The death of Harambe the gorilla

Iwasfrozen

Whether gorillas should or should not be in zoos is another matter.

Whether the zoo was right to shoot the gorilla? I say yes. İt didnt seem like there was any other option and when not possible to save both a human's life should take priority.

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://oi63.tinypic.com/zvubee.jpg

ButtersSuki

I'm genuinely curious if the parents of the child face any consequences on this? Neglect of their child? Replacement costs of the gorilla? Anything?

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious if the parents of the child face any consequences on this? Neglect of their child? Replacement costs of the gorilla? Anything?

The parents are less culpable than the zoo. They put a powerful wild animal in an enclosure that a toddler can breach.

Not fit for purpose.

ScumLord

Candie wrote: »

I would have thought that if they were strong enough they'd at least fell and incapacitate him, if not knock him out straight away.

It doesn't really matter how strong they are, it's going to take a while for the drug to make it to the places it needs to be. From what I've seen of tranquilizers used on TV they try to avoid knock out stuff because they want to give the animal time to get out of precarious situations. Something that knocks them out instantly could cause injury. So maybe they just don't stock anything that would knock an animal out instantly because it's generally only useful in rare situation like this.

Iwasfrozen

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious if the parents of the child face any consequences on this? Neglect of their child? Replacement costs of the gorilla? Anything?

They nearly lost their child.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

It doesn't really matter how strong they are, it's going to take a while for the drug to make it to the places it needs to be. From what I've seen of tranquilizers used on TV they try to avoid knock out stuff because they want to give the animal time to get out of precarious situations. Something that knocks them out instantly could cause injury. So maybe they just don't stock anything that would knock an animal out instantly because it's generally only useful in rare situation like this.

Still, I'd rather a hurt gorilla than a dead gorilla. If it was possible, you'd imagine they'd keep something reserved for this kind of scenario, but I guess it's not.

It's all so sad.

Iwasfrozen

Candie wrote: »

Still, I'd rather a hurt gorilla than a dead gorilla. If it was possible, you'd imagine they'd keep something reserved for this kind of scenario, but I guess it's not.

It's all so sad.

A hurt gorilla isnt the problem. The problem is a panicked gorilla could brain the child before the drug kicks in.

That's ignoring the possibility of the dart hitting the gorilla but not going in. Again resulting in a dead child. IMO the zoo made the right call.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A hurt gorilla isnt the problem. The problem is a panicked gorilla could brain the child before the drug kicks in.

That's ignoring the possibility of the dart hitting the gorilla but not going in. Again resulting in a dead child. IMO the zoo made the right call.

I'm not disputing the call, just wondering about the efficacy of tranks. I'm well aware it might not hit him first time, but that can be allowed for by having a marksman with a rifle beside the marksman with the trank gun.

ceadaoin.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Gorillas aren't generally considered stupid.

No they aren't stupid but what about them being peaceful? I thought silverbacks, which is what this gorilla was, are very aggressive and dangerous?

He may not have meant to harm the child but the way he was dragging the boy around it was inevitable. I read that he child has broken ribs and a concussion. They had no choice but to shoot the animal. Do you really think that the childs life should have been put at risk even more so that the animal could be saved?

Peregrine

Candie wrote: »

I would have thought that if they were strong enough they'd at least fell and incapacitate him, if not knock him out straight away.

It does depend on the drug but it's never going to be instant with muscle/fat. It will have to be absorbed and that will take time. Think IV vs IM.

Plus, as mentioned above, he may not have taken kindly to being hit with a dart. There's no telling how he would have reacted.

steddyeddy

I visited the gorillas in the Congo had zero problem.

Peregrine

Peregrine wrote: »

It does depend on the drug but it's never going to be instant with muscle/fat. It will have to be absorbed and that will take time. Think IV vs IM.

Plus, as mentioned above, he may not have taken kindly to being hit with a dart. There's no telling how he would have reacted.

Well, obviously it's a shot you can only take if he's some distance from the little guy. A massive dose of phenothiazine or similar trank would calm him almost immediately rather than agitating him, one of the issues was the stress he was under.

Anyway, it's just a thought. If they had the space and two marksmen equipped with the right drug and a rifle in case that backfired, it might have been an option, but it didn't happen either way.

steddyeddy

I think thr crowd shouting at the gorilla also made the situation worse.

RebelButtMunch

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Who's life to protect, toddler or gorilla?

No brainer really. And I reckon any animal lover with kids will agree.

Interesting philosophical questions. No doubt I agree with you. But what if it was 100 gorillas. 1000? All of them?

Galwayguy35

Very sad that the gorilla lost his life because some fool wasn't watching her kid properly.

Not every human life is worth more than an animals either.

Lackey

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/06/01/rescue-mission-launched-as-thousands-stranded-on-higher-moral-ground/

daRobot

Candie wrote: »

I think you have to question the design of the enclosure if a 3 year old can just drop into it with little trouble.

Oh for sure. That should just not be possible in a zoo, even for an adult, let alone a little boy.

Zubeneschamali

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think it's just that an endangered and very intelligent species be taken out of it's natural habitat

Harambe was not taken from his habitat, he was bred in captivity.

steddyeddy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Harambe was not taken from his habitat, he was bred in captivity.

Still wrong that a very intelligent creature is in captivity and some less than protective mother and subpar zoo led to it's death.

Lackey

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Very sad that the gorilla lost his life because some fool wasn't watching her kid properly.

Have you seen the enclosure?
It wouldn't take any toddler I know more than a few seconds to hop it
I don't know if the parents were negligent or not but either does anyone else
That fence is way too low and we all know these things only take a second

ScumLord

Candie wrote: »

Still, I'd rather a hurt gorilla than a dead gorilla. If it was possible, you'd imagine they'd keep something reserved for this kind of scenario, but I guess it's not.

They could keep stuff in stock, but it would probably have to be pretty specific to the species. As far as I know these things go off, so they'd have to keep restocking a drug that they've never used and expect to never use. With tight budgets I wouldn't expect them to keep it up.

Candie wrote: »

Well, obviously it's a shot you can only take if he's some distance from the little guy. A massive dose of phenothiazine or similar trank would calm him almost immediately rather than agitating him, one of the issues was the stress he was under.

I doubt it would do much more than cause organ damage at high doses. As Peregrine points out we're used to getting our knock out drugs intravenously. Works instantly because it bypasses a lot of the bodies defences and get's pumped around the body instantly. Tranqs have to make there way through muscle and fat to get to the blood stream before they can even start having an effect.

Galwayguy35

Lackey wrote: »

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Very sad that the gorilla lost his life because some fool wasn't watching her kid properly.

Have you seen the enclosure?
It wouldn't take any toddler I know more than a few seconds to hop it
I don't know if the parents were negligent or not but either does anyone else
That fence is way too low and we all know these things only take a second

Of course they were negligent, if they were watching the kid he wouldn't have got in in the first place.

I know the zoo had no choice other than shoot it but it's sad it had to come to that.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Of course they were negligent, if they were watching the kid he wouldn't have got in in the first place.

I know the zoo had no choice other than shoot it but it's sad it had to come to that.

Have you ever met a little boy? They're everywhere and into everything, and that's one of the best things about them.

An enclosure that doesn't enclose is not fit for purpose, and the zoo is much more responsible than the parents, whose kid was just doing what kids do.

Pkiernan

The funny thing is that he was brought in as a breeder gorilla. Now he'll be a feeder gorilla when they give his carcass to the lions.

AWESOME !!!

Galwayguy35

Candie wrote: »

Have you ever met a little boy? They're everywhere and into everything, and that's one of the best things about them.

An enclosure that doesn't enclose is not fit for purpose, and the zoo is much more responsible than the parents, whose kid was just doing what kids do.

So you don't think the parents are at fault at all?

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So you don't think the parents are at fault at all?

I wasn't there, I don't know. I do know that things can happen in a split second and those parents probably thought the zoo had the gorillas in a safe enclosure.

The enclosure was breached by a tiny little boy. That is down to the zoo, the kid should have been able to run around and play safely in a family attraction, but instead he managed to get into a gorilla enclosure, and the only thing we know for sure from that is that that enclosure is not safe. Not for kids, and consequently not for the gorilla.

I don't know why people are keener to blame the parent than the zoo, when we don't know if the parent was negligent and we know for sure the zoo was.

Lackey

Would you blame a parent whose kid falls and breaks an arm or a leg right beside them?
I said this in another forum
Looking at the enclosure it wouldn't take any 4 year old I know more than a couple of seconds to climb up and fall in,
About the same length of time it took for James Bulger to be kidnapped from under his mothers nose by an 11 and 12 year old
Or about the same length of time it takes to fall break an arm, get a bruise
If the parents were negligent then fair enough but I'm thinking they might not have been, and that fence is way too low,

Lackey

Lackey wrote: »

Would you blame a parent whose kid falls and breaks an arm or a leg right beside them?
I said this in another forum
Looking at the enclosure it wouldn't take any 4 year old I know more than a couple of seconds to climb up and fall in,
About the same length of time it took for James Bulger to be kidnapped from under his mothers nose by an 11 and 12 year old
Or about the same length of time it takes to fall break an arm, get a bruise
If the parents were negligent then fair enough but I'm thinking they might not have been, and that fence is way too low,

Exactly. I don't have kids but I've taken my twin nephews to the zoo and you simply have to trust that these kinds of places are safe to take children. Little boys - and girls I'm sure - will climb, run around, be boisterous and get into everywhere, that's the way they're built and they should be able to play in a family attraction in the knowledge that their safety has been provided for.

It's hard to believe people rush to blame the parents but have no problem with a dangerous enclosure, with a huge wild animal inside. One poster even thinks the parents should reimburse the zoo for the gorilla! Jesus, what's wrong with peoples priorities!

Galwayguy35

Amazing the 2 of ye are such experts on the enclosure, have either of you even been to the zoo in question?