The elimination of Marius, the giraffe: humanitarian act or callous management decision?

ABSTRACT

Zoos serve as recreation facilities and tourist attractions, but their primary roles also include education, research and conservation. Conservation in particular has emerged as a vital component of zoos, with the aim of diversifying the genetic base of many species that have been rendered threatened or endangered. However, conservation is often couched within a managerial structure that places individual animal interests against broader species specific interests and economic considerations. Zoos make trade-offs between these considerations according to issues of space, efficiency and profitability. This conflict has recently come to the fore in reference to the elimination of Marius, a healthy 18-month-old male giraffe, at the Copenhagen Zoo, which elicited a public uproar. We consider the reasons and alleged constraints which led the Zoo to its decision to eliminate Marius, examine the reactions of scientists and members of the public to the event, interpret it as a consequence of conflicts between the multiple roles of contemporary Western zoos, and discuss it in terms of competing approaches to animal ethics.

KEYWORDS:

• Zoos
• animal conservation
• zoo management dilemmas
• media
• animal ethics

Notes on contributors

Erik Cohen is the George S. Wise Professor of Sociology (emeritus) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His current research interests are tourism, mobilities, festivals, human/animal interaction and Thai society.

David Fennell researches mainly in the areas of ecotourism, tourism ethics and moral issues tied to the use of animals in the tourism industry. A major thrust of his research involves the use of theory from other disciplines (e.g. biology) to gain traction on many of tourism's most persistent issues and problems. He is the founding Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Ecotourism.