As a dedicated conservationist and a prior zookeeper there are elements of both sides of this debate that I agree with. That zoos have limited space and must control inbreeding in their captive animals should be no surprise to anyone. For many national parks, the same problems exist – as disconnected islands of habitat, national parks contain essentially captive populations that may be culled if they become too big (e.g. elephants in some parks in southern Africa) or genetically managed if there is no movement between parks (e.g. pandas in China). Zoos use animal transfers, contraception, single sex groups and segregation to avoid inbreeding. The problem in the Copenhagen Zoo case is that if it had concerns about inbreeding, then Marius should not have been born in the first place given all of these options to control inbreeding. Claiming that euthanasia was the only option open to it to prevent inbreeding demonstrates that there have been lapses in animal management at the facility. Furthermore, the claim that it was not suitable to send an animal to a zoo/wildlife park not affiliated with the standards of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria is blatantly untrue – many non-affiliated parks and private breeders are involved in Europe’s captive breeding programmes because they have genetically-important specimens. So it is clearly contradictory to suggest that EAZA zoos are not willing to work with non-affiliated organisations.

My feeling is that the whole ‘education’ argument was generated by a PR firm, only after the topic generated such international media attention, as a means to divert the negative publicity. But there are holes in this argument too. If carrying out a public autopsy on a zoo animal is such a beneficial educational exercise, why is this the first time it has been done? If learning about animal anatomy could be so instructive, then why not use a cow/pig/sheep and explain to children where the meat they eat comes from (and then maybe explain why a low-meat diet is better for the environment)? And surely seeing a fascinating animal like the giraffe up close and alive is far more inspirational for children then seeing one being cut open and dissected – dead animals are not necessary for learning!!

Overall, I am annoyed with Copenhagen Zoo for using ‘education of children’ as an excuse to cover up the mismanagement of their animals. Zoos have legitimate reasons to control inbreeding and population size, but they also have many tools to ensure that they don’t have to resort to euthanasia of a perfectly healthy animal. As I have said elsewhere on ResearchGate, I am not Buddhist, but the blasé attitude some scientists have for animal life is rather disturbing (and I admit I have been as guilty of destructive sampling as anyone).

In my opinion this was horrible. It is one thing to observe predation in the wild or on TV. it is another to watch an animal in a zoo slaughtered, and the pieces given to lions. Try as I might, I just can't see the lesson here.

I was completely appalled at the story. The justification that zoo authorities provided (to prevent inbreeding) might be reasonable - since it is one of the hazards of being held in captivity. However, the manner in which the animal was slaughtered and fed to lions was grotesque. If they wanted to give the children a real lesson in evolution, why not just release the lions in the giraffe's cage? The reason why the animal was killed may still stand trial, but the manner in which it was done was not required. At all.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts rapidly Travis.I think, being able to watch it as a 'lesson' is another issue which has been interpreted as cultural !!! I was wondering whether any scholar from Denmark would be able to bring clarity to this issue. Also it has been said that "as part of an international programme, only unrelated animals were allowed to breed: When breeding success increases, it is sometimes necessary to euthanise." This is the explanation of the authorities, So, we are dealing with two issues here, actually three. Anaimal ethics, Biological concerns( inbreeding in Zoo's) also, pedagogical/cultural aaspects( public display where kids are involved)

I'm with Travis here, for both similar are different reasons. Let me explain...

First of all, this is far from wildlife education. If it were education, there would have been a lengthy discussion regarding the anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, etc. of an adult giraffe, along with teaching the proper presentation of organs and structures for preservation and curation.

Secondly, the rationale of interbreeding subjection does not justify euthanization. Segregation and other options are perfectly viable and should (in my opinion) always take precedence over euthanization. People arguing that death>loneliness for social animals must then suggest suicide/assisted suicide/murder to their lonely friends and/or family. Furthermore, if it's an issue of money and facilities, zoos should have to consider that restriction before bringing animals into their facilities.

Lastly, the message that this sends is the exact opposite of what we want if we are to conserve and protect vulnerable species. The euthanization of this giraffe, much like the rhino hunting license recently auctioned in Texas or the shark-fishing derbys held in my hometown annually to raise money for the local hospital, elicit the mindset that it is okay to kill vulnerable species so long as humans can apply an anthropomorphic justification for doing so. This undermines the very basis of conservation and ecological sustainability and expressed the reciprocal of the positive message and "wildlife education" that needs to be expressed.

In my opinion this was horrible.and can not acceptable by law

I was appalled by this explanation : "Denmark was urbanised relatively late, which is why the general opinion here is that it's okay to keep and kill animals as long as you treat them well," said Peter Sandoee, a professor of bioethics at the University of Copenhagen." taken from a newspaper online http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/10628957/Danes-defend-zoos-killing-of-giraffe.html

which reminded me of the "dolphine killing' in the same country by relying on "however not letting them suffer" argument. IKs it really cultural ? Anybody from Denmark over there ? Maybe we are all missing a point :(

In defense of the Danes, there was simply no space for the young bull (here is a discussion about the case: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/why-copenhagen-zoo-killed-marius-giraffe). Even in conservational keeping of animals, some individuals will be superfluous. And I do not believe that showing how animals are killed is necessarily a bad thing. It is done daily in industrial scales, and if people do not like the way, they should (at least) stop eating meat before they protest (a general point, not directed to any of the people discussing the case here). My point is, that there is no difference in the ethics of killing a giraffe, as compared to killing a pig. An animal being more charismatic, does not justify higher ethical concern (and vice versa). Ethical considerations should be based on the animals cognitive capacity.

Regarding children watching, it's a parental decision to go there and watch. No one was forced to watch, I believe. Making use of the meat, i.e. feeding the carnivores, is better than throwing it away.

In the end, the zoo was very open about what was done. I think they handled the situation in a very good way. I think it is unfortunate that the zoo get a lot of heat for being open about killing an animal, and trying to get the best out of it. It is surely done on a regular basis in most zoos around the world, but behind the scenes.

And Leyla, the pilot whale killing in Faroe Islands is a poor comparison in this case - the two cases have nothing in common, not even geographically. The Faroe Islands are self-governing within the Danish Realm. It is almost like saying that Canada is part of Great Britain.

EDIT: Apologize if the Faroe whale comment comes across as a bit snarky. However, I leave it as it was written. I do believe that the point has to be made.

As a dedicated conservationist and a prior zookeeper there are elements of both sides of this debate that I agree with. That zoos have limited space and must control inbreeding in their captive animals should be no surprise to anyone. For many national parks, the same problems exist – as disconnected islands of habitat, national parks contain essentially captive populations that may be culled if they become too big (e.g. elephants in some parks in southern Africa) or genetically managed if there is no movement between parks (e.g. pandas in China). Zoos use animal transfers, contraception, single sex groups and segregation to avoid inbreeding. The problem in the Copenhagen Zoo case is that if it had concerns about inbreeding, then Marius should not have been born in the first place given all of these options to control inbreeding. Claiming that euthanasia was the only option open to it to prevent inbreeding demonstrates that there have been lapses in animal management at the facility. Furthermore, the claim that it was not suitable to send an animal to a zoo/wildlife park not affiliated with the standards of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria is blatantly untrue – many non-affiliated parks and private breeders are involved in Europe’s captive breeding programmes because they have genetically-important specimens. So it is clearly contradictory to suggest that EAZA zoos are not willing to work with non-affiliated organisations.

My feeling is that the whole ‘education’ argument was generated by a PR firm, only after the topic generated such international media attention, as a means to divert the negative publicity. But there are holes in this argument too. If carrying out a public autopsy on a zoo animal is such a beneficial educational exercise, why is this the first time it has been done? If learning about animal anatomy could be so instructive, then why not use a cow/pig/sheep and explain to children where the meat they eat comes from (and then maybe explain why a low-meat diet is better for the environment)? And surely seeing a fascinating animal like the giraffe up close and alive is far more inspirational for children then seeing one being cut open and dissected – dead animals are not necessary for learning!!

Overall, I am annoyed with Copenhagen Zoo for using ‘education of children’ as an excuse to cover up the mismanagement of their animals. Zoos have legitimate reasons to control inbreeding and population size, but they also have many tools to ensure that they don’t have to resort to euthanasia of a perfectly healthy animal. As I have said elsewhere on ResearchGate, I am not Buddhist, but the blasé attitude some scientists have for animal life is rather disturbing (and I admit I have been as guilty of destructive sampling as anyone).

Hi Joachim;

Thank you for contributing. The reason why I mentioned dolphine issue was the fact that in one of the newspapers the 'whole thing' was based on Danish culture !! That's the reason I wanted to have a Danish perspective here, to be fair to both (or many sides) Again, thank you for your input. However, Danish people aside :) I do not believe that killilng a pig and giraffe are ethically the same. Livestock killing is done regulary for more than thousand years. We are also hunters like lions if you will :) Just we no longer do it 'publicly. Surely, the children and parents were not forced to watch it but should they be invited for the show in the first place.People might like to see burtality either. People also watch when someone should be executed in an open place. Pepole also have been watching some religious or political killings throughout the world. Tha fact that pepole were not forced does not explain the reason of doing it like a show. What would remain in the mind of those children at the end of the day? It is totally ok to kill a wild animal. I don't think that giraffe is more charismatic than a pig :)) However, pigs are in the service of humans for thousand years, let alone I would not show my kid how to slaughter a pig either ! Giraffe belong to wilderness and we borrow them from mother nature to educate the humans about them , But this does not give US right to decide when to end their lives, let alone showing it off.

As per Faroe comment. It could be related to tradition but even here, all cultural traditions in which people 'massacre' animals in big numbers and enjoy the blood bath seem weird to me. The ONLY thing common between this event and Faroe here is being voyeurs of mass/individual killing. Danish are not alone in this. There are many cultures in which, animal/human killings are handled like 'public shows' which i personally find , hmmm lets say not very nice :)

The act is unethical and cannot be justified. Instead of killing the Giraffe and feeding the carnivores, the animal could be gifted to or exchanged with some other zoo in the world that lack such precious animals.

I often hear lots of arguments about how if we kill one animal, then killing another is ethically the same. In some cases this may hold true, but in others it is far from true. For instance (and I infer nor place any judgement), the killing of an animal for food is much different than killing for sport. The killing of an endangered animal is much different than killing an animal whose population is expanding and stable. Killing the Giraffe is very different than killing a live stock animal.

I understand that animals in zoos must sometimes be killed, however, the excuse given here is very flimsy. What exactly were they teaching the children? That sometimes humans are greedy, take too many animals, allow them to reproduce when we could have stopped it, and then solve the problem we created by the easiest possible method?

That nature is often brutal is a very important lesson to learn, however, I fail to see how humans killing a Giraffe shows us anything beyond the brutality of humanity.

Leyla, I think the person they interviewed was expressing himself a bit clumsily, maybe due to the translation. I believe they talk about a cultural dogma that "keeping and killing animal is ok, if it is purposeful, and if suffering is minimized" - which is a very common way of thinking as far as I know. Denmark is culturally very similar to Sweden, where I come from, and there is basically no public animal killings in any of these countries. It would almost certainly be punishable by law, if it was for enjoyment - and I do not think that any person at the zoo were enjoying the event of killing the giraffe. The animal legislation in the EU is strict.

For the record: The Faroe Islands allow whale killing (out of cultural reasons), while Denmark does not.

I do not buy the argument that giraffes are ethically more valuable than pigs. Firstly, for the individual animal, death is probably the same experience (probably not too bad if its done correctly, but to be fair, I have no experience in dying so I do not know...). Secondly, giraffes in zoos are also in the "service" of humans, we keep them there to look at, and (in the good cases) to keep giraffes for the future. This particular giraffe was apparently not very valuable for breeding, and it was not a member of any of the endangered subspecies. Thirdly, killing for food today, is killing for enjoyment in many parts of the world. We can definitely survive on non-meat diets, so no killings for meat are necessary - thus, we kill animals to enjoy eating them. So...killing for food, in many (not all!) societies today is not much different from killing superfluous zoo-giraffes. Keep in mind that this individual was superfluous due to being a young male, breeding in zoos also creates females which are more valuable. The male also may have been valuable if another male somewhere would have died. Now, that did not happen, which was a bit unfortunate for Marius the Giraffe. At least, he saved a couple of other animals from becoming lion-food...

Well Joachim, thank you for your explanation. But I will still have difficulty to think of animals in wilderness as samely vulnerable as pigs, unless I develop an appetite to eat a giraffe :)))) However, thank you for your 'cultural' clarification. Hmm watching a giraffe's beauty and rarity and enjoying a pork fillet. You might be right, dopamine is dopamine :) I wish children did not look at it though. Tha fac t that it was considered education, that I cannot buy. To serve giraffe as food to lions .... That might make more sense. :)

The 'Marius' conundrum offers a welcome opening to the debate of animal welfare and conservation, two subjects that are not always linked. As a working conservationist in Africa many of us would struggle to see a link between the euthanasia of a giraffe in a zoo and the reality of giraffe ranges shrinking constantly. However, the media storm that ensued offers an opportunity to educate western opinion as to the realities of conservation in africa and how the scientific approach can benefit in and ex situ conservation. Personally, I cannot imagine that anyone was happy to kill this giraffe but all credit to the zoo for taking the bull by the horns and giving a good rationale for their actions

”Ethics, bilogical justification, cultural factors? How can we justify that? ”

They justified it with the lack of available space - which is not a surprise, if we take into account that Denmark is not as big as Russia or as Australia.

This was an abominable act.

Yet, what is surprising is not that this has only happened, but it is the way how this is being justified, even on the site of RG, in this very discussion.

I hold “the principle of insufficiency of utility”: to use a utilitarian argument is mostly wrong if it is used to justify a priory immoral act. Even more so if the outcome is death of a being that has a moral status, what was not exactly the case here. There are extremely rare cases when there are ways to justify, sometimes, utilitarian arguments by the appeal to some other principles: the principle of double effect, arguments based on emotions, or to use some other corollary. I personally reject them all and almost always. But nevertheless, the principle of insufficiency of utility is useful to remember now.

The secondary bad effect, the effects of public “execution” is the other aspect. To justify it by a comparison with animal killing for food and all its aspects or to demand kind of coherence of the fighters for animal rights - demanding them to become vegetarians - is very bad argument. Of course that there is no coherence in the animal protection; of course that we on one hand forbid animal experimentation in medical schools in Europe for the purpose of education, but on the other hand have massive animal killings for the sake of often useless cosmetics industry. Those examples, still, cannot justify anythong.

After reading the above comments I realized that the misunderstanding of ethics is so big that it will be impossible to prolong a discussion here and hope to finish it in couple of weeks. I am sorry, I cannot offer more elaborate comment. I can only propose more reading.

Killing of the animal was not the only option. If this is the only way to protect nature, it will be impossible to convince ordinary people and students that conservation biology goes in the right direction.

Dragan, Maybe I am wrong, but, I don' think the giraffe was killed in public? We have had a very successful tv series here in the UK looking at the filmed postmortem dissection of large animals such as squid,elephants etc and this generated much interest amongst the public, why on earth would you deny some people knowledge for the sake of upsetting some others, much in the same way Christian churches attempted to hold a monopoly of knowledge and truth for centuries. In democracies plurality can and should prevail.

Kennneth

If you want me to try to answer to you, please read again what I wrote and withdraw COMPLETELLY what you imputed that I implied, by suggesting that I:

“….deny some people knowledge for the sake of upsetting some others, much in the same way Christian churches attempted to hold a monopoly of knowledge and truth for centuries. In democracies plurality can and should prevail.”

Please.

Thanks

The public dissection was a good thing.. maybe it could be proposes elsewhere when animals naturally die in zzo and other structures... the porblem is the justification for the giraffe killing that appeared weak as other solutions were posible and more proper..

Raoul

… and dissection of human corpses for educational purposes also…!?

No, guys, you are not interested in ethics at all, you are not serious here.

Public "disection"? You are all biologists (are you??), you know what means "discection"? This was not a disection, but simple buchery. Video:

http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/09/giraffe-slaughtered-at-copenhagen-zoo-and-fed-to-other-animals/

I am in two minds about the killing of the giraffe, but if this event means that the public have thought a little more about the food offered to large captive carnivores, and are slightly less squeemish about seeing hides on the food the lions get, then some good has come out of this. There are numerous very positive behaivours which come from allowing large carnivores to tackle meat with the hide and inedible bits like the hooves still on it, but the public response often puts zoos off from offering this.

Dragan, if I missed your point (I do apologise), I think you missed mine also. These kind of discussions were also part of the various medical and scientific european enlightenments,that often meant upsetting sensibilities for the sake of deepening knowledge. Not far from where I live the Royal College of Surgeons used to dissect live dogs without any kind of anaesethia because they did not believe that dogs could not possibly feel pain the way we do. And yet the information that came from these admittedly bloody specatcles have set modern medicine on its current path and allowed huge developments that have benefitted humans (and animals also). So, my point is that what seems 'callous' to one person may be educational to another - within limits, and it is these limits that are continually tested and rightly so.

Ms Marples (senour lecturer!)

Kenneth

Should we then offer some morally “uneducated” public to see killing humans to finally learn that this is a crime? Of course Kenneth did not mind this. Neither Ms Marples did.

But, I am sorry!

We no longer use this “direct” methodology to teach people to distinguish what is bad and what is good. Do you know that we, here in Europe, deprive the students of medicine from ALL animal experiments for the sake of animal rights. And now we should permit zoos or other people who handle animals to do those “educative” experiments!?

This is the same planet, guys!

(And I would greatly appreciate the secret down voter to show his/hers arguments.)

John

The ethical problem now and here is not whether in this particular case this was euthanasia or not (an act in the interest of the animal that will die), but the way how this was done (public butchery and lions feeding).

The large public does not really know the precise circumstances and your explanation may be adequate or not – depending on the facts. What we know is how this was done, and this was , I think, done in a quite unethical way.

I did not have time to go further into details, but there are many other reasons, apart from by me above mentioned, in my a very short comment, that would make it evident that the act was unethical: The fact that we, particularly children, consider the zoo animals as a “second” pet, for example. Then the fact that the concerns of “others” that ARE emotionally concerned, forbids us to act as we think we MAY - kill some animal that is not considered to have significant moral status. Yet, the animal may be or IS A PET for somebody else and thereby acquires some moral status. Etc. The provisional explanation - educational aspects of the killing and “dissection”- are not satisfactory. In animal experimentation and educational dissections of the animals, procedure is well defined and it is made clear what is done and what is the purpose of the acts. Such respect of the procedures make it possible to conserve important aspects of morality.

I am the former Curator of Howletts & Port Lympne Wildlife Parks in U.K.

Your discussion is exhaustive and scientifically rigorous but, in my opinion, it missed totally one of the main roles for a good, modern zoo to exist:

REINTRODUCTION OF ZOO BRED ANIMALS INTO THE WILD.

H.&P.L. have returned, successfully, Gorillas and Black Rhinos and Langurs and Gibbons and Pythons and continuing…even Rome zoo has returned one...a Giraffe.

The only positive aspect of the bloody story is that Copenhagen has set an example of what zoos are not for: killing wildlife.

I am a pathologist (veterinary), and I do not see any negative impact on any one by doing a public necropsy. I think every one needs to know how ingeniously our and other animal's bodies are built and admire, respect them. The decision to kill the giraffe rather than to sell it is entirely the zoo's prerogative and a management issue.

Do you think that it is not possible to teach people without slaughtering a live animal in front of them?

Hide your head in the sand? People know that animals are killed in order to feed them and others every day ,every hour, every second. Knowing, does not mean we have to be disrespectful. The killing of surplus animals in zoos is an accepted fact. I do not think it is defensible to hide the reality.

My answer was to the specific question: Is it possible to justify killing an animal in a zoo and dismember it before children? by Teyla Tekul, not to upset anybody or going into a general ethical discussion. Killing of surplus animals, in my zoo experience, can be avoided if there is proper planning and management. Copenhagen zoo has been "disrespectful". That giraffe birth could have been avoided or, as far as I know, given to other zoos which asked for it or... return it to Africa.

John,

This was probably only rational solution, but the objections are to the way how the killing was done.

Let us have it clear. (John, this does not refer necessarily to your comment.)

First: civilized humans would destroy their natural environment or kill other living beings not for fun but only when justified. Also when they have to kill other living beings, they do not do this in public as a show. Not anymore!

Human dignity consists also in respects for its surroundings and other living creatures in particular.

And second: anatomy and physiology are learned in an organized way, in a space that is well defined and method employed is well defined too. We do not learn animal anatomy in a butcher shop or human anatomy in the morgue. Those routines help satisfy moral norms, when performing those acts that are disturbing and such ways of doing this help preserve human dignity. If, on the contrary, we have a desire to “learn” to bear emotionally the sight of such brutal sceneries, we would better first consult a psychiatrist to verify where we stand emotionally and mentally.

The fact that we have here on this thread (some) zoo attendants, pathologists, or even biologists (!), or that we may have in the future some butchers, HATO officers from Abu Ghraib, a retired hang-man or electric chair attendants from the Sing Sing - who will probably have radically different opinions of those that I expressed above, may be only instructive. Yet, those will be useful not for the present discussion on ethics but, if at all, for better understanding human psychopathology.

Therefore I suggest that we hold in this discussion to the ethical aspects of the appalling act of killing and butchering a zoo animal in public in Copenhagen. (Although I think that the issue is ethically in clear: this was a moral disaster.)

Dear All,

I fully agree with Dragan, it is a moral disaster in the very heart of Western civilization which is easy to proof and impossible to deny.

There are several aspects to this discussion that have been brought up, some of which are moral disagreements, some of which are factual disagreements. First, I would say that children should not be allowed to think of zoo animals as pets. That is incredibly wrong and that attitude needs to be strongly discouraged. Second, it is just not true that they could have shipped off the giraffe to a non EAZA member institution. Yes, there are plenty in Europe that offered to take it, but it is not permissible for EAZA institutions to give animals to non-affiliated organizations by EAZA rules, as far as I am aware. Third, shipping large animals is difficult and very expensive and I did not hear any organizations offer to pay the costs. In addition to this is that the limited slots available meant that if this giraffe was placed elsewhere, that would only mean another giraffe would be killed in its place. One can argue morals all one wants, but if the money is not also provided, there is little room to complain if they aren't followed to one's preferences. That may sound harsh and cruel, but you can't tie the hands of an organization and then complain they aren't playing ball the way you want. In an ideal world, they would not have killed the giraffe, but they have constraints and limitations just like everyone else. Unfortunate decisions must then be made when you hit them and those constraints must be recognized, however much we may wish they weren't considerations.

There also seems to be a lack of consideration for different cultural norms. In most American zoos, it is considered wrong to breed animals for which the offspring have no place, so the animals are prevented from breeding. In Europe, it is commonly held that preventing an animal from breeding and caring for offspring harms the animal because raising offspring is a primary quality of life issue. I am not going to say who is right because I honestly don't know if there is even a good answer to that question, it is an ethical issue in which people simply have different viewpoints. From the point of view of the European zoos, the American zoos are wrong, the American zoos obviously see if differently.

As far as "butchering the animal in front of children," there is the complaint both of butchering the animal and of doing it in front of children. If the animal had to be put down (and for which, anyone who thinks for a second this was not a decision that caused considerable anguish to the people who were forced to make it is sadly mistaken), it is best to make the sacrifice as beneficial as possible. That meant in this case using the meat to feed the predators in the zoo that would normally eat the meat in the wild and not simply throwing it away. As far as the children, the procedure was not done out in the open for anyone to walk by. The people in attendance had to request it and children were only allowed in with their parents, so if the parents thought it was an ethical and worthwhile decision to allow it, it seems rather arrogant of others to say they are bad parents by allowing it, which this complaint is essentially saying. Moreover, the zoo worked very hard to make it as educational as possible. One person said they thought it a PR stunt, using the fact it had not ben done before as evidence. The fact (which are we sure it is a fact?) that it had not been done I think is a poor reason for saying it was a PR stunt. Everything is done for the first time somewhere. Perhaps they just hadn't thought of it before, which considering the blowback from the decision, is a good possibility.

In short, while it is certainly possible to ethically argue they were wrong, it is also possible to argue they were ethically right and morally justifiable. It was a tough and unfortunate position requiring a hard choice no matter what they did. There was no choice that would have pleased everyone. Sadly, in conservation there are seldom easy answers and even fewer clear-cut ones. It is always making the best of a bad situation. I think they made the best decision they could as far as they saw it with the information and resources they had.

Dragan, why not? in an teoric way also for humans they should be quite educative... of coruse many other things should be taken into account.. teorically it does not seem nothing of immoral or other things... of course an ethic code is alwyas necessary for specimens belonging etc...

Joe, Raulo

Please see below.

Joe, Raulo

Second article.

I think that John Granieri hit the bull eye: conservation and preservation not always collide so are science and moral ethic. I rest of my opinion: we can't just go by written rules of EAZA, AZA, etc. (which are the fundaments) but use also personal discretion. for a better work-life balance

Joe, Raulo

(and the first article)

I think I advanced some of the arguments that you both ignored. All that I can recommend then is to read about ethics applied to animal care and animal rights.

One aspect of my personal position is explained in my papers, where I deny that the act of killing animals in described situations can be described as “euthanasia”. The other is the concept of our morality that reposes strongly not only on the principles of ethics but also on our subjective concerns. For this occasion an example would be that we should not do thing for which we believe to be perfectly morally justifiable if the society where we will do this will be seriously offended by our act. This has not been respected in Copenhagen. (You will understand fully the example if you would read the articles.)

Very insightful article and sharp comment. Thanks Dragan.

issue 1) is it okay to do it in front of children. Not without informing them or telling the parents exactly what was going to happen. issue 2) was it wrong to do it irrespective of the presence of children or adults. provided they did not violate any laws I don't think so. Lions eat what they can in the wild. Provided the giraffe was not killed for the purpose of feeding the lion, It is perfectly fine to dissect it and to feed it to the lions.

Conservation is not a simple issue, and often you have to do with life and death, of animals (plants) and people too. It seems often that most people in the world, especially those living in cities, prefer a view of the living world that mimic Disney rather than Darwin. And more our social world is dominated by competition (among countries, singles and companies), more people like to see animals as fellow friends living in a enchantated world.

The positive side of Copenaghen story is that it tells about limits. The zoo should have done money sending the giraffe away, but they took full responsability for their choice (free breeding rather that castration or contraception). They deserve merits for coherence.

To those whose names I just do not want to mention.

Human beings have understanding and reason, are inteligent, immaginative beings that possess sense of sympathy, empathy and abstract thinking. To demonstrate that killing humans is bad, we do not have to kill a concrete person. To demonstrate that some immoral acts are immoral, we do not have to perform the concrete demonstrative immoral acts. Luckily so.

What concerns this discussion:

There are still PEOPLE who believe that “simple masses” think that world is naïve, friendly, full of love and cuddling place just good to enjoy and just be happy.

There are still PEOPLE who believe that the "stupid masses" do not know that nature and the living world are NOT densely inhabited by human values.

Therefore those same PEOPLE believe that THEY personally have to display, or have to permit others, to show to the others, on the concrete brutal, bestial examples which they will produce for that occasion, demonstrate convincing "examples" of real brutality and bestiality and thereby demonstrate - what they believe to be - their exclusive enlightened knowledge of the real world. All of these just with good intentions.

You, whoever you are, if this is what you think, you are WRONG. Try to read and learn more. You also, I hope, posses human "understanding and reason", you just have to discover it.

Well, Dragan, thank you for your input. The more I watch animals, especially the ones who have not been crippled by human breeders, and not domesticated for our own purposes ( although there might be nothing wrong in it), the more I understand us, humans. I am not a reader, unfortunately, I can even call myself 'bibliophobic" :(. However, I watch, listen, (sometimes read if I am really interested in an issue) but mainly observe to understand "life" . Understanding is meant as 'meaning making ' here, As far as I 'understood" humans have the ability to cover their "wild' instincts with intellectualism, making all the harm they cause 'justifiable', which, I think is a huge talent :) An orca, playing with a seal even if she is not hungry, could also justify her torture by claiming that 'she would teach her children how to hunt' . And maybe she would have even right to do so. We might have domesticated ourselves and became who we are today, but deep inside we are just "intellectual" wolves, I guess :)

thank you fopr the papers Draga.. they are quite interesting..

r.

Others are better qualified than me to argue about the justification for killing the animal in this particular case. In principle, if killing was justified and carried out humanely then in my opinion there was a good case for maximising the educational opportunities that dissecting the specimen provided - provided that the demonstration was done sensitively, for a suitable audience, and in a way that would engage their scientific interest.

P. Rodhouse

Human society is ordered and many activities are performed in a way that the form itself assures human aspects. Even when this is only very formal at various levels of human society (wigs in a court, judges uniform, gown, formal procedures). Various acts, that may be even abominable, but must be performed, if formalized, acquire different important symbolism and meaning that makes them morally possible.

In addition, the giraffe had a name: Marius.

Shell I continue?

Zoos are in the business of saving animals and not public killing.

The only comfort I am having about all this is, Marius and its case would never end up on this beautiful and very effective scientific medium, if he died a normal death. Zoo animals keep on schooling people even if in dramatic ways

As a child, had I seen a healthy animal killed and dissected, I doubt that I would have become a conservation scientist. Many things require unpleasant remediation, but it does not necessitate bringing them into the public eye.

The action was detrimental to zoos and wildlife parks, not only for the senseless decision for public display, but as John O'Brien said, for the fact that the animal was an 'unwanted' birth in the first place. Equally as shocking was the wholehearted support of EAZA for their decision. I was appalled.

Well, let alone a wild animal, which won't harm anybody, even witnessing of religious sacrifice or slaughter for consumption should not be exposed to kids I think. I remember that one of the farmer patients of my father (who was a doctor) one day had brought him a living turkey as gift. The bird was on our back yard for a couple of days, I befriended the animal and called him" Ipshir" a fun sounding name in Turkish. When I came form school one day.t we had a very nice 'chicken dinner' . I had forgotten to say Hello to Ipshir that day. Next day when I looked at the back yard there was only a blood spot on its place where he had been held. Upon asking where he was ( I did not want to believe it being killed, I was 8 years old) one cousin said "hahaha in your stomach !" I will never ever forget my shock. Although I had not witnessed how the turkey had been killed , it took me years to get over it. I can imagine that some of those kids in the Zoo, having some giraffe legs/or organs following them in their dreams !

Dear Leyla

This attitude is incomprehensible and should be combated. The world needs love

Yes, Nelson, but tell it to Putin !!! and the like. On the one hand we are becoming more environment-conscious, animal rights-aware etc etc, on the other hand the world populations are still harboring hatred, tension and so forth. I am afraid we will never stop being 'wild animals' deep inside.

Killing animals in the zoo is a serious change in our culture which is not acceptable for most of us.

And just to prove my earlier point, Copenhagen Zoo has since euthanised two adult lions and two cubs........but this time did not do a dissection in front of the public for "educational" purposes!!

I have to confess that this is my first time taking part in a blog of any sort. What started out as a serious discussion soon became filled with what I believe is termed 'SHOUTING' and quickly degenerated into simple positions strongly held. Very little light has been generated. In the end of the day Copenhagen Zoo must live with the consequences of its actions, all Zoos have to make these decisions from time to time. We must not forget however that 'good' Zoos (of which Copenhagen is certianly one) are part of the conservation community (as are animal rights activists who may care more about individual animals than say species management) and this 'broad church' has to move along together in an attempt to ameliorate the 'real enemy' which is unsustainable development.

Dear Kenneth;

I heard that the same Zoo killed/euthanized some lion cubs recently in order to prevent them from being killed by the "new husband Lion" of their mother. Personally, I think like you that some Zoo's must take some measures , what I was concerning here was, doing it as a public attraction , dismembering the animal in front of children. Otherwise, being a member of Wildlife Stewardship Foundation here in Canada,I don't see any ethical problem with "species and/or wildlife management". My personal "shouting" was because of the "display" of the action.

Let's not forget that the staggering numbers of people that zoos, aquariums, and wildlife parks draw each year. Not everyone has the conservation background that we enjoy and I believe that this fact needs to be taken into consideration. Most zoos are making a concerted effort in engaging in conservation programs (many because they are obligated to do so by their membership to certain organisations, such as EAZA, BIAZA, etc.). A bit of prudence and lots of educating the public as to the reason such actions take place could avoid huge controversies as the one in Denmark.

I do not agree with their actions, neither as a conservation scientist, nor as one who reveres all life forms. Euthanising an animal does not need to be public and European zoos should take a lesson from the USA and exercise more contraceptive measures when it is species appropriate.

Denise

To be euthanasia, the act of killing should have been "in the interests of the animal". Do you think instead of letting the lions at still alive giraffe, the act of killing a giraffe - before giving it to the lions - constituted euthanasia?

Please see the attached paper. Please do not use the noble expression "euthanasia" for a simple killing. The fact that the Nazi did this, should prevent us of doing it again.

Dragan example of the Nazi reminds me when the Chinese "euthanised" female children because "surplus" to their society. Should we "euthanize" animals, mammals in particular, for same reasons?

Today zoos have several means to prevent or avoid the elimination of "surplus" animals as they ought to. Their pivotal role in wildlife husbandry oblige them to its conservation. What's happened at Copenhagen zoo unfortunately it's becoming more the rule rather than the exception amongst some zoos, perhaps because it is cheap, not time consuming, brain effortless and now even...educational. But that practice (named protocol in such zoos) remains deeply wrong, damaging and contagious.

Is Homo sapiens evolving into Homo rapiens?

Francesco

I explain in the article when we can use the expression "euthanasia" when killing animals. Those are very rare situations. Manly we do not euthanize (!) but kill animals for food, in research, and because of other justified reasons. The educational reasons may be also accepted. In Copenhagen, this was NOT the case.

The people from the Copenhagen zoo, and many other people, even on this site, approve of such acts. I do not think they are evil. They just do not know enough. If we, humans, can produce and then believe to have a justification, or anything that may look like or sound like or remind us of, a justification, we then even kill other human beings and claim to have done it - for "their benefits". Just look around.

Instead of reading obscure philosophical papers I suggest people go to their local zoo and ask how animal management works.l also suspect that many of those posting on this site are against zoos anyway and will not be persuaded by rational argument.

I also object to the line of argument that uses terms like 'Nazis' - unless one of course it talking about Nazis. Usually in debate when these terms are used it marks the end of meaningful dialogue, to show how absurd this term is in this context I should note that Hitler would have approved of condeming the animal euthansia, being a vegetarian and animal lover. The same goes for the use of the term 'evil', this is a value judgement and as Ian Kershaw in his great book on Hitler has noted, its use does nothing to help us undertand why these things occured or indeed how to prevent reoccurence.

Kenneth

You are probably wrong.

Kenneth's comment is inappropriate.

How I deserved to receive from Kenneth the above insults? I suggest that Kenneth GETS OFF this site, publishes his first articles (50 would be enough), learns something, and try to come back to this noble community.

bullying may well be your style but it doesn't improve your arguments I think you have proved my point admirably

Show us your science, please.

Ditto to my comment above

Dragan, could you please revert to scientific discussion on the topic at hand and refrain from bully-boy tactics against other contributors - and if you are wondering, I am the person who has voted down two of your previous three comments. I find them incredibly inappropriate.

John

Not knowing the debate about euthanasia, somebody mentioned above euthanasia. Unfortunately, the term was wrongly used. However, this is relevant for the present discussion. The discussion about appropriateness of the use of the term is based on the Nazi employment of the term during the 2nd World War. I cited my article that treats the problem. For a minimal explanation of the arguments involved it was required that the term "Nazi" would be mentioned. Kenneth, while ignoring also the essence of the debate, wanted that we do not use that particular term. Yet, he introduced, in his comment, more similar terms that were in fact not needed. He turned the discussion in a wrong direction because he apparently did not read the relevant article(s) - something what is needed to be able to understand the arguments. I advice you also to read either my article or other articles related to the problem of euthanasia. I am sorry, I consider your intervention also aggressive and "bully-boy " too. All this is a result of ignorance and I hope not a result of some unfriendly intentions of yours.

Dragan,

Re: your msg. to me.

I agree with you and I found your comments exhaustive and marked by keenness and accuracy of perception.

Kenneth,

Re: your suspect about some being against zoos.

I am former zoo director and supporter of ex situ conservation. As such my negative opinion on what's happened at Copenhagen and some other zoos. I see nothing wrong in reviewing zoos rules.