Harambe the Gorila

Yes, that was a gorilla called Jambo mrsmopp I visited the Durrell Wildlife Park recently and was told about it by a warden. Jambo protected the unconscious child from the rest of the pack and then, when the child started to come round, led the pack away from him.

What is sometimes forgotten is that an ambulance man then jumped into the enclosure and helped rescue the child.

I was so saddened by this, but I suppose the authorities had to make a snap decision for the safety of the child.
Compare and contrast, if you will, the nutter man who stripped naked and jumped into the Lions' enclosure somewhere or other the other week. Again, the lions lost out.

The parents should be prosecuted for not looking after their child.

Yes Alea very sad for Harambe but as you say the staff were left with no option but to kill him. Think this was also the view of an expert in animal behaviour.

To answer the OP, yes it was right to shoot the gorilla

Are you in any doubt Mrsmopp?

The Zoo is 100% accountable for this. If the 4 year old child could get in, then surely a Gorilla could get out??

Either way, it's the Zoo, and to some extent of course, parents who were not looking after their child properly, but even so... access to these animals should be impossible for visitors.

Riverwalk there was no doubt that this was the only option available under the circumstances, but where any 'doubt' arises is what the gorilla might have done. There remains the possibility that he may have been protective towards a young child, but I agree no one could take the chance

We will never know.

What I can't understand is how the child managed to get into the enclosure in the first place. Surely it is the responsibility of the Zoo or Park to make it absolutely watertight. I think this very sad preventable accident was both the fault of the Zoo and of the parents of this little boy. The authorities had no option but to shoot this poor creature as his mood could have changed in an instant, but heads should be held in shame at the execution of this magnificent innocent creature as he was killed through no fault of his own, having been put in that situation by humans, he was then effectively murdered by them. Enough to make you despair.

The zoo made the right decision but such a heartbreaking image of the gorilla holding the little boy's hand.

Nonnie- and the parents bear no responsibility in this, at all?!?

Eh ?

There's a lot on mumsnet. Apparently the boy was saying he wanted to go into the enclosure and into the water (the moat he fell into). His mother (parents?) had 2 or 3 other children with them.
People were screaming which probably have disturbed the gorilla. The keepers got 2 female gorillas to go indoors but Harambe wouldn't.
It was reported that the 'whole' video shows Harambe being rough with the boy.
This may not be completely accurate but it is what I gathered. If the parents had taken a firm hold and the fence been more secure nothing would have happened.
Very sad.

granjura nonnie did say the parents were part to blame.
There is a post on FB saying people are wrong to "slag off" the parents. That it only takes a split second, and who hasn't taken their eyes of their child for a minute or two bla bla bla.
Precisely why you hold hands with a four year old in a zoo !!
I was very sad that they had to shoot the beautiful creature. The zoo has some questions to answer about public safety in my opinion.

I'm the most overprotective mother/grandmother ever but have had my son (when very young) and one of my grandsons slip away from me in a split second. Agree that there should have been no way for a child to get into the enclosure. A series of unfortunate events that resulted in the death of this beautiful creature but, IMO the zoo did the right thing

Don't know if the mum or both parents had other children on this outing to distract them, children can be unpredictable as to what they are going to do next. I think I heard that the little boy had wanted to get into the water, it's certainly questionable that there was a space that he could crawl through and then ultimately fell in the moat. I think all zoos should review the possibilities raised by these small areas that make enclosures accessible, there do seem to have been a couple of this type of incident lately. So sad that the gorilla had to be shot but the zoo did explain the problems of using a tranquiliser, so under the circumstances they didn't have a lot of choice. A tragedy nevertheless.

I think the zoo was definitely lacking 3 ft and places to crawl through isn't good enough at all The parents need to have eyes inI the back of their heads and have hands on whenever near an enclosure so they are definitely to blame as well if they had more than one child with them all the more need to keep them tight to them
I would have thought the manager / keepers could have thrown something else in the water at the other end to get the gorilla hopefully away and then tranquillise it of course that may not have worked as he may have taken the child with him but it would have been a good chance, after all they waited 10 minutes to shot the poor animal so in that 10 minutes surely something could have been tried

typo does not do.

ninathenana, thanks
You put it so more eloquently than I but I agree with you.

It's all very sad. I do not like Zoos. I don't like the ethos of them, especially now when the world is so much smaller and we have television showing us these beautiful animals in their natural habitats, negating the need for these archaic places.

By all means stop certain speciess from the danger extinction but do it differently.

'The Zoo' is an antique by it's very definition.

To answer the question in the OP yes they were right to shoot to poor Gorilla. At the end of the day the child had to be saved at the expense of the animal, it was unfortunate that they didn't have time/thought to dart the animal with a marksman standing by. That way they could of waited while the sedation took hold and maybe got the child out, but if things changed the marksman could of shot the Gorilla at least he would of had a chance to be saved.

17stone Gorilla v's 4 yr old Boy ??? Read this by Gorilla expert Amanda O'Donoughue - i love gorillas myself, i'm all for protecting the species, but i think the zoo was correct in it's actions & the encolosure should have been totally secure -

I am going to try to clear up a few things that have been weighing on me about Harambe and the Cinci Zoo since I read the news this afternoon.
I have worked with Gorillas as a zookeeper while in my twenties (before children) and they are my favorite animal (out of dozens) that I have ever worked closely with. I am gonna go ahead and list a few facts, thoughts and opinions for those of you that aren't familiar with the species itself, or how a zoo operates in emergency situations.

Now Gorillas are considered 'gentle giants' at least when compared with their more aggressive cousins the chimpanzee, but a 400+ pound male in his prime is as strong as roughly 10 adult humans. What can you bench press? OK, now multiply that number by ten. An adult male silverback gorilla has one job, to protect his group. He does this by bluffing or intimidating anything that he feels threatened by.

Gorillas are considered a Class 1 mammal, the most dangerous class of mammals in the animal kingdom, again, merely due to their size and strength. They are grouped in with other apes, tigers, lions, bears, etc.
While working in an AZA accredited zoo with Apes, keepers DO NOT work in contact with them. Meaning they do NOT go in with these animals. There is always a welded mesh barrier between the animal and the humans.
In more recent decades, zoos have begun to redesign enclosures, removing all obvious caging and attempting to create a seamless view of the animals for the visitor to enjoy watching animals in a more natural looking habitat. this is great until little children begin falling into exhibits which of course can happen to anyone, especially in a crowded zoo-like setting.

I have watched this video over again, and with the silverback's postering, and tight lips, it's pretty much the stuff of any keeper's nightmares, and I have had MANY while working with them. This job is not for the complacent. Gorillas are kind, curious, and sometimes silly, but they are also very large, very strong animals. I always brought my OCD to work with me. checking and rechecking locks to make sure my animals and I remained separated before entering to clean.

I keep hearing that the Gorilla was trying to protect the boy. I do not find this to be true. Harambe reaches for the boys hands and arms, but only to position the child better for his own displaying purposes.
Males do very elaborate displays when highly agitated, slamming and dragging things about. Typically they would drag large branches, barrels and heavy weighted balls around to make as much noise as possible. Not in an effort to hurt anyone or anything (usually) but just to intimidate. It was clear to me that he was reacting to the screams coming from the gathering crowd.

Harambe was most likely not going to separate himself from that child without seriously hurting him first (again due to mere size and strength, not malicious intent) Why didn't they use treats? well, they attempted to call them off exhibit (which animals hate), the females in the group came in, but Harambe did not. What better treat for a captive animal than a real live kid!
They didn't use Tranquilizers for a few reasons, A. Harambe would've taken too long to become immobilized, and could have really injured the child in the process as the drugs used may not work quickly enough depending on the stress of the situation and the dose B. Harambe would've have drowned in the moat if immobilized in the water, and possibly fallen on the boy trapping him and drowning him as well.
Many zoos have the protocol to call on their expertly trained dart team in the event of an animal escape or in the event that a human is trapped with a dangerous animal. They will evaluate the scene as quickly and as safely as possible, and will make the most informed decision as how they will handle the animal.
I can't point fingers at anyone in this situation, but we need to really evaluate the safety of the animal enclosures from the visitor side. Not impeding that view is a tough one, but their should be no way that someone can find themselves inside of an animal's exhibit.
I know one thing for sure, those keepers lost a beautiful, and I mean gorgeous silverback and friend. I feel their loss with them this week. As educators and conservators of endangered species, all we can do is shine a light on the beauty and majesty of these animals in hopes to spark a love and a need to keep them from vanishing from our planet. Child killers, they are not. It's unfortunate for the conservation of the species, and the loss of revenue a beautiful zoo such as Cinci will lose. tragedy all around.

Obviously I'm glad the child is ok but a beautiful intelligent and much loved animal is dead because a child who said he wanted to go into the enclosure was not prevented by his parent (s?).
At Jersey Durrell two excited 6 year olds on arrival ran into bushes and, in spite of the rest of the family splitting up, calling, asking people, weren't seen again for almost an hour. They were together, safe and severely told off. Had anything happened to my GC it would have been the adults' responsibility, even though GC were normally better behaved.

I agree with you Nonnie1. I'm no fan of zoos and hate to see creatures in what is actually a prison, being gawped at. Birds in cages have the same effect, ugh!! I welcomed wild life parks like Longleat as I think they have a part to play in the conservation of endangered species, and the animals do have more space and a more natural environment as much as possible.

I agree with Tegan and others. If you have two or three children with you, you cannot hold all their hands all the time, and you expect the zoo to have totally child proof fencing/walls. No doubt the zookeepers did the right thing.If it had been YOUR child or grandchild you would certainly have thought so.

I think the zoo had no option but that the child should not have been able to get any where near the animal which is down to the zoo, not really the parents.

In the longer video I saw on the lunchtime news the gorilla dragged the boy from one end of the water to the middle and then dragged him again. He wasn't just holding the hand of the child.