Last week, in an effort to stop inbreeding among its animals, Copenhagen Zoo euthanized one of its male baby giraffes — shooting him in the head, then dismembering him and feeding him to predators while zoo visitors, including kids, watched. This seems like a pretty fucked up way to deal with a potential inbreeding problem! The zoo has brought itself international outrage with its actions, and the giraffes have found an unlikely friend in one W. Axl Rose. On Twitter, the Guns N’ Roses frontman had been making dad jokes about the giraffe controversy (“Just enjoying the lion’s share of some tasty baby Giraffica sliders! Mmmmm! What’ll them crazy Danes think of next!”). But now, in a surprisingly thoughtful Twitlonger post, Axl has done a nice job summing up the whole “why the fuck would you do that?” sentiment. Read it below.

Over the past week I’ve put out a few intentionally sarcastic tweets in response and calling attention to the killing of an 18 month old baby male giraffe named Marius by the Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark.

And in that regard I think that without more information or a better understanding of not just how this particular breeding program works or why it’s believed to be necessary and seemingly without room for exception or public opinion… to the average person it would seem that…

1.) Marius could have been spared and was a waste of a healthy young animal’s life.

2.) The manner in which he was if not euthanized then disposed of seemed particularly barbaric, unnecessary and a vulgar or grotesque display of inconsideration and complete disregard for public sentiments adding a level of morbid spectacle and horrendousness difficult for most to comprehend by doing so not just in front of but for what seems some misguided or twisted sense of educational purposes for children.


3.) The seemingly cold and clinical responses and attitudes regarding this unfortunate event by those involved appearing to be somewhat defiant, arrogant and even seeming somewhat perversely satisfied with themselves and their actions going as far as to express “pride” in their decisions comes off as completely heartless in regard to the animals and seems extremely disrespectful toward the general public on this issue.

Perhaps their comments were taken out of context? Perhaps there’s something lost in translation? I don’t know that anyone is trying to say or act in this situation as if they truly know more than these particular or any professional animal caretakers or zoologists etc. but I do know that at present plenty of lay people worldwide do not understand or approve of what took place here. And again without more information and better understanding of the breeding program and why this was deemed the appropriate course of action this event seems misguided and a crime against the very nature those in such positions are thought to be involved with as protectors and caretakers of such animals.

One can attempt to justify these choices as those taking into consideration a bigger picture scientifically but in my view there seems to be more than one perspective to that picture and it would appear that adherence to such a rigid or strict nature of such clinical focus may be disregarding the public impact of their actions.

For most normal everyday people that love, care about and enjoy animals this event has been a tragedy. An unexpected, unimaginable and what for many is most devastating a seemingly avoidable horror show that somehow seems lost on the professionals involved and those speaking for the zoo a facility that’s in my opinion thought to exist for the animals, the public, educational purposes and science in as best a sense of harmony as possible. Just as it’s a privilege for the public to visit, view and experience these animals it’s also a privilege to work with and care for the animals and have the opportunity to do so while interacting and/or working with the public.

Unfortunately somehow in this instance all or much of that seems to have been forgotten.


(via @AxlRose)

Axl, lest we forget, also had things to say about the Red Hot Chili Peppers playing the Super Bowl Halftime Show without plugging their guitars in. We are now tantalizingly close to a world in which we know Axl Rose’s thoughts on every goofy water-cooler controversy.

Comments (9)
  1. So much to talk about here, from Axl’s thoughtful eloquence lately to the missed opportunity for a “Welcome to the Jungle” joke, but I do know Axl to be a longtime lover of giraffes, as he did date and bed one long-neck beauty briefly a few years back, so it hits home for him.

    • “as he did date and bed one long-neck beauty briefly a few years back”

      Pretty sure I’ll be giggling to this all day.

      Remembering a day in which LDR jokes were well respected on Stereogum…

  2. He’s like a more sane Morrissey.

  3. First of it’s København Zoo (= Copenhagen Zoo) and not Jylland’s Park Zoo. What you wrote is like saying Los Angeles Zoo in New York – just fyi. Secondly, the whole thing has been given much too much publicity considering how sensible a decision it was (and still remains). A rational and calm Bengt Holst says it best:

    Beng Holst 4 Prez

  4. Animals get killed because there’s not enough space in their surroundings. It can’t come as a surprise – It happens in every zoos every day, at farms every hour – and in nature as well. Unless you’re a strict vegan, it makes no sense to critizise the act by Copenhagen Zoo (not Jyllands Park Zoo as you wrote in your surprisingly bias intro. That Zoo is in a totally different park of the country).

    You can question the whole idea of having zoos, but not the act of feeding animals to others. And yes, we let families watch it – it makes sense to show the reality of things, instead of pretending that no one ever gets killed in a zoo.

    • Right now, it’s sounding to me like there are one too many trigger happy animal killers over in Denmark, and by your rational, it means that we should perhaps look into doing away with you as well. I know a few neighborhood dogs who might enjoy the delicacy of chomping on some Danish hamhocks.

  5. okay, let’s clear this up

    1) The animal was inbred, which prohibits the zoo from allowing it to procreate according to European law. The only acceptable moral reason to have wild animals in a zoo is to preserve their numbers by breeding them.

    2) Shooting the animal in the brain is certain to cause instantaneous death, as opposed to various other execution methods, as employed by for instance the US to execute humans.

    3) The animal was fed to carnivores who would have realistically eaten the same fucking animal if they came across one another in the motherfucking wild.

    4) The kids were there to learn about animals. It’s supposed to be a learning experience, not fucking hakuna matata.

  6. Someone give Axl a podcast.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.

%s1 / %s2