Dublin Zoo orangutan escapes enclosure after 24 years

by johnny morris Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:24

That's true they shot the Rhino. April 1997. I remember hearing about it and assuming that they meant they shot it with some sort of sedative, but it turned out they shot with a .303 rifle they keep on the premises for shooting any escapees.

Captive breeding programmes are probably necessary, and zoos probably have some sort of function for scientific research and even a place for school trips, but the idea of keeping a great ape locked up for 24 years just to amuse people is clearly criminal.

Having said all that has anyone considered that the orang utan may have simply wanted to run for the leadership of Fianna Fail?

by indyite Thu Apr 03, 2008 18:59

Just watched the "and finally" piece n RTE's 6.1 news on this story. The whole thing seemed to be lifted from this post.

by Jacqueline Fallon Thu Apr 03, 2008 19:28

I am thrilled to hear the Orangutan escaped Dublin Zoo and a life of absolute misery.

Some years ago, I visited Dublin Zoo and found the majority of animals there looking depressed and listless - some rarely moved at all and they showed absolutely no interest in either the enclosed unimaginative concrete environment they were provided with nor the annoying members of the public that came to gape in at them. I came away feeling very dispirited myself (as did a teacher with a classroom of strangely quiet children who I got chatting to at the time) - it was hard not to feel that this was all very wrong - when obviously some of the animals were so bored and unhappy that they could not be bothered moving at all.

All Zoos should be closed down and the animals sent back to their home countries and large wildlife parks provided for them instead - they are unsuited to concrete urban environments.

by Animal magic Thu Apr 03, 2008 21:43

Just watched the report on this on RTE. Of course the incident was treated as a big joke by the presenter. Worse the teacher of the kids who saw the incident referred to the Orang Utan as a "monkey" and said they enjoyed the "performance" of the obviously stressed mentally wrought creature. No wonder there is so much ignorance of the natural world and animal welfare in this country.

by Tom Fri Apr 04, 2008 01:07

Unfortunately its down to Ireland's Catholic legacy, its the same in every Catholic country, animals are simply for the entertainment of humans, hence bullfighting, coursing, dog fighting and not that long ago bear baiting.

I went to Dublin zoo years ago and saw a couple of black panthers pacing a tiny cage with bars obviously driven insane.

Dublin zoo is a disgrace.

by Starstruck Fri Apr 04, 2008 19:17

Agree completely with the comments above.
Its fuckin unbelievable that we treat animals like some kind of freak show its totally medieval.
The news report on RTE is embarassing and vile - putting the "gReat Escape" music over hte warden as he describes the incident is particularly crass.
I encourage people to watch it so as they can see for themselves our state broadcasters taek on things.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0404/animals.html

by Jacqueline Fallon Fri Apr 04, 2008 23:45

"Dublin Zoo has rejected the criticism, describing its animals as healthy and active"

Well, that was not the case when I visited Dublin Zoo some years ago. The Orangutan I saw that day was in a very small space indeed, looking down at the ground listless, in a state of complete despair and totally dejected, its condition was upsetting everyone including the school children I mentioned earlier. Some other animals that were active were worryingly so, they appeared extremely agitiated, for example, the polar bears on that day were frantically pacing up and down at a maddening pace, clearly out of their fucking minds with boredom, whilst other animals like the Orangutan did not bother moving or even looking up at all.

How the fuck would representatives/spokespeople of Dublin Zoo feel if they were confined to a small concrete enclosure/cage for the rest of their lives? Where every day is predictable and boring, and to make matters worse, you have to put up with members of the general public gaping in at you and making fun of you, and also emptyheaded news reports from the inane about you!

I certainly will not be returning to Dublin Zoo until I get my hands on a 'tranquillizing gun' that I could aim at the Dublin Zoo management and that RTÉ news reporter.

A few words of advice for Dublin Zoo management and all who laughed in the RTÉ studio, in the words of a deranged vainglorious, self-admiring & infamous Mayo politician:

"You should try it yourselves some time!"

by lulu Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:21

It's wrong to blame Catholicism for all the cruelties inflicted on animals; these horrors also occur in countries which don't have a 'Catholic legacy', & seem to be the viler side of human nature. It's undeniable that some heartless parties within the Church have used its power for all kinds of abuses, but be aware that many Catholics & other Xians work hard & patiently for the welfare of all creatures. Many of the saints are associated with companion animals, which they treated with respect, as fellow-creatures. See www.catholic-animals.org for more info.

by jeff Sat Apr 12, 2008 23:59

A world without exploitation and violence can only be achieved when all sentient beings are freed from torture, suffering and oppression, its the same negative behaviour which exploits animals as well humans.

Challenging destructive human behaviour starts with our selves.

by naysayer Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:57

I visited Dublin Zoo recently and, especially in the African Plains section, it's clear that there has been big improvements in recent years. By and large the animals have plenty of space, with the exception of the reptiles. I wasn't impressed by the Farm either - the animals there were in quite small pens; the cathouse was ridiculous. However, the comments above seem to be about a Dublin Zoo that is long gone - I thought most of the animals had plenty of space and the place had the feeling of a wildlife park rather than a Victorian zoo.

by animal lover Mon Apr 14, 2008 13:32

Animals should be treated humanely , but can't really have rights . We shouldn't be projecting human concepts like 'rights and freedom' onto the activities or instinctive concerns of our animal cousins . The rhino that made what Berie termed a break for freedom , was probably just looking for a mate or something like that .So long as animals are fed ,housed and have a bit of space and company they are usually happy enough.
Zoos are primarily scientific institutions for the study of animals and not places of public entertainment . Having said that ,humans , especially children are fascinated by animals . It's part of what makes us human . It would be an awful pity if children were to be denied the chance to see a live elephant or a giraffe .

by Annie Mon Apr 14, 2008 20:38

run for leadership of Fianna Fail, well, given the state of health and Education looks like that girl had an eye on a Mary job. I gotta say it would probably be a step up personality wise from Hanafin.....

by johhny Morris Mon Apr 14, 2008 22:40

Rights for animals:

It's certainly worth debating whether animals can have "human" rights. A great ape is certainly very close to us, if not downright identical.

Chimps etc can experience strong emotions, use language, understand colour, do maths, recognise and structure statements about abstract concepts (sign language has opened a whole world of finding out what's going on inside their heads), and generally behave in very human ways.

It's appalling therefore, in my view, that we can carry out physical and surgical experiments on them for medical research, and even to test cosmetics.

Remember, people used to categorise other groups of humans as not having the same rights- black people, jewish people, even Irish people, were once looked down on by the "civilised".

by naysayer Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:53

Speak for yourself when you say that great apes are identical to us. I mean, really, this is hyperbole. Yes, they are more intelligent than often assumed and we have common ascestors but human "rights" cannot be applied to animals. "Rights" are particular politico-moral injunctions, not a list of rules for treating creatures decently. For example, is democracy a "right"? It is considered so in human society, so do we give apes the vote? Umm...

Let's be serious here. Of course animals should be treated with respect and decently but human rights cannot be applied to the animal world.

Humanity has a great deal to answer for in terms of how we treat each other and with regard to how we treat animals and our natural environment. Animals feel pain, suffer depression and can be driven insane through bad treatment. It is incumbent on us not to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals but, speaking as an omnivore, I find the outrage about well-maintained zoos a bit strange - shouldn't we be focused on the atrocious conditions that farm animals often endure?

Animals in zoos live long lives and generally get the best of grub and are well taken care of. Farm animals, on the other hand, are often treated like shit, and live greatly abbreviated lives before been given the bullet.

by animal lover Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:13

Animals can't really have rights because rights have always been acheived when they have been fought for by those who were previously denied them . White people didn't give black people rights in America - men didn't give women the vote - catholics weren't given civil rights in the north of Ireland by the British government etc. To talk about animal rights is to misunderstand and depreciate the struggles that human beings have fought against tyranny throughout history .
A lion can have rights in a jungle perhaps , or a monkey in a rain forest but that is only to the extent that human society allows such environments to exist . Rights are expressions of power. Because we are more powerful than animals , humans have the right to treat animals in whichever way we choose . The future of the planet depends on how we make that choice . If we say that animals have rights we abdicate responsiblity in making responsible choices in my opinion.

by animal magic Tue Apr 15, 2008 13:38

"Because we are more powerful than animals , humans have the right to treat animals in whichever way we choose ."

That kind of attitude down through the ages has had dire consequences for all living things, including many of our fellow humans

by Daktari Tue Apr 15, 2008 14:08

There are many people who have human rights but do not have the vote. Children for instance.

I remember talking to a scientist who was involved in animal experiments. Feeling uncertain about what he he was doing he did some research, and the best scientific opinion he could garner from colleagues was that a chimpanzee is about as intelligent as a two-year old child.

While a two-year old would not normally get the vote, or have many responsibilities, it is unlikely that we would happily lock one up in a cage, or force shampoo in his or her eyes to see if they went blind.

So saying that rights only apply to those who can fight for them is misguided. In a normal society those who can't defend themselves should be the ones we, as concerned citizens, do the most to protect.

by naysayer Tue Apr 15, 2008 14:29

I made the point that animals should be treated with respect and decency - I think you're conflating my remarks with 'animal lover'.

You're right about 2-year-olds and the vote. I guess I should have drawn a distinction between civil and human rights.

Anyway, no matter because it makes sod all difference to this discussion.

Firstly, I am arguing AGAINST the maltreatment of animals but saying that, at the same time, they ARE animals and can't be accorded HUMAN rights.

Your chimp example is a real hostage to fortune. Should we carry out IQ tests on animals to decide if they're entitled to 'rights'? How do you reckon the cow or hamster would fare? You see, you're not comparing like with like when you compare animals with humans.

There is no such thing as 'animal rights' by the way - only rules constructed by humans that WE apply to animals. For instance, do you think our imposition of 'animal rights' will prevent cats from torturing the lives out of mice?

by DisillusionedVoter Tue Apr 15, 2008 14:30

"so do we give apes the vote? Umm...

Would they do a better job? Couldn't be much worse than our current electorate!!
Most apes could be persuaded to make a random uninformed x somewhere on a page (where we told them to) in return for the promise of a short term reward

by animal lover Tue Apr 15, 2008 15:04

Judging from today's London Independent , Joseph Stalin had similar plans in the nineteen thirties.. He set up experiments to see if scientists could produce a hybrid between humans and monkeys so as to produce slaves to work on his grandiose plans for transforming the soviet union.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stalins-space....html

there's another link here . Sinister sort of stuff http://www.bigfootencounters.com/hominids/stonehill.htm

by vet_student Fri Oct 10, 2008 19:25

Being a vet student, I have been lucky enough to gain a unique point of view on this subject. Not only are we taught about, and examined on, animal welfare [and all the philosophical theories and legislation that go along with that...], but every year vet students get taken to visit dublin zoo for a 'behind the scenes' look at how the place is run. Judging by comments left above, a lot of the people seem not to have visited the zoo in more recent years where vast improvements have been made to the size and quality of the animal's environments, especially in the African Plains section which in particular provides very impressive open spaces for the animals to roam.
The zoo keepers we met there were very conscientious and concerned about the animals in their care, and 'environmental enrichment' was a huge part of their job. This involves finding ways of keeping the animals active and interested in their surroundings, i.e. hiding their food in different places every day so that they have to 'hunt' for it, etc. (for more info, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_enrichment, or http://www.colchester-zoo.com/index.cfm?fa=about.enrichment, will give you an idea).
Furthermore, this zoo, as with many others, is involved in important breeding programmes for endangered species, some of which there are only a few hundred left in the entire world, which is often a notoriously challenging job in many species which are reluctant breeders. In fact, the zoo keepers we talked to there considered their breeding programmes to be the main reason for the existence of the zoo, as opposed to just being a public attraction.
From what I have seen, the animals there look very healthy and seemed in good condition, maintained at the right body weight, with nice coats, eyes, and feet, etc, which is more than can be said even for many pets and privately kept horses that I've seen. Some of the facilities they have for caring for the animals there are not visible to the public but i have seen them myself and was very impressed.
Sorry about the long post, but speaking as someone who detests animal cruelty, and has a little 'inside information' on the matter, I thought that Dublin Zoo deserved a more balanced view here.