Join our zoo community

Euthanasia of healthy animals in zoos, and "Breed to Cull"

Discussion in 'General Zoo Discussion' started by TeaLovingDave, 11 Feb 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,735
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    As previously discussed on this forum during the Edinburgh discussion of the euthanasia of a litter of Red River Hogs, and *extensively* discussed in the past week with particular focus on Twycross, Copenhagen and Longleat.

    I closed the Copenhagen thread due to it seeming - in my eyes - to be going in circles and gradually turning nasty. However, as this seems to have been a rather unpopular decision, subsequent to consultation with one of my longer-standing colleagues I'm reopening the debate for more general discussion :)

    Looking through the closed thread, quoting the following very good comment from the anti-euthanasia side of the debate, which took the argument to a more general level, would seem to be a good way to get the discussion going again:

     
  2. Elephas Maximus

    Elephas Maximus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Sep 2012
    Posts:
    727
    Location:
    Russia, Ekaterinburg
    From the Maruis'case, severall conclusions may be made:
    -Cull/put to sleep only when it's inevitable and without much PR, espceially if the animal is of charismatic species;
    -Public dissections can be rather private ones for dedicated zoo members so common people won't be 'shocked'; let the blood out or it makes a mess;
    -Preserve as much as possible. The future generation would appreciate high-quality mounts, skeletons and wet-preserved specimens. That may reside in museum as well as in the zoo itself.
    -Don't let your lions get used to exotic meat so they would beg you for a giraffe :)
     
  3. bongorob

    bongorob Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    18 May 2007
    Posts:
    6,312
    Location:
    Stoke-on-Trent England
    I see nothing wrong with the culling of healthy animals if there is no alternative.

    Some people say that Marius should not have been born if he wasn't wanted, when he was conceived there may have been a collection willing to take him but are now no longer able to do so.

    As far as I can see Copenhagen tried to place him elsewhere without success.
     
  4. timmydetapir

    timmydetapir Member

    Joined:
    5 Apr 2012
    Posts:
    23
    Location:
    Netherlands
  5. Pootle

    Pootle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    1,194
    Location:
    Lancashire, UK
    I am intrigued, but not surprised at the number of posts about this topic on various threads. After learning from Yassa’s posting that euthanasia is common practice in Danish zoos in comparison to Europe, then why are some many zoochatters still dumbfounded by the fate of the giraffe,? do you not read previous posts before posting your own view on the matter?

    In addition to this single individual Giraffes fate, I would also like to indicate that when other animals futures are drastically changed via death or via a ’good outcome’ and it is not zoo related, ie the illegal smuggling of animals around the world, the release of captive bred animals to the wild, very few people post their view on the matter. Three days ago whilst the forum was in uproar about one giraffe being euthanized, Vogelcommado posted in my opinion a much more important piece of news that 20 Orang-utans have been released to the wild in a protected area, great news, Great apes being released into the wild. Interesting information posted, at least I thought so :confused:.

    My advice and it is given very friendly is that those who post their views on an individual Zoos choice to do what it did with an individual animal, would benefit of reading and doing a little research in to illegal trade of alive and dead animals globally and perhaps realise that seriousness of this in comparison. i.e. one individuals fate verses a species potential extinction.
     
  6. Jana

    Jana Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    11 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Czech republic
    I think this all boils down to what each person values more: an animal itself or the future of a zoo population the animal belongs to?

    If you value a long undisturbed life of each and every animal of a given species over anything else, you may be coerced to desicions that endanger or ruin the future of population of that given species.

    If you value a healthy self-sustaining population of some (sub-)species over everything else, you may be coerced to decisions that are harmful to single animals, including an euthanasia of a few healthy animals.

    Zoos must clearly explain this.

    Animal protection and species protection are not always going hand in hand. As an example - sometimes it may need mass cullings while running nature conservation programs to restore a balance in an ecosystem, but these steps are clearly communicated with people, othervise nature protection may lose its credit and backfire.

    If a zoo decides to cull an animal, it should also be able to explain the reasons behind it to the general public in a way that would be accepted by most. And this is the only problem I have now with the danish zoo director. The prague zoo director´s words that this whole issue has been run in a unlucky way (while defending reasons that led to the danish decision and so earning a lot of criticism himself) are even mild. The moment this issue got such international interest, Mr. B failed to his educational mission completely. As I can see now in discussion boards across several countries - he indeed caused a huge loss of credibility of zoos in eyes of general public. His incompetence just now will cause future economical and moral losses to zoos worldwide. Never mind his position inside EAZA organisation or his past accomplishments or his personal qualities or if he is right or wrong. His unability to convince, his attitude and unsensitivity in PR are damaging. If he would be working in a for-profit company, he would lose his job immediatelly.
     
  7. Zooplantman

    Zooplantman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    New York, USA
    Yes, exactly right
    Here is a taste of what the English speaking social media world is saying:
    https://twitter.com/search?q=#Marius&src=tyah
    https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/Marius
     
    Last edited: 11 Feb 2014
  8. Batto

    Batto Well-Known Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    3 Sep 2013
    Posts:
    3,459
    Location:
    Baltic Sea - no more
    Let's make a bet: in a few days, maybe a week, that giraffe will be all but forgotten. The social justice warriors will find another topic to rage about. Most of them, as well as the general public, will still consume their Big Macs at McD or have their latte macchiatos at SB. The problem of surplus animals in zoos and animal husbandry in general, however, will remain.
     
  9. dean

    dean Well-Known Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    25 Aug 2012
    Posts:
    713
    Location:
    North Essex.
    I recall along time ago now reading an article on Tropical fish being bread at Chester zoo, the zoo was running out of space and there was talk then, of allowing private individuals with an above average interest in keeping fish to be brought into the breeding set up I wonder if that ever happened?
    I think smaller animals reptiles, birds small mammals, etc could be fostered by people with the a special interest a good knowledge and the funds to give them a good life and still keep the gene pool intact. It wouldn't take much on the zoo's part to check out the foster home and do a couple of checks unannounced each year to make sure things are going OK. I know licenses etc may need to be obtained, but I'm sure some sort of umbrella arrangement could be sorted out and the zoo would still have ownership rather like Jersey zoo with it's animals still owned by the various governments in their native lands, or the zoo worlds Giant pandas.

    I know it wouldn't stop mega fauna being PTS, but it my go some way to freeing up space on a regular bases, and help stem what has been the most negative zoo publicity this past week that we have seen in recent times.
    I understand the need for Euthanasia as a tool of last resort, what I don't quite understand is the apparent determination of the zoo to rub peoples noses in it, however forward thinking it may have seemed at the time.
     
  10. Zooplantman

    Zooplantman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    New York, USA
    Whether this current uproar dissipates in hours or days, the event itself will be dredged back up repeatedly for years to rally the public against zoos. The internet does not forget or forgive
     
  11. Taisha

    Taisha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Jul 2012
    Posts:
    210
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    Apparently it never crossed your mind that among those people who are posting their views you may find exactly the same who paid for and supported in other ways the rescue and release of these 20 orang utans you mention (not even the first release by BOS) and feel just as compelled to speak up for just an individual animal.
    The discussion would be helpful, if it starts a debate among zoos how to avoid the breeding of unwanted animals in future.
    And Copenhagen may even turn some kids into vegetarians.
     
  12. Nanook

    Nanook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    939
    Location:
    U.K.
    Regarding the Copenhagen Giraffe euthanasia and euthanasia in general ;
    It is clear that in Denmark they have very different views about the way euthanasia is carried out to us in the UK. I think the main objections were surrounding the way it was done. I am not against euthanasia as a zoo- animal management tool, however I do disagree with some of the ways it is performed. The "captive-bolt gun" is an out-dated and brutal method of euthanasia, I have been witness to its use before, about twenty years ago, and it is not something I would like to witness again I can tell you.
    Equally I think it was completely unnecessary to butcher the giraffe in full view of the public, (even though they were Danes and probably not as bothered about it as some of us were?), I think the "educational value" of seeing a giraffe carcass dismembered in public is very low indeed. I still need a lot of convincing about why exactly that was deemed necessary at all to perform that in front of the visiting public and world at large ???
    In actual fact giraffes are one of THE most popular of zoo animals with the general public and this is another reason why this has caused so much debate and outrage.
    As I said I am not against euthanasia at all, BUT it must be done correctly, with as least stress and pain as possible and without the need for any fuss or undue publicity. It is an accepted practice in zoos, which most people are fully aware of, they do not really need it to be glorified in that way.
    Euthanasia should be used as a last resort, when all other reasonable avenues have been exhausted, the problem is that some zoos DO actually use it as a means of disposing animals that are causing them a problem, it is sometimes abused. Bad animal husbandry is often rectified with the use of euthanasia and that is wrong. Population control should be in place first. Sure accidents do happen , ie; unwanted pregnancies etc.., but if and when they do, they should be managed properly, even if that is to the inconvenience of the zoos concerned, they need to face up to the mistakes they make and not use euthanasia as some kind of quick fix!!!!
     
  13. Batto

    Batto Well-Known Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    3 Sep 2013
    Posts:
    3,459
    Location:
    Baltic Sea - no more
    You're sure? Anyone except zoofans still remembering Magdeburg? Unless it's a nude pic of a starlet, a lot of things tend to disappear. An increasing flood of data and a shortening attention span only support this trend. And among younger generations, the attitude prevails: "if it cannot be found online, it does not exist." See you in a week. ;)
     
    Last edited: 12 Feb 2014
  14. Bele

    Bele Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    4 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    1,483
    Location:
    Swansea , UK
    If the giraffe calf born at Copenhagen had been female instead of male , I doubt there would have been any problem finding a collection to take it . This would also apply to elephants , gorillas and many other species .
     
  15. Jurek7

    Jurek7 Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    3,356
    Location:
    Everywhere at once
    "Breed to cull" policy is prohibited by law as cruelty to animals in many countries. Imagine animal shelter which allows cats to breed, euthanises kittens and feds them to the dogs!

    All these countries allow euthanasia, but as the last resort.

    Key words here are "no alternative". Copenhagen zoo did not consider separating sexes, contraceptive nor vasectomy. Other zoos use these tools routinely.

    Yes, policy of Copenhagen Zoo outraged even the majority of zoo supporters at Zoochat. Naturally, almost all laymen are outraged. So Copenhagen Zoo clearly harmed the public perception of zoos worldwide and something should be done about it.

    I think EAZA and WAZA should have clear policy on matters like euthanasia and vasectomy. The key should be the middle-ground policy legally allowed in all countries and acceptable to the majority of public internationally. So no keeping bears in tiny cages, no breed to cull, no castrating great apes, no chopping wings of birds of prey.

    Most European countries use more ethical policies, so it is fallacy to claim that conservation forces EAZA or WAZA to accept very low standards of animal welfare in Copenhagen.

    And yes, my words on another closed thread still apply - zoo organizations need a policy on several other matters, like allowing room for some unexpected births.
     
  16. Jurek7

    Jurek7 Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    3,356
    Location:
    Everywhere at once
    Yes, happily this happens in many zoos (don't know about Chester). I think it is overall better solution - if responsible private person can be found - than euthanasia.
     
  17. Nanook

    Nanook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    939
    Location:
    U.K.
    Apparently Copenhagen Zoo is against contraception for its animals they would RATHER euthanase them. I think they have a serious problem there, if they performed the former it would surely avoid the latter!! Is that not completely obvious ??? Well maybe not to the director of Copenhagen Zoo!!!
     
  18. Arizona Docent

    Arizona Docent Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    7,702
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    Actually WAZA does have a statement condemning the clipping of wings, a practice that I would like to see abolished in American zoos. This especially applies to the near universal macaw on a stick exhibits.

    As for Euthanasia of surplus animals - even small uncharismatic ones - I can guarantee you 100% this would never happen at my zoo and in this day and age I doubt it would happen at very many AZA affiliated zoos. For that matter, probably not many unaccredited zoos in the USA either.

    Zoo animals are not free living wild populations and they are not farm animals. Zoos have a responsibility to provide care for all the animals they take in and there is no way zoos will be seen as respectable wildlife education centers if they practice euthanasia on healthy animals.

    As for the earlier post, no one is saying this giraffe death is more important than releasing orphaned orangutans. Perhaps it gathered more discussion here because it more directly affects the role of zoos and this is, after all, a zoo site and not a general wildlife or conservation site.
     
  19. hedigerfan

    hedigerfan Well-Known Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    2 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    55
    Location:
    not available
    Nanook,

    On the whole I agree with your stance on culling, but I would like to address a couple of points.
    I can only assume that you have seen a bolt gun used badly, as any tool can be, but in the hands of an experienced person, it is as effective and immediate as a well aimed shot from a rifle. It is also fair to say that if the animal had been darted to be brought down and then euthanized, this would have been a significantly more stressful event for the giraffe and the possibilities of injury prior to death through a bad fall would of course have been higher; and no wild meat for the carnivores. The use of a firearm is definitely less stressful and quicker, when done correctly, than the use of any drug. From my readings of recent capital punishment events in the USA, if I were in such a situation and given a choice, I would take a bullet to the head over a dodgy drug cocktail, that does not act immediately, every time. The death of this giraffe was as nothing when compared to what almost every burger, chop and steak that we have all eaten went through on the run-up to the animal's death. Go to any abattoir and see what really happens.

    There has been much said about letting children see the post mortem, but from the pictures I have seen in the media, it looked like an interested group of people, including families, that were watching, and I would be wildly surprised if there was not some sort of announcement just prior to what they were about to do giving people the chance to stay and watch or leave. This whole child trauma issue, although not laboured by yourself, is one that I find horribly hypocritical. Kids who have been taken hunting with their dads or kids that grow-up on farms have generally struck me as being more balanced and certainly better informed about living things and especially about where their food comes from. Having dealt with a large number of secondary and tertiary students studying the biological sciences, because dissection is now so rarely taught, the level of ignorance about anatomy and the fascination with the process when given a chance to observe or assist in preparing a dead animal carcass is almost universal. The moderately recent TV series that dealt with large vertebrate dissections had, I believe, quite high viewer numbers when aired in the UK. No wonder kids are prone to nature deficit disorder when they are "protected" from anything that might be described as real or natural.

    As for avoiding the problem of surplus animals in the first place, female ungulates are more desired and easier to place than males, especially in harem species and one cannot predict the sex of a giraffe in utero. Good zoos want their animals to be able to express as wide a range of their behavioural repertoire as possible, and being able to experience the full range of what constitutes reproduction on a natural cycle must figure large in this; no amount of keeper provided enrichment will be able to substitute for mating and rearing offspring to dispersal age. It is also becoming increasingly apparent that the use of various forms of breeding control can cause illness, premature death and result in animals not being able to restart their cycle once a contraceptive drug wears-off. Even when kept sex separate, an extended period of time without breeding can cause females to shut their reproductive cycle down permanently, as was discovered when a number of zoos could not provide addax for a reintroduction project when asked to produce offspring.

    None of this is simple and most zoos have shied-away from trying to explain the more difficult aspects of ensuring the long term viability of our zoo populations. Personally, and as we have seen on this forum with the red-river hog story, and now the Copenhagen giraffe, the subject continues to come up and the bulk of the zoo industry announces that they wouldn't dream of doing such a thing, or says nothing; I'm not sure what is more contemptible. I personally think that Copenhagen were incredibly honest about the whole scenario, possibly a little clumsy on the PR front, but then most of us are watching and reading the interviews in English and not in Danish, the zoo staff's first language, and I would wager that the tone and vocabulary would have been different and more nuanced.

    What should be clear to everyone, whether they agree with management culling or not, is that this giraffe was well cared for, that the Copenhagen staff are very well informed and respected within the international zoo community, that this would not have been an easy decision, but then the right decisions often are not easy, and that death is not a welfare issue.
     
  20. Zooplantman

    Zooplantman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    New York, USA
    @Batto

    I am not interested in playing "who can better predict the future" who's got "Right" tug of war.

    One thing this incident has revealed (yet again) is how public attitudes to zoos can be so different in different countries. Perhaps in Europe this incident will be yesterday's news very soon. And the attitudes of young people towards the news do not immediately concern me in this matter.The anti-zoo activists will remind everyone as it suits them.
    But in North America, this is ammunition that will be used against zoos for a long time. Allegations against zoos here from years ago are regularly re-animated in arguments against zoos. Take it as you will.
     
    Last edited: 12 Feb 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.