# Petition time



## A3DFU

If, like me, you like animals and honour their lives you may be against a Danish zoo killing animals that don't fit their breeding program. There is now a petition you can sign (it only takes 30 seconds) and, who knows, you may be "the last straw" that helps stop the needless killing of unwanted animals in their care

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/684/789/ ... y-animals/


----------



## brian1978

Done


----------



## igotone

Likewise. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## Lollypop86

Done!

Although I don't have a house number it's a name and I had to put a 1 infront of it for it to accept it lol

J
Xx


----------



## A3DFU

Thank you


----------



## roddy

( but I would like to read the zoo's take on this )


----------



## davelincs

All done Dani


----------



## A3DFU

Keep signing


----------



## Callum-TT

roddy said:


> ( but I would like to read the zoo's take on this )


The zoo's angle is that as part of their breaking program they had to terminate the lives of several animals to prevent in breeding.

What tends to happen is a zoo breeds either within but sometimes externally (stud) when they breed internally there is then a chance that "family" may end up breeding in the future.

To prevent this they initially offer the animals to other zoos (nationally as they have to cover costs) but where that is not a possibility either no room, unavailability of enclosure, lack of funds or even a relative of breeding age already being present they sometimes have to select a group for termination.

I can honestly say that the zoo keepers were truly devastated to have to kill some of these animals that they helped bring into this world and I also don't think this decision would have been taken lightly.

Whilst I support the needless killing of animals I won't be signing your petition as I feel there are much more prominent animal killings going on that deserve my support more.


----------



## NickG

Callum-TT said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ( but I would like to read the zoo's take on this )
> 
> 
> 
> The zoo's angle is that as part of their breaking program they had to terminate the lives of several animals to prevent in breeding.
> 
> What tends to happen is a zoo breeds either within but sometimes externally (stud) when they breed internally there is then a chance that "family" may end up breeding in the future.
> 
> To prevent this they initially offer the animals to other zoos (nationally as they have to cover costs) but where that is not a possibility either no room, unavailability of enclosure, lack of funds or even a relative of breeding age already being present they sometimes have to select a group for termination.
> 
> I can honestly say that the zoo keepers were truly devastated to have to kill some of these animals that they helped bring into this world and I also don't think this decision would have been taken lightly.
> 
> Whilst I support the needless killing of animals I won't be signing your petition as I feel there are much more prominent animal killings going on that deserve my support more.
Click to expand...

^^^ This... c'mon guys, don't get caught in the media trap, they only tell you what they want to.


----------



## roddy

thank you,,very well put callum, I would also like to hear the counter argument,,, I signed because , in principle, I have a lot of sympathy with the animals in the modern world. Perhaps some other arrangments could be made for these unfortunate ones tho I am sure that the zoo has made all efforts possible...but maybe the extra publicity that the petition may bring may open other channels :?


----------



## Shug750S

Callum-TT said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ( but I would like to read the zoo's take on this )
> 
> 
> 
> The zoo's angle is that as part of their breaking program they had to terminate the lives of several animals to prevent in breeding.
> 
> What tends to happen is a zoo breeds either within but sometimes externally (stud) when they breed internally there is then a chance that "family" may end up breeding in the future.
> 
> To prevent this they initially offer the animals to other zoos (nationally as they have to cover costs) but where that is not a possibility either no room, unavailability of enclosure, lack of funds or even a relative of breeding age already being present they sometimes have to select a group for termination.
> 
> I can honestly say that the zoo keepers were truly devastated to have to kill some of these animals that they helped bring into this world and I also don't think this decision would have been taken lightly.
> 
> Whilst I support the needless killing of animals I won't be signing your petition as I feel there are much more prominent animal killings going on that deserve my support more.
Click to expand...

Bit like Norfolk then? :twisted:

When's the cull start in Norwich?


----------



## A3DFU

Callum-TT said:



> Whilst I support the needless killing of animals I won't be signing your petition as I feel there are much more prominent animal killings going on that deserve my support more.


Is it then not possible to support more than one cause?

And I assume you meant that you *don't* support the needless killing of animals?


----------



## Nyxx

Done as it can only help.
Am sure the Zoo people hate killing them but if this can help bring light on the case's of the Animals and help find new homes I see no reason not to sign.


----------



## Callum-TT

A3DFU said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst I support the needless killing of animals I won't be signing your petition as I feel there are much more prominent animal killings going on that deserve my support more.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it then not possible to support more than one cause?
> 
> And I assume you meant that you *don't* support the needless killing of animals?
Click to expand...

No I didn't say that.

I won't support this petition because I don't feel it's warranted and if you fully researched then you wouldn't either.

Everyone is very quick to jump on the PC band wagon without considering the implications.


----------



## roddy

it would appear that with some further research this particular zoo has some " previous ".. :?


----------



## brian1978

roddy said:


> it would appear that with some further research this particular zoo has some " previous ".. :?


Yes, normaly I woukd have simpathised with the situation as somtimes this needs to be done to ensure a better overall future for the species in captivity. But it seems this zoo euthinises healthy animals on a whim.

Hence why I had no issues siging.


----------



## A3DFU

Callum-TT said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst I support the needless killing of animals I won't be signing your petition as I feel there are much more prominent animal killings going on that deserve my support more.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it then not possible to support more than one cause?
> 
> And I assume you meant that you *don't* support the needless killing of animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I didn't say that.
> 
> I won't support this petition because I don't feel it's warranted and if you fully researched then you wouldn't either.
> 
> Everyone is very quick to jump on the PC band wagon without considering the implications.
Click to expand...

You are of course entitled to your own opinion as everyone else is. I just feel that if anyone, private person or company, accepts the responsibility of looking after an animal (or person) it is wrong to shrug off that responsibility because 'something better' is beckoning. Anyone who accepts the care of a living being needs to be clear on the implications before accepting such care IMHO


----------



## A3DFU

roddy said:


> it would appear that with some further research this particular zoo has some " previous ".. :?


,,, and felt ok with dismembering the giraffe in front of an audience where even children were watching.
Perfect education for the young :evil:


----------



## JorgeTTCQ

Done


----------



## A3DFU

JorgeTTCQ said:


> Done


 [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## John-H

Callum-TT said:


> ...
> I won't support this petition because I don't feel it's warranted and if you fully researched then you wouldn't either.
> 
> Everyone is very quick to jump on the PC band wagon without considering the implications.


The opinion a person forms depends what they choose to research quite often. People often have their minds made up before they they chose their newspaper to back up their opinion for example. How is an opinion formed?

I don't presume to dismiss your opinion and presume you know less than me because I don't know what you know and this is not my pet subject (ooh that's a bad one!) but what I would say is that to be truly objective we need to take a step back and see the bigger picture - would you not agree?

I question the purpose of zoos. Are they there to give pleasure to people who visit them and read their cuddly press releases designed to attract visitors and generate revenue (for whose benefit?).

Or are they there to provide some sort of clinical gene bank? Also for whose benefit and how is that defined?

It seems an incongruous juxtaposition to on the one hand charm the public and on the other disgust it.

What gives man the right to play God with lives, human or otherwise; just because we can? And where would we end up applying that justification? I can think of a few notorious historical examples.

We have moral sensibilities which we hold up as defining us from animals, from which we make laws to apply within a civilised society in order to protect the weak and look after the whole. Are not those same caring emotions behind the outcry against this moral outrage? Why should they be dismissed?

Where is the care?

I was always taught that if you took on the responsibility of looking after an animal you did just that. Not only up to the point where you changed your mind for an option that better suited you.


----------



## Spandex

Maybe those two purposes don't contradict. Maybe they see 'charming the public' as a necessary means to funding conservation..


----------



## igotone

I think most of us feel a little disquieted seeing animals caged up in zoos. The saving grace though is that pretty well all zoos nowadays concentrate on breeding programmes for endangered species which has to be a good thing considering how endangered many of them now are


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> Maybe those two purposes don't contradict. Maybe they see 'charming the public' as a necessary means to funding conservation..


From their perspective I'm sure they do but many people don't from theirs and question what is exactly meant by _conservation_ presumed to be done in their name.



igotone said:


> I think most of us feel a little disquieted seeing animals caged up in zoos. The saving grace though is that pretty well all zoos nowadays concentrate on breeding programmes for endangered species which has to be a good thing considering how endangered many of them now are


I've been round zoos where it's quite obvious that many animals have a sorry existence. I do wonder what the purpose is. I don't think a breeding programme justifies killing healthy animals though. When I read news articles like this I think either someone has lost the plot or the plot is flawed. Man has encroached onto wild habitat and hunted and slaughtered his way to species extinction and then tries to preserve remnants in a cruel artificial environment for a mixture of amusement and scientific curiosity? To me that sounds all kinds of wrong.


----------



## Spandex

I think people need to ask themselves how they want conservation to be funded. It's easy to criticise zoos (and zoos seem to be going out of their way to make it even easier if you believe the press) but if you don't directly contribute to animal conservation are you really in a position to dictate how it should be paid for?

Zoos play a part, whether people agree with how they go about it or not. Pointing out the problems without suggesting solutions isn't going to achieve anything, and at the moment this seems like a knee jerk reaction with no thought to the real issue at hand, which is the future of these animals. The death of a few captive animals is ultimately meaningless compared to the survival of the species.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those two purposes don't contradict. Maybe they see 'charming the public' as a necessary means to funding conservation..
> 
> 
> 
> From their perspective I'm sure they do but many people don't from theirs and question what is exactly meant by _conservation_ presumed to be done in their name.
Click to expand...

Which people? People who understand wildlife conservation? People who have no understanding of it at all? I'm playing devils advocate here really, but I think there's an air of hypocrisy in the reaction to these animals deaths, where people are reluctant to spend money on conservation themselves, but are quick to judge situations like this.

If zoos don't fund real conservation then fine... Shut them all down. But will that increase funding to conservation? Or will we just moan about different animals dying whilst being unwilling to fund their survival?

Outrage is free...


----------



## John-H

I know there a lot of people just speaking from the heart and don't know much about conservation but they are only voicing their disapproval and that moral perspective is no less valid. I certainly don't profess to know that much of the detail of conservation but surely we shouldn't presume conservation is best served by zoos. Surely it would be better served by preventing the loss of habitat! Some may say that we are not going to stop that so it has to be zoos. I don't buy that.

What is the point of ending up with no wild life and a few mangy animals behind bars? What are we trying to achieve? Some sort of last gasp saloon in stasis? Basically it comes down to man can do what it likes and will do so to the inevitable end. Look what happened to Easter Island. At least on the way there, if it chooses to keep animals, it should look after the individuals in its charge.

If conservation is really an aim give the land back and stop hunting and poaching animals to a final zoo-extinction.


----------



## Spandex

It's not like anyone's sitting around saying "it's ok, we don't need to worry about wildlife conservation because we've got zoos".

If we decided, en masse, to close down all our zoos, the real problem would still exist and we'd have lost a load of funding for conservation. Zoos aren't the problem and they're not a solution to the problem, but then I don't think they claim to be.


----------



## Nyxx

The problem with animal extinction is simple, it's man's greed. Wipe man kind out and the planet would be a far better place, don't think of yourself as a good person, the problem is man kind is a malignant tumor of the plant. We kill, wipe out everything, purge the earth of everything. No other Animal comes even close to what we do. And we think we are o so clever!
We even kill each other for worshiping a different God, or a different coloured skin. Look in the mirror the problem is right there. We are sick.

But given population growth we are on a perfect path to wipe our selfs out in 100-200 years.


----------



## A3DFU

Spandex said:


> The death of a few captive animals is ultimately meaningless compared to the survival of the species.


I don't think for a split second that it was/is meaningless to the animals involved. Why man thinks he/she is so mighty as to decide what life is precious and what is not is beyond me (and that I mean in a much wider context than just zoo keepers)


----------



## A3DFU

Nyxx said:


> The problem with animal extinction is simple, it's man's greed. Wipe man kind out and the planet would be a far better place, don't think of yourself as a good person, the problem is man kind is a malignant tumor of the plant. We kill, wipe out everything, purge the earth of everything. No other Animal comes even close to what we do. And we think we are o so clever!
> We even kill each other for worshiping a different God, or a different coloured skin. Look in the mirror the problem is right there. We are sick.


I agree with your sentiments, Dave. Lets hope that man will come to their senses soon, starting to respect our life giving environment including all life on our planet. We only have this one planet so we'd better start looking after it, NOW


----------



## Spandex

A3DFU said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> The death of a few captive animals is ultimately meaningless compared to the survival of the species.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think for a split second that it was/is meaningless to the animals involved. Why man thinks he/she is so mighty as to decide what life is precious and what is not is beyond me (and that I mean in a much wider context than just zoo keepers)
Click to expand...

I imagine the animals involved knew nothing about it.

I'm guessing you've also made that decision about what life is precious and what is not every time you get in your car. You sit down on your nice leather seats made from a not very precious cow and think nothing of it because who cares about a cow, right? A giraffe or a lion, now they're precious...


----------



## Nyxx

Spandex said:


> I'm guessing you've also made that decision about what life is precious and what is not every time you get in your car. You sit down on your nice leather seats made from a not very precious cow and think nothing of it because who cares about a cow, right? A giraffe or a lion, now they're precious...


Like I said we are ALL guilty as hell.

Look what the rich can do, show off there crock skin hand bags coloured to match you Veyron. That's £40,000 to you Sir!
We are a very sick race, and I do mean all


----------



## roddy

cows get slaughtered by the thousands on a daily basis for us to eat ( that in itself maybe a topic for another discussion :wink: ) so what would you have done with the skin,, burn them perhaps ?? :?


----------



## Nyxx

Killing to live is not a problem. Unless you want to eat veg. So if leather is a by product of that, then way not use it. But I think man kind cross's that line by miles.
The leather that goes into a RR, the cow are in a pen with no wire or anything that can mark the skin. You would not want a mark in your RR seats would you? How rude!, Breed to be skinned, how nice!!!!


----------



## Spandex

So, the next question is, is it better to kill a cow to feed to the lions in a zoo (I'm assuming they don't eat Quorn sausages for dinner), or kill a giraffe to feed to them?


----------



## roddy

let us think outside the box here a little,,, many of the endangered , ( I know not all [smiley=bomb.gif] ) species are native to Africa where their main threat comes from an impoverished population where there is often no viable alternative of income to feed a family other than killing these endangered animals,, despite the enormous wealth which is extracted / " stolen " from that continent on an ongoing basis by multi national oil and mineral conglomorates , eg, Glen core , Total, BP , Shell,, the population, with the exception of some bought off corrupt local politicians , share virtually nothing of this wealth and instead are forced to live poverty,,,, until such times as the world wakens up to the corruption and theft that runs the world the wild life have little hope of survival.


----------



## A3DFU

Spandex said:


> I imagine the animals involved knew nothing about it.


Why wouldn't they? They are sentient beings as per word definition:

sentient
ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/Submit
adjective
1.
able to perceive or feel things.


----------



## Spandex

A3DFU said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine the animals involved knew nothing about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't they? They are sentient beings as per word definition:
> 
> sentient
> ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/Submit
> adjective
> 1.
> able to perceive or feel things.
Click to expand...

Because they wouldn't know they were about to die, and they would die instantly from a bolt gun to the head. Unless they read the newspapers beforehand I think they were pretty much oblivious.


----------



## A3DFU

Spandex said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine the animals involved knew nothing about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't they? They are sentient beings as per word definition:
> 
> sentient
> ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/Submit
> adjective
> 1.
> able to perceive or feel things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they wouldn't know they were about to die, and they would die instantly from a bolt gun to the head. Unless they read the newspapers beforehand I think they were pretty much oblivious.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that zoo keepers would behave differently, if only slightly, around them knowing their charge would be put down? That I think will be picked up by the animals in question


----------



## Danny1

Animals have been bred, kept and killed forever. When its something "fluffy" or "cute" there is uproar its always the same.


----------



## Spandex

A3DFU said:


> Don't you think that zoo keepers would behave differently, if only slightly, around them knowing their charge would be put down? That I think will be picked up by the animals in question


I don't think animals have any concept of their own mortality.

I don't really think there's an issue with the euthanased animals suffering. The issue is whether or not we should kill captive animals for 'administrative' reasons. Personally, I think if you accept the existence of zoos, you need to accept the management of the zoos population and the implications of breeding programs. I'm on the fence regarding zoos, because I think they do some valuable conservation work, but really we shouldn't need them to because we shouldn't be destroying these animals natural habitat in the first place.


----------



## Callum-TT

Spandex said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that zoo keepers would behave differently, if only slightly, around them knowing their charge would be put down? That I think will be picked up by the animals in question
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think animals have any concept of their own mortality.
> 
> I don't really think there's an issue with the euthanased animals suffering. The issue is whether or not we should kill captive animals for 'administrative' reasons. Personally, I think if you accept the existence of zoos, you need to accept the management of the zoos population and the implications of breeding programs. I'm on the fence regarding zoos, because I think they do some valuable conservation work, but really we shouldn't need them to because we shouldn't be destroying these animals natural habitat in the first place.
Click to expand...

100% agree with this.


----------



## roddy

actually " we " are not,,it is a very select few who are doing so.


----------



## Nyxx

roddy said:


> actually " we " are not,,it is a very select few who are doing so.


Think that one though...
It's not just the hunting if your thinking that's the few, most animals on the short list is because man kind is consuming there natural place to live.
We and that includes you and anyone else reading this is guilty of consuming the natural forests etc, something like the size of Germany is consumed my man "needs" every year.
We might not do the killing or the choping down but we do consume and that makes us all guilty as hell.


----------



## A3DFU

Spandex said:


> Personally, I think if you accept the existence of zoos, you need to accept the management of the zoos population and the implications of breeding programs.


I assume the "you" is generalised and not directed at me. 
Just to clarify: I don't believe in zoos and keeping animals locked up (like prisoners) in cages that have nothing to do with their natural habitat or environment. I don't believe in 'humans' destroying the habitat of animals, endangered species or not.
I do believe in the responsibility in looking after a life any person has accepted to look after


----------



## roddy

Nyxx said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually " we " are not,,it is a very select few who are doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Think that one though...
> It's not just the hunting if your thinking that's the few, most animals on the short list is because man kind is consuming there natural place to live.
> We and that includes you and anyone else reading this is guilty of consuming the natural forests etc, something like the size of Germany is consumed my man "needs" every year.
> We might not do the killing or the choping down but we do consume and that makes us all guilty as hell.
Click to expand...

no mate,, I done even blame the hunters, they are only trying to feed their families in the majority, I blame those who perpetrate the poverty and the mass environmental devastation and live in the Switzerland, the Bahamas , Monaco and Camen islands,,with acountants in the city to hide their taxes,, and specify mahogany dash boards on their Rolls Royces and million pound yachts.... now that aint me,, nor maybe even you.


----------



## Nyxx

It sure is not me 
I see the few your targeting now


----------



## igotone

Hmmm. I agree that whilst it's obscene to kill a Silverback Gorilla just to use the hands for ashtrays, you're not going to stop the local guy who struggles to feed his family and gets a greater return from this one animal than probably several weeks menial work. You can talk conservation to that guy till you're blue in the face - you won't stop him.

However, while that guy undoubtedly exists, the majority of this is supported by international trade in these items and the serious money that goes with it.


----------



## Guzi

Done


----------



## A3DFU

Thank you


----------



## ScoTTy John

Done


----------



## A3DFU

Thanks John


----------



## Skeee

Shug750S said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ( but I would like to read the zoo's take on this )
> 
> 
> 
> The zoo's angle is that as part of their breaking program they had to terminate the lives of several animals to prevent in breeding.
> 
> What tends to happen is a zoo breeds either within but sometimes externally (stud) when they breed internally there is then a chance that "family" may end up breeding in the future.
> 
> To prevent this they initially offer the animals to other zoos (nationally as they have to cover costs) but where that is not a possibility either no room, unavailability of enclosure, lack of funds or even a relative of breeding age already being present they sometimes have to select a group for termination.
> 
> I can honestly say that the zoo keepers were truly devastated to have to kill some of these animals that they helped bring into this world and I also don't think this decision would have been taken lightly.
> 
> Whilst I support the needless killing of animals I won't be signing your petition as I feel there are much more prominent animal killings going on that deserve my support more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bit like Norfolk then? :twisted:
> 
> When's the cull start in Norwich?
Click to expand...

 I'll sign that one!


----------



## A3DFU

Thanks Skeee


----------



## Haiych

Signed and shared on my facebook so my friends can help as well.


----------



## A3DFU

Thank you; that's great! Thank you


----------



## Jcb.

Signed


----------



## A3DFU

Thank you; lets hope many more people will


----------

