Well how sad is this Jane (Lar Gibbon)and Smiler (Müllers Gibbon)who were both in their 50s went for a health check and you guest it they never came back, so I apologise to TeaLovingDave for having a go but unfortunately the other collection they went to was the one in the sky. It is a genocide if the animals are old, in the way or they need the pen then your days are numbered.
Honestly do you just come here to try and stir up trouble? How is 2 elderly animals being pts 'genocide'? (And let me add given the connotations of the word, not one that should be bandied about so lightly). What do you know of the circumstances that resulted in the animals being euthanised? There may well have been a pressing medical reason behind the decision. It's only February and I already have my nominee for ridiculous post of the year.
So you seriously believe they were put down just for being old or because Twycross needed the exhibit space? What a delirious and insensitive thing to say. However, I am now curious to know why you have embarked on this bitter hate-campaign, because this type of comment doesn't wash with anyone on here.
I'm really getting deja vu here, maybe someone needs to check IP adresses for this member and another certain Twycross basher!
IP address has already been checked. Jane Doe and the person you refer to (we know who you mean) are not the same person and are not connected
They aren't the same people! In fairness Jane Doe is only saying what a fair number of ex-Twycross Keepers have said to me over the last 12 months!
I have to agree with the earlier replies that Jane Doe's comments appeared insensitive, particularly since the facts aren't known. But, this isn't the first example of animals being put down in pairs over the last couple of years! I don't know the full facts behind any of these occurances, so I wont speculate.
Lets just say there is alot more to these happenings than most people on here know,and that includes the departure of the Giraffes which really should never have left the Zoo!! I can see why people may think that Jane Does comments are insensitive but I suspect it is more bourne out of frustration at the trivial reasons that some animals have been put down for!!
Walking a dangerous metaphorical tightrope I would make the following points on this matter: 1. To date Jane Doe's posts have indicated that she is short-sighted (not really considering the subtleties or the "big picture" of issues) and has a monochrome view of Twycross (old regime faultless, new regime wrong). In short, in my opinion, she's been a zealot who has completely ignored blatantly obvious points and and not properly considered facts which do do fit her (pretty much entirely wrong) viewpoint; 2. That said, liked stopped watches, even zealots are capable of occasionally making points which may prove correct or, at the very least, require a little further consideration; 3. From my perspective, it would seem that, empirically, there's been a number of animals that were both seemingly "cage blockers" and were PTS on medical grounds over the last 18 or so months. These include (at least some of) the Sea Lions, the Wild Cats, the Camels and now Smiler and Jane (I've got to say, it seems sadder when you know the names of individual animals). Please people feel free to correct me if my recollection is wrong or I have missed any animals; 4. To be fair, it's entirely possible that similar levels of seeming "cage blocker" animals would have been PTS at other collections over the same period of time. It may just be that, as Twycross is the closest (geographically and otherwise) collection to me, I notice the comings and goings and animals there more than I would elsewhere. This may also be an issue from Jane Doe's perspective; 5. It's interesting to note that, as far a I am aware, most of these were not "studbook animals"; 6. Personally, at this moment, I'm not sure how I would feel if, as seemingly alleged, some of these animals were PTS for "convenience". I generally don't have a problem with culling as a species management tool (excess male hoofstock, for instance) but the possible/allleged Twycross scenario is a little more subtle than that; 7. On the surface, regardless of the motive for the animals being PTS, it would seem that a seeming large number of animals have recently been noticed as "unhealthy". This raises the question of whether animals' health has been properly monitored just prior to most recent times or whether it's just the natural result of a collection that holds a considerable proportion of very old animals; 8. Realistically if Jane or Smiler needed to be PTS for health reasons there is a reasonably strong argument, given their age and close bond, that it would be humane to euthanise them both; 9. I wonder (without judgement), as I'm sure others will, whether economic circumstances informed the decisions in any way. Zoos don't have "pet insurance" on their animals and they can't justify spending a fortune on keeping an elderly animal alive for a short additional amount of time just because members of public might have emotional attachments -this would be economically and, arguably, ethically wrong. In summation, I'm not concluding on the matter except to point out that there are a number of subtleties to consider. It is a complex, not straightforward, matter and being quick to judge (either way) without considering all angles (which we may not be aware of) is too easy and wrong. In my opinion, it might be that in this situation any action is likely to be considered right by some and wrong by others (especially when nobody on Zoo Chat is likely to know all the relevant facts).
I don't come on zoochat very often these days, but I still maintain a presence here to observe what it being discussed. Firstly, I agree that Jane Doe could perhaps be a little over the top on what she posts and the way she expresses herself, on the other hand, is she,as been pointed out by our knowledgable Twycross member Zoo Giraffe, only speaking up for the animals and is concerned about their future well being, I cannot see anything wrong with that at all, in fact in my humble opinion that can only be a good thing. It does seam rather coincidental, as stated by another common sense poster on here, Pipaluk, that all these cases of pairs of animals being put down in pairs at this zoo in recent times is rather coincidental, sea lions etc, also what exactlyldid the pair of Brazilian tapirs die of, has this been made public?. As for Shorts, very fair, well written post, his comment about "financial reasons".All I can say about that is, I am glad you said that, as that is exactly what has crossed my, at times suspicious, mind. P.S. Has this zoo made any official statement yet regarding the post mortem results on the two month old orang?
I think the fact that 'pairs ' of animals have been involved is entirely coincidental. It could have been 1,2, 3 (or more) animals in each case depending on how they were kept. We all know Twycross is 'top-heavy' with ageing Primates and evidently the zoo is attempting to even out the balance somewhat. Critisism of when/how animals are PTS (if that's what has been happening) varies according to what individuals think about the ethics of all this, and we don't know exactly how necessary it is/was in each case anyway. Obviously this practice occurs in other zoos too, not only at Twycross- the difference being perhaps none have got so many current 'candidates' as Twycross. Orangutan baby- I think not, though I'm awaiting an announcement with interest.
As you have said, without the facts it is not possible to argue one way or the other as to the validity of these decisions. However these sudden losses of pairs have not been ageing primates. There have been 3 or 4 disappearances of non-primates recently, which i can understand leads people to consider they may be more than just coincidence. Whilst being a sad loss, I don't think the baby orang comes into the same category. Unless the facts are known, noone is able to suggest whether or not the loss of a young animal was avoidable. Baby animals do die quite often- everywhere.
It seems fair to be conservative on what has transpired lately at Twycross Zoo in terms of deaths of individual animals. IMO animal welfare should always be the determinant factor in any animal euthanasia. Knowing the facts here is everything to draw any firm conclusions from events and perhaps only a few of us are party to more than a fair share of this. What can be said: It is true that TWZ is in dire financial straits, it is true that TWZ has quite a number of elderly individual animals, it is true that TWZ has a considerable backlog of renovations and updates if it truly wishes to become a World Primate Zoo. Having observed all that it remains somewhat disconcerting to have to acknowledge that of late so many iconic species have been phased out from TWZ and that in recent times a few combos of animals of the same species have died. Not knowing all the facts; whether brought on by adhering to some sound policy goals or that financials have come into play, I will reserve judgement till a later date …! What does make me wonder: 1) Any changes in the veterinary staff team at TWZ lately? 2) What is the current leadership structure at TWZ? 3) What likelihood for the old TWZ member board being re-instated? (TWZ obviously needs all the knowledgeable and committed members on board to make the zoo the success it could be as a World Primate Zoo or in another identity)? 4) Is the future of the zoo now driven by anything more concrete like a Masterplan document and does this dictate as to transparency of its resultant policies towards a Future TWZ?
Obviously the Sealions and the Camels were pairs, and they weren't primates. I still think the 'pair' aspect has nothing to do with anything- its the condition of the animals themselves( and possibly other factors too) that determined what happened to them. However, there are still more elderly Primates than probably with any other animal species at Twycross. The baby Orangutan certainly doesn't come under that category and I wasn't suggesting its death was anything but natural/accidental. However it was a strong, healthy infant, with an experienced mother, which is why I am curious regarding the circumstances of its death. I have my suspicions about what happened but won't air them here for the moment.
It wasn't just sealions & camels : wildcats, tapir come into this category too and didn't they get rid of giraffe quickly soon after one was pts?
The two female giraffes were sent to Blair Drummond. The male was not put to sleep , he hanged himself in the giraffe house.
Regarding the Bactrian camels, the female was apparently sent to another collection after the male was put to sleep, this indicates to me that the zoo must have made a decision to go out of camels, as I am sure it would have not been too difficult to obtain a replacement male if they had so wished, yet another species no longer housed at this zoo.
Sorry, i got that one wrong, so maybe the giraffes should be removed from the list. Thanks for the correction.
No the Giraffes should be kept on the list,because the reasons behind them going are the same reason that has been used for putting down 75% of the animals been talked about at the moment!
