What is Zoonasia?

We seem to have little knowledge or understanding of the secret world of ‘disposal of genetic surplus’ or in layman’s terms – the euthanasia of zoo animals not suitable for breeding in the opinion of science.

Cruelty to zoo animals, zoonasia, zoo lions,
Iconic zoo animals are often killed as surplus to requirements.

The declared dogma of most reputable zoos is that of a scientific and research emphasis based on doing everything possible to save species from extinction by any means possible. Most of this work operates behind the scenes and therefore is not entirely understood by the public and many of us may feel uncomfortable about what is involved in saving species.

In many ways the modern-day ‘professional’ zoo can almost be likened to a research laboratory where they use a team of veterinarians, scientists and researchers to carry out their breeding programmes, but when such professionals become involved in ‘saving’ or ‘rescuing’ species, the rights, welfare and interests of the individual animals become less important  and sometimes lost.

Jens Sigsgaard, a zoologist at Aalborg Zoo in Denmark puts it this way: ‘Our function is not to keep an individual animal alive, but to keep the species alive’.

Zoonasia explained

A major problem for zoos is maintaining a good gene pool of unrelated animals from a dwindling supply of captive animals and avoid inbreeding. This is done by constantly exchanging animals around the world’s zoos, but the difficulty is that it is impossible to breed to order. Therefore  the process of maintaining stocks of endangered and iconic animals for ‘future generations’ involves collateral damage in the form of “surplus” animals.

Iconic animals such as lions and tigers that help pull in the crowds are constantly overbred or are born the wrong sex and become liabilities as do many endangered species if they do not meet the requirements of a breeding program. An estimated 3-5,000 zoo animals are killed each year in the UK, although reliable figures are difficult to obtain or substantiate due to the obvious reluctance to divulge such information. Killing these animals is known in the trade as ‘Zoonasia’. This carnage appears to go mostly unnoticed by the public and even when highlighted is soon forgotten.

Zoos promote a caring public face by giving animals names to make our visits more personal and they are happy to show off expensive natural enclosures, state of the art veterinary care and top-quality diets, but the zoo professionals have a strange detachment when it comes to killing surplus animals.

The case of Marius the Giraffe

This subject came to public attention in 2014 with the story of a two-year-old male giraffe named Marius who was killed at the Copenhagen Zoo  by their veterinarian Mads Bertelsen, DVM, DVSc. He then dissected Marius in front of cameras and families with young children on the pretext of education after which his remains were fed to the zoo’s lions.

Zoonasia, zoo animal culling, cruelty to zoo animals
Young zoo animals can find themselves surplus to requirements if they are born the wrong sex.

That same year the zoo killed  four of their lions and dissected a beautiful Sable antelope. The zoo was unrepentant despite worldwide outrage and couldn’t understand what the fuss was about. Bengt Holst, the Director of Research and Conservation was surprised at receiving death threats and a petition to sack him. The zoo not only upset the public, but the zoo profession in general, as they were not best pleased that their relatively secretive activity of culling animals was made so public. The zoo explained their reasoning in this way:

“The side effect is that we have a surplus of animals. It is in fact fortunate that we can use them as food. Instead of killing 20 goats or a cow, we can use the giraffe,” says Mads Frost Bertelsen. Zoo Veterinarian.

Mads Bertelsen, had apparently regularly carried out research on giraffes over the years for their ‘benefit’ and had dissected ‘a large number of surplus giraffes to investigate their cardiovascular anatomy using state-of-the-art methodology.

Jens Sigsgaard, a zoologist at Aalborg Zoo, Denmark was quoted as saying that surplus animals are already dead biologically speaking in the sense that they do not contribute to the next generation’. Only a scientist could refer to animals in this way.

All this is being done on our behalf to save animals for future generations of mankind and for a mythical time when the animals are released back into the wild. But will future generations be that interested as there are few if any wild animals existing already and most people do not seem that worried.

At least one zoologist, Liz Bonnin, has declared that it might be time to close zoos down as they no longer serve any purpose only to entertain and charm the public and has commented: ‘They’re [Giraffes] sentient, emotionally intelligent, cognitively gifted animals that deserve a better quality of life. It’s shameful that we scoff at anybody who raises the issue of animal welfare’.

Conservation charities are not always what they seem

 Beware the word “conservation” when supporting charities.

When it comes to supporting or donating money to animal charities we all have our own perspective on what we want our money spent on whether it is conservation of wildlife, welfare of animals, re-homing of animals, animal rights, help for animals abroad or saving endangered species – the list is endless. But if you want your money and support to benefit all animals without causing harm to others it can be a problem because many charities do cause harm or kill animals in the name of conservation.

The aims and principles of animal conservation charities are often at odds with those supporters of animal welfare and animal rights and animal lovers in general. Not all conservationists believe in the right of animals or groups of animals to survive if in their opinion they are getting in the way of preserving other “more important” species and habitat.

What is conservation?

The meaning of ‘conservation’ varies in interpretation dependent on the context it is used in and can concern preserving buildings, cultural sites, resources and artefacts, but we mostly associate it with preserving wildlife and habitat. For this reason many charities regardless of their true intent try to put the word conservation somewhere into their title or literature, because  most of us associate it with general good ideals.

We are often drawn to those which use the word conservation as it is like a badge of guarantee that the money is used for the best interest of animals or habitat in line with our wishes. But we should make sure that they do not have ulterior motives for their “conservation” activities which could be based on preservation for selfish reasons such as commerce and sport, particularly for hunting and other so-called country pursuits.

Thousands killed at a cost of £800 per duck

The creed often followed by conservation organisations is that there is a hierarchy whereby certain animals are more important than others and if necessary they  can be eradicated for the common good or conservation of others. It is a fraught area which most of us seem to take little interest in. The Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB), a well-known and loved UK charity, has often been criticised for having this attitude.

Many of us mistakenly believe they are there to protect all birds, but this is not the reality and never has been. In 2014 they decided to support the culling of all the Ruddy ducks in the UK, despite their alleged ethos discouraging the ‘wanton destruction of birds which caused outrage. Ruddy ducks were viewed as an invasive or alien species interfering with native ducks by mating with them. Thousands were killed at a cost of £5 million or £800 per duck by marksmen of the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency (AHVLA). Graham Madge of the RSPB commented:

“It was a hugely difficult debate for the RSPB and a very dark day when we had to concede a cull was the only way forward. It’s not being ruthless, its being careful. It is not a cause for celebration. It is a relief. We stand up for biodiversity internationally and sometimes you have to make very hard decisions.”

RSPB appear to support pheasant shoots.

The RSPB were again in trouble when they appeared to support pheasant and partridge shoots as being beneficial to wildlife, even though 60% (21 million birds) die before they have a chance to be shot. Martin Harper their conservation director stated on their website that shoots offer ‘beneficial habitat management for wildlife’ increasing the number of some species.

Pheasant in field

Each year 40 million hapless and inexperienced pheasants are released of which, according to the industry’s own figures, only 37.5% are shot while 46.5% die before the shooting season by predators, in road collisions or illness leaving only 16% to survive the shooting season and an unknown fate.

Recently there was consternation at the Society using Larsen traps to catch magpies and cull them which involved placing a live bird in a cage in all weathers and unattended as a lure. The well-being of the caged bird was questioned, particularly the stress caused in trying to escape.

There was a crazy situation when some online forums had posts from people who believed the traps were illegal and  were advised to contact the RSPB to investigate their use! Strangely none of this though stops us from donating £140 million to them every year.

The word “conservation” can be misinterpreted.

The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) could be viewed as an example of using the word conservation to muddy the waters as they describe themselves as a leading UK charity conducting “conservation science to enhance the British countryside for public benefit by promoting game and wildlife management as an essential part of nature conservation“.

Although this might sound a sensible aim, it involves certain actions which animal lovers might flinch at, as their real intention is to guarantee a supply of game animals for hunting and shooting by removing nuisance predators which get in the way. Their definition of a nuisance predator appears to be any wild animal or bird that cannot be profitably hunted or shot or which eats animals that could be profitably hunted. They believe that game and wildlife management is the basis of good conservation and that humane and targeted predator control is an essential part of effective wildlife conservation.

On this same subject there is a government-funded organisation called Natural England which handles the Governments’ efforts of wildlife and habitat conservation in England but according to some campaigners they also issue licences to kill some 70,000 wild animals and birds. 65 species are involved including such species as barn owls and swallows. We are all involved in this as it is our tax money funding this organisation. Read more.

Zoos and game ranches like to append themselves to the conservation fraternity. Game ranches in Africa and elsewhere breed animals on the pretext of preserving habitat, but make money by charging for big game hunting. Zoos for all their trumpeting of breeding endangered species and being ‘arks of the future’, seem to fail dismally in this activity. Most animals contained in zoos, estimated at 90%, are not endangered at all and successful re-introductions to the wild are as rare as the animals, but they do manage to kill a lot of animals along the way which some estimate at 3-5000 per year.

Unfortunately it would seem that we are incapable of preserving animals without the collateral damage of causing the deaths of thousands of others. Whether it is worth all the carnage depends on everyone’s subjective point of view, but for those who do not wish to see their money spent in this way it is advisable to check the true aims and policies of those charities they give to.  Perhaps the best conservation charities to support are those that are welfare orientated and save animals for the animals’ sake not ours.

Related articles: