Oof- this is not the place or forum for that kind of debate IMO. Especially considering your viewpoint is not legally or morally backed. As someone who, while I'm just guessing, likely was not in the situation, familiar with the zoo's dangerous animal protocols, or aware that their decision is common standard protocol for many AZA accredited facilities I think the debate is irrelevant.You're wrong. They should not have shot Harambe or even tranquilized him. I am fully aware of the situation. No animal should ever be killed or slaughtered because of human accidents or stupidity. If Harambe wasn't shot, there could have been extensive legal and financial troubles for the zoo, potentially even meaning closing, which would also have been devastating. I imagine that Cincinnati would be much less popular, even if legal cases ended up being more favorable, but in the end, it would have all come down to the support of this institution along with their mission of conservation. This will be a radical view, but I think it is worth sharing.
Last edited: