# This Story Breaks My Heart



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

_A Zoo has killed a Giraffe and cut it up in front of children and fed to the lions, they say to save inbreeding_:soangry:


http://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...t-copenhagen-zoo/story-e6frfq80-1226822164205


:what:


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 9, 2014)

I can understand culling excess stock but the story goes that they were offered good money to buy it and knocked it back so puzzling to say the least.  Seems a damned shame but maybe there's more to the story, sure hope so.  Sounds pretty callous the way we're hearing it now.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 9, 2014)

I hate zoos and circuses, the people who run them are all animal abusers, IMO.


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

_What also sickens me is that they cut him up in front of a crowd including children, what effect will that have on them.
   Too many Zoos are doing the wrong thing by all these wild animals, and with all the slaughtering of them in the wild as well, i predict we won't have wild animals in their natural habitat in 10-20 years and that saddens me._  :sosad:


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 9, 2014)

Sad prediction Jilly, thanks to man.


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 9, 2014)

That's pretty sick.

And that Mr. Bro sounds like someone I'd like to meet in a dark alley with my bolt gun.


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> That's pretty sick.
> 
> And that Mr. Bro sounds like someone I'd like to meet in a dark alley with my bolt gun.



*Can i be your partner in crime Phil*


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 9, 2014)

There's two ways of looking at zoos.  They aren't all charnal houses.  Many species would be in a lot more trouble than they are without zoos running breeding programs.  e.g. the Tasmanian Devil.  It would be history without the work done by zoos to quarantine and breed up the numbers from animals free of the virus that is killing all the wild ones.  They've just released a pack of them onto an island to live wild again and hopefully avoid extinction.  It is hoped that the virus will die out with the last wild ones on the mainland and then the healthier ones can be released back into their old stamping grounds and given a future. Orangutans are similar story.  
Peta and frothing animal rights activists aren't doing that for them, zoos and groups *with the facilities to house them are.* 

There are always aholes in any industry but it isn't fair to label all zoos the same.  An animal that lives in the wild eating whatever it can find and sleeping it off isn't necessarily worse off in an enclosure where it isn't going to be preyed on and die of easily cured diseases as it will in the wild.  It's all very 'human' to value freedom and vaunting living in nature as something wonderful but you won't find any old antelope on the veldt or old lions for that matter.  You'll only find them in zoos.

What is your answer for that problem of 'man' interfering with wildlife?  There is only so much land to go round.  Is it crueller to use an acre of grass to feed a Wildebeest and let a village starve that could be fed by that acre?  The same people who bleat about giving the earth back to wildlife are usually the same ones who donate to famine relief.  Sorry, can't have it both ways folks.  HTFU and decide.  Which should we 'cull'??
The humans or the wildlife?  Up to you.


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 9, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> *Can i be your partner in crime Phil*



You sure can! 



Diwundrin said:


> There's two ways of looking at zoos.  They aren't all charnal houses.  Many species would be in a lot more trouble than they are without zoos running breeding programs.  e.g. the Tasmanian Devil.  It would be history without the work done by zoos to quarantine and breed up the numbers from animals free of the virus that is killing all the wild ones.  They've just released a pack of them onto an island to live wild again and hopefully avoid extinction.  It is hoped that the virus will die out with the last wild ones on the mainland and then the healthier ones can be released back into their old stamping grounds and given a future. Orangutans are similar story.



Sometimes history is just what _should_ happen, without the interference of Man doing "good". Besides, what you're talking about is entirley different than what this so-called "zoo" did.



> Peta and frothing animal rights activists aren't doing that for them, zoos and groups *with the facilities to house them are.*



Two different organizations, two different charters. 



> There are always aholes in any industry but it isn't fair to label all zoos the same.  An animal that lives in the wild eating whatever it can find and sleeping it off isn't necessarily worse off in an enclosure where it isn't going to be preyed on and die of easily cured diseases as it will in the wild.  It's all very 'human' to value freedom and vaunting living in nature as something wonderful *but you won't find any old antelope on the veldt or old lions for that matter*.  You'll only find them in zoos.



That's because Nature has its own rhythm and rhyme. It did fine before Man came along and had that God-given will to exert his dominance over the beasts, then he got all intelligent and found ways to rationalize the imprisonment of his fellow beasties.

Maybe animals, like people, aren't MEANT to live that long, all Cenegenics discussions aside.

Do you want to be grabbed out of your house, shoved into a nursing home, be hooked up with meds and machines to artificially extend your life and have people paying to come in and poke sticks at you? All in the name of - what? The advancement of Man's knowledge? The protection of your species? Will there be a little sign over your bed that reads "_This is for her own good - we know best_"? 

Then one day when you've just finished a box of choccies, someone on staff decides that they have too many Diwundrin genes and gee, here comes the guys down the hall with the bolt gun ... I'll bet you'll wish that you were back in your "natural habitat" right about that time.



> What is your answer for that problem of 'man' interfering with wildlife?



Stop doing it.



> *There is only so much land to go round.*  Is it crueller to use an acre of grass to feed a Wildebeest and let a village starve that could be fed by that acre?  The same people who bleat about giving the earth back to wildlife are usually the same ones who donate to famine relief.  Sorry, can't have it both ways folks.  HTFU and decide.  Which should we 'cull'??
> The humans or the wildlife?  Up to you.



Paper tiger.



94% of the land in the United States is undeveloped; Africa, the second-largest continent in both land-mass and population and accounting for 20% of the world's land-mass and one-seventh of the population, is also the MOST undeveloped area in the world. You Aussies - tell me you don't have a few spare kilometers of undeveloped land. 

It's the same way in virtually every country in the world. There IS no shortage of land.

As for deciding whether to devote that land to animals or people, it's simple - if Man would stop lording it over the animals and instead learn to live in harmony with them there could be co-operative use of the land. But no - Man is too damned greedy; he wants his malls and his business centers and his parking lots; he labors under the delusion that he "owns" the land contained within his fence-line. 

He doesn't. The land belongs to every human AND animal. 

We as a species are a lot like the school bully - always coveting what we don't have and willing to destroy to get it.

If we would learn to consume less and become stewards of the land instead of its rapists, then maybe your question would fall into the oblivion it so richly deserves. 

We CAN have it both ways - we just aren't _smart_ enough yet to figure out _how_.


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

_I agree with all you said Phil thankyou it was well said    :shussh:   don't tell Di_:bigwink:


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 9, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _I agree with all you said Phil thankyou it was well said    :shussh:   don't tell Di_:bigwink:



That's okay - I think she's out smacking meerkats with a ball-pein hammer. :rofl:

Thank you!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 9, 2014)

Well said Sifu! :applause2:


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 9, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> Well said Sifu! :applause2:



Thanks - it's just how I feel. 

I'm just cringing now, waiting for Di's response - talk about apex predators. :cower:


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

_I'm getting ready to duck as well because i agreed with you_   :hit::tongue:


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 9, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _I'm getting ready to duck as well because i agreed with you_   :hit::tongue:



United we stand, divided we fall ... 












*DI, JILL MADE ME WRITE THAT! I DIDN'T WANT TO, BUT SHE MADE ME!!! *


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

_*Ya big dobber, i didn't dun it Di he dood it all*_:flowers:


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 9, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _*Ya big dobber, i didn't dun it Di he dood it all*_:flowers:



No, wait - 

*WE TOOK IT FROM SEABREEZE'S PET FORUM!!!* :rofl:



I'm a baaaaaad boy ....


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

_Hey Pssst she's back_:shussh:


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 9, 2014)

La-la-la-la-la ...


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> No, wait -
> 
> *WE TOOK IT FROM SEABREEZE'S PET FORUM!!!* :rofl:
> 
> ...



_*What did we, why wasn't i told*_  :fword:


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 9, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _*What did we, why wasn't i told*_  :fword:



*SHHHHH !!!* 

Just go along with the story ...


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

Oh Ok Phil


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 9, 2014)

:hide:


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 9, 2014)

_I think i best go and get a fresh pair of pants ready_


----------



## jrfromafar (Feb 9, 2014)

> Did Marius have to die? Other alternatives, like administering contraceptives, can cause side effects like renal failure. And neutering the young giraffe would have diminished his quality of life,
> 
> http://world.time.com/2014/02/09/marius-giraffe-copenhagen-zoo/#ixzz2sswUwodJ



i don't buy it. Horrible thing that they did.


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 9, 2014)

Dreamers, the lot of you.  I despair of ever getting those rose coloured glasses away from you. :getit:hwell:

If your idea of a perfect life is packstacking humans in appartment blocks like battery hens and piping 'Soylent Green' in to feed them to accommodate a 'natural' planet to be enjoyed by wildlife that no one is ever going to see then fine.  Enjoy yourselves.  
Cage humans in order to free animals...mmmm sounds like a plan.

 Human population will continue to grow exponentially and 'enough' to go round now won't be enough in a very short time.   Don't be such a wusss, make the decision, which should be culled first?  Putting it off with 'enough to go round' pap is a cop out, look ahead.  The future can't be planned with only next week in mind.

Ramble: 



Spoiler



Phil there may be plenty of land here, but only camels and lizards can live on it.  
That spare land in the States, is any of it yours?? 
 Or do you  expect other people to give theirs away to salve your conscience?  To walk off their properties and join the dole queue while assuring their families that it's for the good of the cute little furry mammals and that when it comes down to it, they are more important to the do gooders than mere humans.?
 That's how these things usually go.  Do gooders have righteously grand ideas that they expect others to bankroll.  

Those virtuous 'enlightened' attitudes are commendable on paper but not everyone shares them and that is an important point that many overlook.
I laugh to hear "why don't people just stop fighting and live in peace?"  As if they ever did!   May as well ask why don't crocodiles run day care centres?

Why didn't communism work?  Because it isn't in our 'nature'. To fight and protect territory is all that holds civilization together.  It is as intrinsic to our natures as breathing is.  We may kid ourselves that we rise above it when times are gentle but it is always the default option that kicks in when the pressure is on.  And the pressure is building.

Don't think you're off the hook by stating principles and parading higher notions and emotions.  If it really upsets you then spend some time figuring out a VIABLE ... LONG TERM solution.  Banners and bleating and 'freeing' caged animals  to be shot by police is not an answer. It's infantile. 
 Smarter brains than ours are working on it and the brick wall answer to most planetary problems is curtailing human population.

Now that's a real bummer.  Who's gonna be charged with doing that?   Who would you vote for to decide on which race/nation/culture/colour/body type/religion should have a breeding moratorium clamped on it first?  How do you make them do it?  Tell them it's for the good of endangered species?  They'll see themselves as the endangered species!  Maybe the ensuing war with cull a few?

Next time you get upset over a furry mammal pick out someone it should  replace.  Too hard?  Sure is.  Good luck with that decision.

Oh and before you nominate me, there's a waiting list. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Just what do you 'better life' dreamer people expect?  Not what you want, we know that, you want Utopia, but what do you really expect?

Do you think human nature will change?  .. or even that God will look after the problem so we don't have to think too deeply or logically about it?  Just have faith and it'll all go away when 'daddy' fixes it?   Of course Von Daniken's pyramid construction crew might drop by again and sort us out from orbit but not too many hold out much hope of that.  Nup, it's down to the good lord for most I'm afraid.
But do you expect that to happen or just hope it will?  Is it an excuse to not face the harder realities perhaps? Just wonderin'.

It's fine to point out the failings of greed and general rottenness afflicting us but where is your solution for that?  It doesn't go away by having itself pointed at and named.  How are you going to fix it?  In detail. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The world isn't Disneyland, it's the jungle and there are soooo many more complex problems that each do gooder 'improvement' engenders that it all ends in a fustercluck and nothing good comes of anything we do.  Setting up reserves just made it easier for poachers to find their prey.  Reserves also set boundaries on wild animals, so other than area is that so different to a zoo?

It genuinely interests me to know the thinking behind the 'Pollyanna' syndrome.  I don't really give a toss what you think just why you see things differently.  I think I'm really trying to find out how I tick because I always seem to be out of time with general consensus.  I love animals, prefer them to humans, but it's about more than that and a real solution for them to continue existing  seems to me to require more than emotional protestations. 
 :dunno:




> Do you want to be grabbed out of your house, shoved into a nursing home,  be hooked up with meds and machines to artificially extend your life  and have people paying to come in and poke sticks at you? All in the  name of - what? The advancement of Man's knowledge? The protection of  your species? Will there be a little sign over your bed that reads "_This is for her own good - we know best_"?
> 
> Then one day when you've just finished a box of choccies, someone on  staff decides that they have too many Diwundrin genes and gee, here  comes the guys down the hall with the bolt gun ... I'll bet you'll wish  that you were back in your "natural habitat" right about that time.



I am on the verge of being grabbed and shoved into the 'waiting room' for the nursing home, thanks for the reminder.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  As to living in my 'natural habitat',  what the hell is that?  Naked and swinging from trees?  What human anywhere lives in it's 'natural habitat?'  Do you?  Must get damned cold there.  

I wouldn't last 2 days in my 'natural habitat.'  Not too many would which is why we're so overpopulated.  
My genes aren't sullying the DNA pool but I do tend to suck in my share of oxygen.  Sorry bout that.
Oh and pulling the tubes any damned time they like is okay with me, I've given written permission for exactly that. 

In case you were wondering, I'm for 'culling' humans, but you probably suspected that already.:grin:



Well that was a workout.


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 9, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> Well that was a workout.



Aye! I've not seen such a blow since the Great Hurricanoe of 1897! Lost a good lot of lads that day, we did ... 

Unfortunately, m'Lady, me tired eyes are beginnin' ta stick ta their lids, and the foul-smellin' beasties are gettin' right comfy on me lap, so I be beggin' yer indulgence ta answer yer entreaties upon th' morrow. 

Fair winds an' followin' seas ta ya, lass!


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 9, 2014)

And full sails and clear stars to you sleepyhead.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I might get some work done now.


----------



## Rainee (Feb 10, 2014)

Great answers from Phil and also Di.. and Jilly I know how you must be upset but I also agree to Phils post no other way I could put it any better... I am mixed feelings about this , the part I don`t like is that it was done in front of children that upsets me as they don`t need to witness any cruelty so young in their life..  and also that the zoo would rather do this than take the offer given to them from outside to save the giraffe`s life .. that part is what I don`t like..but everyone has a different opinion.. guess I am no different to some .. maybe to others.. [h=2][/h]


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 10, 2014)

I think you are all overreacting. Selling the animal would not change the fact that there are too many animals of the same family in the gene pool. They would then have to follow everywhere that animal went to make sure his genes didn't come back into the gene pool of member zoos.

It seems to me this zoo is a member of a group of zoos that are doing the right thing to preserve the animals future.

Children who grow up on farms or have parents who own a butcher shop, etc. know about animals being slaughtered and many times help in the process. It doesn't hurt them to know where their meat comes from.

Phil, I agree with you more often than not, but this time is one of those times I don't. It's ridiculous to suggest turning wild animals loose wherever there is undeveloped land. Turning a non native species loose can devastate native species.  Without natural food for the animals to eat and without natural predators to keep populations under control.

Pythons in Florida, rabbits and mice in Australia just to give a couple of examples.

I know you all mean well, but a lot of damage can be done by people with good intentions.


----------



## Justme (Feb 10, 2014)

Culling the animal in front of a crowd seems a really weird thing to do!


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 10, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> Dreamers, the lot of you.  I despair of ever getting those rose coloured glasses away from you.



There have to be dreamers in the world, as well as doers, in order to keep balance. I'd never want to live in a world that consisted entirely of scientists, accountants and washer repairmen.



> If your idea of a perfect life is packstacking humans in appartment blocks like battery hens and piping 'Soylent Green' in to feed them to accommodate a 'natural' planet to be enjoyed by wildlife that no one is ever going to see then fine.  Enjoy yourselves.
> Cage humans in order to free animals...mmmm sounds like a plan.



That wasn't my plan - not at all. 

Your hyperbole is showing. 



> Human population will continue to grow exponentially and 'enough' to go round now won't be enough in a very short time.   Don't be such a wusss, make the decision, which should be culled first?  Putting it off with 'enough to go round' pap is a cop out, look ahead.  The future can't be planned with only next week in mind.



That "OMG the world is being overpopulated" thing is highly overrated. Like animals, if left to our own devices _without outside interference_ we'll do a bang-up job of keeping the population manageable.

This isn't _Hunger Games_.



> Ramble:
> 
> Phil there may be plenty of land here, but only camels and lizards can live on it.



Well, at least the camels and lizards are safe for the time being ...



> That spare land in the States, is any of it yours??



I personally don't "own" any land. I believe here in the States the Federal government owns the lion's share of undeveloped land, in the form of National parks, etc.  



> Or do you  expect other people to give theirs away to salve your conscience?  To walk off their properties and join the dole queue while assuring their families that it's for the good of the cute little furry mammals and that when it comes down to it, they are more important to the do gooders than mere humans.?
> 
> That's how these things usually go.  Do gooders have righteously grand ideas that they expect others to bankroll.



I have no expectations - that's something I learned a long time ago - so no, I'm not relying upon people giving up what they really don't own. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is an abundance of undeveloped land that could be used for wildlife management (such an ugly term, but it conveys the thought). 




> Those virtuous 'enlightened' attitudes are commendable on paper but not everyone shares them and that is an important point that many overlook.



I know you don't take a shine to enlightened people - I just hope the Dalai Lama never knocks on your door. 





> I laugh to hear "why don't people just stop fighting and live in peace?"  As if they ever did!   May as well ask why don't crocodiles run day care centres?



There _have_ been scattered periods of peace throughout history, proving that Man is indeed capable of it - he just always finds a reason to _end_ that peace. 



> Why didn't communism work?  Because it isn't in our 'nature'. To fight and protect territory is all that holds civilization together.  It is as intrinsic to our natures as breathing is.  We may kid ourselves that we rise above it when times are gentle but it is always the default option that kicks in when the pressure is on.  And the pressure is building.



Communism failed because it was a perfect theory made imperfect by human beings. Our "nature" is self-determined - we could make ANY system work if we wanted it badly enough.

How is the pressure building? This sounds like Chicken Little and his conspiracy theory that the ionosphere is caving in. There has always been pressure in life - I don't think that we're necessarily under any more now than we ever had been in the past - _less_, if anything. 



> Don't think you're off the hook by stating principles and parading higher notions and emotions.  If it really upsets you then spend some time figuring out a VIABLE ... LONG TERM solution.  Banners and bleating and 'freeing' caged animals  to be shot by police is not an answer. It's infantile.
> Smarter brains than ours are working on it and the brick wall answer to most planetary problems is curtailing human population.



I divorced myself from the world and its problems a while back. My role now is merely as an observer and commentator. 



I'm not upset - I don't _get_ upset. 




> Now that's a real bummer.  Who's gonna be charged with doing that?   Who would you vote for to decide on which race/nation/culture/colour/body type/religion should have a breeding moratorium clamped on it first?  How do you make them do it?  Tell them it's for the good of endangered species?  They'll see themselves as the endangered species!  Maybe the ensuing war with cull a few?



Yet that is _exactly_ what we're doing with the animals. Double-standard, anyone? 

I have no desire to dictate which race, creed etc. should be regulated - Man is doing that quite well already without my help.



> Next time you get upset over a furry mammal pick out someone it should  replace.  Too hard?  Sure is.  Good luck with that decision.
> 
> Oh and before you nominate me, there's a waiting list.



 I would choose a honey badger to replace you - I think it would be an equitable trade. 

Wherever did I mention replacing humans with animals? I said they could _co_-exist.



> Just what do you 'better life' dreamer people expect?  Not what you want, we know that, you want Utopia, but what do you really expect?



Again, I have no expectations nor do I desire Utopia - I think it would actually be pretty boring.



> Do you think human nature will change?  .. or even that God will look after the problem so we don't have to think too deeply or logically about it?  Just have faith and it'll all go away when 'daddy' fixes it?   Of course Von Daniken's pyramid construction crew might drop by again and sort us out from orbit but not too many hold out much hope of that.  Nup, it's down to the good lord for most I'm afraid.
> But do you expect that to happen or just hope it will?  Is it an excuse to not face the harder realities perhaps? Just wonderin'.



If you're expecting insightful answers from me then you may die wonderin'. 

I don't think that human nature is capable of changing - we are what we are. I don't believe in God, so that's not a solution, nor do I watch for the lights in the sky to "save" me. 

I don't NEED saving. I'm perfect just the way I am. I have a small "footprint" - I don't take more than my fair share from the Earth, and I endeavor to return it several times over when I do. 

The _rest_ of the world, however, could use a bit of help. 

I am a Taoist, and one of a Taoist's primary goals is to pierce the veil of illusion that Humans have created to surround themselves. I see nothing BUT realities, hence my position on the useless slaughter of animals.



> It's fine to point out the failings of greed and general rottenness afflicting us but where is your solution for that?  It doesn't go away by having itself pointed at and named.  How are you going to fix it?  In detail.



I've not been appointed to be the Problem Solver General. _You_ folks got yourselves into this mess - _you_ find a way out. 



> The world isn't Disneyland, it's the jungle and there are soooo many more complex problems that each do gooder 'improvement' engenders that it all ends in a fustercluck and nothing good comes of anything we do.  Setting up reserves just made it easier for poachers to find their prey.  Reserves also set boundaries on wild animals, so other than area is that so different to a zoo?



I'm not talking about reserves - I'm talking about basic humanity, about not killing animals for frivolous purposes. I'm talking about a new paradigm for the interaction between species. 



> It genuinely interests me to know the thinking behind the 'Pollyanna' syndrome.  I don't really give a toss what you think just why you see things differently.  I think I'm really trying to find out how I tick because I always seem to be out of time with general consensus.  I love animals, prefer them to humans, but it's about more than that and a real solution for them to continue existing  seems to me to require more than emotional protestations.



I'm afraid I can't speak to Pollyannaism since I don't participate in it. 



> I am on the verge of being grabbed and shoved into the 'waiting room' for the nursing home, thanks for the reminder.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I spoke of your "natural habitat" I meant your own home or apartment - I certainly didn't envision you swinging through the jungle on vines, dressed only in a koala loincloth.

... although that mental picture DID cross my mind. 



> In case you were wondering, I'm for 'culling' humans, but you probably suspected that already.



... and that's just one of the reasons we get along so well! 




> Well that was a workout.



That's why I'm thinking of taking up a Vow of Silence.


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 10, 2014)

rkunsaw said:


> I think you are all overreacting. Selling the animal would not change the fact that there are too many animals of the same family in the gene pool. They would then have to follow everywhere that animal went to make sure his genes didn't come back into the gene pool of member zoos.



I don't believe that Man is smart enough to know how much is TOO much. What they're indulging in is genocide. 



> It seems to me this zoo is a member of a group of zoos that are doing the right thing to preserve the animals future.



So should we replace all the "ZOO" signs with "ABATTOIR"? 

"_Mommy, Mommy, please, can we go to the Abattoir today? We want to see the giraffes slaughtered!_"



> Children who grow up on farms or have parents who own a butcher shop, etc. know about animals being slaughtered and many times help in the process. It doesn't hurt them to know where their meat comes from.



The problem with that is that this is supposedly a zoo - a place to learn about animals' natural lives, not to witness their executions. And I doubt the children in attendance had giraffeburgers for lunch.  



> Phil, I agree with you more often than not, but this time is one of those times I don't. It's ridiculous to suggest turning wild animals loose wherever there is undeveloped land. Turning a non native species loose can devastate native species.  Without natural food for the animals to eat and without natural predators to keep populations under control.



That's not what I was suggesting. 



> Pythons in Florida, rabbits and mice in Australia just to give a couple of examples.
> 
> I know you all mean well, but a lot of damage can be done by people with good intentions.



You mean like the good intentions of Man deciding which species lives or dies? He's been doing that for eons, you know.


----------



## nan (Feb 10, 2014)

That was disgusting killing and carving up that poor giraffe the way they did, and especially with children watching,but then the parent's must be just as bad to let them stand there and watch.
I think they should cull humans, especially the cruel people of this earth ,although I do think the big pharmas and chemical companies are trying their best to kill all humans off.


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 10, 2014)

Do we have a failure to communicate here?  Is there a correlation  between differing viewpoints related to the 'City/Country' kid  upbringing?
Do some live just a 'little closer to the earth'?  Is it  easier to disconnect from the hard realities when eggs grow in cartons  and meat is conjured in clingwrap?
Another subject perhaps.

No  one sane condones cruelty, but this wasn't cruel.  Puzzling, but not  cruel.  It was a questionable decision to make a public spectacle of  what may have better been done quietly.  But listening to those involved it was presented as an educational demonstration and I can accept that even if not the reasoning behind the 'zoo animals not for sale' under any circumstances rule.  

So putting aside the  cruelty aspect the outrage can only be over the public butchery. Well, 2 ways of  seeing that too.  Personally I think the earlier kids get their eyes  opened to as many experiences of different aspects of life the better.  
If  they were horrified by seeing what death looks like and where meat  comes from then good, at least they'll know that 'game over' is for real  out there!  That Wiley Coyote doesn't get up after the rock flattens  him. That life doesn't have a 'restart' button and that there are trade  offs and consequences for everything, right down to what we eat.  

I  think perhaps the parents were trying to impart that to the kids, maybe  not, maybe they were just as naive and thought it was entertainment or  something, but most must have had good reason to let them watch.  I had another look at the crowd and there didn't seem to be any shock/horror reactions in the footage I saw.

Would the media have given air time to this had the animal been a Hyena?  or a Wart Hog?  Or a Snake?  Honestly now, how many would have signed a petition to save it then?  How many here would have given a toss about something less 'Bambi'-like?


Is all life sacred?  Are all species equally valued?  Really?  Those who bleat about a giraffe have no compunction in whacking the head off a snake with a spade and setting mouse traps so what is that 'animal rights' things and outrage really all about?  Does it only apply to cuties?
(You don't have to admit it, just think about it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Hey Phil, about that 'Honey Badger' trade, excellent choice, nobody loves 'em but nobody messes with 'em either.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I'll answer the rest when I have more time...   :iwillbeback:


----------



## Ina (Feb 10, 2014)

Di, I too grew up having to "get" the lessons of putting down an animal as humanely as possible. Sometimes it meant the difference  of the family's survival. I wore flour sack dresses too, and I thought they were the fashion. :cart:


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 10, 2014)

i was a city kid with rural relatives so got both sides of the coin.  First lesson in life I remember was watching one of the chooks I'd catch and cuddle running around the yard headless because Nana forgot to bind it's legs.  Then I got to help her pluck the thing and chicken dinners were never quite the same again.


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 10, 2014)

But Di, where do you draw the line re: exposing children to "the real world"? At what age do you start doing that? 

Isn't part of our problem with kids killing other kids the result of early indoctrination into the cold, hard facts of life? Maybe if they DID watch more Wiley Coyote they would have more time to enjoy being children, instead of becoming murderous midgets.

And it isn't just cartoons and homicide, either - the lack of manners they exhibit - where does THAT come from? Isn't it from emulating the grown-ups around them, grown-ups that represent the "real world"? 

In cartoons, everyone works for their keep. In real life, the kids see Mommy (and daddy, if he's around) cheating the system. Which is a better role model?


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Feb 10, 2014)

We have animals slaughtered every day for people (as well as other animals) to eat. Those lions that ate the giraffe probably ate some kind of meat every day. So, to me it is not that they fed the giraffe to the lion, it was the way the whole thing was done.
As was previously said, this was a zoo, a place where people come to watch LIVE animals, living in a small rendition of what would be their natural habitat. It is a place to enjoy those animals living there, maybe even to try and communicate with them.
It is NOT a place where animals are slaughtered for food, and people come to observe the killing.

I can't imagine why the parents would even bring their children there to watch such a spectacle, just for the entertainment value of it. This is a whole lot different than Di's experience of watching a chicken being slaughtered to make a family dinner.
That was something that children see, and learn that it is done for the purpose of eating the animal; not just because someone decided that creature was expendable, and killed it.

The giraffe could easily have been gelded, we do that all the time with dogs, cats, horses, and cattle; just to mention a few. If he was not wanted for breeding, he still could have gone to the other zoo, lived a long and comfortable life there, with other giraffes.
To my way of thinking, this was a totally unnecessary taking of an innocent life; and portrayed like some ancient Roman spectacle would have been announced and carried out.


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 10, 2014)

It wasn't a 'Roman spectacle' HFL, it was presented as part of an education in the work done, and the whys of it, by zoos worldwide.  That point was easily lost by the media.  It was open to those interested, not just to passing traffic.

Can't see that confining kids to watching cartoons makes them better citizens Phil.  I loved cartoons, still do, funny ones, but had no problem in categorising them as different and separate from real life.  Many kids these days seem to think the whole world is a cartoon.  Or a video game with a restart button.  Knowing about reality doesn't prevent them being children, it just educates them into all sides of what growing up is about.  It gives them  perspective.  It's 'natural'. 

 Do we forget that the last few generations are the only ones, ever, to be so disconnected from their food source and from the 'earth' itself?   How protected from reality do think our ancestors were as kids?   Aren't we the ones so anxious about 'getting back to nature?"  or is that just smoke and mirrors to kid ourselves with too?  Which version of 'nature' are we trying to get back to? The real one or Disney's?

 Seeing something slaughtered won't turn them into serial killers, unless they would be anyway.  Blinding kids to the harsh realities won't make the realities go away.  it will just make it harder for them to cope with the shock when they are turned out into the jungle. 

 A cousin was violently ill when she got the news that her favourite crumbed cutlets came from those cute little lambikins.  Really, she was outright traumatized!  ... and she was about 12 years old!  Not much education to carry in that head.  We honestly thought she'd been joking when she announced that she wouldn't eat filthy chicken eggs, hers came from the supermarket. She wasn't!  Doh
.
But she did know exactly what 'must be seen in' Label was trendy that week. Her 'literature' was fan mags and soap operas.   

Was that a more suitable protective education?  She's been abandoned, divorced, raised and raising 3 brats as clueless as herself (one already a jailbird).She's battling to keep a car running now and moving in with 'Mum' to save on the rent and all the labels are Target. But she's still doughy in the head and kissing the wrong frogs hoping for one to turn into Prince Charming.  Maybe she should have visited the Country cuzzes ???


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 10, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> It wasn't a 'Roman spectacle' HFL, it was presented as part of an education in the work done, and the whys of it, by zoos worldwide.  That point was easily lost by the media.  It was open to those interested, not just to passing traffic.



I'll bet they applauded and chowed down on some jaguar's earlobes and wolf-nipple chips while the deed was done. (Bonus points for naming the reference ). 

Their "why" was highly suspect. I'd be interested in hearing what a few OTHER zoo organizations have to say about it.



> Can't see that confining kids to watching cartoons makes them better citizens Phil.  I loved cartoons, still do, funny ones, but had no problem in categorising them as different and separate from real life.  Many kids these days seem to think the whole world is a cartoon.  Or a video game with a restart button.  Knowing about reality doesn't prevent them being children, it just educates them into all sides of what growing up is about.  It gives them  perspective.  It's 'natural'.



I don't know, you must be more intelligent than me. I thought Capt. Kangaroo was a real captain until I was 5. I wanted to work at the Acme factory until I was 7. 

I'm STILL looking for Duncan McCloud.

I'm not arguing about educating them in the real world - just at what age. The kids in that video were, in my opinion, a little too young to be exposed to something as brutal as a killing and a dissection. Hell, I didn't dissect anything until I was 12, and THAT was in my basement lab, without any urging by adults. 



> Do we forget that the last few generations are the only ones, ever, to be so disconnected from their food source and from the 'earth' itself?   How protected from reality do think our ancestors were as kids?   Aren't we the ones so anxious about 'getting back to nature?"  or is that just smoke and mirrors to kid ourselves with too?  Which version of 'nature' are we trying to get back to? The real one or Disney's?



I think that one's economic class has always determined, at least up until now, how exposed we were to the workings of the food chain. The rich never saw the killing and butchering - they only saw the finished product, hot and steaming on a silver platter.

The poor, on the other hand, were quite used to catching rats and gnawing on them. 

There IS only one version of Nature - Disney was a shill.



> Seeing something slaughtered won't turn them into serial killers, unless they would be anyway.  Blinding kids to the harsh realities won't make the realities go away.  it will just make it harder for them to cope with the shock when they are turned out into the jungle.



It will inure them to violence the same way people claim that playing _Grand Theft Auto_ does. I don't buy the idea that a child is pre-destined to be vicious - it's nurture, not nature, that most often brings them to the brink. Yes, they may have a few wires short of a circuit, but the really explosive manifestations of that condition don't appear until triggered by something they see or experience.

And again, I'm not saying keep the kids in a bubble - simply teach them at the appropriate times.



> A cousin was violently ill when she got the news that her favourite crumbed cutlets came from those cute little lambikins.  Really, she was outright traumatized!  ... and she was about 12 years old!  Not much education to carry in that head.  We honestly thought she'd been joking when she announced that she wouldn't eat filthy chicken eggs, hers came from the supermarket. She wasn't!  Doh
> .
> But she did know exactly what 'must be seen in' Label was trendy that week. Her 'literature' was fan mags and soap operas.



Perhaps she was referring to the mandated laws concerning cleaning of eggs before marketing ... 



> Was that a more suitable protective education?  She's been abandoned, divorced, raised and raising 3 brats as clueless as herself (one already a jailbird).She's battling to keep a car running now and moving in with 'Mum' to save on the rent and all the labels are Target. But she's still doughy in the head and kissing the wrong frogs hoping for one to turn into Prince Charming.  Maybe she should have visited the Country cuzzes ???



There are casualties in every war - that doesn't mean they _define_ that war.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Feb 10, 2014)

Di, I agree with you that keeping kids "in the dark" about the realities of this world is not the right thing to do, either. Understanding that milk doesn't come from gallon jugs, and meat from nice little plastic and styrofoam packs, is a good thing, and it is one that most generations before this one learned as a child.
I remember watching the chickens flop around with their heads cut off, too, and my dad and grandpa bringing home a deer for us to eat, in hunting season.  We went fishing on weekends, and I learned how to kill a fish swiftly, rather than watching it slowly suffocate. 
It was all about the realities of life, and there was meaning to it.

The story about the lady who complained about hunters killing animals, when they could "just get their meat at the supermarket, where no animal is harmed", is about the way many of the young people (who grow up in a city) understand these things.
So, while I do understand the reasoning of teaching our young people where food comes from, I do not think that taking kids to a zoo to see how animals live, and then watching a giraffe being butchered, is teaching them this information in a very meaningful or humane way.

It is more like saying that when something is no longer useful or wanted, you can destroy it. 
NOT the same message at all.....


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 10, 2014)

> It is more like saying that when something is no longer useful or wanted, you can destroy it.
> NOT the same message at all..



But isn't that the message they get already without really understanding the deeper meaning of what it entails?
Don't they discard last weeks cell phone when a newer one comes on the  market?  Throw out more food than we eat.  Change our furnishings with  the fashions.  Trade in cars for new models?  Dump pets when they become  a bother?  'Kill' enemies in gloriously gory video games with not a  twinge of mercy or compunction because they don't matter, it's just a  game?  

Doesn't a smidgeon of understanding how zoos work improve their appreciation of seeing the animals in it as the only chance most will ever have of seeing one for real at all?  Wouldn't it give them just a tad more insight into the actual animal as a living thing to be respected as such, and not merely as an entertaining exhibit?  


I never raised kids but was one once, I think, and grew up with many and they were somehow more 'grounded' than some, not all, kids are today.
They knew that responsibility and consequences resulted from their actions.  Of course we still did stupid things, we just weren't so surprised when things went titsup and we 'paid' for it.

Unlike a bullying little b* who bashed all and sundry at a day centre in Cessnock, and then went blue in the face when one hit him back, kids back then knew that hitting hurt.  It turned out that darling little bully had never felt a hand on him in his entire life and had no idea that he was inflicting pain on others. Didn't know what it was!   Life was a cartoon to him and hitting was 'funny'. The pain of getting a punch put him into shock.  Too protected?

How kind to animals do you think that little kid would be?  He wouldn't think about their feelings either would he?  He wasn't taught any better. Nothing was 'real' to him.  I hope they didn't have any pets.

But we're getting into semantics.  I know how you feel about it and it's up to parents to decide I guess.  It was okay for me to see chooks axed and watch a steer butchered but i wasn't allowed go to funerals until I was 17!  The logic of that one escapes me.  Hell, I knew they were dead!
Maybe they thought I'd play up in Church or something?


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 12, 2014)

_Here is another article about this_

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-an...ET000&promote_channel=edmail&mbnr=MTI3MTU5NjY


----------



## Jillaroo (Feb 13, 2014)

_*We now have another Zoo about to do the same thing, breaks my heart*_

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...kill-healthy-giraffe-unsuitable-breeding.html


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 13, 2014)

I'm with PETA on this one - no need for this to be happening.


----------



## Keesha (Jul 7, 2021)

Jillaroo said:


> _A Zoo has killed a Giraffe and cut it up in front of children and fed to the lions, they say to save inbreeding_:soangry:
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...t-copenhagen-zoo/story-e6frfq80-1226822164205
> ...


This is incredible sad. 
Mankind can be totally pathetic at times and this is one of them.


----------

