The death of Harambe the gorilla

steddyeddy

I understand people lose track of their child but in this case the potential loss is too great. The zoo carries most of the blame IMHO but I think there should be some sort of rule whereby the parents have some liability for what happened.

iguana

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Beyond ridiculous of the zoo to not have more in place than that. Sure smaller kids could fit between the wires without even having a notion that there's **** all behind those hedges.

It's a really weird design as the hedges actually make it more dangerous. A small child won't be able to see over them and will be seriously tempted to climb the lower part of the fence to see the gorillas. Imagine a family there with more kids than adults and the child not being lifted to see over the fence, takes matters into his/her own hands and stand on the wooden fencing to look over. Tbh, the really surprising thing is that it hadn't happened already and the zoo, spokesman's comments that their fencing was adequate as kids can climb over anything, was really disheartening.

I watched the cheetah's get fed yesterday at Fota and I can tell you that there aren't any small children I know who could scale the 7 or 8 ft tall chicken wire style fence, with electrified wires running through it that separated us from them. While obviously that kind of fencing would be overkill for the gorillas there needed to be something better than what was there.

SEPT 23 1989

I am the proud owner of a five year old who this afternoon managed to cut his foot stepping on a plastic toy soldier in the thirty seconds I went out to have a piss

I don't blame the parents

steddyeddy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I am the proud owner of a five year old who this afternoon managed to cut his foot stepping on a plastic toy soldier in the thirty seconds I went out to have a piss

I don't blame the parents

I don't believe parents are never responsible for their kids.

SEPT 23 1989

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't believe parents are never responsible for their kids.

Within reason eddy

ButtersSuki

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They nearly lost their child.

That wasn't my question.

RebelButtMunch

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Are we still talking about one enclosure? Just trying to decide if we'll need a bigger gun or not.

The enclosure is our mind

steddyeddy

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

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.

Not at all. The animal is endangered. It is highly intelligent and very emotional. Humans are over populating the planet.

steddyeddy

It should also be noted that humans are killed to preserve gorilla species i.e pochers executed.

Wailin

steddyeddy wrote: »

It should also be noted that humans are killed to preserve gorilla species i.e pochers executed.

Rightfully so.

steddyeddy

Wailin wrote: »

Rightfully so.

Oh dead right. There is no "more important" in the animal kingdom.

ceadaoin.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I understand people lose track of their child but in this case the potential loss is too great. The zoo carries most of the blame IMHO but I think there should be some sort of rule whereby the parents have some liability for what happened.

They didn't even need to "lose track of their child" for this to happen. Literally looking away for a few seconds would be enough time for a child to get over that fence. That is 100% the zoos fault.

I don't know how many kids were with this family on the day but apparently they have 4 children. Taking their eyes off one of them for a matter of seconds is not neglect.

BorneTobyWilde

They went a little ape shiit if you ask me, it was banana's to shoot to kill. They could of
offer it nuts in exchange for the kid, if it fails to agree increase the amount of nuts. If it still fails to do a deal shoot it.

ButtersSuki

Sorry am I missing something here? If this fence was so easy to get through/under/over (whichever), what is there to stop the gorillas escaping? Surely there was more than the fence shown in the pic a few pages back?

steddyeddy

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They didn't even need to "lose track of their child" for this to happen. Literally looking away for a few seconds would be enough time for a child to get over that fence. That is 100% the zoos fault.

I don't know how many kids were with this family on the day but apparently they have 4 children. Taking their eyes off one of them for a matter of seconds is not neglect.

It took seconds to get into the enclosure?

Lackey

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Sorry am I missing something here? If this fence was so easy to get through/under/over (whichever), what is there to stop the gorillas escaping? Surely there was more than the fence shown in the pic a few pages back?

Past the fence and the few bushes bushes that are on a slope there is a 15 ft drop down into the enclosure you're not missing anything that's it in the pictures
I'm surprised the child wasn't seriously injured by the fall alone
And for a kid to end up on the wrong side of that fence and then roll down would only take seconds

Dravokivich

Lackey wrote: »

Here it is do you honestly think it would take more than a few seconds for a four year old to climb that and fall down into the animals?

Not sure about the species of gorilla in Dublin zoo, but the area for gorillas is just surrounded by water as they cant swim with a low fence like the one displayed in your photo. Seems a bit complacent to me because they are only conisidering the animals limitations when designing an area to display them.

Discodog

It's quite a common problem in zoos. The requirement should be to securely enclose the animals. But there is now the need to stop the public from joining them.

The zoo had no choice other than to shoot the Gorilla. No matter how gentle the Gorilla was the slightest thing could of made it react.

bur

I'm all for letting apes eat the children of idiot parents.

Chain Smoker

iguana wrote: »

It's a really weird design as the hedges actually make it more dangerous.

I'd say the hedges are to stop the gorillas from going nuts by hiding the crowd of people watching them all day every day.

Would hardly hurt to put a net behind it or something though, yeesh.

yqtwqxqm

I watched the video and couldnt help thinking what the hulk did to Loki.

Very sad situation at the zoo, but the right decision.
Zoo is at fault for allowing anyone to be able to get into an enclosure

crazygeryy

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

They went a little ape shiit if you ask me, it was banana's to shoot to kill. They could of
offer it nuts in exchange for the kid, if it fails to agree increase the amount of nuts. If it still fails to do a deal shoot it.

What if the ape wanted a few females and a steak dinner?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

It should also be noted that humans are killed to preserve gorilla species i.e pochers executed.

Executed in the sense of trial and execution?

That's just...completely insane!

bnt

How long has it been - a week? Harambe's hairy squeeze has already moved on (vid is a bit Discovery Channel NSFW):

https://twitter.com/iKeepItTooReal/status/738148058207129601

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

Executed in the sense of trial and execution?

That's just...completely insane!

They have guns and are fully prepared to use them on the park rangers, anyway who cares if a poacher gets shot.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

They have guns and are fully prepared to use them on the park rangers, anyway who cares if a poacher gets shot.

Dead?

For poaching?

I'd care. We don't dispense with justice and move to summary execution in the case of people who kill other people, I don't think it's a good idea where people kill animals.

If you mean killed in the course of an exchange of fire, of course that's different. But that's far from execution, that may happen where anyone who is committing a crime draws a gun.

Wailin

Deleted User wrote: »

Dead?

For poaching?

I'd care. We don't dispense with justice and move to summary execution in the case of people who kill other people, I don't think it's a good idea where people kill animals.

If you mean killed in the course of an exchange of fire, of course that's different. But that's far from execution, that may happen where anyone who is committing a crime draws a gun.

They're not poaching deer. These are endangered animals on the critical list.....facing fcuking extinction. So if execution doesn't deter them then let them off, they know the outcome.

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

Dead?

For poaching?

I'd care. We don't dispense with justice and move to summary execution in the case of people who kill other people, I don't think it's a good idea where people kill animals.

If you mean killed in the course of an exchange of fire, of course that's different. But that's far from execution, that may happen where anyone who is committing a crime draws a gun.

Well the cases I read about were in an exchange of gunfire between the Rangers and the poachers but TBH if I heard of a case of a dirty poacher getting a bullet it wouldn't bother me.

These animals are facing extinction, take the rhino for example, having it's horn hacked off often while still alive and left to suffer a slow painful death under the African sun.

Maybe you care if someone who does that gets a bullet but I won't.

Wailin

Wailin wrote: »

They're not poaching deer. These are endangered animals on the critical list.....facing fcuking extinction. So if execution doesn't deter them then let them off, they know the outcome.

Um...why is the life of a deer so cheap?

Surely the animal hardly knows if it's endangered.

Know of fellows who poach deer. I'd be all for catching and prosecuting, but not execution. I find the idea that we should execute people for poaching any animal to be just...insane.

Wailin

Poaching deer? Couldn't care less. There's thousands of them and they need culling, no natural predator since extinction of the wolf in Ireland. Poaching an endangered animal, on the other hand is a different story. 8 billion humans on the planet and rising......600(or so) wild mountain gorillas....

As i said, If a bullet doesn't deter poaching then let them off.

Wasn't one thread enough?
Bigger outcry over a Gorilla being killed by necessity than an innocent man shot over mistaken identity!

Galwayguy35

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Wasn't one thread enough?
Bigger outcry over a Gorilla being killed by necessity than an innocent man shot over mistaken identity!

Why don't you start a thread about that then.

And maybe tell us who exactly you are talking about.

kleefarr

I think the crowd panicking and screaming made the gorilla nervous.
From the video I saw, the gorilla was initial very cool and genuinely intrigued by the child but when the screaming started it panicked and then took off with the child. This was when it all started to go pear shaped.
Unfortunate.

Pac1Man

After the dust has kinda settled and the general consensus is 'sad but necessary', let's take a moment to give a silent nod of approval to size of the shooter's balls.

What a pressure shot to take, regardless of distance. Had he missed the shot, who knows what the consequences would have been.

Wailin

Wailin wrote: »

Poaching deer? Couldn't care less. There's thousands of them and they need culling, no natural predator since extinction of the wolf in Ireland. Poaching an endangered animal, on the other hand is a different story. 8 billion humans on the planet and rising......600(or so) wild mountain gorillas....

As i said, If a bullet doesn't deter poaching then let them off.

Well, good that it wasn't a mountain gorilla so.

And while I appreciate you may not care less about deer and poaching them is fine, I disagree. I think poachers should be prosecuted. There are, for example, only 1,000 or so red deer, the only native species.

Not sure I understand the last line about letting them off.

mansize

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkPMCmnWYAQKFt3.jpg:large

SEPT 23 1989

Pac1Man wrote: »

After the dust has kinda settled and the general consensus is 'sad but necessary', let's take a moment to give a silent nod of approval to size of the shooter's balls.

What a pressure shot to take, regardless of distance. Had he missed the shot, who knows what the consequences would have been.

He was hardly a fast moving small target

MadDog76

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?

If anybody is at risk of being sued it's the Zoo, they'd be paying compensation to the child's family.

There's a few questions raised by this incident ...........

Should Gorilla's (or any wild animals) be kept in a Zoo? It's a separate topic but there are both positives and negatives to keeping endangered species in Zoos.

Was the Mother to blame for this incident? No .......... it's difficult enough trying keep an eye on a toddler (especially if you have more than one child) which is one of the reasons Zoos are so popular with parents.
When you enter a Zoo with your child you feel a sense of security, ie. "even if my child does wander off and get lost at least he/she will be lost in the Zoo with very little chance of him/her being able to find his/her way out before being found."
And the thought of your child being able to access the animals (or vice versa) would seem an impossibility.

Was the Zoo to blame? To a certain extent, yes, obviously ......... but I'm sure the Zoo felt that the enclosures were completely impenetrable and would never intentionally leave a gap ......... it was a design fault caused by human error, it happens and we learn from our mistakes.
The Zoo redeemed itself by taking decisive action resulting in the child being secured without any major injuries and should be applauded, in my opinion.

It's very easy to criticise in hindsight.

The off-topic discussion about "should the Gorilla have even been in the Zoo!?!!" is just the usual suspects jumping on an easy target in this case ......... it's a valid discussion but a bit redundant to bring it up in this situation.

Samaris

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

He was hardly a fast moving small target

Nooo, but I wouldn't like to have the responsibility of shooting a gorilla in front of a crowd with a small child in the shot as well and knowing if I didn't get the kill on the first shot, things could get very nasty indeed.

Especially if I was a worker there, probably was acquainted with the gorilla and really didn't want to kill it anyway under normal circumstances.

steddyeddy

Is the default position now to shoot every gorilla that happens to be in an enclosure when someone falls in? Should we have executed the apes in the last two cases where a human entered it's cage?

MadDog76

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is the default position now to shoot every gorilla that happens to be in an enclosure when someone falls in? Should we have executed the apes in the last two cases where a human entered it's cage?

I think it should be dealt with case by case ......... in the most recent case, the right decision was made.

deandean

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is the default position now to shoot every gorilla that happens to be in an enclosure when someone falls in?

Wasn't there a 'suicide by lion' a few weeks back where a guy entered a lion enclosure?

It'd be very unfair to shoot the lions in that case.

Galwayguy35

deandean wrote: »

Wasn't there a 'suicide by lion' a few weeks back where a guy entered a lion enclosure?

It'd be very unfair to shoot the lions in that case.

They did shoot the lions.

Discodog

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think it should be dealt with case by case ......... in the most recent case, the right decision was made.

Wow we agree on something !

I would of thought that you would want at least two marksmen. Even a headshot might not render it instantly unconscious.

As for the fences etc zoos probable assume, wrongly, that people will use common sense. A child had it's arm ripped off at the shoulder by a chimp in an English zoo years ago. The parents had lifted the child onto the safety barrier so that it could hand the chimp a banana.

This is why many zoos use glass rather than bars.

Wailin

Discodog wrote: »

Wow we agree on something !

I would of thought that you would want at least two marksmen. Even a headshot might not render it instantly unconscious.

As for the fences etc zoos probable assume, wrongly, that people will use common sense. A child had it's arm ripped off at the shoulder by a chimp in an English zoo years ago. The parents had lifted the child onto the safety barrier so that it could hand the chimp a banana.

This is why many zoos use glass rather than bars.

In fairness chimps are malicious and deadly dangerous animals compared to a gorilla. I would rather be in a cage with 3 gorillas rather than 1 chimp.

steddyeddy

Chimps are a very very different story to gorillas. I have spent time near the former and it's not something I'd rush to do again.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Chimps are a very very different story to gorillas. I have spent time near the former and it's not something I'd rush to do again.

For me it's pretty simple, we shouldn't ponder too long about the sensitivities of the ape, if there is any chance it will harm a child then ape gets bullet...then analyse the incident.

steddyeddy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For me it's pretty simple, we shouldn't ponder too long about the sensitivities of the ape, if there is any chance it will harm a child then ape gets bullet...then analyse the incident.

Not with a endangered ape. In fact human lives are often put second to endangered apes.

MadDog76

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not with a endangered ape. In fact human lives are often put second to endangered apes.

In my view, an endangered ape becomes even more endangered if a human life is at risk, ie. ape dies so human can live, just as it should be ........ there is no justification for the reverse, that's just a warped way of seeing things.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not with a endangered ape. In fact human lives are often put second to endangered apes.

The ape was born in captivity and was not going to leave captivity, contributing nothing to the species' endangered status. What real use is a captive ape's life? Is this zoo involved in breeding programs to increase wild populations?

I think the worst comment I've heard about this event is "three year old boys aren't endangered". If the child is deemed replaceable, so is the captive bred ape.