First, predators need to eat meat. So they cannot be fed without animals being put down. Second, chickens, rabbits and guinea pigs tend overbreed, and the owners need to have them put down. Better to have their carcasses fed to predators that have them incinerated. Don't you think?
No, I don't. It sends the wrong signal. Animals are not disposable objects. There are things you can do to prevent over population like sterilisation. You want more natural, don't keep captive predators.
When you say "things you can do" you make it sound as if there were several options. There weren't. Sedating a giraffe is dangerous because it can break its neck when falling. Besides, sending signals should not have priority over animal safety.
There are always options: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34529298/
This is not an option in a zoo. They keep one bull surrounded by a group of females. That one bull gets to impregnate the females, but obvisouly not if they receive the treatment you suggest. Young bulls are removed when they come of age, otherwise they start fighting.
So the solution then becomes what.. kill the elderly and the unwanted and feed them to the predators? If that is how zoo's function perhaps the format should be reconsidered instead. Imho zoo's only redeeming factor could be conservation and repopulation of endangered species.
As far as I understand, giraffes are very rarely put down in zoos; I belive they are moved around. Which is, btw, really complicated because they can't be sedated. I think the way zoos work is that they buy the livestock that they feed to their predators. No different from the way humans are fed.
It was your example in response to my opinion with regards to the request from the zoo for 'unwanted pets' for food for predators 🤷 This request could possibly result in people being even more careless about getting pets than they already are and I believe it is the wrong 'signal'.
Yes, if you can take it for granted that most people are arseholes then that would make sense.
Just look at pet asylums and the amount of pets left in forests or alone near holidays and what not. Maybe not most but many yes. And then we are talking pets and zoo's, not other types of animal keeping like mega farms..
They argue it would make for a more 'natural diet' which is a shitty argument for various reasons. It's nothing more than an attempt to cut costs. Nothing to do with animal welfare.
I wonder how you know all of this? And how is a varied diet not natural?
Talking about 'natural' in the same sentence as 'caged predators ' and 'domesticated pets' doesn't exactly work ...
Most of the time 'impossible' just means that people aren't willing to invest time and/or money.
So "most of the time" also applies specifically to the Aalborg Zoo?
Not specifically. It is something that happens on a large scale in multiple areas, not just zoo keeping or a specific zoo.
But you are specifically accusing the Aalborg Zoo of a disgusting respect for life. You also insist that you know their job and that they could have done better. I'd love to see you explain all of this to the professionals who care for these animals on a daily basis.