I personally dont agree with zoos and would choose not to have them at all .
However, having said that , we do have them and Im puzzled as to why so much fuss has been made over the killing of a giraffe which is unsuitable for breeding

Im surprised that a dissection was done in front of children seemingly without much warning - I dont think it was really an appropriate sight for them on a day out , but apart from that , I see nothing morally wrong .

The euthanized giraffe, had lived up til his death, as reasonable a life as creatures can have in the zoo. Once dead, did it affect him whether he was cremated, buried,or eaten?No.

What do the zoos lions and other carnivores eat? Meat , flesh of animals from horrendous factory farmed conditions where they will have suffered both in life and death.

The way I see it, if you're going to accept zoos , breeding programs arent perfect and you're going to have surplus animals here and there . Why waste this food source which is a very natural one for many carnivores at the zoo. Id rather the lions ate free range meat from an animal that had been killed humanely without being transported and who'd had a reasonable life.

What sense does it make to throw away a dead giraffe and instead kill dozens of intensively reared chickens or rabbits?

Bypass the issue and get rid of zoos instead . Dont need them with all the Attenborough high class visual effects around.

ive no problem with them feeding it to the lions, but why not just castrate him and let him live his life out ?

zoos are the only way people will see these animals, shut them and how many species will disappear because of mans greed ?

" but why not just castrate him and let him live his life out ?

Because , in restricted areas like zoos, you have to 'manage' the proportion of males to females, genetically good and genetically poor animals ,and not all animals will get on together, so there will always be 'spares'for which there is no space.Zoos are businesses, not animal welfare outfits.

"zoos are the only way people will see these animals"

That doesnt bother me at all. As I said we have fantastic visual resources where you can see wild animals closer up and in even greater detail--and theyre behaving ....like wild animals! Not sad shadows of creatures incarcerated for the pleasure of humans who think they have the right to do this to them, so they can get pleasure from gawping at the unatural spectacle.

" shut them and how many species will disappear because of mans greed ?"

The way the world is, we cannot seem to stop the way wild animals habitats are being used up and destroyed however hard the Conservationists struggle . The truth is, trying to maintain every species of animal in the decreasing appropriate habitats, just isnt possible . We end up with wild animals being persecuted by farmers for encroaching on their land, and starving or maimed villagers, where animals cant be stopped ravaging their land .

I agree with you that the world is greedy - but that aint going to stop any time soon ! I dont think the realistic answer is to try and conserve every species , its not possible. Try yes to save the habitats and forest --- but if you cant, when theyre gone, we should let those resident species go too. Not maintain them artificially in a way that demeans them. Nature knows what its doing , and life, and creatures evolve . You lose some species and you get new ones evolving.

I think zoos could be a bit more selective about the range of animals they exhibit. Never happy seeing lions and larger animals in captivity. Then again if we dont want zoos should we keep cats dogs, hamsters guinea pigs rabbits etc etc. Perhaps we should just keep the naughty animals in zoos like we keep naughty humans in prison

" should we keep cats dogs, hamsters guinea pigs rabbits etc etc?"

Caged animals - No, definitely not. Dogs ?? Mmmmm, not sure , too many dogs in society now are just left lonely and frustrated all day by owners working long hours , and there are SO many who dont even get taken out , but in principle, I reckon dogs enjoy themselves if in a good caring home as do cats.

I studied these issues in great detail last year for my degree, in conservation.

I have attached some papers, which make for interesting reading.

I personally am pro zoos as without them many in situ programmes could not afford to run. The specimens kept in zoos, who are a small proportion of many wild populations, are the ambassadors for their species. Without them the cash flow stops and so does the conservation of them.

I totally agree that extinction is a natural process, but humans speed up this loss, and if a species has any chance of recovery ex situ breeding programmes are needed.

I havent read these yet - I will , with great interest , but

that word you used "SPECIMENS" for me , sums up whats wrong.

Please understand that I use specimen in the scientific term. In that a specimen is an example of an individual of a population, in situ or ex situ.

My opinion is for what it's worth and I won't waffle on. Don't kill innocent animals

Yes, I did understand that , it is not your personal use of the word I dislike, but the fact that it is the accepted clinically cold terminology for sentient creatures which conveniently detracts from the fact that each one is an individual with a personality and needs who is losing the opportunity to live a natural existence in its alloted span.

Ive just read both the papers . Pretty predictable stuff , and nothing there Im afraid that changes my view. Many thanks however for posting them . It would be a boring world if we all agreed about everything .

Venice you said this...Im puzzled as to why so much fuss has been made over the killing of a giraffe which is unsuitable for breeding.
Then this....each one is an individual with a personality and needs who is losing the opportunity to live a natural existence in its alloted span.
In my opinion the Zoo were totally in the wrong as the giraffe was offered another home in various other places (with big money being offered) But who am I?? Sorry the second comment you didn't make but the fact you were commenting about them being an individual etc after your posting is strange.

Hi Nidgy yes it does sound strange I see that, but I'm making that statement from the position of disapproving of zoos-- but I understand that whilst they ARE around it makes no sense at all sacrificing a few dozen FF bred chickens (who also have personalities and needs) , whilst you waste a giraffes flesh.

And ,as regards sparing and rehoming the animal --- If you accept zoos, then you have to accept the rules they work by . THAT is why Im surprised at the outcry -by those who support zoos.

Zoos are there they claim, essentially for conservation . Good zoos ,including the Yorkshire Wildlife Park who was one of the places who offered a home are bound by breeding program rules of the zoo group they belong to. It was decided they could not have the giraffe because the place they offered , must be taken by an animal genetically beneficial to the European breeding program.

So, good zoos belong to a group which regulates zoos to a certain standard for breeding purposes.
What does that tell you about zoos who are not participants? Are the ones that have offered going to be a suitable home for a giraffe?

Other unsuitable offers were made for political reasons .

"Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov said he was prepared to take Marius from The Jyllands Park Zoo, near the town of Herning, in order to prevent another "bloody show".

Mr Kadyrov - who already reportedly owns a lion and a tiger, and counts Mike Tyson among his celebrity friends - said he was prepared to take in Marius "out of humanitarian concerns".

"We can guarantee him good conditions of detention and take care of his health," he said on his Instagram account.

"We hope that this proposal will find a positive response from the management of Jyllands Zoo."

Mr Kadyrov is better known as an authoritarian figure in Chechnya - where he is accused of ordering torture, banning gambling and cracking down on alcohol - rather than an animal rights activist."

So, yes Nidgy, I was sad an animal died ,but not surprised at his fate .In the light of what zoos say they are about, it was a logical decision. Doesnt mean I like it of course , hence Im against zoos .Just amazed that others who support zoos , make such a fuss , when zoos do what they have to do, to keep to their conservation aims.