the atitude of the zoo is just terrible.. even now saying the protests had been over the top...hope they get boycotted as who'd wanna go there after this..
You improve genetic makeup (and therefore chances of self-sustained wild populations) by moving animals between herds, not by killing them.
What was specifically genetically unimportant about Marius?
Is it okay for cows and pigs to be bred to feed lions but not giraffes?
Because 90% of the zoo visitors will also be eating exactly the same. It is more acceptable to slaughter livestock than an exotic species which is only kept there after all as a visitor attraction.
the atitude of the zoo is just terrible.. even now saying the protests had been over the top...hope they get boycotted as who'd wanna go there after this..
I certainly hope the negative publicity generated by their decision will cause the management to reconsider how it runs the zoo (and the breeding programme) in future.
You improve genetic makeup (and therefore chances of self-sustained wild populations) by moving animals between herds, not by killing them.
What was specifically genetically unimportant about Marius?
I believe the concern was that he might be inbred and, as a result, might've passed on dodgy genes if he'd been allowed to breed, thus potentially doing a lot of damage to the giraffe zoo populations of the future.
If anything, I suppose we should be angry at the zoo for allowing him to be conceived at all but, sad as the outcome was, I can sort of see why it was done.
I believe the concern was that he might be inbred and, as a result, might've passed on dodgy genes if he'd been allowed to breed, thus potentially doing a lot of damage to the giraffe zoo populations of the future.
If that was their rationale, then they don't really understand genetics. Inbreeding reduces the *chances* of an offspring being able to adapt to biological attack or changes in environment, and also increases the risks of recessive mutations becoming dominant.
However, inbreeding happens in nature, and as long as the offspring doesn't exhibit dominant problems, any potential effects can be bred out again with outside the herd.
So, if Marius was healthy, then sending him to Yorkshire (where presumably the herd is not related to Copenhagen's) would actually be a good thing for conservation.
It does seem an odd decision to kill this youngster especially after the offers of a new home for it. I may understand it if the animal had shown some for of genetic weakness or illness associated with serious inbreeding, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
If that was their rationale, then they don't really understand genetics. Inbreeding reduces the *chances* of an offspring being able to adapt to biological attack or changes in environment, and also increases the risks of recessive mutations becoming dominant.
However, inbreeding happens in nature, and as long as the offspring doesn't exhibit dominant problems, any potential effects can be bred out again with outside the herd.
So, if Marius was healthy, then sending him to Yorkshire (where presumably the herd is not related to Copenhagen's) would actually be a good thing for conservation.
I'm pretty sure the people who run zoos understand genetics and the fact remains that an inbred giraffe would have an elevated risk of carrying some recessive gene compared to another animal.
It's certainly rather harsh but I can just see their point.
I'm pretty sure the people who run zoos understand genetics and the fact remains that an inbred giraffe would have an elevated risk of carrying some recessive gene compared to another animal.
It's certainly rather harsh but I can just see their point.
Then as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread why not neuter him?
The animal was of no long term use so they killed it for the meat. This happens tens of millions of times in the farming industry every year. Its no different from pigs, cattle, sheep etc.
The protect cute animals brigade seems to be out in force on this one though. Same people who probably don't care about those species less photogenic.
My other problem with this is that zoos always tell us about their captive breeding programmes as part of species conservation, but we never seem to get any press releases about their subsequent release into the wild (which is ultimately where conservation must end up). I get the feeling that zoos are more worried about having specimens to show the public than they are about bolstering the populations of endangered species.
The animal was of no long term use so they killed it for the meat. This happens tens of millions of times in the farming industry every year. Its no different from pigs, cattle, sheep etc.
The protect cute animals brigade seems to be out in force on this one though. Same people who probably don't care about those species less photogenic.
Then as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread why not neuter him?
And then what?
They can't release him into the wild and if he stays in a zoo he's costing money that that could be spent on an animal that was a viable part of a breeding program.
It's certainly a shame and it might've been nice if, perhaps, he could've been shipped off to some safari park or something but I'm just saying that I can understand the reasons why it was done.
They can't release him into the wild and if he stays in a zoo he's costing money that that could be spent on an animal that was a viable part of a breeding program.
It's certainly a shame and it might've been nice if, perhaps, he could've been shipped off to some safari park or something but I'm just saying that I can understand the reasons why it was done.
Yet other zoos and wildlife centres were willing to home him. Are we saying these other places were being irresponsible?
Comments
Some people thinking killing an animal is the first resort.
You improve genetic makeup (and therefore chances of self-sustained wild populations) by moving animals between herds, not by killing them.
What was specifically genetically unimportant about Marius?
Because 90% of the zoo visitors will also be eating exactly the same. It is more acceptable to slaughter livestock than an exotic species which is only kept there after all as a visitor attraction.
I believe the concern was that he might be inbred and, as a result, might've passed on dodgy genes if he'd been allowed to breed, thus potentially doing a lot of damage to the giraffe zoo populations of the future.
If anything, I suppose we should be angry at the zoo for allowing him to be conceived at all but, sad as the outcome was, I can sort of see why it was done.
Unfortunately the policy in times of a dangerous animal escape is to destroy. Darting isn't reliable enough and they cannot risk someone getting hurt.
Of course they shouldn't have been able to escape in the first place.
Would you be anthropomorphising just a tad there?
If that was their rationale, then they don't really understand genetics. Inbreeding reduces the *chances* of an offspring being able to adapt to biological attack or changes in environment, and also increases the risks of recessive mutations becoming dominant.
However, inbreeding happens in nature, and as long as the offspring doesn't exhibit dominant problems, any potential effects can be bred out again with outside the herd.
So, if Marius was healthy, then sending him to Yorkshire (where presumably the herd is not related to Copenhagen's) would actually be a good thing for conservation.
I'm pretty sure the people who run zoos understand genetics and the fact remains that an inbred giraffe would have an elevated risk of carrying some recessive gene compared to another animal.
It's certainly rather harsh but I can just see their point.
Then as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread why not neuter him?
The protect cute animals brigade seems to be out in force on this one though. Same people who probably don't care about those species less photogenic.
Precisely.
I have a skylight.
A zoo isnt a farm. Your point has no relevance.
And then what?
They can't release him into the wild and if he stays in a zoo he's costing money that that could be spent on an animal that was a viable part of a breeding program.
It's certainly a shame and it might've been nice if, perhaps, he could've been shipped off to some safari park or something but I'm just saying that I can understand the reasons why it was done.
Perhaps it's because of my agricultural background.
You have an animal you don't need, so slaughter it, and make best use of its remains.
Hope you all enjoy your roast lamb and mint sauce.
Yet other zoos and wildlife centres were willing to home him. Are we saying these other places were being irresponsible?
I think the conservation status of the animal in question is rather important here. Giraffes are not in plentiful supply. Welsh sheep are.