The recent decision by a zoo in Nuremberg, Germany, to cull a dozen healthy Guinea baboons due to overcrowding has sparked a considerable outcry from animal rights activists and concerned citizens alike. This distressing event has left many questioning the ethics and practices of zoos regarding animal welfare, population control, and management strategies. This situation unfolded at the Tiergarten Nürnberg, where the zoo cited the inability to manage the growing population effectively as the primary reason for this drastic measure.
On July 30, 2025, the zoo’s controversial action came to light when it was reported that the baboons were not just culled; their bodies were subsequently fed to the zoo’s predators. The decision to euthanize these baboons was made amidst claims of increased conflicts among the animals due to overcrowding, which had exceeded the facility’s capacity established by a special enclosure built in 2009 that could accommodate 25 baboons. According to the zoo, alternatives for re-housing these animals were scarce, leading to the difficult choice of euthanasia.
As news of the culling spread, several animal rights activists felt compelled to protest. On that same day, seven activists were arrested after they infiltrated the zoo to voice their dissent against the culling. One protester even resorted to gluing her hands to the ground near the entrance as a form of silent demonstration. Their actions highlight the emotional and passionate response from the community regarding the treatment of the apes, considered to be in perfect health according to numerous animal welfare advocates.
Christoph Maisack, the head of the German Legal Association for Animal Protection Law, weighed in on the ethical implications of the zoo’s actions, arguing that allowing the baboons to breed excessively should not justify the extermination of healthy animals. The German zoo’s history with breeding has been scrutinized, as the facility had announced plans for culling as early as the previous year once their baboon population hit 40. Despite attempts to utilize contraception to manage population growth, results were disappointing.
The zoo’s management indicated that the decision to cull had undergone a “yearslong consideration.” Dag Encke, the zoo’s director, mentioned that such measures could be seen as a legitimate last resort to sustain healthy populations under specific ethical guidelines upheld by the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). However, animal rights groups have launched formal complaints against the zoo, denouncing the actions as unnecessary and illegal, especially considering that alternatives should have been pursued more aggressively.
This is not the first instance of such controversy surrounding zoos in Europe. In 2014, the Copenhagen Zoo attracted international ire for its decision to cull a giraffe named Marius, citing concerns over bloodline compatibility within its breeding program. That situation was similarly distressing, culminating in a live-streamed post-mortem where Marius’s carcass was used to feed lions at the zoo.
The uproar following the Nuremberg culling incident has reignited discussions across Europe regarding animal welfare standards, breeding policies, and the moral obligations of zoos towards the animals they house. Many advocates are urging a critical reevaluation of both housing and breeding practices to avoid such tragic decisions in the future. As public sentiment continues to evolve, it remains to be seen how institutions like the Tiergarten Nürnberg will adapt to this growing demand for ethical reform in their operations. The narrative surrounding the treatment of zoo animals is increasingly under scrutiny, and it is imperative for these establishments to prioritize both animal welfare and public education in their mission moving forward.
