34 Stingrays Dead at Calgary Zoo

[Eagle Eye]

whats the point anytime when someone does something stupid.

Could have been some dumb kids playing a prank for all we know. Seems kinda odd that all of the sudden 38 out of 42 sting rays just die.

[Circa89]

I have a legitimate theory on what happened.

It is ant season and just in the past two-three weeks the new colonies are emerging and infiltrating new structures. I wonder if the on-staff caretaker did any spraying for ants recently? If so there is commonly used pesticides that are approved for use indoors, in such facilities as barns and pet kennels. What a general practioner may not know is that water absorbs the chemical and has a high level acute toxicity to fish. If they were experiencing a high level of ant activity and a pesticide like cyfluthrin was used this is very likely the cause of the deaths.

You can tell I watch a lot of House and CSI to come up with a theory like this!

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Circa89

I have a legitimate theory on what happened.

It is ant season and just in the past two-three weeks the new colonies are emerging and infiltrating new structures. I wonder if the on-staff caretaker did any spraying for ants recently? If so there is commonly used pesticides that are approved for use indoors, in such facilities as barns and pet kennels. What a general practioner may not know is that water absorbs the chemical and has a high level acute toxicity to fish. If they were experiencing a high level of ant activity and a pesticide like cyfluthrin was used this is very likely the cause of the deaths.

You can tell I watch a lot of House and CSI to come up with a theory like this!

I can hear what you are saying but they have aquariums in five or six other buildings and no other reported fish deaths. If anything I would think the Hippo aquarium would have those dead fish floating in it too if there was pesticides because the hippos go roll around in crap and grass and then swim and crap all over in the same water as the fish. Then the fish eat the hippo crap that's probably made up of tons of grass and other crap. It's actually quite the crapfest in there.

[troutman]

More deaths, only 3 left:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...71736-sun.html

Only three of the original 43 creatures remain.

"The fact we're continuing to suffer mortality makes the hopes for the remaining ones less than optimistic," said Gaviller.

Gaviller admitted the theory animal-rights activists intent on discrediting the zoo could be behind the incident has been bandied about.

"But we don't want to speculate on any number of things that might be at the root of it," she said.
Preliminary toxicology results could be available in three to four days which would supply more answers, Gaviller said.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Link?

PETA members killing and dumping animals.

http://http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c15_1200416787&c=1

http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-franci...illing-animals

Here's one where up to 15,000 fish were killed by the activists by releasing them. More of an 'oops' but they still killed them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle644707.ece

Here's the famous story of the baby polar bear born in the Berlin zoo who was abandoned by it's mother. Many activists called for it to be destroyed.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...006007,00.html

An article summing up the position of some militant branches of animal rights activism where it's stated one of the goals is to 'force animal abusers out of business'. I don't think that it's a stretch to say that in the effort to shut down or paint negatively a zoo, some of the dangerous activties these groups engage in that are targeted at scaring or even killing humans, might not also include captured animals they see as 'broken individuals'.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7215



Ultimately we will know more in a few weeks for this specific case here in Calgary.

[Iggy's Forehead]

I haven't really been following this closely, but are they keeping the Sting Rays in the same tank and same conditions as they drop like flies day after day?

[Daradon]

^^^ No they moved them to a new tank very fast when they noticed something was wrong.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ No they moved them to a new tank very fast when they noticed something was wrong.

And sometimes that can give a fish a bad shock to it's system as well...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Daradon

What? Are you guys serious...

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic in my post. I'm well aware that some groups really do kill animals in the name of saving them. But, as with any other kind of militant, logic doesn't run deep.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Daradon

PETA members killing and dumping animals.

http://http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c15_1200416787&c=1

http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-franci...illing-animals

PETA admits to euthanizing animals they receive, fact is 90% of the animals they receive are sick and need to be put down. The real problem isn't that PETA has to euthanize animals, it's that breeders and the people that support breeders cause their to be a severe overpopulation problem, also people need to neuter or spay their pets. Oh yeah by the way all the charges were dropped in the case so I guess the justice system agreed with them.

Here's one where up to 15,000 fish were killed by the activists by releasing them. More of an 'oops' but they still killed them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle644707.ece

Yeah they did something stupid, their intentions weren't violent.

Here's the famous story of the baby polar bear born in the Berlin zoo who was abandoned by it's mother. Many activists called for it to be destroyed.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...006007,00.html

They believe that the polar bear was not going to be able to live a normal life. They did not in fact try to hurt the bear.

An article summing up the position of some militant branches of animal rights activism where it's stated one of the goals is to 'force animal abusers out of business'. I don't think that it's a stretch to say that in the effort to shut down or paint negatively a zoo, some of the dangerous activties these groups engage in that are targeted at scaring or even killing humans, might not also include captured animals they see as 'broken individuals'.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7215

For a long time the animal rights militant groups took exhaustive measures to ensure that animals and humans were unharmed in their actions. However, the rhetoric has changed in the past couple years that some groups might begin to target humans. However, the rhetoric still calls for no harm to animals. So yeah it would be a stretch.

Ultimately we will know more in a few weeks for this specific case here in Calgary.

Actually we probably won't ever know. I highly doubt it was animal rights activists because this would be the first documented case of such an action. Especially in North America where the movement is not quite as radical as in Europe.

[Daradon]

^^^ Exactly. First documented case. In my search I found many cases where it was suspected, but never proven. Even if they find out that someone purposefully put something in the water it might still be hard to link it to activists because he person may not admit to being part of a group.

But I have heard of such things happening through less official channels and being bandied about unofficial undocumented sources. Thought I'd be able to find a documented case, but as I mentioned only many suspected ones.

But if something was done on purpose, which it is looking more and more likely, you have to ask why? You got two likely options. A true sadist type individual who doesn't care, or someone trying to make a statement.

Again, this is all speculation. I'm still not saying it wasn't an accident or even the zoos fault. But it is curious.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ Exactly. First documented case. In my search I found many cases where it was suspected, but never proven. Even if they find out that someone purposefully put something in the water it might still be hard to link it to activists because he person may not admit to being part of a group.

But I have heard of such things happening through less official channels and being bandied about unofficial undocumented sources. Thought I'd be able to find a documented case, but as I mentioned only many suspected ones.

Show me one where it wasn't proven.

[troutman]

Some good news for the zoo; baby gorilla born:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...85031-sun.html

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Sowa

PETA admits to euthanizing animals they receive, fact is 90% of the animals they receive are sick and need to be put down. The real problem isn't that PETA has to euthanize animals, it's that breeders and the people that support breeders cause their to be a severe overpopulation problem, also people need to neuter or spay their pets. Oh yeah by the way all the charges were dropped in the case so I guess the justice system agreed with them.

More accurately, PETA claims that 90 of the animals they receive...

Personally, I think it is striking that PETA puts down far, far more animals than the SPCA does.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

More accurately, PETA claims that 90 of the animals they receive...

Personally, I think it is striking that PETA puts down far, far more animals than the SPCA does.

Don't know where you got that fact from, but I am curious. As a percentage yes they do, but in the 6 year span of 1998 - 2003 they euthanized 10,000 animals I don't think that's anywhere near the SPCA numbers, especially since the Austin SPCA euthanized 15000 in 2005 alone. But you have to realize the SPCA and Humane Society don't take in rescued animals for laboratories and slaughterhouses, where many of the animals aren't in the best condition. They have a division that also patrols neighborhoods for dogs/cats that aren't being taken care of correctly and many of these end up being far in to irrecoverable diseases like heartworm. PETA also uses much more humane ways of euthanizing animals than many shelters who sometimes gas a bunch of them in a room, where as PETA always uses the much less painful lethal injection. Also I don't even know how PETA got brought up in this because they are not even a direct action organization. The ALF is the "organization" that breaks into labs and commits crimes of vandalism, arson, theft, etc. in the name of animal rights. I am no longer a member of PETA as I don't agree with some of the stuff they do, but to say that animal welfare isn't their top priority is absolutely asinine. For the most part the organization is run by very intelligent and really nice people. All this stuff is conservative media trying to label them as hypocrites to mess up their message.

[Burninator]

But their message is too extreme. Correct me if I am wrong, but PETA's ultimate goal to provide animals with total freedom (for lack of better word). Meaning that humans should not eat animals, have them as pets, use them for testing, or interfere with them at all. Stop me if I am off base.

What I have a problem with is the testing of animals part. It's quite possibly the dumbest goal to have as an "intelligent" organization that I have ever heard of. Why? Because it would effectively stop all new medical drugs and treatments from the hitting the markets. Animal testing, although quite sad, is quite necessary for survival of humans. And I like humans more than animals.

[LChoy]

To clarify, animal testing for cosmetic and other non-medical testing = bad

For Biology and medical testing, it is very necessary but also very tightly regulated. In University, we could only use rats if we can show that there wasn't any other method of testing. Contrary to what some of my animal right friends think, it's not like that we test rats or other lab animal on a whim, we just haven't developed a comprehensive non-animal model to conduct the tests needed for the advancement of medicine and treatment for society (well, unless you count human testing, but that's even more strict).
Also, animal testing will continue to grow now as the climate is changing (or at least our environment is). Some of the most recent kinds of deadly diseases have been from viruses and pathogens that crossed over from animals. 20 years ago, West Nile was found only in a specific species of African mosquitoes. Today, it has evolved to the Western Hemisphere. SARS and Ebola are both suspected to be crossed over from animal reservoirs. HIV has characteristics of a Simian virus. Hanta Virus first emerged in Korea and is from aerosolized mice droppings. With warmer clients, there will increasing cases of Lyme disease (ticks) and even malaria may make a come back in North America as the environment continues to warm.
Therefore, animal base research will be increasingly used to find treatments and vaccines.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But their message is too extreme. Correct me if I am wrong, but PETA's ultimate goal to provide animals with total freedom (for lack of better word). Meaning that humans should not eat animals, have them as pets, use them for testing, or interfere with them at all. Stop me if I am off base.

What I have a problem with is the testing of animals part. It's quite possibly the dumbest goal to have as an "intelligent" organization that I have ever heard of. Why? Because it would effectively stop all new medical drugs and treatments from the hitting the markets. Animal testing, although quite sad, is quite necessary for survival of humans. And I like humans more than animals.

It is not the dumbest goal actually. They (including me) believe animals are equal to humans therefore using an animal for medical testing is akin to using humans. We also survived thousands of years without animal testing and some of the advances in science could be to blame for some of the diseases we now face. Some of them believe that having pets and interfering with them is wrong (including Ingrid Newkirk the founder), but others don't mind companion animals, they don't like the word pet because it implies ownership, count me in that boat. I see my dog as my best friend not as an item that I possess and I protect him (as he does I) and he gives immeasurable joy.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It is not the dumbest goal actually. They (including me) believe animals are equal to humans therefore using an animal for medical testing is akin to using humans. We also survived thousands of years without animal testing and some of the advances in science could be to blame for some of the diseases we now face. Some of them believe that having pets and interfering with them is wrong (including Ingrid Newkirk the founder), but others don't mind companion animals, they don't like the word pet because it implies ownership, count me in that boat. I see my dog as my best friend not as an item that I possess and I protect him (as he does I) and he gives immeasurable joy.

What does it even mean? Let's throw out the food chain and evolutionary principles? Next time i come across a bear in the woods, should i shout out before he rips me apart "Hey bro we're equals!!!"

Anyways i generally don't agree with the extreme side of things and PETA would be another example of extremists. There are PROS and CONS to everything...

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

What does it even mean? Let's throw out the food chain and evolutionary principles? Next time i come across a bear in the woods, should i shout out before he rips me apart "Hey bro we're equals!!!"

My thoughts too, does the cat care to ponder if the mouse is his equal before he eats it?? No, because it's part of the food chain, on which the ecosystems around the Earth are based. We humans are the top predator.