Zoo København Marius - Giraffe at Copenhagen

I admit, I am in no position to judge EAZA.

But dealing with WAZA it became clear very soon, that there is a big gap between pretensions on their website, and what they are willing to do when members fail to meet their standards.

Where EAZA is concerned, I wonder if there is any stringent policy against inbreeding in the first place, which would have prevented the fate of the giraffe, and can also be found in Berlin in various cases with equally sad consequences for the animals.

 

@Taisha, would do you mean by WAZA … and dealing with individual members? Can you elaborate what you mean by this?

I have also put in a response to your questions about alternatives.
Was that helpful?

 

[note: above is from the other thread. I moved it and my reply because it was suggested that discussions are continued here]

No they don't (what zoo has space for that many deer anyway?). This was provided as an example of the different feelings involved in different animals being killed. The deer are in Dyrehaven, a big fenced in forest with several thousand semi-captive deer. Same part of the world as the zoo, but not connected in any other way. Population management of deer, or culling if you prefer, happens throughout much of Europe, including UK (where the rate also may rise substantially soon).

As I noted, I was simply repeating what I heard. I don't necessarily agree with the points. However, you're not quite right in all of the above.
1) Logistics: This was a decent sized giraffe. As noted in earlier posts, this makes transport more complicated, including preventing transport by plane and too tall for cargo allowed through the Channel tunnel. That leaves the more logitically challenging, but I guess still possible, boat for a tour to the British Isles.
2) Money: As you perhaps know, these sort of things are usually resolved during the deal, especially in non-standard cases like this. As the Yorkshire offer came so late, this made it more difficult, but of course they could postpone the whole thing and hope the matter would resolve. According to others posters on this forum, there have apparently also been talks of private people being willing to donate the money, but that may not be the most reliable. In any case I have some issues with that for reasons explained in post #43 on page 3.
3) Waste of space: If a serious zoo has space for more giraffes, it should, as far as possible, be maintained for genetically important individuals. As said before, there is plenty of giraffe breeding in European zoos. If any decent EAZA zoo has the space and want a giraffe, they don't have to wait long, even if disregarding animals such as the now-gone Copenhagen giraffe.
4) Law: Considering my field of education, I do enjoy being lectured on Danish law . It has something to do with real Danish law. For example, a few years ago it was revealed, via hidden camera, that a small Danish zoo had been willing to transfer animals to private people (a non-organized zoo falls under this too). They had a nice little visit by the authorities later. It was a fairly small case and involving small, common animals, so it was resolved with a warning and a fine. A giraffe is in an entirely different category. Similarly, the small Odsherred Zoo had serious money problems and was very close to bankrupcy. Two weeks ago it was finally revealed that they had received enough donations to continue. Before it was realized that the zoo could be saved, it was revealed that many of their more common animals would have to be put down as a result of the closure. Other zoos simply didn't have space for all these very common zoo species (literally hundreds of individuals). Space for less common species had been found. As a result, several private people called them saying they'd take care of some of the animals. Though many of those were standard species that can be bought legally by private people in Denmark, the zoo had to turn down the offers because of the law. All a bit complicated, but generally a Danish zoo can't transfer non-domesticated mammals to non-organized zoos, except under very special circumstances. We might think this is such a case, but I doubt the transfer would be approved. Regardless, as I also mentioned before, this leave Yorkshire as a possibility. In contrast, EAZA rules and recommendations by studbook keepers aren't "real" laws, but zoos that violate them are usually in for a hard time.
5) Just because a species doesn't form stable relationships doesn't mean it should be kept alone. Giraffes are generally found in small groups in the wild. Even if these groups vary greatly over time, it is unclear to me why it would be fair to keep one alone in captivity. Using the same logic, most schooling fish are fine alone because they don't form stable relationships either. This single/group issue was only an issue with the Swedish zoo, of course. Yes, they might get more giraffes later, but that's a big "perhaps".

I should add that I've never visited this Swedish zoo and have no ill feelings towards it. From the photos I've seen it looks ok. If that impression is accurate, I hope they'll be approved for EAZA in the future.

Why the potential solutions to at least some of these issues weren't considered is not clear to me. Perhaps they were considered, but deemed unrealistic. Perhaps the Swedish zoo was relatively easy to exclude (based on the above), and the zoos that offered space very late in the process were simply considered too late; fearing a deal could fall through (e.g. due to money) and would have to do this whole thing again. But this paragraph is pure speculation from my side and I could be completely wrong.

 

I have been to Froso Zoo near Ostersund … really yonkers years ago. Probably mid seventies. It was an enjoyable zoo to visit then. We did Boras Zoo on the same trip. Always had a soft spot for the wildness in all exhibits and how you could observe local native species like lynx, wolverine, bear, elk and the like.

Froeson Zoo did have a small African savannah even at that point and was a small Swedish zoo with quite a number of local species and some from Africa.

The Boras Zoo had a much larger collection and its African savannah was even then impressive and almost safari park style (though the site was a regular zoo experience).

The other individual mention - a Dutchman - is Robert Kruijf who operates Dierenpark Hoenderdaell here. He is planning on building an African savannah next to the current zoo. However, last I heard it is still not past planning stages …, although initial agreement from local Council had been forthcoming and approved.

The YWP needs no introduction to this forum.

I still think it was too much mustard … after the meal had been digested.

 

But is the bad PR worth threatened boycotts to zoos? This is international news. If another zoo is willing to take the animal, why not make that a first option for zoos throughout the world?

 

Oh, I didn't followed the news today, but what space in the zoo of Copenhagen will be spared by feeding a pure reticulata to a zoo mixture of lions?

 

It does seem to conflict with zoos' general message of conservation, value of all species and of animals when a zoo shoots and butchers a giraffe in front of the public. Whether a good philosophical argument for the action can be made or not, the bigger message of this action will not help this zoo or any zoo. Penny wise and pound foolish in the strategy department

 

This image is nothing other than what visitors to the zoo saw. If it is appropriate to feed out this meat publicly then it must not be inappropriate to share it in this Forum.

 

Sorry to be rather blunt, but I doubt a giraffe is as common as a red deer or white mouse.

I have serious doubts here:
1. What real action put Copenhagen zoo to find a new place to Markus during 18 months? Especially that finally, the places suddenly appeared.
2. What reasons prevented the zoo from postponing euthanasia at the last days? Giraffe breeding status doesn't change overnight nor the euthanasia cannot be called off.
3. Which regulations exactly forced the zoo to euthanasia? Because, the situation turned completely opposite to being kind to animals.
4. Which regulations exactly prevented the zoo from sending giraffe to a non-EAZA zoo? Again, this situation is against any understanding of kindness to animals.
5. Was a difficulty with transporting giraffe a real thing? Because EAZA coordinator recently asked to transport rather many giraffes around Europe.
6. Why vasectomy or temporary rental to non-EAZA zoo were not considered?

In any case, EAZA and individual zoos have an opportunity to seriously re-think its policies. In particular:
- more serious and pro-active searching for spaces for surplus animals,
- allow some flexibility to accomodate unexpected births,
- serious review of internal regulations, and eventually pressing for change or re-interpretation of external country/EU laws.
- and perhaps more flexibility to temporary or permanent loans of surplus animals to non-EAZA zoos with good exhibit for that paticular species.

Otherwise EAZA zoos will not be seen by public as any better than circuses, hunting reserves, food farms or private collections of pets.

 

According to the BBC,

"A post-mortem examination was broadcast live on the internet.

A crowd of visitors, including children, watched as the carcass was skinned, cut up and fed to the lions.

A spokesman for the zoo told the Associated Press the event allowed parents to decide whether their children should watch.

"I'm actually proud because I think we have given children a huge understanding of the anatomy of a giraffe that they wouldn't have had from watching a giraffe in a photo," Stenbaek Bro told AP."

I do have to agree that having a huge understanding of the anatomy of a giraffe is very important for children.

 

Sorry I know I annoy some of you but it is sick I saw it on TV tonight they said he was put to sleep then fed to the lions but he was shot with a bolt gun and it that is not enough they then cut it up in front of children and then fed it to the lions in front of people, that is just so sick. Sorry if I have annoyed all those that have told me so.

 

I don't see "sick."
I think the zoo's decisions were courageous if there were indeed no better options
But may cause them unwanted headaches

 

I don't think it will, certainly not in Denmark anyway.

 

Good on them!
Are zoos just entertainment, or are they education resources?
This has opened the eyes of many to the realities of breeding animals & their restoration & conservation. The folks who do this work are not monsters or "sick" & it is an injustice to imply they are. This has been a good education for Mr & Mrs Average on the hand wringing ideologies of the animal libbers, who are less concerned about conservation & wise management of animals, than the "rights" of a low priority captive individual. Death is a reality, its a management tool, & used wisely maintains the health & vigour of a species. Thank you again libbers for showing at an international level, that you have little thought for restoration or conservation.

Cheers Khakibob

 

Edinburgh and Red River Hoglets springs to mind.

 

And reticulated giraffe is the most beautiful subspecies of all.
While mixed-subspecies AFrican lions are useless for other than exhibition. What's about killing one oldest/ugliest lion so the others receive a bigger portion of giraffe meat?

 

@Kifaru Bwana

with most of what you said in the first place I can entirely agree. And death threats are certainly not the way to achieve changes.
But in my view petitions and media reports, even if the latter are sometimes ill informed, is a possibility to get the attention of a broader public to become interested in the topic itself.
My guess, that is about the only way for a wake up call to find more badly needed support for conservation in situ and in zoos.
In most cases, just visiting a zoo doesn't motivate people to question anything. In Berlin I noticed a huge change in the minds of many through the events around polarbear Knut.

Sorry, I cannot comment on WAZA. For that I would have to go in detail about Berlin Zoo, what I promised not to do again. And the website in question I found completely changed today, about 2-3 presidents later.

My expectation concerning ZooChat has always been that among lots of other information members would feel inclined to develop ideas for improvement and search for ways to bring them into life.

As such I would wish that there is a stricter control of inbreeding, even counter measures should be taken by EAZA, when it is done on a regular scale.
I would also like to see an obligation in place, that each zoo who gives an animal to another institution remains liable for a certain period of time afterwards and can be made responsible, if it ended up under conditions not approved by WAZA.
Not every zoo has the character of Leipzig, where a homesick orang utan was taken back.
Probably more frequent is the fate of the giraffe from inbreeding, dumped at Surabaya zoo, where she certainly will find an untimely death after much suffering.

 

This is not a comment on the ethics of this but I'm still a bit confused as to why he couldn't have gone to Yorkshire Wildlife Park, who offered to take him and were presumably prepared to pay transport costs etc. Copenhagen have already provided them with a previous Giraffe for their bachelor group so it has nothing to do with the offer being from an unsuitable Zoo or whatever.

I can only assume the plan for the euthanasia was already in place and it was a simpler course of action to just go ahead than having to cancel it and all the attendant bother of transporting the Giraffe elsewhere. So last-minute offers- even suitable ones- were ignored anyway. 'Out of necessity' does have a rather hollow ring about it though.

I think Danes must be a less emotional race than here in 'animal lover' Britain, where such a course of action would probably backfire on the zoo concerned- I doubt it would ever be considered in the first place. If Copenhagen feel fully confident to do this, they must know their public will largely support the decision too.

 

It won't be very many years until this same discussion takes place over the slaughter of a young elephant, or great ape. The argument will be made that it is no different from the culls of rhino, hippo, sea lions, or charismatic primates that will have gone before it, they themselves justified as being no different to culling, say, giraffe and antelope. The point for me is, in the context of a zoo, where is the line? Because the logical conclusion from this is to literally farm zoo stock for their genes, killing healthy adults while still young once they've produced the desired young to replace them. Tigers killed after producing one or two litters, why not? Siblings culled once weaned leaving one or two chosen individuals, destined to breed once and die within a few years. Countless species that never seem old, on display for their shorter, genetically-strategic lives.

This isn't a game ranch in Zimbabwe or Kenya, sustainably maintaining wildlife in their natural ranges, making hunting pay for conservation; its an urban zoo, where people come to learn. Sure, there are managed populations in those zoos, aimed at conserving European populations (and gene pools), but Copenhagen is no Durrell. Really, the connection between the giraffee EEP and wild populations is weak. So, is it really so important to weed out the genetic losers, or is there merit to be gained by exhibiting these substandard abherrations of nature in educational, non-breeding, ambassador situations, especially if there are collections wanting to take such individuals?

This issue is a philosophical one. Is the point of the zoo to be in awe of nature, to have respect for other forms, or to satisfy a curiosity for what the bowels and organs of a giraffe look like as they spill onto the floor? For all its aristocratic idiosyncracies, the way I was taught about conservation through my childhood visits to the Aspinall Parks, the reverence I was taught to develop for other life forms, seems lacking in what happened with this animal. Field culling deer or antelope, where rehoming and bachelor group formation aren't practical, is very different from the sideshow packaging of the slaughter of a wild animal as if a domestic cow.

I also take issue with what I see as dishonesty. The claims that relocating this animal would somehow be detrimental to the health of the population are embarrassingly weak, and seem cowardly. It's pathetic to watch such machismo, a director unable to summon the humility to admit that, in fact, there are plenty of solutions to their giraffe problem, to the extent that he ends up insulting the credibility of those collections that made offers to rehome. Does EAZA really share the view that the Yorkshire Wildlife Park is, by holding their current giraffes, wrongly taking up space that could be offered to genetically-important animals? Of course not. But this director, cornered like a schoolboy caught drowning a kitten, puts on a show of bravado and tries to criticise the judgement of another institution which has offered to assist him.

To me, this is not an argument about euthanasia, or even culling. Its about the shifting rationale for killing a healthy zoo animal, and the emergence of those institutions now also willing to make capital out of it.

 

I think, maybe, they were taking a stance like many governments in that they "don't negotiate with terrorists*". If they had either backed down on the decision or got into (possibly) drawn out conversations/negotiations on the matter it would then arguably lead to continuous questioning (from the same interested groups)and excessive media scrutiny of many/any controversial future decisions. Maybe they are confident in their decision and want to run a zoo rather than use up time and resources having to explain and justify many future "controversial" decisions?

* please note I 'm not saying those with a contrary view are terrorists or anything akin to terrorists -it seemed a good metaphor to explain the Dane's thinking.