I doubt that; the only consequences are more (useful?) barriers to keep the people out (see the SF tiger exhibit example above) and less “dangerous“ species (like venomous snakes) kept. Nevertheless, accidents will still occur.
Cincinnati Zoo Gorilla shot
- Thread starter zooman
- Start date
I doubt that; the only consequences are more (useful?) barriers to keep the people out (see the SF tiger exhibit example above) and less “dangerous“ species (like venomous snakes) kept. Nevertheless, accidents will still occur.
This is exactly what occurred in Little Rock, Arkansas, 18 months after a child fell into the jaguar exhibit. There is now chain link type netting installed in the viewing areas above all the railings and barriers in the jaguar, tiger, lion, cheetah, gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan areas. Additionally, new fencing type barriers have been built in front of existing barriers at any exhibit that contains a moat. In essence they have built enclosures to cage the humans in.
dcpandafan
Well-Known Member
The National zoo did this. They added a fence around the big cat exhibits. There were no accidents that happend but people would hold their kids over the moat. They also added glass around the ape exhibits for what I'm assuming is similar reasons. They're also thinking of doing the same for the cheetahs.
I think maybe a couple times a year zoos should check the fencing/ barriers at all exhibits where it might seem easy for a person to get in if they wanted too. Don't wait for an accident to happen, do all you can to prevent one from ever happening.
devilfish
Well-Known Member
Apparently police will now be looking into the incident:
Cincinnati Zoo gorilla shooting: Police to investigate - BBC News
I'm shocked by the amount of media attention this has gathered, especially as the two lions killed in Santiago last week barely had a fraction of this level of reporting.
An extremely sad outcome but I can't help thinking that if the child had been mortally wounded in the fall (or by Harambe) - or if the other gorillas had stayed in the outdoor enclosure - then the outcome would have been much worse.
I also think that if the child had died as a direct consequence of the fall itself, a huge proportion of the blame would be directed at the parents despite it being an accident. I can therefore understand some of the backlash directed at the parents following the death of Harambe, although as sooty mentions we can't really judge that without further detail.
Cincinnati Zoo gorilla shooting: Police to investigate - BBC News
I'm shocked by the amount of media attention this has gathered, especially as the two lions killed in Santiago last week barely had a fraction of this level of reporting.
An extremely sad outcome but I can't help thinking that if the child had been mortally wounded in the fall (or by Harambe) - or if the other gorillas had stayed in the outdoor enclosure - then the outcome would have been much worse.
I also think that if the child had died as a direct consequence of the fall itself, a huge proportion of the blame would be directed at the parents despite it being an accident. I can therefore understand some of the backlash directed at the parents following the death of Harambe, although as sooty mentions we can't really judge that without further detail.
A key reason for the media attention, I think, is the direct contrast with the Jambu and Binti Jua incidents - the general public, much less the experts, know gorillas are not predators or 'bloodthirsty' animals, and still sometimes considers them cute and cuddly. The fact gorillas remain highly endangered is still in effect as well.
This event is a tragedy and that's not up for debate, but I feel bad for all involved - the gorilla that lost it's life, the family under fire, and the zoo people who just wanted to resolve a dangerous situation. The attempts to pin anything on any one group is well-intentioned but getting out of hand.
I know how a child can want a closer look, how a mother can lose track of what's going on, how someone calling 9-1-1 panicking can exagerrate, and how the pressure to act quickly can cause violent decisions, but I can also know how an animal can be scared by things it does not understand, whether that was the child or the visitors screaming in terror. These are all very natural actions, even those borne out of undeniable irresponsibility.
A lot of crappy things happened in quick succession in this incident. In particular though, I think the visitors freaked out prematurely by a dangerous situation, and the tension it created caused the incident to escalate, and therefore impacted the zoo's impetus to act as quickly as possible. I know many visitors claimed the gorilla 'slammed' the child into the wall several times. I don't know how accurate that statement is, but nonetheless, I'm certain it influenced the decision to use lethal force.
This event is a tragedy and that's not up for debate, but I feel bad for all involved - the gorilla that lost it's life, the family under fire, and the zoo people who just wanted to resolve a dangerous situation. The attempts to pin anything on any one group is well-intentioned but getting out of hand.
I know how a child can want a closer look, how a mother can lose track of what's going on, how someone calling 9-1-1 panicking can exagerrate, and how the pressure to act quickly can cause violent decisions, but I can also know how an animal can be scared by things it does not understand, whether that was the child or the visitors screaming in terror. These are all very natural actions, even those borne out of undeniable irresponsibility.
A lot of crappy things happened in quick succession in this incident. In particular though, I think the visitors freaked out prematurely by a dangerous situation, and the tension it created caused the incident to escalate, and therefore impacted the zoo's impetus to act as quickly as possible. I know many visitors claimed the gorilla 'slammed' the child into the wall several times. I don't know how accurate that statement is, but nonetheless, I'm certain it influenced the decision to use lethal force.
Learning the lessons
I hope that after a few days of twittering, largely inconsequential in my view, the time has come to consider this regrettable incident more calmly and objectively. Obviously the local police inquiry must take priority, the question of the mother's responsibility being an important moot point. But the Board of Cincinnati Zoo and other authorities must take stock and zoos around the world must take notice.
In my previous post in this thread, I questioned the design of the exhibit and in particular, of the barrier. The Zoo's public statement includes the paragraph:-
Do the AZA and USDA need to review their guidelines?
I accept that in their situation the Zoo's Dangerous Animal Response Team had no proper alternative apart from shooting Harrambe. This seems so obvious to me that I did not even mention it in my first post. That doesn't mean I am not saddened by the event and I particularly sympathise with all the Zoo's staff who must have been desperately upset. I wonder how the people who have been sounding off about the shooting would feel if they were related to the little boy.
Nonetheless I am sure the Zoo will be analysing their response. I note that the two female gorillas in the exhibit were enticed out of the way, but Harrambe did not respond - which is probably only to be expected. But could more have been done? I expect the answer will be 'no', but the question has to be asked.
One factor complicating the situation was the reaction of the other visitors. The shouting and screaming audible on the videos was a natural response of course, but it can only have made Harrambe more anxious, putting the little boy into greater danger. Did the Response Team and the Fire Department manage to control or move the crowd of visitors away? Would it have made any difference if they had been on the scene sooner?
A similar incident might happen in any zoo in the world today. The best precautions can never completely prevent disasters, but risks must be minimised as far as possible.
Alan
I hope that after a few days of twittering, largely inconsequential in my view, the time has come to consider this regrettable incident more calmly and objectively. Obviously the local police inquiry must take priority, the question of the mother's responsibility being an important moot point. But the Board of Cincinnati Zoo and other authorities must take stock and zoos around the world must take notice.
In my previous post in this thread, I questioned the design of the exhibit and in particular, of the barrier. The Zoo's public statement includes the paragraph:-
Gorilla World opened in 1978, and this is the first time there has been a breach. The exhibit is inspected regularly by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and adheres to safety guidelines.
I wonder if it would pass a Zoo Inspection in the UK. Para 8.25 of the Secretary of State's Guidelines says thatSafety barriers should be designed to prevent children from getting through, under or over them. They should also be designed to discourage visitors from sitting on them.
Perhaps the barrier has been modified in some way since 1978 or since the last inspection. Perhaps circumstances have changed. Has the number of visitors increased? Were any staff monitoring the visitors in that part of the Zoo? Were there any unusual circumstances on that day?Do the AZA and USDA need to review their guidelines?
I accept that in their situation the Zoo's Dangerous Animal Response Team had no proper alternative apart from shooting Harrambe. This seems so obvious to me that I did not even mention it in my first post. That doesn't mean I am not saddened by the event and I particularly sympathise with all the Zoo's staff who must have been desperately upset. I wonder how the people who have been sounding off about the shooting would feel if they were related to the little boy.
Nonetheless I am sure the Zoo will be analysing their response. I note that the two female gorillas in the exhibit were enticed out of the way, but Harrambe did not respond - which is probably only to be expected. But could more have been done? I expect the answer will be 'no', but the question has to be asked.
One factor complicating the situation was the reaction of the other visitors. The shouting and screaming audible on the videos was a natural response of course, but it can only have made Harrambe more anxious, putting the little boy into greater danger. Did the Response Team and the Fire Department manage to control or move the crowd of visitors away? Would it have made any difference if they had been on the scene sooner?
A similar incident might happen in any zoo in the world today. The best precautions can never completely prevent disasters, but risks must be minimised as far as possible.
Alan
Its possible the shallow water in the moat may have helped break his fall, a child being much smaller/lighter than an adult.
I've read a report by a witness to the event who was right by the parent/child involved. She and her husband can be heard on the soundtrack of the video. They report that the mother was taking a photo when the child slipped away from her- that moment's inattention any parent dreads, but they say she wasn't to blame.
Also that Harambe, while initially calm, became more and more agitated due to the excitement of the crowd- I think the zoo in shooting him may have anticipated an escalation of his aggressive actions because of that.
I remember my visit to Cincinnati Zoo and this exhibit in what must have been 1979, a year after it first opened. (I only went to Cincinnati zoo because it was easier to get to than Columbus.) Anyway, at that time the exhibit was an ugly concrete 'canyon'- its the same exhibit today but now with modifications and a more Gorilla -friendly interior with trees etc. I think you could stand and look over the wall in those days and the barrier and hedge may have been added since then.
The best informed commentary that I have seen so far is from Ian Redmond in the Grauniad. I don't agree with every word, but there is plenty of food for thought.
I?ve spent a lifetime with gorillas. Shooting them should be a last resort | Ian Redmond | Opinion | The Guardian
Alan
I?ve spent a lifetime with gorillas. Shooting them should be a last resort | Ian Redmond | Opinion | The Guardian
Alan
The family have apparently been offered money, but have asked that instead people should donate money to the Cincinnati Zoo.
The zoo also collected semen from Harambe soon after he died, in the hope that his genes can still be passed on
Family of boy who climbed into gorilla enclosure thank zoo staff and call for donations in Harambe's name
The zoo also collected semen from Harambe soon after he died, in the hope that his genes can still be passed on
Family of boy who climbed into gorilla enclosure thank zoo staff and call for donations in Harambe's name
I'm just glad they aren't suing the zoo.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
You may be assured that lawyers have been crawling out of the woodwork encouraging the family to sue. There are many precedents and the family would most certainly walk away with something. Or at least the lawyers would. Any backlash would not be a deterrent.
This is, to me, the most important turn of events to take place. It's subtly but it's incredibly important - and the version of the story I read suggested they specifically recommended donations towards gorillas at the zoo.
The family does not seem bitter with the zoo, or with the gorillas, which is more than can be said about many of their supporters.
The woman who dropped her kid in the dog pit at the Pittsburgh Zoo sued. (granted, that case didn't get the same level of attention, so the mom probably didn't receive AS much social media hate as this lady did) It's worth noting that a lot of people sue not because they expect to win a lawsuit, but because they hope that the other party won't want to deal with the hassle and will settle out of court. Even if the court sides with you, getting sued means a lot of money and hassle. That's the real reason people are afraid of getting sued for something stupid.
As previously stated, the family is probably beating off lawyers with a stick.
And, yes, they can sue. And would probably win. I can think of a half-dozen institutional failures off the top of my head. You can also bet that there's a cost benefit analysis somewhere in Director Maynard's office on dead gorilla v. dead child.
gentle lemur said:
Every zoo I have ever been to has had numerous signs around the gorilla exhibits stating, in effect, to shut the hell up. They get spooked by loud noises; a fact exacerbated by a bunch of people staring down on them from on high. This is one of the reasons we don't keep gorillas in pits (unless you're in San Francisco).
gentle lemur said:
I accept that it happened, but not that it had to happen. All news articles report that the 'first responders' witnessed Harambe "dragging and throwing" the boy around. Yet, the hospital treats and releases him the same day with (maybe) a concussion and some scrapes and bruises. None of which are injuries consistent with his life being in immediate danger. And Harambe had ample time to do real damage if he wanted to.
The zoo's shooter opted instead to put a thirty aught six round through his brain pan or heart (or was there somewhere else to stop a "rampaging" gorilla?) because of something that might or might not have happened.
JVM said:
The zoo's pedantic commentary about making the zoo as "safe as a shopping mall" among others aren't winning them any fans. You don't get to say he reacted as a normal gorilla would then five seconds later indicate that you have no idea how he would have reacted so we put him down.
JVM said:
Let's see where this story stands in six months. It might be cynical, but I find this to be part of a strategy.
dunstbunny
Well-Known Member
Just wondering .... nobody ever tried to shoot Bokito.
And I'm not talking about the incident in the Netherlands. Before that, I know of about 3 times he wandered around in the Zoo Berlin! And Bokito was always the one who was on the "wrong" side of the exhibit!
(What the kid did was unlawful entering. It was Harambe's home.)
___
NB: if you want to hit me over the head for this comment, wait until next week, I am on a Gorilla tour atm
And I'm not talking about the incident in the Netherlands. Before that, I know of about 3 times he wandered around in the Zoo Berlin! And Bokito was always the one who was on the "wrong" side of the exhibit!
(What the kid did was unlawful entering. It was Harambe's home.)
___
NB: if you want to hit me over the head for this comment, wait until next week, I am on a Gorilla tour atm
When Bokito was in Berlin he was still a relatively young animal- friendly and very used to people. His escapades were probably rather less dangerous as a result. By the time he escaped at Rotterdam he had matured and was a silverback, so the escape was more dangerous but even then he didn't lose his life.
At 17 Harambe( at Cincinatti) was also a mature and volatile male. Having seen the video of him running through the water with the boy I still feel that behaviour could have escalated to a more dangerous level. Though in the video sequence Harambe did not look really agigated- at least his lips were not tensed- the sign of a really 'angry' gorilla- but that might have come later on during the situation- it is not made clear what happened. If he had not reached that stage then other methods that have been mentioned may indeed have worked.
Last edited:
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
As you parse what happened and what decision was made, consider that all of this occurred in the context of massive media attention to another story five weeks previous:
Palm Beach Zoo Under Fire for Tranquilizing, Not Shooting, Tiger in Fatal Mauling - NBC News
Palm Beach Zoo Under Fire for Tranquilizing, Not Shooting, Tiger in Fatal Mauling - NBC News
As others have said, I think this blame being thrown at the parents is misplaced and unwarranted. It was an accident, and I do not believe parents should be prosecuted every time they lose sight of their child for one moment and something happens. I remember when I was younger and on vacation in Arizona, me and my two siblings were running around and ignoring our parents telling us not to, and I managed to fall onto train tracks. Thankfully a train wasn't coming and I was unharmed, but had I been injured should my parents have been charged with child endangerment? I don't think so, and I don't think the parents are to blame in this particular instance either. That doesn't mean parents are never to blame. In that photo of the kid crossing the barrier to see the giraffe, the parents are to blame. In the Pittsburgh wild dog incident, I think the mother is to blame. However, in this instance, they are not at fault.
There's most definitely a problem with people ignoring zoo rules and perhaps zoos should be allowed to pursue legal action if their rules are blatantly broken, but accidents like these are apples and oranges when compared to the incidents above.
And as mentioned before, no matter what zoos do people will get in if they really want to. Just at the Bronx Zoo alone, a man climbed a 20-foot wall to get into the gorilla enclosure in 2001, another man jumped into the caiman enclosure in World of Darkness in 2004, and then there's the infamous incident of a man jumping off the monorail into the tiger enclosure in 2012. While a considerable amount of blame is to be placed on the individuals in these and similar incidents, they are much different from unfortunate accidents like what happened at Cincinnati.
As for suing, I'm sure the family could if they wanted to. As mentioned before, the Pittsburgh Zoo was sued after that mother dropped her child into the wild dog enclosure. In this instance, blame could most certainly be placed on the mother, especially when the zoo had signs warning against such actions. However, the zoo was still sued and eventually settled out as expected, as well as phasing-out the species. In 2014, Bronx was sued by a family who said the zoo endangered their child by giving him a souvenir pressed penny which he later swallowed. Not sure what the results of that were but I assume they also settled. In that incident, the family was even quoted as saying they thought zoos should be safe playgrounds for children, further highlighting a huge issue zoos face.
As for the enclosure itself, the zoo had already announced plans to redo the enclosure long before this happened. If I remember correctly the plans are/were to fill in the moat and add glass viewing. At the very least, it seems accidents like this will not be possible at the zoo in the future.
~Thylo
There's most definitely a problem with people ignoring zoo rules and perhaps zoos should be allowed to pursue legal action if their rules are blatantly broken, but accidents like these are apples and oranges when compared to the incidents above.
And as mentioned before, no matter what zoos do people will get in if they really want to. Just at the Bronx Zoo alone, a man climbed a 20-foot wall to get into the gorilla enclosure in 2001, another man jumped into the caiman enclosure in World of Darkness in 2004, and then there's the infamous incident of a man jumping off the monorail into the tiger enclosure in 2012. While a considerable amount of blame is to be placed on the individuals in these and similar incidents, they are much different from unfortunate accidents like what happened at Cincinnati.
As for suing, I'm sure the family could if they wanted to. As mentioned before, the Pittsburgh Zoo was sued after that mother dropped her child into the wild dog enclosure. In this instance, blame could most certainly be placed on the mother, especially when the zoo had signs warning against such actions. However, the zoo was still sued and eventually settled out as expected, as well as phasing-out the species. In 2014, Bronx was sued by a family who said the zoo endangered their child by giving him a souvenir pressed penny which he later swallowed. Not sure what the results of that were but I assume they also settled. In that incident, the family was even quoted as saying they thought zoos should be safe playgrounds for children, further highlighting a huge issue zoos face.
As for the enclosure itself, the zoo had already announced plans to redo the enclosure long before this happened. If I remember correctly the plans are/were to fill in the moat and add glass viewing. At the very least, it seems accidents like this will not be possible at the zoo in the future.
~Thylo