# Should they have shot the gorilla?



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Young child falls into the moat around gorilla exhibit. Gorilla was shot dead, not tranquilized. The silverback was rough with the kid but didn't appear to want to hurt him. Could have torn the child in two if he wanted to. Seems like they could have tranq'd him. Of course they are being raked over the coals on social media, I think some people care more about the ape than the child. The railing around the exhibit had been sufficient for 38 years. What a terrible decision to have to make. Just a shame.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

I'm torn over it. I've watched the videos and although the gorilla grabbed and dragged him, it doesn't appear he was intentionally trying to hurt the child. Not knowing all the facts surrounding the decision, my gut says trank him first -- if he got more agitated then shoot him. But at least try to save the both of them. And for heaven's sake get those idiots who were screaming away from the barrier -- that made things worse. People can be such idiots at times. 

BTW, the child did not "fall" into the moat -- he purposefully climbed over/ through the barrier. He told his mother beforehand that he was going to do it and she apparently didn't do anything to stop him. If a child would have told me that, he would have been hauled away from the exhibit really fast -- I would not have then turned my back on him to tend to the other kids. 

I seriously hope the mother will be held legally accountable and charged the cost of acquiring another gorilla, if that can even be done. Or at least charged a hefty fine for child endangerment.

ETA: I reported your post and asked it be moved to General Chat -- This is NOT a political issue and you shouldn't try to make it into one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

They didn't have a lot of choice.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

As I understand it, and I may be wrong, but a large male does not "trank" that easily. Any attempt to tranquilize him could have sent him into a rage before it took effect. Shooting that beautiful beast may have been the only resort.

Now if they would just do the same to that kids stupid mother.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

1.) Why was a young child even able to get into the gorilla area? The zoo holds much blame here by making it possible.

2.) What were the parents doing? If the kid said he was going to get in with the gorilla, The parents should have hauled him away, not turned their back on him. Parents hold some blame here too.

3.) It appeared to me after watching the video that the gorilla was not attempting to hurt the kid, but was treating it like it would a young gorilla.

4.) I wonder if the kid had seen the new remake of the Jungle book with realistic looking animals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Young child falls into the moat around gorilla exhibit. Gorilla was shot dead, not tranquilized. The silverback was rough with the kid but *didn't appear to want to hurt him*. Could have torn the child in two if he wanted to. Seems like they could have tranq'd him. Of course they are being raked over the coals on social media, I think some people care more about the ape than the child. The railing around the exhibit had been sufficient for 38 years. What a terrible decision to have to make. Just a shame.


Yes they should have shot him.

He had already hurt the child by trying to climb a concrete wall while holding him by the leg, and dragging him through the water while running.

There's no way to predict the ape's reaction to being darted and it takes too long for the medication to take effect


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It seems that a lot of people on social media don't really know how tranquilizers work. On TV the dart hits you, you look down at it, your eyes get blurry and pass out, In real life the dart hits, and there is no telling what happens. Under dose and you have a drunk Gorilla that needs another dart. He might just lay down and go to sleep, but he might try to destroy everything within a ten yard radius. Might run quite a ways before getting sleepy. Too much, and the results are the same as shooting.

Seems to me there are some parents that need to reevaluate their parenting and some zoos that need to reevaluate their fencing, particularly human fencing. Unfortunate, but they had to do it, at that point. Large primates are nothing to play with, sure it looked like he was protecting the child, but was he protecting his adopted troop member or was he protecting his future kill? Makes no difference, he could have decided to play a different game at any moment.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I saw a witness report who said the mother was momentarily distracted by other kids. The kid intentionally climbed over the rail but then fell into the moat. If I would have been there and in charge I think I would have tried the dart first but had the rifle ready too. 

I did mean to put this in GC, oops!


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Gorilla lives matter


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Since the barrier had kept people out for 35+ years, I really don't think you can blame the zoo. Bad parenting/ supervision is the real problem here. And I seriously doubt the mother was "momentarily" distracted. Especially after the child had already told her he was going to climb into the gorilla exhibit. 

I understand when a choice between shooting the gorilla or the child being in danger had to be made, the gorilla had to go. But I still think it was a terrible thing to have happen. 

And what really gripes me is the mother's attitude. She posted on Facebook about being thankful the "good Lord" saved her child. But didn't even mention any regret for the loss of the gorilla's life due to her or her child's action. Callous. I hope she and her spawn are forever banned from the Cincinnati zoo, and hopefully all zoos.


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

All else aside, yes they did the right thing and I hope that anyone else in that position would do the same. 

Humans come first, without question or hesitation.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Sorry for the ape but I agree that he should have been shot. There are to many unknowns with the dart. It's easy to say shoot later but now you might be shooting at a moving, crazed ape and you have to worry about where the bullet goes after it passes through the target or if there is a miss. Now you are endangering more people. If a safe shot presented itself, put him down humanely. Then punish whomever else needs it!


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

This gorilla was bred and raised near here. It was raised by humans and was not aggressive. This has happened in the past at other zoos and the regular handler simply ordered the ape into the pen and rescued the child. I do understand why they shot him but I still think the handler could have got a ladder and went down there and carried the child out. Chimps will rip your face off but low land gorillas are not aggressive animals unless provoked. With this being an ape raised by humans and regularly handled by humans, I think it could have been handled differently. The guy with the gun could have kept him aimed in in case something went wrong but it didn't seem they tried anything else before deciding to shoot. I'm sure all the screaming folks didn't help matters. I am just so sick of seeing mothers allow their kids to run wild without any concern for those around them or what the kid may destroy or get himself into. This lady is a perfect example of what can happen.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tough call, my first reaction would be to get a sniper in position while the local 'gorilla wisperer' or whomever deals with the gorillas at the zoo tries to peacefully get the kid back... maybe bribe him with a crate of bananas or something. 
I didn't see much video, but did anyone else try to approach the gorilla? Preferrably someone with a .50cal pistol at the ready...


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

A 50 cal. pistol bullet ricocheting around a crowd is not what you want. Someone made a decision, I think we should stop armchair quarterbacking and respect the decision. What/ifs and and/ors could have gotten others killed. Then people would be screaming they should have shot the beast. It was a no win situation that luckily the child survived. 

Punish the parent or don't. I don't care. But stop second guessing the authority having jurisdiction. They made the call. Heck, they owned the ape, they could have put him down with no reason if they chose. It's an ape!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I have a friend who is head of gorillas in Calgary and they aren't as raised by humans as one may believe. 

Based on the time I've spent with him, they are still wild animals, they are trained to respond to certain cues but when agitated they may or may not respond, just like any other animal. Asking a handler to step in and retrieve the child could have easily ended in the death of two people. 

I watched the video and did not observe a gorilla trying to protect a child but I did see an animal that was playing pretty rough with a new toy and he was becoming somewhat agitated as the crowd got louder. 

I've seen horses react very negatively when tranquilized and if this had happened, there would have been virtually no time to shoot the gorilla before the child was killed. 

Zoo officials made a judgment call and I'm sorry there were put in that position but I think it's really the only one they could have made under the unfortunate circumstances.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It's an adult male animal. Raised by humans or not, the regular handler is in danger every time he goes in there. Plenty of regular handlers have been killed by adult male animals of species far more domesticated than a gorilla, when said animal is placed in a new situation.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Don't put these animals in a zoo to begin with. Leave them in the wild where they belong. That being said, they absolutely did the right thing by shooting the unfortunate ape, he could have killed that child in a nanosecond, then what a public outcry there would have been heard!

Parents should be charged with child endangerment or some such, not looking to lock them up and feed them for an extended period of time, just an acknowledgement of taking responsibility. The zoo probably has some sort of civil liability because containment was inadequate.


----------



## Vikestand (Feb 27, 2015)

People are nuts if they believe the Gorilla should have been saved. And they are also nuts if they think 4 year olds cannot slip away even for a split second of distraction. Obviously the little boy did some impressive problem solving to make it in the cage. It's a gorilla. We are humans. That's all that needs to be said.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Yes, I believe they did the right thing. Imagine an animal this size was in your backyard tossing your child around. Would you shoot? I am positive I would not think about saving the animal first. 

I have never been to that zoo or have seen any video of "how" the child got in the enclosure. If the barriers are such that a 4 year old can get into the enclosure in a "split second", they are not adequate. If the parents did not supervise their child for more than a split second, they need to think more about their parenting. I am guessing the "blame" lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Shooting the animal was the only viable choice, in this situation.


----------



## CurtisWilliams (Mar 14, 2005)

I work with a young lady who is of the opinion that it was not the parent's fault, nor the zoo's fault. She is placing responsibility on the toddler. Wow! She is a mother of a 10 and five year old, she knows how unpredictable kids can be. The bulk of the blame rests on the parents for not insuring the child's safety, with a small measure on the zoo for not having adequate safeguards intact.

For the trank advocates, having been put under on more than one occasion, I can attest that even with exact dosage under optimal conditions, it isn't instant.

If it were your baby in the gorilla's grasp, which yould you prefer? A very quick death for the animal, or an iffy unconsiousness?

Imho, they did the right thing. 

This is a tragedy that could have been easily prevented by proper supervision.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

If the gorilla had been a female things likely would have played out differently. However a 400 pound adult male gorilla isn't going to act maternal towards a human child. The zoo had to do what they did to save the kid  

I thought I read somewhere that the father was holding the kid over the enclosure so he could see better? But as was pointed out here, the enclosure has kept the gorillas and the visitors separated safely for 35 years, so nobody had any reason to expect that this would happen. Very sad all around.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

It is a absolute shame that this happened. I don't think it could have been handled any other way the more I think about it.
I do wish I could see a picture of what the child managed to slip through. Just to see what the zoo considered adequate.
However, I do feel the parent is/should be primarily responsible for their child's safety no matter where they are.
Hopefully all other zoos will reevaluate their safety percautions on exhibits.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think I would have tried the trank. 
But to be honest I'm not the staff that knew the gorilla and I belive the gene pool needs chlorine. 
So untill I hear more I'd have to back the staffs decision.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

The video I just watched showed the gorilla dragging the little boy, by his leg through the water, like a rag doll. 

Considering a gorilla's strength and the fact that he could snap the boy's neck in an instant, I think they made the right decision. 

But, as others have said, the mother is culpable.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

well was the gorilla an endangered animal? If so no shoot the child we have plenty of children


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

I think someday that kid would make a pretty good Army Ranger or Navy Seal. He would first have to learn to follow orders, however.


----------



## CurtisWilliams (Mar 14, 2005)

Forcast said:


> well was the gorilla an endangered animal? If so no shoot the child we have plenty of children


I'm not gonna glorify your response with a reasonable answer.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

CurtisWilliams said:


> I'm not gonna glorify your response with a reasonable answer.


No sense of humor?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

bluemoonluck said:


> If the gorilla had been a female things likely would have played out differently. However a 400 pound adult male gorilla isn't going to act maternal towards a human child. The zoo had to do what they did to save the kid
> 
> I thought I read somewhere that *the father* was holding the kid over the enclosure so he could see better? But as was pointed out here, the enclosure has kept the gorillas and the visitors separated safely for 35 years, so nobody had any reason to expect that this would happen. Very sad all around.


I've not seen anything that said the father was there at all.

The mother and several children were there, and the 4 year old waited until she turned her back and climbed over or went through a barricade, through some bushes, and down a 15 foot drop into the moat

No one there saw him enter until he fell in the water


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Awhile back, I remember seeing a video where a similar thing happened and a mature female gorilla took a small child who fell in the enclosure away from juveniles who would have "played" with him/her, and brought the unconscious child to a keeper at the gate to the enclosure. It was incredible showing of compassion and intelligence from the gorilla. So that definitely influences my opinion on the shooting this one. But, I understand a mature silverback is not a "nurturer" like a momma gorilla either. 

I don't fault the zoo for making the decision, just wondering "what if"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> No sense of humor?


It really wasn't funny


----------



## farmsteader6 (Dec 19, 2014)

I live nearby this zoo and have been there many many times. It took some serious effort for that kid to get through. The zoo is not at fault. 

Im just waiting for some sleazy lawyer to get involved and try to sue the zoo. That will be the real shame.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Better yet how about a good lawyer suing the mom ?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

The zoo officials explained their reasoning, stating that a tranquilizer would have taken some time to work and in the interim, the child would have been at much increased danger. Male silverback gorillas are notoriously unpredictable in their behavior, and this one was agitated and confused. I respect the expertise of those who have devoted their lives to the study of these magnificent animals and defer to their judgment in this matter. 

Nor do I blame the mother. I have yet to meet a parent who hasn't experienced an, "Oh, no!" moment when their child has metaphorically slipped his or her leash. It takes only a tiny period of inattention and a kid can pull a disappearing act. Mostly those become an instant of discomfort, but sometimes they turn into major disasters. Further, with a 38-year track record of success in keeping humans out of the gorilla habitat, I think she had a basis to rely on the fencing around the enclosure to keep her kid safe. No one had any reason except in hindsight to believe the fencing wasn't sufficient.

An adult male silverback gorilla is a glorious thing to behold. I am sad the animal, through no fault of his own, had to pay with his life. It was a terrible, sad loss for the gorilla, the zoo and the public they serve that none deserved.

Altogether, this was a tragic coalescence of events that could conclude with no other outcome. Sometimes stuff just happens and we must make the best decisions we can, even though there are no good choices. If the zoo officials had hesitated or tried to tranquilize the gorilla first and the child had lost its life, they would have had to kill the gorilla anyway. All they could do was assure that only one life was lost.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Raeven said:


> The zoo officials explained their reasoning, stating that a tranquilizer would have taken some time to work and in the interim, the child would have been at much increased danger. Male silverback gorillas are notoriously unpredictable in their behavior, and this one was agitated and confused. I respect the expertise of those who have devoted their lives to the study of these magnificent animals and defer to their judgment in this matter.
> 
> Nor do I blame the mother. I have yet to meet a parent who hasn't experienced an, "Oh, no!" moment when their child has metaphorically slipped his or her leash. It takes only a tiny period of inattention and a kid can pull a disappearing act. Mostly those become an instant of discomfort, but sometimes they turn into major disasters. Further, with a 38-year track record of success in keeping humans out of the gorilla habitat, I think she had a basis to rely on the fencing around the enclosure to keep her kid safe. No one had any reason except in hindsight to believe the fencing wasn't sufficient.
> 
> ...


Yes everyone has had those moments with their kid, but in a situation where there is real danger, you should pay extra attention and take extra measures. Difference between the local park, the zoo, the Grand Canyon, etc. 

My grandmother raised my cousin, who was a hyperactive little monster as a child, and she actually put a "harness and leash" on him sometimes. And it wasn't a homemade job, somebody was making and selling them for young children. People gave her the stank eye...but he was safe and a 50-something woman didn't have to try and sprint after him. Especially since they went to Florida for vacation every year, out on boats large and small. The harness/leash actually saved him from going overboard at least once. But I guess today, if you showed up at a public place with a kid on a leash, somebody would be calling the cops.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

You asked for opinions; I gave you mine. Not sure why it's being singled out by you to excoriate me about the mother. I personally have no problem with child harnesses in public situations, but I'm sure there is wide debate about this. As for when there is "real danger," there's no way to determine that except in hindsight in this instance. There's also no basis to assume this child was a "hyperactive little monster." Or do you have some evidence of that you haven't shared?

As for anyone taking legal action against Mom, I can tell you the "reasonable person" threshold is unlikely to be met in this situation. The basis for prevailing in court will be whether or not a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have done something more than this mother. My guess is, most of the kids around the gorilla's enclosure were not on harnesses -- so the reasonable person standard is that hers didn't need to be, either. 

Again, with no prior incidents of kids crawling through the fencing, the mother was reasonable to assume her child was safe from such occurrences.

Don't get me wrong, I wish the woman had been more attentive. But I don't see any basis to sue her.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

I read in the paper today that a representative for Jane Goodall contacted the zoo administration saying they knew it was a hard decision but the safety of the child had to be considered and Jack Hanna contacted them saying they had no other safe choice to protect the child under the circumstances.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Raeven said:


> You asked for opinions; I gave you mine. Not sure why it's being singled out by you to excoriate me about the mother. I personally have no problem with child harnesses in public situations, but I'm sure there is wide debate about this. As for when there is "real danger," there's no way to determine that except in hindsight in this instance. There's also no basis to assume this child was a "hyperactive little monster." Or do you have some evidence of that you haven't shared?
> 
> As for anyone taking legal action against Mom, I can tell you the "reasonable person" threshold is unlikely to be met in this situation. The basis for prevailing in court will be whether or not a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have done something more than this mother. My guess is, most of the kids around the gorilla's enclosure were not on harnesses -- so the reasonable person standard is that hers didn't need to be, either.
> 
> ...


I'm just not 100% in agreement that the mother is "blameless". I don't think they could make a legal case against her stick for prosecution or a winnable civil suit either, but I also bet she never lets that kid out of her sight again. 

She had no way of knowing whether there were any prior incidents of the fence being breached or not. I sincerely doubt that a) they had a sign posted to that effect, or b) she researched it before going. This isn't real court, just the court of public opinion, so calm down counselor! lol


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I'm not a counselor, so no need to ridicule my legal experience. And I would never mistake this place for a "real court." I'm just saying I don't see any legal basis to sue her, as many have called upon officials to do.

I'm sure you're right that she'll never let the kid out of her sight again.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

What ridicule? It was a backhanded compliment. I recognized "legal logic" being applied. If you're not a lawyer, obviously you have studied or worked in the field.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Okay; apologies if I was thin skinned. I will take it as the backhanded compliment it was intended.

No, not a lawyer. Just a certified paralegal for nearly 30 years who worked in the legal field for 20, 14 of them as a judge's assistant sitting in courtrooms doing trials. I can't help it... I unconsciously filter almost everything through a legal lens in my wee-but-waterproofed brain.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> Since the barrier had kept people out for 35+ years, I really don't think you can blame the zoo.


I would like to know more about how the kid went about defeating the protective barrier before coming to any conclusions. The fact that it was effective for 35 years isn't proof that the zoo wasn't negligent.


----------



## My2butterflies (Jan 17, 2015)

As a mother of two little kids I understand kids only take a moment to get into trouble, but really? He didn't just fly into that enclosure. That took a good long while of his mother or parents to not pay any attention to him in a busy zoo. When we take the kids to busy places(public in general) I don't let them out of my sight. It only takes a moment to lose a child for good. Any parent should be very aware of that. 

I don't fault the zoo at all. It's so very sad that the gorilla had to be shot. As they explained, it was the only way for a safe outcome for the child.

My unexperienced opinion... The gorilla wasn't trying to hurt the boy. Look more protective to me, but I wasn't there to see anymore then what Cnn shows on video. It's just sad. I put all blame on the mother as I think the zoo should.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Yes everyone has had those moments with their kid, *but in a situation where there is real danger*, you should pay extra attention and take extra measures. Difference between the local park, the zoo, the Grand Canyon, etc.
> 
> My grandmother raised my cousin, who was a hyperactive little monster as a child, and she actually put a "harness and leash" on him sometimes. And it wasn't a homemade job, somebody was making and selling them for young children. People gave her the stank eye...but he was safe and a 50-something woman didn't have to try and sprint after him. Especially since they went to Florida for vacation every year, out on boats large and small. The harness/leash actually saved him from going overboard at least once. But I guess today, if you showed up at a public place with a kid on a leash, somebody would be calling the cops.


What reason did she have to think there was any "danger" where she was?


----------



## CountryMom22 (Nov 27, 2014)

The news that I saw reported that the mother was there alone with 4 kids. Didn't report on the other kids' ages. Claimed that the boy was heard by bystanders to tell his mother numerous times he was going into the gorilla enclosure and she replied numerous times, "no your not". I saw the video of the boy being dragged by the leg through the moat. Zoo keeper reported that the boys' head was hitting concrete. Although the gorilla didn't appear to be aggressive, he was obviously confused and a bit agitated by all the screaming. They did what they had to, sad as it is.

As a mom of 2 special needs kids, I never took my eyes off of them. We went to many zoos and parks and I personally never saw anything of the exhibits because the only thing I was looking at were my kids. When you have kids ANYTHING has the potential to be dangerous. Add animals into the mix and double the danger. I do think Mom was at fault. If the kids were at the age were she was distracted by one and didn't know what the other was doing, she shouldn't have gone to the zoo without another adult to help.

Then again, hindsight is 20/20. The whole situation is just sad. It shouldn't have happened.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

> CINCINNATI &#8212; The Latest on the killing of a gorilla after a child fell into its enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo (all times local):
> 6:15 p.m.
> Police investigating after a 3-year-old boy got into a Cincinnati Zoo gorilla exhibit and was dragged around by a massive gorilla that had to be shot to death to protect him *say they&#8217;ll look only at actions by the boy&#8217;s family and not at the shooting*.
> Police said late Tuesday their investigation is unrelated to the operation or safety of the zoo.


Emphasis mine. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...5f72a6-2731-11e6-8329-6104954928d2_story.html


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

If you want to place blame in this situation, blame the animal rights movement. They are the ones that pushed for zoos to not look so much like a zoo. A proper fence would protect animals and people from each other. I'll bet a four year old can't get into my hog pen right now, and if he was out of sight of his mom, she would know exactly the point in time that he attempted to breach the fence.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

You can be sure that this mother of the year will parlay this incident into a (bigger) payday. A movie or book deal, ghost writer needed, or a nice lawsuit. Junior and his littermates will need increased social services, counceling, special ed teachers to deal with the trauma, tutors since they'll be bullied and ridiculed at school. Another lowest common denominator has made her irresponsibility everyone else's problem, and she not only gets off with no accountability, she actually gets rewarded for it. Maybe if the fathers of her other children were around to watch them, she would have been able to supervise her little monkey better and keep him from playing with the apes.


----------



## farmsteader6 (Dec 19, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What reason did she have to think there was any "danger" where she was?



There is danger everywhere. Ever hear of child abductions?? I am always on alert for danger. Its called being a parent. You dont have to hover and my kids are not in bubblewrap but especially when in a crowded public place, a parent should atleast have visual on their kids.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmsteader6 said:


> *There is danger everywhere.* Ever hear of child abductions?? I am always on alert for danger. Its called being a parent. You dont have to hover and my kids are not in bubblewrap but especially when in a crowded public place, a parent should atleast have visual on their kids.


So you concur the "danger" there is *no different* than anywhere else?
That was my point too.

Anyone who has kids knows it only takes a couple of seconds for something to happen, so blaming her is totally unrealistic.

Have your kids *never* done something you didn't allow them to do?
Have you *never* taken your eyes off them for a few seconds?


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Yes, it only takes a second. Yes it could happen to anyone, in theory, but it didn't. It is not a coincidence that all of the social unrest that is coming to a head in recent years is happening to and is caused by a certain class of people. Call that racism, snobbery or whatever you wish, but it is simply true. These types of things just happen much less often to decent, hardworking or educated people.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I read a post from a women who worked with gorillas for a number of years and she said that the keepers never enter the enclosure or have actual contact with the gorillas. There is always a woven wire barrier between them for safety reasons. The keepers in this situation would have never entered the enclosure to try to rescue the boy, they would have put their own lives in danger. It's likely a major contributing factor to the decision to shoot was the hands off policy that would have forbid the keepers from entering the area if the gorilla was not able to be lured out by treats or whatever other means. 

Another issue with tranquilizing the gorilla was that the gorilla could have lost his balance as he lost consciousness and fallen into the water with the child under him and the child could have drowned. It's also likely that the dosage could have been ineffective due to the heightened anxiety level of the gorilla. I think there were just too many variables to chance anything less than a quick and lethal end to the situation. Very sad.

I would also like to know all the facts that might be brought to light by an investigation before I vilify the mother.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

I was sad to hear of the shooting of the gorilla. After watching and re-watching the video, I think it looks like he stood the boy up and tried to get him to walk down the mote and when the boy wouldn't he grabbed him and drug him farther down. When he first found the boy it looked like he was dragging him from the drain to get him in a safer place. Yes, the boy could have been seriously injured and killed by this dragging but I do believe the gorilla was trying to help him not hurt him. That being said I also believe the zoo did the only thing they could do. The gorilla seemed on guard duty and there would have been no other way to get the boy to safety, it seems. The saddest part to me was if you watch closely the boy doesn't really look afraid, it almost seems that at times he holds the gorilla's leg and even that the gorilla seems to try to calm him. Who knows, video can be deceaving and without the close up with sound we just don't know. 

As far as mom goes I doubt anyone can say anything that would make her feel any worse than she has since the very moment her son fell into the mote. It was an accident. One that shouldn't happen but one that did. A family that was next to the lady and the kids stated it was an accident. It happened so quickly and even before he fell mom was after him but he was in the bushes and she couldn't get ahold of him quickly enough.

This shouldn't be a blame game. No one was at fault. Stuff happens we just wish things like this never did. I am thankful the little boy is alive and sad that this gorilla had to die but I do believe it was handled correctly for the situation.


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

It was a terrible situation for everyone involved, and probably was handled the only way that ensured the kid wouldn't be harmed. The emergency team probably feels bad enough without everyone second guessing their decision.

But I think if the mother who caused this situation (and she did, however unintentionally) had gotten on tv or social media that night and given a heartfelt apology for any part she and her family played in this mess, then this wouldn't have grown into the firestorm it's become. Not apologizing makes it seem like they don't care, and offering one now would seem like they're just trying to get the public off their backs.


----------



## farmsteader6 (Dec 19, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you concur the "danger" there is *no different* than anywhere else?
> 
> That was my point too.
> 
> ...



Yes it was an accident and could have happened to me or to you or to any of us. But it would still be my fault if it was my child. I dont think this woman needs to be tarred and feathered but the blame is no one elses but her own.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It really wasn't funny


In your world.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

It seems that this zoo had a problem with some polar bears getting loose a few months back. There may be some systematic problems with the safety procedures at this particular zoo.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

They know the gorilla a lot better than we do. I doubt they wanted to shoot him, it sounds like they just didn't think they could get the kid away. The gorilla maybe doesn't know how fragile a human child is. Even if they didn't think the gorilla was malicious, maybe they were worried the kid's neck would have been snapped anyway. Tough call. I think they had to do it, and I think the zoo should take legal action against the mother, personally.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> It seems that this zoo had a problem with some polar bears getting loose a few months back. There may be some systematic problems with the safety procedures at this particular zoo.


Nonsense. If you knew anything about the USDA inspection process for zoos, there is no provision whatsoever for praise or to report good practices, only to find and identify problems, real or imagined. There is not a zoo in the country which does not have some deficiencies listed in it's inspection reports, including the San Diego Zoo and the Bronx Zoo. If no deficiencies are reported, the inspectors come under scrutiny for not doing their job. No organization is perfect, and there is always room for improvement, even or especially if you are looking to find fault, which basically is what the inspection process is designed to do. Those reports are then taken out of context and used inaccurately to further an agenda. For example, the polar bears did not "get loose", they got into a secondary containment area. Sure, that is a concern, but it is not getting loose. In fact, the backup system did its job and prevented an escape. There is not a zoo anywhere which has not had some sort of escape or near miss. There is always the possibility of human error or mechanical failure even in the best run facilities, and it in no way signifies a problem with their overall management.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Agriculture said:


> Nonsense. If you knew anything about the USDA inspection process for zoos, there is no provision whatsoever for praise or to report good practices, only to find and identify problems, real or imagined. There is not a zoo in the country which does not have some deficiencies listed in it's inspection reports, including the San Diego Zoo and the Bronx Zoo. If no deficiencies are reported, the inspectors come under scrutiny for not doing their job. No organization is perfect, and there is always room for improvement, even or especially if you are looking to find fault, which basically is what the inspection process is designed to do. Those reports are then taken out of context and used inaccurately to further an agenda. For example, the polar bears did not "get loose", they got into a secondary containment area. Sure, that is a concern, but it is not getting loose. In fact, the backup system did its job and prevented an escape. There is not a zoo anywhere which has not had some sort of escape or near miss. There is always the possibility of human error or mechanical failure even in the best run facilities, and it in no way signifies a problem with their overall management.


I am speaking of when the zoo had to go on lock down to get the animals back under full containment. I have some real concerns about a zoo where a 4 year old could enter a gorilla enclosure, unassisted by an adult. That seems to be a glairing problem. I was not aware that the polar bear incident was listed in a USDA inspection report. 

And I have been through many a USDA inspection, not zoos, but, animal research facilities, enough to know that you had better give them something minor to find.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

They had to kill it. That gorilla was very powerful and could have killed the kid any time, even by accident. The news said he would crush coconuts with one hand. One gorilla expert said even a flip of his finger to the kids head would have likely been fatal. The power of large mammals is amazing. I saw a video of a 1300 pound grizzly bear simply backhand an 800 pound female grizzly as he walked by and it sent her end over end several times.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Rush Limbaugh proves he doesn't know anything about science:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-gorillas-evolution_us_574e5de6e4b0757eaeb10be0



> Rush Limbaugh seems to think that Harambe, the gorilla shot and killed at the Cincinnati Zoo over the weekend after a young boy fell into the enclosure, is proof against evolution.
> 
> &#8220;A lot of people think that all of us used to be apes,&#8221; the right-wing radio host said on his show Tuesday, according to a transcript on his website and audio posted online by Media Matters (above).
> 
> &#8220;Don&#8217;t doubt me on this. A lot of people think that all of us used to be gorillas, and they&#8217;re looking for the missing link out there. The evolution crowd. They think we were originally apes... If we were the original apes, then how come Harambe is still an ape, and how come he didn&#8217;t become one of us?&#8221;


The rest of Rush's comments are as follows:



> blahblahblahblahblahblah


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Rush Limbaugh proves he doesn't know anything about science:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-gorillas-evolution_us_574e5de6e4b0757eaeb10be0
> 
> ...


That was actually bait, and you and the huffing and puffington post seem to have taken it rather nicely.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> That was actually bait, and you and the huffing and puffington post seem to have taken it rather nicely.


Everything Rush says is bait. He should open a bait shop and lure some good carp in. He gives conservatives a bad name.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> *Everything Rush says is bait*. He should open a bait shop and lure some good carp in. He gives conservatives a bad name.


And yet you *choose* to listen to what he says... :shrug:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

The zoo just didn't have the right people on the job:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet you *choose* to listen to what he says... :shrug:


What makes you say that? I can't stand him. I listen to public radio if I have the chance.



basketti said:


> The zoo just didn't have the right people on the job:


The tranq may not have worked fast enough. I think the zoo probably did the right thing, but I wish they hadn't had to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> *What makes you say that?* I can't stand him. I listen to public radio if I have the chance.
> 
> The tranq may not have worked fast enough. I think the zoo probably did the right thing, but I wish they hadn't had to.


Maybe you didn't "listen" but you cared enough to at least read what he said, and your other comments make it obvious you've heard him before

I wouldn't have cared enough to click a story with his name in the headline


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Farmerga View Post
> It seems that this zoo had a problem with some polar bears getting loose a few months back. There may be some systematic problems with the safety procedures at this particular zoo.


That was human error
Someone left a door open.

The bears never got outside their building and the public was never in any danger according to all the reports I've seen


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That was human error
> Someone left a door open.
> 
> The bears never got outside their building and the public was never in any danger according to all the reports I've seen


Yeah, it would seem that you are correct.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

In my opinion, the mother was negligent. The zoo's design hasn't had any issues in nearly 40 years. If you are in a busy place, like a zoo, you keep an eye or hand on your children at all times, especially when they're only 4 years old. If your 4 year old repeatedly tells you he's going in with the gorilla, you either hold his hand the WHOLE time, or you LEAVE that exhibit. 

Parents are not perfect, but if you cannot safely wrangle multiple children in a public place such as a zoo, you don't bring them all or you bring someone to help. "Accidents" happen, but this was so easily preventable. I'm not a perfect parent, but you can be darn sure none of our children ever got lost or wandered off because we kept a close eye on them when they were too young to *reliably* follow directions. Also, not sure if the mother was on her cell phone or not, but we aren't the type to be addicted to technology. 

I agree that shooting the gorilla was the safest choice for the child. I'm not one who agrees the gorilla was protecting the child. Perhaps he was, but many people are just anthropomorphizing the situation. That gorilla could have crushed that little boy so quickly and so easily, it wasn't worth the risk. And like it has been said before, tranquilizing wasn't a quick or guaranteed option. 

I hope that family doesn't try to sue, and I hope if they do the zoo counter sues for the cost of the gorilla they lost. Common sense says the child was lucky and the zoo wasn't at fault, but the way people are nowadays I wouldn't be surprised if they did sue.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

MDKatie said:


> In my opinion, the mother was negligent. The zoo's design hasn't had any issues in nearly 40 years. If you are in a busy place, like a zoo, you keep an eye or hand on your children at all times, especially when they're only 4 years old. If your 4 year old repeatedly tells you he's going in with the gorilla, you either hold his hand the WHOLE time, or you LEAVE that exhibit.
> 
> Parents are not perfect, but if you cannot safely wrangle multiple children in a public place such as a zoo, you don't bring them all or you bring someone to help. "Accidents" happen, but this was so easily preventable. I'm not a perfect parent, but you can be darn sure none of our children ever got lost or wandered off because we kept a close eye on them when they were too young to *reliably* follow directions. Also, not sure if the mother was on her cell phone or not, but we aren't the type to be addicted to technology.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. My family lives in Cincinnati, my oldest daughter was born there and we've been to that exhibit in the zoo a gazillion times. If just one kid in all the years since it was installed (1978 I think) managed to get in, I'm inclined to believe the problem was more with that kid/parent than the exhibit. 

Sure, kids are fast and everyone has a story about their child getting away from them but I would guess this kid has done this kind of thing before or at least shown a tendency toward impulsivity and recklessness, and the mother should have known to keep him under tight control.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

If you had tuned in the whole program, you would know that it was an illustration of how the liberal mind works, or rather doesn't. People let their feewings get in the way, get all bent out of shape, but you might just learn something if you would listen for more than just enough to grab a headline. I listen to Nazi Propaganda Radio all the time, just to see what is going on in those hamster cages.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe you didn't "listen" but you cared enough to at least read what he said, and your other comments make it obvious you've heard him before
> 
> I wouldn't have cared enough to click a story with his name in the headline


I was hoping it would irritate a Limbaughservative if I posted it. I'm sure you can relate to that.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> If you had tuned in the whole program, you would know that it was an illustration of how the liberal mind works, or rather doesn't. People let their feewings get in the way, get all bent out of shape, but you might just learn something if you would listen for more than just enough to grab a headline. I listen to Nazi Propaganda Radio all the time, just to see what is going on in those hamster cages.


Plenty of people are bleeding heart animal rights nitwits. I don't think it's fair to blame liberals for that. It's simply being out of touch with reality.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I was hoping it would irritate a Limbaughservative if I posted it. I'm sure you can relate to that.


They remain in a constant state of irritation, so you may not be able to see any difference


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

I think we should put the people in the cages and let the animals on the outside, much safer that way.All those who are guilty will have to atone when the apes take over.:happy2:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They remain in a constant state if irritation, so you may not be able to see any difference


I tried reading one of his books when I thought I was a Conservative. It was like trying to read a 7-year-olds rant about anything, or rather nothing, in particular.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Should of shot the parents' parents. Seth


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

He writes adult books too. They have some pretty big words and less coloring sections.

I think you are missing the whole point of the gorilla bit. He was illustrating that liberals are so intellectually challenged, that they seldom get the joke, even when they themselves are the punchline.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

After consideration, I think they were too hasty shooting that gorilla. Everybody is saying, "A male gorilla can do this" and "a male gorilla can do that", and "male gorillas are too unpredictable", but there was an instance that a female gorilla saved a kid from other gorillas and brought it to the door so the zookeepers could get it. Don't you think the zookeepers behaved too soon, in shooting that gorilla? I mean, after all, we don't know that the gorilla IDENTIFIED as a male gorilla.


----------



## moonrabbit (Apr 1, 2016)

There is a theme in this thread of moms that aren't buying it. 

My mom used to say "a mom knows what she's got." And it's the truth. That mom knew she had the kind of kid with the cojones to climb and be a daredevil. Also he was 4, an age where he should be behaving reasonably in public. When they are that age, barring special needs situations they really are pretty predictable and should be pretty well trained to listen and behave in public. I'm on my 7th (and last) 4 year old. 

She was alone it seems with 4 kids, any time you go out with more kids than you have hands you have to be sure about who you are taking out. I know maybe it sounds tough but her kid could have died. 

When I saw the video I kept hearing her say "mommy is right here" and I'm like "where? where are you?" I don't think I am the only mom that would have gone in after a kid, not because it would be the smartest thing to do but because that's the first instinct. And yes maybe you break your leg going down, maybe the gorilla is going to tear your head off but your baby is in danger, something has your child and your child could die. I can't imagine standing there. I don't want to judge her but her calm "emotional support" from the safety of the balcony just weirded me out, seems unnatural. Just my 2 cents, I'm really glad the kid is ok.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

moonrabbit said:


> There is a theme in this thread of moms that aren't buying it.
> 
> My mom used to say "a mom knows what she's got." And it's the truth. That mom knew she had the kind of kid with the cojones to climb and be a daredevil. Also he was 4, an age where he should be behaving reasonably in public. When they are that age, barring special needs situations they really are pretty predictable and should be pretty well trained to listen and behave in public. I'm on my 7th (and last) 4 year old.
> 
> ...


Well, she let her kid wander into the gorilla pit... It's not too surprising she didn't act quite right. A lot of parents don't seem to have very good maternal / paternal instincts.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

The kid should have been one of this year's Darwin Award winners.


----------

