Copenhagen Zoo killed a perfectly healthy 18 month old giraffe, Marius. Lured into a false sense of security, Marius greeted his care-takers, his pending death guised only by the facade of the morning feeding routine that he was so used to. Moments later, Marius was shot in the head. After that, his limp body was butchered. His long lanky legs fed to the lions. Horrific. Tragic. Unfathomable.
Surely the decision to kill Marius was made in whispers, muffled behind closed doors, the slaughter cleaned up as quickly as possible, and swept under the proverbial carpet like it never happened. Nothing to see here, run along. Apparently not. In fact, Copenhagen Zoo announced the killing on their website as an attraction under the banner ‘Visit the Zoo’. “On Sunday 9th February the Zoo will euthanize one of its young male giraffes. The euthanasia is happening in agreement with the European Breeding Programme for giraffe. It is not possible to transfer the giraffe to another zoo as it will cause inbreeding”. The End. Fun for the whole family, assuming your child’s idea of fun-making is knowing what a dismembered giraffe looks like.
PHOTOGRAPH BY KASPER PALSNOV, AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Inbreeding. Let’s look at that for a second. Inbreeding occurs when animals who are genetically related breed, thus weakening the genetic pool. A strong genetic pool only comes about with a large degree of genetic variation, something which can be difficult to achieve in captivity, without a lot of human intervention. In the wild, animals have natural strategies to ‘avoid’ inbreeding. For example, certain individuals will automatically leave their natal group in search of a mate, thus lowering the risk of inbreeding. In zoos, because an animal’s natural will is circumvented by the restrictions of captivity, this inbreeding avoidance can only be managed by human hands. There are two ways zoos avoid inbreeding, by either, a) contraception and transferring animals between zoos, or b) culling. European Zoos and American Zoos sit on different sides of the population management fence. American Zoos pre-emptively manage their populations by preventing reproduction in the first place by using contraception, while European Zoos, which belong to the governing body, European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), it has been said, (mis)manage populations by ‘culling’ individuals who should never have been conceived in the first place. Surely if you know ahead of time that there will be no room in your zoo, or any other zoo, and you know that there is already an over-representation of particular genes, why on earth would you continue to breed? This is American Association of Zoos and Aquarium’s (AAZA) view point too, reflected in their Species Survival Plan (SSP) which uses ‘science based recommendations and cooperative planning for adequate space’. In simple terms, if a potential offspring is not going to be genetically diverse, then the parents don’t breed. If there is not going to be any long-term space for the animal, then there is no breeding. This animal is never conceived. Simple. A concept foreign to Copenhagen Zoo it seems. Copenhagen Zoo hold their position, stating that culling will continue because it would be cruel not to. In the wake of Marius’s death, when asked why contraception was not used, Copenhagen Zoo’s Director, Bengst Holst, claimed “contraceptives have a number of unwanted side effects on the internal organs and we would therefore apply a poorer animal welfare if we did not euthanize”. To further justify their population management regime using culling, which ultimately resulted in the killing of Marius, Copenhagen Zoo claimed that in captivity, contraception denies animals the ‘natural experience’ of bearing young and parenting. Holst told the New York Times “we have already taken away their predatory and anti-predatory behaviours… if we take away their parenting behaviours, they have not much left”. Considering captive animals are denied so many of their natural experiences, why is it that Copenhagen Zoo care so much about this one? By ‘allowing’ captive animals the experience of conceiving, gestating, birthing and raising an infant, zoos make money. Zoos profit from exhibiting cute animal babies. Just cast your minds back to Knut, the sensationalised polar bear cub at Berlin Zoo, who was largely responsible for the zoos most profitable year in its 163 year history. Knut has since died.
Another side to this population mismanagement, which is not often discussed, is the cost to those animals left behind, after an animal is killed. I can’t help thinking about the investment a mother has made, only to have her infant killed. What a waste. Her parental investment and the toll of pregnancy on her body. Only to have her infant slaughtered. An infant who really, was never meant to be. A concept, that as a mother in captivity, she would never really understand. Marius’s fate was written before he was even conceived. As a gangly baby, Marius, with legs too big for his own body, and ridiculously long eye lashes, was a draw card to bring in the crowds. Copenhagen Zoo argued that the killing of Marius simply replicated what would have happened in the wild anyway. Natural attrition. Young giraffes not making it to adulthood because they are killed by lions. Yes, this can happen, but it is not a certainty, and should not be cited as rationale for a ‘euthanasia policy’. This argument always gets my goat. Hearing zoos justify unnecessary practices, because the outcome would ‘inevitably happen in the wild’. This is a moot point. What also happens in the wild is, freedom. What also happens in the wild is, choice. Hearing zoos claim that captive animals ‘have a better life than their wild counterparts’ is also a defunct argument. Captive animals live a good life simply because they get regular meals and medical attention. That is true- to some extent. But the medical attention is far too often required to treat captivity induced chronic illness such as diabetes and heart disease, or to mend minds and bodies; broken limbs from slipping off metal play equipment onto concrete floors, or acute psychological problems. Wild animals who roam free, foraging for their own food, but who are more likely to die from starvation or an animal attack compared to their captive counterparts, probably still wouldn’t trade their freedom for a roof over their heads and three meals a day. When researching this post, it became apparent that a tension exists between ‘what is best for the individual’, versus ‘what is best for the population’. EAZA claim to be ethically bound to strike an ‘informed’ balance between the life of an individual and maintaining the long term viability of a managed population’. Again, this is a contradiction in terms- killing healthy animals because their genes are already known to be over-represented, or because there is no room at the Inn, suggests long term mismanagement of a population which is decreasingly viable. Governing bodies of captive breeding programs advocate for ethical culling to uphold ‘responsibility for the survival of a species’. Arguably, this is one of the positives of breeding animals in captivity- to ensure that species ‘on the brink of extinction’ and named in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, have a real chance of survival. This conservation goal should then be reflected in the breeding practices in zoos. According to Simon Stuart, Chair of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission, “The conservation of endangered species is a complicated matter that (at times) requires difficult decisions from recognised experts such as those working in EAZA’s European Endangered Species Programmes”. Surely decisions would be less difficult, and the matter less complicated if zoos only intervened with species which are actually on the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species? Deflecting from the very real issue of culling in zoos, World Aquarium and Zoo Association (WAZA) redirect the focus to another very real circumstance- the dwindling numbers of the once thriving giraffe populations in the wild, citing 60,000 killings over the last 15 years with the current population estimated at 80,000 across Africa. Making reference to EAZA’s claims that ethical culling is a conservation strategy, Will Travers OBE and President of the Born Free Foundation responds: “I say: show me the evidence. If keeping and breeding threatened species are priority for zoos, why then do they keep mostly common species?” Research by the Born Free Foundation has shown that the majority of species kept in zoos are not threatened with extinction in the wild. A 2011 report released by the foundation indicates that only 13% of captive animals are actually on the on the IUCN’s Red List. In fact, it turns out that Marius’s species, Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata (reticulated giraffe), is not endangered in the wild. Why then, is this species being bred at all, let alone to surplus? Another indication of population mismanagement. The use of the word ‘euthanasia’ as it is applied to animals in zoos is a misnomer. Animal Euthanasia, is defined as the act of ‘humanely’ putting an animal to death or allowing it to die as by withholding extreme medical measures. This definition implies that the killing is an act of mercy, thus distinguishing it from animal slaughter or pest control, however the line separating each is becoming less clear. Mark Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colarado has coined the term ‘Zoothanasia’- the act of killing zoo animals as a means of population control.Particularly when you consider the frequency at which European zoos have been killing healthy animals. Each year Copenhagen Zoo ‘euthanise’ up to 25 healthy animals, which have included chimpanzees. Just a month after Marius’s killing, the zoo killed a family of 4 healthy lions. 2 adults and their two cubs. They escaped Marius’s fate of a bolt gun to the head and were killed instead by lethal injection. These lions were killed to make way for a genetically superior male. The mother was deemed ‘too old’ to have any more cubs, the father would have killed the new, younger male, and the cubs would have been killed by the introduced male. Death all around, for the sake of one animal (and his reproductive potential). Here are just a few more of the deaths that have escaped a media frenzy: zebras, leopard cubs, antelopes, bison, pygmy hippos, and red river hoglets. David Williams-Mitchell, Communications and Membership Manager with EAZA states that the exact numbers of animals killed in European zoos each year will not be released due to sensitivity: “We are not ashamed of euthanising animals…. but we don’t want to publicise it either”. He does go on to estimate that an average zoo in its 347-member organization annually kills about five large mammals, which adds up to 1,735. This number does not account for smaller species- those most likely to slip through the cracks, their deaths unnoticed. We hear about the need for transparency in relation to Homo sapien ‘deaths in custody’ and ‘deaths in detention’. We need to demand the same transparency for our kin. Without it zoos will not be held accountable for the thousands of annual ‘deaths in captivity’. How are deaths accounted for? Who is held accountable? Who does the accounting? Zoos must be made to record and publish all deaths in captivity- intentional deaths (culling), accidental deaths (for example, the prevalence of great apes dying under anaesthesia) and deaths due to chronic illness (such as coronary disease in gorillas). Beyond this is a need for transparency in the policies and procedures surrounding deaths in captivity reflected in systemic accountability- zoo keeping staff, veterinary staff, zoo curators and directors, right through to the governing bodies. The Born Free Foundation is calling on EAZA to ensure greater transparency about the management of animals in their Member zoos “killing healthy animals should never be used to manage ‘animal collections’. Members of the public entrust zoos to care for their animals”. Born Free is working closely with Members of the European Parliament to call for a prohibition on the use of euthanasia as a population management tool in zoos. Unfortunately, the surplus crisis in zoos today is a result of decades of population mismanagement. As long as there is the option of disposing of unwanted animals in zoos, there is absolutely no incentive (other than a guilty conscience) to stop breeding populations beyond the capacity of zoos. Zoos are bursting at the seams and this will not ease until there is a shift from the normalised (and policy protected) killing culture driven by profit, to that of a true conservation culture- whatever that is- a debate which will continue beyond our lifetime.
“Think occassionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight”~ Albert Schweitzer
Euthanasia Resources that informed my post:
http://endangeredspecies.about.com/od/endangeredspeciesconflicts/a/Euthanasia-In-Zoos.htm
http://www.examiner.com/article/contraception-vs-euthanasia-the-latest-quandary-of-our-world-s-zoos
http://mashable.com/2014/02/11/copenhagen-zoo-giraffe-kill/
http://www.zoochat.com/2/euthanasia-healthy-animals-zoos-breed-cull-355164/
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/why-do-some-zoos-euthanize-healthy-animals
http://time.com/5793/marius-the-giraffe-not-the-only-animal-zoos-have-culled/ http://taronga.org.au/news/2014-02-10/taronga-statement-euthanasia
http://digitaljournal.com/news/environment/op-ed-reflections-on-zoos-and-euthanasia/article/373316
https://www.thedodo.com/european-zoos-euthanize-over-3-445086041.html
http://www.independentmail.com/news/2014/feb/14/thousands-zoo-animals-killed-europe-yearly/?print=1
http://www.bornfree.org.uk/news/news-article/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1519
Human Enough 