Cincinnati Zoo kills gorilla after child gets into his cage, May 28, 2016

[sonjay]

Um, sorry to break it to you, but somebody just did accidentally fall into that gorilla enclosure.

Um, sorry to break it to you, but the little boy under discussion in this thread did not accidentally fall into that gorilla enclosure.

He told his mom he was going in, and he went in. It was no accident.

 

[krkrjx]

LOL, I only covered their faces to stay in the WS rules for posting pictures of children. But on a serious note, if you are going to charge this mother, then you have got to charge every single parent who has let their kids climb on, lean over, or sit on that railing in the last 30 years.

I wouldn't charge them all. I would not mind seeing some citations issued, but charges would be reserved only for those whose negligence caused an animal to be put down. Keep your kids safe, and keep your eyes on them when they are out and about, especially when they are in situations where they get excited about something they might not experience every day. Those are the situations where tragedies occur because a child is not aware of what could happen given it is not an everyday experience. It is sickening that we put animals in cages for our viewing pleasure, then hold the animal responsible for acting on instinct when humans act irresponsibly.

 

[KaaBoom]

The zoo official I saw on my local news this evening said they have never had an incident until now. There is always a first time for everything, of course, but it seems if it were unsafe there would have been a previous incident, accidental or otherwise.

I do not see this as the child accidentally fell in--he went in deliberately. Yes, he's only 3 or 4 years old (I heard it both ways) and cannot be held accountable for poor judgment--but nonetheless, it was not an accident. He went in. He was not being properly supervised, and he went in. Then he kept going until he fell into the moat.

The San Francisco zoo, never had an incident with their tigers for over 65 years, then they did. Unfortunately that's the only way these things get fixed, is when something like this happens.

 

[jjenny]

Actually he seems quite fine, and to the delight and amusement of his parents, wants to return to the zoo.

Lots of other exhibits he can get into.

 

[jjenny]

The San Francisco zoo, never had an incident with their tigers for over 65 years, then they did. Unfortunately that's the only way these things get fixed, is when something like this happens.

Considering that same tiger attacked her zookeeper previously (with severe injuries resulting), that's not exactly true, is it?

 

[jjenny]

Um, sorry to break it to you, but the little boy under discussion in this thread did not accidentally fall into that gorilla enclosure.

He told his mom he was going in, and he went in. It was no accident.

Yes, he got in quite deliberately. A bunch of witnesses saw him make a run for it but weren't able to stop him.

 

[krkrjx]

The San Francisco zoo, never had an incident with their tigers for over 65 years, then they did. Unfortunately that's the only way these things get fixed, is when something like this happens.

There is no way to have an enclosure that a determined human could not get into and still have the exhibit be viewable to the public. About the only way to accomplish that would be for all exhibits to be viewed on a computer screen, or with the animals visible in cages with four walls and a ceiling--nothing resembling a natural habitat.

I do not see how this incident with the gorilla could have turned out differently as clearly the boy was in grave danger and something had to be done to stop that. The issue I have is with the mother and her attitude after the fact--as if this was just a kids-will-be-kids incident and you can't watch them every second of every day. The reports I saw on the news with people speaking who had been there indicated parental negligence. Her attitude of her son is doing just fine and that's all that matters irks me...because that poor gorilla was doing just fine until her son invaded his space.

 

[Montjoy]

I wonder if they'll ever further describe that part of the incident. Did the gorilla carry the boy carefully, or did he drag him up by one leg?

Yes, it’s on the video. The gorilla was dragging the boy by one leg.

[video=youtube;ENSkI14qyF4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENSkI14qyF4[/video]

Just to put things into context:

Pound for pound, gorillas are far stronger than humans are. Their skin is tougher, their muscles far more powerful. It's the same with most non-human species -- they are just a lot stronger, owing to years of hunting to survive, and failing to survive and reproduce when they cannot hunt. That's why a lot of animals that are far smaller than humans can be deadly in a confrontation without weapons.

That being said, I have to point out that it isn't necessarily aggression we're seeing from the gorilla here. If it had been a young gorilla, being dragged by the leg wouldn't be the same sort of threat that doing so would be for a human child.

Just the same, it was a silverback male. So I don't quite know how to interpret what happened. At any rate, I will go with with the expert zoologists say. In my opinion, they were ultimately guessing (and it's an informed guess, not a total gamble) that whatever the intention, that 4 year old human couldn't sustain the rigors of being handled by a silverback, even if he meant no harm. It all adds up to a very complicated calculus, and as devastated as I am that the gorilla was shot, I have a lot of sympathy for the shooter, and I have to think that s/he was wishing that it had not been possible for a child to enter the enclosure.

In my opinion, we have to add the shooter to the list of victims in this case. The folks who engage defense kills at zoos are not trophy hunters, and I can't guess that anyone at any zoo wanted that to happen, and s/he will likely, I hate to say it, have undeserved nightmares about this incident for a long time. I know I would.

 

[KaaBoom]

Considering that same tiger attacked her zookeeper previously (with severe injuries resulting), that's not exactly true, is it?

I was referring to the tigers getting out of their enclosure. The SF zoo, like this zoo, has a lot of issues, that are not being addressed. As a matter of fact the SF zoo had documented evidence that the tigers were able to get out of their enclosure. But they ignored it.

 

[jjenny]

I was referring to the tigers getting out of their enclosure. The SF zoo, like this zoo, has a lot of issues, that are not being addressed. As a matter of fact the SF zoo had documented evidence that the tigers were able to get out of their enclosure. But they ignored it.

You just contradicted yourself. Either zoo never had a tiger incident prior, or it did.

 

[jjenny]

I wonder if they'll ever further describe that part of the incident. Did the gorilla carry the boy carefully, or did he drag him up by one leg?

He is a gorilla, not Mary Poppins.

 

[Montjoy]

There is no way to have an enclosure that a determined human could not get into and still have the exhibit be viewable to the public.

This is called 'moving the goalposts'.

Of course, someone with power tools or explosives (or, a ninja) could breach any barrier.

But let's not forget, this thread is about a 4 year old child.

Perhaps the cages should not be to keep the animals out, but to keep us in.

And for what it's worth, there are many secure animal facilities. I recently toured the polar bear enclosure at the Assiniboine Park Zoo. I did so even though I have some trouble stomaching zoos. I mean, if I'm taking someone there, I can do it, as I can think about how good it is to expose people I know to some of our amazing animal kin and hope they care to preserve their habitat. But i digress.

I am not about to guess what sort of a moral code any of us is expected to follow, but I have a hard time thinking that animals are put on this planet strictly to feed and amuse us. I think this is especially true of primates, gorillas.

 

[krkrjx]

This is called 'moving the goalposts'.

Of course, someone with power tools or explosives (or, a ninja) could breach any barrier.

But let's not forget, this thread is about a 4 year old child.

Perhaps the cages should not be to keep the animals out, but to keep us in.

And for what it's worth, there are many secure animal facilities. I recently toured the polar bear enclosure at the Assiniboine Park Zoo. I did so even though I have some trouble stomaching zoos. I mean, if I'm taking someone there, I can do it, as I can think about how good it is to expose people I know to some of our amazing animal kin and hope they care to preserve their habitat. But i digress.

I am not about to guess what sort of a moral code any of us is expected to follow, but I have a hard time thinking that animals are put on this planet strictly to feed and amuse us. I think this is especially true of primates, gorillas.

This thread is about a four year old child who announced to his mother that he was "going in" and then did just that. I do not blame the child at all...nor do I blame the gorilla for acting on instinct. I think this mother was negligent, and that is the issue I have with this entire incident.

The boy had to be saved, certainly. I am not arguing that zoo officials were improper in how they accomplished that. I am arguing that the mother was negligent and that this was no accident.

I am relieved that her son is alive and well. I am sad that we cannot say the same for the gorilla that had done nothing wrong.

 

[LinasK]

Actually he seems quite fine, and to the delight and amusement of his parents, wants to return to the zoo.

Can the zoo ban this family from returning???

 

[Portabella]

I keep thinking of the top of the Empire State Building....it would take work to breach this...IMHO

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

Here is the full briefing today from the zoo's director.

He kept calm and took responsibility for the loss of Harambe, and very carefully did not "point fingers" anywhere else.

But I think he was clear that the barrier is safe, just not from people/kids determined to get in there who are not being well supervised (totally jmo).

http://m.wlwt.com/news/full-briefin...-maynard-speaks-about-gorillas-death/39791922

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'm sure everything he said was carefully vetted by an attorney first. There is no way he's going to say the barrier was inadequate. That opens the zoo up to big legal liability.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[KaaBoom]

There is no way to have an enclosure that a determined human could not get into and still have the exhibit be viewable to the public. About the only way to accomplish that would be for all exhibits to be viewed on a computer screen, or with the animals visible in cages with four walls and a ceiling--nothing resembling a natural habitat.

Of course it is possible, and it doesn’t require viewing on a computer screen. BTW nothing in a zoo resembles a natural habitat. It’s all just a side show for human visitors.

[video=youtube;O1yzQSRvvqA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1yzQSRvvqA[/video]

 

[Montjoy]

This thread is about a four year old child who announced to his mother that he was "going in" and then did just that. I do not blame the child at all...nor do I blame the gorilla for acting on instinct. I think this mother was negligent, and that is the issue I have with this entire incident.

The boy had to be saved, certainly. I am not arguing that zoo officials were improper in how they accomplished that. I am arguing that the mother was negligent and that this was no accident.

I am relieved that her son is alive and well. I am sad that we cannot say the same for the gorilla that had done nothing wrong.

I'm pretty sure that I read upthread that one of the closest witnesses said that his mom had no chance of stopping him, nor did she. The mom was occupied with other kids, and the incident took very little time at all.

So, I don't think the mom is to blame here. It's as if any child surpassed a barrier when her/his mom was focused on dealing with other children. I don't blame the child, as kids are as curious or as adventurous as they can be. So that leaves me with the zoo, which is not only responsible for thousands of animal species. Why not protect both equally?

I mean, would you put your money or valuables into an enclosure that a 4 year old could breach? And if breaching that threshold meant destroying the valuables, would you think that was ok?

In this case, a 4 year old breached a threshold that resulted in (what I consider) something beyond monetary value being destroyed. I think that says something about those who designed the structure meant to protect the gorillas. And that's why I do not blame the child's parents, or the people who shot the gorilla.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I'm sure everything he said was carefully vetted by an attorney first. There is no way he's going to say the barrier was inadequate. That opens the zoo up to big legal liability.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Agree, and really it doesn't matter what he says, but I certainly hope this and other zoos take a good look at all animal enclosures to ensure wayward children cannot find a way in. You really have to prepare for that if you're going to have animals on display for the public, and plan for the improbable, the poor animals are completely trapped in the enclosures after all and have no choice.

 

[LinasK]

I'm pretty sure that I read upthread that one of the closest witnesses said that his mom had no chance of stopping him, nor did she. The mom was occupied with other kids, and the incident took very little time at all.

So, I don't think the mom is to blame here. It's as if any child surpassed a barrier when her/his mom was focused on dealing with other children. I don't blame the child, as kids are as curious or as adventurous as they can be. So that leaves me with the zoo, which is not only responsible for thousands of animal species. Why not protect both equally?

I mean, would you put your money or valuables into an enclosure that a 4 year old could breach? And if breaching that threshold meant destroying the valuables, would you think that was ok?

In this case, a 4 year old breached a threshold that resulted in (what I consider) something beyond monetary value being destroyed. I think that says something about those who designed the structure meant to protect the gorillas. And that's why I do not blame the child's parents, or the people who shot the gorilla.

I do blame mom moreso than the zoo. The zoo couldn't foresee this problem. The kid announced his intentions to his mother and her only reaction was "No,no". If you can't grab your child because you have another one in your hands, or are one your cell phone prior to the incident (as was described by witnesses), -then you either need another adult present who can grab the child, or you don't take so many little ones at once that you can't physically control them. I would've hauled him out of the area, and perhaps left the zoo altogether as punishment.