I had heard about this controversial killing earlier that day, and my immediate reaction was: what the hell? Lions eat giraffe and all sorts of other animals. It is natural and acceptable. But killing a giraffe from the zoo. An eighteen month old giraffe from a zoo suppose to nourish and give the giraffe a nice life, not kill him and feed him to a lion.
Copenhagen zoo's decline from another zoo to take the giraffe in, pleas from animal rights activists to think humanely and spare the giraffe further irritated me.
However on further reading, I discovered the giraffe was inbred, and after that, I understood Copenhagen zoo's decision.
Inbred animals guys. Inbred.
As we all know, the lack of variety in the gene pool poses a risk to the giraffe's health and lifestyle, and if allowed to reproduce, furthers the issues from inbreeding.
Inbreeding increases the susceptibility of a population to suffer significant losses (sometimes too big to recover from)should a disease attack said population.
This is due to a lack of variety in the genes of said population. If the genetic combination of most of the population is very, very similar, the disease has less variety, less 'different-ness' and resistance to fight against.
Think of it like this: if a robber ransacks a street of varied houses, it'll be significantly harder than robbing a street of those council-made, identical housing with identical layouts inside.
Why? Because on the street with varied houses, the door locations are different. The types of locks are different. The floorboards squeak differently. The rooms are in different places. Some houses may have security systems installed and a ferocious looking doberman at the front porch.
However, with identical houses, the robber knows the lock, knows the layout, knows everything because its all the same.
Increase the population of animals, but make them more vulnerable to possible future diseases and illnesses? That's rather counterproductive, is it not? Especially taking the fact the giraffe was from a breeding program.
Obviously these programs are designed to repopulate, and revive wilting population numbers. It goes without saying that using a genetically inferior creature to repopulate isn't the cleverest idea.
Asides from the actual killing which stirred up lots of controversy, the skinning and feeding of the giraffe was carried out during visiting hours in front of visitors. It was deemed "too graphic," or "too confronting."
Obviously these programs are designed to repopulate, and revive wilting population numbers. It goes without saying that using a genetically inferior creature to repopulate isn't the cleverest idea.
Asides from the actual killing which stirred up lots of controversy, the skinning and feeding of the giraffe was carried out during visiting hours in front of visitors. It was deemed "too graphic," or "too confronting."
Well, it's natural. Lions-
Newsflash: After years of speculation, a breakthrough has been made in the scientific community; lions eat MEAT. RAW MEAT. WITH BLOOD AND GUTS EVERYWHERE. NO SIGNS OF COOKING UTENSILS OR OVENS/GRILLS TO BE FOUND, HOWEVER, ASHES SUSPECTED TO A RESULT OF GIRAFFE COOKING HAS BEEN FOUND NEAR NUMEROUS LION PRIDES.
The double standards are ridiculous. So when humans eat meat and remove the skin before eating, shall we blindfold ourselves to protect our eyes from the confronting image of a DEAD ANIMAL RIGHT IN FRONT OF US? (wow, shield your children's eyes too, it might disturb them.)As we eat it, shall we cut the meat blindly with a knife? For then we are blindfolded, not looking at the extremely confronting image of a dead animal being eaten in front of us.
There was a phrase somewhere in one of the articles I read, saying something along the lines of "no-one would've batted an eyelid, had it been a pig."
It sounds hypocritical and rude. Unfortunately, it also sounds very human. Think about it. Thousands of animals are exploited yearly. Animals packed inhumanely into tight cages, used only for the human benefit, with not a second thought given the quality of life for those poor animals.
Yet there is not a collective backlash from the general public. With animal rights activists, yes, but with ordinary civilians, we don't care. Just as long as the exploited animal isn't "cute" or "fluffy" or "exotic," then it isn't given a second thought.
There was a phrase somewhere in one of the articles I read, saying something along the lines of "no-one would've batted an eyelid, had it been a pig."
It sounds hypocritical and rude. Unfortunately, it also sounds very human. Think about it. Thousands of animals are exploited yearly. Animals packed inhumanely into tight cages, used only for the human benefit, with not a second thought given the quality of life for those poor animals.
Yet there is not a collective backlash from the general public. With animal rights activists, yes, but with ordinary civilians, we don't care. Just as long as the exploited animal isn't "cute" or "fluffy" or "exotic," then it isn't given a second thought.
