Cincy Zoo kills critically endangered gorilla to save boy

[wiggletard]

The thing about animals is this, they do not have a brain that functions as a human's. A cow, a domestic species, can be incredibly unpredictable. A cow can be a lovely animal that drops its head to be hugged. But they can also become wildly violent in a heartbeat if you make a (perceived) threatening gesture. Gorillas are similar. At one moment the gorilla can be curious and gentle. The next moment the gorilla could go into a fit of rage due to thoughts of danger.

[Adam Jensen]

Well, there'd only be 6,999,999,999 of us left if we lost the boy.

[Stormdash]

Why didn't they just tranq it?

As is explained in nearly every article covering the story, a tranquilizer dart is not instantaneous in real life, just in movies and on TV. Many, or most, animals can react dramatically to the dart, both the pain and the onset of drugs, and could have put the boy in more danger.

This really isn't a scenario with many alternatives outside candy-land.

The OP's question is obtuse, suggesting that maybe there's some moral ambiguity here, that since a toddler "decided" (as though there was some consciousness of the will or contextual understanding of the assumed risk, right?) to enter the enclosure, that maybe they should just accept the danger to him or even his death Because Gorilla. Yeah, no. Obviously the zoo personnel did the only thing they rationally could do in the situation at hand. They can kick themselves for years on that the enclosure could be overcome by a toddler, they can ban the parents from the damn zoo for not paying more attention, but the die was cast for that gorilla the second he took hold of the boy.

[Vash The Stampede]

Things like curing cancer (which cancer?) or discovering dark matter are going to be team efforts. The era of one-man genius has effectively been killed by the complexity that these fields have achieved.

The point is that human life shouldn't be compared to something like a Gorilla, even an endangered Gorilla. We justify letting the boy die by quantifying it with statistics. And yes it takes a team of people to do something like cure cancer, but whatever. If you wanted the boy dead you could say he could be a murderer when he grows up. Serial rapist.

You people are starting to sound like the Witches from hundreds of years ago.



Also a few things to think about.

#1 Why is an endangered Gorilla in a Zoo? To make money of course. If the Gorilla was that endangered, why a Zoo with people all around?
#2 The Gorilla was going to die anyway, cause if the boy was harmed by the Gorilla, the public would vilify it, and have it put down.
#3 The headline was meant to enrage people about the situation, probably so the Zoo doesn't get sued to hell and back. How does a boy get access to the area where the Gorilla was to begin with? Obviously not enough precautions were put in place so idiots don't fall in. The Zoo wants the public to be on its side, to hopefully convince courts and the boys family that they're not at fault. Won't work, but they're a for profit company, not a for endangered species.

[TirielWoW]

#1 Why is an endangered Gorilla in a Zoo? To make money of course. If the Gorilla was that endangered, why a Zoo with people all around?

The zoo in question is actually part of a conservation effort to save the gorilla from extinction. Harambe was there as a breeding male. It's not dissimilar to what's been done with other endangered species.

[Deleted]

The next moment the gorilla could go into a fit of rage due to thoughts of danger.

And this differs from several humans.. how exactly?

I don't know if you've watched the news but people have been exhibit some middle age level brutal shit lately.

[Bathory]

Thanks shitty parenting, not only did you get an endangered animal killed, but you've surely fucked the rest of the zoo for everyone else.

[Katchii]

Yeah that four year old is a real fuckwad.

My point was that it's the parents fault for not keeping tabs on the little shit. I know he doesn't know any better, at that age. Used the term fuckwad on the wrong people... oops.

[TirielWoW]

My point was that it's the parents fault for not keeping tabs on the little shit. I know he doesn't know any better, at that age. Used the term fuckwad on the wrong people... oops.

I think pretty much everyone is going, "WTF?" at the parents.

My mom said it best...if you have a small child that's a darter (both my younger brothers were darters at that age), you need to put them on a leash for their own protection and the protection of others. When a child is that young, and they have already expressed interest in getting into the enclosure, you should have a hold of them at all times.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

While I don't question the decision of the zoo, I do find it quite tragic that the situation even occurred. I think criminal negligence charges should be pursued against the family.

[Lillyth]

Tense situation, sure.

Though a tranquilizer would have surely been more than enough. Just goes to show that this zoo should be in the hands of competent people, not the ones currently running it.

[Captnrex]

The point is that human life shouldn't be compared to something like a Gorilla, even an endangered Gorilla. We justify letting the boy die by quantifying it with statistics. And yes it takes a team of people to do something like cure cancer, but whatever. If you wanted the boy dead you could say he could be a murderer when he grows up. Serial rapist.

You people are starting to sound like the Witches from hundreds of years ago.



Also a few things to think about.

#1 Why is an endangered Gorilla in a Zoo? To make money of course. If the Gorilla was that endangered, why a Zoo with people all around?
#2 The Gorilla was going to die anyway, cause if the boy was harmed by the Gorilla, the public would vilify it, and have it put down.
#3 The headline was meant to enrage people about the situation, probably so the Zoo doesn't get sued to hell and back. How does a boy get access to the area where the Gorilla was to begin with? Obviously not enough precautions were put in place so idiots don't fall in. The Zoo wants the public to be on its side, to hopefully convince courts and the boys family that they're not at fault. Won't work, but they're a for profit company, not a for endangered species.

1- what HeatherRae said

2- no it wouldn't have, because A) it's endangered and B) the kids MINOR injuries were probably from his stupid actions as we saw the gorilla wasn't really doing much besides dragging him in water for the first while.

3- because it is the fucking kids fault an endangered animal was killed, the kid knew what he was doing climbing through what is meant to stop you from ACCIDENTALLY falling over. Also

but they're a for profit company, not a for endangered species.

Of course they have to make money, can't pay for food and employees otherwise, but please tell me how they are not trying to help conservation and endangered species.

[spinner981]

I hope you don't masturbate, then. Or do you hold a funeral for all of your lost sperm afterwards?

Seeing as I've been in this discussion many times, and this kind of thing is the best that can get thrown out there in defense of pro-choice ideas, with not actual science or non-arbitrary reasoning being given, I see no reason to respond to it.

Try harder next time, rather than just copy-pasting a typical non-answer response that accomplishes nothing.

I mentioned birth control, lol. I guess for some people, it is one and the same...hopefully not many people, though.

Birth control is a vague term that can include late term abortion as well. If you wanted to be more specific, nobody was stopping you. So don't act like its not your fault that you weren't specific enough.

Maybe. Really its speculation on both of our parts, but I really suspect that, unless there was some damaged fencing or something similar, that the child in question was probably unattended for longer than a few seconds.

I can't really see how the fencing would be so complex so as to delay a three year old for multiple minutes without just outright stopping him.

More like when someone takes failing at parenting to new levels (which it is, considering that multiple sources state the kid informed the parents about his retarded idea and they did fuck all to prevent it). And they do so because of having too many other kids to take care of. But who'd care about such details, straw is more interesting.

The parents said no. What did you want them to do? Immediately leave the zoo? Maybe bust out the child leash? No, you are too busy trying to find a scapegoat to blame for the death of the 'poow gowilla', along with all the other people who were also having an anti-humanity field day when that one lion was killed.

[Hooked]

I live fairly close to Cinci. The subject is fairly heated here. In my opinion, what was done was necessary. You never know how an animal will respond to anything. Especially a near adult 300 lb primate.

But I firmly believe the parent/gaurdian needs to be held responsible. You dont just "crawl" into an exhibit. The parents either did not watch their child for an extended period of time or they just did not care. There were reports of spectators observing the child say that they wanted to go into the exhibit. At that point a reasonable parent would keep a sharp eye on the child.

I agree, its really sad but they didn't really have any other choice. The parent(s) should be held accountable though for a minimum of child neglect. The zoo should also be investigated to see what other spots unattended toddlers can sneak into and whether or not it is unsafe.

[TirielWoW]

Tense situation, sure.

Though a tranquilizer would have surely been more than enough. Just goes to show that this zoo should be in the hands of competent people, not the ones currently running it.

It's been explained so many times why a tranquilizer wouldn't work. They don't start working immediately - it takes several minutes for it to kick in. The pain from being darted would probably have agitated the gorilla further, and he was already dragging the 40lb child around like a rag doll and apparently throwing him at points.

[socialmaker]

Gotta be careful, the audience here tonight is edgier than a 20-sided dice.

Of course they did the right thing. How that is even a question is mind-boggling to me.

People nowadays don't use their brains anymore
lateredit: Also it seems that people are experts in chemistry, zoo management, politics, and so on.

[TirielWoW]

I think pretty much everyone is going, "WTF?" at the parents.

So, I thought this was the case, but I just had an argument with a friend of facebook who feels that it wasn't the parent's fault because the child's hand was in the mother's pocket, and he just "darted off" in an instant and it was the zoo's fault for not making the enclosure harder to get into (I guess they could enclose it in plexiglass or something...).



Remember, it's never the parents' fault.

[Hooked]

I would have jumped into the gorilla pit if that was my son down there.

[Celista]

Birth control is a vague term that can include late term abortion as well. If you wanted to be more specific, nobody was stopping you. So don't act like its not your fault that you weren't specific enough.

No one uses abortion as a form of birth control. This is a ludicrous discussion to drag out however, sadly the woman in question did not have enough foresight to control her reproduction beforehand.

[spinner981]

No one uses abortion as a form of birth control. This is a ludicrous discussion to drag out however, sadly the woman in question did not have enough foresight to control her reproduction beforehand.

If people are trying to control whether or not they give birth, it would make sense to me that abortion is one method of that. Isn't that where abortion gets its name from? Aborting the pregnancy? Aborting the child's birth?

That's very nice though. This child falls into a gorilla enclosure and its straight to "That child shouldn't have been born."

So, I thought this was the case, but I just had an argument with a friend of facebook who feels that it wasn't the parent's fault because the child's hand was in the mother's pocket, and he just "darted off" in an instant and it was the zoo's fault for not making the enclosure harder to get into (I guess they could enclose it in plexiglass or something...).



Remember, it's never the parents' fault.

Do we have access to a picture of the enclosure in question? More specifically the fencing that the child got through?