Marius the giraffe killed, butchered and fed to lions as children watch

It is somehow interresting to see how the Universe responds (sometimes subtly, sometimes not so) to such behaviours. I stumbled this morning upon a prediction for a possibly important new meteor shower which will radiate from the Giraffe constellation in the northern hemisphere: _http://www.imcce.fr/langues/en/ephemerides/phenomenes/meteor/DATABASE/209_LINEAR/2014/index.php
"So far, given the observations, we estimate a ZHR of 100/hr to 400/hr, which is an excellent outburst! But this shower can become an exceptional one. Indeed, given the current orbit of the comet (from JPL HORIZONS ephemerids database), ALL THE TRAILS EJECTED BETWEEN 1803 AND 1924 DO FALL IN THE EARTH PATH IN MAY 2014!!! As a consequence, this shower might as well be a storm."
How big some chunks could be is a matter of conjecture, since the comet is by now almost extinct. However, unexpected events can be expected.
Another consideration is that giraffes were called "Camelopardalis" (the actual name of the constellation) by the Romans, which means Camel-Leopard. And this connects to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus which seems to have been transmitted by camels (_http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140502081339.htm). So, maybe there is a connection there, or not.
 
Another Danish zoo has announced it will do a live dissection of a lion that was already killed, despite the fact that it was perfectly healthy, due to "overpopulation". Sickening: http://www.sott.net/article/303632-Sick-Danish-zoo-plans-to-bring-in-audience-to-view-lion-dissection

What's wrong with the Danes who run those zoos?
 
Heimdallr said:
Another Danish zoo has announced it will do a live dissection of a lion that was already killed, despite the fact that it was perfectly healthy, due to "overpopulation". Sickening: http://www.sott.net/article/303632-Sick-Danish-zoo-plans-to-bring-in-audience-to-view-lion-dissection

What's wrong with the Danes who run those zoos?

I guess the whole Cecil the lion debacle just went right over their heads.
 
Odyssey said:
Heimdallr said:
Another Danish zoo has announced it will do a live dissection of a lion that was already killed, despite the fact that it was perfectly healthy, due to "overpopulation". Sickening: http://www.sott.net/article/303632-Sick-Danish-zoo-plans-to-bring-in-audience-to-view-lion-dissection

What's wrong with the Danes who run those zoos?

I guess the whole Cecil the lion debacle just went right over their heads.

Or there's a high percentage of psychopaths in charge there and they don't care what anyone thinks.
 
The Marius story still bothers me.
Personally I've never known a veterinarian who is a genuine animal lover.
----------------------


Opinion: Killing of Marius the Giraffe Exposes Myths About Zoos
For the Copenhagen Zoo, it seems Marius was worth more dead than alive.
By Virginia Morell, for National Geographic

PUBLISHED February 13, 2014
Picture taken on Febuary 7, 2014 shows a perfectly healthy young giraffe named Marius who was shot dead and autopsied in the presence of visitors to the gardens at Copenhagen zoo on February 9, 2014 despite an online petition to save it signed by thousands of animal lovers. Marius, an 18-month-old giraffe, was put down with a bolt gun early on Sunday, zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro confirmed.

76521.adapt.590.1.jpg


Despite an online petition to save the animal, Marius the giraffe was shot dead and later autopsied in front of a crowd at the Copenhagen Zoo on February 9, 2014.

When Marius, a young male giraffe at the Copenhagen Zoo, was shot to death by his keepers a few days ago, the world caught its breath. How could the zoo and Marius's keepers do such a thing—particularly when people around the world were clamoring for the zoo to spare him?

Zoos, most of us think, are meant as safe havens for animals, places where they are loved and protected. Zoos tell us that they are educational places, too, where we can watch and learn about creatures we might otherwise never have a chance to see.

Zoos also bill themselves as the only places where certain highly endangered species, such as the Hawaiian crow, survive.

Indeed, zoos say this is why we need zoos. They're the guardians of some of Earth's rarest species, caring for them in captivity, and breeding them with the hopes of one day restoring them to the wild. Zoos, we're told, are one of the best ways—and in some cases, the only way—to preserve a species and its genetic variability. (Read "Building the Ark" in National Geographic magazine.)

So why, then, would a zoo kill a healthy, young giraffe?

Bengt Holst, the Copenhagen Zoo's scientific director, offered answers, but these only caused more alarm. It turns out that Marius's species, the reticulated giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata), is not endangered in the wild. Plus, the zoo has a "surplus" of giraffes, especially males with genes similar to those of Marius. He did not fit into the zoo's captive breeding program, or that of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. And at 18 months old, past the cute stuffed-toy stage of a baby giraffe, Marius would soon be keen to mate.

According to the zoo's calculations, Marius was of more use to it dead than alive.

So, Marius's keeper lured him with a piece of rye bread, his favorite food, into a yard away from the other giraffes, and as he bent down his long neck to take the treat from his keeper's hand, a veterinarian dispatched him with a shot from a bolt gun to his head.

Zoo patrons, including children, were then permitted to watch and learn about giraffe anatomy as the vet butchered Marius. "It helps increase the knowledge about animals but also the knowledge about life and death," said Holst about the anatomy lesson. The giraffe's remains were subsequently tossed into the lions' den—which, some have said, would likely have been his fate anyway if Marius had lived in his natural environment, the African savannah.

What Is the Purpose of Zoos?

Yes ... but Marius was not living in the African savannah. He was living in a zoo, one that asserts that its mission is to be "known and respected for its high standards and quality regarding the keeping of animals," and for its ethics.

All of which raises some questions: Why is the zoo breeding reticulated giraffes, when they are not endangered in the wild? And why did they let Marius's parents mate?

For answers, you need look no further than the Copenhagen Zoo's Facebook page, where it celebrates the birth of a baby giraffe (possibly Marius) in 2012. Humans, science has shown, are drawn to babies of all kinds; we love the big eyes, the floppy limbs, the fluff and fuzz of infants. Baby leopards, baby pandas, baby elephants ... baby giraffes. They all draw huge, paying crowds to zoos.

And while the Copenhagen Zoo, and other European Union zoos, may celebrate themselves as conservation sanctuaries protecting animals on the threshold of extinction, a 2011 report from the Born Free Foundation tells a different story: "An average of only 13% of species kept in European zoos were classified as Globally Threatened" and on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species.

So, if these zoos aren't really engaged in conserving species as they claim, what is their purpose?
Picture taken on Febuary 7, 2014 shows a perfectly healthy young giraffe named Marius who was shot dead and autopsied in the presence of visitors to the gardens at Copenhagen zoo on February 9, 2014 despite an online petition to save it signed by thousands of animal lovers. Marius, an 18-month-old giraffe, was put down with a bolt gun early on Sunday, zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro confirmed.

76523.adapt.590.1.jpg
#

A zoo veterinarian holds up a hoof as he performs an autopsy on the euthanized 18-month-old giraffe Marius.

PHOTOGRAPH BY KASPER PALSNOV, AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Very likely the keepers and veterinarians and director at the Copenhagen Zoo all consider themselves animal lovers. They do the hard, often heartbreaking, work of caring for creatures destined to a life in captivity. And they serve another master: profitability.

Inevitably, the two motives will clash; one must betray the other, because caring for zoo animals, especially those that are long-lived, is an expensive undertaking. Zoos have limited space, and if a zoo attempts to give animals the experience of parenting, as the Copenhagen Zoo says it does, it's going to run out of room. It will soon have too many adult animals and not enough of those popular, crowd-drawing, profit-turning babies.

Genetics and the carefully planned breeding program aside, it's hard not to suspect that the real reason Marius had to die was simply that he was past his human-appealing prime.

Broken Trust

I have no doubt that the animal keepers and veterinarians at the Copenhagen Zoo work hard to find ways for the animals in their care to learn to trust them. I've watched the gorilla and chimpanzee keepers at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago care for their charges, and have some idea of the long hours they must devote to this task.

I've also seen how willing and ready young animals are to trust us.

Once, on Equatorial Guinea's Bioko Island, a baby tree hyrax (which looks something like a large guinea pig) came bursting out of the bushes—not to get away from a group of us humans, but to seek our care. (Later, we found his dead mother.) If we'd been another kind of primate, we would have eaten the hyrax. Instead, we scooped him up, nursed him as best we could, and took him to a small animal shelter.

Of course, humans don't always respond this way to needy, young animals. But we think that is what the people running zoos do.

And so our hearts were broken when we saw the keepers at the Copenhagen Zoo break their trust with Marius. He should never have died so young and at the hands of his caretakers, the very ones who should have done all they could to protect him.

Zoos may feel that it is necessary to bill themselves as big players on the conservation stage. But what most of us want to see from zoos and their keepers is compassion for their charges, all of whom live such narrow, corralled lives.

If zoos cannot offer this to the Mariuses in their care, they will lose the public's goodwill, and will deservedly find themselves heading toward extinction.
 
Ocean said:
The Marius story still bothers me.
Personally I've never known a veterinarian who is a genuine animal lover.

It depends on what you mean by "a genuine animal lover".

But let me share something first. Not long ago I participated in the animal welfare and wellness seminar. And one of the lectures was about wellness of animals in Zoos. And so during the Q&A session I asked the speaker about Marius the giraffe and what she thinks about it. Was it justified? She answered that back then she was totally speechless and said that she couldn't grasp it or explain it. The fact is, she was speechless because while normal people can feel that something is wrong with such behavior, they often can't put it into words until they learn about the concept of psychopathy.

And just for the general information, there is a growing tendency in the word of conscientious vets and pro-animal/conservationist people to see zoos as a model that outgrew its purpose. That zoos as they are can't provide a fulfilling environment for animals, and in fact only cause them to develop stereotypical behavior in order to cope with the constant stress. Nature reserves are a much better solution, though in this case there is an ongoing heated debate as well.

Coming back to the topic of Marius, it is clear that this deed was evil, but it also shows that the title "veterinarian" doesn't equate with "having conscience". The unfortunate reality is that even labels like "animal rights person" don't mean a thing when it comes to capacity for empathy and genuine care for other beings. So it's not only veterinarians.

As for being "a genuine animal lover", here's another example. Before the seminar we had to go to the following site and fill in a small Animal Ethics Dilemma questioner. Here's the point of the questioner. And even if it refers to veterinary students, everyone can do it and test themselves.

According to my results I was a 75% Utilitarian. 17% Animal rights, and 8% Respect for nature. Now, as with any questioner, there were answers that didn't quite reflect what I thought, but had to choose something anyway. But all in all I agree with the following statements (but not fully with the rest of the statements on the same page):

Animals, like humans, deserve moral consideration. What matters in our dealings with animals is the extent to which we affect their well-being.

In deciding what to do, we must therefore consider welfare consequences for animals as well as potential benefits for humans.

Activities which have an adverse impact on the well-being of animals may be justified if, all things considered, they lead to a net increase in welfare (for humans or other animals)

Killing animals (e.g. for food) may be justified if the farming conditions are not detrimental to animal welfare and the killing is humanely performed.

As it happens, apparently many veterinarians are "Utilitarians", and that's why they have a problem with "Animal Rights" people. Actually, it's mostly the other way around. There is also another interesting observation that has to do with "ethical dilemma". Since as part of their job veterinarians often have to perform mercy killing/euthanasia of suffering animals, they are more likely to agree with providing the same right for humans too.

But the bottom line is that I understand your anger and being upset. I am very upset too. :evil: The problem is that it is only one drop in the ocean of evil. The only thing we can do is to set a different example.
 
Back
Top Bottom