Well, Denmark IS a leader in food processing…
I have no opinion on this since experts have not weighed in. But guys like Jack Hannah, other European zookeepers and basically the entirety of American zookeepers denounced the giraffe killing so to me I feel that probably should not have been done.
If this lion was old, and his breeding time was done, and they will produce more net lions for the captive breeding program by euthanizing the current group and bringing in the new male then I can see this as being justified. If the purpose of these lions is only to build a larger population of captive lions for zoo/research purposes then I can see it being justified in that context. But it does make me question what the captive breeding program is actually for…if it’s just to make sure zoos have stocks of lions for visitors to see I’m not sure it makes as much sense to kill the cubs which would eventually become (what I presume to be) valuable assets that could be given to other zoos.
More to Alley Dweller’s question. Same day as Marius the giraffe was killed -
Apparently not so much in American zoos. They avoid it by keeping males and females separate or utilizing some form of contraception.
BTW opinions of other European zookeepers referenced by Martin Hyde? EAZA, the expert body for Europe, did weigh in and supported the decision.
EAZA isn’t the opinion of all zoos in Europe. Several British zoos openly opposed the killing of Marius as did the professional zoo body in the United States. Since EAZA is the one that actually set the policy that led to the euthanasia it would be strange for them to not support it in the first place. The question is more about whether that policy is correct, and it appeared from the Marius controversy that other European zoos (for example several in the United Kingdom) and basically all American zoos disagreed with the behavior of the Copenhagen zoo.
I find your post both uninformative and uncompelling.
FTR, “The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) is an organisation for the European zoo and aquarium community that links over 340 member organizations in 41 countries. It operates the European Endangered Species Programme (EEP). EAZA membership is open to all zoos and aquaria across Europe that comply with EAZA’s standards.” European Association of Zoos and Aquaria - Wikipedia
So what we have so far is a disagreement among expert associations regarding the use of contraception in zoo animals. This is understandable in my view.
I personally do not regard the death of a non-primate non-endangered specie to be an intrinsic tragedy and I support steps to curb inbreeding. In contrast, the loss of a non-microbial specie however is unfortunate IMO, generally speaking. I agree that further expert opinion is welcome.
FTR: The giraffe is a specie of least concern.
I don’t care if I am a meat-eater, I still get squicked out by zoos killing animals willy-nilly.
I do not read this after public outcry statement by the American zoo body, the Association of Zoos and Aquaria (AZA), as opposition.
I read that as the weakest sort of statement they could make that would satisfy their customer base. “Regrets” is not “opposes” … sorry.
No EAZA is not all the zoos in Europe. Just these ones. Yes there are a few that do not belong and some of those are places that zoos that are members would not want to send any animal. (Just like zoos that belong to the AZA would not send an animal to the American equivalents.)
Standard operating procedure in Europe is as Copenhagen did.
Define the issue honestly at least. The European zoo body believes that separating males from females and using contraception in zoo animals disrupts natural behaviors and comes with risks that they are not willing to accept; they would rather cull a few animals. The American zoo body believes that that level of behavior disruption and health risks are acceptable compared to the cost of culling (whether you believe the cost they are concerned about is an ethical one or a public relations one is another issue).
Now I do not have a strong opinion about that one way or the other, I do not know the actual numbers about health risks associated with contraception methods in zoo animals. I do know enough to know that hormonal intervention is a bigger deal to most animal behavior than OCPs are in humans. I suspect zoo experts have a bit of informed debate about it. And I do know that characterizing a statement of “regret” as havng “openly opposed” (or even “disagreed with”) and dismissing the fact that the official zoo body of Europe supports the practice as not “all zoos in Europe” veers into specious territory.
For the interested here is a pre-Marius article about that debate.
So the American argument as presented is an emotional response, what we are comfortable with, and a recognition of what our culture (i.e. the zoo customers) would accept. The European one is more of an appeal to the sake of the animals and their species.
I’m leaning to the other side of the pond’s POV.
IM(not so)HO, breeding those cubs when they knew they weren’t going to raise them was as irresponsible as those people who breed their dog “so their children can witness the miracle of birth”, then take the puppies to the pound. The zoo wasn’t offered that new lion yesterday. I’m sure that arranging for a new large cat takes some time and planning. The truth is, baby animals bring in the dollars (or euro). The cubs were 10 months old. Once they aren’t cute and cuddly, they’re a liability.
StG
The Danish zoo chooses to keep it’s male and female lions together. Cubs happen. This wasn’t like giant panda breeding, which seems to be highly supervised and assisted. This was 2 cats breeding, more akin to 2 alley cats than your dog example.
Frankly, there comes a time when excess non-performing populations have to be culled.
In the case of this Danish zoo, it’s administrators whose herd needs to be thinned. Several can be eliminated through painless euthanasia, and then fed to the remaining lions for the edification of children and other visitors.
The YouTube video would go viral, to say the least.
Is there a veal equivalent in lion meat?
Exactly. They chose to keep a breeding pair breeding. They knew what the result would be. 2 alley cats are feral, no one to manage them. A zoo is not a natural environment, and if they can tinker with their animals to the extent of bringing in new breeding stock, they can keep current stock from breeding. There may be health consequences of contraception - ask the dead cub if they’d rather be dead now or possibly dead in 17 year from cancer.
StG
In the wild, when a male lion is old enough, it is kicked out of the pack and left to fend for itself. It will probably die. But if it doesn’t, if it happens across another pack with an old or sick leader, it will attempt to take over the pack and if it does so, it will breed its own young. As soon as the males are old enough to constitute a threat, he will kick them out as his father did to him. You are right that a zoo is not a natural environment. Keeping the lions together and bringing in a new strange male to be the leader are ways they are attempting to maintain as much of a natural life as possible.
What happens when that Danish zoo decides they want to downsize the human staff?
It ain’t right to just release 'em, you know.
Some have asserted this was necessary because of the captive breeding program. Question: why is there a captive breeding program? Wikipedia lists lions as “Vulnerable,” but I don’t know if they’re being bred in captivity to keep the species alive, or just because we want some lions in Denmark to look at.
Zoos are, of course, inherently bad. We know this because we hated it when it was done to us, and we are still embarrassed that we did it.
So if they’re just being bred for zoos, and killed because it’s too hard to figure out some other way, well, that’s immoral.
In the US this is done on a wide scale with the dog and cat population. Thousands of animals are killed daily here because of neglect and abuse by their owners. Ever wondered what was causing the smoke from those smokestacks behind the local animal shelter?
Amazingly enough wild and even zoo animals are not people. They also are not pets.
You want to ask the cub if it never wanted to be born too? You want to ask the lion and the lioness if they want to have their sex drive hormonally suppressed and have no procreation and no parenting?
They won’t answer either.
The question is what we owe these animals. The zookeeper perspective is that we owe them our best effort to preserve their species by preserving the genetic diversity as best we can, and some replication of natural behaviors.
Where to draw the line on the second part is the debate. Both American zoos and European ones believe in attempting to provide a simulated natural environment, rather than simple cages. Both agree that replicating being a predator and being prey is out within a zoo environment. The issue is if they should be able to have normal sexual and parenting lives or if that should be taken away too. Allowing that means humanely kiling some surplus population so produced sometimes after fairly short lifespans (and then not allowing that meat to go to waste). Not allowing it means taking away a large part of an animal’s natural behavior.
You can diasagree with the choice that the European zoo community has made. You can believe that killing a surplus giraffe or a lion is somehow worse than raising and killing cows to feed the lion. But it is a reasoned rational decision by made by professionals who are thinking about the overall good of the animals under their care and of the best interests of the species who know that these are not pets or people.
I actually don’t believe zoos serve much purpose other than “something the public likes”, I actually believe they are very limited research value and find any arguments relating to zoo animals and “what is natural” to be kind of specious. I am much more in favor of wild life preserves than zoos, which are really just animal amusement parks that attempt to present themselves as research institutions.
I’m not saying there are no real scientists at zoos (there are), or that there hasn’t been some research of a valuable nature done at zoos (there has), I’m just saying I’m highly suspicious of zoos as an institution and think everything they do is secondary to their role as “animal amusement park.” That’s basically how zoos got started, to ooh and aah citizens with exotic animals from far away.
Whether you regard their statement as emotional or not, the point is the AZA and its members zoos do not engage in this behavior. That tells me that it’s questionable as to why EAZA zoos engage in this behavior.
I think you’re correcting something no one said, that the EAZA doesn’t include in its membership a majority of major European zoos. What I actually said is that EAZA’s opinion is not the same as the collective opinion of all zoos. Just as individual physicians, or even a large group of physicians, may disagree with the AMA’s opinion on any number of issues. You’re using EAZA policy to suggest that all zoos in Europe agree with this, when that cannot be assumed. It’s possible that most zoos in Europe do agree. But it’s also possible that it’s a policy that a lot of EAZA zoos are uncomfortable with, but go along with anyway because in the whole they agree with EAZA on most issues.
Not being a zoo expert, I can only say that zoos themselves are a massive disruption of any animal’s natural behaviors. So if that is the core of the EAZA argument I find it specious.
I think the reason there was a lot of outcry about this is because most people assumed zoos were animal-friendly, but the reality is zoos are more like circuses in terms of how they treat and regard their animals than many would assume. Organizations that are actually interested in treating animals well and giving them some natural lifestyle are wildlife preserves and organizations that manage them. But many such preserves are closed to the public or provide very limited access, so they have much less visibility than zoos.
FWIW I’m fine with factory farming and slaughtering of animals and am a hunter and vigorous meat eater. I have no problem with the killing of animals. What I’d have a problem with is if Smithfield tried to present itself as a swine preserve or something. I’m not sure the behavior of zoos in general reaches that level, but I view zoos as much closer to circuses than I do wildlife preserves.
I also don’t believe this one issue materially distinguishes American from European zoos. American zoos are not really any better overall.
These beautiful animals killed just because someone didn’t manage them at all well. Immoral is right. Justify this killing all you want, it’s still immoral.
Birth control. Separation. It’s hypocrisy that a zoo supposedly “preserving” a species out and out kills it. This zoo apparently has no interest in preservation or they would communicate with other zoos before they kill animals, rather than simply making an announcement after the dirty deed is done.
These threads always disappoint me in so many members of the Dope. An intelligent group yes, but compassionate? Not so much.