• 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

Yeah, nature is far more dangerous to giraffes than a bullet in the brain. :roll:

As I explained above, the concern about releasing captive specimens is more dependent on infectious diseases. Particularly, novel pathogens like chytrid and rana virus that remain relatively unknown until they reach catastrophic levels of infection and threaten to wipe out entire species. In the above instance, I was just making fun of your notion that a zoo environment is more dangerous than it's natural environment with active predators.
 
<<<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.>>>

Recommendations aren't mandates. So much for your "he had to!" argument.


they were based on EAZA guidlines

"based on" doesn't mean he was required to do it? You have tried to argue that there was some unavoidable compulsion -- you even claimed a fellow board member's sister was a liar for saying there was no compulsion -- and now you are trying to weasel out of it.

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


So? Would they have agreed with him had he sent Marius to the UK zoo?


On genetic management EAZA and AZA guidelines are pretty universal


How would you know?


<<<***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.>>>

And I am rejecting the idiotic rationale to exclude the non-lethal alternatives.


No, I cited the exact text for you

Which doesn't say what you want it you.
 
As I explained above, the concern about releasing captive specimens is more dependent on infectious diseases. Particularly, novel pathogens like chytrid and rana virus that remain relatively unknown until they reach catastrophic levels of infection and threaten to wipe out entire species. In the above instance, I was just making fun of your notion that a zoo environment is more dangerous than it's natural environment with active predators.

If only science was advanced enough to test for such pathogens! Alas here we are trapped in the 1800s. :roll:

(Pro-tip: The giraffe was found to he perfectly healthy before it was killed and animals are released safely to the wild all the time.)
 
Look guys, hate to be harsh here, but there are alot of terrible things going on in the world we should be more concerned with than a ****ing Giraffe.
 
Look guys, hate to be harsh here, but there are alot of terrible things going on in the world we should be more concerned with than a ****ing Giraffe.

Like what? Hmmm... <checks Jetboogieman's post history> ... hmmm... DMX boxing Zimmerman?! Bill Nye debating some preacher on evolution!?

<Looks at Headlines Forum> Whoa... rainbow flag over Montreal City Hall?! MICHAEL SAM IS GAY!?

Oh man.. do I feel silly now.
 
Like what? Hmmm... <checks Jetboogieman's post history> ... hmmm... DMX boxing Zimmerman?! Bill Nye debating some preacher on evolution!?

<Looks at Headlines Forum> Whoa... rainbow flag over Montreal City Hall?! MICHAEL SAM IS GAY!?

Oh man.. do I feel silly now.

Look here bud, I wasn't trying to say the issue isn't worth talking about, but people getting all bent out of shape about it, like really losing their minds over it when we already know how harsh man can be is a little ridiculous.
 
<<<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.>>>

The future survival of a species? A couple of points here. First of all, giraffes are not endangered. Second, what exactly does that mean for a zoo which has no wildlife release program? Lets be honest, the only survival we're talking about here is of a certain population of giraffes placed in captivity for the purpose of making money from gawkers. Thats why the giraffe was killed and they should be honest about it. Still, the timing of this defies explanation. This particular giraffe wouldn't have even started mating for another 5-6 years. The fact that they chose to kill it now, before there's even a risk of mating, shows a callous disregard for life IMO.
 
Last edited:
Recommendations aren't mandates. So much for your "he had to!" argument.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "had to". Is the EAZA going to storm the place with guns? No. Will they remove their accreditation next time the zoo comes under review? Possibly.


"based on" doesn't mean he was required to do it? You have tried to argue that there was some unavoidable compulsion -- you even claimed a fellow board member's sister was a liar for saying there was no compulsion -- and now you are trying to weasel out of it.

1) The post I responded to claimed the ACA was against culling animals for genetic management. This is a lie

2) If you want to interpret as adherence to professional guidelines as "unavoidable compulsion" I can't do much for you. But I know AZA members come under review every couple of years and not adhering to AZA guidelines will risk losing them their accreditation, which is a significant risk to any such institution. And something they are unlikely to look at as one of no consequence

So? Would they have agreed with him had he sent Marius to the UK zoo?

While space and resources could be better used to further aid the captive breeding program? No, because it would seem like mindless sentimentality. And in a scientific institution such as a zoo, the intent should be the long term management of the captive species, not ewwy good feelings

How would you know?

because I was involved in a few amateur projects to manage genetic diversity in captive animal species?


And I am rejecting the idiotic rationale to exclude the non-lethal alternatives.

based on what, your outrage? Yeah, I'm not buying what you are selling, captain
 
If only science was advanced enough to test for such pathogens! Alas here we are trapped in the 1800s. :roll:

Have you never heard of chytrid or rana virus? They were largely unknown pathogens until they lead to massive die-offs in wild populations

<<<Brush-tail rock wallabies are currently being raised in species recovery programs and restored to the wild to bolster populations of this endangered species. Here, researchers found that nearly half of fecal samples from wallabies raised in these programs contained bacterial genes that encode resistance to streptomycin, spectinomycin and trimethoprim. None of these genes were detected in samples from five wild populations of wallabies. The authors add, "How these genes made their way into the wallaby microbes is unknown, but it seems likely that water or feed may have acted as a conduit for bacteria carrying these genes."
Previous research shows that proximity to humans can increase animals' exposure to antibiotic resistance genes and the organisms that carry them. Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been reported in the wild from chimpanzees in Uganda, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and a wide range of fish, birds and mammals. According to the researchers, their findings highlight the potential for genes and pathogens from human sources to be spread. Power says, "We found that antibiotic resistance genes from human pathogens have been picked up by endangered rock wallabies in a breeding program, and may spread into the wild when the wallabies are released.">>>


Read more at: Captive-bred wallabies may carry antibiotic resistant bacteria into wild populations

<<<Appropriate health checks should be carried out prior to release. A careful assessment (risk analysis) must be made as to the risks of released animals introducing novel pathogens (disease agents) into the wild population/environment.
These pathogens may have been acquired from domestic animals, other wildlife casualties or humans whilst the animal was in captivity.
The health checks should be designed to minimise the risk that pathogens posing a threat to wild populations of this or other species will be introduced into the environment when the animal is released.>>>

Release of Casualty Dormice (Techniques)

(Pro-tip: The giraffe was found to he perfectly healthy before it was killed and animals are released safely to the wild all the time.)

Pro-tip, research any of the various control protocols used when establishing new wild populations in captivity. One of the main things they try to do is manage the animal in it's home environment as to reduce the risk from geographically foreign diseases and limit it's exposure to animals outside it's immediate environment. Naturally, a zoo, in a foreign country, is the last place such breeding programs ideally take place, especially in open exhibits.
 
Last edited:
The future survival of a species? A couple of points here. First of all, giraffes are not endangered.

actually some subspecies are endangered: Nigerian and Baringo giraffe.

Second, what exactly does that mean for a zoo which has no wildlife release program?

management of the captive population


This particular giraffe wouldn't have even started mating for another 5-6 years. The fact that they chose to kill it now, before there's even a risk of mating, shows a callous disregard for life IMO.

How much money do you think it costs to properly house and feed a giraffe for 5-6 years? Those resources could be better used towards productive management
 
why? No one was forced to be there any many people would probably love attending something like that

Call me crazy but I would have loved to have been there, sounds really cool to me. Usually I only get to see the snakes eating mice over at the reptile exhibit.

Look, these lions have to eat some kind of meat everyday. If I had to guess they probably get lots of beef-- and maybe even horse meat, but I haven't heard anyone crying over the cows and horses.

It sounds like there was a good reason why this giraffe needed to be destroyed, so why not feed it to the lions. It's not like they can just take a dead giraffe and put it into the trash can out by the curb. And if it didn't get fed to some of the resident carnivores, it probably would have ended up as dog food, or some by product that they put in shampoo.

Seems like the only ones who haven't complained about this are the lions. Yum!
 
Yeah, the whole thing was seven levels of screwed up. Other zoos would have taken the animal, but instead let's chop him up in little pieces in front of the kids and feed the remains to the lion.

Are you playing to the lion vote?
 
Well from what I understand they could not just ship him to another zoo because other European zoos also have an inbreeding problem. Not saying I agree but they do have a reason for it, wouldn't, I don't know, neutering the giraffe solve the problem?

We don't neuter rapists. Lock them up.
 
So many clueless hippies...
 
Look here bud, I wasn't trying to say the issue isn't worth talking about, but people getting all bent out of shape about it, like really losing their minds over it when we already know how harsh man can be is a little ridiculous.

I'm sorry, was I too "harsh" on you?
 
<<<Completely unnecessary clarification of an argument that missed the point>>>


Read more at: Captive-bred wallabies may carry antibiotic resistant bacteria into wild populations

<<<Appropriate health checks should be carried out prior to release. A careful assessment (risk analysis) must be made as to the risks of released animals introducing novel pathogens (disease agents) into the wild population/environment.
These pathogens may have been acquired from domestic animals, other wildlife casualties or humans whilst the animal was in captivity.
The health checks should be designed to minimise the risk that pathogens posing a threat to wild populations of this or other species will be introduced into the environment when the animal is released.>>>


OK, read the bold bit slooooooooooooowly. Let that sink in. It is quite possible to assess an animal for the existence of these diseases before they release them to the wild. In fact they gave Marius a clean bill of health.

So essentially your idiotic emergency backup justification falls flat when you realize it is only a danger when a zoo DOESN'T think about such things before releasing the animal which means it s logically impossible for the Copenhagen Zoo to have ruled out release due to a pathogen when thy gave the giraffe a clean bill of health.


Release of Casualty Dormice (Techniques)

Pro-tip, research any of the various control protocols used when establishing new wild populations in captivity. One of the main things they try to do is manage the animal in it's home environment as to reduce the risk from geographically foreign diseases and limit it's exposure to animals outside it's immediate environment. Naturally, a zoo, in a foreign country, is the last place such breeding programs ideally take place, especially in open exhibits.

And they can test any animal for such pathogens prior to release.

Ironically, all the most common arguments against releasing the animal to the wild end up calling the entire breeding program into question. If the giraffes will never be suitable for release back into the wild then there is little reason to protect the genetics so zealously that they kill healthy animals on the fear that one day it might breed with a family member.
 
OK, read the bold bit slooooooooooooowly. Let that sink in. It is quite possible to assess an animal for the existence of these diseases before they release them to the wild. In fact they gave Marius a clean bill of health.

lol, I just explained to you how housing conditions are a big part of that risk assessment. Now would a zoo in a foreign country represent a high level of exposure to "domestic animals, other wildlife casualties or humans whilst the animal was in captivity"?

So essentially your idiotic emergency backup justification falls flat when you realize it is only a danger when a zoo DOESN'T think about such things before releasing the animal which means it s logically impossible for the Copenhagen Zoo to have ruled out release due to a pathogen when thy gave the giraffe a clean bill of health.

A clean bill of health in a zoo setting does not mean it's a low risk animal to release back into the wild, when the main concern are pathogens we currently do not know about or fully understand.

And they can test any animal for such pathogens prior to release.

only if you know what to test for ...


Ironically, all the most common arguments against releasing the animal to the wild end up calling the entire breeding program into question. If the giraffes will never be suitable for release back into the wild then there is little reason to protect the genetics so zealously that they kill healthy animals on the fear that one day it might breed with a family member.

to maintain the captive population in it's current genetic state. In such a captive situation adaptation pressures still exist and the population will slowly select towards animals reflective of a zoo environment.

A genetic diversity comparison between captive individuals and wild individuals of Elliot
Strategies for maintaining genetic diversity in captive populations through reproductive technology - Ballou - 2005 - Zoo Biology - Wiley Online Library
http://www.michaelsoule.com/resource_files/176/176_resource_file1.pdf
 
lol, I just explained to you how housing conditions are a big part of that risk assessment. Now would a zoo in a foreign country represent a high level of exposure to "domestic animals, other wildlife casualties or humans whilst the animal was in captivity"?

A clean bill of health in a zoo setting does not mean it's a low risk animal to release back into the wild, when the main concern are pathogens we currently do not know about or fully understand.

Still chasing your tail on this? It seems counter productive of you to continually argue on the incompetence of the Copenhagen zoo.

only if you know what to test for ...

I would assume they are competent. If they aren't they should give their giraffes to more competent zoos.

to maintain the captive population in it's current genetic state. In such a captive situation adaptation pressures still exist and the population will slowly select towards animals reflective of a zoo environment.

A genetic diversity comparison between captive individuals and wild individuals of Elliot
Strategies for maintaining genetic diversity in captive populations through reproductive technology - Ballou - 2005 - Zoo Biology - Wiley Online Library
http://www.michaelsoule.com/resource_files/176/176_resource_file1.pdf

So the program for which Marius was sacrificed is utterly pointless. If the giraffes are self selecting towards Zoo friendly genes then the Zoo to doing a terrible job of protecting giraffe genetic code. All it is doing is maintaining the genetic code of a divergent breed of zoo giraffe.
 
Still chasing your tail on this? It seems counter productive of you to continually argue on the incompetence of the Copenhagen zoo.

1) I'm unsure how I am "chasing my tail"

2) these are control mechanisms and threat assessments down to any potential captive release. SO how would I be arguing against the competence of the Copenhagen zoo when there was no intent to release the animal originally and need to introduce such levels of safety?

I would assume they are competent. If they aren't they should give their giraffes to more competent zoos.

The entire concern rests on various pathogens that we normally do not see as dangerous or even know about. That is why general protocols call for limited risk of exposure

So the program for which Marius was sacrificed is utterly pointless. If the giraffes are self selecting towards Zoo friendly genes then the Zoo to doing a terrible job of protecting giraffe genetic code. All it is doing is maintaining the genetic code of a divergent breed of zoo giraffe.

No, because genetic bottle necking, inbreeding, and outbreeding depression are still a concern in a captive environment and in the ideal zoo setting they display wild animals. Not weird variations that develop from wild animals in captivity
 
Moderator's Warning:
The trolling needs to stop and the topic needs to be discussed civily
 
Well from what I understand they could not just ship him to another zoo because other European zoos also have an inbreeding problem. Not saying I agree but they do have a reason for it, wouldn't, I don't know, neutering the giraffe solve the problem?

Giraffes can be gelded, just like horses. There's also chemical sterilization. That animal could have been a perfectly fine exhibit at another zoo, even a companion animal for a lone giraffe.
 
I have a niece that is a director of an aviary at a zoo in Utah, she says you are full of it. In the states at every state ran facility they do a search to find suitable homes for unwanted or un needed animals. Private zoos may do it different, but I have been to private zoos and they need to be closed.

My ex was also a zookeeper. We were involved with the Bronx Zoo, the Tuscon Desert Museum (zoo), and Woodland Park here. I did envir ed programs for them. You dont cull healthy animals without a very good reason....I see none in what I've read of the Danish situation. There are probably even sanctuaries that might have taken him as an 'attraction' so more people would come and bring donations. (In more favorable climates in Europe.) It is done here.
 
You dont cull healthy animals without a very good reason

no one suggested they did.

I see none in what I've read of the Danish situation.

Besides limited space and resources, which was directly cited by the EAZA representative?
 
Back
Top Bottom