99 YEARS OLD AND STILL PONDERING GIRAFFES...

FURTHER to yesterday’s column, which centred on, or at least rambled around, two recent research papers on giraffes, I recall an exchange of emails enjoyed by Blackpool Zoo before Christmas.

It began with an enquiry from a fellow asking whether it was possible to buy and own a giraffe in Scotland. He said that he had a decent sized back garden and could easily feed a giraffe through an upstairs window. He said that his daughters wanted a hamster but implied that he thought a giraffe would make a better pet.

The zoo wrote back urging caution about having a giraffe as a pet as their eating habits could annoy the neighbours when they saw their carefully- tended trees disappearing from the top down. They also pointed out the need for Health and Safety as well as Working at Heights training, whether this was for reaching upper branches in search of food for the giraffes ( though why this cannot be left to the giraffes themselves, I cannot quite understand) or for fleeing to the rooftop to take refuge from irate neighbours.

They also pointed out that one needs a licence to keep a giraffe in the UK, which would require high and robust fencing which would probably cost much more than a television licence.

I cannot tell whether this advice was intended to persuade the fellow to buy a television instead of a giraffe but it certainly did not have that effect, for he maintained not only that money was no object but also that he intended to avoid the issue of permits by having the giraffe classified as a 13- ton excavator by sticking a big label on it identifying it as such. He then suggested that the zoo left its giraffe enclosure door open one night and he’d sneak in with a tipper truck and help himself to one. And he did promise that it would only be one.

The zoo replied with the helpful suggestion that if he wanted an earthmover, he might do better with an aardvark. Aardvarks, they said, would be far less likely to upset the neighbours and can dig at the same rate as four adult men. There would be no problem with heights, though he would have to find 50,000 ants a day to feed the animal.

Why, the fellow asked in reply, would anyone in their right mind want an aardvark? He insisted that it was only a giraffe he was after and surely the zoo could spare just one from their bunch. He’d even be happy with an ugly one, he said. He also asked where he was expected to find 50,000 ants at that time of year, which was November.

The zoo emailed back stressing the advantages of an aardvark as a pet, if only for the status it would confer in setting him apart from his friends. They also insisted that there is no such thing as an ugly giraffe.

The e- conversation continued but failed to reach an amicable conclusion. Personally I think the fellow is better off without a giraffe. They hum at night and steal milk ( see yesterday’s column), which will only irritate the neighbours even more. If the zoo had only suggested a pet pangolin, I’m sure all would have ended well.