Copenhagen Zoo and Marius the Giraffe

I found this interesting in the sense it brought up an ethical question regarding the treatment of animals and also what children should be exposed to when it comes to education in regards to the realistic outlook of the world.

For those who do not know, the Copenhagen Zoo killed one of their healthy and young giraffes, which was considered a 'surplus animal' - zoo animals that exceed the recommended population. Now killing surplus animals is a common occurrence with zoos and usually their bodies are given to any carnivores at the zoo.  The specific giraffe killed was chosen based on the probability that it was likely to cause inbreeding disorders within the giraffe population. What is the primary cause of the controversy is that the Copenhagen Zoo decided to perform a live autopsy of the giraffe before they fed the remains to the lions of their zoo, which additionally was a public viewing for all ages. Two other zoos offered to take the giraffe but the Copenhagen Zoo declined on the grounds that the offering zoos did not match the standards that they believed are required for giraffes. Animal rights activists are now condemning the killing and public autopsy and demonstrators assembled outside of the zoo on the day of the giraffe's killing.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26118748
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/10/world/europe/denmark-zoo-giraffe/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/copenhagen-zoo-kills-healthy-giraffe-front-children-article-1.1609146

They could have given it to other zoos instead of killing the poor thing but beside that, nothing bad.
We do live autopsy of Human so why not animals?

We don't normally invite children to live autopsies.

Its only an autopsy.
And its educative.

Why bar the children from it?

Copenhagen Zoo has an educational purpose and this is a perfect opportunity for children (and adults) to learn.

You dislike the killing of this giraffe? Then get off your lazy ass
and start protesting the treatment of animals who are actually mistreated!

Agree with Adorno.

+1

Just look at all of those scrunched up disgusted faces in the background. I bet they all eat meat bought from the supermarket or local butchers. Copenhagen Zoo did a good thing, in my opinion.

Yeah. People are too disconnected from their food sources.

I ate an intact fish during New Years.
Man, it was really hard to eat it without looking into that cold empty eye staring back at me.

Meh. Call me a bleeding heart idealist, but my opinion is that zoos exist to protect the animals within them, regardless of species. Make them incapable of reproduction if you have too many. I voted "No."

Your avatar made that comment sound weird.

Zoo have never been about protection more so about more/less education.
They are (generally) highly regulated, and the animals aren't allowed to suffer (in the more well funded, regulated ones anyway.)

Their actual purpose differs from my idealistic purpose. I don't see why they couldn't have just given it to some zoo that was lacking in its giraffe population and dissected the next one that died naturally.

The other Giraffes may not have liked it, and it died a painless death and was a service to the future education of humanity.
You have to admit, it has heightened the importance of Animal welfare, even though like most modern idealistic fads...very temporarily.

People who jump on this sicken me, most likley because they wouldn't ****ing bother to care about **** like this unless it was dumped on them.
It;s why so many animal right charities have to run so many ****ing comercials.

People actually complain about the ****ing commercials 

This reminds me of a video of some people in america hunting ostriches with atlatls in a reserve. The comment section was chaos, with comment after comment saying that the hunters should be given the same treatment. The rationale was that atlatls aren't too deadly and tend to maim rather than kill or pin to the ground, and also that the animals were being bred to be hunted.

If people can see graphic details for themselves, it suddenly becomes inhumane, and a public outcry. At the very least, those hunters gave the animals a chance to escape, which is more than can be said for processed cows. In the same way, they killed this giraffe humanely and used it to try and break this barrier we've put up between ourselves and meat, which is more than can be said for some of the more poorly run zoos I've visited.

As someone who grew up eating fish heads and chicken feet, there's certainly reason to let young people see where their meat comes from.

They killed it humanely? I thought they shot it in the head with a shotgun.

Personally, I don't see much purpose for killing it in this manner, or at all, since so many other zoos had said they would take the animal.
Honestly, you aren't going to teach 6-9 year olds anything whatsoever by showing them a bloody carcass.

You guys keep saying it will educate, but I'm pretty sure it only scared those kids. A live dissection for children, and a tasty meal for the lions.
Honestly, it is just one giraffe, but I'm almost certain they did it like this to piss off all the animal rights organizations. It seems a bit over the top.

Mage246 said:

They killed it humanely? I thought they shot it in the head with a shotgun.

Click to expand...

Wat. A controlled pop to the brain is perfectly humane.

Mage246 said:

They killed it humanely? I thought they shot it in the head with a shotgun.

Click to expand...

They gave it its favorite food and shot it in the head, not sure with what gun.

If we euthanized pets with a shotgun to the head, you don't think people would have a problem with that?