That "surplus" Giraffe.
When they fed the lions, I wonder if they said “are you having a giraffe?”
Im torn. Yes I find it hard to swallow (very sinewy) that there wasnt a happier ending to be found, but that makes me a massive hypocrite as I eat meat everyday and I have virtually no idea of its origin (or treament).
In fact, anyone that eats meat needs to keep quiet. Hypocrites!Posted 4 years agoNotterSubscriber
I do find it interesting that the “…several zoos which put in last-ditch offers to take Marius” only did so at the eleventh hour so to speak, and yet they are the zoos that are being lauded? Where were their offers earlier when it’s more likely something else could have been arranged?
Bit of positive publicity from these zoos perhaps in full knowledge that they were never going to have to take the giraffe?
Or is that a cynical step too far….?Posted 4 years agozokesMember
If I were to have a vasectomy, I’d lie still while the nice nurse gave me an injection, and not risk breaking my neck after being shot with a tranquiliser.
So, no veterinary attention should ever be given to an animal that might fall whilst being anaesthetised? What a queer thought.
You’re going to have o do better than that to explain why killing a perfectly healthy animal was good for its welfare. This is exactly the sort of logic that says we should kill badgers because they apparently spread TB to cows, rather than vaccinate cows.Posted 4 years agoMrs ToastMember
So, no veterinary attention should ever be given to an animal that might fall whilst being anaesthetised? What a queer thought
Apparently giraffes are very tricky to anaesthetise (so zoo vets tend to do it as a last resort), and castration can cause behavioural issues. You also can’t have more than one male giraffe in a group, because they get all lairy and competitive over the females. The fights can be quite brutal and lead to broken necks/limbs when they fall (and also look inappropriately funny).
I guess it’s a bit like domestic cattle – you don’t need males in the same kind of numbers as females to maintain a captive population.Posted 4 years agozokesMember
No I’m not, because as I already explained, it’s a matter of welfare of the species that is at issue, not one individual animal.
No, it isn’t. Sterilising the animal wouldn’t have made one jot of difference to it or its species. As I said before any argument to the contrary is akin to thinking culling badgers will solve bovine TB.Posted 4 years agoCougarSubscriber
I’m sure neutering the giraffe would have achieved the same outcome
I read on one of the linked articles that it’s not that simple, there are “problems” with neutering giraffes. Aside from catching the buggers and requiring a ladder I’m not sure what those problems are (behavioural difficulties?), but for whatever reason it’d seem that this wasn’t a viable option.Posted 4 years agoCougarSubscriber
The elephant in the room that we routinely slaughter animals for food is a very good point. No-one gets bent out of shape that poor old flossie had to be sliced and diced in order for us to have our lamb tikka, so why the double standards?
As previously discussed I’m not sure as I’m wholly comfortable with the idea of making it a public spectacle, that seems in bad taste to me; but on the flipside, if it makes people think about where their food comes from then (as a smug veggie) that’s perhaps not entirely a bad thing. Poor kids, traumatised by seeing an animal be slaughtered, better take them to McDonald’s to cheer them up.Posted 4 years agorichmtbSubscriber
Aside from the possibly inappropriate public spectacle I don’t really see the problem.
Zoo’s are entirely artificial, the populations of the zoos need to be managed. So long as they deal with them without cruelty then how they manage the animals is up to them.
We slaughter thousands of young animals for meat everyday. Is the giraffe more important because it has nice eye-lashes?Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘That "surplus" Giraffe.’ is closed to new replies.