Should've the gorilla been shot?

[fabulouslyghetto]

Oh Karen! The difference with my usual dates would only have been marginal, and we're all primates here.

 

[kev]

I missed this snarky little post but I will address this here. No one said Parenting was easy, but at the same time one doesn't need to be a Parent to understand that you should be keeping an eye on your kid in a crowded place such as a Zoo. I worked in retail enough to see plenty of times where Parents just let their kid roam the store without supervision, running around, knocking things off shelves, yelling and screaming. I guess I need to be a Parent to understand this struggle of just letting your kid do this in public.

One doesn't need to be a Parent to know that there are unavoidable situations with kids and situations where you really should be on top of your child in public places, especially in a crowded place. Your child could easily get lost in places like this or worse. If you have multiple kids, have trouble keeping an eye all of them and then take them to places like this, then I question your Parenthood. Get more Parents/Guardians/Friends to come in this situation.

There was a reason why when in school we took school trips and the Teachers asked for a few extra Parents to come along on the trip. It was to help keep an eye on multiple children.

There are times where I question why you are here considering you tend take the opportunity here to talk down gay people time and time again. If you believe this simpleton notion that people are completely blaming "breeders", then you need to do a better job at reading peoples post.

Eat me, asswipe. You may not put words in my mouth. You think I am talking down to you, but I am only pointing out hypocrisy and sanctimony, both of which happen, even with gays.

I did not make the comment about breeders. I said that you cannot judge parents so harshly if you are not a parent yourself. And it is obvious that there are gay parents who know what I am talking about. Sixthson knows better.

I am saying that before you pass judgement on this mother, become a parent and try to take more than one kid to the zoo and see how you do. Or do you think that people should only go to the zoo if they have one child? Everyone else has to stay home because of your sanctimony.

I don't recall that this was a school trip, but to your point, not every school has a situation where parents can be chaperones. Some of these parents work.

It is the sole responsibility of the zoo to ensure the safety of these children. If a child his age could get into the enclosure, then it was not safe...period.

 

[NotHardUp1]

The Lowland Gorilla is not at the point of extinction. They number around 200,000 strong, and not in one isolated population. Throwing around terms like extinction is both inaccurate and misleading. Endangered is a different category, and one with a broad range of possibilities.

If we were talking cockroaches and a tenement that was about to be torn down, 200,000 individuals would indeed be a number tha was on the brink. Instead, we are talking primates and vast territories for 200,000 to yet survive. What naturalists and conservationists are saying is that habitat is diminishing, and bushmeat gathering continues, so the long-term prospect for this sub-species is endangered.

Please don't portray this gorilla as the equal of a group like the Mountain Gorilla or another species that numbers merely in the hundreds. It is simply not true.

By comparison, the American bison once numbered in the many millions, but is reduced to a population of a half million, yet it is not in danger of extinction, only greatly reduced range. A similar condition may be true of Lowland Gorillas once stasis is achieved. They will never recover their former range, but the world is irrevocably changed with the grown of man, and won't reverse dramatically barring some plague or asteroid. We've tried world wars -- they simply don't work.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Eat me, asswipe. You may not put words in my mouth. You think I am talking down to you, but I am only pointing out hypocrisy and sanctimony, both of which happen, even with gays.

I did not make the comment about breeders. I said that you cannot judge parents so harshly if you are not a parent yourself. And it is obvious that there are gay parents who know what I am talking about. Sixthson knows better.

I am saying that before you pass judgement on this mother, become a parent and try to take more than one kid to the zoo and see how you do. Or do you think that people should only go to the zoo if they have one child? Everyone else has to stay home because of your sanctimony.

I don't recall that this was a school trip, but to your point, not every school has a situation where parents can be chaperones. Some of these parents work.

It is the sole responsibility of the zoo to ensure the safety of these children. If a child his age could get into the enclosure, then it was not safe...period.

You seem to be having a reading comprehension problem here.

And since we are going to play this game of "you're not a Parent so you can't criticize." If haven't worked in a Zoo then you don't have room to complain about what the Zoo did and didn't do. That sounds really dumb and it should because people don't always have to be a Parent to criticize one.

 

[peeonme]

If an airliner crashes there is an investigation, after terrorism, mechanical failure or perhaps a bird flying into an engine are ruled then we label it as human error.
Humans are not perfect, we, just as the gorilla are a product of nature. A mother needs to be distracted for a few seconds... that's all it takes. No one can watch a child 24-7, not without being accused of some form of abuse.

If we should even have zoos is another argument altogether, right now we have them. The zoo is not failsafe, mothers are not perfect, kids can be evil little geniuses when it come to getting into or going somewhere that they should not be. Put wild animals, mothers and kids together and eventually a situation will occur, just like eventually a pilot in an airliner will make a mistake.

As for the shooting and killing of the gorilla, it was a sad event. Watching a child get torn to pieces would be sadder for most of us.

 

[zoltanspawn]

It's quite amazing that we have to correct basic, publicly available information in this thread.

The Western Lowland Gorilla is "critically endangered" meaning that it faces "an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild." (see section V here.) I've explained why upthread already.

The population has declined by more than 60% in the last 20-25 years. A worse trajectory is expected in the coming decades.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature establishes this classification, and maintains comprehensive data on it.

Their scientific data is uncontroversial.

Here is the full listing from the IUCN.

 

[mikey3000]

Sorry man but humans are at the top of the food chain.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Yes, we proved that by showing how much we endanger species and damage our Earth.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Sorry man but humans are at the top of the food chain.

I'm gonna go with "No." on that one. Apex predator, sure. Top of food chain? Ha. There's several species that claim 'mutual respect' on the food chain. Crocodiles and 'gators come to mind.

-I mean, you can stick a lot of things in tanks, (including people), so that doesn't seem to indicate superiority to me.

 

[Alnitak]

The Lowland Gorilla is not at the point of extinction. They number around 200,000 strong, and not in one isolated population. Throwing around terms like extinction is both inaccurate and misleading. Endangered is a different category, and one with a broad range of possibilities.

If we were talking cockroaches and a tenement that was about to be torn down, 200,000 individuals would indeed be a number tha was on the brink. Instead, we are talking primates and vast territories for 200,000 to yet survive. What naturalists and conservationists are saying is that habitat is diminishing, and bushmeat gathering continues, so the long-term prospect for this sub-species is endangered.

Please don't portray this gorilla as the equal of a group like the Mountain Gorilla or another species that numbers merely in the hundreds. It is simply not true.

By comparison, the American bison once numbered in the many millions, but is reduced to a population of a half million, yet it is not in danger of extinction, only greatly reduced range. A similar condition may be true of Lowland Gorillas once stasis is achieved. They will never recover their former range, but the world is irrevocably changed with the grown of man, and won't reverse dramatically barring some plague or asteroid. We've tried world wars -- they simply don't work.

Numbers are not the only criteria. The IUCN also looks at rate of decline and habitat loss, seriousness of threats, and sensitivity to population loss. Some populations bounce right back after being decimated, especially fish species. Others, e.g. the extinct passenger pigeon, condor, right whale, or gorilla, do not.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Sorry man but humans are at the top of the food chain.

This must mean that if a great white shark were given a rifle, it would enjoy a moral platform from which to shoot humans.

Or something. Who knows?

 

[Alnitak]

This must mean that if a great white shark were given a rifle, it would enjoy a moral platform from which to shoot humans.

Or something. Who knows?

But that's nature.

No double standards.

 

[zoltanspawn]

But that's nature.

No double standards.

Are you saying humans should do whatever is natural for them to do? Or making a quip? I can't tell.

 

[offthewall14420]

Did they turn the gorilla into Kibbles and Bits cat food?

 

[offthewall14420]

The gorilla should have been raped...

That is twisted.

 

[Alnitak]

Are you saying humans should do whatever is natural for them to do? Or making a quip? I can't tell.

It has nothing to do with morality. That is the ecological role of apex predators - to kill and dominate.

 

[zoltanspawn]

It has nothing to do with morality. That is the ecological role of apex predators - to kill and dominate.

Oh, okay, thank you. I was thinking the argument was that our ecological role justifies our conduct.

 

[Alnitak]

Oh, okay, thank you. I was thinking the argument was that our ecological role justifies our conduct.

Reasons aren't always justifications.

 

[mikey3000]

This must mean that if a great white shark were given a rifle, it would enjoy a moral platform from which to shoot humans.

Or something. Who knows?

Absolutely!

A few years back me and my family were persistently dive bombed by a Robin in my backyard who was just protecting her young. Most days I felt like getting a tennis racquet and teaching her who mays the mortgage, but I didn't. Instead I used the oppourtunity to teach my kids about nature. On five occasions I have risked my life by jumping into traffic and rescuing various animals that have ended up in the roads, twice almost being killed myself. I passionately love nature and hope to pass that on to my kids. But, I love my kids more. If my (or anyone else's) kids are ever in peril, I will do anything to save them, including kill. It is our animal instinct.

 

[Alnitak]

Absolutely!

A few years back me and my family were persistently dive bombed by a Robin in my backyard who was just protecting her young. Most days I felt like getting a tennis racquet and teaching her who mays the mortgage, but I didn't. Instead I used the oppourtunity to teach my kids about nature. On five occasions I have risked my life by jumping into traffic and rescuing various animals that have ended up in the roads, twice almost being killed myself. I passionately love nature and hope to pass that on to my kids. But, I love my kids more. If my (or anyone else's) kids are ever in peril, I will do anything to save them, including kill. It is our animal instinct.

Your kids need you. I'm glad you didn't deprive them of a father for the sake of some animals.