Truly unfortunate. The mom should have been watching her kid better, and the Zoo should have had better security to keep people out.
They made the right choice, but they did a very poor job securing the enclosure if a small child can get in. So the zoo has to share a large portion of the blame for the loss of a rare and highly endangered gorilla. They basically created the conditions that forced them to kill the poor beast.
Quote:They made the right choice, but they did a very poor job securing the enclosure if a small child can get in. So the zoo has to share a large portion of the blame for the loss of a rare and highly endangered gorilla. They basically created the conditions that forced them to kill the poor beast.
Agree. I also wonder if the mother was staring at a little screen in the palm of her hand when the boy got in.
Quote:Agree. I also wonder if the mother was staring at a little screen in the palm of her hand when the boy got in.
No. She was paying attention to her other children per report. Still, after the child said he wanted to go in the water with them, she should have been keeping a closer eye on him.
Quote:No. She was paying attention to her other children per report. Still, after the child said he wanted to go in the water with them, she should have been keeping a closer eye on him.
It happens. I stopped yesterday to tell my 6 year old "no" and my 2 year old darted 3 steps and tagged a fire alarm before I could grab him. It only takes a split second and we were in a very kids friendly place.
Tranqing it would have been a bad idea. The Gorilla was already dragging the child around like a rag doll. And tranqs don't work sudden or have the stopping power of an actual bullet. Everybody is bashing Zoo's in general as well on social media. It's amazing how an overwhelming amount of people are completely bypassing the neglect of the parents towards the child and attacking the Zoo for protecting a human being over an animal.
And of course you'll hear the other argument "WELL! They shouldn't be in a Zoo in the first place!". Well, on the contrary. What more do you want? Do people not realize that a Zoo is also a center which offers rehabilitation, research, conservation, medical and breeding services to various animals around the world? Do people not realize that Gorilla's have been hunted and targeted for years in African regions by greedy poachers who have decimated their populations?
Some people you just can't win with. You can't blame the parents though. That's beyond reasoning. It's not the parents fault at all for not taking responsibility or monitoring their own flesh and blood.
You can only blame the Zoo. But then they also don't want to see them hunted down and slaughtered in their own inhabitants and families in the wild. Many of these animals, by the way, are picked up by Zoo's because they survived some of these actions and were left for dead or were fortunate to have escaped to a regional safe haven before being sent to another home.
Some animals do need human intervention. As human beings are on the top of the food chain and we're responsible since the dawn of humanity at adding or subtracting a substantial amount of life that we deem inferior to our own. Or in some cases, like the Zoo's, who deem all life worth protecting and aim to assist in maintaining their population to the best of their abilities.
The guardian of the child that day might as well of pulled the trigger themselves. It really is that simple.
Quote:The guardian of the child that day might as well of pulled the trigger themselves. It really is that simple.
**have**
No, it's not that simple. A series of events and oversights contributed to this event. Had the mother intended for the gorilla to die, your overly dramatic assertion might hold water. Sometimes bad things happen that are not attributable to a single cause.
If the zoo officials, who would theoretically know better than anyone, felt that the threat to the child's life was so immediate and severe that the gorilla had to be killed, then I won't argue their judgment. I do hope the parents are hit with child endangerment charges and a bill for locating and acquiring a gorilla to take the place of the one that was killed because of their negligence.
Correct decision under difficult circumstances.
Not an easy decision to make, I feel.
He was an innocent primate.
The mother was probably busy watching her other 12 children.
I just do not see where they say the gorilla was protecting the child.
Even Jack Hanna was in favor of killing the gorilla to protect the child. That's a pretty significant endorsement.
Quote:Even Jack Hanna was in favor of killing the gorilla to protect the child. That's a pretty significant endorsement.
I saw that too. His professional opinion was that even though the gorilla may have not shown an immediate propensity to hurt the child, silverbacks are so powerful that it could have killed the child in a "millisecond". He told of how they can crush green coconuts in one hand. That makes the scenario all the more scary.
Jack Hanna is deeply involved with the Cincinnati Zoo. As much as I respect what he has meant to animal conservation you have to discount what he says in this situation. Everything about this stinks. Negligent parents, improperly secured enclosure, and one dead endangers species.
I would think Hanna's allegiance to animals goes way beyond a city zoo..
Quote:Jack Hanna is deeply involved with the Cincinnati Zoo. As much as I respect what he has meant to animal conservation you have to discount what he says in this situation. Everything about this stinks. Negligent parents, improperly secured enclosure, and one dead endangers species.
All of which are irrelevant to Hanna's support of the decision to shoot the gorilla. Regardless of what led up to the final solution, shooting the animal was the correct decision.
Quote:Tranqing it would have been a bad idea. The Gorilla was already dragging the child around like a rag doll. And tranqs don't work sudden or have the stopping power of an actual bullet. Everybody is bashing Zoo's in general as well on social media. It's amazing how an overwhelming amount of people are completely bypassing the neglect of the parents towards the child and attacking the Zoo for protecting a human being over an animal.
And of course you'll hear the other argument "WELL! They shouldn't be in a Zoo in the first place!". Well, on the contrary. What more do you want? Do people not realize that a Zoo is also a center which offers rehabilitation, research, conservation, medical and breeding services to various animals around the world? Do people not realize that Gorilla's have been hunted and targeted for years in African regions by greedy poachers who have decimated their populations?
Some people you just can't win with. You can't blame the parents though. That's beyond reasoning. It's not the parents fault at all for not taking responsibility or monitoring their own flesh and blood.
You can only blame the Zoo. But then they also don't want to see them hunted down and slaughtered in their own inhabitants and families in the wild. Many of these animals, by the way, are picked up by Zoo's because they survived some of these actions and were left for dead or were fortunate to have escaped to a regional safe haven before being sent to another home.
Some animals do need human intervention. As human beings are on the top of the food chain and we're responsible since the dawn of humanity at adding or subtracting a substantial amount of life that we deem inferior to our own. Or in some cases, like the Zoo's, who deem all life worth protecting and aim to assist in maintaining their population to the best of their abilities.
The zoo is responsible for creating the conditions where a small child could get into the gorilla enclosure. The zoo has to bear a large part of the blame for this.