![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
airiefairie.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWe have probably all heard by now about the controversial decisions at the Copenhagen zoo to put down a giraffe and feed it to the lions in front of the visiting children, and to subsequently put down a few lion cubs because they were planning to introduce a new adult male lion to the zoo, and they were concerned that he would have killed the cubs anyway. People were naturally appalled. There were lots of discussions about animal rights, the treatment of animals in the zoos, etc. Even some satire.
Now there is a new story that I am sure is about to cause all hell breaking loose once more,
Bern zoo faces flak over second bear cub death
...And there is of course a pre-story to that:
Bern zoo under fire after bear eats baby cub
Another act of inhumane treatment of animals, I am sure many would argue. And they would be right, to a point. However, if we are to look at the problem a bit closer, we may begin to realise that there is more to those two stories than just that. Indeed, it seems the problem runs much deeper than most of the audience is probably suspecting. Because one or two cases like these could be possibly interpreted as incidental acts of cruelty and poor judgment/management - but when there is a wide-spread tendency, there must be a systematic flaw in the, well, system. And as it turns out, there really is:
How many healthy animals do zoos put down?
Apart from the side point that is being made in the article, namely that, while this problem tends to affect animals of almost all species, but only the "large and charismatic" ones tend to make the headlines, there is also the central part of the problem:
""We do it when it's necessary," [Copenhagen Zoo's Scientific Director] says. "If I should take an average over 10 years - it could be probably something like 20, 30 [per year]."
"That figure includes some smaller animals, not just the big "charismatic megafauna" that have the potential to make headline news. At the larger end of the scale, Copenhagen Zoo has put down leopards, tigers, lions, bears, antelopes and hippos in recent years, as well as the young giraffe, Marius."
And this is obviously not just in Denmark. The various breeding programmes around Europe include such necessary actions like the so called "management euthanisation", and not just of ill animals. The overall number is really staggering: 3-5 thousand annually. But why? What is causing this? Is it rampant mismanagement? Or something else?
Well, turns out the European zoo association (EAZA) has adopted a "breed and cull" policy, at least for a number of species, which often results in huge surpluses of animals that cannot be possibly accommodated by the international zoo system, no matter how much the exchange of animals is intensified between zoos.
In the meantime, most American zoos extensively use the practice of contraception to prevent such a surplus, and have thus been able to control their populations for the most part. The conclusion is inescapable: the two zoo systems (Europe and America) have adopted two very different approaches to population management, and the most reasonable way to decrease the probability of healthy animals being killed due to overpopulation or under controversial pretexts like in these recent cases, is to adopt the American approach. Otherwise the problem will not only stay, it will be getting more serious with time.
There is probably at least one positive effect from this recent stream of unpleasant news coming from around the European zoos. It is that these cases may have finally triggered a debate about the proper treatment of animals in an artificial environment that the European public should have probably had a very long time ago.
Now there is a new story that I am sure is about to cause all hell breaking loose once more,
Bern zoo faces flak over second bear cub death
...And there is of course a pre-story to that:
Bern zoo under fire after bear eats baby cub
Another act of inhumane treatment of animals, I am sure many would argue. And they would be right, to a point. However, if we are to look at the problem a bit closer, we may begin to realise that there is more to those two stories than just that. Indeed, it seems the problem runs much deeper than most of the audience is probably suspecting. Because one or two cases like these could be possibly interpreted as incidental acts of cruelty and poor judgment/management - but when there is a wide-spread tendency, there must be a systematic flaw in the, well, system. And as it turns out, there really is:
How many healthy animals do zoos put down?
Apart from the side point that is being made in the article, namely that, while this problem tends to affect animals of almost all species, but only the "large and charismatic" ones tend to make the headlines, there is also the central part of the problem:
""We do it when it's necessary," [Copenhagen Zoo's Scientific Director] says. "If I should take an average over 10 years - it could be probably something like 20, 30 [per year]."
"That figure includes some smaller animals, not just the big "charismatic megafauna" that have the potential to make headline news. At the larger end of the scale, Copenhagen Zoo has put down leopards, tigers, lions, bears, antelopes and hippos in recent years, as well as the young giraffe, Marius."
And this is obviously not just in Denmark. The various breeding programmes around Europe include such necessary actions like the so called "management euthanisation", and not just of ill animals. The overall number is really staggering: 3-5 thousand annually. But why? What is causing this? Is it rampant mismanagement? Or something else?
Well, turns out the European zoo association (EAZA) has adopted a "breed and cull" policy, at least for a number of species, which often results in huge surpluses of animals that cannot be possibly accommodated by the international zoo system, no matter how much the exchange of animals is intensified between zoos.
In the meantime, most American zoos extensively use the practice of contraception to prevent such a surplus, and have thus been able to control their populations for the most part. The conclusion is inescapable: the two zoo systems (Europe and America) have adopted two very different approaches to population management, and the most reasonable way to decrease the probability of healthy animals being killed due to overpopulation or under controversial pretexts like in these recent cases, is to adopt the American approach. Otherwise the problem will not only stay, it will be getting more serious with time.
There is probably at least one positive effect from this recent stream of unpleasant news coming from around the European zoos. It is that these cases may have finally triggered a debate about the proper treatment of animals in an artificial environment that the European public should have probably had a very long time ago.
(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 16:38 (UTC)Ugh, that's just unbelievable.
Good post, so thank you for the write-up.
(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 17:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 17:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 18:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 18:42 (UTC)Oh wait... They already did?
(Warning, graphic image behind link (http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/headline/public/2014/02/10/210giraffedenmark01.jpg)).
(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 19:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 19:53 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 20:14 (UTC)Don't children deserve to know that lions aren't vegans?
Heavens forbid they think that, and start getting some really crazy ideas!
But please no "graphic" sex education in our schools, because you know, priorities.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 01:21 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 21:10 (UTC)I don't know if my daughter would want to watch a lion eat a giraffe, but she enjoyed watching them feed the wolves at a sanctuary we visited. Assuming the lions are going to be eating the giraffe anyway, I don't think I'd have issue with my kid seeing it if she wanted to. She's seen lions hunting on nature shows, seeing them eat something already dead is much less graphic/violent to my mind.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 01:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 06:18 (UTC)There is a reason that zoos around the world do not throw living animals to the predators. If we are to follow the logic of some advocates of a more "naturalistic" approach in zoos, that should have already become a normal practice in zoos. But it has not.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 06:16 (UTC)Not to mention that the educative purpose and function of a zoo is quite different from what you may be suggesting here.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 16:22 (UTC)I don't think there is any evidence that the zoo caused any gratuitous suffering.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/14 03:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 13:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 17:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 07:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 21:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 22:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/14 22:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 02:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 06:20 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 9/4/14 06:14 (UTC)