Borås Djurpark has initiated a new program allowing horse owners to have their animals euthanized on-site and subsequently used as feed for the park’s carnivorous animals, contributing to what the park describes as ”part of life’s great circle.” This practice aims to provide a more natural and enriching feeding experience for predators such as lions, wild dogs, hyenas, wolverines, lynx, and bears, offering them whole carcasses with skin and bone, unlike the pre-cut meat from emergency slaughtered animals they typically receive. While the park had previously received inquiries from horse owners interested in this option, they were unable to accommodate the requests until now. The program has generated mixed reactions, eliciting both praise and criticism. Some see it as a practical and natural solution for horse owners facing the difficult decision of euthanasia, while others find the process unsettling.
The procedure at Borås Djurpark involves euthanasia by bolt gun, after which the carcass is offered to the park’s predators. While owners are not permitted to hold their horses during the process, they are allowed to say goodbye afterward. The service carries a fee of 2,500 kronor, which the park explains covers veterinary and operational costs, claiming it is less expensive than standard euthanasia procedures. The park emphasizes the voluntary nature of the program and acknowledges the sensitivity surrounding the issue. They recognize that for many, horses are beloved companions, and the decision to euthanize and have them used as feed can be emotionally challenging. However, they maintain that the program provides a viable option for those horse owners who believe this is the best course of action for their animals.
The initiative has sparked debate on social media platforms, highlighting the diverse perspectives on the subject. Critics like Jennifer Mendoza, a horse owner from Skene, express discomfort with the idea of leaving a whole animal to be ”torn apart” by predators, describing it as ”macabre.” She advocates for euthanasia in the animal’s familiar environment, surrounded by those who have shared its life, allowing for a more peaceful and dignified farewell. Mendoza believes that letting other horses in the herd see, smell, and understand the passing of their companion is crucial for their emotional well-being, preventing the distress of a seemingly unexplained disappearance.
Mendoza also raises concerns about the 2,500 kronor fee, arguing that those choosing this option should not have to bear the cost, as the park benefits from using the horse as feed. She acknowledges the expenses associated with euthanasia but questions the fairness of paying for a service that fulfills the park’s needs. This raises the broader question of whether such programs should be considered a service provided to horse owners or a means for zoos and wildlife parks to acquire feed. The debate touches upon ethical considerations surrounding animal welfare, the emotional bond between humans and animals, and the practicalities of animal disposal.
Borås Djurpark defends the fee by highlighting that it covers associated costs and is lower than typical euthanasia expenses. Park officials reiterate that participation is entirely voluntary and emphasize the benefits of providing their carnivores with a more natural diet. They acknowledge the sensitivity and emotional weight of the decision for horse owners and respect different perspectives on the issue. The park stresses that the program is not intended to be a universal solution but rather an option for those who find it aligns with their values and preferences. The ongoing discussion reflects the complex ethical and emotional dimensions of animal care and end-of-life decisions.
The introduction of this program at Borås Djurpark raises significant questions about the evolving relationship between humans and animals, and the ethical considerations surrounding animal welfare and disposal. While the park presents it as a natural and beneficial practice, critics argue that it prioritizes the needs of the zoo animals over the emotional well-being of horses and their owners. The debate underscores the need for ongoing discussion and transparency in such practices, considering the diverse perspectives and values at play. The program’s future will likely depend on public perception, ethical reviews, and its long-term impact on both horse owners and the animals at Borås Djurpark.
