Is Danish Honesty in Culling and Dissecting Giraffes in Public a Good Idea?

Vet Times The website for the veterinary profession https://www.vettimes.co.uk

Is Danish honesty in culling and dissecting giraffes in public a good idea?

Author : BRADLEY VINER

Categories : Vets

Date : March 31, 2014

IT seems Marius is not a lucky name if you happen to be a giraffe, particularly if you live in Denmark. Or perhaps all male Danish giraffes go by that name.

The scene was set in Copenhagen Zoo in early February, when it announced Marius was not genetically significant enough to remain a member of their herd of eight and, therefore, he was despatched by means of a captive bolt, and, presumably, a very high ladder. His carcase was then dissected in public. Videos of the dissection were distributed on social networks by kids with mobile phones, as well as photos of vestiges of reticulated skin and its associated flesh being munched by one of the zoo’s magnificent male lions, who must surely be called Magnus.

Presumably working on the principle that any publicity is good publicity, Jesper Mohring-Jensen, the head zoologist at Jyllands Park Zoo 200 miles to the west, then announced its Marius was “genetically uninteresting” and was due to be killed later in the year. Animal rights activists promptly announced Mr Mohring-Jensen was also due to be killed later this year.

One has to admire his forthrightness in the face of such threats. “A zoo is not a sanctuary for cute animals in my opinion; it’s a professional establishment. I really like Americans, but I dislike the Disney way of thinking – that it’s all pink and it’s all love and everything. That’s not the way it is,” adding another 316,148,990 to the list of people that really hate him. As for American animal rights activists…

Honesty policy

I have no problem with giraffes being used as a source of food. During a trip to South Africa I ate springbok, eland and kudu without any qualms and, in reality, as ruminants giraffes are just high- rise cows. It does seem as if our reluctance to cull animals is proportional to their good looks – cue dear old Mr Brock. However, the role of zoos as we know them is itself questionable, and I can’t

1 / 4 help wondering, is the Danish honesty in culling and then dissecting giraffes in public really a good idea?

It seems to me the rationale for culling these giraffes is perfectly sound, as is the rationale behind getting as much as possible from that cull by educating children and then feeding carnivores. However, carefully avoiding any puns about sticking my neck out (damn), I have to question what benefit is served by the giraffes being in Denmark in the first place. Or to go even further and question what function zoos serve at all.

The conservation argument, when it comes to large mammals such as the giraffe, is very thin, as we know it is destruction of its habitat and conflict with humans that are the real threats. The giraffe is categorised as a species of “least concern” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which means it does not qualify for the categories of “Threatened”, “Near-threatened” or even “Conservation Dependent”, and I was not able to find evidence of any intention to reintroduce the captive-bred European giraffe into its natural African habitat. In general, the role of zoos in conserving species in their natural environment is minimal.

If not conservation, then education. There is certainly a role zoos can play in this sphere, but I can’t help feeling taking large mammals, such as the giraffe, so far out of their natural habitat and displaying them on a site close to the centre of an urban sprawl provides much less understanding of their ecological role than a good blast of David Attenborough and the BBC wildlife department.

This leaves me with the uneasy feeling zoos are primarily about entertainment, and is why they were established in the first place. Even the videos of Marius being dissected, readily found on YouTube, are probably seen more as a grisly form of entertainment than education.

Surely zoos can only educate the general public about animals if they are able to display them in an environment that approximates to their natural habitat? If that is accepted, then what is the justification for displaying a wide range of large mammals, other than to draw in the public?

My family was fortunate enough to be able to go on a Kenyan safari more than 20 years ago and, having seen the wildlife roaming in its natural habitat, all four of us swore we would never visit a zoo again. I fully appreciate that only a few of us are able to enjoy such an experience, but I don’t see zoos as being second best for those unable to go on safari. In respect of large, non-indigenous mammals, they are often worse than seeing nothing at all.

Despite the cold logic of its argument, Jyllands Park Zoo later rescinded Marius’ death sentence, saying the threat had been based on the hypothetical situation of a new breeding female arriving and that threat had “now been eliminated”. There is a great deal of high quality academic research that goes on behind the scenes at many of the zoological societies, but the reality is their public collections depend on being able to entertain families. Culling animals is a necessary evil. Doing it in public may seem honest and open, but highlights many of the paradoxes of the keeping of

2 / 4 zoological collections themselves and thus threaten their very existence.

3 / 4

4 / 4