It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

E.U. Orders Euthanising OF Healthy Giraffe

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Mianeye
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

edit on 9-2-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)


That's just ... irresponsible. I don't care how natural you think it is. Why are you basically allowing the creation of animals you know you won't have the space for later on?

No farmer ever husbands his stock like that, and he's actually trying to create offspring for food purposes.

If you only need certain pairings for a breeding program then those should be the only pairings you either allow to happen or the only ones you allow to bear fruit.




posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

ketsuko
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?


I don't think there is anything extreme about it. Think about it, are zoos there to entertain us or not? Learning anything is just a side note. And if the Giraffes were on the continent running wild like they are supposed to be, would it even matter if we didn't care? I think not. They would continue on without our intervention.

The only animals that are in trouble are the ones that have been displaced by us, coveted for ivory or they're skins, or have had they're lands taken from them due to an increase in population. All of these issues are man made. We can not continue to over populate the earth and think there is no repercussions to it . We can not continue to come into conflict with every animal on this planet and think we will come out on top. We need the animals as much as we need the plant life here, and we better wake up to the fact that we need to stop disrupting everything and destroying it. We have yet to learn that lesson and it costs all other wild life any hope of survival.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hotel1
 


That is not the important distinction, it is more on the political implication that is given when using the EU in this case- For what I understood the organization is only "an organ of The European Parliament and Council" in the form of an adviser role and nothing more. It is an independent organization in itself and has no legislative power, it can only establish practices for those zoos that are members and comply with the organization directives.

So in this case using EU in the thread title is if not abusive or deceptive, certainly an irrelevant distinction. Not that the EU is a good example of a governing structure but I see no need to go overboard in pinning blames...



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimithae
 


Most people who care about giraffes do so because they learned about them in zoos and saw them in zoos. We care about what has value to us.

If we didn't know that giraffes existed and see them like we do, there would be no drive to try to protect the ones who are left in their native habitat because no one would care.

Do you think anyone in Africa cares about American bison ... or prairie dogs? Likely no because they aren't exposed to them in any meaningful way. That's part of what a zoo can do. Zoos are also useful for species maintenance where many native habitats are failing, but I suppose it's better for those animals to go extinct than be maintained.

There are species of fish that likely only survive now because private hobbyists propagate and maintain them in the home aquarium. And they don't exist in the wild because we fished out for the aquarium but because the habitat was destroyed in Lake Victoria and they were outcompeted by the Nile Perch. But I guess we should have let them go extinct rather than maintain them?



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
The EAZA (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria) is clearly not a government body and not a part of the European Union. The title is wrong in that regard and the E.U. did no such thing.

They would have to operate under the laws of whichever country the member is in, so I suppose you could say the laws in the E.U. allow them to do what they do. You cannot blame this on the E.U. however and be honest.

In the wild, an inferior animal would be savagely killed and eaten by predators (often while still alive judging by video's I've seen). That results in the best genes being passed on and insures the species survival.

In this case they are mimicking nature by removing the bad genes from their breeding stock, again insuring the species survival.

This could be seen as cruel in relationship to the single animal, but isn't reducing the chances of the species survival by not culling out inferior animals more cruel? I say putting at risk a species just because some people get queezy at the thought of how nature actually works, is in fact cruel at a much higher level. It's intellectually dishonest on top of that.

I will agree however that if someone could take the animal, neuter it and guarantee the money and facility to care for it, that would have been better cosmetically for public relations. But in reality and being honest, what's the difference between killing a Cow to feed the Lions or killing this Giraffe (their natural food) to feed them? Had they given the Giraffe away, they would have had to kill another animal to feed the predators they keep.

Clearly the general public is not mature enough to be exposed to the reality of where the meat the Lions eat comes from, so they should have known that and kept it private.

In the end the Zoo's are saving many species from extinction and if this is what it takes, people need to educate themselves before freaking out over things they don't understand IMO.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hotel1
 


And where were the RSPCA ?????? They do not seem to be helping Flooded Farmers South West of UK either..... What a sick world, but then Denmark, what else do know apart from Destruction.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Indeedy and if I may, I would just add that the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria has member Zoo's in America, the UAE and other far flung places, so there is another example of it having bugger all to do with the EU. The thread title is totalling misleading and doesn't do the story any favours either.

Animals are euthanised all the time, even in the UK for those thumping the chest with National pride and anti-EU venom. In fact, this week six Lions were euthanised @ Longleat because they bred too much and started fighting.

Personally, I see no problem. The Zoo has a responsibility to breed healthy animals and clearly he didn't fit the bill.

At least his remains were put to some use



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I stand by my above post. The only species we need worry about controlling is our own. I don't need to repost what I have already posted, no sense in being redundant.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I hate zoos anyway so this doesn't surprise me. Instead of asking if Marius had to die the better question is why do we need so many captive wild animals to begin with?

From what I've read.

Did Marius the Giraffe Have to Die?

Did Marius have to die? Other alternatives, like administering contraceptives, can cause side effects like renal failure. And neutering the young giraffe would have diminished his quality of life, says Holst. “Our most important objective is to ensure that the animals have the best life they can for as long as they live, whether that’s 20 years or two years. Breeding and parenting are especially important behaviors for a giraffe’s well-being. We didn’t want to interfere with that.”

I imagine in the wild a natural gelding is rare. If it survived to adulthood the herd might reject or kill it. Had they neutered the animal it may have required its own enclosure apart from the herd. Not healthy by any means.

Horrible situation with no easy fix. Breeding programs should be more closely monitored, not sure what they were thinking.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Fed up of the old limited spaces in zoo's BS. If a human has twins or triplets by accident she can't put a bolt through it head if she can't handle them all!!

Don't breed if u can't handle the poor things.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Your strangely uncalled for use of an insult and your being seemingly deliberately obtuse leads me to wonder if you have an undeclared personal interest.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
It wasnt healthy.. it was inbred.

2nd.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

hotel1
Your strangely uncalled for use of an insult and your being seemingly deliberately obtuse leads me to wonder if you have an undeclared personal interest.

If you think that, when I said it was the most stupid explanation, it was an insult, it was not intended as that, an intelligent person can make stupid explanations. If it sounded like an insult, my apologies.

As being obtuse, when someone says something without providing any real evidence I always ask for that. If you think that's being "deliberately obtuse" then I prefer to be obtuse than being gullible and accepting any thing anyone posts.

As for having a personal interest, declared or not, I do not, I just like the truth.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


My good opinion of someone once lost is seldom regained.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

hotel1
reply to post by ArMaP
 

My good opinion of someone once lost is seldom regained.

That's natural.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheToastmanCometh
 


Except the kid who "wished to devour the unborn" for breakfast.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Starcrossd
 


Your not gonna like the answer to why he was simply not castrated. The reason is money. EU have to work from numbers, not cuteness. The giraffe's genes were not usable in breeding programs. They had to maintain as much diversity in the zoos as possible. An animal that can not breed, is sorry to say it so harsh, useless to the EU. Keep in mind, numbers. Money. They need to maintain a budget that helps as many animals as possible. If the european union starts spending money on every cute animal in excistense, we would end up having as much debt as the United States of America. Europe is not that stupid. We arent heartles or soulles, or a bunch of psychopaths. But we need to keep both feet on the ground and be realistic about these kinds of situations. That means making some tough decisions by numbers and facts sometimes, not feelings and how adorable an animal is. Its tough, yeah.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by needlenight
 

The laws concerning zoos are not EU laws, each member state is supposed to have their own laws.

That's what the Directive 1999/22/EC says.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join