Skip to main content

Verified by Psychology Today

Four Lions Including Two Cubs Killed at the Copenhagen Zoo

The same zoo administrators previously killed a healthy giraffe named Marius.

Last month administrators at the Copenhagen zoo decided it was perfectly okay to kill a healthy young male giraffe named Marius. Killing Marius was not euthanasia, mercy killing, but rather "zoothanasia", killing done in a zoo because an animal is deemed to be a disposable object. Many people around the world were outraged by Marius's death—I call this the "Marius Effect" -—while some workers at the zoo and elsewhere said he had to be killed because he didn't fit into their breeding program. Marius was killed despite the fact that another facility had offered him a home in which he could live out his life in peace and safety.

I figured that the negative attention that the late Marius brought to the Copenhagen zoo would at least have some impact and those responsible for killing Marius would reassess their reprehensible behavior and question their killing ways. Numerous people shared the same sentiment with me, many of whom had never previously voiced their opinion about the common killing of "surplus animals" conducted in zoos or other animal issues. This was a paradigm shift for many people who were both surprised and outraged by this cold-hearted slaughter.

Now the Copenhagen zoo wants to become a "lion mill" so killing healthy animals is still perfectly okay

We couldn't have been more wrong. Yesterday, the Copenhagen zoo killed four lions, two old adults their two ten month-old cubs, because they want to introduce a new male to the remaining females to make more lions, all of whom will spend their lives in captivity and some of whom will undoubtedly be killed in the future because they too will be classified as disposable surplus animals. These four sentient beings were, as was Marius, considered to be expendable because they couldn't be used to make more lions. Zoo workers were also concerned that the new male would kill the youngsters and the captive group wouldn't resemble that of wild prides of lions, as if it previously had. Of course, there is nothing natural about the cage, some might call it an enclosure or pretty it up by calling it "lion habitat", but it is still a cage in which future lions will be mercilessly crammed.

I see coming to a deeper understanding of heinous acts like this as a perfect subject for study for researchers in the field of anthrozoology, the study of human-animal relationships. The cold justification for these killings offered by zoo workers chilled and scared me. Furthermore, these easily avoidable deaths, perversely justified "in the name of conservation", are horrible lessons for youngsters and run counter to global programs in humane education and compassionate conservation.

I could go on and on and repeat reasons why zoos need to change their ways and respect the caged animals for whom they are and that zoos do not teach much at all about biodiversity and conservation, but these sorts of argument clearly fall on deaf ears. Surely, people who choose to go to the Copenhagen zoo can find other ways to spend their time and money.

Marc Bekoff's latest books are Jasper's story: Saving moon bears (with Jill Robinson; see also), Ignoring nature no more: The case for compassionate conservation (see also), and Why dogs hump and bees get depressed (see also). Rewilding our hearts: Building pathways of compassion and coexistence will be published fall 2014.