Dead Gorilla

I'll just assume you are pulling some legs, here, and move on.

Click to expand...

The gorilla wasn't harming the child.

Gorillas are powerful beasts, and they've harmed people before.

If that type of situation happens again and if we believe there's even a one percent chance that a gorilla could harm a child, we have to take it as an absolute certainty.

The life of a human child is more valuable than an infinite amount of gorillas lives. We have to take necessary action.

Endure2TheEnd said:

Gorillas are powerful beasts, and they've harmed people before.

If that type of situation happens again and if we believe there's even a one percent chance that a gorilla could harm a child, we have to take it as an absolute certainty.

The life of a human child is more valuable than an infinite amount of gorillas lives. We have to take necessary action.

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't go that far in the weighting process, but in this instance, the zoo was getting some flak either way, so they chose the less risky route.

nightflight said:

The gorilla wasn't harming the child.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's a gorilla.

It only has to be annoyed by the high pitched crying thing that it has a hold of for a moment to kill it, intentionally or not. The gorilla was dragging the kid around like he was an infant gorilla, which he was not. A very, very dangerous situation for the kid.

To those in this thread who are whining because the zoo didn't attempt to tranquilize are laughable. The zoo said since the drugs wouldn't kick in instantly it would still put the child in tremendous risk. What makes you more qualified than zoo officials in the matter of tranquilizing gorillas or indeed any large animal that you can say with confidence what should or should not have been done in this situation? The arrogance is astounding.

Nithavela said:

The Zoo is to blame, neither the gorilla (who is just an animal following it's instincts) nor the parents, who certainly didn't intend this to happen. And what are they supposed to do, keep their child on a leash? It only takes seconds for a child to slip through some bars.

Click to expand...

Actually, my parents DID use a harness on my oldest brother, because he was curious and always getting into things, a trait that did help him when he started schooling, but is a detriment for a child too young to understand boundaries. His growth wasn't stunted or his psyche damaged as a result. He is now 49 years old and works in his career of choice, responsible for land use management for 75% of the Adirondack Park in northern NY State.

Nithavela said:

Those harnesses/leashes are seen as undignified, treating children as animals and pets instead of human beings. And the first article of the german Grundgesetz states that the dignity of man shall not be harmed.

After a bit of research: Those leashes are lawfull, but heavily, heavily frowned upon in germany.

An German children don't jump into gorilla enclosures that often, either, so I guess it's not too bad.

Click to expand...

Like I said, my brother's dignity was NOT harmed by being restrained. 18th in his graduating class, Eagle Scout, accepted to two of the most prestigious colleges in the country, union steward, and holds a managerial position in the career of his choice, a choice that was made when he was 16. And his oldest son seems to be following pretty close in his footsteps.

So much for tainted dignity.

ThatRobGuy said:

It's obviously an unfortunate situation that played out, and there's probably some blame to be given to both the parents, for not being more careful with their youngster, and the zoo, for not having better security measures (IE: better enclosures, tighter railings, etc.. so that children couldn't get in so easily)

However, in terms of the response, it's a no brainer in terms of the decision to shoot the gorilla...it's a 400 pound animal that could, quite frankly, rip the limbs off of a regular human. (especially a youngster like that).

My stance is that if it's "person vs. animal", you opt to help the person 10 times out of 10. (at least that's my opinion).


On the topic of Animal Captivity, I'm really torn on that issue. As @Mountain_Girl406 mentioned, captivity and close interactions with humans aren't the natural condition of most of these animals. ...on the other hand, captivity has been necessary for the advancement of the zoology, veterinary, and biological sciences... and the advancements of those 3 fields would certainly take a blow if we completely eliminated all forms of animal captivity.

Click to expand...

Zoos should be replaced with sanctuaries that are off limits to the public. Wild Cat Sanctuary in Minnesota is one such facility, they don't allow any visitors or tour groups, as some of their cats have already been victims of "pay to play," ripped from their mothers as cubs and forced to pose with humans for photos. They post photo and videos on their various media pages and that is as close as the public gets. No one gets hurt, and the animals get to live in peace, in spacious habitats rather than in small pens and cages. They are also very vocal in opposing the breeding and sale of wild cats like servals, or hybrids like Bengals.

As for who to save... humans are THE most invasive species on this planet, and when they have tried to force the environment to change to convenience them rather than live in harmony with their surroundings no good has ever come of it. They have never left places in better shape than how they found them originally. They have hunted many species to extinction, and caused the endangerment of many others.

I think it is obvious which to save....

Endure2TheEnd said:

The life of a human child is more valuable than an infinite amount of gorillas lives. We have to take necessary action.

Click to expand...

No it is not. This attitude is why this world is in the sad shape it is in, because humans have tried to bend and change it to convenience them, rather than try to live in harmony with their surroundings. We are just another species, no better than any other.

thatbrian said:

We teach our children that life is a cosmic accident, so it's only being consistent with that worldview to flip a coin over who has more value, the ape or the boy. In fact, the gorilla would likely be much more difficult to replace, so. . . In fact, if life is a cosmic accident then a rock has more value than the boy as it will last longer.

Click to expand...

Seminaries need to start teaching the philosophy of science.

nightflight said:

The gorilla wasn't harming the child.

Click to expand...

Maybe next time a four year old ends up in the clutches of a gorilla, we can just wait it out and see what happens. Tell the patents to just stand back and watch.

FreeSpirit74 said:

As for who to save... humans are THE most invasive species on this planet, and when they have tried to force the environment to change to convenience them rather than live in harmony with their surroundings no good has ever come of it. They have never left places in better shape than how they found them originally. They have hunted many species to extinction, and caused the endangerment of many others.

I think it is obvious which to save....

Click to expand...

It's because we are the most evolved, most intelligent, and are the only species that has to tools to do that...

FreeSpirit74 said:

We are just another species, no better than any other.

Click to expand...

How many fish have harnessed electricity?
How many possums practice medicine?
How many hummingbird engineers are out there?

While it's true that humanity has its flaws, it also exhibits many positive traits that would not exist if we were "living according to nature".

For example, laws to protect the smaller & weaker of our species.

We can go back to living purely in accordance with nature & natural instincts, but I don't think you'd like the result...

If someone is critically injured, no more calling an ambulance or taking them to a hospital...ambulances and hospitals are a form of being invasive...letting them die would be living according to nature. (skunks don't take other skunks to skunk hospitals, so we shouldn't do that either right?)

No more societal laws...as we are the only species that enforces a legal code in the interest of humanity, that's not living in accordance to nature. In accordance with nature, the biggest, strongest, and most aggressive gets to eat, kill, or have sex with anything he wants, whenever he wants.

No more intervening on behalf of other species.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/7-animals-saved-near-extinction
...means we let these 7 species go extinct and let nature take its course

It also means no more equality for women. They're treated almost as property of the dominant male of the group...take a look at how some of our primate cousins live in the wild...is that how you'd really like to live? If I saw you as a suitable mate, and was big and strong enough to chase of your husband...guess what...

It seems that when people take the "we should live according to nature" stance, they're not fully thinking through exactly what that would entail.


To be quite honest, the "all species are the same, humans aren't any better" is borderline laughable (to me at least), the very fact that you & I are debating each other on magic plastic boxes that that allow us to communicate in real time from different parts of the world by transferring our ideas through the air waves is proof positive that we're a distinct cut above every other species on the planet.

While I feel for the people who mourn this gorilla, I agree that the zoo took the right approach. This is at odds with my comments on the tiger that was recently killed when a naked man jumped into the enclosure, I realize. In that case, I felt the zoo keepers should've removed the spectators and just let nature take its course.

In this case, we're talking about a four year old kid. I think we can never guess what will happen. It's a repeat of something that happened years ago, only the gorilla was DEFINITELY more maternal.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/08/16/15-years-ago-today-gorilla-rescues-boy-who-fell-in-ape-pit/

TheQuietRiot said:

Yeah, but it's a gorilla.

It only has to be annoyed by the high pitched crying thing that it has a hold of for a moment to kill it, intentionally or not. The gorilla was dragging the kid around like he was an infant gorilla, which he was not. A very, very dangerous situation for the kid.

To those in this thread who are whining because the zoo didn't attempt to tranquilize are laughable. The zoo said since the drugs wouldn't kick in instantly it would still put the child in tremendous risk. What makes you more qualified than zoo officials in the matter of tranquilizing gorillas or indeed any large animal that you can say with confidence what should or should not have been done in this situation? The arrogance is astounding.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about whether or not the zoo should have taken another course of action. I was comparing this case with the case of Cecil the Lion, where there was much outrage even here over that animal's death. So, no arrogance here.

FreeSpirit74 said:

Zoos should be replaced with sanctuaries that are off limits to the public. Wild Cat Sanctuary in Minnesota is one such facility, they don't allow any visitors or tour groups, as some of their cats have already been victims of "pay to play," ripped from their mothers as cubs and forced to pose with humans for photos. They post photo and videos on their various media pages and that is as close as the public gets. No one gets hurt, and the animals get to live in peace, in spacious habitats rather than in small pens and cages. They are also very vocal in opposing the breeding and sale of wild cats like servals, or hybrids like Bengals.

As for who to save... humans are THE most invasive species on this planet, and when they have tried to force the environment to change to convenience them rather than live in harmony with their surroundings no good has ever come of it. They have never left places in better shape than how they found them originally. They have hunted many species to extinction, and caused the endangerment of many others.

I think it is obvious which to save....

Click to expand...

"They", "they", "they", "they"...and I suppose you're some kind of fish that has magically learned to use the internet without somehow "forcing the environment to change to convenience" you?

Nithavela said:

Those harnesses/leashes are seen as undignified, treating children as animals and pets instead of human beings.

Click to expand...

That just says to me that some people take more care with the safety of their irrational pets than their irrational small children; how many dogs are going to fall into an area with a 400 lb gorilla? Kids get excited and they don't think about their safety, dogs usually do. Some people take care to protect their pets from dangerous situations, but they are more concerned about what someone else will think of them than they are the safety of their babies.

I can remember when I was 4 yrs. old being on a harness when my mom took me and my baby sister and we walked on the street to the park. I was the curious and rambunctious child that would disappear in a flash. My mom was a wise and loving mother. My youngest daughter always kept her young son attached to her when they went to the mall, the zoo, etc. He wasn't anymore on a leash than she was, he could lead the way. He hated holding hands or being carried. With the harness/leash he could walk like a big boy and had his hands free to hold his toy, carry His sack of goodies, etc.

We fence our yards to keep our pets safe and we fence yards to keep our kids safe. Does anyone frown on that?
Do we buckle our kids into shopping carts for their safety or is that too humiliating for them? Are we humiliated when we buckle our safety belts and our kids in car seats? Or are these things just logical safety measures?

Many day care centers do the same. They have special systems where the two teachers have a handhold, front and back, and the kids walking in between do too. It's called a walking rope and they are used all over the world, including Europe. The one that our daycare uses also has clips on it to attach to each child's belt loop or specially designed belts that the daycare owns. Most of the time the kids don't need the clips because the more flighty kids take their cues from the calmer kids. The kids each have a buddy that walks next to them, they can hold hands if they want to. They can carry their little lunch boxes or wear their backpacks to go have a picnic, play at the park, and on other field trips.

So I don't understand why anyone would look down on a parent, who is responsible for keeping their child/children safe while, trying to get shopping done, waiting in line at an airport, walking on a busy street, or visiting a zoo, etc., for taking this safety measure.

I'm done venting now, I'm sure that you are quite capable of surviving my rant with no damage done to you. Your line was the perfect intro. Thanks for your patience, I hope.

There should be no way that a child could fall into a gorilla exhibit. The zoo is fully to blame for this.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Then maybe this does land squarely on the parent/guardian. This would never fly as an excuse had something happened to one of the kids at home. I don't see why it should be any different at a zoo.

Click to expand...

Is it wrong to think that zoos have proper barrier devices that should prevent this type of catastrophe? Because most people don't go to the zoo worrying that their kids might get mauled by a bear or a gorilla. People tend to think of zoos as safe places, where safety measures and insurance companies take extra precautions.

Landon Caeli said:

Is it wrong to think that zoos have proper barrier devices that should prevent this type of catastrophe? Because most people don't go to the zoo worrying that their kids might get mauled by a bear or a gorilla. People tend to think of zoos as safe places, where safety measures and insurance companies take extra precautions.

Click to expand...

Where I live there are building codes. If you have a porch that is over 32" high you must install a railing system where the balustrades are not more than 5" apart. This is so a young child cannot squeeze through and fall off.
Why a zoo wouldn't take such a precaution is beyond me. They could even put plexi-glass on the outside of the railings rather than replace them.
A few years ago a small child slipped under a railing and was grabbed by a mountain lion through the cage.

Landon Caeli said:

Is it wrong to think that zoos have proper barrier devices that should prevent this type of catastrophe? Because most people don't go to the zoo worrying that their kids might get mauled by a bear or a gorilla. People tend to think of zoos as safe places, where safety measures and insurance companies take extra precautions.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Those enclosures should be built so it's impossible to have this happen.

FreeSpirit74 said:

No it is not. This attitude is why this world is in the sad shape it is in, because humans have tried to bend and change it to convenience them, rather than try to live in harmony with their surroundings. We are just another species, no better than any other.

Click to expand...

If humans are not better than any other species, then how are we capable of manipulating the environment to suit our needs while other species cannot?

...But I do understand that the ideals of "equality" and "equal rights" can become radicalized, just like any other ideology.