Skip to main content

Did Zoo follow guidelines when it killed Marius?

Remember Marius the giraffe? Copenhagen's scientific director, Bengt Holst, said Marius's genes were too similar to those of other animals in the European breeding programme, and he risked introducing rare and harmful genes to the giraffe population if he had been allowed to breed. This is nonsense. I challenge Mr Holst to tell us what 'harmful' genes Marius had. I doubt if he can. I also challenge him to tell us how he defines these 'harmful' genes.

Nor did Copenhagen's zoo follow fully the guidelines laid down by EAZA, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. The guideline specifically states that

a post-mortem examination should be performed and biological material preserved for research and gene conservation. The results of the post-mortem should also be passed to the relevant programme coordinator, and full records of any results and outcomes should be archived. 
Marius was simply cut up and fed to the lions.

Now I must emphasise that I am not against culling animals kept in herds for preservation purposes. This is clearly necessary else the herd will get too big and also it becomes difficult to look after sick and ageing animals.  Inbreeding in a herd could also become a problem. But we need honesty in the reasons for a given cull.

The EAZA guidelines also state that each case must be considered on its merits and alternatives should also be considered. In this case other zoos had offered to take Marius. This alternative was rejected.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,