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

[sonjay]

I agree that legally the mother is responsible, but morally and ethically we are all responsible IMO.

No. "We" are not.

 

[LinasK]

When my daughter was 4, she went through a defiant stage. One day, when I was walking with my 3 young children, walking on the sidewalk at a lovely "strip" of shops, I went to hold her hand. She refused to hold my hand, ripped it away and told me "NO" and darted out into the parking lot. All this as I turned to pick up my 2 year old (my 6 year old was old enough to walk by me). I darted out after her and grabbed her hand, and yanked her back to the sidewalk. I did not expect her to do that at all. It happened so fast and fortunately there were no cars coming. I just about had a heart attack. Not my finest moment in motherhood. Had she been hit by a car, I would never have forgiven myself. And yes, I spanked her hand

Okay Zuri, but you immediately went after her, you didn't get on your phone to take pictures. You are a good mother, this one is not!

 

[jjenny]

No. "We" are not.

Exactly. Why are we supposed to be responsible for other people's children? When I go to the zoo, I am not there to watch other people's children.

 

[sonjay]

Exactly. Why are we supposed to be responsible for other people's children? When I go to the zoo, I am not there to watch other people's children.

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure you weren't there. I know for sure I wasn't there. The child's mother was there. Reportedly, the child's father was also there. He was their responsibility.

 

[Zuri]

Okay Zuri, but you immediately went after her, you didn't get on your phone to take pictures. You are a good mother, this one is not!

Thanks Linus. This was before cell phones lol in 1995 anyway. I was distracted by my 2 year old, trying to do too much at one time. I appreciate your post though. Xo

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/news/story/0002/20160601/L1N18S1FA_1018761409

"The zoo compromised safety for having an esthetically pleasing enclosure," said Mitchel Kalmanson, president of Lester Kalmanson Agency in Maitland, Florida, which insures animal facilities.

"It should have had better fencing and a safety net and/or a secondary barrier. If they had a net in there, the boy wouldn't have fallen 15 feet into a moat where the animal was," he added.

U.S. rules spell out that contact between humans and dangerous animals must be avoided but are vague on how to achieve that, industry officials and experts said. The federal Animal Welfare Act says zoos must have a barrier that restricts physical contact between the public and nonhuman primates, but it does not specify height or material.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[HMSHood]

The child could of been seriously hurt from the fall and could of drowned in that mote as it has water. Considering the mote is over 10 feet, the child could of been injured seriously. Luckily he was not seriously injured.

The zookeepers do not take shooting the gorilla lightly. Tranquilizers do not act fast. Shooting it was the only way to save the child's life. I cannot fault them for killing the gorilla. Those animals can be very vicious.

What really irritates me is inattentive parents. I think this is what we should be debating about. Almost every public place I go to, I keep seeing children running around. That has to be dangerous.

 

[1&2&3]

It has been reported that the boy told his mom repeatedly that he wanted to get in the water.

As a mother, my belief is/was to give the child a reason why he could not do something. An answer of no is heard so many times by a child, some children just quit listening. By explaining why, "you can't get in the water because the gorilla is big, dangerous and will hurt you" gives the child a reason. You can tell more about the dangers if needed. A child does not realize the dangers and why the animal is separated from people.

 

[DexterMorgan]

A week ago, if any of us were asked if a small child could get through a zoo barrier into an exhibit with a wild animal, I suspect we all would have thought it impossible. I suspect we all would have been sure the design of the barrier would have been designed to prevent such a thing, for the public safety as well as liability reasons.

If one of my sons at that age said he wanted to swim with the gorilla, I'm sure I would have laughed and said something along the lines of "you think that would be fun?", never dreaming that, even if he tried, it would be possible for him to get through the barrier.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

The zoo passed the last several inspections by the fed or government agencies that oversees the saftey compliance of the gorilla enclosure. So everything was known by all agencies involved and they didn't have a problem with the enclosure either. So the zoo wasn't forced to have a more stern method of a anti breach system in place. So why blame them?

 

[Montjoy]

I don't remember which news article it was in or maybe a television station, but there were two pictures of a lady bystander who tried to grab the boy but he was too fast and she did not get him.

If memory serves, she wanted to grab him, but he was too far ahead because the perimeter was too easily breached, and his own mom had another child in arm.

 

[monster12]

I think if I'd been there I'd have been hesitant to go after the boy because I'd fear being injured and would wonder if shrubbery hid electric fences or similar. Unlike a four year old adults are risk averse.

I agree. A news broadcast I watched today and posted about earlier said our local zoo uses electric shock wire (can't think of the wording ha) and barbed wire around the perimeter of the lion's den along with other barriers. I surely wouldn't want to be caught running through that and it also isn't always seen as it runs along the back of the den and in the grasses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Montjoy]

It has been reported that the boy told his mom repeatedly that he wanted to get in the water.

As a mother, my belief is/was to give the child a reason why he could not do something. An answer of no is heard so many times by a child, some children just quit listening. By explaining why, "you can't get in the water because the gorilla is big, dangerous and will hurt you" gives the child a reason. You can tell more about the dangers if needed. A child does not realize the dangers and why the animal is separated from people.

For our edification, could you provide a link where this was reported?

 

[LyndyLoo]

IF ONLY the observers had stopped screeching..as THAT is what cause this wonderful Ape to become upset..In fact This treasured Silverback Ape was "INSIDE his cave..and only got alerted to that fall into the water..Kid was obviously fine..Ape's initial instinct was to protect ( a usual reaction by most apes..Instead..Onlookers screaming and yelling created a worrisome atmosphere....

As I see it..

1) Small child unattended
2) Crowd who antagonized this wild creature :facepalm:
3) Assumptions made on far too many levels about this childs actual safety

IF the CROWD had STFU..initially..allow a known caretaker to approach..This child would have been just fine..BUT Humans always assume wild animals ( no matter who they are) to be lethal....Unfortunately this treasured Ape is known for his strength and capabilities ( tho no onlookers knew that at all)..STFU should have been transmitted to the crowd immediately..The Kid actually enjoyed it!! from what I have read~~

This Silverback Ape was young..on a loan from another centre,,,,I am so angry that preservation of species get kicked out when IRRESPONSIBLE people have NO IDEA how to respond to whatever the situation is..

Just maybe Adult Humans make it a responsibility..Course...American Values allows anyone/everyone to do as they please??..WHAT about costs of doing so?? What about risks it causes?? What about pain and death it causes!! These things actually cause harm to not just animals BUT humans as well.. Irresponsibility seems to get excused ..regardless of deaths/injury and ultimate challenges to "Common sensical " demands of society..

I'm so sick and tired of Ignorance of being an excuse..It's absolutely costly to Life and costs to anyone with any investment to protect anything deemed protected..Regulations means Nadda to Society it appears!!

This beautiful Animal DIED out of Ignorance of the Crowd..Inabiity of Zoo personale to advise PDQ ..It's Shameful to OFF this beautiful future breeder of replenishing an endangered species....BUT all I am hearing are "Political Protection Voices" saying protect the Human..whether or not the humans ( not talking about the 3-4 year old) were at fault!!

Man..This whole thing bugs me ..Sorry..Just had to vent!!

 

[Montjoy]

IF ONLY the observers had stopped screeching..as THAT is what cause this wonderful Ape to become upset..In fact This treasured Silverback Ape was "INSIDE his cave..and only got alerted to that fall into the water..Kid was obviously fine..Ape's initial instinct was to protect ( a usual reaction by most apes..Instead..Onlookers screaming and yelling created a worrisome atmosphere....

As I see it..

1) Small child unattended
2) Crowd who antagonized this wild creature :facepalm:
3) Assumptions made on far too many levels about this childs actual safety

IF the CROWD had STFU..initially..allow a known caretaker to approach..This child would have been just fine..BUT Humans always assume wild animals ( no matter who they are) to be lethal....Unfortunately this treasured Ape is known for his strength and capabilities ( tho no onlookers knew that at all)..STFU should have been transmitted to the crowd immediately..The Kid actually enjoyed it!! from what I have read~~

This Silverback Ape was young..on a loan from another centre,,,,I am so angry that preservation of species get kicked out when IRRESPONSIBLE people have NO IDEA how to respond to whatever the situation is..

Just maybe Adult Humans make it a responsibility..Course...American Values allows anyone/everyone to do as they please??..WHAT about costs of doing so?? What about risks it causes?? What about pain and death it causes!! These things actually cause harm to not just animals BUT humans as well.. Irresponsibility seems to get excused ..regardless of deaths/injury and ultimate challenges to "Common sensical " demands of society..

I'm so sick and tired of Ignorance of being an excuse..It's absolutely costly to Life and costs to anyone with any investment to protect anything deemed protected..Regulations means Nadda to Society it appears!!

This beautiful Animal DIED out of Ignorance of the Crowd..Inabiity of Zoo personale to advise PDQ ..It's Shameful to OFF this beautiful future breeder of replenishing an endangered species....BUT all I am hearing are "Political Protection Voices" saying protect the Human..whether or not the humans ( not talking about the 3-4 year old) were at fault!!

Man..This whole thing bugs me ..Sorry..Just had to vent!!

Agreed. We should get rid of zoos as entertainment venues. Turn them into spaces for preserving animals. There is no morality in suggesting that animals exist to be objects of entertainment for humans. (I do not see pets or working animals that way -- there is a real bond there, one that has some symmetry and fairness, most of the time.)

 

[LaborDayRN]

I'm just wondering why they didn't try the tranquilizer and have the shotgun loaded and ready incase he showed more agitation. I understand the boy could've been killed, and the tranquilizer takes five minutes to kick in, but if they had a shotgun ready and were prepared for a potential change in temperament could this have been prevented?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're professionals and have had a great deal of experience tranquilizing large animals. They know that the tranquilizer causes a reaction. All it would take is one split second for a 400 lb animal to kill this small child. Even if it wasn't intentional, his lashing out could have injured the child seriously. At that point trying to shoot a moving target puts the child in even greater danger. I think they did what they had to do to save the child. And the fact that they took 10 minutes to try to work this out, and were able to get the other 2 gorillas out of the habitat tells me the did attempt to get Harambe out as well. I'm sure there was a great deal of anguish in the zoo's decision.

 

[LaborDayRN]

Agreed. We should get rid of zoos as entertainment venues. Turn them into spaces for preserving animals. There is no morality in suggesting that animals exist to be objects of entertainment for humans. (I do not see pets or working animals that way -- there is a real bond there, one that has some symmetry and fairness, most of the time.)

How would they support themselves? How would they feed the animals they are trying to preserve? Take money away from schools, hospitals, fire and law enforcement? Zoo's have a very difficult time with funding as it is. One way they do get revenue is through the public visiting. This was a horrible thing....really. But to put all species that zoo's are trying to save at risk is not the way to fix this IMO.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Agreed. We should get rid of zoos as entertainment venues. Turn them into spaces for preserving animals. There is no morality in suggesting that animals exist to be objects of entertainment for humans. (I do not see pets or working animals that way -- there is a real bond there, one that has some symmetry and fairness, most of the time.)

My only problem with that is those folks who go nature/Wildife National parks and put themselves at risk..Man..I have to believe Human's are more ignorant than most animals..
I say that because Animals learn to do just a few simple things..Like hide/protect/avoid..give warnings (which humans ignorant have no CLUE about)..Yet, Humans claim animals as aggressive Actually HUMANS are the STUPID ones...SMH..

Anybody who wishes to learn about wildlife ( endless availability to area's and what to do) yet whine when caught up in confrontations..I didn't know blah blah..Makes me sick!!

So many species are being killed off..mostly due to ignorance..because of ignorance but will never rule out for PROFIT either Given Safari adventures ( Cecil baiting murder off reserve example in Africa) to TROPHY hunt!!

Oh yeah..I have no problem with Centres who try to repopulate ( In fact Cincinnati ZOO has history of doing so)

I.E~
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news...his-endangered-species-dies-at-cincinnati-zoo

snip~

The Cincinnati Zoo sent out a release stating Ipuh was euthanized at the approximate age of 33, after spending 22 years of his life in Cincinnati. In late January, zoo officials reported Ipuh's keepers noticed the rhino was not eating all of his food, and that his ability to stand and move declined despite efforts to treat him. Zoo staff determined Monday the most humane decision was to euthanize the animal.

Ipuh became the first male Sumatran rhino in captivity to sire offspring since the 19th century, according to the zoo.

 

[jjenny]

They're professionals and have had a great deal of experience tranquilizing large animals. They know that the tranquilizer causes a reaction. All it would take is one split second for a 400 lb animal to kill this small child. Even if it wasn't intentional, his lashing out could have injured the child seriously. At that point trying to shoot a moving target puts the child in even greater danger. I think they did what they had to do to save the child. And the fact that they took 10 minutes to try to work this out, and were able to get the other 2 gorillas out of the habitat tells me the did attempt to get Harambe out as well. I'm sure there was a great deal of anguish in the zoo's decision.

Shooting could be very dangerous as well. What if the shooter missed and hit the child instead? Shooting is presented as the only safe option when it clearly isn't all that safe. And gorillas aren't normally violent (unlike chimpanzees). If those screaming people shut up for a second, Harambe wouldn't have become so agitated. A lot of his movements were protective. He took the child out of the water and into the enclosure. Nobody said he was actually trying to attack the child. If he wanted to kill the child, he had plenty of time to do it. Kid had some scrapes and a concussion (and he did fell 15 feet into the moat).

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I agree. A news broadcast I watched today and posted about earlier said our local zoo uses electric shock wire (can't think of the wording ha) and barbed wire around the perimeter of the lion's den along with other barriers. I surely wouldn't want to be caught running through that and it also isn't always seen as it runs along the back of the den and in the grasses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How would electric shock wire work in a body of water like the moat? Seems it would be akin to tossing a blow dryer into a bathtub.

 

[Dockins]

Forgive me if this has been posted. I try to keep up in the thread. This is one I haven't seen. It's not the Cincinnati Zoo or the time the child was carried to safety by a great ape.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANy...dnpj8LqkOLK-h_3PH6zrAd4VTBKoImA&v=SLDf01oYSHI