Giraffe put down in Copenhagen

[Mr Clowning]

Having grown up on a farm I perfectly understand the idea that animals are food.

 

The zoo may well feed goats to the lions, but do they televise the process? No. This whole process was there to make the zoo as much publicity as possible.

 

This giraffe was bred as an attraction. To bring people through the gates and to make the zoo money. Once it had passed the cute stage the zoo decided to see it as nothing more than a walking meal.

 

The fact remains that they did not need to do this. They were here not looking for a way to dispose of a carcass. This was not some old animal that needed to be put down. They chose to kill a perfectly healthy animal for publicity.

So its just because it was a Giraffe ?

You know they do this to goats don't you, this was not a publicity stunt, it was a practice that they were doing frequently up to this point.

 

The Giraffe had bad genes, probably a brother and sister Giraffe got it on (you being on a farm should know this is bad for the gene pool) and they felt it should be put down, pretty much like a pedigree dog breeder may do.

 

In the wild Lions eat Giraffes, so I don't see the big deal, at least they didn't stick it in the lion enclosure and let them at it while it was still alive.

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2014 at 15:42 ----------

 

Spare me your cod psychology, Mr Clowning. You know nothing about me. I've lived and worked on a farm, dairy herd admittedly but they still had to go for slaughter at times, when they were too old, for instance. This giraffe thing is totally different, an infant, perfectly healthy and with alternatives offered by other zoos and wildlife parks. And if it wasn't some sort of 'pet', they wouldn't have given it a name, it would have just been known by its listed book number, like all bred for consumption animals are.

 

Hey and guess what ...in the real world, they still chop up animal carcases in the 21st century. In the butchers a couple of doors down from where I work out of, they have cow and pig carcases delivered a couple of time a week and they cut them up right there in the window!

 

And sorry to disappoint you, I don't keep cats, or pet animals of any sort. But I still recognise a cynical, coldhearted, moneymaking ploy when I read about one. And I don't have to not be a meat eater, or not wear leather, to be able to say I don't like it and I don't have to accept it tamely. You carry on excusing it though, it's your right to have your opinion.

Thank you I will, and you feel free to have an emotional attachment to it or response if I do

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2014 at 15:51 ----------

the whole thing is totally bent, because in Africa, lions not feed as prey on giraffes. Like elephants, they are too big and they cannot take them on even a pride of lions cannot take on a giraffe. Ever been there? All that stuff about lions being 'kings of the jungle' is nonsense that was circulated in British imperialist schoolboy Biggles-type novels, and textbooks.

 

 

http://youtu.be/phRwK0521y4

 

I was going to look for one of those clips as I knew they did.

 

This sort of misinformation to prove a point needs nipping in the bud or we will all be believing in Fairies and Father Christmas if we are not careful.

[salsafan]

Spare me your cod psychology, Mr Clowning. You know nothing about me. I've lived and worked on a farm, dairy herd admittedly but they still had to go for slaughter at times, when they were too old, for instance. This giraffe thing is totally different, an infant, perfectly healthy and with alternatives offered by other zoos and wildlife parks. And if it wasn't some sort of 'pet', they wouldn't have given it a name, it would have just been known by its listed book number, like all bred for consumption animals are.

 

Hey and guess what ...in the real world, they still chop up animal carcases in the 21st century. In the butchers a couple of doors down from where I work out of, they have cow and pig carcases delivered a couple of time a week and they cut them up right there in the window!

 

And sorry to disappoint you, I don't keep cats, or pet animals of any sort. But I still recognise a cynical, coldhearted, moneymaking ploy when I read about one. And I don't have to not be a meat eater, or not wear leather, to be able to say I don't like it and I don't have to accept it tamely. You carry on excusing it though, it's your right to have your opinion.

But that is the thing though, that animal was bred for genetic reasons. So why should the establishment that bred him not take responsibility for him too? Why are so many other entities only saw the emotive factor? Maybe he was bred with a disease or he has a certain DNA which the breeder cannot and will not disclose to other entities for legal reasons ? Why do so many assume that the bred animal can indeed be "saved" ?

 

It is actually a very ethical thing done on the part of the Danish Zoo because then if they released this animal and he was bred, then this is really playing with mother nature, right ?

 

I never used to see zoos as a scientific research place and keeping possible DNAs alive, in case anything happens in the wild and so forth. But I do see the importance of zoo now, in preserving an animal's DNA for the better. In case the way human tampers with animal changes over the course of our lifetime.

 

It is indeed one of a hard ethical discussion, but the Danish zoo made their decision, so I would assume that others would respect their decision on that.

 

I actually find it quite surprising the high number of emotive responses from others. I thought that maturity is transcending our own emotive side and actually also allow us to take on responsible decisions as a citizen.

 

Pets are different. Pets are just tools used by busy parents that cannot provide the emotional connection to their own children, so much so that they need a pet to look after. When really, parents should indeed teach their own children to also integrate and play safe and play well with other kids in a co-operative way. I do not know what I find worst. To see others use animals as an anchor in life, or to see animals bred for research and DNA testing. Also, why do people care more about animals in this day and age, than they care about their fellow humans and citizens' welfare or emotional well-being?

[natjack]

Also, why do people care more about animals in this day and age, than they care about their fellow humans and citizens' welfare or emotional well-being?

Please don't make these sweeping generalisations about people you know nothing about. Otherwise you might find that people start making them about you.

 

What they said was that it was genetically uninteresting as they had several other giraffes with similar or the same genes. There was nothing wrong with the animal, and it was offered a home here in Yorkshire, where it would have lived with a group, and one in Holland, as well as a private individual prepared to buy it.

Spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro said the zoo had seven giraffes left, many of whom had similar genes for breeding as Marius.

 

I just find it sad that many people seem to find it acceptable to kill a healthy animal, not bred for food, because it's no longer making money for the zoo and surplus to requirements. And aren't you even prepared to concede that it's not a good lesson to teach small children, let alone chopping it up in front of them? That wouldn't normally happen to a toddler even one living on a farm.

 

Mind you, this is a country that tolerates one of their protectorates, the Faroe Islands, herding pilot whales ashore and allowing their young people to butcher them with knives, in the shallows, as some sort of rite of passage. So we shouldn't really be surprised that they allow toddlers to watch an autopsy and butchery of another wild animal, before seeing it thrown to the lions.

[salsafan]

Please don't make these sweeping generalisations about people you know nothing about. Otherwise you might find that people start making them about you.

Ah, do you see the light? Cos to me, I also judge them by what they are advocating than what they are not advocating too. (Raises eyebrow.)

 

What they said was that it was genetically uninteresting as they had several other giraffes with similar or the same genes. There was nothing wrong with the animal, and it was offered a home here in Yorkshire, where it would have lived with a group, and one in Holland, as well as a private individual prepared to buy it.

 

I just find it sad that many people seem to find it acceptable to kill a healthy animal, not bred for food, because it's no longer making money for the zoo and surplus to requirements. And aren't you even prepared to concede that it's not a good lesson to teach small children, let alone chopping it up in front of them? That wouldn't normally happen to a toddler even one living on a farm.

But then you are advocating that I should respect your wishes over that of the Zoo's of which they are entitled to a high degree. It is their right what they should do with the animal as they bred it themselves, according to their own policies. So instead, are you actually advocating that I should disrespect this aspect as a person because my personal feelings is and should be stronger than that of the Zoo's own policies, and their governance ? Does that sound right to you? It does not sound right to me.

 

To be honest with you, I probably have my own personal opinion on the matter about what is ethical or not, but that does not have a position in this kind of scenario. Maybe you think you do, and should have a right on how the zoo run their show, but I don't.

 

If I have children, I would indeed think very carefully whether to take them to this zoo to see the giraffe be passed down, but I also know that it is rather important for children to know that food is food, and people need to be respected, and loved. As well as not associating their feelings to an animal. Children are indeed innocent and they do indeed have a lot of love to give too. But I would never raise them in a way to channel it into pets, and remove their love and affection away from their own families. People are meant to be loved. Animals are meant to be looked after. Food is food, and need a responsibility associated to it.

 

Actually, it is funny that you mentioned that you were raised on a farm. My family also had farms too, and through different generations. So I have seen my mother kill and prepare a chicken and I have also seen her giving absolute tender loving care to ensure that they are safe through different stages of their growth also. It is also possibly why I champion so much on food, and is a good food snob and I detest people "marketing" bad food to give to people which would then give them an illness. To me, I know what responsibility means.

 

Mind you, this is a country that tolerates one of their protectorates, the Faroe Islands, herding pilot whales ashore and allowing their young people to butcher them with knives, in the shallows, as some sort of rite of passage. So we shouldn't really be surprised that they allow toddlers to watch an autopsy and butchery of another wild animal, before seeing it thrown to the lions.

I often think and wonder what the heck went wrong in this country.

 

We have supposed food activists. We have extremism. We have "activists" who are more acceptable than your typical "extremists" in society. We have "religious haters". Yet, we love animals. Yet we fight amongst ourselves and hate one another, than being loving individuals as society members. How did society went wrong here ? What is left for any individual to do in this supposed society? No wonder the young are suicidal. No wonder sarcasm, and displacement of affection is actually revered, but yet showing your love for a fellow being is so out of the norm and inappropiate, and one must have this strong stiff upper lip and plough on in angst.

 

Of course, we are better than the Danes, cos we are eccentric "Brits".

[natjack]

I'm at a total loss as to how to answer that rant, salsafan, as anything I could say would be an obvious waste of my time, so I'll just instead.

 

[Boothybabe]

I think that if there didn't need to be animals killed to feed the big cats anyway, or the species was endangered in any way, or the particular animal was particularly needed for genetic diversity in captive breeding then I would see a reason to start moving giraffes between countries with all of the expense and risk involved in that.

 

However, the big cats do need to eat, giraffe numbers are healthy in the wild and they are also breeding at record numbers in captivity and this was precipitated because he needed to be removed from where he was because of genetic inbreeding (so genetically he may not have been healthy anyway).

 

So this begs the question, is the life of this giraffe more valuable than the cows, sheep or impala that would otherwise have to be killed to feed the big cats?

 

I agree, maybe its time to start killing more dogs and cats instead of wasting time and money keeping them just to recycle them with new owners, as long as they have no diseases then they should be lion fodder.

[natjack]

I agree, maybe its time to start killing more dogs and cats instead of wasting time and money keeping them just to recycle them with new owners, as long as they have no diseases then they should be lion fodder.

I don't think it matters that much if they are diseased, does it? In the wild most of the prey caught is old or sick, after all. It's all meat in the end. I guess provided it's a quick and painless end, good point, Boothy.

 

I have to admit I don't like to see the way some of these rescues keep animals alive that have been badly injured or suffer from congenital diseases or diseases of old age. Why should they have to suffer, they're not people.

[Boothybabe]

I don't think it matters that much if they are diseased, does it? In the wild most of the prey caught is old or sick, after all. It's all meat in the end. I guess provided it's a quick and painless end, good point, Boothy.

 

I have to admit I don't like to see the way some of these rescues keep animals alive that have been badly injured or suffer from congenital diseases or diseases of old age. Why should they have to suffer, they're not people.

 

Exactly, they are just animals, or meat.

[SHYTOT]

We ate giraffe on a trip to the Kruger. They aren't exactly endangered.

[Mr Clowning]

We ate giraffe on a trip to the Kruger. They aren't exactly endangered.

 

What did you call it ?