Should the Danish zoo who killed a giraffe and fed it to lions be held responsible for the death of the giraffe?

  • Yes . .

    Giraffes are gr8 m8 . . .... . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . .. . . . ....... . . .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • The giraffe was perfectly healthy.

    There was no need to kill the giraffe, they could have sent it somewhere else. Also, an online petition was held to save the giraffe before its death; gaining 20 000 votes. The zoo turned down offers from other zoos and 500 000 euros from an individual. They did it so they could 'comply to breeding recommendations'.

  • Yes they should.

    The zoo should be held responsible because they are in fact responsible. They killed the giraffe, it's as simple as that. I've now run out of things to say, yet I find myself lacking with regard to the fifty word quota. Cheese. I need six more words. Now I'm done.

  • The giraffe could have been sent elsewhere

    The zoo fed the "surplus" giraffe to lions, which is pretty awful. While it's the kind of thing that would happen in the wild, this giraffe was likely born and raised in a zoo. If you are taking an animal out if its natural environment, you have an obligation to care for it. It could have been send to another zoo or suitable nature park rather than used as food.

  • Sometimes animals die.

    No, the zoo should not be held responsible for the death of a giraffe, because there is no evidence that the zoo did not take care of the giraffe. Holding the zoo responsible when an animal dies of natural causes is akin to allowing the hospital to be held responsible for when a patient contracts cancer. Sometimes bad outcomes are not always caused by poor care.

  • The Danish Zoo can mimick nature in dealing with the over population of giraffes.

    The Danish Zoo should not be held responsible for the death of a giraffe that it killed and then fed to a lion. Zoos like other businesses have a profit/loss ratio to maintain. They are like any other business. Giraffes are an item in their inventory. If they have one to many, then it needs to be disposed of. Even if their "product" is an animal. If it was killed quickly and without suffering, then it is within their right to dispose of their "product" as they see fit. Incidentally, just as nature does.

  • It was needed

    Say what you will about many of the zoos and private collections around the world, but the Danish zoo that killed the giraffe was a legit organization. The Danish zoo had ample, scientific and humanitarian reasons for killing the giraffe that were explained by zoo officials on numerous occasions in the media.

  • An extra giraffe

    No, they should not be held responsible for the giraffe, because it was an extra that they did not need in their park, and other zoos did not want to buy it. They were giving the lions a natural animal to kill, and should not be held responsible for anything.

  • Hypocritical, uneducated, hamburger-eating, leather couch sitting third world oppressors.

    Animals die a cruel death every day, so we can eat, walk in nice clothes. Page of fine furniture. That is the truth and all this is unnecessary. But to show the world and especially children are not just important but a must. This killing was much more sober than the way we kill animals we eat

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Installgentoo says2014-02-11T11:49:41.927
I think they should just wait for the giraffe's family to file a law-suit.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.