Young giraffe put down in Copenhagen for dubious reasons

[LinasK]

I think that how they did this was very insensitive, but hunting is wrong, really? Obviously you've never known any responsible hunters.

Even if I did agree with hunting, which I don't, this killing was in NO way responsible!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[liljim]

they did not shoot the animal in front of the public, and nobody was exposed to the autopsy that did not choose to be there.

reasonable people can disagree on what age is appropriate to be exposed (even by parental choice) to the autopsy of an animal, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

i cant imagine that i would take a child under hmmm lets say 10 (maybe 12) to something like this, but i can imagine other people would feel differently.

 

[Hopeful One]

If they believe he wasn't genetically acceptable to breed, then don't let him breed. And why, on God's green earth, did they feel the need to do this in front of CHILDREN???

The parents who allowed their children to watch this... well, I don't think they're genetically acceptable to breed.

 

[Hopeful One]

they did not shoot the animal in front of the public, and nobody was exposed to the autopsy that did not choose to be there.

reasonable people can disagree on what age is appropriate to be exposed (even by parental choice) to the autopsy of an animal, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

i cant imagine that i would take a child under hmmm lets say 10 (maybe 12) to something like this, but i can imagine other people would feel differently.

A child who is too young to watch an R rated movie shouldn't watch an animal being dissected. Sorry, but that's just beyond the scope of what any child should witness. If playing violent video games can negatively alter a child's brain (as some believe), what does cutting up a giraffe and feeding him to lions (in real life, not a game) do to their impressionable minds???

 

[LinasK]

they did not shoot the animal in front of the public, and nobody was exposed to the autopsy that did not choose to be there.

According to that article, they did shoot the animal in front of everyone. He was grazing on a snack, unaware of what was about to happen to him, him was blindsided. And I wouldn't call dismemberment "an autopsy"!

 

[liljim]

According to that article, they did shoot the animal in front of everyone. He was grazing on a snack, unaware of what was about to happen to him, him was blindsided. And I wouldn't call dismemberment "an autopsy"!

the article is mistaken then as the animal was not killed in front of an audience.

as far as it being "blindsided" - does that matter? how would they inform it of their intentions first? would that make it better?

did they dismember it or "butcher" it? yes, but they also did a dissection in an educational manner. autopsy is perhaps not the perfect word for it, necropsy or dissection is better. but autopsy still accurately connotes what they did.

 

[liljim]

A child who is too young to watch an R rated movie shouldn't watch an animal being dissected. Sorry, but that's just beyond the scope of what any child should witness. If playing violent video games can negatively alter a child's brain (as some believe), what does cutting up a giraffe and feeding him to lions (in real life, not a game) do to their impressionable minds???

i can respect your opinion regarding the appropriate age, im not set in stone on the ages i listed, it is just what seems right to me right now as i think about it.

my nephew is very bright and mature and interested in nature, i think if he expressed an interest in seeing something like this that his parents should be allowed to make that decision.

do you feel that children that grow up on farms and are exposed to animals being butchered at very young ages are damaged by it? are their parents negligent or abusive for this? this is less common in america these days but still exists and is extremely commonplace in many parts of the world.

proper context is the most important thing imo.

 

[sweetheart29]

It's a fact of life animals die to feed others. Hunting is wrong so you would rather eat animals that raised in captive and injected with all kinds of medicines or who knows what. To each their own ( but I will pass on that). As for what age is appropriate to watch an animal be dissected (we called it processed) my kids have seen it done their whole lives. Cant eat an animal whole. My kids don't just watch they help if your big enough to hunt you have help clean the animal.

 

[Patience]

This is so sad. They are murderers. Sick and demented.

 

[Ballerina]

I, personally do not hunt. I love animals too much to kill them for sport, although I do not have a problem with others who responsibly hunt. It is their choice to do and I respect that. I understand most who hunt eat the meat afterward as well and I am perfectly fine with that as well.

However, I don't know how I feel about young children watching the live autopsy of the giraffe. I have extended family members whose young children have been on many a hunting trip and have watched as the animal is... prepared? (sorry, I don't know how to word this properly) for meat. They benefit from the experience in an educational way. They are taught that this way of life is a survival skill rather than something to do when boredom strikes.

But my concern with the giraffe is that some young children may mistakenly view the experience as entertainment and not as educational, which is where I worry that it was inappropriate. Or, even if the child understood the educational purpose, it may have been traumatic to watch. As a young girl I had to view the dissection of a sheep's heart in a fourth grade science class. I asked to use the restroom after the first few horrifying minutes and I did not come back.. in fact, I went to the front desk, telephoned my mother and asked her to take me home, LOL.

So I don't think it's entirely impossible that some of the children there may have been traumatized by the whole thing, just like I was as a kid, and were only in attendance due to parents who dragged them along.

All of the above is my own opinion, of course. I do not mean to offend anyone who disagrees, because I respect that your opinion may differ from mine. :twocents:

 

[K_Z]

If there was something in the genetics of this beautiful animal, then he should have been sterilized. Simple.

I have been bothered by this story since I read it yesterday....how heartbreaking....and all those people standing around watching it???

I hate this. They could have given him to an unaccredited zoo......


Some info:

Species Survival Plan (SSP's)
Taxon Advisory Groups (TAG's)
Population Management Plans (PMPS)
Scientific Advisory Groups (SAG's)
Conservation Action Partnership (CAPs)

There are 9 separate sub species of giraffes. They can and do interbreed. They can also be put on birth control.

http://www.giraffeconservation.org/giraffe_facts.php?pgid=6

I guess I see this a little differently than "just" the killing of the giraffe. These animals are in captivity for their entire lives-- every single minute of their lives, and every bite of food is controlled.

The bigger question in my mind, then, is "how" did this zoo get to a place that they bred an unwanted animal, let alone one with undesirable genes? Was there an "accidental mating" that should not have happened?

I see this as a monumental failure of their giraffe breeding program. I'd like to hear more about whatever "genetic" issue was the rationale for putting this animal down.

 

[gypsygirl]

About the only "good" that came of this brutal killing is that the giraffe is now free from captivity. How coldhearted, cruel, brutal, and horribly wrong this is. If you don't want the giraffe any more, take someone up on their offer to take him (or her). I know, the zoo didn't own it; then the owners should have done the right thing and sold Maurius. Sorry, IMO, this was not an educational experience for anyone. It was a brutal killing. Inhumane.

 

[matou]

Killing a HEALTHY animal that was cared for in a zoo for over three years is just wrong. Just wrong. The animal's 'genes' could have been shipped off to another zoo to contribute its 'genes' there. This is sick. Animals kept only for their genes. Will the lion's DNA be checked next to determine genes that are too similar? Will the lions be fed to the hyenas next? Will the zoo kill off other "gene-specimens" anytime soon. Inhumane and unjustified. JMO

 

[TrackerSam]

Killing a HEALTHY animal that was cared for in a zoo for three years over is just wrong. Just wrong. The animal's 'genes' could have been shipped off to another zoo to contribute its 'genes' there. This is sick. Animals kept only for their genes. Will the lion's DNA be checked next to determine genes that are too similar? Will the lions be fed to the hyenas next? Will the zoo kill off other "gene-specimens" anytime soon. Inhumane and unjustified. JMO

There is nojustification for what they did. IMO. They could have neutered it, but I heard they didn't want to destroy it's masculine attributes, but they could have done a vasectomy, which would have preserved the male organs. This was just wrong.

 

[zoomom]

I guess I see this a little differently than "just" the killing of the giraffe. These animals are in captivity for their entire lives-- every single minute of their lives, and every bite of food is controlled.

The bigger question in my mind, then, is "how" did this zoo get to a place that they bred an unwanted animal, let alone one with undesirable genes? Was there an "accidental mating" that should not have happened?

I see this as a monumental failure of their giraffe breeding program. I'd like to hear more about whatever "genetic" issue was the rationale for putting this animal down.

I don't want to step into a political firestorm (people are very passionate about animals!) If a zoo is part of a breeding program, then no unauthorized breeding is supposed to take place unless there is somewhere to put the offspring. Then to transport any animal, there is also a tremendous cost and great risk to the animal - who pays it? The giftor or the recipient? Is there room and space to raise an adult male with it's own kind? What if there are no takers?

In other words, think of the dog and cat populations in the world. How many people just let their pets have a litter and worry about where the offspring will end up later? Do they let littermates breed? Do they care? How many short generations does it take until there are fatal and sickening defects?

I am sure there was nothing wrong genetically with the giraffe. Except that he was related to that herd. Zoo's do not want to raise inbred collections. That would be highly irresponsible, plus damaging to the species in the future.

Giraffe sub species can, and will interbreed. They can also be put on birth control. To consider sterilization : it's almost a 50/50 toss up whether an animal is going to survive the anesthesia and operation.

Again- I think this was a horrible decision. Just wanted to explain a little of what I know. Also, for what it's worth - American zoos are different than European zoos - policy wise.

 

[SophieRose]

snip
Giraffe sub species can, and will interbreed. They can also be put on birth control. To consider sterilization : it's almost a 50/50 toss up whether an animal is going to survive the anesthesia and operation.

Again- I think this was a horrible decision. Just wanted to explain a little of what I know. Also, for what it's worth - American zoos are different than European zoos - policy wise.

Here's what the Copenhagen Zoo's website says about contraception:
http://zoo.dk/BesogZoo/Nyhedsarkiv/2014/Februar/Why Copenhagen Zoo euthanized a giraffe.aspx

”Why are the giraffes not given contraceptives?”

“In Copenhagen Zoo we let the animals breed naturally. With naturally we mean that they will get young within the same intervals as they would in the wild. That means that the animals get to carry out their natural behaviours. Parental care is a big part of an animal’s behaviour. It is a 24 hour job in longer periods of their lives and we believe that they should still be able to carry out this type of behaviour also in captivity. Contraceptives have a number of unwanted side effects on the internal organs and we would therefore apply a poorer animal welfare if we did not euthanize.”

 

[Wolfie]

I don't want to step into a political firestorm (people are very passionate about animals!) If a zoo is part of a breeding program, then no unauthorized breeding is supposed to take place unless there is somewhere to put the offspring. Then to transport any animal, there is also a tremendous cost and great risk to the animal - who pays it? The giftor or the recipient? Is there room and space to raise an adult male with it's own kind? What if there are no takers?

In other words, think of the dog and cat populations in the world. How many people just let their pets have a litter and worry about where the offspring will end up later? Do they let littermates breed? Do they care? How many short generations does it take until there are fatal and sickening defects?

I've read a couple articles that state that in Europe they don't agree with controlling breeding like we do in the US. So they aren't putting the females on birth control like they do here when they don't want them to breed. I can imagine this results in many unwanted offspring- it's a good thing that giraffes don't breed like cats and dogs.

 

[LinasK]

I've read a couple articles that state that in Europe they don't agree with controlling breeding like we do in the US. So they aren't putting the females on birth control like they do here when they don't want them to breed. I can imagine this results in many unwanted offspring- it's a good thing that giraffes don't breed like cats and dogs.

How stupid!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:
Kill a perfectly healthy mammal who is no threat to anyone rather than put an animal on birth control!!!

 

[Wolfie]

“In Copenhagen Zoo we let the animals breed naturally. With naturally we mean that they will get young within the same intervals as they would in the wild. That means that the animals get to carry out their natural behaviours.

This is misleading. In the wild there would be times of stress that would cause fewer pregnancies- such as lack of food, ect... Also, many of the offspring wouldn't make it very long, many wouldn't make it past birth. In captivity you don't have the dangers or stresses that animals in the wild have, PLUS you have better nutrition and vet care.

 

[libraryg]

A couple of steers would have been a lot cheaper.

Especially as with zoos they don't actually own their own animals, they belong to the accrediting associations who have to approve everything that is done with them.

Wolfie, I don't believe that this is so. At least in the US, the AZA, American Zoological Association, has a large say in which animals are placed at which accredited facilities. They also direct the SSP, Species Survival Plan breeding programs which affects many but not all zoo animals, depending on the rarity. As far as I know, the AZA does not actually own any zoo animals but is indeed the governing body and overseer of US zoos which meet their standards and win accredidation. For example, giant pandas...there are only 4 AZA accredited zoos in the US with pandas, but the bears are owned by China, and are on loan here for study and conservation. All that being said, I have no clue how they run things in Europe.........