Here's the crux of the matter: "The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals released a statement from its primatologist Julia Gallucci saying the zoo should have had better barriers between humans and gorillas."
Outrage grows after gorilla, Harambe, Shot dead at Cincy zoo
- Thread starter GK4Herd
- Start date
There have been several instances of children falling in gorilla exhibits. None of the children were killed by the gorillas and none of the gorillas were killed.
I understand why they did it, but that gorilla wasn't going to kill that kid. Unlike humans, gorillas only kill to either eat or when they fill threatened. He did with that child exactly what he would have done to protect the young in his group if he saw them injured.
I understand why they did it, but that gorilla wasn't going to kill that kid. Unlike humans, gorillas only kill to either eat or when they fill threatened. He did with that child exactly what he would have done to protect the young in his group if he saw them injured.
I think we are all missing the better solution: they should have shot the gorilla in the leg, to wound him. That would have stopped him.
Those other instances involved female gorillas. And no the gorilla wasn't acting aggressive to the boy but he was getting agitated and with everyone screaming above him and an intruder in his territory it's not hard to see that the gorilla could have become aggressive. And hell gorillas can crush a coconut with their bare hands, whether or not the gorilla was being aggressive doesn't mean he couldn't have killed the boy
what are your credentials that puts your opinion above...
Jack Hanna - "I'll bet my life on this, that child would not be here today," Hanna told WBNS-TV
The Cincy Zoo director - "Maynard said the decision to kill the gorilla was the right one. He said the gorilla was agitated and disoriented by the commotion during the 10 minutes after the boy fell. He said the gorilla could crush a coconut in one hand and there was no doubt that the boy's life was in danger."
Rob Vernon - Rob Vernon, a spokesman for the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, which accredits zoos, said it expected a report from the Cincinnati Zoo. “We’ve heard from thousands of people around the world, colleagues all the way to Jane Goodall, zoo directors from all over the world, with both sympathy and with support for a difficult decision,” he said.
i think this is more of "have kids" vs "don't have kids". at least that's how my Facebook is playing out. hardcore conservatives and liberals on the same side of the debate...
some good memes are starting to pop up though:
Yeah, even though it's fun to paint liberals with a broad brush, the main complainers I've seen on social media reside on outskirts of both sides of the political spectrum. Hardcore conservative, personal responsibility people and hardcore liberal, PETA people coming together to blame bad parents for dying gorillas.i think this is more of "have kids" vs "don't have kids". at least that's how my Facebook is playing out. hardcore conservatives and liberals on the same side of the debate...
some good memes are starting to pop up though:
Both are using the same arguments as to why the gorilla didn't/shouldn't have to die.
It will die down in about a week though. They'll go back to recycling the same Hillary/Bernie & Trump memes.
Last edited:
I was at the Cincy zoo the day after this happened, and have been in that exhibit several times.
First off, the barrier is more than enough protection for onlookers. There is a waist high railing, then about 4 feet of vegetation, and then another small fence before the 12 foot drop into the moat. The parents had to be completely oblivious to their child's actions when this happened. That said, a child did breach the barrier, so there will be some way over the top correction now, like a plexiglass wall.
Second, the zoo had no choice but to shoot the gorilla. The video floating around that everyone is referencing about how the gorilla seemed to be protecting the child is only 2 minutes long. Witnesses said this incident lasted 10 minutes, and the gorilla was becoming more agitated as time went one. What the video doesn't show is the gorilla dragged the kid back up the side of the moat to the top habitat area. I don't think the gorilla was intentionally hurting the child, but it was pretty obvious to the zoo staff that he wasn't letting him go and was dragging him around like a rag doll. How long do you let that go on? The Gorilla was 450 pounds and extremely strong, the child would have eventually been severely injured or killed.
First off, the barrier is more than enough protection for onlookers. There is a waist high railing, then about 4 feet of vegetation, and then another small fence before the 12 foot drop into the moat. The parents had to be completely oblivious to their child's actions when this happened. That said, a child did breach the barrier, so there will be some way over the top correction now, like a plexiglass wall.
Second, the zoo had no choice but to shoot the gorilla. The video floating around that everyone is referencing about how the gorilla seemed to be protecting the child is only 2 minutes long. Witnesses said this incident lasted 10 minutes, and the gorilla was becoming more agitated as time went one. What the video doesn't show is the gorilla dragged the kid back up the side of the moat to the top habitat area. I don't think the gorilla was intentionally hurting the child, but it was pretty obvious to the zoo staff that he wasn't letting him go and was dragging him around like a rag doll. How long do you let that go on? The Gorilla was 450 pounds and extremely strong, the child would have eventually been severely injured or killed.
Fvck that. If my son let loose of my back pocket for 3 seconds and crawled his ass (and he could crawl faster than my ass could walk when he was younger) and fell into a gorilla exhibit I'd want the gorilla shot also. I have two 6 year olds, I've told them 100 times "DO NOT CHASE THE FVCKING BALL INTO THE G.D ROAD" And they still do it. Kids don't always listen, and it's not always the parents fault. These idiots saying "let the kid die" are buffoons.
1. As a parent, you can't hold your kids hand 100% of the time
2. Why the fvck did the zoo have an exhibit that allowed access for a kid to fall through to begin with?
3. The gorilla no doubt would've killed it, whether it was intentional or not it doesn't matter.
4. No gorilla is worth the life of a child.
5. Why the fvck couldnt Trump and Clinto fall into a gorilla exhibit?
1. As a parent, you can't hold your kids hand 100% of the time
2. Why the fvck did the zoo have an exhibit that allowed access for a kid to fall through to begin with?
3. The gorilla no doubt would've killed it, whether it was intentional or not it doesn't matter.
4. No gorilla is worth the life of a child.
5. Why the fvck couldnt Trump and Clinto fall into a gorilla exhibit?
I don't doubt that there are shitty parents taking this opportunity to be critical and get some self edification. I will still take this opportunity to take shot at idiot left wing liberals who are more prone to be PETA typesi think this is more of "have kids" vs "don't have kids". at least that's how my Facebook is playing out. hardcore conservatives and liberals on the same side of the debate...
some good memes are starting to pop up though:
I'm starting to think people think Jungle Book was a documentary.
I in no way claimed any knowledge on Gorilla behavior except to note was has occurred in previous cases. I also said I understand why they shot it. Personally I believe the gorilla would not have intentionally hurt the child. If the area was cleared, reducing the stress to the animal, his handlers that he was familiar with most likely could have resolved the situation and gotten the kid out. I understand why they wouldn't go that route because the risk of liability was much too high.
With that said, Jack Hannah, who has a long association with the zoo, would not say they did something wrong even if he personally believed they did. Same with the national zoo association.
With that said, Jack Hannah, who has a long association with the zoo, would not say they did something wrong even if he personally believed they did. Same with the national zoo association.
Well, ok let's say the removed the people from the area. Who is going to go in and get the child? Wouldn't that induce more stress on the gorilla? Also, if they shot it with a tranquilizer it would take up to 10 minutes for it to take effect. I would imagine he would have been pissed after getting hit with a dart gun. There was also the threat of the child drowning in the water.
Jack Hanna has no association with the Cincinnati Zoo. His association is with the Columbus Zoo.
He has a long history working with the Cincinnati Zoo, he worked for the Columbus Zoo.
Herdman, the gorilla stood the boy up so he wasn't face down in the water, so I doubt he would have drown. Those gorillas have the same staff working with them every day, people they are very familiar with, who feed them, and have been around them for years. The agitation came from the reaction of the crowd.
Again, I'm not saying that shooting him was a dumb thing, was probably the right thing from a better safe than sorry view, but unlike humans, gorillas aren't known to kill indiscriminately. They will kill if they feel threatened and to eat.
Herdman, the gorilla stood the boy up so he wasn't face down in the water, so I doubt he would have drown. Those gorillas have the same staff working with them every day, people they are very familiar with, who feed them, and have been around them for years. The agitation came from the reaction of the crowd.
Again, I'm not saying that shooting him was a dumb thing, was probably the right thing from a better safe than sorry view, but unlike humans, gorillas aren't known to kill indiscriminately. They will kill if they feel threatened and to eat.
He also dragged him by the leg face down through water and over concrete
99% of the population watched the edited video and decided the gorilla was playing patty cake with the kid. there are a handful of "raw" videos showing the gorilla pissed off. these aren't on the news because they do not fit the popular social idea that the poor gorilla was helping the kid. the gorilla violently drags the kid by his ankle face down in the water the length of the habitat. the zoo officials said this was a show of dominance and the same thing he would have done with a log before bashing it over a rock on the ground.
the fact is, not a single person on this planet knows if that gorilla would have bashed that baby's skull in given another 5 minutes, 2 minutes, or even a second.... the kid is alive and will hopefully live a long and prosperous one...
the fact is, not a single person on this planet knows if that gorilla would have bashed that baby's skull in given another 5 minutes, 2 minutes, or even a second.... the kid is alive and will hopefully live a long and prosperous one...
now...to the important stuff...
Even the zookeeper who raised that gorilla from birth said he stopped going into the enclosure, not because that specific gorilla was a threat but because, according to him, once they get to 100 lbs what they consider to be play will easily hurt an adult even if they don't see them as a threat. A 450 lb silverback isolated with a 4 year old - I don't even see how there's a question. I am disgusted it had to happen but given the situation, sadly that was the only option. The zoo should be held accountable for the kid being able to get in there but absolutely the parents should have to answer for the results of their negligence.
To me, he took the kid away from the commotion being caused by the onlookers, took him to the other end of the exhibit away from the crowd.
Yet again I will say I am not saying shooting him was a bad idea, just that I believe he wasn't going to intentionally hurt the kid.
Yet again I will say I am not saying shooting him was a bad idea, just that I believe he wasn't going to intentionally hurt the kid.
Whether he hurt him intentionally or unintentionally what's the difference? Dead is dead
I think there's a misunderstanding with regard to the gorilla's intent. I don't think anyone is saying he shouldn't have been shot because he wasn't intentionally hurting the child. I think people feel it is more tragic that it had to go down the way it did because the gorilla didn't seem inclined to intentionally hurt the child. In other words, the outcome was appropriate, but more tragic because of the gorilla's seeming benign interaction with the kid.
Interesting. I didn't realize so many people studied gorilla behavior.
So if I show up at your house and grab your toddler by the leg and drag him across the floor like a rag doll you'll consider that benign?
Harambe, the gorilla, was shot dead on his birthday. Watch the video - he was about to go apeshit thinking the zoo gave him the worst gift ever - a four year old to raise.
Yeah, 'cause that's the same thing.
That entire line off reasoning presumes an animal would act like a person or vice versa.
Btw, I don't see anyone claiming to be an expert on animal behavior. However, the experts that have spoken out on this issue by and large contend the gorilla wasn't acting in a state of anger or threatening the child.
That's exactly why the gorilla was doing. I could be playing with your kid but if I drag him by the leg face down in water you'd probably be getting very upset at me.
