From dissecting a lion in front of children to slaughtering a baby giraffe

The recent controversy surrounding the Aalborg Zoo , which offers tax breaks in exchange for donated pets to feed its big cats, is not an isolated case. Denmark has been the scene of several international controversies in recent years related to its zoos and its direct, even crude, approach to the killing and use of animals in its facilities. Public dissections, culling for population control, and unfiltered teaching have provoked reactions of incomprehension and outrage in much of the world, although they barely cause a stir within the Nordic country.

In 2015, Odense Zoo, in central Denmark, carried out a public dissection of a young lion in front of hundreds of people, including many schoolchildren. The animal had been euthanized months earlier along with its two siblings to avoid inbreeding problems and due to a lack of space in other European zoos that could accommodate them. Despite an international campaign that collected nearly 130,000 signatures calling for the dissection to be stopped, the zoo's management continued the activity, considering it a valuable educational tool.

"We're doing it because it's part of a larger package of knowledge dissemination," declared zoologist Nina Collatz Christensen, arguing that displaying a mammal's organs openly helped attendees better understand animal life and death . "In a supermarket, you don't see pigs or calves, just a package of minced meat. This gives you a better understanding of animal life and death," she argued.

During that session, some 400 people—dozens of children among them—watched as the lion's tongue was cut out and its body skinned before their eyes. Some children covered their noses because of the smell; others watched in fascination. "Wouldn't it be strange if it smelled like flowers?" guide Rasmus Kolind asked rhetorically as the stench of the carcass filled the room. "Dead animals smell like death; there's not much more to it than that."

Various animal rights groups collected 15,000 signatures against this practice. However, despite the controversy surrounding it, the Odense Zoo does hold these types of educational exhibits.

A year and a half earlier, in 2014, another similar controversy had placed Denmark at the center of an international media storm: Copenhagen Zoo euthanized a young giraffe named Marius, barely 18 months old, for similar reasons—to prevent inbreeding and maintain the genetic balance of the group—and subsequently dissected its corpse in public. The case generated a global wave of outrage, protests, death threats against the zoo director, and even criticism from international figures. But within Denmark, the reaction was very different.

There, these practices are considered part of the routine management of a modern zoo. Public dissections, population control through euthanasia, and unadulterated education are seen as legitimate tools to promote knowledge and preserve the well-being of the animals kept in the enclosures. For those in charge of these centers, hiding death and anatomy is a form of disconnection from the natural reality they, precisely, seek to combat.

In fact, Odense Zoo had previously performed public dissections of a camel and a pony, and planned to do so with the other two sacrificed lions. The stated intention is to make such experiences routine, as part of their educational program. They have succeeded, despite the controversy.

Finally, another controversy that rocked the international media was, also in 2014, the culling of an adult lion and four of its cubs to introduce a new breeding male. This decision was made to ensure long-term genetic diversity and prevent inbreeding in future relationships.

Zoo director Bengt Holst explained at the time that keeping these animals in separate facilities was not feasible, both due to space issues and the risk of stress and aggression. He argued that in terms of animal welfare and population management, it was the "most responsible" decision, given that no other European institution agreed to take in the cubs.

Several associations proposed alternatives, such as sterilizing the specimens or seeking adoptions in zoos outside the European Captive Breeding Program (EEP). However, the Danish center insisted that these options ran counter to conservation goals and the genetic health of the captive population: sterilization eliminates the possibility of maintaining a complete genetic pool of the species, and transferring them to unaccredited zoos could pose a risk to the animals' welfare and traceability.

Copenhagen Zoo argued that this transparent population management is common in Denmark and is subject to strict protocols. In Nordic countries, the perception of animal deaths in zoos is less taboo than in much of Western Europe.

Holst himself summed up this vision in several interviews: "We understand that it can generate emotions, but we prefer to clearly explain what happens to our animals. Our primary responsibility is to the species and its conservation, not to the emotions of visitors."