Giraffe Slaughtered at Copenhagen Zoo

[nightmare]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/marius-the-giraffe-killed-at-copenhagen-zoo-and-fed-to-lions-20140210-hvbqt.html


So basically they wanted to avoid inbreeding so they killed the giraffe & fed it to a lion.


Someone offered almost $700.000 to buy the giraffe, thousands of people protested & another zoo even offered to trade a genetically viable giraffe to avoid the kill. So if it was about money or a viable mate, why not go with one of those options?


I fail to see how slicing up hunks of a giraffe & feeding it to a lion while children watch is educational. Seeing a hunter kill prey on discovery is one thing, charging admission & ignoring other logical options is another. Kids learned nothing here except what the inside of a dead giraffe looks like & I doubt that was the real reasoning the zoo intended. I just dont think that their reasoning was valid & would like to know the true motivation.


So, what say you? Should they have explored another option or not?

 

[ABMorales787]

Prick move and whoever made the call needs to be fired and thrown with the lions.

 

[Slyfox696]

Meh, what's the big deal? Animals are slaughtered and used as food every day. This one was obviously never intended to be born, so nothing was really lost.

 

[Danger Burger]

I just watched the departed, so maybe this is a little misled, but I'd put my house on, maybe, that giraffe having some information that the Zoo Keeper didn't want getting out.

 

[nightmare]

Meh, what's the big deal? Animals are slaughtered and used as food every day. This one was obviously never intended to be born, so nothing was really lost.

Understand that point. Problem with this is that a zoo is meant to house animals for safe study through entertainment of sorts. Thus keeping them alive & away from predators or nursing them back to health & released back to the wild.


This zoo decided they did not want the giraffe because of breeding policy. So I assume that would be the motivating factor that led to the decision. So if that was why they didnt want it, then why not go with an option where their original intent was upheld & get a giraffe viable for breeding? They instead chose to shoot it and feed it to a lion -throwing their original need out the window, which tells me that breeding is not what they wanted in the first place. So why decide to do this? It was not to educate kids on giraffe anatomy & not to feed a lion, as I am sure they have plenty of options there.

 

[Dirk]

I'm surprised that giraffes survive in Copenhagen in the first place! I hope they have some heating for the poor animals.

 

[ABMorales787]

Meh, what's the big deal? Animals are slaughtered and used as food every day. This one was obviously never intended to be born, so nothing was really lost.

I'd find it OK if it were a slaughterhouse and Giraffe meat solid for something. But this is a zoo killing an animal when they had several more positive and beneficial options. It comes off as if they just wanted to kill it for the sake of it, which sets a pretty bad example for what is supposed to be a place where animals are raised to the best of care.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

I read about this yesterday and the zoo keeper made the point that they have had to take this measure before with several other animals and no one had batted an eyelid. It seems that the staff in the zoo would know what is best to do when it comes to the long-term strategy of the animals.

 

[Dirk]

I read about this yesterday and the zoo keeper made the point that they have had to take this measure before with several other animals and no one had batted an eyelid. It seems that the staff in the zoo would know what is best to do when it comes to the long-term strategy of the animals.

Yeah, like the government should know how to run a country. Sometimes people are stupid.

 

[Vega]

I'd find it OK if it were a slaughterhouse and Giraffe meat solid for something. But this is a zoo killing an animal when they had several more positive and beneficial options. It comes off as if they just wanted to kill it for the sake of it, which sets a pretty bad example for what is supposed to be a place where animals are raised to the best of care.

Otherwise they'd kill other animals to feed the lion. Probably more since a giraffe is a pretty big animal. The bottom line of a zoo caging animals for people to pay and look at, not giving individuals a full, comfortable life.

The outcry shows society's hypocrisy regarding animals, make up your mind. Being born to be killed (giraffe slaughterhouse) doesn't make your interests irrelevant.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

On the plus side, at least its remains weren't wasted. Circle of Danish life and all that.

 

[Slyfox696]

Understand that point. Problem with this is that a zoo is meant to house animals for safe study through entertainment of sorts. Thus keeping them alive & away from predators or nursing them back to health & released back to the wild.


This zoo decided they did not want the giraffe because of breeding policy. So I assume that would be the motivating factor that led to the decision. So if that was why they didnt want it, then why not go with an option where their original intent was upheld & get a giraffe viable for breeding? They instead chose to shoot it and feed it to a lion -throwing their original need out the window, which tells me that breeding is not what they wanted in the first place. So why decide to do this? It was not to educate kids on giraffe anatomy & not to feed a lion, as I am sure they have plenty of options there.

It wasn't just breeding policy, it was also an issue of space:

Ignoring pleas from animal rights activists, the Copenhagen zoo kills a young giraffe and feeds its carcass to lions, citing space and inbreeding rules.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...agen-zoo-and-fed-to-lions-20140210-hvbqt.html

And I imagine killing and feeding a giraffe that was undesired to the lions is still cheaper than buying food for the lions...which would have been some kind of meat anyways, meaning SOME animal was going to die for the lion.

I'd find it OK if it were a slaughterhouse and Giraffe meat solid for something. But this is a zoo killing an animal when they had several more positive and beneficial options. It comes off as if they just wanted to kill it for the sake of it, which sets a pretty bad example for what is supposed to be a place where animals are raised to the best of care.

So...save the life of the inbred giraffe so we can kill an extra cow and chicken to feed the lion instead?

Either way, an animal(s) was going to die to feed the lion. Does it really matter if it's a cow or an inbred giraffe which was never intended to be born in the first place?

Otherwise they'd kill other animals to feed the lion. Probably more since a giraffe is a pretty big animal. The bottom line of a zoo caging animals for people to pay and look at, not giving individuals a full, comfortable life.

The outcry shows society's hypocrisy regarding animals, make up your mind. Being born to be killed (giraffe slaughterhouse) doesn't make your interests irrelevant.

Yep.

 

[Miko]

Never eaten giraffe

 

[JohnJohnson]

Yea, the other day I was going over a list of animals I've eaten and animals that I still want to eat. I completely forgot giraffe. I want a giraffe burger and a giraffe steak.

For some reason, the whole time I read this, I just kept thinking about the giraffe in the begining of The Hangover 3.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Never eaten giraffe

Nothing compared to Okapi or Chilean Sea Bass. I highly recommend you get on trying those two before they're extinct.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Is Chilean Sea Bass really that good? Also, where did you get the Okapi?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Is Chilean Sea Bass really that good? Also, where did you get the Okapi?

The okapi was a joke, but Chilean Sea Bass is excellent. It's quite expensive and its associated fisheries will probably collapse over the next two decades so get it while you can.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Yea I read about the Chilean Sea Bass on a list of illegal foods. Most of the foods on the list aren't out right illegal, but rather heavily restricted.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Never eaten giraffe

If you've eaten meat from Tesco, you've probably eaten at least a bit of every animal on the planet.

 

[Miko]

The okapi was a joke, but Chilean Sea Bass is excellent. It's quite expensive and its associated fisheries will probably collapse over the next two decades so get it while you can.

Fucking sweet. Will I be able to get any delivered to South East England?

If you've eaten meat from Tesco, you've probably eaten at least a bit of every animal on the planet.

Including feces sadly enough, still, as long as they don't tell me I am eating shit I'll happily wolf it down.

 

[nightmare]

The space issue became the fall back reason after the backlash happened over the denial of other options. I know this happens, the way it happened I guess pisses me off. Seems like this was much more public than needed. The fact they were openly letting people know when to come watch beforehand makes me question things. Was this a sort of publicity stunt or the actual end result of a previous policy?


If it was space, they had offers (some good, some bad) to sell the animal. Either to another zoo or raise\release organization. The guy who wanted for his garden wasnt a good option. If it was breeding, they had viable offers as well. Just questioning the true motivation behind it & why so public about the viewing? I would question this over any zoo given the same situation.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

I'd imagine there wouldn't be as much backlash if it was a pig or sheep suffering the same fate, due to the fact that giraffes are exotic animals, which gives them a higher stock than common animals in the UK.

That being said, it does seem as if the decision wasn't thought through that carefully, and that the Copenhagen zoo deliberately did it to piss people off.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

The fact they were openly letting people know when to come watch beforehand makes me question things. Was this a sort of publicity stunt or the actual end result of a previous policy?

If I was taking my nephew to a zoo and saw signs for an animal autopsy, the last thing I would do would be to take him there if I thought it would upset him. Letting people know beforehand seems like it gave the older visitors the opportunity to make the judgement as to whether or not they would avoid that part of the zoo, which would be better than not announcing the live autopsy and have people stumble across it by accident.

There was a series in the UK a couple of years ago about animal autopsies that generated a lot of buzz and made people discuss conservation techniques. It seems that this has had the same result, so a case can be made for ends justifying the means.

 

[Slyfox696]

The fact they were openly letting people know when to come watch beforehand makes me question things.

Why though? One animal killing another for it's own gain is the very essence of nature. The way it sounded, they didn't kill the animal in front of people, just butchered him. So why is it a big deal?

Just a couple of weeks ago, my extended family purchased, killed and butchered hogs. We shot them in the head, slit their throat and used a tractor to hang them upside down to let all the blood run out and to get some of the parts out of the way. Then the hogs were cut up and divided amongst the family. One hog, the community hog, was grilled/smoked that very day. There's few things more delicious than fresh sausage or pork shoulder. And there were people of all ages there, including children of a very young age.

So are we bad people too? Are we bad people because we had a great time doing a family activity and using the hogs to their best potential?

If it was space, they had offers (some good, some bad) to sell the animal. Either to another zoo or raise\release organization. The guy who wanted for his garden wasnt a good option. If it was breeding, they had viable offers as well. Just questioning the true motivation behind it & why so public about the viewing? I would question this over any zoo given the same situation.

And by keeping him there and cutting him up, the zoo gave visitors a unique opportunity to view something you don't see every day, while simultaneously saving a little on feed costs.

I'm not trying to criticize you or anything, it's just that your position seems entirely emotional and not at all realistic.

 

[nightmare]

Why though? One animal killing another for it's own gain is the very essence of nature. The way it sounded, they didn't kill the animal in front of people, just butchered him. So why is it a big deal?

Just a couple of weeks ago, my extended family purchased, killed and butchered hogs. We shot them in the head, slit their throat and used a tractor to hang them upside down to let all the blood run out and to get some of the parts out of the way. Then the hogs were cut up and divided amongst the family. One hog, the community hog, was grilled/smoked that very day. There's few things more delicious than fresh sausage or pork shoulder. And there were people of all ages there, including children of a very young age.

So are we bad people too? Are we bad people because we had a great time doing a family activity and using the hogs to their best potential?

And by keeping him there and cutting him up, the zoo gave visitors a unique opportunity to view something you don't see every day, while simultaneously saving a little on feed costs.

I'm not trying to criticize you or anything, it's just that your position seems entirely emotional and not at all realistic.

The reasoning behind your activity is not bad. It has been taking place for centuries in a way. Difference is you dont work at a zoo where this thing is seen as somewhat drastic. The 2 are not so similar. Plus the word autopsy & education have been thrown around & that is not the case. Having the public view an autopsy for educational purposes is vastly different than cutting up & throwing meat to a carnivore. There was no study in this case, just essentially witnesses. Yes killing animals is a way of life & the cycle of things. The reasoning behind it is what causes people to raise a flag.


Its like this: Hey kids you remember that cute giraffe you saw last week? Well now you can come see him cut up and fed to a lion because we dont want him here anymore & wont let him go live elsewhere.


If you ran a shelter\kennel & you had a dog who wasnt fit for breeding, would you kill it & feed it to another animal while customers watched? Nope. Not the point of owning a kennel\shelter. You would find it a better place or put it down. You would not try to spin it as educational slaughter. So in essence this seems more like a publicity stunt than anything. The purpose & goal of a zoo is not to kill unwanted animals for public feeding & that is why even other zoo's are quite pissed this took place. When other zoo's are saying that was fucked up, you know this wasnt needed.


Reality? An animal ate another animal. True. Personally speaking? I think this was a publicity stunt masked as cost\space effective.