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.
needlenight
reply to post by nixie_nox
Fine fine, you win and I get peace.
Mianeye
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
We don't live in a Disney world where everything has a happy ending.
Get over it.
edit on 10-2-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)
luciddream
Many people signed signatures(over 20,000)offered money(over half a million) to buy the animal, yet it was refused.
They could have released it in the wild and let it fend off before it becomes a food.
The giraffe had no chance again a bolt gun.
He said his zoo had turned down offers from other ones to take Marius and an offer from a private individual who wanted to buy the giraffe for 500,000 euros ($680,000).
And as i said zoos are the only ones attempting to save wildlife right now imagine if they werent around no one would care.
luciddream
Many people signed signatures(over 20,000)offered money(over half a million) to buy the animal, yet it was refused.
They could have released it in the wild and let it fend off before it becomes a food.
The giraffe had no chance again a bolt gun.
Copenhagen Zoo said it had no choice but to kill the young giraffe. Under European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (Eaza) rules, inbreeding of any animal is quite rightly avoided. According to the zoo, although Marius was healthy, his genes were already well represented at the zoo and none of the 300 other Eaza-affiliated zoos could take him.Castration was considered cruel with “undesirable effects” and releasing him into the wild was thought unlikely to be successful.
So why didn’t they just build him another pen? I realise that birth control is easier for human beings but surely even zoos consider family planning.
The problem comes down to money and finance. Of course Marius and the Longleat lions could have been saved. All they needed to do was make another enclosure. It’s as simple as that. But of course that takes money and manpower.
I don’t doubt senior management at both institutions, like the keepers, care for their animals. Indeed both parks have released press statements highlighting the fact that animal welfare comes first, but recent events beg the question of how they get into these predicaments in the first place, and whether they are genuinely understand their ‘customers’, the people that pay good money to see their collections. They are animal lovers. Passionate about the Henrys and Mariuses of this world. It’s why ‘adopt an animal’ schemes have been so successful.
Which brings us back to the bigger issue – if we can’t control a small number of animals in an artificial environment, what hope have we of controlling the spiralling slaughter of hundreds of thousands of wild animals?
The Copenhagen giraffe could have been translocated. A risky business, I’ll agree. I have witnessed several translocation a of giraffes in Africa and it is a nerve wracking ordeal for all concerned. Giraffes are skittish creatures and it’s not uncommon for them to have a heart attack through fear. The movement of any semi wild creature is unpleasant, but surely it’s a better option than euthanasia?
Whilst it cannot be undone, Marius' death has served an important purpose in shining a spotlight on a practice which is normally kept well-hidden from public view. As long as there are zoos, there will be unwanted animals. And as long as there are unwanted animals, more like Marius will be killed.
violet
reply to post by pheonix358
Sex and reproduction is part of life as well. Should we do this in front of children??? No.
Where does the bald mine draw the line on washing his face?
violet
reply to post by pheonix358
Sex and reproduction is part of life as well. Should we do this in front of children??? No.