Big Guy Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 A few days ago, a 3 year old child fell into a gorilla enclosure at a zoo. One gorilla made contact After 10 minutes, the gorilla was shot dead. The child was treated for minor injuries. http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/dallas-zoo-considers-adding-new-safety-barriers-after-cincinnati-gorilla-killed.html/ There was an investigation and a report was distributed: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/06/480962408/no-charges-against-family-in-gorilla-incident-at-cincinnati-zoo "Discussing the May 28 incident, Deters said the boy's mother "did not act in any way where she presented this child to some harm. She had three other children with her and turned her back." At that point, the boy scampered off, he said. And to anyone who believes a 3-year-old can't get far in a short amount of time, he said, "They can and they do.". "Deters also added that he was glad the zoo had altered the border around the gorilla feature." Looks like "no harm, no foul". Wrong - lots of harm: A gorilla was killed because of a human screw up somewhere. If you cannot handle four young children then you do not take them out in public without additional adult help. What if that child was on the sidewalk in a mall and ran out into the road and was killed while "she turned her back while looking after 3 other children"". Would that be an acceptable excuse? I think not. How can a 3 year old get into a gorilla enclosure? Were the bars too far apart? Was the barrier too low? Did the secondary safety measures not work? Were there secondary safety measures? I found ti interesting that "the zoo altered the border around the gorilla feature". Why would they make any alterations if they were adequate and safe in the first place. Looks to me like the only individual who come out looking good is the gorilla - and he is dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 A gorilla was killed because of a human screw up somewhere.So what? How many cats and dogs are killed in shelters because no one wants them? How many chickens, pigs and cows are killed to feed humans. The value of an animals life is not the same as a human's. The only issue is the gorilla was an asset belonging to the zoo that had to be destroyed. That is a concern for the zoo management and no one else. Why would they make any alterations if they were adequate and safe in the first place.Because it is impossible to anticipate every possible exploit and protect against them. When issues come up procedures are reviewed and changes are made. Looks to me like the only individual who come out looking good is the gorilla - and he is dead.The Gorilla treated a human child as a rag doll. If the Gorilla had acted differently it would still be alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 Interesting view. And it the child was killed by the fall into the enclosure then ....? "Zoo spokeswoman Michelle Curley said the outer barrier will now be 42in high – a half foot taller than before – with solid wood beams on top and at the bottom, plus knotted rope netting at the bottom." Now why would they do that if they considered it to be safe before the changes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 Interesting view. And it the child was killed by the fall into the enclosure then ....?Safety procedures are based on the assessment of plausible risks. Prior to this incident it was not reasonable to assume a young child would purposefully ignore the barrier. Zoo's now know differently and should adjust their procedures. What you seem to be missing is a design for safety is always a trade off between cost and risk. One may identify a small risk but choose to not to address it because the cost was too much given the likelihood of a problem. As time goes on these risks are re-evaluated with new information but that does not mean the original assessments were bad giving the information available at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 So what?Gorillas are almost extinct. That makes it special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 This story is cutting edge. Did you guys hear Mohamed Ali died? What's stupid about this story is the armchair zoologists and child welfare activists who can tell for sure that Harambe wasn't going to rip the child a part AND that the parents should be charged for allowing being so negligent. The armchair commentary in this case from people sheltered by the safety of the internet is, quite frankly, disturbing. What's also disturbing is the online abuse these parents have received. People should feel ashamed of themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) Gorillas are almost extinct. That makes it special. This one was raised in captivity though, it's not like it was ever going to see outside of a zoo. And would that have made it any less horrific if the child was ripped limb to limp on cellphone camera? Edited June 7, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 Gorillas are almost extinct. That makes it special.Chickens would be nearly extinct too if they weren't so tasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 This one was raised in captivity though, it's not like it was ever going to see outside of a zoo.But he carried a valuable genetic code. The kid, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 But he carried a valuable genetic code. The kid, not so much. Valuable to who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) Valuable to who?Not you. Only those who have an interest in seeing that gorillas don't go extinct. Edited June 7, 2016 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 But he carried a valuable genetic code. The kid, not so much. Yes...he was so valuable that his distant cousin Vinny was killed for bush meat to feed "less valuable" kids in Africa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 Yes...he was so valuable that his distant cousin Vinny was killed for bush meat to feed "less valuable" kids in Africa.Yes, unfortunately it isn't hard to find people who care as little as you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 I see that we have people that believe it's alright if an animals kills a defenceless human as long as it's endangered. COOL!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 I see that we have people that believe it's alright if an animals kills a defenceless human as long as it's endangered. COOL!!!No. As you said, the gorilla made his choice to be a gorilla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 Sorry gorilla loving liberals...you had your chance to abort the little boy before this event at the zoo. Better luck next time.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 Bubber, would the karmic scales be balanced if they put the mother into the cage with the surviving gorillas? Because the DNA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 In today's society, do we really NEED zoos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 Agreed with Topaz. No need to confine wild animals for people's enjoyment in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 Agreed with Topaz. No need to confine wild animals for people's enjoyment in this day and age.Who says the animals are not happier having all of the needs taken care of? Do you really think that the 'daily grind' of hunting and/or gathering food is more enjoyable for animals than it would be for humans? Do you really believe that animals enjoy living in daily fear of predators? Given the alternatives life in a zoo can be much better from an animal welfare perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 I'm sure the money generated from having a zoo help in conservation efforts. Much like the trophy hunting of older animals in Africa helped fund conservation efforts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 Gorillas are almost extinct. That makes it special. If gorillas go extinct, would that be the end of the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 Who says the animals are not happier having all of the needs taken care of? Do you really think that the 'daily grind' of hunting and/or gathering food is more enjoyable for animals than it would be for humans? Do you really believe that animals enjoy living in daily fear of predators? Given the alternatives life in a zoo can be much better from an animal welfare perspective. Why don't you ask the animals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) Why don't you ask the animals?I did not try to argue that zoos should be closed based on my opinion of 'what is best for animals'. If anyone needs to have a discussion with the animals about what they would like it would be you. Edited June 9, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 Who says the animals are not happier having all of the needs taken care of? Do you really think that the 'daily grind' of hunting and/or gathering food is more enjoyable for animals than it would be for humans? Do you really believe that animals enjoy living in daily fear of predators? Given the alternatives life in a zoo can be much better from an animal welfare perspective. There's some exceptions but generally animals don't like captivity. They have a natural instinct to avoid it, so it triggers anxiety and a fight or flight fear response. From a raw instinct point of view they like it about as much as you would. Now I could put you in a cage and over time that natural disposition could be programmed away. We could maybe even breed it right out of you given a generation or two so that future offspring of the TimG species didnt have it. An African sold into slavery on an American plantation in many ways had a better life than one that remained in Africa... But like I said that natural opposition to captivity is a bigger motivating factor for most animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.