E.U. Orders Euthanising OF Healthy Giraffe

reply to post by flammadraco


There's an answer ... the UK zoo is still likely operating under the auspices of the EU rules.

The UK and Denmark are two places that maintain more independence than most. As my husband says, they have the power, for example, to accept products under their own label and under their own rules in some cases, but I would imagine that when it comes to this, they will be following the EU line because the UK zoo network simply won't be big enough to maintain its own healthy populations. It will need access to the other zoos in the EU network in order to do that, so when the EU governing body on zoos says jump, the UK zoos will say how high.

reply to post by ketsuko


I'm in the UK and cannot wait for our chance to vote in a referendum. The Brits are very anti EU. But that's for another thread.

They should have allowed the animal to come to the UK zoo.

Please people…… this thread is a clear case of when animal friends have no idea what is best for animals.

I love animals more than anyone. I support Greenpeace and I think we owe a lot more respect to the animal kingdom than we show it. BUT

At some point you have got to stop up, set your nature given brain into work, and THINK…. "is it really a good idea to keep a specific giraf alive when keeping it alive means that in-breeding could occur?"

ZOO in Copenhagen is one out of 300 zoos across Europe who are dedicated to strict rules about breeding and good health of the animal families in the zoos. The giraf had no place to go… they can't transfer it, because the risk of in-breeding would make it unsuitable for any of the 300 zoos in Europe.
They couldn't send it off to another random zoo, because zoos outside this 300 club, don't have the same strict rules about breading and where the 300 zoos in Europe have signed a treaty not to sell animals, outside zoos have not, risking that the giraf could be sold for what reason….
They can't release it, because contrary to what normal people seem to know, you CAN*T set an animal free that has been born in captivity. Well, you can, but it is damn difficult and require a lot of work, time, and money.

translate.google.dk... dk%2FBesogZoo%2FNyhedsarkiv%2F2014%2FFebruar%2FDerfor%2520afliver%2520Zoo%2520en%2520giraf.aspx&act=url" target="_blank" class="postlink">ZOO Copenhagen about the giraf


So stop whining about one f'ing, born in captivity, giraf. Please remember that zoos like ZOO in Copenhagen are dedicated to science, they don't run shop as a sideshow, and especially Copenhagen ZOO have put a lot of effort into educating its visitors with thorough information, after hours workshops where both adults and kids can come and learn about how the animals function in real life and so on.

It's just so damn stupid reading how the media once again can spin a little thing into a huge big deal. It makes me sick.

Also…… how many of you have watched Animal Planet? Have none of you witnessed how real life takes place? How prey are stalked, hunted down, pulled to shreds by the teeth of the attacker and so on. And then you piss off over a single giraf?

At least this one was fed to the lions instead of the usual horse carcass……

Please, love animals, but remain f'ing sane at the same time. This thread is a sideshow!

reply to post by flice


Yes, I get that. So, why did they let it get born in the first place?

I can think of some genetically suspect humans going about.

I'd prefer we bumped them off rather than this beautiful creature.

Presumably Hitler would be proud of the idiots behind this decision.

reply to post by ketsuko

They say they let the animals in the Zoo breed naturaly, even though they know that space will be a problem later on.

This link has a small explanation but it's in Danish so you will have to use google translate or something, and i can't guarantee that it will translate it correct.

Click me

reply to post by Mianeye


I know they use contraceptives in US zoos for some animals. There was a case of a chimpanzee who had a Norplant. She picked it out and got pregnant by accident.

I guess European zoos are just much different.

reply to post by Mianeye


Turning him over to another Zoo isn't easy, it's expensive and dangerous to the animal

Like getting shot in the head isn't dangerous? Heres what I think. I think we need to stop acting like the Roman's way back during the coliseum days, using animals to entertain us. They aren't a commodity, they are living breathing creatures that have been taken out of they're natural habitat for our entertainment. I think both zoos and circus' should be banned. Its unfair and unhealthy for those animals to be locked up for us. Yes you see the ones that survived,but how many had to die to get that one that did? How many died while the zoos blundered they're way through trying to figure out how to breed and keep them alive? We can't even fix whats wrong with us, we don't need to be dictating what should be done with other wild life.

reply to post by Dimithae


Now that's a bit extreme.

Zoos are valuable tools for learning about the animals and for preserving many of the endangered ones. People want to save what they think is valuable and what they know about. If nothing else, this thread has proven that. If no one had gone to zoos and seen giraffes, including how gentle they are, do you think anyone would care about this?

reply to post by Dimithae

Like getting shot in the head isn't dangerous?

You completly missunderstood why i said that.

Transporting a Girraffe is a hard task cause it's very tall, it just dosn't fit in to a vehicle, so therefore it needs to be sedated and laid down, that is dangerous to the animal, and in many cases it simply dies.

ArMaP

hotel1
EAZA is an organ of The European Parliament and Council.

Really?

The E in the acronym is a likely indicator of where this organisation gets its funding and the outlines for the terms of its programmes.

That's the most stupid explanation I have ever read.

Check Khimbars post.

I keep going back to the question of why did they not castrate him and then send him on to another zoo if space was that much of a concern? The other zoos that offered space probably were prepared to cover the expense to have him moved. Yes it's not ideal for the animal but is being euthed and served to lions better? At least he was humanely destroyed and hopefully did not suffer..
I agree- several humans need to be removed from the gene pool as well, lets start rounding everyone up, get yourself genetically tested, and sorted into the 'Approved/Disproved' lines now!

reply to post by Mianeye


Not entirely accurate. I watched a documentary where a giraffe was transported via a container ship from Auckland to Melbourne. Was awake and stood up for the entire trip.

www.maersklinesocial.com...

reply to post by flammadraco

Fair enough

But.

Click me


And.

Out of Africa Wildlife Park executives have asked a national expert for advice on transporting two of the park’s most elegant, but least roadworthy, animals — its giraffes.

At 13 feet tall, Kibo and Pilgrim, the 4-year-old male reticulated giraffes, are a tall order to transport.

Click me to

reply to post by hotel1

That is so sad. Giraffes are my favorite land mammals (besides humans of course). Then again, I actually like Giraffes more than most humans. What a shame. Other options should have received more consideration.

reply to post by Mianeye


That's an unfortunate accident where she hurt her neck during transport. Better care should have been taken. The example I gave sailed in a container ship and was a success. I suppose it's down to good preparation.

reply to post by flammadraco


Yeah, but anything can go wrong in a transport of animals, there is no guarantee of succes.

Anyway i am done on this topic, got nothing more to say.

Marius is dead and life goes on.

Peace everyone.

hotel1
Check Khimbars post.

None of his/her posts points to EAZA being an official EU organisation or that there really is a law forbidding the relocation of animals.

ArMaP

hotel1
Check Khimbars post.

None of his/her posts points to EAZA being an official EU organisation or that there really is a law forbidding the relocation of animals.

Copied from Khimbars post.

EAZA was formed in 1992, expanding the geographical scope of its forerunner, ECAZA, the European Community Association of Zoos and Aquaria, and also formally incorporating the important work of the European Endangered Species Programmes (EEPs), which had been operating since the mid-1980s. In 1988 zoos in member states of the then European Community recognised a need to create a common platform through which they could work with the European Parliament towards a directive on minimum standards for the care of animals in zoos. The discussions eventually gave birth to the European Zoos Directive, eleven years later.

reply to post by hotel1

Where does it say that it's "an organ of The European Parliament and Council" or that's an official EU organisation?