Gorilla shot and killed after grabbing four-year-old

[LONDONER]

I don't know how others react to this story and the video but to my eyes the child does not seem to be in danger. Gorillas are the gentle giants of the animal kingdom and it seems to me that the child is not being "grabbed" by the gorilla but seems more to be protecting him. From this very bad video (obviously shot under stress) the child doesn't seem to be too disturbed although the newspaper report says that he suffered "serious injuries".

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/...cincinnati

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36407643




There are examples of gorillas protecting children:







So, was the reaction of the zoo authorities too quick?

[bryyzy]

Saw this on the BBC news, kinda scary looking that gorilla was but I think it was the right choice to make

[LONDONER]

This is why I don't go to Zoo's, because the people working there don't know what they are doing most of the time and don't take care of the animals right.

That species of Gorilla is already endangered, now due to someone not watching their child, this species of Gorilla is now gone forever.

The Gorilla probably thought the boy was one of her young and the workers not doing their job, were mistaken and thought the gorilla was looking for attack or harm.

I'm happy the boy was safe and alive though.

I would not go so far to say that they don'tm know what they are doing nor that they don't take care of the animals correctly.

That species of gorilla is not gone.................yet. It is however on the critical danger list.

Personally I think the zoo authorities acted too quickly and should have removed the crowd making such a noise screaming. That didn't help. I am convinced that there could have been an alternative ending to this tragedy.

[Insertnamehere]

There are protocols in place for such situations and killing the animal, in said protocols, usually is the last resource, if the life of the human involved is clearly endangered.

I have to assume people overreacted and too quickly because there was a baby involved. I can understand that no one would want to risk that, their jobs, their money on the incoming lawsuits over the chance, however small, that something could have happened to that kid. They didn't think, obviously, they made a choice and acted on it.

Was it the right course of action? Well, clearly not, if protocols were ignored. One can start thinking about other things. How did the kid end up there and who is to be held responsible for that? Crappy parents? Poor security?

And then one can also wonder about the validity of the entire concept of holding animals in captivity for the sake of human entertainment in the first place.

Not long ago (in some morbid case of coincidence it seems) 2 lions had to be put down here, in the capital, over some guy with psychological issues (clearly untreated) that jumped there cause he believed that he like Daniel from the Bible, thrown in the Lion's den, was a "god chosen" and the lions would not attack him.

Someone somewhere (not him, obviously) is responsible for the death of those 2 lions because someone somewhere failed to provide this man with appropriate psychological treatment for the mental illness he suffers. It is, one should make note, a human failure that got those 2 lions killed.

[LONDONER]

And then one can also wonder about the validity of the entire concept of holding animals in captivity for the sake of human entertainment in the first place.

In the majority of cases in the Western world they are not there for "entertainment" but for eduction and also for conservation. The zoo in question had a long record of breeding for conservation purposes that makes the action taken againt the gorilla even more odd. That 17 year of gorilla had been bred in captivity by the zoo.

[Sherbil]

Terrible . I understand taking action, but I do think they acted too quickly to kill him. Getting the screaming people out of there so that they stopped agitating Harambe would've been a great start. Perhaps after that they could have successfully distracted himl. Obviously they freaked out over a 4 year old potentially being killed and opted to take the safe way out.

Some put the blame on the zoo, either for not having the enclosure be secure enough or for acting too rashly to save the boy. I put it on the parent. An animal is dead because she couldn't watch her kid well enough in a potentially dangerous place. From what I've read, the boy had to climb over a rail, through a wire fence, and over a moat to get into the enclosure. That seems pretty secure. I certainly understand not wanting to risk his life once he was in there. What I don't understand is how you let your child get out of your sight for long enough to get into the enclosure in the first place.

[LONDONER]

I posted this same topic on another forum and it's interesting to see some of the replies from there:

Well not meaning to be insensitive there are 1.9 billion children in the world today under 15 years and 790 gorillas. Just saying

The problems:
Allowing the public close enough access to very rare species for a child to be able to get into the enclosure.
The parents failing to make sure their child is controlled.
Not making the public visiting these places aware that the animals should come first; if it is a choice of the human or the animal the rare animals survival and welfare should come first.
The huge cost to the zoo of litigation when the parents sue (this is America; legal action with unimaginable values is inevitable).

As earlier posts have pointed out the world population of silverbacks is very low; now one less because of the actions of a small child and its parents. Most unfortunate.

People panic so gorilla loses.

The last time this happened there was little panic and people soon realised that the Gorilla was protecting the child from the young and boisterous ones and all was well.

Of course the child suffered injuries - anyone would falling from a height onto concrete.

[meridannight]

How did the kid end up there and who is to be held responsible for that? Crappy parents? Poor security?

this is the real problem in this whole case.

In the majority of cases in the Western world they are not there for "entertainment" but for eduction and also for conservation. The zoo in question had a long record of breeding for conservation purposes that makes the action taken againt the gorilla even more odd. That 17 year of gorilla had been bred in captivity by the zoo.[/FONT]

if they are not there for the entertainment, then it shouldn't be allowed for such large crowds to visit the place. that is exactly what it is for those crowds, an entertainment. they don't go there to educate themselves or care about conservation. and most people do not know how to behave around the animals, and they should have no business being around them.

it's all a huge farce where we think so highly of ourselves for caring for the animals and quote purposes of conservation, when a cage and thousands of noisy tourists walking around is hardly a healthy environment for any animal. would you want to be in that cage? i doubt that.

the zoo personnel, too, obviously were not prepared for such a scenario. of course they panicked like everybody else. a dead kid looks just as bad in the papers as an unfairly killed gorilla. the only way anybody can be prepared for situations like these is with training, and drill exercises. knowing a paragraph in the protocol is not going to help at all. you will act out of instinct or habit, and to get it more right you have to have drilled through the scenario many times.

so, parents of the kid are responsible. kids do not know what they are doing and it is the guardians' responsibility to maintain alertness to the whereabouts and intentions of the kid. the zoo personnel also are responsible. but of course the zoo is going to claim that it was the right thing to do. they're not gonna want to swallow down the alternative in public. the kid is alive and it will be difficult for anybody to prove them otherwise.

[Gideon]

Having visited the zoo in question on many occasions, I'm not entirely sure how the kid even got into the enclosure. The viewing area is usually surrounded by a wall high enough that even an adult would have to make an effort to get over it, then a moat, then anther wall.

I read a witness statement that said some lady saw the kid crawling behind the bushes and called for him to come back(apparently not her kid and she was hesitant to try and grab him). I'm guessing he wasn't in an area meant for public use and slipped through an opening just big enough for a small child.

Obviously the parent should have been watching the kid more closely.

I can't really say if the security team had cause to put the animal down...I read that tranquilizing wasn't an option because it wouldn't work fast enough to put the animal down in time to save the child. But other videos do show the gorilla grabbed the kid by the ankle(twice) in agitation when the kid screamed and pulled him very quickly and aggressively through the water to another location in the moat. Who's to say if he was protecting him like it's young or protecting his meal from the other gorillas?

Still, it's a sad ending for a gorgeous animal and I'm sure safety measures and construction will be imminent to make the enclosure safer for the public and the animals in the future.

[Insertnamehere]

In the majority of cases in the Western world they are not there for "entertainment" but for eduction and also for conservation. The zoo in question had a long record of breeding for conservation purposes that makes the action taken againt the gorilla even more odd. That 17 year of gorilla had been bred in captivity by the zoo.

To me, these altruistic objectives are lost on the fact that they imply raising an animal in a habitat that is not optimal for it. Evolution and natural selection have allowed some species to thrive in certain locations and there is a reason for that.

It would be (albeit idealistic in concept) better to focus resources and time in protecting and raising these animals in their own environments, in reservations protected by human staff but otherwise free of human intervention, so that one day they can be set loose on their proper habitat. The task here would be simply to assure reproduction and survival of the offspring in order to keep the species going. This would be done in collaboration with the local governments with some UN-based entity overseeing the process. Something like this is done on a small scale already. But keeping them in captivity, even when treated good, is counter productive.

Furthermore, these objectives, spanning years of time and resources, were completely lost in one simple human action in a single minute. 17 years raising a gorilla, for seemingly good purposes and what is the outcome? The animal is now dead.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, the saying goes.