Giraffe Killed

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:

Why Copenhagen zoo was right to cull giraffe | CNN

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]

Tend to agree with this. If it had been a random audience or passers-by at the zoo while they just did it in the cage I’d be much more understanding of the outrage. But if you have a group of people that know beforehand, well, that’s a conscious decision and not the zoo’s fault.

Besides I do think it’s far more valuable for young children to learn about death in real life than from Disney movies.
[/quote]

I dunno.

I read the EAZA statement above and find it unconvincing. I think the mask slipped at some point, since other officials referred to “limited resources.”

Here are alternatives.

1. A zoo inside the EAZA? Here is the member list:
   http://www.eaza.net/membership/Pages/Zoos%20and%20Aquariums.aspx
   Within this prodigious list, there was no member that had a “genetic gap” which this giraffe could have filled?
2. A zoo outside the EAZA? What is so special about European zoos? What few I have seen are inhumane compared with North American ones. (A cut below, say Lincoln Park or the Bronx Zoo) What particular inadequacies did, say, San DIego have? The expense of transport?
3. If castration is out, what about vasectomy? I have seen a giraffe’s neck and I have seen its balls. Can’t miss either. A veterinarian should have little problem with ketamine, or a laryngeal or supra laryngeal airway for 10 minutes while an assistant does the bilateral deed. Expense? Minimal compared to efforts made in breeding koalas or whatever.

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.

[Testy1]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.
[/quote]

I disagree, while not an everyday occurrence, it is not rare for zoo’s to cull their herds for genetic diversity.

Animal husbandry also refers to the raising of animals for profit. It makes a more sense for a zoo to raise baby animals (which bring in viewers) than to prevent those births even if the animal is to later be used for food.

As for the butchering, it is not something that was done in the walkway. This was something you had to sign up to witness. If you don’t want you children to see it they won’t. I prefer my kids see and know about these things. My daughter has held the deers leg while I skin it and is none the worse for it. Then she ate the steaks. IMO more people could stand to know that meat doesn’t magically appear in the grocery store.

If this is pornography so is the discovery channel. This animal met a far less cruel death than had it been set free and then eaten while it was still alive, the way most animals meet their fate in the wild.

[coolp3ople]

I read a little bit about this, had they left the giraffe alive it would have bred with others and provided offspring with potentially undesirable genetic characteristics. And they could not spey it since the other males would behave aggressively around it and it would cause potential problems. The giraffes are allowed to breed as they would in the wild as this allows them to live normally but when the offspring comes out as an uninteresting genetic specimen this sort of thing happens and there is nothing wrong with it.

There is a video with the zoo chief giving some solid info. Bengt Holst on killing a giraffe at Copenhagen Zoo - YouTube

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.
[/quote]

I disagree, while not an everyday occurrence, it is not rare for zoo’s to cull their herds for genetic diversity.
[/quote]
I respect your disagreement. There are an estimated 7500 animals “culled” in zoos yearly. Many, I presume are rodents and small animals in no danger of extinction. But because something is “not rare” does not make it ethically correct in every situation. In this particular case, I have my doubts, and those doubts are based on the averred issue of “limited resources.” If money is short, they should not be in this business.

Animal husbandry also refers to the raising of animals for profit. It makes a more sense for a zoo to raise baby animals (which bring in viewers) than to prevent those births even if the animal is to later be used for food.

As for the butchering, it is not something that was done in the walkway. This was something you had to sign up to witness. If you don’t want you children to see it they won’t. I prefer my kids see and know about these things. My daughter has held the deers leg while I skin it and is none the worse for it. Then she ate the steaks. IMO more people could stand to know that meat doesn’t magically appear in the grocery store.

My point stands. If you as a parent want to show butchering to your children, go right ahead; visit stockyards and abatoirs. But what takes this event out of purely educational is the garish display on a “rare” animal.
You are entitled to your expressed opinion. IMO, most people could stand to respect nature and its “wild” animals, and behave accordingly when one dies under human protection.

If this is pornography so is the discovery channel. This animal met a far less cruel death than had it been set free and then eaten while it was still alive, the way most animals meet their fate in the wild.

False dichotomy.
I offered alternatives that do not include sending a captive giraffe to its death by predators.
What stopped Copenhagen was a budget priority–somewhere hidden–that cash would be better spent on some other project.

[red04]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.
[/quote]

I disagree, while not an everyday occurrence, it is not rare for zoo’s to cull their herds for genetic diversity.
[/quote]
I respect your disagreement. There are an estimated 7500 animals “culled” in zoos yearly. Many, I presume are rodents and small animals in no danger of extinction. But because something is “not rare” does not make it ethically correct in every situation. In this particular case, I have my doubts, and those doubts are based on the averred issue of “limited resources.” If money is short, they should not be in this business.

Animal husbandry also refers to the raising of animals for profit. It makes a more sense for a zoo to raise baby animals (which bring in viewers) than to prevent those births even if the animal is to later be used for food.

As for the butchering, it is not something that was done in the walkway. This was something you had to sign up to witness. If you don’t want you children to see it they won’t. I prefer my kids see and know about these things. My daughter has held the deers leg while I skin it and is none the worse for it. Then she ate the steaks. IMO more people could stand to know that meat doesn’t magically appear in the grocery store.

My point stands. If you as a parent want to show butchering to your children, go right ahead; visit stockyards and abatoirs. But what takes this event out of purely educational is the garish display on a “rare” animal.
You are entitled to your expressed opinion. IMO, most people could stand to respect nature and its “wild” animals, and behave accordingly when one dies under human protection.

If this is pornography so is the discovery channel. This animal met a far less cruel death than had it been set free and then eaten while it was still alive, the way most animals meet their fate in the wild.

False dichotomy.
I offered alternatives that do not include sending a captive giraffe to its death by predators.
What stopped Copenhagen was a budget priority–somewhere hidden–that cash would be better spent on some other project. [/quote]

Your presumption of this entire issue as being one of lack of resources(specifically money) is incorrect. They certainly have the resources to raise the animal, but the animal would cause problems in the environment it would be raised in. Lacking space in this case is not lacking money. Whether you find it plausible or not, they say they were not offered by another suitable zoo to take the animal(the one EAZA zoo that offered has one of Marius’s brothers, the other zoo did not meet the standards they require).

I feel as if the only action would have been one of aborting this giraffe when they were aware that it would be a problematic male. I’m not sure if that is something that would ever be done.

[MattyXL]

There goes that “standards” word again.

[jbpick86]

I mean to be honest, to all those saying that this was not necessary, you are 100% correct. It is never necessary to kill one individual animal. However, for you, or the lions, some animal has to die. What is the difference in this animal and the one who’s place he took?? There was no great travesty here, just the circle of life playing out. I have ended the lives of my fair share of animals and will continue to do so, but each time, the argument can be made that it wasn’t necessary and that I could have found meat somewhere else. Each time that would have been correct but why is that one animal more important than another. So when I am about to kill something, I reconcile that it was just their bad luck and make it as quick and efficient as possible.

[red04]

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
There goes that “standards” word again. [/quote]

I find it to be the only debatable part of this discussion. I don’t know what it is about the other zoo that the EAZA director feels makes them substandard. It could be something completely frivolous that really does make this situation pretty silly. It could also be a serious stain such as a past of dealing with private collectors and circuses, or a history of poor care for their animals, or a bad breeding program.

I will say that the Danish have some animal practices that we in the states take very different standards on. For example, they euthanize dogs and cats that get cancer while in many(most?) cases we would care for them with treatment until the day they die. Their stance of ‘quality of life above quantity of life’ certainly affects their decision making in an event such as this one.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
There goes that “standards” word again. [/quote]

Precisely.

Whenever I see that word, or when someone tells me that can’t do something because of “policy,” I now ask to see the printed policy.

So for these European bureaucrats in the EAZA, what was wrong with North
American zoos? Are they all below their “standards?” Show me.
It is far more believable that this giraffe did not fit their needs and the other alternatives were “expensive.”

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I mean to be honest, to all those saying that this was not necessary, you are 100% correct. It is never necessary to kill one individual animal. However, for you, or the lions, some animal has to die. What is the difference in this animal and the one who’s place he took?? … [/quote]

Understood.
The difference is the obligation of the zookeepers.
A zookeeper has the ethical obligation to feed his animals their natural diet; he is obliged to offer meat to the lion.
But he is not obliged to offer the lion a giraffe, a gazelle, an eland, an okapi, a tapir, a kudu, bongo or dik-dik.
There are animals raised for human consumption–under what one hopes are humane conditions–that are available to the lion.

He is obliged to feed and keep a giraffe. If a sick animal is euthanized, there are vets and pathologists who learn from the event, and perhaps not the worthy children of Copenhagen’s concerned middle class parents.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.
[/quote]

I disagree, while not an everyday occurrence, it is not rare for zoo’s to cull their herds for genetic diversity.
[/quote]
I respect your disagreement. There are an estimated 7500 animals “culled” in zoos yearly. Many, I presume are rodents and small animals in no danger of extinction. But because something is “not rare” does not make it ethically correct in every situation. In this particular case, I have my doubts, and those doubts are based on the averred issue of “limited resources.” If money is short, they should not be in this business.

Animal husbandry also refers to the raising of animals for profit. It makes a more sense for a zoo to raise baby animals (which bring in viewers) than to prevent those births even if the animal is to later be used for food.

As for the butchering, it is not something that was done in the walkway. This was something you had to sign up to witness. If you don’t want you children to see it they won’t. I prefer my kids see and know about these things. My daughter has held the deers leg while I skin it and is none the worse for it. Then she ate the steaks. IMO more people could stand to know that meat doesn’t magically appear in the grocery store.

My point stands. If you as a parent want to show butchering to your children, go right ahead; visit stockyards and abatoirs. But what takes this event out of purely educational is the garish display on a “rare” animal.
You are entitled to your expressed opinion. IMO, most people could stand to respect nature and its “wild” animals, and behave accordingly when one dies under human protection.

If this is pornography so is the discovery channel. This animal met a far less cruel death than had it been set free and then eaten while it was still alive, the way most animals meet their fate in the wild.

False dichotomy.
I offered alternatives that do not include sending a captive giraffe to its death by predators.
What stopped Copenhagen was a budget priority–somewhere hidden–that cash would be better spent on some other project. [/quote]

Your presumption of this entire issue as being one of lack of resources(specifically money) is incorrect. They certainly have the resources to raise the animal, but the animal would cause problems in the environment it would be raised in. …[/quote]

So you might agree that if they had the money to raise it and others, they should have had the money for vasectomy, or travel to another facility outside Europe, or confinement away from females in estrus?

If you agree, and you do, then there were alternatives other than a pneumatic bolt to the head and public slaughter. Was the decision the cheapest one available, or the correct one?

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…the ethical obligation…There are animals raised for human consumption–under what one hopes are humane conditions–that are available to the lion…

[/quote]

Seriously, Doc, I am puzzled that only animals raised for human consumption should be made available to lions. Those gears just don’t mesh.[/quote]

I am speaking to the ethical obligations of the zookeepers, and not to those of the their carnivorous charges.
There is enough waste in human food production that zookeepers could feed lions without unnecessarily taking a life.
Now that is not exactly the situation here; but it was a healthy animal, and not sick or suffering geriatric, that was fed to the lions. The first lapse is the killing of the animal; feeding it to lions, discretely, is ethically neutral. Making a display of it is objectionable (to me, not everyone).

[punnyguy]

Good point by the doctor ^^ that I only just thought of while talking to a friend about this.

IMO there is a big difference between a private lesson between a parent and a child about the “circle of life”, where food comes from in real life, etc. versus the whole SPECTACLE (yes, I’m shouting) of this public autopsy and feeding to the lions.

[jbpick86]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…the ethical obligation…There are animals raised for human consumption–under what one hopes are humane conditions–that are available to the lion…

[/quote]

Seriously, Doc, I am puzzled that only animals raised for human consumption should be made available to lions. Those gears just don’t mesh.[/quote]

I am speaking to the ethical obligations of the zookeepers, and not to those of the their carnivorous charges.
There is enough waste in human food production that zookeepers could feed lions without unnecessarily taking a life.
Now that is not exactly the situation here; but it was a healthy animal, and not sick or suffering geriatric, that was fed to the lions. The first lapse is the killing of the animal; feeding it to lions, discretely, is ethically neutral. Making a display of it is objectionable (to me, not everyone).
[/quote]

Maybe growing up as a hunter has numbed me to this but I have been around dead, dying, bleeding, and skinned animals my whole life. I don’t really see the big deal there provided the people in attendance knew what was going to happen.

I guess in my mind, killing an animal is killing an animal, regardless if you did it yourself with an animal you raised or hunted, or had someone else do it. I see no distinction in the slaughter of the giraffe and its use for food, and the slaughter of penned cattle or chickens. Death is death, and meat is meat in that regard and to argue any other way is illogical and based solely off of gut reaction.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…the ethical obligation…There are animals raised for human consumption–under what one hopes are humane conditions–that are available to the lion…

[/quote]

Seriously, Doc, I am puzzled that only animals raised for human consumption should be made available to lions. Those gears just don’t mesh.[/quote]

I am speaking to the ethical obligations of the zookeepers, and not to those of the their carnivorous charges.
There is enough waste in human food production that zookeepers could feed lions without unnecessarily taking a life.
Now that is not exactly the situation here; but it was a healthy animal, and not sick or suffering geriatric, that was fed to the lions. The first lapse is the killing of the animal; feeding it to lions, discretely, is ethically neutral. Making a display of it is objectionable (to me, not everyone).
[/quote]

Maybe growing up as a hunter has numbed me to this but I have been around dead, dying, bleeding, and skinned animals my whole life. I don’t really see the big deal there provided the people in attendance knew what was going to happen.

I guess in my mind, killing an animal is killing an animal, regardless if you did it yourself with an animal you raised or hunted, or had someone else do it. I see no distinction in the slaughter of the giraffe and its use for food, and the slaughter of penned cattle or chickens. Death is death, and meat is meat in that regard and to argue any other way is illogical and based solely off of gut reaction.
[/quote]

You grew up as a hunter, not as a zookeeper.
It is not your position that I question, it is the ethical position of the zookeepers in Copenhagen.

I happen to see a difference between the responsibility toward a giraffe in a zoo versus chickens in a pen. But I don’t hold my position as a better ethical one.

Isaac Bashevis Singer, a Noble Prize winning vegetarian, once pointed out that, “For the animals, every day is Treblinka.”

[red04]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.
[/quote]

I disagree, while not an everyday occurrence, it is not rare for zoo’s to cull their herds for genetic diversity.
[/quote]
I respect your disagreement. There are an estimated 7500 animals “culled” in zoos yearly. Many, I presume are rodents and small animals in no danger of extinction. But because something is “not rare” does not make it ethically correct in every situation. In this particular case, I have my doubts, and those doubts are based on the averred issue of “limited resources.” If money is short, they should not be in this business.

Animal husbandry also refers to the raising of animals for profit. It makes a more sense for a zoo to raise baby animals (which bring in viewers) than to prevent those births even if the animal is to later be used for food.

As for the butchering, it is not something that was done in the walkway. This was something you had to sign up to witness. If you don’t want you children to see it they won’t. I prefer my kids see and know about these things. My daughter has held the deers leg while I skin it and is none the worse for it. Then she ate the steaks. IMO more people could stand to know that meat doesn’t magically appear in the grocery store.

My point stands. If you as a parent want to show butchering to your children, go right ahead; visit stockyards and abatoirs. But what takes this event out of purely educational is the garish display on a “rare” animal.
You are entitled to your expressed opinion. IMO, most people could stand to respect nature and its “wild” animals, and behave accordingly when one dies under human protection.

If this is pornography so is the discovery channel. This animal met a far less cruel death than had it been set free and then eaten while it was still alive, the way most animals meet their fate in the wild.

False dichotomy.
I offered alternatives that do not include sending a captive giraffe to its death by predators.
What stopped Copenhagen was a budget priority–somewhere hidden–that cash would be better spent on some other project. [/quote]

Your presumption of this entire issue as being one of lack of resources(specifically money) is incorrect. They certainly have the resources to raise the animal, but the animal would cause problems in the environment it would be raised in. …[/quote]

So you might agree that if they had the money to raise it and others, they should have had the money for vasectomy, or travel to another facility outside Europe, or confinement away from females in estrus?

If you agree, and you do, then there were alternatives other than a pneumatic bolt to the head and public slaughter. Was the decision the cheapest one available, or the correct one?[/quote]

Holding it in a pen alone is absolutely out of the question for them, a herd animal being held in what is essentially isolation has devastating effects on it emotionally, and as I have said multiple times now, they have a ‘quality of life over quantity of life’ approach to their animals. Even the vasectomy still leaves Marius as a younger bull giraffe sharing an enclosure with an elder who was reportedly abusing him.

Maybe they needed to have the foresight of this outcome and abort the birth, but I’ve been told that is something zoos absolutely do not do with most animals because an aborted birth wrecks the mother and sometimes father, which again goes back to ‘quality over quantity’ of life(although I will probably agree that this now starts to get flimsy, because they essentially knew that Marius would live a very short life before he becomes of age to be a target for elder males. Even if that short life was of the highest quality, it’s like they knew he was doomed).

I guess what I’m saying is that I think the correct decision may have just been the cheapest one as well. As for the public autopsy/dissection, that’s going to be entirely subjective, parents that voluntarily took their children to it(and the numerous events like it held in the nearby Copenhagen Museum which apparently has a partnership with the zoo for surplus animals) clearly think it was a great thing because it was attended by many who were active in participating by asking their own questions of the vet in charge.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.
[/quote]

I disagree, while not an everyday occurrence, it is not rare for zoo’s to cull their herds for genetic diversity.
[/quote]
I respect your disagreement. There are an estimated 7500 animals “culled” in zoos yearly. Many, I presume are rodents and small animals in no danger of extinction. But because something is “not rare” does not make it ethically correct in every situation. In this particular case, I have my doubts, and those doubts are based on the averred issue of “limited resources.” If money is short, they should not be in this business.

Animal husbandry also refers to the raising of animals for profit. It makes a more sense for a zoo to raise baby animals (which bring in viewers) than to prevent those births even if the animal is to later be used for food.

As for the butchering, it is not something that was done in the walkway. This was something you had to sign up to witness. If you don’t want you children to see it they won’t. I prefer my kids see and know about these things. My daughter has held the deers leg while I skin it and is none the worse for it. Then she ate the steaks. IMO more people could stand to know that meat doesn’t magically appear in the grocery store.

My point stands. If you as a parent want to show butchering to your children, go right ahead; visit stockyards and abatoirs. But what takes this event out of purely educational is the garish display on a “rare” animal.
You are entitled to your expressed opinion. IMO, most people could stand to respect nature and its “wild” animals, and behave accordingly when one dies under human protection.

If this is pornography so is the discovery channel. This animal met a far less cruel death than had it been set free and then eaten while it was still alive, the way most animals meet their fate in the wild.

False dichotomy.
I offered alternatives that do not include sending a captive giraffe to its death by predators.
What stopped Copenhagen was a budget priority–somewhere hidden–that cash would be better spent on some other project. [/quote]

Your presumption of this entire issue as being one of lack of resources(specifically money) is incorrect. They certainly have the resources to raise the animal, but the animal would cause problems in the environment it would be raised in. …[/quote]

So you might agree that if they had the money to raise it and others, they should have had the money for vasectomy, or travel to another facility outside Europe, or confinement away from females in estrus?

If you agree, and you do, then there were alternatives other than a pneumatic bolt to the head and public slaughter. Was the decision the cheapest one available, or the correct one?[/quote]

Holding it in a pen alone is absolutely out of the question for them, a herd animal being held in what is essentially isolation has devastating effects on it emotionally, and as I have said multiple times now, they have a ‘quality of life over quantity of life’ approach to their animals. Even the vasectomy still leaves Marius as a younger bull giraffe sharing an enclosure with an elder who was reportedly abusing him.

Maybe they needed to have the foresight of this outcome and abort the birth, but I’ve been told that is something zoos absolutely do not do with most animals because an aborted birth wrecks the mother and sometimes father, which again goes back to ‘quality over quantity’ of life(although I will probably agree that this now starts to get flimsy, because they essentially knew that Marius would live a very short life before he becomes of age to be a target for elder males. Even if that short life was of the highest quality, it’s like they knew he was doomed).

I guess what I’m saying is that I think the correct decision may have just been the cheapest one as well. As for the public autopsy/dissection, that’s going to be entirely subjective, parents that voluntarily took their children to it(and the numerous events like it held in the nearby Copenhagen Museum which apparently has a partnership with the zoo for surplus animals) clearly think it was a great thing because it was attended by many who were active in participating by asking their own questions of the vet in charge.[/quote]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/11/hanna-denounces-slaughter-of-giraffe.html

Well, apparently 40,000 people and a cohort of North American zookeepers disagree rather pointedly with you and with Copenhagen.