Let's Feed the Giraffe to the Lions!
 

Because genetically, he's not as varied, and hence not as valuable, as they want.

So the Zoo in Denmark, gives the healthy 18 month old giraffe, the old bolt gun to the head, and kill him.

Then, they put on a display for the zoo visitors, on how to cut him up for food for the Lions, and other zoo carnivores. :mad:

They were offered up to $600,000 for him, including one from a wildlife park, but refused it. So much better to straight away kill him, and make a spectacle for the kiddies, how to butcher up a big animal. :eek:

And they're surprised that zoo personnel are now getting death threats from animal lovers. You know, those animal lovers who love to visit the zoo, and thus financially support it.

That is some fucked up zoo!

Denmark zoo, where's the respect for life? You have old bulls (Marius was a male), with similar genes, but they are OLD. By the time Marius is mature, you might need a replacement for one of them.

Attachment 46808

Attachment 46809

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eds-lions.html

It seems like a good idea to me.

Is it worse to kill a healthy (but genetically messed up) giraffe and feed it to a bunch of hungry carnivores or kill a healthy cow and feeding it to said carnivores?

I'd be most concerned with the reasoning behind the refusal to sell it. Are they not allowed? Were the potential buyers judged unable to care for it properly?

they should have let the lions kill it.

Wrong Jack, the kids that age can understand, better than adults in many cases. They're more accepting of the way things are.
When are you going to tell them the world doesn't work like Disney cartoons, in High School?

he wasn't messed up genetically. He was just too closely related to the current stock to allow further inbreeding. He was healthy and could have been sent to another zoo to add to their breeding stock (as far as I understand anyway).

The decision to feed the dead giraffe to the lions and allow the kids to see him cut up I don;t have a problem with. Had it been an old and unhealthy animal, then that was probably a useful way to teach them.

But he was young and healthy. There was no need to kill him in the first place.

My understanding was that he was not suitable to breed in any places which had the capacity to take him. Rather than force him into an unnatural life of celibacy, they took the decision to cull in a humane fashion.
He got longer than many animals in the wild. Certainly longer than many animals bred for meat.

I was appalled when I first heard the story.
Then I heard a very poor interview on BBC 5Live - not up to their usual standard at all - and began asking myself questions. I have slowly changed my mind (5Live actually asked the Director of the Zoo, who had been in post for 30 years, whether he liked animals! Terrible journalism.)

And I think the subsequent butchery showed real respect for the animal.

Why kill off the old giraffes Adak? This was the giraffe surplus to requirement, not the old chaps who can possibly still breed (this is assumption on my part) and are an important part of the herd. Don't kill off the older statesmen just for being old.

Ahh. I misunderstood the situation then. I thought he was only unable to breed with their stock because of genetic similarity.

Don't quote me on that, but it's what I got from reading around.
For example Yorkshire Zoo wanted him, but they already have his brother. Which would mean only one of them could breed, otherwise this situation would occur again with their offspring.

Female giraffes have to outnumber males to live naturally.
So you see it's Marius's fault for being born a randy male giraffe in the first place.

KILL THE PIG!
DRINK ITS BLOOD!
KILL THE PIG!
DRINK ITS BLOOD!
KILL THE PIG!
DRINK ITS BLOOD!

Does this mean I will have to keep looking over my shoulder for fear of someone with a captive bolt gun following me?

I think I should be told:scream:

I'm old and celibate.
And I don't even have the conch.

Can giraffes not be neutered? I mean, he wouldn't have to be celibate, just snipped beforehand.

You mean the world DOESN'T work like the Disney cartoons? :eek:

Yes, of course they can. Simple to do. Ranchers and wranglers do it to their extra males, all the time. Vets aren't even needed once you know how.

They said they didn't want to neuter Marius because he might fall when sedated, and break his neck. Never heard of a Clydesdale stallion falling when sedated, and breaking their neck, and they weigh a lot more than Marius.

When you sedate an animal that might fall and injure itself, you give it an initial mild dose of sedative - the animal walks around a bit, and lays down. Then you give the rest of the sedative, if needed. A local anesthetic (at most), is all you need for the neutering itself, and it's quick.

The idea I had with the old bulls is NOT to cull one of them, but to anticipate that one of them might die of natural causes/accidents, by the time that Marius was mature.

Jack Hanna didn't understand the Copenhagen Zoo situation completely. They did not breed to get Marius. His mom was already pregnant with him, when the zoo acquired her. He was quite the surprise arrival. ;)

The giraffe breeding program was begun to ensure the survival of this threatened (sub) species of giraffe. It's been very successful. So why not begin returning the "excess" giraffe's to their native habitat in Africa? That is the goal of the program. Marius's gene's would not be a duplicate in the wild.

Killing a product of a breeding program, because the animal is "excess" genetically, shows that they don't understand the goal of a breeding program. They say they want to return them to the wild - so why didn't they return Marius?

Lions and tigers can eat and thrive on a wide variety of raw meat. They shouldn't be fed a threatened (sub) species.

I'm sure most zoo's do a certain amount of culling of their herbivores, to prevent them from over-population, and to provide almost free meat for the carnivores. Disney-like fantasies are not a factor here.