants down the bog on a regular basis... And don't get me started on fisheries.... Grrrr.


----------



## mikeloftus88 (Jan 9, 2014)

In my opinion the real issue here is the age of the animal. Why have they let it get to 7 years of age if they knew all along that it was of no use for breeding purposes? I am all for zoos and the conservation work that they do, however I completely disagree with culling a healthy animal under any circumstance. 

Don't get me wrong I can completely understand why, however if the zoo in question where willing to breed the two giraffes in the first place, or alternatively were willing to buy the animal, then they have a right to look after that animal until it dies of natural causes. If that means a separate enclosure then so be it. The zoo has an ability to control population without killing 7 year old animals. I think there's a fine line between conservation and acting god.


----------



## ChoreDodger (Feb 5, 2014)

mikeloftus88 said:


> In my opinion the real issue here is the age of the animal. Why have they let it get to 7 years of age if they knew all along that it was of no use for breeding purposes? I am all for zoos and the conservation work that they do, however I completely disagree with culling a healthy animal under any circumstance.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I can completely understand why, however if the zoo in question where willing to breed the two giraffes in the first place, or alternatively were willing to buy the animal, then they have a right to look after that animal until it dies of natural causes. If that means a separate enclosure then so be it. The zoo has an ability to control population without killing 7 year old animals. I think there's a fine line between conservation and acting god.


Then maybe I 'acted god' when I fed a 'culled healthy animal' (f/t) to my Boa last night. At least, I hope the mouse was healthy! My nine year old watched with interest. I don't think that she will have less appreciation for the lives of animals for it but if anything more appreciation, more respect. 

A life is a life. Mouse is equal to giraffe, both were bred to die, both were humanely killed, both provided education in their passing and both went on to sustain the life of other creatures and I, personally, couldn't justify getting my knickers in a twist about one and not the other.


----------



## mikeloftus88 (Jan 9, 2014)

The animal you speak of was part of the food chain and was "culled" to keep another animal alive. Whilst not natural its similar to how things would happen in the wild. This is not. How was the giraffe bred to die? They are killing it because they don't have room to keep it, not because it was bred as food or bred for animal testing. 

Giraffes are one of the least critically endangered species in a zoo so any argument in terms of sustaining population seems a little unwarranted to me.


----------



## ChoreDodger (Feb 5, 2014)

mikeloftus88 said:


> The animal you speak of was part of the food chain and was "culled" to keep another animal alive. Whilst not natural its similar to how things would happen in the wild. This is not. How was the giraffe bred to die? They are killing it because they don't have room to keep it, not because it was bred as food or bred for animal testing.
> 
> Giraffes are one of the least critically endangered species in a zoo so any argument in terms of sustaining population seems a little unwarranted to me.


Equally, the animal you speak of is part of the food chain. Similarly, whilst not natural, it is similar to how things would happen in the wild! Except in the wild, the giraffe would have been more likely to be killed at an even younger age, if by lions.

That it was bred to die was maybe an adventurous assertion, my apologies. I should have said that from conception, it had a 50% chance of being male and that if this proved to be the case, it was highly probable that it (or another young male) would be culled for the preservation of the integrity of the wider breeding program. 

However, this does raise an interesting point - is it better to breed a creature to die (mouse) or one which has a 50% chance of dying of old age (giraffe)? And if breeding for a chance of life, (lucky giraffe) then surely this is more morally desirable than certain death (poor mouse)?


----------



## mikeloftus88 (Jan 9, 2014)

Ye I agree its a bit of a moral dilemma. In the example of the mouse there was never any chance of it living and having a good quality of life. With the giraffe on the other hand it was born facing an uncertain existence. For 7 years it has lived a good life which is obviously preferential to not living a life at all (the mouse). That's were, for me, the moralistic issues come in. A breeder rat or mouse is bred, usually under clinical conditions optimal for breeding and nothing else. As far as I know the two giraffes in this example where treated exactly like any other giraffe in captivity and have lived as fulfilling a life as possible in an artificial environment. 

I get the science behind it and that they don't want the captive species as a whole to become "unpure" but surely culling something as a newborn is more humane than executing an animal that is allowed to grow and mature (Both physically and mentally). 

Its easy to confuse animals bred for food and animals bred for human pleasure. As said earlier a Giraffe is classed as being of least concern in terms of extinction and so any breeding being done in zoos is purely for our viewing purposes and to learn more about the species. I therefore think that we have a moral obligation for the well being of each and every animal born as a result of our interest in the species.

Either way got me thinking on a crappy Monday afternoon :lol2:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

All this "bred to die" stuff is nonsense, and no-one can pass judgment without knowing the full details of what's gone on. 

Maybe the animal has been up for rehome for a very long time, but hasn't been taken because it's genetically useless?
Maybe the breeding of it was an accident?
Maybe there's a new person looking after the stud book, and has realised there are far too many genetic anomalies and wants to sort it all out before they become a problem? 
Maybe this one has just flown under the radar for seven years and has only just now been found to be of mixed genes? 
I could go on with more, but you get my drift.....thing is, none of you really know.

Some people say "oooo....surely there's somewhere for it to live". Are you going to take it? Are you going to pay massive amounts for its transportation, housing and upkeep? Are you going to source more animals to keep it company? Are you going to convince the EAZA that on this one occasion, it's worth flouting the important rules laid down by them to ensure the welfare of animals and species as a whole? Thought not. So keep your trap shut.

Fact is that using a giraffe (which will never be bred from) for food is just the same as using possibly 4 cows or 15 sheep or 10 deer....it makes no difference. If they die with dignity, it's all good and still just meat.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

mikeloftus88 said:


> I therefore think that we have a moral obligation for the well being of each and every animal born as a result of being in artificial environments.


What about zoos that have thriving herds of sheep and deer that are culled to keep numbers stable and then used as food? Is that wrong? If so, where do all the extra sheep and deer go?


----------



## mikeloftus88 (Jan 9, 2014)

mrcriss said:


> Thought not. So keep your trap shut.


Always good having respect for other peoples opinions hey  

In terms of sheep and deer, how is this problem sorted in the wild? As far as I know sheep and deer living in the wild (not on farmland) are not hunted and killed by people as and when they see fit, unless they are bred for food which is an entirely different argument altogether. 

Its easy to be blinded by the conservation side of a zoo and not look at the things that are done behind the scenes. As you say animals are routinely culled all the time yet this isn't exactly common knowledge. You just have to look at the public reaction to the giraffe situation to show how a lot of people feel about "culling" animals to suit our needs.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

mikeloftus88 said:


> Always good having respect for other peoples opinions hey
> 
> In terms of sheep and deer, how is this problem sorted in the wild? As far as I know sheep and deer living in the wild (not on farmland) are not hunted and killed by people as and when they see fit, unless they are bred for food which is an entirely different argument altogether.
> 
> Its easy to be blinded by the conservation side of a zoo and not look at the things that are done behind the scenes. As you say animals are routinely culled all the time yet this isn't exactly common knowledge. You just have to look at the public reaction to the giraffe situation to show how a lot of people feel about "culling" animals to suit our needs.


My strong words are only born from my exhaustion at this debate continuing, and me having to explain to everyone (incl my local butcher!) the reasons behind the cull.

You say it's not common knowledge that animals are culled for big cat food.....exactly where do people think it all comes from then?? Do you think they wait for our furry friends to die naturally before letting the carnivores eat? Utterly ridiculous.

Sorry....you just said that deer living in the wild aren't killed by people??? Are you for real?


----------



## mikeloftus88 (Jan 9, 2014)

Ok you've got me on the dear thing.  Feel a bit daft now :lol2: Although I personally do not agree with killing animals as a sport. I think the point I am trying to make is that in a zoo, everything is controlled. There should very rarely be an instance where a genetically "poor" animal should be allowed to breed. With a giraffe, most zoos have maybe 4-7 animals at one time. Whilst you can not stop a giraffe reproducing, surely there should be preventative measures in place if there are known "unpure" breeding age males?

My comments before cover the bred for food argument. I would assume that there are animals bred at a zoo every year with the sole reason of them being food for the bigger carnivorous animals?

If you bred snakes for example, would you kill a normal because it served no purpose to your breeding programme and you could not sell it?


----------



## ChoreDodger (Feb 5, 2014)

mikeloftus88 said:


> ...As you say animals are routinely culled all the time yet this isn't exactly common knowledge. You just have to look at the public reaction to the giraffe situation to show how a lot of people feel about "culling" animals to suit our needs.


Sorry, I'm enjoying this discussion!

I think the public reaction is less about how people feel about culling and more to do with how people feel when their ignorance has been displaced by an uncomfortable reality. A kind of indignance! (...along with a good dollop of mass hysteria).


----------



## mikeloftus88 (Jan 9, 2014)

Its quite an interesting one and there are many different sides to it

I think most people generally find it difficult to understand what is seen (on the outside at least) as unnecessary killing. I think the first giraffe case was made worse by their refusal to co-operate with other zoos and institutions that had agreed to take the animal from them. 

We are all a bit different here as we all routinely feed our snakes and reptiles live food of one description or another. A lot of people, including my wife are repulsed by feeding rats to my snakes and so I guess in some sense I may be coming across as a bit hypocritical. 

My main argument is that an animal should have a purpose from the beginning. If that is for food in order to sustain life, then so be it. If its for breeding purposes to keep an animal from extinction, great. If however there is uncertainty from the start, then IMO a decision should be made there and then as to what happens with the animal. 

On a purely human level, you don't usually name an animal you are going to cull! :lol2:


----------



## ChoreDodger (Feb 5, 2014)

mikeloftus88 said:


> Its quite an interesting one and there are many different sides to it
> 
> I think most people generally find it difficult to understand what is seen (on the outside at least) as unnecessary killing. I think the first giraffe case was made worse by their refusal to co-operate with other zoos and institutions that had agreed to take the animal from them.
> 
> ...


I don't know about that! RSPCA? Battersea? Just examples of places which regularly kill named animals because our society is no longer able to facilitate them or is reluctant to do so. Millions of creatures culled worldwide each year. Your suggestion, that all animals bred should have a certain future, although I agree is desirable, is just not the case in any sphere, unfortunately! 

As a society, we have a direct responsibility over our pets and an indirect responsibility over captive animals (whose management is overseen by the zoo/ wildlife park/ etc in question). I think if anything, we ought to get our own house in order before haranguing others about the way in which they manage theirs


----------



## mikeloftus88 (Jan 9, 2014)

I guess you are right. I think its partly me living in my sheltered world were everything is as it should be! Its not nice to see the other side of animal life, especially when you look after so many yourself. I will concede defeat now because you have both put your point across pretty well and I am finding it pretty hard to logically argue back :blush:

Im off to extend my garden and put in planning permission for a Giraffe enclosure :2thumb:


----------



## ChoreDodger (Feb 5, 2014)

Haha! Good luck with that :lol2:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Please excuse the red writing…I just want to answer each point



mikeloftus88 said:


> Ok you've got me on the dear thing.  Feel a bit daft now :lol2: Although I personally do not agree with killing animals as a sport. Nor do I….I am, after all, a vegetarian. I think the point I am trying to make is that in a zoo, everything is controlled.On what do you base this statement? Have you experience of working in a zoo? There should very rarely be an instance where a genetically "poor" animal should be allowed to breed.Even in "controlled" circumstances, mistakes happen. The giraffe may have come from a different collection. Records may have been lost or mixed up…you're making very definite statements for someone that doesn't know any background. With a giraffe, most zoos have maybe 4-7 animals at one time. Whilst you can not stop a giraffe reproducing, surely there should be preventative measures in place if there are known "unpure" breeding age males?I suppose the only preventative measure is to make sure you only have one subspecies, or have two sets of terribly expensive housing. Still, once again, a mistake could have happened.
> 
> My comments before cover the bred for food argument. I would assume that there are animals bred at a zoo every year with the sole reason of them being food for the bigger carnivorous animals? Not really no. The herds at the zoo I worked at were there for the same reasons the tigers were there…as an exhibit of rare breed animals. The fact that there was a cull for food was just a bonus….a way to save a little money (which ALL zoos need to do), and to become somewhat self-sufficient….surely not a bad thing?
> 
> If you bred snakes for example, would you kill a normal because it served no purpose to your breeding programme and you could not sell it? Some people do….some people on here have been known to take hatchling corns and feed them to their king snakes.





mikeloftus88 said:


> I think most people generally find it difficult to understand what is seen (on the outside at least) as unnecessary killing. I think the first giraffe case was made worse by their refusal to co-operate with other zoos and institutions that had agreed to take the animal from them. I refer you to my last 2 posts on the other giraffe thread…..it explains why they couldn't have gone to the zoos that came along at the 11th hour to get the good publicity.
> 
> We are all a bit different here as we all routinely feed our snakes and reptiles live food of one description or another. A lot of people, including my wife are repulsed by feeding rats to my snakes and so I guess in some sense I may be coming across as a bit hypocritical. Just a little
> 
> ...


I hope I got every point there.:2thumb:

Remember that there are many many endangered species that would be extinct today if it weren't for culling, and even consumption by humans!


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

A more positive giraffe story...

BBC News - 'Rare' West African giraffe born at South Lakes Wild Animal Park


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Mynki said:


> A more positive giraffe story...
> 
> BBC News - 'Rare' West African giraffe born at South Lakes Wild Animal Park


Always good to see new births. :2thumb:

HOWEVER.......

In true David Gill (owner of South Lakes Safari Slum) style, the man manages to c**k things up yet again!

Firstly, whilst Gill loves to claim that his giraffes are rarest of the rare West Africans, they're apparently actually Kordofans. I'm told a genetic study has confirmed this.

And secondly, instead of leaving mum and baby alone to quietly bond on the first day and to let the newborn find it's feet, as any sane zoo owner would do, Gill sees a publicity opportunity and not only invites the press along to bother them, but then separates them and let's his young children in the pen to maul the clearly stressed youngster! What a knob!


----------



## Turaco (Jul 24, 2013)

mrcriss said:


> Always good to see new births. :2thumb:
> 
> HOWEVER.......
> 
> ...


Agree. Totally. Take pictures but not for long and let baby bond with Mum! I really don't like his kids going in and petting it...kids carry all sorts of germs, I would not want anyone but those who HAD to to touch it for that reason (and I'd want it to bond firmly with Mum and herd first). So Vet and neccessary keepers only!

I'm also confused as to the giraffe family now. Admittidly I don't know the latin names which doesn't help, rather the common names. I know a bit more on giraffes then most folk I know (except the keepers who work directly with them), my workmates can hardly tell a starling from a sparrow, and where I volunteer at we deal with birds only sooo......

Mrcriss or whoever, I need to get back to speed! I know of Rothschild, reticulated, Kenyan. I know Rothschild is endangered. 
As studies have changed the family recently what is now basically the same? Which ones are the endangered ones?
Hope I'm not sounding thick but my studies have been in birds for a while and I'm out of touch with changing mammal taxonomy and stuff!


----------



## hogmad117 (Feb 1, 2014)

So if a black person & a white person had a baby together you would kill it because it's half cast? It's funny how people don't give a shit about the suffering of others. But yet, if it happened on their door step they might actually realise that the world is full of selfish heartless ****s!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mrkeda (Nov 6, 2012)

hogmad117 said:


> So if a black person & a white person had a baby together you would kill it because it's half cast? It's funny how people don't give a shit about the suffering of others. But yet, if it happened on their door step they might actually realise that the world is full of selfish heartless ****s!!!!!!!!!


You sir are an idiot.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

hogmad117 said:


> So if a black person & a white person had a baby together you would kill it because it's half cast? It's funny how people don't give a shit about the suffering of others. But yet, if it happened on their door step they might actually realise that the world is full of selfish heartless ****s!!!!!!!!!


I concur with mrkeda…..you are indeed, an idiot.


----------



## Dragon Farm (Aug 7, 2009)

I really can't see the difference between using a giraffe to feed a big cat, or using a cow/sheep/pig. Humans have a funny notion that some animals should be classed as pets, while others are farm animals, and others are zoo animals. These are just artificial terms we use to compartmentalise our different uses for such animals.

There is no logical reason why we shouldn't eat dogs rather than pigs, or tigers in a zoo shouldn't be fed a 'problem giraffe' rather than a cow. 

For some odd reason I didn't see alot of media attention paid to the plight of the cow, or whatever creature that was used to feed the big cats the next day.


----------



## Zerox Z21 (Oct 10, 2012)

Dragon Farm said:


> I really can't see the difference between using a giraffe to feed a big cat, or using a cow/sheep/pig. Humans have a funny notion that some animals should be classed as pets, while others are farm animals, and others are zoo animals. These are just artificial terms we use to compartmentalise our different uses for such animals.
> 
> There is no logical reason why we shouldn't eat dogs rather than pigs, or tigers in a zoo shouldn't be fed a 'problem giraffe' rather than a cow.
> 
> For some odd reason I didn't see alot of media attention paid to the plight of the cow, or whatever creature that was used to feed the big cats the next day.


I agree, my main irritation over both Marius' is people having such a big issue with it when we treat thousands of cattle exactly the same (bolt gun = safe to eat) but when it's a giraffe people get upset on an animal welfare front? It's basically the same thing on a mental level so I doubt it's more or less kind to either animal.

I have explained the many good reasons why Marius was put down to people before, but this post does it best (Warning, some language here):
Link
Inbetween everything, there are ALOT of good reasons why Marius was put down, and again no more cruel than good treatment of animals in the meat industry. So you can't really complain (unless you're a vegetarian who disagrees with all of it in the first place, but that's kinda different).
All in all perhaps an unfortunate circumstance but Marius' body was not wasted by any means. And for the last time, treated just as well (if not better) than animals we cull on a daily basis for the same reason, to eat the meat. It is not animal cruelty or anything of the sort. It's the same as a standard common procedure that no one ever complains about. Unless the animal in question has a long neck.

Very repetitive I know but I can't emphasise that point enough that everyone seems to gloss over.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Dont cows get kept for milk and meat.
Same with pigs..
Kinda understand but they cant be compaired to giraffe surelly.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

How can they compare ,next it will be Rhino ,Elephant ,chimps ,apes ,where does it stop ,but its only the same as cattle ,what a lot of :censor::censor:


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Animals are culled regularly, whole herds of wild elephant are culled quite often as part of population management (yes, including babies) Animals are sold for use in hunting in order to fund conservation efforts (yes, including rhino, sable and other rare animals) in order to manage breeding programmes. 

Conservation never will, or ever has been a Disney-like set up. Animals need to be culled and have always been culled, people just never care enough to find out. Ignorance is bliss and all that. It is only when it is brought to their attention that people actually care...but people have no right to try to change how things are done with no knowledge about it. Yes it's not very nice that a healthy young Giraffe had to be killed, but when Giraffes are extinct in the wild and all our captive Giraffe are inbred beyond saving, you can bet your banana that those exact same people will be up in arms that nothing was done to keep the gene pool clean.

When you think about it, how is the culling of this Giraffe any different to the culling of countless male dairy calves each year? There was a post on another thread about one animal being worth more than another, and although they didn't mean it in support of the cull it is exactly that. Why is Marius' life more important than the many many other male animals that die every year to feed us?


----------



## Zerox Z21 (Oct 10, 2012)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> Dont cows get kept for milk and meat.
> Same with pigs..
> Kinda understand but they cant be compaired to giraffe surelly.


Just because the reason the animals are kept is different, doesn't mean that they are potentially less sensitive to potential cruelty. The reason for keeping an animal should, ideally, be irrelevant regarding it's welfare.

Also this came to mind to describe the overall situation...


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Drayvan said:


> Animals are culled regularly, whole herds of wild elephant are culled quite often as part of population management (yes, including babies) Animals are sold for use in hunting in order to fund conservation efforts (yes, including rhino, sable and other rare animals) in order to manage breeding programmes.
> 
> Conservation never will, or ever has been a Disney-like set up. Animals need to be culled and have always been culled, people just never care enough to find out. Ignorance is bliss and all that. It is only when it is brought to their attention that people actually care...but people have no right to try to change how things are done with no knowledge about it. Yes it's not very nice that a healthy young Giraffe had to be killed, but when Giraffes are extinct in the wild and all our captive Giraffe are inbred beyond saving, you can bet your banana that those exact same people will be up in arms that nothing was done to keep the gene pool clean.
> 
> When you think about it, how is the culling of this Giraffe any different to the culling of countless male dairy calves each year? There was a post on another thread about one animal being worth more than another, and although they didn't mean it in support of the cull it is exactly that. Why is Marius' life more important than the many many other male animals that die every year to feed us?


They breed them to feed us.
With modern technolagy why give birth to a useless animal.
For a short term attraction.
Then kill it.
Find out sex and abort.
Surely.
Dairy cattle are as it says.
What there for.
Milk and feed.
Yes there are kills in the wild.
But captivity isnt the wild and never will be.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> They breed them to feed us.
> With modern technolagy why give birth to a useless animal.
> For a short term attraction.
> Then kill it.
> ...


Yes but why is it acceptable for one but not the other? Why is it perfectly acceptable to kill cattle to feed us or to produce milk (baring in mind that if you abort a dairy calf the mother will not produce milk, therefore wont happen) but not a Giraffe to feed a lion pride? I would argue that allowing a mother to birth a calf and never get to rear it is vastly more cruel than humanely culling a Giraffe. But which one happens more regularly.

The simple reason is because people like Giraffes and in our sentimental view we do not see them as food.

People don't screen dogs, cattle, sheep, horses etc and abort 'useless' animals, killing them after birth or a few years later is perfectly fine. But not for a Giraffe? No life is worth more than another. Why is the destination of the meat the factor that decides whether the animal should be born?


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Drayvan said:


> Yes but why is it acceptable for one but not the other? Why is it perfectly acceptable to kill cattle to feed us or to produce milk (baring in mind that if you abort a dairy calf the mother will not produce milk, therefore wont happen) but not a Giraffe to feed a lion pride? I would argue that allowing a mother to birth a calf and never get to rear it is vastly more cruel than humanely culling a Giraffe. But which one happens more regularly.
> 
> The simple reason is because people like Giraffes and in our sentimental view we do not see them as food.
> 
> People don't screen dogs, cattle, sheep, horses etc and abort 'useless' animals, killing them after birth or a few years later is perfectly fine. But not for a Giraffe? No life is worth more than another. Why is the destination of the meat the factor that decides whether the animal should be born?



I like cows and pigs as well.
Alive and on my plate.


----------



## Zerox Z21 (Oct 10, 2012)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> They breed them to feed us.
> With modern technolagy why give birth to a useless animal.
> For a short term attraction.
> Then kill it.
> ...


Discussed this Zoology. Hard issue because it is cruel to separate giraffes from the herd, but contraception is also not an option because the only available methods screw up the giraffes.
Those two facts mean that this is somewhat an inevitable outcome, and I am in fact surprised it is not even more frequent.

It lived a happy couple of years, what's wrong with that? A longer life than your burger had I'm sure.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Zerox Z21 said:


> Discussed this Zoology. Hard issue because it is cruel to separate giraffes from the herd, but contraception is also not an option because the only available methods screw up the giraffes.
> Those two facts mean that this is somewhat an inevitable outcome, and I am in fact surprised it is not even more frequent.
> 
> It lived a happy couple of years, what's wrong with that? A longer life than your burger had I'm sure.



I dont eat burgers.
But do eat meat yes.
But thats what it was born to be.
On a plate.
Its the way it is.
But i still think nobady has the right to decide to give an animal a portion of life.
Its not down too a good couple years.
Its an atraction.
Living with a death sentance.
Its moved on with humans.
Discovering ailments etc whilst its still unborn.

But how can you compaire farm animals to zoo animals.
The choice with the meat fed to others isnt a new thing.
It isnt that long ago a similiar debate.

We shoulnt be breading to kill.
I dont agree with quite alot of manic things zoos do.

Look at edinburgh.
Baby bearcat eaten by tigers.
Due to enclosure escape.
Lions must have enjoyed it as it happened a second time.

There are lots of people with private colections that could help in some cases.
But not all.

But each to there own.


----------



## Zerox Z21 (Oct 10, 2012)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> I dont eat burgers.
> But do eat meat yes.
> But thats what it was born to be.
> On a plate.
> ...


What I meant was, animals bred for any kind of meat don't tend to live long. It takes animals about 1 year to reach adult size, and thus once it's optimum size it's economically foolish not to kill it at that stage. Marius lived 1 year and half, thus longer than pretty much all supermarket beef. Nevermind things like veal or lamb which obviously don't live even that long.

Also, are you saying that it's fine to kill farmed animals at a young age, but the same treatment to an animal in a zoo is wrong? Because that doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see why where an animal was born and raised should give it precedence over another. Marius the giraffe was eventually used as meat also; in this sense, what he went through was pretty similar to the experience of most animals raised as meat. So I don't see any problems other than A: Because it's a giraffe (which is being unfair to cattle considering these two animals are similarly intelligent/aware), or B: Because it came from a zoo (sometimes cattle are kept in zoos. You can't honestly say that a cow on a farm is acceptable for slaughter but one in a zoo isn't because that's just ridiculous. Basically you're saying the meat cow is more deserving of death because it's a victim of circumstance in where it was born? By this logic, someone living in London deserves better hospital treatment than someone living in Liverpool. Not an amazing example, but trying to illustrate my point of how arbitrary that point of view is).

Also there are reasons the giraffe could not be sold into private collections, as outlined in the tumblr post I linked. Namely, the zoo is a member of EAZA, and as such cannot sell or move animals outside of other EAZA institutions that cannot be guaranteed to follow the same rules of animal welfare and so on. In addition, it is cruel to giraffes particularly not to keep them in sizeable herds, and it seems unlikely that any private collector is capable of financially maintaining an entire herd.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Zerox Z21 said:


> What I meant was, animals bred for any kind of meat don't tend to live long. It takes animals about 1 year to reach adult size, and thus once it's optimum size it's economically foolish not to kill it at that stage. Marius lived 1 year and half, thus longer than pretty much all supermarket beef. Nevermind things like veal or lamb which obviously don't live even that long.
> 
> Also, are you saying that it's fine to kill farmed animals at a young age, but the same treatment to an animal in a zoo is wrong? Because that doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see why where an animal was born and raised should give it precedence over another. Marius the giraffe was eventually used as meat also; in this sense, what he went through was pretty similar to the experience of most animals raised as meat. So I don't see any problems other than A: Because it's a giraffe (which is being unfair to cattle considering these two animals are similarly intelligent/aware), or B: Because it came from a zoo (sometimes cattle are kept in zoos. You can't honestly say that a cow on a farm is acceptable for slaughter but one in a zoo isn't because that's just ridiculous. Basically you're saying the meat cow is more deserving of death because it's a victim of circumstance in where it was born? By this logic, someone living in London deserves better hospital treatment than someone living in Liverpool. Not an amazing example, but trying to illustrate my point of how arbitrary that point of view is).
> 
> Also there are reasons the giraffe could not be sold into private collections, as outlined in the tumblr post I linked. Namely, the zoo is a member of EAZA, and as such cannot sell or move animals outside of other EAZA institutions that cannot be guaranteed to follow the same rules of animal welfare and so on. In addition, it is cruel to giraffes particularly not to keep them in sizeable herds, and it seems unlikely that any private collector is capable of financially maintaining an entire herd.


Allot seems quite unlikeley when theres a point to prove.
Longleet...private cloection before a zoo.
Hundreds more.

Eaza yes.
Everywhere has back door
When it suits.
Big zoos included.

Again
The meats not the issue.
The killing is.

You have your opinion i have mine.
Just as i know as many happy zoo keepers as unhappy zoo keepers.

.


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Something else for the kiddies to get all offended at :-

BBC News - Danish zoo that culled giraffe kills family of lions


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Oh bugger....here we go again! I was enjoying the fact that the storm had died down. Better get dusting off those high horses ready for the RFUK masses, eh?


----------



## 245T (Aug 14, 2013)

Tools.


----------



## deefa139 (Mar 9, 2008)

'A zoo in Denmark that provoked outrage after putting down a healthy giraffe has killed a family of four lions *to make way for a new young male lion*.'


Seems it isn't just about genetics now but more to do with their desire to have a 'new' exhibit.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Why complain
At least they got a good belly full of giraffe before they were put down.
But its one of those things that views will differ.
I just dont like zoos ways.
Especially the way they destroy too easy.
Surpliss too requirements..
But some changes may be forthcoming.
With my type animals anyway.
But that would need better studbook ethics.
Or appoint a human instead of god.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Here's a plausible theory.....

What if the zoo has, in the past, engaged in a little inbreeding (by ignorance or by carelessness) which has been discovered and the management are now trying to sort it all out?

It certainly would explain a lot.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

........my point being that there are probably lots of factors that the critics aren't taking into account, and there are _*DEFINITELY*_ plenty of factors that the sensationalist tabloid press aren't taking into account!


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

This is probably true chris.
But it doesnt matter how its put.
It still would be zoo makes big mistake so living animals need put down.
If it were private it would be looked into different.
They do so much thats wrong.
But they have answers for all.
Its one of those situations that theres lovers and haters.
You have your views and i have mine for example.
You have hands on experiance working.
My experiances are with small primates.
But some of the things ive witnessed are appauling.
I would also add like before.
Theres as many ex workers that are anti as for.
But the situation wont change.


----------

