Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Can you point to an incident where a human was killed by a gorilla unprovoked?

    I don't need to!
    As I've already responded the zoo had to act.
    They were making sure the child didn't die as they didn't make sure any children couldn't fall in there in the first place.

    Your argument is all about this gentle animal didn't look like it would kill the boy, but what you overlook is accidents and the child could have easily been dragged around and had his head clipped off a rock under the water.
    They weren't taking any chances.
    And as parents, you have to understand that.


  • Options
    #63
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


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

    The zoo staff had to make a quick decision and they did that.
    Had they not taken the course of action that they did and the child was killed, the parents could have sued the zoo rendering it unable to continue to operate. How would this have affected the remaining endangered species?


  • Options
    #64
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    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.

    You cannot take the risk with a wild animal.


  • Options
    #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    eviltwin wrote: »
    You cannot take the risk with a wild animal.

    You can when you have nothing to lose!
    It's not your child, not your zoo and you get all your opinions from National Geographic!

    These zoos see these animals more than us and know what they can do in captivity.


  • Options
    #66
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    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.

    So a strange human entering the enclosure isn't considered as possible provocation?

    Anyhow, thankfully this incident didn't end in a fatality...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3513767/Incredible-footage-shows-gorilla-flying-air-bid-attack-man-posing-selfie-enclosure.html

    (I'm aware that this wasn't a fatality but was used to show that they aren't cuddly toys!!!)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Satriale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭Satriale


    Skatedude wrote: »
    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.


    If the motive was so altruistic they wouldn't be on display. There are better ways to "protect" them.
    Gorillas are one of our closest relatives in the natural world, how would you like to be in a cage with drooling eejits outside staring at you?


  • Options
    #68
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    You can when you have nothing to lose!
    It's not your child, not your zoo and you get all your opinions from National Geographic!

    These zoos see these animals more than us and know what they can do in captivity.

    I think the emotional outpouring over this is ridiculous. Its not a Disney film, even if the animal didn't cause hatm on purpose the sheer size of him could have accidentally caused an injury. No one will care about this gorilla in a few days.


  • Options
    #69
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Satriale wrote: »
    If the motive was so altruistic they wouldn't be on display. There are better ways to "protect" them.
    There are but one important factor is money. Zoos get money from visitors. How would you finance any alternative operation?
    Satriale wrote: »
    Gorillas are one of our closest relatives in the natural world, how would you like to be in a cage with drooling eejits outside staring at you?
    Sure Conor McGregor makes a fortune at this:D


  • Options
    #70
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    I don't need to!
    As I've already responded the zoo had to act.
    They were making sure the child didn't die as they didn't make sure any children couldn't fall in there in the first place.

    Your argument is all about this gentle animal didn't look like it would kill the boy, but what you overlook is accidents and the child could have easily been dragged around and had his head clipped off a rock under the water.
    They weren't taking any chances.
    And as parents, you have to understand that.

    You do as you're the one saying the zoo had to act. I'm asking you for precedent.


  • Options
    #71
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    You do as you're the one saying the zoo had to act. I'm asking you for precedent.

    And why did the zoo have to act?
    Liability!
    I understand why they had to act, so no I don't have to google anything to bolster my argument with you!

    If the child died accidentally would you blame the child for falling in and the gorilla didn't mean it to happen?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    kbannon wrote: »
    So a strange human entering the enclosure isn't considered as possible provocation?

    Anyhow, thankfully this incident didn't end in a fatality...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3513767/Incredible-footage-shows-gorilla-flying-air-bid-attack-man-posing-selfie-enclosure.html

    (I'm aware that this wasn't a fatality but was used to show that they aren't cuddly toys!!!)

    Gorillas charge as a display. They rarely follow it up. I'm still struggling to find a fatality. Any other animal especially chimps I'd agree.


  • Options
    #73
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    And why did the zoo have to act?
    Liability!
    I understand why they had to act, so no I don't have to google anything to bolster my argument with you!

    If the child died accidentally would you blame the child for falling in and the gorilla didn't mean it to happen?

    I'd blame the parent and the zoo.


  • Options
    #74
    yqtwqxqm
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭yqtwqxqm


    We have all looked away for a split second and a child will do something unexpected.
    You just dont expect that to be able to get into a Gorilla enclosure.

    I was walking around Dublin Zoo yesterday with the grandkids. They were all running ahead and back all the time. There were several occasions when I had to chase one around a corner and one or more were out of sight for a few seconds. Thats life. I dont tie them up. But I dcertainly didnt expect them to have access to Tigers, Lions or Gorilla enclosures should they decide to do a runner on me.
    I blame the zoo. That said it would take a Gorilla a split second to smash a child to death. So fair play to the zoo for doing the right thing, as much as it saddens me.


  • Options
    #75
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Gorillas charge as a display. They rarely follow it up. I'm still struggling to find a fatality. Any other animal especially chimps I'd agree.
    "Rarely follow it up"? So he could have is what you're saying?


  • Options
    #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I'd blame the parent and the zoo.

    exactly my point!
    The zoo had to act!
    You are arguing with yourself now :)


  • Options
    #77
    Satriale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭Satriale


    kbannon wrote: »
    There are but one important factor is money. Zoos get money from visitors. How would you finance any alternative operation?


    Sure Conor McGregor makes a fortune at this:D


    Well K, i doubt removing one endangered species would run their business into the ground. I'm sure that zoo will do just fine even though theyve just shot their prize "exhibit". Plus there's plenty money flushed away on all sort of unnecessary sh1te in this world, its not inconceivable that it could be better directed.

    They've still no excuse to treat these rare animals like a freak show.


  • Options
    #78
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    exactly my point!
    The zoo had to act!
    You are arguing with yourself now :)

    You're confusing the temporal settings of my suggested actions.


  • Options
    #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    You're confusing the temporal settings of my suggested actions.

    You have just proven why the zoo needed to act!
    To prevent potential death and potential lawsuits!

    But then again you believe because it hasn't happened before in a few isolated incidents, that means it can't happen!
    I'm sure the zoo didn't want to kill the Gorilla!


  • Options
    #80
    mordeith
    Registered Users Posts: 5,278 ✭✭✭mordeith


    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.

    Wrong assumption. I have two boys and know full well how they can run off. Hence why I've never let then into a wild animal enclosure while visiting a zoo (or run into the sea, onto the road, etc.)


  • Options
    #81
    byhookorbycrook
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 12,498 Mod ✭✭✭✭byhookorbycrook


    A colleague of mine and myself took 70, yes 70, Junior Infants to the zoo between us. All returned safely due to constant vigilance.I can't see how parents couldn't watch ONE child.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    byhookorbycrook wrote: »
    A colleague of mine and myself took 70, yes 70, Junior Infants to the zoo between us. All returned safely due to constant vigilance.I can't see how parents couldn't watch ONE child.

    Indeed. Complete bs regarding kids being impossible to watch.


  • Options
    #83
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    You have just proven why the zoo needed to act!
    To prevent potential death and potential lawsuits!

    But then again you believe because it hasn't happened before in a few isolated incidents, that means it can't happen!
    I'm sure the zoo didn't want to kill the Gorilla!

    Proven? You're confusing prevention with action.


  • Options
    #84
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    kbannon wrote: »
    "Rarely follow it up"? So he could have is what you're saying?

    Hmm well there's no precedent of it happening. So incredibly unlikely.


  • Options
    #85
    Starokan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 746 ✭✭✭Starokan


    byhookorbycrook wrote: »
    A colleague of mine and myself took 70, yes 70, Junior Infants to the zoo between us. All returned safely due to constant vigilance.I can't see how parents couldn't watch ONE child.

    Its silly to try and compare the situations . If four of the 70 children decided to run off in different directions at the same time you and your colleague would have lost sight of two children be it for only a second or two and anything could happen. Then people would be throwing tonnes of online abuse at you saying two monitors was not enough for 70 children.

    It's really easy to say I've done this or I've done that and it never happened to me, you know what well done on monitoring on that day out but things happen in split seconds that you cannot account for. That's how so many accidents occur in everyday life.

    Whatever happened the parents clearly got distracted for a second or two and the child simply got away from them for a second -it happens. You could repeat the scenario a thousand times and more than likely the child would have been grabbed or caught or held back but in this case it went wrong.

    It went wrong to devastating consequences but to lay the blame on the parents is wrong, based on what I have seen and read they are being attacked from all angles at the moment. They went to a Zoo for a day out as do and did so many other families.

    Would you have brought a group of junior infants to that Zoo if you thought for a second that one of your group could crawl into a gorilla enclosure. There is not a chance you would and because of that the Zoo is at fault.

    I feel for the zoo in this too , even though I see them as culpable they had to take the life of a magnificent creature they adored and loved.

    There are no winners here


  • Options
    #86
    DSN
    Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭DSN


    It's very sad for the gorilla & the zoo but the zoo staff did what I believe it had to do. Can you imagine if the child got killed because the zoo didn't act? Sorry the life of a child comes first in my opinion.


  • Options
    #87
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    byhookorbycrook wrote: »
    A colleague of mine and myself took 70, yes 70, Junior Infants to the zoo between us. All returned safely due to constant vigilance.I can't see how parents couldn't watch ONE child.

    I'm no way overprotective parent but if I heard that my kid was among seventy kids who were supervised by two adults in an open area like a zoo I would be livid. And you even pat yourself on the back that all returned safely!!!

    Anyway zoo reacted correctly. Their enclosures should be better protected, parents should be probably more vigilant too but $hit happens. You can't predict and observe everything (and that's why you need more than two adults to supervise 70 kids.)


  • Options
    #88
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    byhookorbycrook wrote: »
    A colleague of mine and myself took 70, yes 70, Junior Infants to the zoo between us. All returned safely due to constant vigilance.I can't see how parents couldn't watch ONE child.

    According to the INTO, the recommended pupil teacher ratio is 1 to 15-20 on school trips (for over 7s)
    http://www.into.ie/NI/NI2012Redesign/Schools/EducationalVisits/

    Are you really saying that yours was 1:35?

    Did you complete the risk assessment beforehand as recommended?
    When completing the risk assessment, you presumably had a plan to ensure that if something happened one pupil and they had to go to hospital, a teacher would accompany them. So, is a ratio of 1:69 appropriate?

    Given bus sizes alone, this meant that you used two coaches and therefore one of which would not have had the kids supervised on the way home.

    Well done you. You're a model teacher alright!


  • Options
    #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    2 people brought 70 junior infants to the zoo.
    That's very responsible of your school!
    Like to name them so the rest of society can avoid them?


  • Options
    #90
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    So let me get this straight the parent is zero at fault here?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    So let me get this straight the parent is zero at fault here?

    Do you know what happened? And even if parent is at fault does that mean the child should be treated differently? Do we get the ambulance only for a driver that isn't responsible for car accident? Of course it should be established if parent was neglectful in their duty of care but that has nothing to do with the fact that zoo acted responsibly and correctly (killing the gorilla).


Advertisement