Gorilla Shot Dead At Cincinnati Zoo After Child Falls Into E
Discussion
Halb said:
I think the zoo should have it's licence (whatever) looked at and should probably have the right to host great apes taken away from them.
I think that is a bit harsh; especially considering they play a role in numerous animal breeding programmes, including apes and monkeys.Oakey said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
A four year old is unlikely to have any common sense, therefore until the child is older and hopefully acquires some (but this does not always happen) his parents or guardians must provide this element of the child's upbringing. In this case they clearly did not.
The crunch came on the premier etage on the Eiffel tower, where after telling them not to climb on the railings, the first thing that two of them did after getting off the lift was climb on the railings wher two third of their height was above the rail over a drop
of hundreds of feet to the concrete below.
After nearly cr*pping myself over what they had done, I grabbed both of them off the railings and had a go at them, This was followed by the two in question and the dad having a go at me, for pulling them off the railings. At that point I thought b*llocks if they want to kill themselves, that was their business but it was hard to do.
I truly believed they were so dumb, they would not even realize they were in trouble until they were most of the way down to the concrete below. This attitude of letting kids believe they can do whatever they want whilst at the same time wrapping them in over protective cotton wool is a fine line to call.
Oakey said:
Well at least we agree on that, the utter contempt shown by some in this thread for a 4yr old beggars belief.
I haven't seen anyone showing contempt - they may be showing a bit of realismIf you look at any demographic you'll see that people get killed at any age - it's not something specific to 4 year olds.
Anyway who's saying the 4 year ( or any other year) would have been killed if the gorilla had been left to look after the lad until tea time
saaby93 said:
Oakey said:
Well at least we agree on that, the utter contempt shown by some in this thread for a 4yr old beggars belief.
I haven't seen anyone showing contempt - they may be showing a bit of realismIf you look at any demographic you'll see that people get killed at any age - it's not something specific to 4 year olds.
Anyway who's saying the 4 year ( or any other year) would have been killed if the gorilla had been left to look after the lad until tea time
My contempt is reserved almost entirely for the parents, in this particular case.
saaby93 said:
I haven't seen anyone showing contempt - they may be showing a bit of realism
If you look at any demographic you'll see that people get killed at any age - it's not something specific to 4 year olds.
Anyway who's saying the 4 year ( or any other year) would have been killed if the gorilla had been left to look after the lad until tea time
There's a few calling him stupid, or thick, then there's 5ohmustang (I don't know if he's a genuine poster or not). If you look at any demographic you'll see that people get killed at any age - it's not something specific to 4 year olds.
Anyway who's saying the 4 year ( or any other year) would have been killed if the gorilla had been left to look after the lad until tea time
Who cares if people get killed at any age? This kid wasn't dead, he was very much alive, I'm not sure leaving him to the mercy of a 400lb gorilla in front of a spectating public is the right call. Is that what you think they should have done?
If a person takes their child to a place where dangers may / will be present, then their observation and control of their offspring must be at such a massively high level, they could not / should not be able to get anywhere near climbing / falling into an animals enclosure, (regardless of how good or bad the guarding at the venue is)
Cleary this was not what happened at this zoo, however as posted before therefore my contempt (if that is the right word?) in this case lies almost entirely with the parent/s.
Cleary this was not what happened at this zoo, however as posted before therefore my contempt (if that is the right word?) in this case lies almost entirely with the parent/s.
Pan Pan Pan said:
My contempt is reserved almost entirely for the parents, in this particular case.
If my kid wondered off in a zoo (which anyone who has had kids will know can happen), my fear would be about his abduction or similar. It wouldn't occur to me that he could gain access to the gorilla enclosure. That should be impossible.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
My contempt is reserved almost entirely for the parents, in this particular case.
If my kid wondered off in a zoo (which anyone who has had kids will know can happen), my fear would be about his abduction or similar. It wouldn't occur to me that he could gain access to the gorilla enclosure. That should be impossible.
It may be impossible (or impossibly expensive?) to design something / anything that is truly human stupidity proof. If the zoo was an old established type it may have had regulations to keeps its appearance original into the bargain to deal with.
Clearly the parents never heard the song about little Ernie and the lion.
Pan Pan Pan said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
My contempt is reserved almost entirely for the parents, in this particular case.
If my kid wondered off in a zoo (which anyone who has had kids will know can happen), my fear would be about his abduction or similar. It wouldn't occur to me that he could gain access to the gorilla enclosure. That should be impossible.
It may be impossible (or impossibly expensive?) to design something / anything that is truly human stupidity proof. If the zoo was an old established type it may have had regulations to keeps its appearance original into the bargain to deal with.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
My contempt is reserved almost entirely for the parents, in this particular case.
If my kid wondered off in a zoo (which anyone who has had kids will know can happen), my fear would be about his abduction or similar. It wouldn't occur to me that he could gain access to the gorilla enclosure. That should be impossible.
It may be impossible (or impossibly expensive?) to design something / anything that is truly human stupidity proof. If the zoo was an old established type it may have had regulations to keeps its appearance original into the bargain to deal with.
If they did not, what sort of parent would they be considered to be? It seems that some are all to ready to shove the responsibility and accountability for their children's safety onto others.
If I go to a zoo, I know it will contain some dangerous animals, and that humans have not yet built anything, that cannot be circumvented by some human stupidity, therefore I would be on the lookout for hazards on behalf of the child, and not assume it will be safe, just because it is `supposed' to be safe.
People getting into animal enclosures at zoos is not a rare thing to happen....
it happens almost every week somewhere, and when it happens its because the people involved have actively tried to enter the animal compound, rather than by 'accident'.
Its the zoo's responsibility to keep the animal in the compound, which they are pretty good at doing. (although there are sometimes escapes). People are supposed to restrain themselves from getting into the compounds. Pretty sure at most places the onus is on the person to keep themselves AND THEIR CHILDREN safe. That's why when we go to LongLeat to see the lions and Tigers its a good idea not to drive there in a convertible car, or let the kids out for a pee when in the Tiger enclosure.
it happens almost every week somewhere, and when it happens its because the people involved have actively tried to enter the animal compound, rather than by 'accident'.
Its the zoo's responsibility to keep the animal in the compound, which they are pretty good at doing. (although there are sometimes escapes). People are supposed to restrain themselves from getting into the compounds. Pretty sure at most places the onus is on the person to keep themselves AND THEIR CHILDREN safe. That's why when we go to LongLeat to see the lions and Tigers its a good idea not to drive there in a convertible car, or let the kids out for a pee when in the Tiger enclosure.
Just seen this on my FB feed, a piece written by a Gorilla keeper named Amanda O'Donoughue.
I think it's very interesting and shines a light on a few things from someone who should know their stuff.
"I am going to try to clear up a few things that have been weighing on me about Harambe and the Cinci Zoo since I read the news this afternoon.
I have worked with Gorillas as a zookeeper while in my twenties (before children) and they are my favorite animal (out of dozens) that I have ever worked closely with. I am gonna go ahead and list a few facts, thoughts and opinions for those of you that aren't familiar with the species itself, or how a zoo operates in emergency situations.
Now Gorillas are considered 'gentle giants' at least when compared with their more aggressive cousins the chimpanzee, but a 400+ pound male in his prime is as strong as roughly 10 adult humans. What can you bench press? OK, now multiply that number by ten. An adult male silverback gorilla has one job, to protect his group. He does this by bluffing or intimidating anything that he feels threatened by.
Gorillas are considered a Class 1 mammal, the most dangerous class of mammals in the animal kingdom, again, merely due to their size and strength. They are grouped in with other apes, tigers, lions, bears, etc.
While working in an AZA accredited zoo with Apes, keepers DO NOT work in contact with them. Meaning they do NOT go in with these animals. There is always a welded mesh barrier between the animal and the humans.
In more recent decades, zoos have begun to redesign enclosures, removing all obvious caging and attempting to create a seamless view of the animals for the visitor to enjoy watching animals in a more natural looking habitat. *this is great until little children begin falling into exhibits* which of course can happen to anyone, especially in a crowded zoo-like setting.
I have watched this video over again, and with the silverback's postering, and tight lips, it's pretty much the stuff of any keeper's nightmares, and I have had MANY while working with them. This job is not for the complacent. Gorillas are kind, curious, and sometimes silly, but they are also very large, very strong animals. I always brought my OCD to work with me. checking and rechecking locks to make sure my animals and I remained separated before entering to clean.
I keep hearing that the Gorilla was trying to protect the boy. I do not find this to be true. Harambe reaches for the boys hands and arms, but only to position the child better for his own displaying purposes.
Males do very elaborate displays when highly agitated, slamming and dragging things about. Typically they would drag large branches, barrels and heavy weighted balls around to make as much noise as possible. Not in an effort to hurt anyone or anything (usually) but just to intimidate. It was clear to me that he was reacting to the screams coming from the gathering crowd.
Harambe was most likely not going to separate himself from that child without seriously hurting him first (again due to mere size and strength, not malicious intent) Why didn't they use treats? well, they attempted to call them off exhibit (which animals hate), the females in the group came in, but Harambe did not. What better treat for a captive animal than a real live kid!
They didn't use Tranquilizers for a few reasons, A. Harambe would've taken too long to become immobilized, and could have really injured the child in the process as the drugs used may not work quickly enough depending on the stress of the situation and the dose B. Harambe would've drowned in the moat if immobilized in the water, and possibly fallen on the boy trapping him and drowning him as well.
Many zoos have the protocol to call on their expertly trained dart team in the event of an animal escape or in the event that a human is trapped with a dangerous animal. They will evaluate the scene as quickly and as safely as possible, and will make the most informed decision as how they will handle the animal.
I can't point fingers at anyone in this situation, but we need to really evaluate the safety of the animal enclosures from the visitor side. Not impeding that view is a tough one, but their should be no way that someone can find themselves inside of an animal's exhibit.
I know one thing for sure, those keepers lost a beautiful, and I mean gorgeous silverback and friend. I feel their loss with them this week. As educators and conservators of endangered species, all we can do is shine a light on the beauty and majesty of these animals in hopes to spark a love and a need to keep them from vanishing from our planet. Child killers, they are not. It's unfortunate for the conservation of the species, and the loss of revenue a beautiful zoo such as Cinci will lose. tragedy all around".
I think it's very interesting and shines a light on a few things from someone who should know their stuff.
"I am going to try to clear up a few things that have been weighing on me about Harambe and the Cinci Zoo since I read the news this afternoon.
I have worked with Gorillas as a zookeeper while in my twenties (before children) and they are my favorite animal (out of dozens) that I have ever worked closely with. I am gonna go ahead and list a few facts, thoughts and opinions for those of you that aren't familiar with the species itself, or how a zoo operates in emergency situations.
Now Gorillas are considered 'gentle giants' at least when compared with their more aggressive cousins the chimpanzee, but a 400+ pound male in his prime is as strong as roughly 10 adult humans. What can you bench press? OK, now multiply that number by ten. An adult male silverback gorilla has one job, to protect his group. He does this by bluffing or intimidating anything that he feels threatened by.
Gorillas are considered a Class 1 mammal, the most dangerous class of mammals in the animal kingdom, again, merely due to their size and strength. They are grouped in with other apes, tigers, lions, bears, etc.
While working in an AZA accredited zoo with Apes, keepers DO NOT work in contact with them. Meaning they do NOT go in with these animals. There is always a welded mesh barrier between the animal and the humans.
In more recent decades, zoos have begun to redesign enclosures, removing all obvious caging and attempting to create a seamless view of the animals for the visitor to enjoy watching animals in a more natural looking habitat. *this is great until little children begin falling into exhibits* which of course can happen to anyone, especially in a crowded zoo-like setting.
I have watched this video over again, and with the silverback's postering, and tight lips, it's pretty much the stuff of any keeper's nightmares, and I have had MANY while working with them. This job is not for the complacent. Gorillas are kind, curious, and sometimes silly, but they are also very large, very strong animals. I always brought my OCD to work with me. checking and rechecking locks to make sure my animals and I remained separated before entering to clean.
I keep hearing that the Gorilla was trying to protect the boy. I do not find this to be true. Harambe reaches for the boys hands and arms, but only to position the child better for his own displaying purposes.
Males do very elaborate displays when highly agitated, slamming and dragging things about. Typically they would drag large branches, barrels and heavy weighted balls around to make as much noise as possible. Not in an effort to hurt anyone or anything (usually) but just to intimidate. It was clear to me that he was reacting to the screams coming from the gathering crowd.
Harambe was most likely not going to separate himself from that child without seriously hurting him first (again due to mere size and strength, not malicious intent) Why didn't they use treats? well, they attempted to call them off exhibit (which animals hate), the females in the group came in, but Harambe did not. What better treat for a captive animal than a real live kid!
They didn't use Tranquilizers for a few reasons, A. Harambe would've taken too long to become immobilized, and could have really injured the child in the process as the drugs used may not work quickly enough depending on the stress of the situation and the dose B. Harambe would've drowned in the moat if immobilized in the water, and possibly fallen on the boy trapping him and drowning him as well.
Many zoos have the protocol to call on their expertly trained dart team in the event of an animal escape or in the event that a human is trapped with a dangerous animal. They will evaluate the scene as quickly and as safely as possible, and will make the most informed decision as how they will handle the animal.
I can't point fingers at anyone in this situation, but we need to really evaluate the safety of the animal enclosures from the visitor side. Not impeding that view is a tough one, but their should be no way that someone can find themselves inside of an animal's exhibit.
I know one thing for sure, those keepers lost a beautiful, and I mean gorgeous silverback and friend. I feel their loss with them this week. As educators and conservators of endangered species, all we can do is shine a light on the beauty and majesty of these animals in hopes to spark a love and a need to keep them from vanishing from our planet. Child killers, they are not. It's unfortunate for the conservation of the species, and the loss of revenue a beautiful zoo such as Cinci will lose. tragedy all around".
SilverSpur said:
Heres a thought.... you buy one of those cars that allows you to open the boot/hatch by gesture - waving your foot under the rear bumper usually....
and then you take your kids to Longleat in the new car.....
and the rear door opens when some tiger's tail swishes by....
Does that feature work when the engine is running / car moving then? That seems like the sort of thing car manufacturers would ensure wasn't capable of happening whilst the car is in motion. How does it differentiate between a foot moving under the bumper and driving over something in the road?and then you take your kids to Longleat in the new car.....
and the rear door opens when some tiger's tail swishes by....
edit:
Register said:
Ford claimed the system safeguards against accidental opening by being programmed to open with specific leg motions – a kick, basically - not when an animal runs under the car or when the vehicle hits a bump on the road.
So, no worries then?SilverSpur said:
People getting into animal enclosures at zoos is not a rare thing to happen....
it happens almost every week somewhere, and when it happens its because the people involved have actively tried to enter the animal compound, rather than by 'accident'.
Its the zoo's responsibility to keep the animal in the compound, which they are pretty good at doing. (although there are sometimes escapes). People are supposed to restrain themselves from getting into the compounds. Pretty sure at most places the onus is on the person to keep themselves AND THEIR CHILDREN safe. That's why when we go to LongLeat to see the lions and Tigers its a good idea not to drive there in a convertible car, or let the kids out for a pee when in the Tiger enclosure.
They all look a bit older than 4.it happens almost every week somewhere, and when it happens its because the people involved have actively tried to enter the animal compound, rather than by 'accident'.
Its the zoo's responsibility to keep the animal in the compound, which they are pretty good at doing. (although there are sometimes escapes). People are supposed to restrain themselves from getting into the compounds. Pretty sure at most places the onus is on the person to keep themselves AND THEIR CHILDREN safe. That's why when we go to LongLeat to see the lions and Tigers its a good idea not to drive there in a convertible car, or let the kids out for a pee when in the Tiger enclosure.
SilverSpur said:
People getting into animal enclosures at zoos is not a rare thing to happen....
it happens almost every week somewhere, and when it happens its because the people involved have actively tried to enter the animal compound, rather than by 'accident'.
Its the zoo's responsibility to keep the animal in the compound, which they are pretty good at doing. (although there are sometimes escapes). People are supposed to restrain themselves from getting into the compounds. Pretty sure at most places the onus is on the person to keep themselves AND THEIR CHILDREN safe. That's why when we go to LongLeat to see the lions and Tigers its a good idea not to drive there in a convertible car, or let the kids out for a pee when in the Tiger enclosure.
Ooo look at the lovely bear protecting the human....you can tell by its body language it happens almost every week somewhere, and when it happens its because the people involved have actively tried to enter the animal compound, rather than by 'accident'.
Its the zoo's responsibility to keep the animal in the compound, which they are pretty good at doing. (although there are sometimes escapes). People are supposed to restrain themselves from getting into the compounds. Pretty sure at most places the onus is on the person to keep themselves AND THEIR CHILDREN safe. That's why when we go to LongLeat to see the lions and Tigers its a good idea not to drive there in a convertible car, or let the kids out for a pee when in the Tiger enclosure.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Can a parent seriously take very young children to a potentially dangerous place, and not have a heightened sense of awareness of where they are, and what they are doing?
If they did not, what sort of parent would they be considered to be? It seems that some are all to ready to shove the responsibility and accountability for their children's safety onto others.
If I go to a zoo, I know it will contain some dangerous animals, and that humans have not yet built anything, that cannot be circumvented by some human stupidity, therefore I would be on the lookout for hazards on behalf of the child, and not assume it will be safe, just because it is `supposed' to be safe.
It has never occurred to me, whilst strolling around London Zoo, that it's a dangerous place. I don't expect the animals to able to get out to the public, and I don't my children to be able to get in to the wild animals.If they did not, what sort of parent would they be considered to be? It seems that some are all to ready to shove the responsibility and accountability for their children's safety onto others.
If I go to a zoo, I know it will contain some dangerous animals, and that humans have not yet built anything, that cannot be circumvented by some human stupidity, therefore I would be on the lookout for hazards on behalf of the child, and not assume it will be safe, just because it is `supposed' to be safe.
I would expect an adult to maybe be able to get in with the animals, but with great difficulty, and that would be their own stupid fault.
But a 4 yr old...no way. Supposing he was there with just mum or dad, and the sole parent had a heart attack. Are we then saying "parent collapsed and couldn't look after kid, kid wonders off into gorillas, nothing that could be done to stop it?
Utterly ridiculous.
ash73 said:
That's a well written piece, and better explains the animal's behaviour, but I don't agree with the binary choice of either using tranquillisers OR shooting it. The obvious solution is to deploy both; and only shoot the Gorilla as a last resort if it doesn't respond appropriately to the darts. The person with their finger on the trigger would have to make the call, with an instant bias towards the best outcome for the child, but at least then it would have a chance.
This would be my favourable option but did you see the video and how quickly it dragged that kid around? As soon as they shoot it with a dart who's to say it's going to be stood still long enough for them to get a live shot off if it does go nuts? In between them tranq'ing it and deciding to shoot it, it may have a) already ripped the boys arms off b) dragged the kid away making it difficult to shoot at, then ripped it's arms off or c) similar to b but they accidentally shoot the kid insteadGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff