Should've the gorilla been shot?

[NotHardUp1]

the containment fence is only three feet high, the zoo is definitely liable. Sure the moat may keep the animals in, but it doesn't keep people out.

And thus we have the de-evolution of modern litigious thought. To the contrary, the zoo had a huge MOAT to keep people out of the gorilla exhibit. Like Niagara falls, the stupid can always go around the railing and imperil themselves. The railing in these exhibits is to visually mark the barrier, inhibit stumbling or unintended ingress into the moat area, and of course, to remind humans that it is a forbidden zone. Even Planet of the Apes had a Forbidden Zone.

Gorillas can and do understand the purpose of the moat. That humans don't is idiotic and shouldn't be the basis of litigation for the negligent. Adult humans bring their offspring to the zoo, the place that keeps thousands of animals in open enclosures with steel bars or moats to isolate them, or in deep pits, but ignore those fact, and somehow it becomes the zoo's fault for not planning on morons or the sloppy. The rarity of these events should inform any court that the preventive measures are working. The design isn't negectful or dangerous, the abuse of it is.

But people going to "gawk" at the animals is what pays to keep the endangered species fed, and cared for.

The public should not be demeaned for curiosity about the natural world. If so, then the Curies, Newton, Fermi, Mendel, Galileo, Hawkings, Goodall and all the rest should be ridiculed as well. Just because a man has to spend his days mopping floors or calculating taxes doesn't mean he should be disinterested in wild animals any more than the man who dedicates his life to studying them. It is class snobbishness that suggests the public is a mindless mob. Most zoo fans respect nature, in varying degrees.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I don't see anything here about class snobiness and if you are suggesting this is what I am talking about then you are being disingenuous cause I made my point pretty cleared.

The public isn't being demeaned for wanting knowledge of our natural world, these are your words not mine. The public can pick up a book, they have access to the Internet and they have access to do things like going on hikes and various others activities one can do outside to actually be in the natural world. One doesn't need to go to a place and watch animals contained to learn about them.

Again my issue is that we do enough to wipe out or endanger species, yet we take them in the protect them to only have situations like this happen where it could have been avoided on multiple levels, the lack of responsibility here on multiple parties is what lead to a needless death.

We punish animals for being animals, I apologize (not really) that this is something that bothers people or comes off as us cheering for the child's death or wanting to have a child's limbs being torn apart.

 

[kallipolis]

This incident has proven that a roaming child of four years of age can easily circumvent measures that are only now being made childproof...one hopes...the zoo authorities having learnt that visitors to a zoo include many children, mesmerised by the prospect of getting closer to the exhibits.

That the fence surrounding the moat is being improved does prove that one incident has revealed the shortcomings of the earlier protection measures. Children have a well established habit of being adventurous, even at the risk of endangering their well being.

 

[piano1]

It is a shame that one of God's creature, who was in an enclosed area, had to be shot and killed. I haven't heard anything as to how the child managed to slip away from his mother and fall down into this exhibit. It's done and now the major zoos have to review their protocol in how to deal with type of situation. There are more things in the world that we need to focus on. Let's move on.

 

[mikey3000]

And thus we have the de-evolution of modern litigious thought. To the contrary, the zoo had a huge MOAT to keep people out of the gorilla exhibit. Like Niagara falls, the stupid can always go around the railing and imperil themselves. The railing in these exhibits is to visually mark the barrier, inhibit stumbling or unintended ingress into the moat area, and of course, to remind humans that it is a forbidden zone. Even Planet of the Apes had a Forbidden Zone.

Gorillas can and do understand the purpose of the moat. That humans don't is idiotic and shouldn't be the basis of litigation for the negligent. Adult humans bring their offspring to the zoo, the place that keeps thousands of animals in open enclosures with steel bars or moats to isolate them, or in deep pits, but ignore those fact, and somehow it becomes the zoo's fault for not planning on morons or the sloppy. The rarity of these events should inform any court that the preventive measures are working. The design isn't negectful or dangerous, the abuse of it is.



The public should not be demeaned for curiosity about the natural world. If so, then the Curies, Newton, Fermi, Mendel, Galileo, Hawkings, Goodall and all the rest should be ridiculed as well. Just because a man has to spend his days mopping floors or calculating taxes doesn't mean he should be disinterested in wild animals any more than the man who dedicates his life to studying them. It is class snobbishness that suggests the public is a mindless mob. Most zoo fans respect nature, in varying degrees.

Firstly, the laws of gravity beg to differ. The 15 foot deep moat is meant to keep the animals in, not out.

Secondly, I highly doubt the gorillas, "can and do understand" the purpose of the mote. It is a physical barrier, not a cognitive one. Remember, the idiotic moron you refer to is only a three year old boy. It is amazing that no child has ever crossed this barrier before.

Thirdly, the design of the enclosure (descriptive name, no?) might not have been neglectful or dangerous when it opened in 1875, but a three foot fence is definitely not much of a deterrant today. Hell, even my little local zoo, of which two Capybaras have recently gone awol) has a an eight foot chain link fence. Maybe it's time to modernize the joint to keep the little monkies in AND out.

Cheers.

 

[Kulindahr]

Or are you just telling us to go swim naked with the stingrays?

Actually I did that in my younger years......

 

[Nitetime]

The whole concept of a zoo is disgusting to begin with - like the carriage horse industry. And like Sea World. None of them should exist. Animals belong in the world and not locked up for life in prisons called zoo's. And then the zoo murders the animal. The gorilla would not have hurt the boy. He was treating him as one of his own.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. This was a case of slaughter, the appropriate term for the killing of an animal.

The rarity of this event is the proof that this problem is by no means systems. How many families, how many children, have toured this exhibit over its lifetime? The fact that this did finally happen shouldn't be the basis for concluding that it was bad design all along. It wasn't. Due care and appropriate use of the facility by the public doesn't lead to this event. Neglect does.

The public doesn't "gawk" at wild animals. They study them, and the animals will study back.

And be very sure that ALL of the primates understand their cages, understand the limitations and the barriers, whether they understand that they were designed to be so or not. Ask any zookeeper.

 

[Cormac135]

Are we all still pretending to care.

And on we go.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I know it is a hard concept for you but people do actually care about things.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

The whole concept of a zoo is disgusting to begin with - like the carriage horse industry. And like Sea World. None of them should exist. Animals belong in the world and not locked up for life in prisons called zoo's. And then the zoo murders the animal. The gorilla would not have hurt the boy. He was treating him as one of his own.

The very video of the event disproves this, the gorilla was yanking the boy around like a rag doll. i don't think it was intentional but the boy was dragged through water and could've easily been hurt. an 800 lbs animal tossing a 75 lbs kid around is bound to break some bones.

 

[Kulindahr]

The whole concept of a zoo is disgusting to begin with - like the carriage horse industry. And like Sea World. None of them should exist. Animals belong in the world and not locked up for life in prisons called zoo's. And then the zoo murders the animal. The gorilla would not have hurt the boy. He was treating him as one of his own.

Yeah, close the zoos and let the poachers win.

"Treating him as one of his own" endangered the life of the boy: humans are not as tough as gorillas. What would be perfectly safe for a gorilla child could kill a human child.

 

[kev]

They absolutely should have shot the gorilla. This child was being jerked around and was in water. He could have sustained a head injury or been drowned...in less than one minute.

And I find it funny that so many of you who have never had children are the experts in how a parent should raise and protect her children. Now that gay marriage is legal, get out there and have children and see what it is like. See how great you are when you are trying to manage multiple children in a zoo...or at a water park...or at the mall.

It is okay to say you don't like people or children, and that you prefer animals (or plants) over human children...just fucking come out and say it. Who do you think you are fooling?

 

[Alnitak]

I guarantee everyone here contributes in some way to the decline of endangered species. There are hundreds of them just in Maryland, mostly associated with the aquatic environment around the Chesapeake Bay. They include birds, fish, turtles, salamanders, molluscs, plants and insects. Urban development, fertilizer, sewage, and chicken farms are all part of the problem. And here we are all blue in the face about one gorilla. Everyone get your priorities in line.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Now that gay marriage is legal, get out there and have children and see what it is like. See how great you are when you are trying to manage multiple children in a zoo...or at a water park...or at the mall.

If one regularly loses their children that tends to be a bad sign. Because then said adult's ineptitude will be the death of them, one way or another. And yeah, I've unfortunately met plenty of that particular brand of parent. For every kid that, however briefly, gets lost in a k-mart there's a toddler wandering naked down the side of the road at 6 am.

That's not to say that was the little boy's parents in the article, not in the least - but when everyone knows Don't Let Toddlers Loose and a parent Let One Loose the result is not....unexpected, shall we say? The first rule everyone learns is to keep both ahold and in sight of the squirmy buggers when on any sort of outside trip because toddlers and the very early elementary ages are absentminded, dedicated and distracted as all hell. Judging the parent's mistake, the actions of which, well, were objectively lacking, is not the same as judging her character. Personally I'm holding accountable both the zoo and the parents - it takes a village so the village will share the blame.

For the other bit of your comment, personally, I can generally handle several kids on an outting. And damned right I'm going to be judgey. I know how to handle kids at your examples of a mall, a waterpark and a zoo. In fact, I've done all three. Probably has something to do with having oodles of siblings and working with kids for several years. And when accidents happen, responsibility, even if partial, isn't negated. Because toddlers are never to be let loose on their own. At the very least there needs to be the basic parental behavior to pounce at the third beat of silence. Particularly when the toddler was demanding the gorillas shortly before a toddlers' silent concentration was directed. Wonder if they're new parents.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Another unfortunate aspect of the story is the unpredictability of just how the adult gorilla viewed the boy. Adult male gorillas can and do kill other male's offspring, both in captivity and in the wild. Although this incident included evidence of the gorilla giving care, that same behavior might also be interpreted as showing possession or dominance.

It was not clear that the agitation level was rising strictly due the human onlookers' clamor.

Granted, it is entirely possible no more violence would have occurred than the aggressive jerking that the male was doing, but the risk was unacceptable.

It would have been great if the gorilla exhibited signs of compassion and cooperation that typified the previous incident. But the 1996 Illinois case involved a female gorilla and an unconscious child. The gorilla had been raised by humans and even taught mothering skills by them. Female and male gorillas, as well as individuals, behave quite differently.

The 1996 case also seemed to lack the bad behavior of the crowd. Hysteria is often a mob behavior, and the shouting and clamor seem to not be the target of attention (blame, if you will) of the critics of the kill. Yet, when we contribute to group hysteria, when we give in to our own animal behaviors, we very often are contributing to chaos in a range of situations. In this instance, the unwillingness of the adults surrounding the scene to control their own and their children's noise definitely was a contributing factor to the event and may well have influenced the gorilla. How hard is it to simply be the grown-up and hold your tongue as well as turn to your children and shush them while the zoo staff try to do a life-or-death rescue? In my opinion, there is scorn enough to share with those onlookers who behaved so badly.

This incident involved a boy who was awake and VERY alert. His own fear may have been a factor in the gorilla's reactions. Because the intent was not readable, only guessable, it was an unacceptable risk in light of the rough handling. Making the call wrong in the other direction would have brought down a far greater outcry from the planet's human population.

 

[NotHardUp1]

There was also the 1986 case in Jersey, England in which the adult male made his way over to the unconscious child (with gorilla children also with the male) and exhibited very peaceful behaviors. It is yet noteworthy that in the Jersey instance, the crowd primarily behaved with the exception of some woman (perhaps the boy's mother) who was letting out a wail repeatedly which did in fact seem to cause mild alarm in the gorilla, but it moved away from the boy as the child regained consciousness. Still, there was some limited shouting by witless onlookers.

In the Cincinnati case, the crowd behaved very badly, which was an obvious contributing factor in the escalating tensions.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I guarantee everyone here contributes in some way to the decline of endangered species. There are hundreds of them just in Maryland, mostly associated with the aquatic environment around the Chesapeake Bay. They include birds, fish, turtles, salamanders, molluscs, plants and insects. Urban development, fertilizer, sewage, and chicken farms are all part of the problem. And here we are all blue in the face about one gorilla. Everyone get your priorities in line.

Contributing in some way is not the same as this situation though. Again, this was a preventable situation. Going on in your every day life and possibly contributing to endangering a species is not the same thing.

Also one can care about multiple issues and still have their priorities in line. Basing ones priorities on one thread isn't something one should go on when coming in a thread just to wave a finger.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I guarantee everyone here contributes in some way to the decline of endangered species. There are hundreds of them just in Maryland, mostly associated with the aquatic environment around the Chesapeake Bay. They include birds, fish, turtles, salamanders, molluscs, plants and insects. Urban development, fertilizer, sewage, and chicken farms are all part of the problem. And here we are all blue in the face about one gorilla. Everyone get your priorities in line.

Being blue in the face about one gorilla, as you callously put it, does more to help all those endangered species in Maryland than just about anything else.

Of course, in the end, agriculture and urban development will win over less important priorities like the environment, so it's doubtful that all this publicity and debate about endangered species amounts to anything more than a buzzkill.

 

[Kahaih]

I guarantee everyone here contributes in some way to the decline of endangered species. There are hundreds of them just in Maryland, mostly associated with the aquatic environment around the Chesapeake Bay. They include birds, fish, turtles, salamanders, molluscs, plants and insects. Urban development, fertilizer, sewage, and chicken farms are all part of the problem. And here we are all blue in the face about one gorilla. Everyone get your priorities in line.

Long ago humans became an invasive species. There are over 7 billion of us roaming the planet, today, and everyday our top priorities are food, shelter, and waste disposal.

Aren't you one of JUB's most vocal organ and tissue donation champions? If you want to save the world, you'll have to cut that out. You'll have to stop trying to save everyone.