Opinion | Culling animals for conservation fails the morality test
Hari Kumar says cold-hearted logic isn't enough to justify decisions
Going to the zoo on a Sunday with your children is usually a pleasant activity – unless you were in Copenhagen recently. The children who went there on a recent Sunday were witness to the carcass of a culled young male giraffe skinned in front of them.
The killing of Marius, an 18-month-old giraffe, evoked outrage across the globe as the zoo authorities ignored the pleas of thousands who joined online petitions against the cull.
The authorities said that the genes of the young animal were too common for a breeding programme they have, aimed at ensuring giraffes' long-term survival. Inbreeding was feared should he reproduce, so he had to die.
This very bureaucratic approach led them also to refuse offers from other zoos to take the animal, as they felt that space should be kept for a giraffe with rarer genes.
Bengt Holst, scientific director at the Copenhagen Zoo, defended the decisions in several media interviews, saying it was a necessary action based on scientific rationale. He also said the zoo saw the public autopsy as an opportunity to "educate people". The people, including children, who attended the autopsy "were very fascinated by the wonders of a giraffe", he said.
Just days later, another zoo in Copenhagen, which is also under the same wildlife conservation programme, said it may also have to put down a giraffe for a similar reason. The animal is a healthy male but if the plan to introduce a female giraffe got going, this giraffe would also have to be removed, the Jyllands Park Zoo said.
