I must have missed something along the way to learning how to care for animals, but maybe I didn’t.
I remember when I was a little boy asking my parents why my grandparents killed their young roosters (the technical term is “cockerel”) and left the young hens to survive (the technical term is “pullet.”)
Every year, their flock of mixed meat and egg chickens would have a ton of chicks. The foxes and raccoons got a few. And others got fried.
Almost all the fried ones were cockerels, not pullets.
As a juvenile male with an inquiring mind, I asked why such a fate always befell the young males.
My parents explained to me that the reason why the young roosters became dinner is because a farm doesn’t need many roosters. If it has too many roosters, all that will ever get done is crowing, fighting, and hen-chasing. If you want to manage the flock better– have the hens lay nice eggs and get nice and fat– you cull the young roosters.
And I thought that people understood this concept.
Well, as I’ve started writing about animal welfare issues, I’ve noticed that many people don’t get it at all.
Take the great outrage of this past week: The Copenhagen Zoo’s decision to cull a young male giraffe to prevent inbreeding in their herd.
I’ve notice most of the outrage comes from the United Kingdom, a place where there is a sort of animal rights cult that runs deep into the body politic. I don’t know where it comes from, but I, as an American, find it absolutely bizarre.
That’s not say that the US is AR-free. The state of California is full of this sentiment, and I’m sure you could find people whining about hunting somewhere.
But in the US, this is the fringe.
I suppose in Denmark, it is too.
That’s because in the real world of animal husbandry, things are not always nice.
Animals die. Animals fight. Animals get sick. Animals get hurt. Animals need culling.
In dogs, we cull all the time. We just don’t call it that. We call it selling it to a “pet home only.”
In farm animals, the animals culled are the animals that become food. The animals with the best traits are kept back for breeding, and this is how we’ve been able to breed productive meat animals.
Reputative zoos are really farms, but unlike the farms we have to produce meat, these farms are engaged in a different kind of breeding. It’s actually the exact opposite of the kind of breeding that has been so lauded in breeding dogs over the years.
In dog breeding, the main goal has been to breed from top performing or winning stud dogs in order to spread their genes throughout the breed. It’s madness, if you ask me, because it leads to more and more inbred populations and attendant gene loss.
Zoos are trying to do the exact opposite. The goal of a zoo breeding program is to retain as much genetic diversity as possible i their breeding populations.
Now, this makes sense, even for species that aren’t endangered. If the wild population of a given species suddenly becomes rare and genetically compromised, zoos that have maintained healthy, genetically diverse populations will be able to use that genetic diversity that they have set aside to save the species.
Zoos that breed this way are the genetic savings accounts.
A lot of the misunderstanding of the death of Marius comes from a misunderstanding of conservation breeding, and it also comes up against another piece of the puzzle:
The Copenhagen Zoo does not do contraceptives. In Scandinavia, almost all dogs are kept intact, and I believe in either Sweden or Norway, it was actually illegal to spay or neuter a dog as an elective surgery.
In the zoo situation, they keep their animals intact, so they have a full complement of hormones and relatively natural social structures. That means that females and males are going to mate whether the mating makes sense for the purpose of conservation breeding or not.
I don’t have a problem with this attitude. It makes quite a bit of sense for the welfare of the animals involved. They get to live complete and full lives.
However, the question of what to do with the surplus offspring is not a trivial one. Historically, zoos sold their surplus animals to private owners. This is one reason why there are so many tigers in the US, and it was also a major source for the canned hunting industry.
Many argued that the Copenhagen Zoo should have just allowed Marius to go to another zoo, but if that zoo isn’t part of the same breeding network, it would not make sense to allow Marius to become part of it.
The zoo in Yorkshire that offered him a home sounds like a possibility, but it’s not a viable option. Let me explain:
These reputable, accredited zoos all support each other. Smaller zoos can go under– and many often do. If something were to happen to that Yorkshire zoo, there could be a chance that poor Marius could wind up sold to a circus or put in a canned hunting operation.
I don’t think Marius’s biggest supporters want that to happen.
So euthanasia was the best option.
Marius was killed with a rifle shot to the head. That is precisely how we kill cows in West Virginia.
He was then given a public dissection, which resulted in the British animal rights activists sneering at the Danes for doing such a thing. I mean it’s not like the British would ever show a giraffe dissection on television, would they?
Of course, after Marius was dissected, he was fed to the lions. The poor lions probably have never tasted giraffe flesh before, and in the wild, it’s pretty rare for a lion to kill a giraffe. But if they didn’t feed Marius to the lions, they would just have to feed them some domestic meat, which was slaughtered just as humanely as Marius was. In this way, you could almost think of Marius saving the lives of a few cows that would have had to have been killed to feed the lions.
But now the zoo is getting threats.
Are you kidding me?
I don’t understand this. I guess I learned something when I was five years old that ton of people never have learned.
Animal husbandry isn’t pretty. Sometimes, things must die for the greater good.
I feel very sorry for Bengst Holst and his staff. He’s trying to do what is right for the animals, and all these bleeding hearts who claim to love the animals are screaming for his head.
It’s kind of like the Animal Rights Tea Party.
The animal rights movement has done nothing for the conservation of our planet and its biodversity. It is simply a movement of fanatics who refuse to listen to reason.
I have no use for them. I don’t think they really help animals in the long term, and if their demands were adhered to, we would see utter collapse of ecosystem after ecosystem and the extinction of countless species.
Animal husbandry requires both empathy and reason. Without reason, empathy can often do as much harm as good. Without empathy, the animals just won’t be cared for properly.
The problem is too many people are obsessed with the empathy side of the equation.
And it’s not helping at all.
***
Here’s a clip of Bengt Holst trying to speak some reason to an antagonistic British presenter:
***
I still am having a hard time understanding the British animal rights movement:
You had more protests over a badger cull than you did over austerity.
There is something very pathological about that.
And I say this as someone who might be better called a “hard-core leftist.”
But I don’t get this stuff at all.
I’m not THAT aware of the UK AR movement. I always stupidly thought the USA was the worst on that one, but you were pretty easy on America, I thought.
Brits must be scary. But are we walking ALL Brits or Londoners?
Silly American , The Humane Society began in England !
What do they do in Scandinavia to prevent unwanted litters of dogs?
They kept their bitches up, and they also had a hormone shot to put the bitches out of heat too.
Is that more expensive than getting them spayed?
In all of Europe, not just Scandinavia, demanding mass S/N of pet dogs would be considered insanity if not borderline animal abuse.
Why is that such a big deal to them? What is their problem with it?
In part because it’s against the law to amputate parts from a healthy animal.
Is it really that bad a thing to do to a dog or a cat? This seems as bad as the hysteria over that zoo killing their giraffe
Well from everything I have read, they don’t have the same magnitude of homeless dogs and cats that we do here. Spay and neuter was driven here, as an idea that it was just what responsible pet owners DO as a response to perceived pet over population, and if I lived somewhere that didn’t have a surplus of unwanted pets, I would see spay and neuter as an unnecessary and dangerous procedure also. Any medical procedure carries risks, why do it if you, and every one you know, already operates as a responsible pet owner, I.e. Not letting your intact animal roam free to breed/having “oops” litters/breeding to see the miracle of birth etc.? This is just what I have heard from European pet owners.
Ogre Magi — I appreciate seeing your honest questions. I have a good friend who came to the U.S. from Sweden. She was appalled that Americans routinely mutilate their pets. Like you, I was amazed that spaying and neutering is not done, indeed is regarded with disgust, in Sweden. “Do you have an over population of animals?” I asked. “No,” she snorted, “we have responsible dog owners.” Since then, I have read several reports on scientific studies regarding spaying and neutering. One study, following the lives a large number of golden retrievers, found that the ones that were spayed at an early age had a much higher incidence of cancer and other terminal diseases. Another study, following the lives of Rottweilers, found that female Rotts that were not spayed lived YEARS longer than female Rotts that were spayed at an early age. (I’m sorry I don’t have links for you on those, but I’m sure you can track them down on the internet. ) The hormones secreted by male and female organs affect MUCH more than reproduction. They determine many aspects of how the animal will mature (or not mature) both physically AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY. Personally, I can see why some people would need “birth control” for their pets — for example someone with multiple dogs. Here’s interesting information for those folks: Dogs and cats can have vasectomies and tubal ligations just like humans. Those minimally invasive surgeries make it impossible to reproduce, but they leave those important organs intact and functional. Spaying and neutering are very damaging in a long list of ways. Animal rights groups love spaying and neutering because it is so unhealthy. It is important to understand that the goal of the “animal rights” crowd is the complete extinction of domestic animals. So, a damaging surgery sounds fine to them. Spaying or neutering a BABY animal dooms them to a life of uncomfortable physical problems from improperly developed joints to urinary tract infections. Removing sexual organs from a baby animal is most definitely animal abuse because it WILL cause suffering.
“The hormones secreted by male and female organs affect MUCH more than reproduction.”
As some one who works in the medical field this makes so much sense to me, and I can’t believe I’ve never thought about this before…we would NEVER do this to humans! I have bought in to the whole spay-neuter your pets to be responsible thing, however when people talk about research saying your dog is more likely to get cancer in their reproductive organs if you don’t spay/neuter, it never sounded right to me. In human females it is exactly the opposite – having children is protective. Dogs are also mammals so why wouldn’t it be protective to them as well? Where can I find the research studies you refer to in this comment?
You are asking the wrong question.
Is it really that difficult to keep your bitch from getting pregnant without amputating body parts from a healthy animal?
There are many health issues that become more common and intensified with spaying and neutering. Especially when done young, but not entirely. Bone cancer is far more common in neutered dogs than intact. And that is only one example of many. Google it.
Spay/neuter, contrary to popular superstition is not “better” for the health of your dog … it creates an hormonal imbalance which causes many negative effects for the animal, including arthritic conditions, increased incidence of hip displacia, increased incidence of specific kinds of cancer, and if done at a very young age, irregularities in growth patterns. In addition, spay/neuter in purebred animals alters the specific traits in appearance that distinguish breed characteristics.
Here in rural Alabama, our county animal control and pound require all pets adopted from their shelter must be spayed and neutered. I was saddened by this when I adopted an australian shepherd from the local shelter and found that he was one of the best working dogs I ever had. He took to herding so well that the other herding dog owners had wanted to bred him with some of their females. Unfortunately we have a big pet overpopulation problem in the US. People routinely dump unwanted animals out here in the rural areas. At one point we became over ran with feral cats. The population was so bad that most of the local farm owners, like us, would trap the cats, get them vaccinated, spayed or neutered, and re-release them into local barns where people needed vermin control. This conversation has been very interesting. I, like many Americans, have been raised to not question the validity of spay and neuter. It is something a responsible pet owner is expected to do. All of my animals except for my livestock are S/N. In fact many vets advise spaying dogs and cats because is prevents possible uterine infections. That is how ingrained S/N is in our culture. I am now rethinking what I have been taught. Very interesting.
We keep the bitches on a leash when they are in season.
Really difficult to come up with that idea, eh?
Thanks for all the information. I had always been told that was the responsible thing to do.
Same here. When you get a pet, unless it is a pure breed of breeding quality you are expected to get it s/n.
Its the “forest for the trees” thing again.
Oh my GOSH, you responded to everything about this situation so well, and so clearly. Every “but…” answered, succinctly and intelligently. Perhaps this post will spread like wildfire and these idiotic people will learn something.
I agree with the views about animal husbandry but the statement that the English have some sort of huge AR movement going on over and above Americans is just odd. I’m English myself and a dog breeder so I’m certainly aware of a lot of the issues but I also watch a lot of discussions on various forums between Americans about the problems that they face from the AR movements in America.
Well look at the record:
How many different types of hunting have been banned in the UK?
Why is it that there was an uproar about badger culling when such a thing would be ignored here?
The only state that has any of this crap is California and to a lesser extent, Massachusetts.
They are in the same league as people who worry about the guns being collected and FEMA concentration camps.
But yes, the APHIS law on dog breeders is crap.
How many of those laws are actually obeyed? Because you know, if you’re out with your dogs and just happen across a fox, or deer, and your dogs take off after it and despatch it, you’re not breaking any law.
Also, how much of said laws and propaganda were fueled by class division etc, its not all about animal rights, despite how it might appear.
Of course there is an element of, you can’t kill the cute fluffy mammal, but imo at a government level, the cute fluffy mammal is only important as long as its loud supporters might vote for them.
Hunting laws are virtually impossible to enforce, and most people sure as hell know it.
I don’t think it has anything to do with animal rights in the end.
I think it comes down to this: the Labour Party sucks. It has abandoned almost all its traditional constituencies, and the only bones it can throw to its based are bans on rural sports.
I agree with you.
The area I live in has always been a labour stronghold (its also been described as a throwback to soviet Russia lol) but labour are effing useless, they all are tbh, give snakes a bad name the lot of them.
But anyway I’m digressing.
I remember having a discussion about what to bleach skulls with, if you don’t have peroxide, in the middle of a forum debate on fox hunting, surprisingly we didn’t get lynched by the anti’s.
What is the APHIS law?
http://desertwindhounds.com/2012/05/22/why-the-proposed-aphis-licensing-changes-will-screw-small-hobby-breeders-and-the-people-who-buy-puppies-from-them/
This rule was adopted.
Thank you
Also keep in mind that there are tons of paranoid dog breeders in America who see conspiracies everywhere, except for ones that are real.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to get certain dogs from breeders without signing agreements that if they do not like what you are doing with the dogs they can remove them, and that you MUST spay and neuter the dogs when they are of the minimum required age to do so. If you want to buy a dog considered breeding stock you have to be inspected by the breeder and usually must pay at least $500 to $1000 more. Some breeders have put a near stranglehold on access to certain dog breeds because of this. I get the fear of the breed being degraded by unscrupulous breeders, but sometimes people get too extreme in their effort to preserve the qualities of a good animal.
Is the uk full of unreasonable AR extremists?
Or is it simply that the rest of us haven’t got the time or inclination to make a fuss over things we accept, or couldn’t give a shit about?
I’ve not been following this particular saga, imo, it’s their animal, if they want to disect it, audience or not, and then feed it to the lions, hell they could eat it themselves, for all it concerns me, then they can bloody well get on with it.
The giraffe was killed with a bolt gun. Like they use on cows in slaughterhouses. And the zoo is part of a European zoo network (can’t remember the acronym) that has a very specific code of ethics which includes keeping track of the animals and not selling them. No zoos which also belong to the association wanted this giraffe, and it’s against the regulations to sell him or to send him to a non-association zoo that may sell him or send him elsewhere. Parts of the giraffe were sent to research institutes and the rest when to the lions.
This particular zoo does public necropsies frequently as a form of public education. Which IMO is very cool.
CNN says it was a bolt action rifle. We use rifles to dispatch cattle on small farms all the time. It has the same effect. It just makes a louder noise and you have to worry about where the bullet goes.
The No Country for Old Men thing is a lot safer to use.
This tells you how much “da medja” knows about killing animals.
CNN is probably wrong. I’ve been following this and there have been at least three or four articles stating it was a bolt gun.
I wouldn’t be surprised.
Watch No Country for Old Men. That’s a much more like instrument.
Most sources say the giraffe was put down with a bolt gun to the head. They would not shoot it with a rifle due to the possibility of lead contamination to the carcass.
I agree it was a bolt gun. I am not changing the text of the post. Blame CNN.
I don’t think the American public is as pro hunting as you stated. I have seen stats that less than 5% of Americans participate in hunting and that number inches lower incrementally every year. We have our own hunt saboteurs and anti-hunting laws that are proposed every year. I personally don’t know anyone who hunts. England has always been a nation of animal lovers- they had an animal protection agency before they had one for child protection. Some theorize that the famous English reticence and stiff upper lip has its outlet in the deep and abiding love of pets. While it’s true their ARs are just as rabid as ours (remember when they dug up the bones of an animal researchers granny?) I think America has just as many issues as they do. I think that zoos cull animals all the time, and as you stated, some go to canned hunts or roadside sub par outfits. I think the giraffe bring such an iconic animal had something to do with this. Really good article you wrote.
Polls.
I don’t know many people who openly oppose hunting.
No, not oppose, but don’t engage in, either. I am somewhat surprised at the numbers in the link you provided, but if less than 5% of a population participate in a past time and are at the same time bombarded with ideas that all hunters are blood thirsty rednecks, I wonder what the future holds for hunting.
I’m more optimistic about the future of hunting– at least in North America.
This is why: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/hunting_by_liberal_urban_locavores_is_a_trend_good_for_the_environment.html
I tend to think the 5% is low for the number of hunters. Does that also take in the numbers of those who hunt on the Indian reservations, probably not. Outlawing hunting would be a mistake and the rules are there for a reason. I think it might be Connecticut that has so many deer, they are paying people to come in and hunt. When areas are overrun by deer, the deer either end up starving or ruining crops to get enough food to eat, or they become diseased. It’s horrible watching an animal in the wild starve to death. Besides, I remember when I was in high school, my mother and stepfather and I used to hunt north of Santa Fe along the Colorado border, we could each hunt two deer. There were several times I remember that the Hopi Indians were snowed in and we would have a helicopter take our deer to them so they would have meat. In Nebraska, there is a couple up in the Panhandle that take deer that a hunter doesn’t want or wants to donate it, and they will process it and give it to a family that is having hard times.
As for the article, there’s always going to be someone out there ready to pounce on those that are doing their jobs to the best of their ability, instead of researching and finding out why, they want this guys head and want him fired. So instead of thinking that it’s an animals and that’s just how things work at the zoo, they want him fired, never thinking he has a family to support, more than likely a wife and children, but wait, animals always come first in their minds. What a world we live in, the ones that scream they want tolerance are the most intolerant of all and don’t care about the damage they do to other people.
I agree with most of what you are saying. It makes sense what they did, and why, but i can’t get past the fact that they had other options, and chose euthanasia. They could have performed a vasectomy, which maintains all hormones, and behaviors that the giraffe would have had otherwise. I also dislike how you are referring to this giraffe, as if it is equivalent to a chicken.. I appreciate your comparison, but Giraffes and chickens are on completely different spectrums. Chickens are bred to be eaten, and bred, and eaten, and so on. Giraffes are in zoos, which, no, are not basically farms. They could have shipped him off somewhere to some place who would ensure he would not be bred, but allowed him to live out his life peacefully. I do however agree with your statement about empathy, and reason, and how too many people are obsessed with the empathy side of the equation. This is so annoyingly true. All people see here is a giraffe fed to the lions, and don’t seem to take into consideration that there were some pretty solid reasons why they did what they did (my opinion on it is beside the point) They band together and agree that these are horrible people, who must be punished. I don’t think this zoo deserves the degree of criticism they are receiving, even if i don’t agree with their decision.
There were no other options, if you understand what the purpose of a zoo like this one is.
Although I have no profound moral objection to killing a giraffe and feeding it to the lions. the whole thing did sit somewhat poorly with me, and I’m far from an AR nut. The practice in European zoos of leaving animals intact so they can live full and complete lives, though laudable in intent, results in unwanted zoo animals that are then put down, because their zoo rules also forbid selling them. Thus, what happened to this unfortunate giraffe was utterly predictable.
I kept wondering, if they view castration as cruel, why they didn’t perform a vasectomy instead? Or separate him during the breeding season? Or have clause allowing him to be sold outside the zoo system with the caveat that he must not be sold on to a circus or for hunting. There ARE other solutions, and this wasn’t a one time fluke.
The truth of the matter is for all their concern about cruelty, the life of a perfectly healthy young giraffe doesn’t seem to be worth all that much . . .something to be created causally and then disposed of because it is inconvenient. People who do the same thing with dogs are rightfully criticized (and pet-only sales result in a live dog living a happy life, the right analogy would be breeders who have all their rejects put down).
I don’t think this is an “only an AR nut” would object situation.
Polls.
I totally agree!
I totally agree with Laughing Shadows,( poor so called management) but also appreciate how your article really explains so many unanswered question of what the hell did they do that for. It just didn’t make any since! I am a rural farmer and completly under chicken & culling in general, but do not put a majestic animal in the same category as chickens, dogs or calves!!?
I really hope an all around lesson is learned through all of this. I know my eyes have been opened for the good with your explanation.
You aren’t dealing with domestic animals where we know what happens when they are deprived of their full social and sexual behavior and hormones. It’s easy to be an internet expert in this regard, but we actually don’t know how much contraception would actually harm one of these animals.
This is something that too many people bloviating about the poor giraffe simply don’t understand.
Keeping the animals intact might be the best way to give them full and healthy lives and having to kill the surplus like this is a cost that is worth having.
Not understanding this tells me that most internet experts don’t have a clue about the real choices that qualified zoos have to make.
It’s simply judging without knowing.
And until you can find me some study on contraceptives in giraffes that shows it makes them easier to manage or actually is health neutral, then you have to accept that the zoo is trying to do the best for the entire population.
Aren’t we just now finding out that there are potential health risks in neutering dogs and cats?
Well, we know those animals pretty well.
We don’t know giraffes or other wild animals at all.
So please try to understand that keeping these animals intact and culling the surplus might be the best way to keep them when balanced against all the risks.
If you still don’t understand this concept, then you maybe need to stop reading this blog because we don’t just allow people to come up with opinion based upon ignorance here.
Anaesthesia in giraffes is notorically difficult, so a vasectomy might not be as easy in practice as it would be in dogs or cats.
And also, keeping infertile animals for years and years and years just isn’t what maintaining a healthy breeding population for a preservation program is about. There’s just no room (and money) to put all the old ones to pasture and still keep breeding the young ones that are needed to maintain a healthy genepool in captivity.
There is a reason Animal Rights isn’t Animal Welfare, all they care about is the animal died, they don’t care how, they don’t care why, it died. Period. That is enough for hell to freeze over, in their minds.
I used to be a part of the animal rights movement until another activism accidentally steered me into humane slaughter. I’ve been animal welfare ever since.
I can’t seem to find the video now, but when I was researching humane slaughter methods and humane butchers/slaughter facilities, I found a video on Youtube where these vegans went to this humane ranch and admitted that their operation was indeed humane and the animal died without suffering, but the animal still died, so it was wrong. I laughed, so hard, I guess because it was the first time I saw them being honest and how they were faced with the fact that what they believed all this time was wrong (all slaughter is like that in the PETA videos).
I’ve also seen the animal rights freaks say that cows shouldn’t be on farms, they should be released into the wild, free to graze and live out their lives. Then be shot by hunters, kill all of our native ungulates that didn’t come from the middle east and that don’t destroy our native grasses/ecosystems, be eaten and mutilated by predators and feral domestic animals since we can no longer protect them, die slow miserable deaths from ailments that could easily be treated whilst in a human’s care, etc. I could just go on. They really are so… I would say “stupid”, but I feel “stupid” just barely scratches the surface of their idiocy.
It is possible to understand their reasoning, and still disagree with them. A courtesy, I note, that you did not extend to me when you called me ignorant and suggested I stop reading your blog. Which I have read, quietly, for years, and 90% of the time, I agree with you.
Did I say that they should castrate the animal? I did not. Did I way they should use hormonal contraception? I did not. I said there were other options to euthanasia, and that I question their animal management techniques that result in unwanted exotic animals that their policies then demand must be destroyed. I suggested, for example, a method of sterilization that does not change social behavior or result in major biological changes. I suggested the temporary isolation of the animal from the herd during the mating season, which might not be completely natural, but does not necessitate the animal’s death, and which might happen in the natural course of things. I suggested simply adopting a different policy about selling animals that has legal protections that make it much more unlikely that the animal might end up mistreated.
I grew up on a farm, where, yes, we killed the cockrels. I eat meat, My family hunts, and I cheerful accept deer meat each season. I am not as ignorant as you seem to think. My animals are spayed and neutered because the rescues I got them from required it (otherwise, though I might have had them fixed, but I would have done so at a MUCH older age, because I AM aware of of the mental and physical effects.)
It does not mean that someone is ignorant that they disagree with a set of policies and priorities that bring exotic animals into captivity, then require their destruction. I find it wasteful. Moreover, I feel that their “its better to kill it so it doesn’t experience anything unnatural or even face the possibility of suffering elsewhere outside of our sacred little zoo network” to be vaguely repulsive, especially when their policies almost assure things like this will happen. (For that matter, its better to kill it than try alternatives, because we don’t know what it will do) It is oddly like PETA’s virtual slaughterhouse here in VA, which, oddly, operates on the same logic (oh, we have to kill them, if we let them out in the big bad world, or keep them at the shelter, they might suffer!) And, for that matter find their underlying contempt for those who might have qualms to be insulting and arrogant.
I am appalled that people are threatening the zoo. I find the hysteria to be ridiculous. I understand their logic and the reasons behind their policies. But that doesn’t mean I cannot question with what are, ultimately, their moral and ethical decisions about the best way to manage their stock. Their way might be the best way. It also might not. It is definitely not the ONLY way. I see no obligation to bow to their expertise without question, especially when there are other zoos that do things differently.
If nothing else, if you produce excess charismatic animals, give them names, and put them on display, people are going to object when you kill them. Perhaps those people are ignorant and sentimental. Maybe they find it wasteful. Maybe they just like giraffes. Maybe they just watched THAT giraffe grow up and see no reason why a perfectly healthy animal needs to be destroyed when there are other places for it go and other options. In fact, that considering that part of the purpose of zoos is to motivate people to want to protect these animals in the wild, you can hardly complain when they have a strange urge to protect the individual with which they are familiar. Objections are just as predictable of a result of their policies as the creation of unwanted giraffes.
Ignorance is not stupidity.
Ignorance is not knowing. Stupidity can’t be fixed. Ignorance can.
You have achieved your goal. I will stop reading your blog. Please, continue to pontificate in the absence of disagreement.
Yes , we do & should cull , as has always happened in good farming (not “farm sanctuaries” ,what a joke & waste !). BUT this should have been done out behind a building/Barn , not to an audience of school children & a TV crew . That was in poor taste , what did they suppose would happen or be said ? The whole World is a different place with instant communication , weather the subject be sports , war , politics , weather , what ever it is , is open to the world to see & comment on . The deed was worthy , the process was poorly executed (excuse the pun) . Every farmer that butchers , culls or need to put down an animal does it out of sight , they wouldn’t do it roadside to an audience if they had ANY choice at all .
Zoo visitors had a choice whether or not to view the autopsy/butchering. It not like the zookeeprs walked up to the animal in front of an unsuspecting school field trip and shot it in the head.
FYI some European zoos are castrating some of our relatives http://chimptrainersdaughter.blogspot.com/2014/01/european-zoos-castrating-male-gorillas.html
I’ve never S/N any dog I’ve owned in 60 yrs of owning & sometimes breeding dogs, my dogs live long productive lives, never having Oops accidental mating’s due to the fact I keep females separated when in heat, not hard to do, just simply being responceable. Back yard breeding/ inbreeding & not culling has destroyed more breeds than any other reason !!!
Retrieverman, it is sad that you have offended the still, small voice of calm that is LaughingShadows. He/she has spoken good sense and you have ridden roughshod over him. Perhaps think a little before you destroy. I have been involved in other conversations where someone reasonable has been despised and , yes, I am sad.
Unfortunately, it’s not good sense at all. It’s really judgmental twaddle fodder based upon a lack of knowledge– which I don’t have time for.
Judgmental twaddle makes me sad.
Not much of that in dogs, is there? LOL
The article states that Marius was shot through the head, when indeed he was not, he was killed with a Bolt Gun, which quickly jams a metal rod into the head, and yes they are used to kill cows, pigs, etc. Still, knowing that all the Zoos in the “UK system” have been breeding to the same bloodlines and it has put all of the giraffes in the same “genetic pool”, why is someone not thinking ahead, knowing that soon all the live Giraffes will be genetically related, which has obviously happened? Some where along the line, the “breeding program” has not been clearly thought through. Now another Marius, in another European Zoo is also to be Euthanized? Time for a new administrator with some “future vision” to make sure they do not overpopulate any one gene pool again any time in the near future. I thought Zoos where here for educational purposes It seems the administrators have failed Marius and his brother miserably.
CNN says it was rifle: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/10/world/europe/denmark-zoo-giraffe/
Small farmers in West Virginia do kill cows and pigs with rifles.
But a bolt-gun makes more sense.
Please stop sending comments to “correct” this error. The error is CNN’s not mine.
Thing is they don’t have the same values as you do.
Your values say that every life is precious or something to that effect.
Their values say it’s hard to keep wild animals in captivity. It’s best not to mess with nature any more than we already have by bringing these animals in here, and if we have to sacrifice the life of one of our giraffes for the general husbandry, then that is a good management decision.
And it’s a logic I accept myself.
We don’t know as much about giraffes as we do domestic animal.
Are you aware that if you spay a female ferret, you will stop her from dying. If she’s not bred during a heat cycle, female will remain in heat and she will develop an estrogen-induced anemia. However, if she’s spayed, then she is at risk for all sorts of tumors and pituitary diseases.
Ah, so I mentioned a domestic animal that is different from a dog or cat, and the spaying and neutering thing go complicated, didn’t it?
Well, you can bet your bottom dollar that in species we understand less than dogs and cats or even ferrets, there are unknown consequences of sterilization, which is a big reason I opposed wildlife contraception methods. It makes more sense to shoot to manage than to cut or pill up.
Enjoyed this column, but am somewhat surprised that you seem not to realize the inroads the Animal Rights zealots have made in the US… PeTA is of course, by their own admission, basically an organization of publicity whores, but Humane Society of the United States is a fanatic of a different stripe. They operate on a budget of tens of millions, very little of which goes to actually help animals in need – most of their income seems to be distributed between their pension funds and lobbying law makers both in DC and in individual states. They’ve made significant inroads in both the farming of ag animals, and the breeding of purebred dogs; they’ve taken sets on the use of dogs in hunting, and are spreading the Vegan gospel everywhere possible including public school classrooms. In addition to turning cows loose, they’d like to see an end to the ownership of domestic dogs … they should all be feral, enjoyed at a distance by humans basking on their front porches in the glow of the sunset.
They do exist, but they aren’t nearly the problem that exists in the UK. There is a bigger danger I see in the US in allowing oneself to become totally paranoid about them, instead of working to beat them with logic and reason, because it can be done here. We have an egalitarian culture around hunting and guns, we don’t get all the inverted class warfare that exists in the UK. About dogs, if dog breeders would be more accepting of rational criticism of what’s actually happening to dogs in this country and not dismiss everything as an animal rights conspiracy, they’d do themselves a lot of favor. I put animal rights activists on the same list as neo-Nazis, don’t get me wrong. But if dog breeders were really smart, and did things like call out breeders of bulldogs and pugs for producing dogs that spend their entire lives in misery or finally rejected once and for all the pure blood cults, I don’t think they would have as much trouble. That’s the real threat of the AR industry. It’s when dog breeders scream that all rational criticism is an AR conspiracy, then those who are concerned will see the AR lobby as a voice of reason– which it certainly is not.
I had people lose their minds after posting a video of dizzied pigeons being used to train pointing dogs– “animal abuse!”
(And this was an American!)
I don’t think they will ever get the power here that they have in the UK. So long as people slam into deer on the highway, someone will be asking, “Why doesn’t someone shoot them?”
Are you on any of the email lists or Facebook groups that discuss the threats of animal rights and what should be our response to them?
Not a good place to get factual information.
Both of those places are cesspools.
Where is a good place to get factual information?
Read whatever but be skeptical.
Ask for evidence, and always assume that something might not be exactly as portrayed.
Unfortunately we see this kind of animal rights madness quite alot here in the UK, and its not just from “professional” animal rights activists. Alot of it stems from the RSPCA, who for years have been brainwashing the public for their own gain. It’s quite ironic that the RSPCA, who were originally set up to ensure the welfare of cattle, were one of the main opponents of the badger cull, which was devised to help protect cattle from bovine TB…
There are valid reasons and purposes in allowing breeding animals in conservation breeding programs of wild or endangered species to produce more offspring than needed for their own breeding purposes, that are much the same for any domestic purebred breeding program, or for that matter, as an essential element in the natural evolutionary process. It is only through the breeding of more offspring than would be needed, on a simply numerical basis, to maintain breeding pool numbers, that there is any opportunity for a process of selection for the benefit of the breeding pool moving forward.
While the selection practiced by the breeder of domestic animals is to some standard or ideal of type or performance at tasks, the selection criteria in conservation breeding programs is toward traits and characteristics that align as much as possible within the confines of the program’s options, with those that would be working in effect in the animals natural wild habitat. Such things as overall superior strength, health, vigor, as well as monitoring for any spontaneous mutation that might be deleterious, and, according to the specie, specific traits that would help insure survival, would be the kinds of things considered. Record keeping that allows evaluation and comparison of such traits and characteristics for not only each individual animal, but related animals, helps assure the goals of such a program. Producing more animals than required by numbers in the program allows for selection, but does of course bring with it having to make decisions on the best way to deal with the extras that are culled.
When I watched the video of Marius, the narrator said that he was put down with a BOLT gun…not a rifle. There is a huge difference there. It’s the same method that a majority of inhumane slaughter houses use..Knowing a rifle was used would’ve sat better with me…but I’m still angry to know that a bolt gun was used instead..Other sources may say different, but I still remember little miss thing stating bolt gun..if she was wrong…fine but it still irks me to even imagine it…
A bolt-gun would be safer. If you read the other comments on the thread, I think it’s far more likely.