Giraffe slaughtered by zoo

  • 82 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for thegerg
#1 Posted by thegerg (18266 posts) -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26098935

Giraffe slaughtered by zoo, some people outraged. What say you, OT?

Avatar image for Master_Live
#2 Edited by Master_Live (18815 posts) -
Loading Video...

Avatar image for jimy1475
#3 Posted by jimy1475 (1222 posts) -

read it about it, they were too old and they did not give the atraction as a small Giraffe so they killed it, the worst part is the kids saw it happening

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#4 Posted by MrGeezer (59096 posts) -

I have no problem with killing the animal if necessary. After all, I understand that they have limited resources and are trying to avoid in-breeding.

But I'm curious as to why they didn't give the animal to a different zoo. I understand putting the animal down if the only people offering to take the animal are running inhumane subpar zoos, but they apparently got offers from actual GOOD zoos that are capabl of properly caring for the animal. So I'm wondering what their reason was for not letting another zoo have it.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#5 Posted by toast_burner (24666 posts) -

@jimy1475 said:

read it about it, they were too old and they did not give the atraction as a small Giraffe so they killed it, the worst part is the kids saw it happening

What's wrong with that? It's educational.

Not many people get the opportunity to see a Giraffe dissection or lions eat an actual carcass.

Avatar image for byof_america
#6 Posted by byof_america (1852 posts) -

"The zoo's scientific director, Bengt Holst, told the BBC he had received death threats but would not alter his style of animal management."

Wow, am I tired or what. I read that paragraph as him saying he wasn't going to change his hair style despite death threats.

Anyway, sad they couldn't sell the giraffe but inbreeding is a cardinal sin amongst zooligists so I see why he did it

Avatar image for themajormayor
#7 Edited by themajormayor (25500 posts) -

Pathetic and perverse

Avatar image for thegerg
#8 Posted by thegerg (18266 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

I have no problem with killing the animal if necessary. After all, I understand that they have limited resources and are trying to avoid in-breeding.

But I'm curious as to why they didn't give the animal to a different zoo. I understand putting the animal down if the only people offering to take the animal are running inhumane subpar zoos, but they apparently got offers from actual GOOD zoos that are capabl of properly caring for the animal. So I'm wondering what their reason was for not letting another zoo have it.

"So I'm wondering what their reason was for not letting another zoo have it."

My understanding is that the zoologists determined that there are better candidates for those zoos to have than this animal. They're considering the health and diversity of the population as a whole, not as it pertains to this one particular animal.

Avatar image for themajormayor
#9 Posted by themajormayor (25500 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@jimy1475 said:

read it about it, they were too old and they did not give the atraction as a small Giraffe so they killed it, the worst part is the kids saw it happening

What's wrong with that? It's educational.

Not many people get the opportunity to see a Giraffe dissection or lions eat an actual carcass.

Would you say the same if it was the body of a human?

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#10 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
@jimy1475 said:

read it about it, they were too old and they did not give the atraction as a small Giraffe so they killed it, the worst part is the kids saw it happening

From the article.

"A bid to save a young giraffe from destruction at Copenhagen Zoo has failed, and the giraffe was put down on Sunday morning."

Now you tell me, how in your head does that translate into old?

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#11 Posted by MrGeezer (59096 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@MrGeezer said:

I have no problem with killing the animal if necessary. After all, I understand that they have limited resources and are trying to avoid in-breeding.

But I'm curious as to why they didn't give the animal to a different zoo. I understand putting the animal down if the only people offering to take the animal are running inhumane subpar zoos, but they apparently got offers from actual GOOD zoos that are capabl of properly caring for the animal. So I'm wondering what their reason was for not letting another zoo have it.

"So I'm wondering what their reason was for not letting another zoo have it."

My understanding is that the zoologists determined that there are better candidates for those zoos to have than this animal. They're considering the health and diversity of the population as a whole, not as it pertains to this one particular animal.

I guess that makes sense. I sort of read this as them killing the animal because they wanted to avoid inbreeding at their OWN zoo, but I guess it makes sense that there would be shared documentation of animals at other zoos and that animals at different zoos are related. If that's the case, then sending the animal to a different zoo wouldn't necessarily prevent inbreeding from occuring.

Avatar image for Sword-Demon
#12 Posted by Sword-Demon (7007 posts) -

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

giraffes had to be selected to ensure the best genes were passed down to ensure the long-term survival of the species.

I see no problem with this.

A giraffe was killed and was eaten by lions; sounds like a normal day to me.

Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#13 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

That's pretty fucked up, and the way they did it makes it seem like an awful lot of a publicity stunt. Sometimes zoos have to put down animals, but you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors.

Avatar image for thegerg
#14 Edited by thegerg (18266 posts) -

@TacticalDesire said:

That's pretty fucked up, and the way they did it makes it seem like an awful lot of a publicity stunt. Sometimes zoos have to put down animals, but you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors.

"you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors."

Why not?

Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#15 Edited by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

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

giraffes had to be selected to ensure the best genes were passed down to ensure the long-term survival of the species.

I see no problem with this.

A giraffe was killed and was eaten by lions; sounds like a normal day to me.

Nah, not true. Lions rarely hunt giraffes. Since they typically go for the neck when hunting, bringing down a giraffe is difficult. In fact a full-grown male giraffe is downright dangerous even to a lion, and could seriously injure the lion with a kick. Rare exceptions might be if a pride brought down a giraffe, or if a lion was able to isolate a young giraffe.

Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#16 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -
@thegerg said:

@TacticalDesire said:

That's pretty fucked up, and the way they did it makes it seem like an awful lot of a publicity stunt. Sometimes zoos have to put down animals, but you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors.

"you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors."

Why not?

It takes away any biological legitimacy in the decision and turns it into a spectacle.

Avatar image for Sword-Demon
#17 Posted by Sword-Demon (7007 posts) -

@TacticalDesire said:

@Sword-Demon said:

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

giraffes had to be selected to ensure the best genes were passed down to ensure the long-term survival of the species.

I see no problem with this.

A giraffe was killed and was eaten by lions; sounds like a normal day to me.

Nah, not true. Lions rarely hunt giraffes. Since they typically go for the neck when hunting, bringing down a giraffe is difficult. In fact a full-grown male giraffe is downright dangerous even to a lion, and could seriously injure the lion with a kick. Rare exceptions might be if a pride brought down a giraffe, or if a lion was able to isolate a young giraffe.

shush, you.

Avatar image for thegerg
#18 Posted by thegerg (18266 posts) -

@TacticalDesire said:
@thegerg said:

@TacticalDesire said:

That's pretty fucked up, and the way they did it makes it seem like an awful lot of a publicity stunt. Sometimes zoos have to put down animals, but you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors.

"you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors."

Why not?

It takes away any biological legitimacy in the decision and turns it into a spectacle.

"It takes away any biological legitimacy"

In what way?

These animals are already spectacle, giving the public an up-close look at the inner workings of an animal is just another educational opportunity.

Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#19 Edited by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -
@thegerg said:

@TacticalDesire said:
@thegerg said:

@TacticalDesire said:

That's pretty fucked up, and the way they did it makes it seem like an awful lot of a publicity stunt. Sometimes zoos have to put down animals, but you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors.

"you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors."

Why not?

It takes away any biological legitimacy in the decision and turns it into a spectacle.

"It takes away any biological legitimacy"

In what way?

These animals are already spectacle, giving the public an up-close look at the inner workings of an animal is just another educational opportunity.

See, that's where I disagree. Cutting up an animal in front of a crowd isn't some great educational opportunity. The article doesn't mention any use of labels, or that context was given to the butchering. Just watching something get cut up doesn't really teach anyone much. For it to actually be a valid educational opportunity there would need to be more of a formal dissection process, which it appears this did not have, as nothing of that nature is mentioned in the article. Furthermore, cutting up an animal to feed it to another animal is a different process than dissecting an animal to gain a better understanding of its internal workings.

That would be like going to a meat butcher to learn about the anatomy of a pig heart. They could tell you what a different cuts of meat are, but if you're looking for them to point out the aortic arch, you're SOL.

Avatar image for thegerg
#20 Posted by thegerg (18266 posts) -

@TacticalDesire said:
@thegerg said:

@TacticalDesire said:
@thegerg said:

@TacticalDesire said:

That's pretty fucked up, and the way they did it makes it seem like an awful lot of a publicity stunt. Sometimes zoos have to put down animals, but you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors.

"you don't do it, take photos, and then skin the dead animal before a whole bunch of visitors."

Why not?

It takes away any biological legitimacy in the decision and turns it into a spectacle.

"It takes away any biological legitimacy"

In what way?

These animals are already spectacle, giving the public an up-close look at the inner workings of an animal is just another educational opportunity.

See, that's where I disagree. Cutting up an animal in front of a crowd isn't some great educational opportunity. The article doesn't mention any use of labels, or that context was given to the butchering. Just watching something get cut up doesn't really teach anyone much. For it to actually be a valid educational opportunity there would need to be more of a formal dissection process, which it appears this did not have, as nothing of that nature is mentioned in the article. Furthermore, cutting up an animal to feed it to another animal is a different process than dissecting an animal to gain a better understanding of its internal workings.

That would be like going to a meat butcher to learn about the anatomy of a pig heart. They could tell you what a different cuts of meat are, but if you're looking for them to point out the aortic arch, you're SOL.

Sounds like you need a better butcher.

What it comes down to is that the whole concept of what a zoo is is a spectacle. Not hiding the less-than-cute parts of how things work really, I think, further educates the public.

Avatar image for Tqricardinho
#21 Posted by Tqricardinho (477 posts) -

Why did they have to kill the giraffe in front of people? This is just getting worse by the minute...

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#22 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Tqricardinho said:

Why did they have to kill the giraffe in front of people? This is just getting worse by the minute...

It helps to read the article BEFORE commenting. Just saying.

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
#23 Posted by Riverwolf007 (26023 posts) -

i can see them killing it for those reasons but why did they have to beat it up and take its wallet first?

Avatar image for korvus
#24 Posted by korvus (10643 posts) -

My question is; who were the parents who thought "well, my kid is almost 5...it's about time they see a dissection!"?

Avatar image for LittleMac19
#25 Posted by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -

It's the circle of life.

Avatar image for korvus
#26 Edited by korvus (10643 posts) -

@LittleMac19: Great, now I have that song in my head...thanks a lot =P

Avatar image for Tqricardinho
#27 Posted by Tqricardinho (477 posts) -
@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@Tqricardinho said:

Why did they have to kill the giraffe in front of people? This is just getting worse by the minute...

It helps to read the article BEFORE commenting. Just saying.

I've read it and trust me, kids won't like to learn the anatomy of a giraffe by seeing it being skinned in front of them. Just saying.

Avatar image for branketra
#28 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

They should have given him to that other zoo.

Avatar image for ferrari2001
#29 Posted by ferrari2001 (17760 posts) -

meh, it's just a giraffe, who care..

Avatar image for thegerg
#30 Posted by thegerg (18266 posts) -

@BranKetra: Why?

Avatar image for branketra
#31 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

Avatar image for thegerg
#32 Edited by thegerg (18266 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

Maybe, but what makes this animal so special?

Avatar image for branketra
#33 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

Maybe, but what makes this animal so special?

I do not understand your questioning. The necessity of specialty for continuation of a natural lifecycle is irrelevant in this context or it should be.

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#34 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Tqricardinho said:
@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@Tqricardinho said:

Why did they have to kill the giraffe in front of people? This is just getting worse by the minute...

It helps to read the article BEFORE commenting. Just saying.

I've read it and trust me, kids won't like to learn the anatomy of a giraffe by seeing it being skinned in front of them. Just saying.

Then clearly you didn't understand what you read. They were given the option to watch. They weren't forced.

Avatar image for thegerg
#35 Edited by thegerg (18266 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

Maybe, but what makes this animal so special?

I do not understand your questioning. The necessity of specialty for continuation of a natural lifecycle is irrelevant in this context or it should be.

There are countless animals harvested every day. Why should this particular animal be sent to a zoo instead of being killed? Why is this one special? Also, this animal's lifecycle is already disrupted. The "continuation of a natural lifecycle" is an impossible fairy-tale of goal.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#36 Posted by N30F3N1X (8600 posts) -
@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

According to you?

Avatar image for dominer
#37 Posted by dominer (3316 posts) -

Europe is a beautiful place with some really ugly people, inside and out.

Avatar image for destinhpark
#38 Posted by destinhpark (4831 posts) -

If they properly gave the parents a choice to allow their kids to watch or not, then I see no problem..

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#39 Posted by N30F3N1X (8600 posts) -

@dominer said:

Europe is a beautiful place with some really ugly people, inside and out.

Why?

Avatar image for thegerg
#40 Posted by thegerg (18266 posts) -

@N30F3N1X: There's a lot of xenophobia, racism, and anti-semitism throughout Europe.

Avatar image for themajormayor
#41 Posted by themajormayor (25500 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@N30F3N1X: There's a lot of xenophobia, racism, and anti-semitism throughout Europe.

The same applies to America.

Avatar image for cain006
#42 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

@jimy1475 said:

read it about it, they were too old and they did not give the atraction as a small Giraffe so they killed it, the worst part is the kids saw it happening

The zoo participated in a breeding thing and breeding with this one would've been bad for the offspring. And it's not like kids were forced to see it, they made a bunch of announcements about it - the parents got to decide.

Avatar image for branketra
#43 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@N30F3N1X said:
@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

According to you?

I was unaware of that giraffe until learning of its death, so no.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#44 Posted by N30F3N1X (8600 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:
@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

According to you?

I was unaware of that giraffe until learning of its death, so no.

Uhh not really sure what that has to do with what I've asked.

Avatar image for branketra
#45 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@N30F3N1X said:

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:
@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

According to you?

I was unaware of that giraffe until learning of its death, so no.

Uhh not really sure what that has to do with what I've asked.

I just answered you. I will reiterate. I have only written of the life of that giraffe in hindsight because prior to his death, I did not know of it.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#46 Posted by lamprey263 (34380 posts) -

I think if the zoo sold tickets to watch a pack of lions take it down and eat it they could have afforded to extend the giraffe habitat.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#47 Edited by N30F3N1X (8600 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:
@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

According to you?

I was unaware of that giraffe until learning of its death, so no.

Uhh not really sure what that has to do with what I've asked.

I just answered you. I will reiterate. I have only written of the life of that giraffe in hindsight because prior to his death, I did not know of it.

I understood what you said, just not what relevance your answer has in regards to my question. You said it would've been better if the giraffe was given to another zoo, you were asked why and answered that it might have a longer and better life. So I asked, according to who? You? Because if you read more about it you'd know the giraffe would have had a pretty shitty life and would have become harmful if it wasn't...terminated. It was born of two close relatives and had weaker genes, so it wouldn't have been allowed to reproduce to prevent weakening the gene pool. Experimental observation says that giraffes that aren't allowed to have children become deranged, eventually violent. Killing it was the most merciful thing they could've done, and no, it wouldn't have lived a longer and better life if it was transferred to some other zoo.

Avatar image for branketra
#48 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@N30F3N1X said:

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:
@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

According to you?

I was unaware of that giraffe until learning of its death, so no.

Uhh not really sure what that has to do with what I've asked.

I just answered you. I will reiterate. I have only written of the life of that giraffe in hindsight because prior to his death, I did not know of it.

I understood what you said, just not what relevance your answer has in regards to my question. You said it would've been better if the giraffe was given to another zoo, you were asked why and answered that it might have a longer and better life. So I asked, according to who? You? Because if you read more about it you'd know the giraffe would have had a pretty shitty life and would have become harmful if it wasn't...terminated. It was born of two close relatives and had weaker genes, so it wouldn't have been allowed to reproduce to prevent weakening the gene pool. Experimental observation says that giraffes that aren't allowed to have children become deranged, eventually violent. Killing it was the most merciful thing they could've done, and no, it wouldn't have lived a longer and better life if it was transferred to some other zoo.

I actually did read about its weaker genes. I would like proof of that giraffe's ineligibility to mate with other zoo giraffes at any of the zoos which offered to take him. There might have been other alternatives to zoos like game reserves. Now, I can claim that according to me, it might have lived a longer and better life.

Avatar image for thegerg
#49 Posted by thegerg (18266 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:
@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

According to you?

I was unaware of that giraffe until learning of its death, so no.

Uhh not really sure what that has to do with what I've asked.

I just answered you. I will reiterate. I have only written of the life of that giraffe in hindsight because prior to his death, I did not know of it.

I understood what you said, just not what relevance your answer has in regards to my question. You said it would've been better if the giraffe was given to another zoo, you were asked why and answered that it might have a longer and better life. So I asked, according to who? You? Because if you read more about it you'd know the giraffe would have had a pretty shitty life and would have become harmful if it wasn't...terminated. It was born of two close relatives and had weaker genes, so it wouldn't have been allowed to reproduce to prevent weakening the gene pool. Experimental observation says that giraffes that aren't allowed to have children become deranged, eventually violent. Killing it was the most merciful thing they could've done, and no, it wouldn't have lived a longer and better life if it was transferred to some other zoo.

I actually did read about its weaker genes. I would like proof of that giraffe's ineligibility to mate with other zoo giraffes at any of the zoos which offered to take him. There might have been other alternatives to zoos like game reserves. Now, I can claim that according to me, it might have lived a longer and better life.

I would like proof that the animal would have lived a longer and better life.

Avatar image for themajormayor
#50 Posted by themajormayor (25500 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:

@BranKetra said:

@N30F3N1X said:
@BranKetra said:

@thegerg said:

@BranKetra: Why?

It might have had a longer and better life.

According to you?

I was unaware of that giraffe until learning of its death, so no.

Uhh not really sure what that has to do with what I've asked.

I just answered you. I will reiterate. I have only written of the life of that giraffe in hindsight because prior to his death, I did not know of it.

I understood what you said, just not what relevance your answer has in regards to my question. You said it would've been better if the giraffe was given to another zoo, you were asked why and answered that it might have a longer and better life. So I asked, according to who? You? Because if you read more about it you'd know the giraffe would have had a pretty shitty life and would have become harmful if it wasn't...terminated. It was born of two close relatives and had weaker genes, so it wouldn't have been allowed to reproduce to prevent weakening the gene pool. Experimental observation says that giraffes that aren't allowed to have children become deranged, eventually violent. Killing it was the most merciful thing they could've done, and no, it wouldn't have lived a longer and better life if it was transferred to some other zoo.

I actually did read about its weaker genes. I would like proof of that giraffe's ineligibility to mate with other zoo giraffes at any of the zoos which offered to take him. There might have been other alternatives to zoos like game reserves. Now, I can claim that according to me, it might have lived a longer and better life.

I would like proof that the animal would have lived a longer and better life.

Do you really need proof that not killing it would have led to it having a longer life?

And if the most merciful thing you can do is to kill it because it would have become deranged and violent otherwise, then why aren't we as merciful to our fellow deranged and violent humans?