# ENDANGERED SILVER BACK KILLED, WHO'S AT FAULT



## Cowboy_Ken (Jun 3, 2016)

What am I concerned about here? While this tread has been active and taking place, here in the states, we've had a human child get through the containment barriers and fall into an endangered gray back gorilla enclosure. The child was taken in possession by this gorilla which resulted in zookeepers making the decision of killing/dispatching the gorilla. 
All of this, I'm sure, is just review. Now please understand that this forum is the extent of my "social network" on the Internet Machine. I don't participate in The Facebook or any of those other hip and trendy. All of that said, if heard many points of view in regard to who is at fault here. Distracted parents? Zookeepers acting too quickly without consideration? On and on it goes. 
My question concerning all of this is simple so it seems to me. Why was the barrier so wimpy that this kid was able to bypass it in the first place? Are the parents to blame that the zoo focus was towards containment of the animals verses protection of the humans from them-
selves? I don't know, I'd be concerned about two way protection.
That is all. Thank you for your time.


----------



## mark1 (Jun 3, 2016)

we need to fence in all the roadways , cliffs and ravines in our parks , the upper decks at stadiums should have a fence with barb wire on top instead of that 2 foot barrier that idiots and drunks fall over quite often ........ the cleveland zoos gorillas have the same type of barrier as the cincinnati zoo does if you want to step over the the fence , go through the bushes and jump down 20 feet , you too could find yourself face to face with a gorilla .......... well the cleveland zoo has had near 30,000,000 visitors over the last 20 years , i'd imagine the cincinitti zoo has had at least that , and one mom doesn't realize they're standing next to a 20 foot dropoff , "accidents happen" , i think that used to be called natural selection ............ well , we also need to warn folks that the hot coffee they just bought is hot ........... i can't imagine what this world is coming too , a complete lack of responsibility , it's always someone elses fault ...........


----------



## Jodie (Jun 3, 2016)

I think zoos struggle with providing a safe enclosure that allows viewing the animals. It was a serious drop. This zoo has had no other accidents. They will undoubtedly put up better barriers, so future visitors will not be able to see the gorillas as well.
I blame the parents 100 percent. Obviously a child's life has to be saved. I have seen the videos, and while I don't know gorillas, the zoo had to save the child. No risks can be taken.The parents who let this happen on the other hand disgust me. They could be fed to the lions in my opinion. A zoo is not the place to let your child run a muck.


----------



## Rue (Jun 3, 2016)

You can only go so far to protect people from themselves. This is not the zoo's fault and I hope they don't have to make anything 'more secure' than it is.

I would make the parents buy a new gorilla for the exhibit. While I'm being a bit facetious, that might actually send a message...the pocketbook speaks loudly...


----------



## dmmj (Jun 3, 2016)

kids climbing into gorilla cages, kids running amuck in restaurants and yelling talking in the movie theaters and crying I think it's all the same problem. Parents!


----------



## Tom (Jun 3, 2016)

mark1 said:


> we need to fence in all the roadways , cliffs and ravines in our parks , the upper decks at stadiums should have a fence with barb wire on top instead of that 2 foot barrier that idiots and drunks fall over quite often ........ the cleveland zoos gorillas have the same type of barrier as the cincinnati zoo does if you want to step over the the fence , go through the bushes and jump down 20 feet , you too could find yourself face to face with a gorilla .......... well the cleveland zoo has had near 30,000,000 visitors over the last 20 years , i'd imagine the cincinitti zoo has had at least that , and one mom doesn't realize they're standing next to a 20 foot dropoff , "accidents happen" , i think that used to be called natural selection ............ well , we also need to warn folks that the hot coffee they just bought is hot ........... i can't imagine what this world is coming too , a complete lack of responsibility , it's always someone elses fault ...........



You make a good point, and to a degree, I agree with you.

However, please consider this. Cliffs and ravines are naturally occurring things, not man-made constructs. Putting a bunch of potentially dangerous animals all in one place and then charging money for public viewing requires some degree of responsibility on the part of the facility. Should we just drop a black mamba in the middle of a crowd so they can all check it out, and assume that everyone knows to keep their distance? Should the crocs be kept in a normal park style pool because everyone knows not to wade into a croc pool, right? There is a difference between encountering a rattle snake on a hike in the wild, and a person putting a rattlesnake in your bed. I don't suggest we fence off every venomous snake on the planet, and if someone puts a venomous snake in my house, they _are_ responsible for what happens.

Sure, any barrier can be overcome by a determined individual, but what is debatable here is that a toddler easily penetrated the barriers at this zoo in a matter of seconds. Do they not have any responsibility to protect the public from their animals and their animals from the public? I think they have _some_ responsibility, and given what happened, they did not meet their level of responsibility. Its one thing if an agile teenager hops a fence. Its a _different_ thing entirely when a very young child can simply toddle into a 20 foot drop into a gorilla enclosure the moment an inattentive parent turns their back.

Ultimately though, I do blame the parents. There is not a parent alive, myself included, who does not have moments of inattention. Lucky for me, nothing catastrophic happened during my inattentive moments. But something could have. If catastrophe had struck at one of those moments for me, the consequences would certainly be my fault.

I don't see any denying dual responsibility in this case. The parent should have been paying closer attention, but the zoo should have also had a better barrier. Sadly, the gorilla is the one who had to suffer the consequences of humans learning these lessons.


----------



## Yvonne G (Jun 3, 2016)

The mother was busy taking selfies. She's at fault for not watching the kid. I had three kids only 10 or 11 months apart, so I had three toddlers all at the same time. I have personal experience. You have to watch them every minute when you're out and about.


----------



## Gillian M (Jun 3, 2016)

The parents' fault obviously; mother/father/both.


----------



## GRohr (Jun 3, 2016)

From what I remember reading the zoo not only met the safety requirements but exceeded them for the gorilla enclosure in their last inspection. Could a zoo make everything 100% safe, mostly likely, but i am sure it would make it less enjoyable. I personally hate looking through netting or chain link fences, especially when trying to take a picture. Sure glass helps but I don't think i have ever made a trip without kids banging on the glass to get the animal's attention. Plus, in the end, the zoo has to make money in order to stay open so they have to make it enjoyable for people.

I am sure being a parent is hard and takes a lot of attention to keep track of your kids but when going into a place like a zoo, I feel that the parents just have to pay 100% attention to your kids the entire time. I remember when i was young my parents would make me keep one of my hands in one of their pockets at all times. 

Toddlers just don't have any fear yet, nor do they understand the dangers that they put themselves into. I remember as a little kid if my parents looked away for 10 seconds while gardening I would be instantly 30 ft into our oak tree even after my dad cut all the low branches off trying to keep me out of it. This is why as a parent you just have to be responsible when taking your kids out into a place that could be dangerous for them. So in the end, i do think that the mother is 100% responsible for what happened. I sure hope she feels horrible about it and I do hope they make her give something back to the zoo in order to make things at least a little bit right.


----------



## Yvonne G (Jun 3, 2016)

GRohr said:


> ...... So in the end, i do think that the mother is 100% responsible for what happened. I sure hope she feels horrible about it and I do hope they make her give something back to the zoo in order to make things at least a little bit right.



I read that she's considering suing the zoo.


----------



## lisa127 (Jun 3, 2016)

Tom said:


> You make a good point, and to a degree, I agree with you.
> 
> However, please consider this. Cliffs and ravines are naturally occurring things, not man-made constructs. Putting a bunch of potentially dangerous animals all in one place and then charging money for public viewing requires some degree of responsibility on the part of the facility. Should we just drop a black mamba in the middle of a crowd so they can all check it out, and assume that everyone knows to keep their distance? Should the crocs be kept in a normal park style pool because everyone knows not to wade into a croc pool, right? There is a difference between encountering a rattle snake on a hike in the wild, and a person putting a rattlesnake in your bed. I don't suggest we fence off every venomous snake on the planet, and if someone puts a venomous snake in my house, they _are_ responsible for what happens.
> 
> ...


I am in 100% agreement with Tom. Dual responsibility, no doubt!

Are the parents partially at fault? Of course. But I will not judge beyond that or say what "should" happen to the parents. Not until I'm a 100% perfect parent.

Zoo enclosures should 100% prohibit even the most remote possibility of someone getting in as well. Or don't have zoos.


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Jun 3, 2016)

@ Yvonne G , thank you for the thread creation.


----------



## Jodie (Jun 3, 2016)

Yvonne G said:


> I read that she's considering suing the zoo.


No doubt, and she will probably win. Our society no longer holds individuals responsible. It is the zoos responsibility to keep the idiotic, and careless safe.


----------



## dmmj (Jun 3, 2016)

if you own a trampoline on your property have to get idiot insurance. A lawsuot is coming just a matter of when.


----------



## wellington (Jun 3, 2016)

lisa127 said:


> I am in 100% agreement with Tom. Dual responsibility, no doubt!
> 
> Are the parents partially at fault? Of course. But I will not judge beyond that or say what "should" happen to the parents. Not until I'm a 100% perfect parent.
> 
> Zoo enclosures should 100% prohibit even the most remote possibility of someone getting in as well. Or don't have zoos.


There is no and never will be a perfect parent. Common sense would do a lot of parents and people in general a whole lot of good.


----------



## wellington (Jun 3, 2016)

This is the parents fault and only their fault. You know your walking into a Zoo. You know there are a lot of possible danger areas at a Zoo and a lot of dangerous people at the Zoo, waiting for the idiot not paying attention to their child. This child wasn't of age where you drop the reins and let him/her go on their own. This was a toddler that the should of had ahold of at all times whether holding his hand, or in a stroller/wagon. If they were in an open area, like a picnic type area, then you can loosen the grip, as long as you still keep one eye always on them. Yes, I screwed up once, yes it only takes one time of your heart sinking and your brain thinking the worst to learn a lesson. Luckily for me, it was a panic of only seconds and nothing bad happened. Had something happened though, it would have been totally my fault, no matter what the situation was. This country is getting filled with sue happy, lazy parents, who has a stupid phone perminently suck to their faces!


----------



## wellington (Jun 3, 2016)

Btw, had the gorilla gotten out, then it would be 100% the Zoos fault!


----------



## Tom (Jun 3, 2016)

wellington said:


> This is the parents fault and only their fault. You know your walking into a Zoo. You know there are a lot of possible danger areas at a Zoo and a lot of dangerous people at the Zoo...



So you would be fine if a zoo just had a tiger staked out in the middle of a field with no cage or barrier of any kind, because people are supposed to watch their kids? 

You don't think there should be any sort of barrier, or impediment to access, because all people should just know better at all times?

You don't have any problem with the zoo for having a protective barrier insufficient to stop a little toddler?


----------



## Yvonne G (Jun 3, 2016)

There actually was a barrier. Just not a child-proof barrier.


----------



## wellington (Jun 3, 2016)

Tom said:


> So you would be fine if a zoo just had a tiger staked out in the middle of a field with no cage or barrier of any kind, because people are supposed to watch their kids?
> 
> You don't think there should be any sort of barrier, or impediment to access, because all people should just know better at all times?
> 
> You don't have any problem with the zoo for having a protective barrier insufficient to stop a little toddler?


I would have a problem with a Zoo that staked out an animal, yes. Not because there was no barrier, but because it shouldn't be staked out. There was a barrier. The barrier was good enough for anyone that was doing what they were suppose to be doing! I'm sick of parents/people now days being so lacking in common sense. Really, do they need to be told to watch their kids, the coffees hot, small items could be a choking hazard, duh. If I have a fence around my tortoises and someone walks in my yard to see them and decides to go further into the torts area and gets hurt, guess what, the fence was there for a reason and common sense should be enough. Fences and barriers have only two meanings in my book. 
1- to keep my (zoo) stuff in!
2-to keep everyone out!
If your not in, then that means you stay out!
Kids of this boys age, might not be able to see or read the do not climb, etc signs. Plus, they just need to be watched at all times! Parents and humans in general needs to stop pointing fingers, cuz when you do, there's four of those figures pointing right back at ya, the person who is to blame!


----------



## mark1 (Jun 3, 2016)

Tom said:


> Cliffs and ravines are naturally occurring things, not man-made constructs. Putting a bunch of potentially dangerous animals all in one place and then charging money for public viewing requires some degree of responsibility on the part of the facility. Should we just drop a black mamba in the middle of a crowd so they can all check it out, and assume that everyone knows to keep their distance? Should the crocs be kept in a normal park style pool because everyone knows not to wade into a croc pool, right? There is a difference between encountering a rattle snake on a hike in the wild, and a person putting a rattlesnake in your bed. I don't suggest we fence off every venomous snake on the planet, and if someone puts a venomous snake in my house, they _are_ responsible for what happens.


i was specifically thinking of ravines , cliffs and gorges where access is provided by the park service ..... there is one right by my house they provide a path and stairs to the top of a cliff , a trail along the edge and a path down the other side ...... if they provide your family access to it and your 4 yr old falls off the cliff would they not be as responsible ? your 4 yr old would not have been able to get there without their stairs ? i can think of many national parks across the country who provide stuff like this , nearby parking lots , access trails maintained by the park service , and even wheel chair access to some places , places you would never get your kids without their help ............i have seen exactly how that gorilla was displayed , not hardly like throwing a mamba in a crowd ..... a fence , i'd guess 3 feet , bushes , and the bushes you couldn't walk through they are dense and hard , either you'd need to go over them or under them , then a small cement wall with a 20 foot drop on the other side .......


----------



## lisa127 (Jun 3, 2016)

wellington said:


> There is no and never will be a perfect parent. Common sense would do a lot of parents and people in general a whole lot of good.


Yes, not denying that.


----------



## lisa127 (Jun 3, 2016)

wellington said:


> I would have a problem with a Zoo that staked out an animal, yes. Not because there was no barrier, but because it shouldn't be staked out. There was a barrier. The barrier was good enough for anyone that was doing what they were suppose to be doing! I'm sick of parents/people now days being so lacking in common sense. Really, do they need to be told to watch their kids, the coffees hot, small items could be a choking hazard, duh. If I have a fence around my tortoises and someone walks in my yard to see them and decides to go further into the torts area and gets hurt, guess what, the fence was there for a reason and common sense should be enough. Fences and barriers have only two meanings in my book.
> 1- to keep my (zoo) stuff in!
> 2-to keep everyone out!
> If your not in, then that means you stay out!
> Kids of this boys age, might not be able to see or read the do not climb, etc signs. Plus, they just need to be watched at all times! Parents and humans in general needs to stop pointing fingers, cuz when you do, there's four of those figures pointing right back at ya, the person who is to blame!


Yes, people need to stop pointing fingers. Exactly my point! This was a horrible tragedy for everyone involved. Time to stop berating the parents and just feel bad about what happened.


----------



## lisa127 (Jun 3, 2016)

wellington said:


> This is the parents fault and only their fault. You know your walking into a Zoo. You know there are a lot of possible danger areas at a Zoo and a lot of dangerous people at the Zoo, waiting for the idiot not paying attention to their child. This child wasn't of age where you drop the reins and let him/her go on their own. This was a toddler that the should of had ahold of at all times whether holding his hand, or in a stroller/wagon. If they were in an open area, like a picnic type area, then you can loosen the grip, as long as you still keep one eye always on them. Yes, I screwed up once, yes it only takes one time of your heart sinking and your brain thinking the worst to learn a lesson. Luckily for me, it was a panic of only seconds and nothing bad happened. Had something happened though, it would have been totally my fault, no matter what the situation was. This country is getting filled with sue happy, lazy parents, who has a stupid phone perminently suck to their faces!


And lucky for you, it wasn't on social media so that you could be berated by the world.


----------



## lisa127 (Jun 3, 2016)

GRohr said:


> From what I remember reading the zoo not only met the safety requirements but exceeded them for the gorilla enclosure in their last inspection. Could a zoo make everything 100% safe, mostly likely, but i am sure it would make it less enjoyable. I personally hate looking through netting or chain link fences, especially when trying to take a picture. Sure glass helps but I don't think i have ever made a trip without kids banging on the glass to get the animal's attention. Plus, in the end, the zoo has to make money in order to stay open so they have to make it enjoyable for people.
> 
> I am sure being a parent is hard and takes a lot of attention to keep track of your kids but when going into a place like a zoo, I feel that the parents just have to pay 100% attention to your kids the entire time. I remember when i was young my parents would make me keep one of my hands in one of their pockets at all times.
> 
> Toddlers just don't have any fear yet, nor do they understand the dangers that they put themselves into. I remember as a little kid if my parents looked away for 10 seconds while gardening I would be instantly 30 ft into our oak tree even after my dad cut all the low branches off trying to keep me out of it. This is why as a parent you just have to be responsible when taking your kids out into a place that could be dangerous for them. So in the end, i do think that the mother is 100% responsible for what happened. I sure hope she feels horrible about it and I do hope they make her give something back to the zoo in order to make things at least a little bit right.


Who cares if it makes it less enjoyable. If we choose to put on display for gawkers wild animals weighing hundreds of pounds then it is essential it is as secure as possible.


----------



## wellington (Jun 3, 2016)

lisa127 said:


> And lucky for you, it wasn't on social media so that you could be berated by the world.


Don't care. The truth does disturb people doesn't it.


----------



## lisa127 (Jun 3, 2016)

wellington said:


> There is no and never will be a perfect parent. Common sense would do a lot of parents and people in general a whole lot of good.


You do realize when I said "until I'm a perfect parent" I did not really mean that and was trying to make a point right? My kids are adults...I think I've figured that out by now.


----------



## lisa127 (Jun 3, 2016)

wellington said:


> Don't care. The truth does disturb people doesn't it.


Obviously


----------



## wellington (Jun 3, 2016)

lisa127 said:


> Yes, people need to stop pointing fingers. Exactly my point! This was a horrible tragedy for everyone involved. Time to stop berating the parents and just feel bad about what happened.


I can't agree about berating the parents. Way too many of them want to blame everyone but themselves. Besides, have they once said anything about it being their fault? Any thing at all? Not that I heard. They jumped on the band wagon of blaming the zoo. Possibly got caught up in the ambulance chasing lawyers little line of thousands they can get, but still their fault. They didn't watch their kid. Plain and simple . Had they been doing their job as a parent, none of this would have happened. The Zoo had barriers, they nor did the gorilla throw the kid in the enclosure. Look at all the kid had to go thru to get to a place to fall in. Enough time, too much time, for the parents not to notice their kid was gone. I do feel sorry, for the poor animal.


----------



## Razan (Jun 3, 2016)

Maybe this child will grow up to be an animal conservationist. Does a 4 year old remember specific events ? I have none from so young. He will see the video and hear what his family says about this incident. What will this child take in from this experience?

My guess is the parent(s) will sue. Because of our twisted society lawyers will rake in a settlement and the adults will squander the money and the zoo will build a better barrier that they are already working on anyway.

In the end we have a dead gorilla and a traumatized child due to (negligent parents) a series of unfortunate events.


----------



## Razan (Jun 3, 2016)

Before entering a park we will all soon be required to sign a waiver of responsibility. Our society is making it mandatory because of our laws. If people could just be reasonable and accept responsibility for their own actions we would not need laws.


----------



## leigti (Jun 3, 2016)

I don't think people would be jumping on the parent so hard if the parent would just except responsibility. If she said "it was my fault, he just got away from me" I think a little sympathy would go her way rather than ridicule. And don't even get me started on the animal rights people who are condemning the zoo for shooting the gorilla. How many of them are true animal behaviorist? Did they see what happened during the entire episode? Eyewitnesses have said that there was more to it than just the video that has been seen by so many people. And what would they do if it was their son? And what would they have said if the gorilla would have killed that boy either by accident or by strength or aggression? 
I think many people are very detached from animals in general. From wild animals down to the random pet dog. They forget that these are living breathing thinking creatures that cannot be controlled by our whims. 
I'm not sure how to make a barrier that can't be crossed by somebody. Little kids can fit in amazingly small places and they are very flexible  and a determined adult can get through about anything either. The only so-called winner in this case was the little boy, he came out with minor injuries and he may not even remember it.


----------



## dmmj (Jun 3, 2016)

I've always been in favor of removing all the warning labels and let nature take its course but some people consider that harah


----------



## dmmj (Jun 3, 2016)

growing up as a child a neighbor of mine had a nurse shark in a giant pond in his backyard. kids were always going into his backyard looking at it I was of the proper raising that you didn't go back there unless you ask


----------



## Eric Phillips (Jun 4, 2016)

The human species is one of the smartest yet dumbest on the planet. We will never know what that Silverback gorilla was thinking at that moment, but it probably was "Damn humans can't ever keep their kids in line anymore!" To "holy **** they shot me like I was an unarmed human!" Fact is The negligence is on both sides, the zoo and the parents. Maybe next time the zoo should have an on staff Chris Pratt from Jurassic World to save the day! All I do know is circumstances happen for a reason. Whether humans take the time, money, and resources to learn from them to implement educated and proper change is another story. Then again we are talking humans and wild captive animals together in one big house....it's going down for real!!!


----------



## save the gopher tortoise (Jun 4, 2016)

mark1 said:


> i was specifically thinking of ravines , cliffs and gorges where access is provided by the park service ..... there is one right by my house they provide a path and stairs to the top of a cliff , a trail along the edge and a path down the other side ...... if they provide your family access to it and your 4 yr old falls off the cliff would they not be as responsible ? your 4 yr old would not have been able to get there without their stairs ? i can think of many national parks across the country who provide stuff like this , nearby parking lots , access trails maintained by the park service , and even wheel chair access to some places , places you would never get your kids without their help ............i have seen exactly how that gorilla was displayed , not hardly like throwing a mamba in a crowd ..... a fence , i'd guess 3 feet , bushes , and the bushes you couldn't walk through they are dense and hard , either you'd need to go over them or under them , then a small cement wall with a 20 foot drop on the other side .......


I believe that instead of killing the gorilla they should of tranquilized it as any animal should not be killed for "attacks" as its not their fault they don't know any better its like if they executed that kid that accident my killed there parents.


----------



## Rue (Jun 4, 2016)

They couldn't tranquilize it. It takes time for the tranquilizer to work. It hurts to get hit with a dart.

So you have an already upset and agitated gorilla...with a toddler in hand...you shoot the gorilla with a dart...it hurts...it aggravates the gorilla more...it takes time to work (10 minutes? More?)

What do you think is going to happen?


----------



## wellington (Jun 4, 2016)

I agree to a degree. A tranq does make wild animals run and go crazy until it takes hold. However, I think they should have given the gorilla a chance and over tranq him and gave a shooter on stand by if it didn't work. The gorilla would have either went down with no damage to the kid, he would have died from getting too much, or it would have not worked good enough and the shooter was there to shoot him. It at least gave the animal a chance. After all, he did nothing wrong, at least a chance would have been nice, seeing if he wanted to kill that kid, it would have happened as soon as the kid was had by him. 
Now, not only did the gorilla die, but the kid is probably traumatized and not to mention the trauma to some of the kids and people there while it was happening.


----------



## Jodie (Jun 4, 2016)

I believe they had to shoot the gorilla. The child's life is more important than the animal! No contest. The reason this decision had to made though is disgusting.


----------



## Rue (Jun 4, 2016)

wellington said:


> I agree to a degree. A tranq does make wild animals run and go crazy until it takes hold. However, I think they should have given the gorilla a chance and over tranq him and gave a shooter on stand by if it didn't work. The gorilla would have either went down with no damage to the kid, he would have died from getting too much, or it would have not worked good enough and the shooter was there to shoot him. It at least gave the animal a chance. After all, he did nothing wrong, at least a chance would have been nice, seeing if he wanted to kill that kid, it would have happened as soon as the kid was had by him.
> Now, not only did the gorilla die, but the kid is probably traumatized and not to mention the trauma to some of the kids and people there while it was happening.



That would have taken too much time to set up.


----------



## JoesMum (Jun 4, 2016)

I am only going to contribute to answer the thread title. 

In my opinion the zoo had inadequate fencing to prevent access to the enclosure. Therefore it is to blame. 

The parent may have been to blame for lack of supervision, but equally a small child can disappear with the speed of a Horsfield in search of adventure. 

Should the gorilla have been shot? That's not the title of this thread.


----------



## Eric Phillips (Jun 4, 2016)

Jodie said:


> I believe they had to shoot the gorilla. The child's life is more important than the animal! No contest. The reason this decision had to made though is disgusting.



We don't honestly know if this child's life is more important. In 20 years the silverbacks could be extinct causing a flux in ecosystems and this child could be incarcerated for murdering another human. I'm not trying to devalue human life but there are plenty of factors at play. This is why it's such a sad situation.


----------



## Rue (Jun 4, 2016)

I don't fault the zoo whatsoever. This not a 'backyard' zoo that an individual has set up that is subpar. I've been to those.

If you open a facility to the public, you need to ensure that it is safe for its intended reasonable use. This zoo was. No one can foresee every possible unreasonable use that an individual might come up with.

I think part of the fault lies in public perception of zoos as being Walt Disney lovey-dovey. Animals are NOT obligated to behave like cutsie cartoons.

Maybe the answer lies in more security personnel being present. Maybe you do have to have guests sign waivers - just to make them aware of issues?

I know this is an unpopular POV...but I dislike this whole notion that zoos are for children and should be geared towards children. While using Zoos to educate children and garner interest in the 'natural' world is great - this notion that they are playgrounds is quite awful when you think about it.


----------



## Rue (Jun 4, 2016)

Eric Phillips said:


> We don't honestly know if this child's life is more important. In 20 years the silverbacks could be extinct causing a flux in ecosystems and this child could be incarcerated for murdering another human. I'm not trying to devalue human life but there are plenty of factors at play. This is why it's such a sad situation.



This child could also grow up to be a Mayor of Cincinnati or discover the cure for cancer...so that's not a good argument. 

You could argue that 1 human of 7 billion is less valuable than 1 gorilla out of 100,000 - but even that's a rocky road to travel on.

OT: Was this child 3 or 4? You'd think that's a fact that reporters could actually check and report accurately.


----------



## wellington (Jun 4, 2016)

Rue said:


> That would have taken too much time to set up.


Not any more time then it already took. The tranq I'm sure is just as easy to grab as a gun. It could have all been done within the same time frame as killing him. Just one extra shot might have had to happen if the stronger tranq didn't work, the the gun is fired


----------



## Eric Phillips (Jun 4, 2016)

Rue said:


> This child could also grow up to be a Mayor of Cincinnati or discover the cure for cancer...so that's not a good argument.
> 
> You could argue that 1 human of 7 billion is less valuable than 1 gorilla out of 100,000 - but even that's a rocky road to travel on.
> 
> OT: Was this child 3 or 4? You'd think that's a fact that reporters could actually check and report accurately.



Yeah you missed the point but that's ok.


----------



## Rue (Jun 4, 2016)

Eric Phillips said:


> Yeah you missed the point but that's ok.



No. I didn't. But that's okay too...


----------



## Rue (Jun 4, 2016)

wellington said:


> Not any more time then it already took. The tranq I'm sure is just as easy to grab as a gun. It could have all been done within the same time frame as killing him. Just one extra shot might have had to happen if the stronger tranq didn't work, the the gun is fired



Maybe if they had that set up in the first place - as an emergency plan - and had run safety drills so everyone knew what to do, I doubt they did. So...to do that would have required extra thinking, planning and time. They didn't have time.

I'm on the gorilla's side...it's a terrible tragedy and poor guy got the worst of it. But I don't think...in that situation...that the zoo had another viable choice. Hopefully this incident will fuel some useful changes as to how zoos operate, deal with emergencies and the responsibility of the visitors to the zoo.


----------



## wellington (Jun 4, 2016)

Oh, I keep forgetting to add. If this were my child, I would have been in that enclosure trying to sacrifice myself to save my son. If he was going to be killed by the gorilla, I was either going with him or die trying to save him. Nice parents(mother) here. Stand there while saying mommies here. People risk their lives for strangers every day, but a mother didn't risk anything for her son. I guarantee, had that been a mother gorilla with her baby in danger, she would have done something


----------



## leigti (Jun 4, 2016)

One of the zoo officials said that their emergency response team does actually train for these sorts of situations. But there are so many variables that you can't train for everything.
I think the little kid could get into the enclosure much easier than the mother could have.
It seems like some parents have a false sense of security or expectations of public places. They think that once they walk into the door they can just let the kids go, whether it's a zoo, and amusement park, a restaurant whatever. 
I really hope that this thing doesn't turn into a big nasty lawsuit, but unfortunately in our society it tends to. Commonsense says it is a sad situation all around, but looking for blame just turns it into a circus.


----------



## Turtlepete (Jun 4, 2016)

Opening up Facebook currently is like being slapped in the face by distasteful Harambe memes and tons of social networkers who have suddenly obtained zoology degrees.

The mother is at fault and should rightly be incarcerated and prosecuted for negligence. People go to jail for child abuse for so much less, yet no blame has fallen on this mother. Instead this has been used as a rallying point for animals rights morons to try to force zoos to give up their animals.

The zoo can't be blamed for "insufficient fencing". They have the same fencing as every other fencing in the country has, given that they ALL follow the exact same regulations set in place to assure they have adequate and secure housing for the animals they care for. The zoo can not be expected to go above and beyond with perimeter fencing to prevent one stupid mother from allowing her child to do what he should not have been able to do under proper supervision.

Nor can the zoo staff be blamed. I just about puke every time I see some Facebook warrior commenting how whoever shot it should be prosecuted for animal abuse. Yes, because obviously the casual Facebook warrior had more love for a gorilla they had never met and never knew existed before this catastrophe than the zookeepers that had spent a decade with the animal. Anyone who thinks they wanted to shoot that gorilla is certifiably nuts. A child's life was at risk and they did what it took to save his life. Was he in immediate danger of losing his life? Probably not. Could other measures have been employed other than killing the gorilla? Absolutely. But these things happen in the span of a few minutes. The zoo staff did what they felt was necessary in the heat of the moment.

And as far as the argument for "insufficient fencing" on the zoo's part goes, I would like to point out something. One of the many purposes of zoos is to foster a connection between humans and animals. Countless environmentalists, ecologists, conservationists, anyone who did something important in the field of animals likely connected with those animals in a zoo setting. Had they never been to a zoo, all of their accomplishments would have never happened. Zoos play an integral part in fostering this connection and, hopefully, convincing people and children to give a damn about these animals and help do what it takes to save them.

Every new barrier we erect makes this connection fainter and fainter. I remember as a child going to Lion Country Safari (any other Floridians been there?). You could drive right through a safari park with lions walking around your car. Amazing! Nowadays, there are four trip wires, two fences and four men in trucks to watch you, all separating you from those lions nearly a hundred yards away. What kind of interaction is this? What child is going to catch a glimpse of fur and suddenly be infatuated by that animal, and be inspired to spend his life trying to save them? None. I for one would like to remain being able to see animals within 100 yards of me at a zoo. I would be quite pissed off if I lost that ability because of one negligent mother and her child.


----------



## african cake queen (Jun 5, 2016)

I went shopping on Saturday at the supermarket . A young child in the shopping cart, kept standing up in the cart. I told both parents, twice, your baby is going to fall to the floor, could you watch him? Later the baby fell from the cart and thank God, fell in with the red meats and not the floor. Dam, that store should have a meat enclosure. I wasn't the only person telling these parents to watch the child. They(bad parents) are all around us.


----------



## Jodie (Jun 5, 2016)

Eric Phillips said:


> We don't honestly know if this child's life is more important. In 20 years the silverbacks could be extinct causing a flux in ecosystems and this child could be incarcerated for murdering another human. I'm not trying to devalue human life but there are plenty of factors at play. This is why it's such a sad situation.


Yes, we do honestly know that human life is more important than animal life.


----------



## mark1 (Jun 5, 2016)

are the car manufacturers responsible for the parents that leave their kids to die in a hot car ? they have cars that can drive themselves , certainly they could make one to tell you your baby is still in the car ? this is completely and solely the moms fault .... it's estimated there are 181,000,000 visitors to zoos annually , so they should have to make adjustments so one negligent visitor out of 181 million cannot harm themselves or their kids ? the cleveland zoo has a train to get you around , a kid could more easily run out in front of it than get in with any of the animals ..... the fact there are a portion of folks think the zoo is at fault , imo , speaks poorly for our future .... there are times when you absolutely cannot lose track of your 3yr old kid , and standing next to a 20 foot fall with a gorilla at the bottom would be one ........ in yellowstone every year some idiot gets off the boardwalk for a selfie with the geysers , or some numbnut tries to pet a buffalo , or approach a bear ............... here's the new fence , it's 42" tall , what's next is parents standing their kids on the fence so they can see , and the unattended kids under 42" climbing up on it to see .......
.


----------



## wellington (Jun 5, 2016)

african cake queen said:


> I went shopping on Saturday at the supermarket . A young child in the shopping cart, kept standing up in the cart. I told both parents, twice, your baby is going to fall to the floor, could you watch him? Later the baby fell from the cart and thank God, fell in with the red meats and not the floor. Dam, that store should have a meat enclosure. I wasn't the only person telling these parents to watch the child. They(bad parents) are all around us.


And some parents would want to sue the store for not having, oh I don't know, a cage on the cart instead of just a seat belt which they obviously didn't use.


----------



## african cake queen (Jun 5, 2016)

wellington said:


> And some parents would want to sue the store for not having, oh I don't know, a cage on the cart instead of just a seat belt which they obviously didn't use.


There was a belt, not used. I thought the kid was going to crack his head open. Seems they think the village should help watch their kids.


----------



## african cake queen (Jun 5, 2016)

Jodie said:


> Yes, we do honestly know that human life is more important than animal life.


Sorry, not always.


----------



## african cake queen (Jun 5, 2016)

african cake queen said:


> Sorry, not always.


Very tired of rude , selfish people , who have no time to watch their children.


----------



## wellington (Jun 5, 2016)

african cake queen said:


> There was a belt, not used. I thought the kid was going to crack his head open. Seems they think the village should help watch their kids.


I never believed in it takes a village. I had one kid and that's all I'm raising. If people would pay more attention to raising their kids, they would need a village.


----------



## ColleenT (Jun 5, 2016)

The child took more than 10 seconds to get in there. probably a few minutes. Mom was warned by the child that he was going in there. She STILL turned her back on a 4 yr old child. Kidnappers or anything else could have happened in that amount of time. I totally blame the mother, and i think she should be held responsible for this tragedy.


----------



## african cake queen (Jun 5, 2016)

ColleenT said:


> The child took more than 10 seconds to get in there. probably a few minutes. Mom was warned by the child that he was going in there. She STILL turned her back on a 4 yr old child. Kidnappers or anything else could have happened in that amount of time. I totally blame the mother, and i think she should be held responsible for this tragedy.


I have seen toddlers in the toy dept. At stores, while the parents shop.it takes a village to care for a child? Maybe a village idiot! You can call these people out......mind your own business? Is what I hear. I carry a bat I. In my car, sometimes dogs like to breathe in a hot CaR, I like making breathing holes. Sick and not taking the abuse on children or animals.Always have a ball and glove in the car, your LAWYER Will thank you


----------



## theguy67 (Jun 6, 2016)

wellington said:


> I agree to a degree. A tranq does make wild animals run and go crazy until it takes hold. However, I think they should have given the gorilla a chance and over tranq him and gave a shooter on stand by if it didn't work. The gorilla would have either went down with no damage to the kid, he would have died from getting too much, or it would have not worked good enough and the shooter was there to shoot him. It at least gave the animal a chance. After all, he did nothing wrong, at least a chance would have been nice, seeing if he wanted to kill that kid, it would have happened as soon as the kid was had by him.
> Now, not only did the gorilla die, but the kid is probably traumatized and not to mention the trauma to some of the kids and people there while it was happening.



We have to look at the facts. The fact is that none of us (as far as I know) work at a zoo that implements these types of procedures in such an event. Sure, it "sounds" like a good idea to just sedate the animal instead of kill it, and I've seen many post that on social media, where (to me) they probably don't know enough to make such a judgement. I am not familiar with tranquilizers other than they do take time to work, even if you "over tranq" him. How long does it take a Gorilla to kill a child? Probably a lot less time than it does to put him to sleep. 

I've seen many people claim that the gorilla was "protecting the child", or "comforting" him. The problem with social network is it really lets you see the snap judgements those who are not qualitifed to make, make. A Zoo keeper, who worked with gorillas stated that he was displaying a stressful presence, which makes sense when you have a strange creature in the male's enclosure and others yelling from the observation area. 

Also, from a PR perspective. A dead Gorilla is far better, publicly, than a dead child, where the Gorilla may have been euthanized anyway.


----------



## kelii (Jun 22, 2016)

It's the parents fault. I have seen too many lazy parents not superving their children. Can you watch your kid 24/7, no, but that's no excuse not to try.


----------

