• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Copenhagen zoo sparks outrage by killing healthy giraffe named Marius

CRUE CAB said:
Yea, she lied about that. Pfffft cover your ass with insults. Nice try.
Click to expand...

What can I say, if she is saying the AZA doesn't allow the culling of animals to manage genetic diversity then she is a liar
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
What can I say, if she is saying the AZA doesn't allow the culling of animals to manage genetic diversity then she is a liar
Click to expand...

OK, you keep saying whatever it is you are saying in strictly lay mans terms. She is a college educated person working in the field. You are not.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, it was also the position of the EAZA, the organization actually managing the larger program and stud book
Click to expand...

According the the BBC report the decision was that of the Zoo director and the EAZA merely backed his decision:

"The EAZA spokesman said it stood fully behind the decision by Copenhagen Zoo to euthanise Marius."

That doesn't sound like the organization was the one calling the shots.

actually when you join a group like the aza or EAZA these are the terms you agree to.
Click to expand...

Apparently not. There is nothing in the rationalization of the killing of the animal that says anything about a legal obligation to not sell the animal to an interested private zoo. It is all fear of mistreatment which is bonkers as a rationalization for killing the animal.

I just explained that to you: there are numerous concerns from treatment, to aiding and masking smuggling programs
Click to expand...

That's true... you never know when you might sell an animal to someone who would just shoot it in the head. :roll:

they are talking about future breeding events that would prevent such offspring, not about how to handle this situation
Click to expand...

No they weren't. It clearly states that sedation and castration had been considered but that the giraffe might break its neck.

But let's follow your interpretation for a second, if it wasn't considered in this case then why wasn't it? You can't claim they made a rational decision and then argue they never considered an obvious alternative to killing the animal.
 
jmotivator said:
That doesn't sound like the organization was the one calling the shots.
Click to expand...

The EAZA establishes the guidlines they need to operate under. So yes, the EAZA is essentially calling th shots. And clearly culling the animal was "also the position of the EAZA"


Apparently not. There is nothing in the rationalization of the killing of the animal that says anything about a legal obligation to not sell the animal to an interested private zoo. It is all fear of mistreatment which is bonkers as a rationalization for killing the animal.
Click to expand...

Do you understand how difficult it is to properly house a large animal like a Giraffe? And yes, killing the animal is much preferable to housing it in substandard and abusive conditions. It's one of the reasons we euthanize stray dogs, cats, and the various exotic animals ****heads buy as pets.

No they weren't. It clearly states that sedation and castration had been considered but that the giraffe might break its neck.
Click to expand...

<<<***So why not prevent closely related animals from breeding in the first place?***

Contraception and castration have been raised as possibilities, but both would require sedation. This is a relatively high-risk procedure in the case of giraffes, as they are liable to break their necks when they fall while sedated.

Mr Jebram told AP that in the past few years a contraceptive has been developed that can be injected into females from a distance.

But the EAZA spokesman said: "Contraception is in its infancy for giraffes and there are significant side-effects with certain drugs, such as irreversibility. This means we would lose vital animals in terms of breeding.

"We have to weigh up all the considerations, but we have a limited amount of space in which to conduct this endangered species breeding programme.">>>
 
Lerxst said:
On the surface it is disturbing. But there was a reason the animal was not transferred or sold. Here is some insight.

BBC News - Why did Copenhagen Zoo kill its giraffe?
Click to expand...
Yep, you can tell who reads the articles and who doesn't. It turns out no other zoo was willing to take him til right at the last. This is the part that really stood out to me and I agree with wholeheartedly....

“I know the giraffe is a nice looking animal, but I don't think there would have been such an outrage if it had been an antelope, and I don't think anyone would have lifted an eyebrow if it was a pig,” Bengt Holst, the zoo’s scientific director, told the AP.
Click to expand...
The tragic death of one silly giraffe, Marius, has world in uproar - latimes.com
 
Summerwind said:
Yep, you can tell who reads the articles and who doesn't. It turns out no other zoo was willing to take him til right at the last.
Click to expand...

that really shouldn't have much bearing on anything though
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
that really shouldn't have much bearing on anything though
Click to expand...
You're getting no disagreement from me on this topic. You're handling it fine. Enjoy because usually I'm no where near in agreement with you. I even gave you a like, miracles do happen. :)
 
People forget that when you decide to care for animals like this you have to manage the herd or bad things will happen. Inbreeding is one of them. And I'm glad their zoo's belong to an organization that has rules in place to ensure the health and welfare of the overall population. The rules are simply the rules.

People don't lose their **** when a bird gets killed. But when a cute dog gets put down it's game on. Animals are animals. Not to sound cold but zoo's exist because people want to go see exotic (to them) animals in captivity. Those same people must accept that population management is required, even if it has an ugly side to it at times. The fact that they fed the carcass to big cats isn't something to get upset about. The cats would have eaten him in the wild if they'd have been able to get to him and bring him down.

I know we don't like to see this side of zoo life, but it is what it is.
 
should have just neutered him if they didn't want him screwing. i heard the dude on NPR; he said killing was the only option due to undesirable genetic traits, and that the giraffe would be taking up space that a giraffe with better genes could occupy. i find it hard to believe that nobody thought that some creepy giraffe eugenics program wouldn't catch fire in the media. listening to the guy, though, it was apparent that he was probably oblivious to the potential for media scrutiny.

if aliens ever visit here, we will be in their zoos.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
The EAZA establishes the guidlines they need to operate under. So yes, the EAZA is essentially calling th shots. And clearly culling the animal was "also the position of the EAZA"
Click to expand...

And what qualifications do you have to claim something that is nowhere to be found in the news stories? All clearly state the Zoo made the call and none of them say his hands were tied by any contract with EAZA,

Do you understand how difficult it is to properly house a large animal like a Giraffe? And yes, killing the animal is much preferable to housing it in substandard and abusive conditions. It's one of the reasons we euthanize stray dogs, cats, and the various exotic animals ****heads buy as pets.
Click to expand...

What need would I have to know how hard it is to house a giraffe when A ZOO WAS OFFERING TO TAKE THE GIRAFFE? I bet the Yorkshire Zoo knew what it was offering.

<<<Repost of absurd Justifications>>
Click to expand...

If your goal is just to nod your head and repeat whatever the Zoo says you can take a break from the thread since we are all getting that crap direct from the source.
 
And so it begins.

Marius the giraffe: Copenhagen Zoo staff get death threats - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Staff at a Danish zoo where a healthy giraffe was euthanized have received death threats as debate rages online over the killing, which took place despite a petition signed by thousands of animal lovers.
Several staff members were targeted after the animal, named Marius, was put down, Copenhagen Zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbæk Bro told CNN on Monday. He added that Bengt Holst, director of research and conservation at Copenhagen Zoo "received threats via telephone and e-mails."
Click to expand...
 
How many people expressing horror in this thread ate a cheeseburger today?
 
Crazy thought...return the animal to the wild?
 
KevinKohler said:
Crazy thought...return the animal to the wild?
Click to expand...

I was thinking about why not just neuter him, but it looks like that was an issue as well.
 
Deuce said:
Animals raised in captivity generally wont survive in the wild.
Click to expand...

They survive a lot longer in the wild than they do in Copenhagen Zoos, apparently!
 
Cruel, twisted, horrific, unnecessary abuse of an animal that trusted his caretakers. Truly vomit-inducing. There were so many options available, including neutering and shipping to one of the many qualified zoos/wildlife preserves that wanted to have him. Just seems like a bloody public spectacle for the sake of it, by people who have no heart and no conscience. :(
 
jmotivator said:
And what qualifications do you have to claim something that is nowhere to be found in the news stories? All clearly state the Zoo made the call and none of them say his hands were tied by any contract with EAZA
Click to expand...

Several article posted here, even one from you, made it clear they were following EAZA guidlines

<<<He said the zoo had followed the recommendation of the EAZA to put down Marius because there were already a lot of giraffes with similar genes in the organisation's breeding programme.>>>
BBC News - Why did Copenhagen Zoo kill its giraffe?

<<<A spokesman for EAZA stressed that, as an individual, Marius was not particularly inbred, nor was the giraffe suffering from any identifiable health problem....
....He said all alternatives were looked at, but none were found to be viable, describing euthanising animals as a "last resort". When the future survival of a species was at stake, he said, unpalatable decisions sometimes had to be made.>>>
BBC News - Why did Copenhagen Zoo kill its giraffe?

What need would I have to know how hard it is to house a giraffe when A ZOO WAS OFFERING TO TAKE THE GIRAFFE? I bet the Yorkshire Zoo knew what it was offering.
Click to expand...

this was already explained to you numerous times ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hy-giraffe-named-marius-2.html#post1062903254
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hy-giraffe-named-marius-3.html#post1062903494

If your goal is just to nod your head and repeat whatever the Zoo says you can take a break from the thread since we are all getting that crap direct from the source.
Click to expand...

actually I was explaining to you, for the third time, that in the article you posted, their reference to using contraception was for future breeding projects and not in reference to the Giraffe being that was recently killed. This is because you have been arguing that it was in reference to the Giraffe that was culled
 
jmotivator said:
They survive a lot longer in the wild than they do in Copenhagen Zoos, apparently!
Click to expand...

lol, yes, because we all know nature is a bunch of fuzzy bunnies and populated by reformed carnivores that harvest sky marshmallows in their magic cloud cars.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Several article posted here, even one from you, made it clear they were following EAZA guidlines

<<<still posting articles that don't say what you say they do>>>
Click to expand...

That article is the one already quoted in which an EAZA spokesmen said the "support the decision", not that they made the decision. And at least one EAZA member zoo thought it was OK to take in the giraffe.

Also since you dodged the question it is safe to say you have no actual experience with the EAZA and its policies and are only making claims about these mandates that dictated Marius needed to be killed out of thin air?



this was already explained to you numerous times ...

(multiple links to the same story already linked)
Click to expand...


Where does that article state the EAZA mandate is to cull unneeded animals?

actually I was explaining to you, for the third time, that in the article you posted, their reference to using contraception was for future breeding projects and not in reference to the Giraffe being that was recently killed. This is because you have been arguing that it was in reference to the Giraffe that was culled
Click to expand...

You can't read. Seriously. They discussed this BEFORE THE ANIMAL WAS DEAD and decided that the risk was that it might break it's neck. Unless of course you think that the day when the giraffe was shot and skinned in front of I live audience was the first anyone said "hey.... maybe we could have just castrated him!" ... in which case your "There was a rational discussion" flies out the window because the group that did this would have had to be complete idiots and incapable of actually thinking rationally.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, yes, because we all know nature is a bunch of fuzzy bunnies and populated by reformed carnivores that harvest sky marshmallows in their magic cloud cars.
Click to expand...

Yeah, nature is far more dangerous to giraffes than a bullet in the brain. :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
That article is the one already quoted in which an EAZA spokesmen said the "support the decision"
Click to expand...

<<<He said the zoo had followed the recommendation of the EAZA>>>

<<<A spokesman for EAZA stressed that...describing euthanising animals as a "last resort". When the future survival of a species was at stake, he said, unpalatable decisions sometimes had to be made.>>>


not that they made the decision
Click to expand...

they were based on EAZA guidlines


And at least one EAZA member zoo thought it was OK to take in the giraffe.
Click to expand...

And the EAZA agreed with the Danish zoo that culling was preferable and correct course ...


Also since you dodged the question it is safe to say you have no actual experience with the EAZA and its policies and are only making claims about these mandates that dictated Marius needed to be killed out of thin air?
Click to expand...

On genetic management EAZA and AZA guidelines are pretty universal


Where does that article state the EAZA mandate is to cull unneeded animals?
Click to expand...

<<<***A spokesman for EAZA***... He said all alternatives were looked at, but none were found to be viable, describing euthanising animals as a "last resort". When the future survival of a species was at stake, he said, unpalatable decisions sometimes had to be made.

"We need to prioritise - wherever possible - individuals who can help safeguard that future over the long term," said the spokesman.>>>

You can't read. Seriously
Click to expand...

No, I cited the exact text for you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom