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

Post a Comment

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
7 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more