cambridgefox Posted 10 February 2014 Posted 10 February 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/marius-giraffe-killed-copenhagen-zoo-protestsi must admit this had a fair bit of coverage here yesterday before it happened.Thought it was disgraceful.Although you would think people would now boycott the zoo,do you think that will cause more animals to be slaughtered if they can't afford to keep open?
shen Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 Really don't understand the giraffe controversy. It's bloody (no pun intended) standard procedure and it's not like we don't try to control animal populations in virtually every other environment.
Guest MattP Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 Really don't understand the giraffe controversy. It's bloody (no pun intended) standard procedure and it's not like we don't try to control animal populations in virtually every other environment. Giraffes are cute so people get upset, same reason westerners get so upset about the Koreans eating Dogs. All rather baffling to militant carnivores like me.
shen Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 But it's not like this is a new procedure. They do this across all zoos around Europe, and nor is the first giraffe to be killed... it's ridiculous!
ozleicester Posted 14 February 2014 Author Posted 14 February 2014 Just because something has happened in the past, doesnt make it ok to continue in the future. Animals are living, sentient beings, they should not be seen as simply toys for humans that can be killed because they dont suit our particular needs.
Mark_w Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 But it's not like this is a new procedure. They do this across all zoos around Europe, and nor is the first giraffe to be killed... it's ridiculous! Justify it.
Merging Cultures Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Justify it. I believe it was killed because it couldn't be rehoused easily because it's genes are already highly represented in the zoo giraffe population, and as a maturing male giraffe it is going to want to breed. Neutering would be problematic because it would affect behaviour and could cause problems as it tries to figure out it's hierarchy within a giraffe group. They are social creatures and so it would have to have been housed with other giraffes. They did make sure the killing was educational, it provided an opportunity for scientists and vets to learn more about Giraffes, as well as the public being able to learn more. Giraffes do not travel very well, so long distance rehousing would have been very traumatic for the animal.
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 I believe it was killed because it couldn't be rehoused easily because it's genes are already highly represented in the zoo giraffe population, and as a maturing male giraffe it is going to want to breed. Neutering would be problematic because it would affect behaviour and could cause problems as it tries to figure out it's hierarchy within a giraffe group. They are social creatures and so it would have to have been housed with other giraffes. They did make sure the killing was educational, it provided an opportunity for scientists and vets to learn more about Giraffes, as well as the public being able to learn more. Giraffes do not travel very well, so long distance rehousing would have been very traumatic for the animal. Now, as you know, I far from the veggie veggie cuddle the bunnys lets give the animals all the power and live in mud huts club. But more traumatic than a shot gun to the head? surely there's a better way to go about all of this than just shoot it.
Merging Cultures Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Now, as you know, I far from the veggie veggie cuddle the bunnys lets give the animals all the power and live in mud huts club. But more traumatic than a shot gun to the head? surely there's a better way to go about all of this than just shoot it. Well, yes! How much of the bullet to the head did the animal know about? Nothing. Instant. Dead.
Dr The Singh Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Well, yes! How much of the bullet to the head did the animal know about? Nothing. Instant. Dead. We should let animals vote on how they want to die, infact we allow the welsh to vote in the general election, we may aswell allow all other animals to vote!!!
shen Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 Justify it. Bengt Holst has already justified and explained it as well as possible. I do not see why one of the most humane ways to deal with a humanly caused conundrum has given rise to this discussion. The media and animal lovers are barking up the completely wrong tree here. Stop worrying about a giraffe and start putting focus on the real 'crimes' that is modern animal husbandry. Now, as you know, I far from the veggie veggie cuddle the bunnys lets give the animals all the power and live in mud huts club. But more traumatic than a shot gun to the head? surely there's a better way to go about all of this than just shoot it. How is a swift killing that the animal did not anticipate and likely did not grasp before death traumatic?
Kyle_Le_Don Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 If you want meat kill it yourself I say... No buying from supermarkets, we're a nation full of consumers - worse than termites
Webbo Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 If you want meat kill it yourself I say... No buying from supermarkets, we're a nation full of consumers - worse than termites Do you weave your own clothes? If you're ill do you diagnose yourself and make your own medicine?
DennisNedry Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 If you want meat kill it yourself I say... No buying from supermarkets, we're a nation full of consumers - worse than termites Yeah, that's a good thought. Instead of having an abattoir clinically slaughter a cow, do a bit of DIY and hack at it with a hand axe. Much more humane.
Manwell Pablo Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 If you want meat kill it yourself I say... No buying from supermarkets, we're a nation full of consumers - worse than termites It's called society, and of course we consume, all creatures consume. It's how they survive.
Manwell Pablo Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 Bengt Holst has already justified and explained it as well as possible. I do not see why one of the most humane ways to deal with a humanly caused conundrum has given rise to this discussion. The media and animal lovers are barking up the completely wrong tree here. Stop worrying about a giraffe and start putting focus on the real 'crimes' that is modern animal husbandry. How is a swift killing that the animal did not anticipate and likely did not grasp before death traumatic? type "shotgun trauma" into google and you'll see. As I've said I'm no great believer that animals should be put on a pedestal and protected by us just because we're the only creatures on earth capable of feeling empathy, the only reason most animal rights activists think the way the do is because they've grown attached to creatures that have been tamed by us, wild animals are Fcking horrible things on the whole. But when it get's to the stage where you're shooting an animal that was captured and bought into a foreign country for us all to gawp out and has it's genes over represented due to what is essentially a fck up on our half I think maybe we should be thinking a bit more outside the box that just thinking, sod it then, we'll just shoot it , surely even if it hates travelling it could be sedated for a few hours and moved to Malmo or at worst Stockholm, I presume they have zoo's there anyway. I could be wrong.
OzFox Posted 16 February 2014 Posted 16 February 2014 type "shotgun trauma" into google and you'll see. As I've said I'm no great believer that animals should be put on a pedestal and protected by us just because we're the only creatures on earth capable of feeling empathy, the only reason most animal rights activists think the way the do is because they've grown attached to creatures that have been tamed by us, wild animals are Fcking horrible things on the whole. But when it get's to the stage where you're shooting an animal that was captured and bought into a foreign country for us all to gawp out and has it's genes over represented due to what is essentially a fck up on our half I think maybe we should be thinking a bit more outside the box that just thinking, sod it then, we'll just shoot it , surely even if it hates travelling it could be sedated for a few hours and moved to Malmo or at worst Stockholm, I presume they have zoo's there anyway. I could be wrong. Not really one for getting out and enjoying the wonders of nature are you?
shen Posted 16 February 2014 Posted 16 February 2014 type "shotgun trauma" into google and you'll see. As I've said I'm no great believer that animals should be put on a pedestal and protected by us just because we're the only creatures on earth capable of feeling empathy, the only reason most animal rights activists think the way the do is because they've grown attached to creatures that have been tamed by us, wild animals are Fcking horrible things on the whole. But when it get's to the stage where you're shooting an animal that was captured and bought into a foreign country for us all to gawp out and has it's genes over represented due to what is essentially a fck up on our half I think maybe we should be thinking a bit more outside the box that just thinking, sod it then, we'll just shoot it , surely even if it hates travelling it could be sedated for a few hours and moved to Malmo or at worst Stockholm, I presume they have zoo's there anyway. I could be wrong. No suitable zoo was found. I'm pretty sure that the people working with the animals know what they're doing.
Manwell Pablo Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 No suitable zoo was found. I'm pretty sure that the people working with the animals know what they're doing. Hey, I'm not expert on the subject. A Shot gun to the face because of no reason other than we've got a few too many like you just seems a bit of a drastic solution to me.
OzFox Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 and of course "the cat"... What an absurd few days that was. Another fine example of a red herring fallacy, Got chatting to one of my neighbours yesterday. He was moaning about the lack of wildlife in our area, so I pointed out that half the people in the street own a cat. He said he used to live in Perth and that he had owned a 'cat trap' as had many other residents. I assume he was talking feral cats but even so it sounds like a tough place to be a moggy.
ozleicester Posted 4 March 2014 Author Posted 4 March 2014 Got chatting to one of my neighbours yesterday. He was moaning about the lack of wildlife in our area, so I pointed out that half the people in the street own a cat. He said he used to live in Perth and that he had owned a 'cat trap' as had many other residents. I assume he was talking feral cats but even so it sounds like a tough place to be a moggy. Finally this year, we have introduced cat registration. Hallelujah! The traps are meant only for ferals, but the councils give them to you without too much questioning and you are then "supposed" to hand them over to welfare etc. But, we are in the wild wild west, so who knows what happens. Good news on the Shark bating, so far no further people eaten and dozens of sharks caught and killed i feel so much safer , in other good news the Bear tax has continued to ensure that no bears have been seen.
davieG Posted 4 March 2014 Posted 4 March 2014 Not read or posted in here but just came across this obscenity.
OzFox Posted 5 March 2014 Posted 5 March 2014 Not read or posted in here but just came across this obscenity. Yeah and this is in the middle of a supposedly 'protected' national park It was put down the following day
OzFox Posted 5 March 2014 Posted 5 March 2014 Finally this year, we have introduced cat registration. Hallelujah! The traps are meant only for ferals, but the councils give them to you without too much questioning and you are then "supposed" to hand them over to welfare etc. But, we are in the wild wild west, so who knows what happens. Good news on the Shark bating, so far no further people eaten and dozens of sharks caught and killed i feel so much safer , in other good news the Bear tax has continued to ensure that no bears have been seen. Yeah my neighbour was a bit vague about what he did with the moggies he found in his trap. Can't imagine why Regarding the shark cull, Queensland kills about 500 sharks a year with drum-lines and nets, and presumably many other marine animals. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/has-queensland-really-saved-lives-by-killing-thousands-of-sharks-20140221-337b2.html It could be argued that the drum line program in Queensland is justified simply because it may remove sharks from popular areas. However, it is a very blunt tool and ignores the important ecological roles that sharks play in our oceans. Moreover, its success in reducing human fatalities is hard to validate. The decreases may simply reflect broader declines in shark populations, driving down encounter rates despite the increased human presence in the ocean. Or they may simply be random. There are non-lethal techniques that can potentially achieve much better outcomes. Humans and sharks alike could benefit from an approach that embraces new ideas, rather than one that has produced little measurable effect in half a century, other than to kill threatened species.
ozleicester Posted 5 March 2014 Author Posted 5 March 2014 Not read or posted in here but just came across this obscenity. Grotesque and barbaric and a symptom of a society that places little worth on the value of animals, other than how they can be used by humans.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.