True, “dissection” is probably closer to what they meant. But the word the used on NPR was “autopsy”, I’m almost positive.
I think strictly speaking, an autopsy is poking around in a dead human specifically to determine or confirm the cause of death. Everything else is a necropsy. And a postmortem can be of either when the cause of death is already known but there are reasons to take a look.
So I’d call this a postmortem dissection/butchering.
In another attempt to prove what an idiot I am, I actually didn’t even consider a typo. I actually googled and tried to figure out what shealthy meant and how it fit in context with the post.
Honest to god, I swear I am a moron. :rolleyes:
I think it was too. Didn’t strike me as odd until just now.
And the hide would make a cool rug.
Considering the housing needs and the cost/pound of feed, etc., I still suspect it’s way more cost-effective to et the meat elsewhere.
Look, we know what happened here. It was the lion’s turn to create the February menu.
The thing that bugs me about it was that they gave him a name. You don’t kill something with a name in front of a bunch of kids.
My aunt always calls her sheep things like “Rosemary” and “Mint Jelly”. They come when she calls them. I’ve seen them butchered and I’ve eaten them, even when I was little. I am fine, thanks.
I don’t see how it’s any different than what we do to cows, and bear in mind this giraffe probably had a fairly decent life compared to, say, veal. Why shouldn’t a zoo do what farmers do all the time? If it is useful to them to let animals breed to feed the lions and to attract visitors, rather than to sustain the gene pool, then I see no problem in that. The alternative is:
- not attracting the visitors who come to see the baby giraffe,
- adults & children shielded from reality, happily munching their foie gras and veal without knowing how it was butchered,
- lions eating beef that was bred for food, killed and butchered anyway, this beef was presumably also not a fabulous contribution to the gene pool.
One day a man drove by a farm and saw a three-legged pig. The man went up to the farmer and said, “Excuse me sir, but why does that pig only have 3 legs?”
“Well,” said the farmer, “that there pig is very special. One time my wife was cooking something she stepped out of the kitchen and it caught on fire. No one in the house knew about it but the pig and he saved me, my wife, and my 2 kids.”
“That’s amazing sir but why does that pig only have three legs?” said the man.
“Then there was that time the pig saw a big storm coming and we didn’t. The pig ran into the house and dragged us out to the storm cellar. If it weren’t for that pig we would all be dead.”
“But still, that doesn’t explain why the pig only has 3 legs.”
“And I remember the time my youngest son was stuck up in a tree but I was too far away to hear him scream. The pig came running towards me and led me to where he was.”
“Well, that is miracle but how come that pig only has 3 legs?” the man said quite annoyed at this point.
“Well,” said the farmer, “with a pig that special… you don’t eat 'em all at once.”
Rage about how this particular case was handled. Meh about zoo’s euthanising animals in general.
The reason they gave for euthanising him was that they couldn’t breed from him. Fine. But they had many offers from other places willing to let him live out his natural life. Places that were able to properly provide for him and were willing to pay all the relocation costs. I don’t understand why they didn’t’ accept any of those offers.
But if you offset the cost with the revenue that those animals bring in, it may be more cost effective than it looks at first glance.
Put me in the meh camp. Touring the packing plant in Winnipeg when I was in my teens put me off meat for a few months but as others have noted upthread, it’s a good thing to know where your food comes from, not only your locally sourced carrots but that sirloin as well. It might make you feel better to believe that meat comes ffrom neat styrofoam and shrink wrapped packages but you should know the truth and respect what you consume.
Because he would have been genetically useless no matter what zoo he went to. This is the Danish zoo thinking of the big picture. If other zoos have space available for a giraffe, then they should keep that space open until a genetically valuable giraffe (i.e. one that brings sufficient genetic diversity to the captive giraffe population) needs a place to stay.
And, of course, people may offer very good homes to all the cows in the world, but if you want to feed your lion you’d do best to slaughter your cow/giraffe. What’s next, outrage that farmers choose to butcher cattle instead of giving them to vegetarians to keep in the garden?
Genius. Pure genius. Thanks for this - best thing I’ve read all week.
I’m with you.
Why not give peas a chance?
Mmmm. Whirled peas.
[That would be harsher punishment for parole violators, Stan. And world peace.]
For those outraged, here’s a bit more info on the zoo’s stance.
This zoo, and European zoos in general, have a different perspective on population management. They prefer not to use methods like single-sex exhibits or hormonal contraception because they choose not to deny the animals in their care from having and raising young. The argument for this is that we already remove so much of their natural behavior (e.g., predatory or prey behavior, range patrolling, social dynamics), that allowing these animals to experience mating, pregnancy and parenting, is good for their mental health.
I applaud the zoo director for bringing these issues to light; but I question his PR approach. The internet is full of animal lovers.
I think it’s sad. The animal has to live it’s life in captivity and then they choose to kill it rather than accept the offers from other zoos.
Zoo animals are more like pets, they have names and people who go to the zoo a lot get to remember them and look for them over time.
If they did that at our zoo I would be so disgusted.