“A Danish zoo sparked outrage Sunday when it put down a healthy young giraffe to prevent inbreeding as young children looked on, before chopping it up and feeding it to lions. The fate of 18-month-old Marius shocked animal lovers around the world, with thousands signing an online petition to save him and a billionaire offering to buy him and keep him in his Beverly Hills garden. However last-ditch efforts to spare Marius were to no avail and he was put down with a bolt gun early on Sunday, zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro confirmed.”
They should have put it in the cage with the lions
This was pretty horrific, do not understand why it “had” to be done. couldnt they have just sterilized him? I would like to know if there was a specific reason why it had to be completed, in front of an audience at that.
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
They should have put it in the cage with the csulli[/quote]
Fixed
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
They should have put it in the cage with the lions[/quote]
I’m going to skip the intermediate steps between lion vs giraffe and how many lions vs a giraffe and people vs a giraffe and skip straight to thinking about how I would go about defeating a giraffe with my bare hands.
Getting to it’s neck would be the hard part, because you’d have to get past the powerful legs. But after that you could just climb up and get to the head, at which point it’s a simple gouge the eyes and scramble the brains job.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
They should have put it in the cage with the csulli[/quote]
Fixed[/quote]
omfg I can’t believe you posted this while I was typing my response…
That is an outrage feeding Lions meat! The barbarity of it all.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
They should have put it in the cage with the lions[/quote]
I’m going to skip the intermediate steps between lion vs giraffe and how many lions vs a giraffe and people vs a giraffe and skip straight to thinking about how I would go about defeating a giraffe with my bare hands.
Getting to it’s neck would be the hard part, because you’d have to get past the powerful legs. But after that you could just climb up and get to the head, at which point it’s a simple gouge the eyes and scramble the brains job.[/quote]
What’s more, because giraffes have such large cervical vertebrae, the pedicles and spinous processes would basically be like rungs on a ladder to help you climb
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
They should have put it in the cage with the csulli[/quote]
Fixed[/quote]
omfg I can’t believe you posted this while I was typing my response…[/quote]
LOL
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
They should have put it in the cage with the lions[/quote]
I’m going to skip the intermediate steps between lion vs giraffe and how many lions vs a giraffe and people vs a giraffe and skip straight to thinking about how I would go about defeating a giraffe with my bare hands.
Getting to it’s neck would be the hard part, because you’d have to get past the powerful legs. But after that you could just climb up and get to the head, at which point it’s a simple gouge the eyes and scramble the brains job.[/quote]
The legs are not the biggest concern. Have you ever seen giraffes fight?
Not a big deal. People need to stop getting up in arms over death. It’s a natural part of life.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Not a big deal. People need to stop getting up in arms over death. It’s a natural part of life.[/quote]
There wasnt nothing natural about this death, there was other options, other zoos that were willing to take the animal, it wasnt necessary. This was callous, cruel, and unnecessary.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Not a big deal. People need to stop getting up in arms over death. It’s a natural part of life.[/quote]
There wasnt nothing natural about this death, there was other options, other zoos that were willing to take the animal, it wasnt necessary. This was callous, cruel, and unnecessary. [/quote]
Why is this more cruel than feeding it a cow or horse? Granted it was not the best idea to show it to the public, but I’m pretty certain it is standard practice to feed excess animals to the carnivores.
Is it because it is a cute animal that everyone likes? Would there have been less uproar if it was a warthog?
I am really not trying to be contentious but until there are vegan Lions something is going to have to die for them to eat.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Not a big deal. People need to stop getting up in arms over death. It’s a natural part of life.[/quote]
There wasnt nothing natural about this death, there was other options, other zoos that were willing to take the animal, it wasnt necessary. This was callous, cruel, and unnecessary. [/quote]
Why is this more cruel than feeding it a cow or horse? Granted it was not the best idea to show it to the public, but I’m pretty certain it is standard practice to feed excess animals to the carnivores.
Is it because it is a cute animal that everyone likes? Would there have been less uproar if it was a warthog?
I am really not trying to be contentious but until there are vegan Lions something is going to have to die for them to eat.
[/quote]
I think your misunderstanding me, in this instance it was animal in captivity that did not need to die, The lions were not starving for meat, this animal was killed for a reason that had a solution wherein the animal did not have to die.
It could have been any animal, it had nothing to do with the type of animal it had everything to do with it being unnecessary.
U ASSHOLE 
I tend to agree with this account. Yet again I am biologist so may be biased towards this view.
Also they did not kill it and butcher it in front of random visitors. The people knew what they were coming for and learned from it. If they did not want to see it they did not have to. I think it was a good idea for them to use it as a learning experience instead of just killing the animal (which they were doing anyway).
p.s. the article is the statement from Lesley Dickie, the Executive Director of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Not a big deal. People need to stop getting up in arms over death. It’s a natural part of life.[/quote]
There wasnt nothing natural about this death, there was other options, other zoos that were willing to take the animal, it wasnt necessary. This was callous, cruel, and unnecessary. [/quote]
Why is this more cruel than feeding it a cow or horse? Granted it was not the best idea to show it to the public, but I’m pretty certain it is standard practice to feed excess animals to the carnivores.
Is it because it is a cute animal that everyone likes? Would there have been less uproar if it was a warthog?
I am really not trying to be contentious but until there are vegan Lions something is going to have to die for them to eat.
[/quote]
I think your misunderstanding me, in this instance it was animal in captivity that did not need to die, The lions were not starving for meat, this animal was killed for a reason that had a solution wherein the animal did not have to die.
It could have been any animal, it had nothing to do with the type of animal it had everything to do with it being unnecessary.
U ASSHOLE
[/quote]
While I agree I am indeed an asshole my point stands, if not this animal some other animal would have had to been killed to feed the Lions. Giraffes are pretty successful breeders so I don’t see why they shouldn’t be utilized.
I am also disappointed that such a big deal was made of it being done in front of the children. Kids should she this stuff so they understand where food comes from. We are too far removed from our food source IMO.
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
I tend to agree with this account. Yet again I am biologist so may be biased towards this view.
Also they did not kill it and butcher it in front of random visitors. The people knew what they were coming for and learned from it. If they did not want to see it they did not have to. I think it was a good idea for them to use it as a learning experience instead of just killing the animal (which they were doing anyway).
p.s. the article is the statement from Lesley Dickie, the Executive Director of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria.[/quote]
Excellent article. Agree on all accounts.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
This was pretty horrific, do not understand why it “had” to be done. couldnt they have just sterilized him? [/quote]
That was my first thought, and there’s a problem when I’m the smartest guy in the room.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
I tend to agree with this account. Yet again I am biologist so may be biased towards this view.
Also they did not kill it and butcher it in front of random visitors. The people knew what they were coming for and learned from it. If they did not want to see it they did not have to. I think it was a good idea for them to use it as a learning experience instead of just killing the animal (which they were doing anyway).
p.s. the article is the statement from Lesley Dickie, the Executive Director of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria.[/quote]
Excellent article. Agree on all accounts.
[/quote]
The article is obviously slanted, and quite vague on what their standards are when asked why this animal was not transported to another zoo, I would like to know the specific reason why it wasnt transferred to another zoo other than not agreeing on standards.
These lions were not starving in captivity, captive lions are fed at least twice a week in a diet that mimics what they would eat in their natural habitat. Generally they are given livestock.
This was not a necessity, in fact the idea that they HAD to do it in my eyes just isnt true, its almost as if they are being elitist in their views. Basically saying, nope this animal cannot be transferred because the Zoo offering him respite does not have the same standards.
I would like some specificity with regards to the poor standards of the zoo offering to take the giraffe.
I guess we will agree to disagree
[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
This was pretty horrific, do not understand why it “had” to be done. couldnt they have just sterilized him? [/quote]
That was my first thought, and there’s a problem when I’m the smartest guy in the room.[/quote]
Castration of large animals like that is pretty difficult and not very well documented (doesn’t happen very often). The mortality rate is said to be pretty high and there are obvious risks involved.
In most of the reports they have said castration can lead to undesirable side effects but no one has said exactly what that means.
Castrating the animal would have also taken resources and space away from future giraffes that could actually partake in breeding (without the risk of inbreeding).