Poor Marius

robfosters · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:16

2 zoos offered to take this young giraffe in, but Copenhagen said no due to some excuse regarding inbreeding and killed him with a bolt gun, performed an autopsy in front of the paying public, then finally will chop him up and feed him to the lions.

Absolutely awful :mad:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26098935

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:22

Culling of breeding stock is normal practice, nothing new really.

If you can't use an animal for breeding then it is meat.
Pandas should have all been culled decades ago, total waste of resources.

[TW]Fox · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:22

He said all zoos had been considered and there was no place for Marius - including at Yorkshire where, he said, any space should be reserved for a genetically more important giraffe.

A very bizarre statement.

It is surely the choice of the Yorkshire zoo which giraffes they fill space with, so the above should have been of no concern to Copenhagan.

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:26

[TW]Fox;25815142 said:
A very bizarre statement.

It is surely the choice of the Yorkshire zoo which giraffes they fill space with, so the above should have been of no concern to Copenhagan.

Not really, if Yorkshire have a bunch of giraffes with similar DNA then there is no pont in giving them another one from the same line.

robfosters · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:26

bitslice said:
Culling of breeding stock is normal practice, nothing new really.

If you can't use an animal for breeding then it is meat.
Pandas should have all been culled decades ago, total waste of resources.

I considered your opinion until I read the last sentence.

Ridiculous thing to say. We should just let a beautiful species go extinct due to money worries?

ElliorR · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:26

Yes its disgusting what they've done. He could had a life elsewhere but these retards wanted to get their rocks off killing such a magestic animal for no logical reason whatsoever.

This was not nature taking its course it was **** humans being *****.

Cosimo · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:27

They should have let him go to another zoo.

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:29

robfosters said:
I considered your opinion until I read the last sentence.

Ridiculous thing to say. We should just let a beautiful species go extinct due to money worries?

No, just leave the useless things in China where they have an interest in keeping the species alive.

Believe it or not there are a zillion things more important to keep from going extinct than stupid Pandas, who are no use whatsoever.

robfosters · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:30

bitslice said:
No, just leave the useless things in China where they have an interest in keeping the things alive.

Believe it or not there are a zillion things more important to keep from going extinct than stupid Pandas, who are not use whatsoever.

No use whatsoever. Compared to tigers and gorillas who are multi-functional?

TheVoice · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:31

Someone sure hates pandas.

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:31

robfosters said:
No use whatsoever. Compared to tigers and gorillas who are multi-functional?

Pretty much.
Zoos only have Pandas to attract funding, they would much rather do something important to science.

Certainly keeping gorillas alive is massively more important than a few impotent bears.

[TW]Fox · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:32

bitslice said:
Not really, if Yorkshire have a bunch of giraffes with similar DNA then there is no pont in giving them another one from the same line.

Thats a decision for the Yorkshire Zoo, which they appear to have made and decided it was still appropriate, though.

robfosters · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:33

bitslice said:
Pretty much.

You're just on a wind up aren't you?

[TW]Fox · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:33

robfosters said:
You're just on a wind up aren't you?

Every post he makes is like that, he'd get on well with Energize

ElliorR · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:36

Going by some of his/her other posts you could just switch the word panda for Muslim and the kid would be happy.

Cosimo · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:38

bitslice said:
Pretty much.
Zoos only have Pandas to attract funding, they would much rather do something important to science.

The funding helps pay for the science so Panda are a great use of resources.

RDM · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:38

robfosters said:
I considered your opinion until I read the last sentence.

Ridiculous thing to say. We should just let a beautiful species go extinct due to money worries?

There is something to be said about picking and choosing the best place to spend your limited conservation budget on areas which will make the greatest impact. If another dozen species go extinct because we are spending so much time and money on pandas is that really a win?

Cosimo · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:38

[TW]Fox;25815182 said:
Every post he makes is like that, he'd get on well with Energize

You're getting some mileage out of him.

Crippled Potato · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:39

Couldn't they have just castrated him instead?

rare · 9 Feb 2014 at 10:40

Seems like a terrible waste of a life. Perhaps one day, when many species are extinct,mankind will look back on the decisions we made, however small, and wonder how we managed to be so care free.