Pet donations at Aalborg Zoo trigger backlash

Aalborg Zoo in Denmark drew global backlash after asking the public to donate pets to feed its carnivores, raising questions about ethics and waste.

Pet donations at Aalborg Zoo trigger backlash

Aalborg Zoo in Denmark drew international attention after a Facebook post invited people to donate animals to feed its carnivores. The zoo said it accepts small pets and horses that meet health criteria and framed the donations as a way to reduce waste while providing nutrition and enrichment for the animals. The post sparked a fierce online debate about whether pets should be used as zoo food, and the institution defended the practice as part of its long history of honoring nature and ecosystems.

Pernille Sohl, a mother who allowed her pony Chicago 57 to be euthanised and donated to the zoo, said she saw the decision as meaningful and practical. The zoo noted that donations can come from a wide range of pets and that the process is performed with care. In this case the pony was euthanised humanely and the carcass was fed to the lions, a fact the zoo publicly described as part of the animal’s final purpose. The organization says it has received a large number of donations this year and has sometimes turned away larger animals for logistical reasons. The campaign prompted criticism beyond Denmark, and the zoo later restricted comments on the post to avoid hostility.

The article also references other zoos that run similar programs with safeguards, including Copenhagen, Colchester and Jyllands Park Zoo. It notes that health checks and proper sourcing are essential when using donated animals to feed carnivores, and it places the practice within broader discussions about waste, nutrition and public expectations of zoos.

Ethically, the issue tests how far society allows the line between a pet and a resource used by institutions. Donor motives, financial incentives and the potential for public misperception all shape the debate about whether such programs align with animal welfare and public trust. The tax rebates mentioned in the coverage add a layer of complexity, turning charitable acts into a partial economic transaction rather than a purely compassionate choice.

This case also reveals how media coverage can amplify a niche practice into a global controversy. Transparency about how decisions are made, how animals are selected, and how outcomes are communicated will influence whether audiences see this as pragmatic waste reduction or a troubling shortcut. The episode may push zoos to clarify their ethics, governance and health safeguards to maintain legitimacy with visitors and critics alike.

Highlights

The conversation about pets, ethics and care will continue to shape how zoos engage with the public and manage donor programs.