Rare Gorilla Shot and Killed After Boy Falls Into Enclosure At Zoo

[Mitchell]

One of the top stories on

www.cnn.com.

The second story down the list, as I post this, at 945am Eastern, on Monday morning.

A rare Gorilla was shot and killed, after a four year old boy fell into the enclosure where the gorilla was, at the Cincinnatti Zoo.

After this incident, it is being questioned as to whether it was really necessary for the zookeepers to shoot and kill the rare Gorilla.

I think this is a most unfortunate situation all around.

While it is certainly understandable about the zookeepers concern for the boy's welfare, I think it is most unfortunate that there was no other option other than to kill the Gorilla.

Thoughts on this incident?

 

[TMF Jeff]

To me, the responsibility is 100% on the zoo.

Not that the parents won't carry the guilt of wishing they'd been more alert in that moment, but parents are human and sometimes they think their tiny person is at their side when they've actually dashed away, and I think that every parent occasionally loses track of their kid.

Especially when they're in a zoo, surrounded by sights and sounds, crowds and signs, and every kind of distraction possible. The child is yelling that they want to see the gorilla, and the parent is scanning all the signs and their map, looking for the gorilla area, and in that five second gap the kid takes off and it takes another five seconds of frantically looking around to spot him again - and that's if you're lucky and he hasn't disappeared into the thronging masses.

When you have a zoo and you invite the public, you implicitly promise that if a parent takes their eyes off their child, that child will not accidentally end up in a gorilla enclosure. Why are their gorillas enclosed in a way that a toddler can somehow penetrate?

 

[Hemmen]

I've read the article further and am taking back some of what I said.

When something like this happens, we can see it as a terrible incident that could have been tragic for that family (thankfully it wasn't), brought on by an unfortunate combination of events - or we can resort to assigning blame.

If we want to play the blame game, do we pin responsibility on the zoo, the parents, the zoo employees or the other visitors?

If the zoo is entirely responsible, as Jeff said, then what more could they have done to prevent this? It took some effort for the boy to get into the gorilla enclosure. What could zoos add that would thwart a determined child? We don't want to go back to the days when gorillas and other animals were put in cages, do we?

If someone wants to blame the parents or the people who shot the gorilla, more power to them. But I'm not going there. As Jeff said, every parent sometimes loses sight of a child. They shouldn't be painted as horrible people for that, and neither should the zoo staff who shot Harambe; they were faced with a quick decision that none of us should ever have to make.

What about blaming the crowd, then? If you want to point fingers, I guess you could include them. According to the article, their screaming and yelling is what set off the gorilla. It apparently wasn't a threat to the boy until the crowd agitated it.

But, as I said, maybe we can see this as unfortunate circumstances coming together to result in a possible tragedy and an animal's death instead of handing out blame. Just my two cents.

 

[TMF Jeff]

I agree with you that ultimately there's really nobody to "blame." It was obviously something nobody foresaw, because I'm confident that nobody at the zoo ever said "Well, a kid might slip through here but let's just ignore that." But nonetheless, I still would put the responsibility for the incident on the people running the zoo for failing to foresee and prevent this, because that's their implied promise to the public.

I read a proposal for a zoo where the animals were allowed to basically roam free, in segregated areas, and the human visitors were to be kept in windowed tunnels. To me that's by far the safest, to say nothing of most humane, way to handle it - if you absolutely have to have zoos in the first place.

And maybe it's time to rethink the usefulness of zoos anyway. It was one thing when it was 1785 and you would go to a zoo and have your mind blown by the existence of an elephant. But we all know about elephants and apes now, we don't have to cram them into a box for people to gawk at anymore.

The occasional place like the San Diego Zoo, where they're heavily devoted to conservation and education, and at least are making a sincere effort to treat the animals humanely, seems fine to me. But most small local zoos should just shut down once and for all.

I mean, it's the 21st century, so maybe it's time to stop treating living creatures as if they're a form of entertainment.

I've read the article further and am taking back some of what I said.

When something like this happens, we can see it as a terrible incident that could have been tragic for that family (thankfully it wasn't), brought on by an unfortunate combination of events - or we can resort to assigning blame.

If we want to play the blame game, do we pin responsibility on the zoo, the parents, the zoo employees or the other visitors?

If the zoo is entirely responsible, as Jeff said, then what more could they have done to prevent this? It took some effort for the boy to get into the gorilla enclosure. What could zoos add that would thwart a determined child? We don't want to go back to the days when gorillas and other animals were put in cages, do we?

If someone wants to blame the parents or the people who shot the gorilla, more power to them. But I'm not going there. As Jeff said, every parent sometimes loses sight of a child. They shouldn't be painted as horrible people for that, and neither should the zoo staff who shot Harambe; they were faced with a quick decision that none of us should ever have to make.

What about blaming the crowd, then? If you want to point fingers, I guess you could include them. According to the article, their screaming and yelling is what set off the gorilla. It apparently wasn't a threat to the boy until the crowd agitated it.

But, as I said, maybe we can see this as unfortunate circumstances coming together to result in a possible tragedy and an animal's death instead of handing out blame. Just my two cents.

 

[desdemona]

This happened in my back yard. There's a lot of heated discussion going on, and from both sides, I see this as a no win situation. Fortunately, the child was not seriously injured or killed. Unfortunately, a rare animal tragically lost his life.

I can attest that the Cincinnati Zoo is very much like the San Diego zoo - they go for conservation and the real reason that male was there - CREW - Conservation and Research of Endagered Wildlife. It was the first one in the nation.

http://cincinnatizoo.org/conservation/crew/what-is-crew/

I think that we should learn from this incident - and the zoo has closed the exhibit to the public until further notice. Hemmen's approach is sound - no one benefits by assigning blame, except maybe the lawyers (of which there will be numerous I'm sure). That enclosure has been in place for 38 years without incident and has passed yearly inspections - no one foresaw this being an issue. Now, the zoo will undoubtedly come up with another alternative.

 

[CapturedDoll]

Well... zoos do help animals who have been hurt. So... I don't see them going away. I wish they would...but for animals who need help... I'm happy zoos and sanctuaries are around. But I have been thinking about this... and maybe its best just to livestream animals from now on. Public funding might be harder to come by... but I wish some zoos would give it a try. I have to think both the zoo and the parents are at fault for this. But... since this isn't the first time this has happened- with adults jumping in to the enclosures for a hat... or to commit suicide... or sticking their hands into cages... or the many other stories we hear about... either like Jeff said- full enclosures for people to walk through or just livestream.

 

[jediofthefeet]

I saw this comment, and blamed the parent(s). Then I read Jeff's post. His logic makes sense, but I see a 50/50 split between parent and zoo [architectural design issue].

If I take a child that young to a zoo, then I make sure I have positive physical control of that child for the entire time. The failure here is a parental failure. We can't stop careless or stupid people from having children, I suppose, but perhaps society should have that power. In any case, the parent/s are definitely to blame for this close call, which, unhappily, ended in the death of a creature who is much, much more intelligent than the parents of the child.

My mother told me she lost track of me once while downtown. It drove her crazy, but because we lived in a small town, she quickly found me. She also knew me well because she said I was in the toy section of the drug store, which was connected to a restaurant. It was a fascinating setup. There was a short staircase and a door that connected them, making it easy to walk from one to the other. After she told me, I partially remembered that incident.

 

[Mitchell]

I agree with what Jeff said in his last post.

I'm one who believes that zoos can be fun and educational for children.

I used to love going to the zoo when I was a child.

I was at the San Diego Zoo when I was a kid, as well as the zoo at Central Park here in NYC.

However, what Jeff mentioned about treating the animals humanely, letting them roam free, and keeping the people in enclosed cars, makes sense because of just what happened in this situation.

This way, the animals are being treated humanely, the people viewing them are safe, and something like this, would not happen.

I can definitely understand the anger about the gorilla having to be killed.

It's a tragedy that the life of a living creature, had to be taken, because of this situation.

 

[duderino84]

One of the top stories on

www.cnn.com.

The second story down the list, as I post this, at 945am Eastern, on Monday morning.

A rare Gorilla was shot and killed, after a four year old boy fell into the enclosure where the gorilla was, at the Cincinnatti Zoo.

After this incident, it is being questioned as to whether it was really necessary for the zookeepers to shoot and kill the rare Gorilla.

I think this is a most unfortunate situation all around.

While it is certainly understandable about the zookeepers concern for the boy's welfare, I think it is most unfortunate that there was no other option other than to kill the Gorilla.

Thoughts on this incident?

I think there is a lot of poor parenting, I think that there should be more fences/barriers/nets at the zoo, that even if someone were to fall into the exhibit that a net could catch someone so they could be retrieved. I'm no expert so I'm sure it totally discredits me, but I think it's a tragedy that a gorilla had to be shot and killed and that there's a population of these majestic animals withering away over stupidity. And from shots of the child near the gorilla, it's likely a bad memory for the child to take. It's just bad all around.

 

[General Zod]

I think the zoo was hanged if you do,hanged if you don't. I am glad the child survived. It is a shame the gorilla had to be killed. I could understand if the gorilla got loose and came after people,then yes kill it.

 

[maniactickler]

I think the fault falls on all parties.

 

[Sensualswitch10]

I hope they at least allowed the gorilla's testicles to be sold for Traditional Chinese medicine.

Oh come on, I was kidding. Very sad story.

 

[Mitchell]

on

www.cnn.com.

They have information/an interview posted with wildlife expert Jack Hanna, who said he quote

"Agrees 1000 percent"

With the zoo's killing of the gorilla.

 

[TMF Jeff]

on

www.cnn.com.

They have information/an interview posted with wildlife expert Jack Hanna, who said he quote

"Agrees 1000 percent"

With the zoo's killing of the gorilla.

Are there people who disagree with killing the gorilla? I mean, once it got to the point where it had the boy by the leg and was dragging him around they were out of options. I'm of the opinion that a lot more could have been done to prevent that - although admittedly I'm not in a position where I have to design zoos, I feel that I could probably build a barrier that a four-year-old couldn't penetrate no matter how determined he was. And if I was going to put a gorilla in it and then invite children to come see it, that would be my goal.

I get what Desdemona is saying that the cage worked for 38 years without incident, but apparently that was more luck than design since when it came down to brass tacks, a kid who probably can't open some doors was able to somehow clamber right in there. I just cannot think of a way that this could have happened without a fundamentally bad design decision being made somewhere along the lines. At some point, someone has to have looked at a gap, or barrier, and said "Well, it's pretty small, no kid could probably squeeze through there." And at that moment, he or she apparently, with the benefit of hindsight of course, should have said "But just to be sure, let's make it a foot taller, or put some chicken wire over this gap even though it's already very narrow."

But once you're at the point where the gorilla has hold of the child and the child is one second away from a horrible death, you're out of options and unfortunately the gorilla is going to pay the price for something that it never had any control over, and never asked for.

 

[Mitchell]

Jeff, there are people who disagree with killing the gorilla.

One article I read about this situation, stated about

"An angry chorus of critics who feel that the killing of the gorilla was unnecessary",


And

"The blame falls on the zoo, and the mother, for not watching her son".

I see your point about a parent not being able to watch their child every second.

The zoo seems to be saying that they would make the same decision if confronted with this situation, and would again decide to sacrifice the gorilla's life, for the child's.

 

[kopfhorer]

FWIW, there was a similar incident, years ago, caught on film, where a young child fell into a female gorilla's cage at a zoo. The gorilla retrieved the child and handed it over to a zookeeper.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/17/us/gorilla-at-an-illinois-zoo-rescues-a-3-year-old-boy.html

 

[duderino84]

But once you're at the point where the gorilla has hold of the child and the child is one second away from a horrible death, you're out of options and unfortunately the gorilla is going to pay the price for something that it never had any control over, and never asked for.

That's the thing that bothers me. ....everything these days seems to have devolved in to how people can "fuck" with things. Useless features in facebook messenger, trolling social media posts, nature hacks, being overly critical of game publishers, on and on. Everything in life just seems like fodder to turn into a stupid show. And some kid ends up getting into an exhibit with an unsuspecting animal that likely just wanted to be alone that got startled, reacted (I'll go along with the idea that it was angry, just for devil's advocate) violently, and BAM, one less gorilla in the world. "Nope, can't have that! Can't respect nature! He only acted the way God programmed him! AND he's done". And the kid spends a couple hours in a hospital and gets released.

EDIT: of course after I post, I end up seeing an article saying the gorilla turned aggressive. Still goes to show, however.

 

[maniactickler]

Maybe his aggressiveness is normal. that's probably how they treat their young. the kid probably would have been fine, as long as he didn't freak out and start screaming. I would have tried the tranquilizers first, with someone there ready to shoot to kill.

 

[TMF Jeff]

They talked about that possibility but they said tranquilizers can take an indeterminate amount of time to take effect based on how scared or angry the animal is, and of course its size, and the animal can become very agitated when hit by the dart, which hurts and is scary. It's really only useful for taking down an animal that's cornered or otherwise already controlled. The zoo director said that based on their experience, shooting the animal with a tranquilizing dart would have just about guaranteed that it would lash out angrily at the child.

And how is the kid supposed to not freak out and scream. You and I would both freak out and scream if a gorilla grabbed us by the ankle, flopped us onto our back and dragged us 50 feet along the ground, which is what this gorilla had already done to the little boy.

Maybe his aggressiveness is normal. that's probably how they treat their young. the kid probably would have been fine, as long as he didn't freak out and start screaming. I would have tried the tranquilizers first, with someone there ready to shoot to kill.

 

[teamtickleguy]

This has been strongly featured on UK news. I'm not an animal expert or a parent, but have formed the following thoughts:

I've listened to several reports and interviews and I've concluded that it's simply a tragic and unfortunate outcome, with several contributing factors, but no immediate blame or definitive liability.

Perhaps the zoo was complacent over its checking and development of security around the enclosures, but surely it's not just the zoo that checks these, there must have been years of checks and inspections by outside parties, who had presumably considered them satisfactory.
Unless something had broken recently and not been spotted.... but as yet, this doesn't seem to be the case.

It's also completely conceivable that a parent could turn their head in one direction for a few seconds while the child miraculously finds his way into the enclosure - as a parent, you can be watching a child constantly, but you can't be constantly holding, restraining or otherwise be in physical contact with that child.
It's no different from them running off in a supermarket if they see something exciting on a shelf in the next aisle - they are still in your sight, but you can't stop them from running.
If this had been in a wild environment, or in a room with an unknown dog for example, then that's different and I'm sure the parents would be much more cautious and diligent, but parents do not expect a child to suddenly find his way into a wild animal enclosure at a zoo!

I fully trust in the zoo's decision to shoot the animal - in the time it took them to reach this decision I'm sure they would have considered alternatives and made an educated decision based on their expert knowledge and on the situation unfolding in front of them.
A tranquiliser would have apparently been (at best) slow and (at worst) ineffective, due to the agitated state of the gorilla. It could have made the situation instantly worse.
I also heard one expert say that the dragging around of the little boy was a 'display' by the gorilla, prompted by the animal's insecurity and confusion over this new situation he found himself in - sudden noise from the crowd, sudden new presence within the enclosure.

I'm gutted for such a wonderful and intelligent creature to have lost its life, but on the flipside the child was rescued from an unpredictable, life-threatening situation that required an almost immediate decision.
Perhaps if the gorilla had been the one at risk, say someone had broken in (poaching, vandal etc) posing a threat to the gorilla, they would have been shot instead of the gorilla!

Whatever the outcome, the finger of blame would have been pointed in one direction or another by many people and organisations who, in most cases, are understandably reacting instinctively and passionately because, regardless of their knowledge, the matters are close to their hearts.
And it's right that we should review all contributory factors so that we can learn from the event and take measures to prevent anything similar happening again.

However, I have steam coming out of my ears when I hear about death threats aimed at the parents, presumably made by people who are ignorant of most things in life.

To a certain extent I also find it very tiring listening to interviews with animal lovers, who are devoted but perhaps misguided, with little knowledge to back up or justify the opinions they are expressing. I am an animal lover as much as the next person, but would never claim to know what the right or wrong thing to do in this situation was - creatures like gorillas and lions, tigers, komodos etc are fascinating beasts whom we should cherish, but also respect - nobody should ever be complacent about how much we know about their behaviour.

I think that's all I have to offer on this matter

Cheers
TTG

 

[ISUmark]

Sad series of events, but honestly I don't think this could have gone any other way. That gorilla could have snapped that kids neck in an instant. Whether or not he would have...well we would never know. Its very very sad no doubt, and I'll grieve for this majestic animal, but he had to be taken down.

 

[Bugman]

This has been strongly featured on UK news. I'm not an animal expert or a parent, but have formed the following thoughts:

I've listened to several reports and interviews and I've concluded that it's simply a tragic and unfortunate outcome, with several contributing factors, but no immediate blame or definitive liability.

Perhaps the zoo was complacent over its checking and development of security around the enclosures, but surely it's not just the zoo that checks these, there must have been years of checks and inspections by outside parties, who had presumably considered them satisfactory.
Unless something had broken recently and not been spotted.... but as yet, this doesn't seem to be the case.

It's also completely conceivable that a parent could turn their head in one direction for a few seconds while the child miraculously finds his way into the enclosure - as a parent, you can be watching a child constantly, but you can't be constantly holding, restraining or otherwise be in physical contact with that child.
It's no different from them running off in a supermarket if they see something exciting on a shelf in the next aisle - they are still in your sight, but you can't stop them from running.
If this had been in a wild environment, or in a room with an unknown dog for example, then that's different and I'm sure the parents would be much more cautious and diligent, but parents do not expect a child to suddenly find his way into a wild animal enclosure at a zoo!

I fully trust in the zoo's decision to shoot the animal - in the time it took them to reach this decision I'm sure they would have considered alternatives and made an educated decision based on their expert knowledge and on the situation unfolding in front of them.
A tranquiliser would have apparently been (at best) slow and (at worst) ineffective, due to the agitated state of the gorilla. It could have made the situation instantly worse.
I also heard one expert say that the dragging around of the little boy was a 'display' by the gorilla, prompted by the animal's insecurity and confusion over this new situation he found himself in - sudden noise from the crowd, sudden new presence within the enclosure.

I'm gutted for such a wonderful and intelligent creature to have lost its life, but on the flipside the child was rescued from an unpredictable, life-threatening situation that required an almost immediate decision.
Perhaps if the gorilla had been the one at risk, say someone had broken in (poaching, vandal etc) posing a threat to the gorilla, they would have been shot instead of the gorilla!

Whatever the outcome, the finger of blame would have been pointed in one direction or another by many people and organisations who, in most cases, are understandably reacting instinctively and passionately because, regardless of their knowledge, the matters are close to their hearts.
And it's right that we should review all contributory factors so that we can learn from the event and take measures to prevent anything similar happening again.

However, I have steam coming out of my ears when I hear about death threats aimed at the parents, presumably made by people who are ignorant of most things in life.

To a certain extent I also find it very tiring listening to interviews with animal lovers, who are devoted but perhaps misguided, with little knowledge to back up or justify the opinions they are expressing. I am an animal lover as much as the next person, but would never claim to know what the right or wrong thing to do in this situation was - creatures like gorillas and lions, tigers, komodos etc are fascinating beasts whom we should cherish, but also respect - nobody should ever be complacent about how much we know about their behaviour.

I think that's all I have to offer on this matter

Cheers
TTG

The most well reasoned thoughts I've heard or read about this tragic incident, bravo sir.

 

[desdemona]

There are people who are picketing the mother's place of employment and asking for it to be boycotted. I'm sure since one of the mother's "friends" screen captured her comments and shared them, death threats from animal activist are imminent But, in the meantime, I also read where she is lining up with her lawyer to sue the zoo. That's the story I was waiting to here. And the only people who win in the long run are the attorneys.

 

[maniactickler]

I couldn't hear any sound, but the kid seemed cool as a cucumber.

 

[TMF Jeff]

I couldn't hear any sound, but the kid seemed cool as a cucumber.

I don't know what's preventing you from hearing sound, but why let your lack of easily available facts stop you from forming an opinion, right?

If you actually do decide to listen, starting at 58 seconds you can hear the kid WAILING in the distance.

But hey, why let actual information get in the way of a quick leap to judgement based on nothing at all. You're probably right that it wasn't terrifying to be dragged by a 400 pound gorilla. I'm sure you'd be as cool as a cucumber, so why expect a four year old to panic.