how do you as parents feel about the gorilla shot in American zoo ?

columf

A true tragedy. But I fully understand why they used lethal force. A tranquilizer takes a number of minutes before it would subdue a animal of that size. Getting hit by a dart hurts and may have enraged the animal. The Gorilla may have been curious but a up to 400lb ape is a hell of a big strong animal and may have inadvertently hurt of killed the child such as when the ape grabbed the kids leg and dragged him through the water could have easily caused serious injury to the child. Now it could have been that with all the commotion the ape was trying to get the child away from what the ape seen as danger but this is a big Gorilla and we don't know what was going on. It cant all turn out like Jersey Zoo's Jambo (Protected a child who fell into the enclosure in 86) google Bokito he attacked and severely injured a women in 07 after escaping his enclosure. I don't agree with the vitriolic hated of the parents and saying they should be shot cop on ffs did you do what you were told at all times when were his age did you never wander away from you parents / guardian do you know anything about the Ladies situation was it just 1 child in tow or was there a few in tow. context is important folks.

Dyr

kbannon wrote: »

For visitors, a zoo should not be a dangerous environment!

Maybe if they stuffed all the animals it wouldnt be

proximity to wild animals=dangerous

Seth Brundle

irishgirl19 wrote: »

I have seen on Facebook alot of people saying the child life shouldn't have been put before the apes.

People on facebook tend to be opinionated dumbasses! Ignore them!

duffman3833

kbannon wrote: »

For visitors, a zoo should not be a dangerous environment!

Potential dangerous environment. Animals cant talk, we don't know how they are going to react. They could go mad at any stage.

Seth Brundle

Bambi wrote: »

Maybe if they stuffed all the animals it wouldnt be

proximity to wild animals=dangerous

No.
If I take my family to Dublin Zoo, should I expect the animals to be wandering about?
Should I not expect a safe visit and the worst that could happen is if I get brain freeze from eating ice cream?

Seth Brundle

duffman3833 wrote: »

Potential dangerous environment. Animals cant talk, we don't know how they are going to react. They could go mad at any stage.

Hence why the enclosures should be sufficient to separate the visitors from the animals. That's why they don't use cardboard fences!

duffman3833

kbannon wrote: »

Hence why the enclosures should be sufficient to separate the visitors from the animals. That's why they don't use cardboard fences!

yes agreed but not only that, parents should be more alert. The Zoo cant prevent all accidents/incidents. S**t happens

sReq | uTeK

had to be done, say no more.

Mother and Father should be watching more closely but kid still shouldn't be able to get in.

pwurple

Had to be done. Nevermind the intention of the gorilla. He could have easily crushed the child or just dropped him down another drop and killed him accidentally.

Well done to the staff, very hard decision to make, but it was the safest option. Difficult to do also, as they have a relationship with the animal.

As for the people calling for the parents to be strung up, I have a two small children, and I honestly can't believe that anyone with children has never seen their child do crazy unsafe things. Fall off the back of a chair and bump their head, run down a hill in the rain and fall over, try to climb wobbly pieces of furniture, squeeze into the back of wardrobes etc etc etc. I can easily see how it can happen. Children move extremely quickly, and do unexpected things. It's in their nature.

And this kind of thing just breeds the helicopter parent, who is so overprotective they have leashes and knee protectors on for a walk in the park, along with sanitiser spray on everything they touch. I know people who don't even let their kids run in case they fall over. And then the child has no idea how to play and ends up obese... oh dear, bad parenting again. Yes, there's a happy medium, but no human gets everything right all of the time.

The zoo enclosure should be built to bear this in mind, and not have a gap that children can fit through. I've seen a child fall into an enclosure once, but it was the penguins in fota, not much risk of being mauled there. That's the type of animal where it's acceptable to have an open enclosure.

honreal

kbannon wrote: »

I'm assuming that you don't have kids.
Young kids have a habit of wandering off no matter how much you watch them.
Should the parents have assumed that the kid could have easily gotten into a enclosure with gorillas?
The zoo is as much if not more to blame than the parents. They invite the public in and have a duty of care to both the animals and the visitors (both young and old).
It's unfortunate but no more so than the incident with the fella that climbed into the lion enclosure in Santiago last week.

I do infact have a young child. My post still stands.

Seth Brundle

duffman3833 wrote: »

yes agreed but not only that, parents should be more alert. The Zoo cant prevent all accidents/incidents. S**t happens

I'm not suggesting that the zoo prevent all accidents. I'm saying that if they want the public to pay to see some wild animals, they should ensure that the two can not accidentally meet!
Whatever about some suicidal fella or thick bitch climbing into the enclosures, there should be no accidental ways of getting in, whether these are faulty fences or doors left open or whatever.
As I said earlier, kids wander; it's normal. ANyone who owns kids will confirm this. They can be there one second and gone then next. That should not be an excuse for them somehow finding their way into an enclosure.

Sapphire

duffman3833 wrote: »

yes agreed but not only that, parents should be more alert. The Zoo cant prevent all accidents/incidents. S**t happens

Domestic staircase regulations state that spindles cant be any more than 100mm spacing, which is about 4 inches.

If you consider how wide the bars of the zoo barrier needed to be for a 4 year old's head to fit through (generally the body is pretty pliable at that stage) that's maybe about 7 inches. That, combined with a sheer drop of 15 foot is a ridiculous design and not a bit safe for little children. To them a gorilla is just a big teddy.

duffman3833

does anyone have a pic or link that shows the fence?

Sapphire

duffman3833 wrote: »

does anyone have a pic or link that shows the fence?

I had a google because I'd like to see it too, but I cant find anything.

Some reports are saying the boy crawled through the barrier and some bushes then fell the sheer drop into the enclosure.

Sapphire

Aha. Found one I think.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-syxeVV3ZYMM/UGtGywoFwWI/AAAAAAAADO8/73-D7A74ryg/s1600/IMG_5171.JPG

duffman3833

Sapphire wrote: »

Aha. Found one I think.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-syxeVV3ZYMM/UGtGywoFwWI/AAAAAAAADO8/73-D7A74ryg/s1600/IMG_5171.JPG

if that is the one, then how the hell did this not happen sooner, its a tiny fence

Sapphire

That's what I was thinking. Apparently it did happen before but it was the female gorillas and they seemed to understand the child was injured and cradled it until the keepers got the kid back. I cant find it now but I don't think it was Cincinatti Zoo.

Male gorilla a totally different kettle of fish I think!

Starokan

Zoo are completely at fault in my opinion - a zoo markets itself as a family day out, they have a duty of care to the animal and the visitors. A gap should not exist into an animals enclosure that a child can get through. It really is that simple for me, if the enclosure was properly enclosed this would not have occurred.

steddyeddy

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

He crawled in while mammy had her phone out most likely!
When I heard her shout "mammy loves you" I was like wtf!

Whilst I'm sad the gorilla was shot, it was needed to ensure the safety of that child!

Well actually I have to disagree. The animal was endangered . It's not child or gorilla. A very large effort has to be made to save both. It was very onesided here.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well actually I have to disagree. The animal was endangered . It's not child or gorilla. A very large effort has to be made to save both. It was very onesided here.

You can disagree all you like.
You aren't the one making a decision like this!
And the ones authorised to make that decision, made it to save the boys life!

If the decision wasn't made and the child died, I'm sure you would say well the gorilla doesn't know any better, and that's true but still can't stand by and hope the child is not killed , accidentally or otherwise

Skatedude

Satriale wrote: »

It's tragic, gorillas shouldnt be kept, in zoos, or anywhere.

Then they would be extinct, they were kept to breed them so they wouldn't all die out as this species is almost extinct in the wild.

eviltwin

I love animals and gorillas are my favourite so I was saddened to hear this but the zoo acted appropriately imo. A human life always comes first, you can never take the chance that the animal won't attack. Yes it is tragic but it would have been more tragic if the child had died. The staff are probably devastated themselves but they did the right thing.

ted1

tea and coffee wrote: »

@Satriale: It does appear to be what you are saying. You said they shouldn't be kept anywhere. If they were left in the wild, they would become extinct because of the habitat destruction, poaching etc.

I heard the head keeper of Dublin Zoo on the radio this morning, and he sounded upset. He mentioned adrenaline, and also that the gorilla seemed to be curious rather than aggressive. I haven't seen any footage and don't know anything about the behaviour of gorillas, so I can't comment. It does seem an awful pity; is a tranquiliser not instant? Is that the reason they didn't use it?

That's a different Gorilla in a different zoo.

steddyeddy

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

You can disagree all you like.
You aren't the one making a decision like this!
And the ones authorised to make that decision, made it to save the boys life!

If the decision wasn't made and the child died, I'm sure you would say well the gorilla doesn't know any better, and that's true but still can't stand by and hope the child is not killed , accidentally or otherwise

There have been several incidents where a child fell in the gorilla pit and none that ended in a fatality of child or gorilla.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

There have been several incidents where a child fell in the gorilla pit and none that ended in a fatality of child or gorilla.

So what?
You're not trying to suggest the zoo should have assumed nothing could go wrong because other gorillas have never killed children in the very few isolated incidents that have happened before?

xzanti

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Tranqulise the gorilla, really shoot the parents and have the kid adopted. win/win/win

Apparently the dart would have taken a moment to work and the fright could have sent him into a frenzy. Bad news for the child if that happened.

I think the Zoo should bear a certain amount of the responsibility. I thought those animal enclosures were supposed to be pretty much impenetrable to the general public. How did a child get through to the animal without being detected?

It's a terrible tragedy either way.

I think they had no choice but to destroy the gorilla unfortunately

Very sad.

Hopefully it'll never happen again. Lessons should be learnt from this.

steddyeddy

I don't believe killing a usually gentle, endangered and intelligent animal was needed to prevent the death of a child.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't believe killing a usually gentle, endangered and intelligent animal was needed to prevent the death of a child.

Again, what you believe doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
Had the zoo not acted and the child died (accidentally) then they would be in a worse situation.
Maybe in your eyes they wouldn't be as they didn't kill an animal but let a child die.

steddyeddy

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Again, what you believe doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
Had the zoo not acted and the child died (accidentally) then they would be in a worse situation.
Maybe in your eyes they wouldn't be as they didn't kill an animal but let a child die.

Can you point to an incident where a human was killed by a gorilla unprovoked? Remembering that hundreds of people a year interact with gorillas.

steddyeddy

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

So what?
You're not trying to suggest the zoo should have assumed nothing could go wrong because other gorillas have never killed children in the very few isolated incidents that have happened before?

No they shouldn't have assumed nothing. They should have assumed a small possibility of danger based on knowledge of gorillas.