Harambe the Gorila

That is unusual then, Grandjura. It's generally the parent who is out of routine that it tragically happens with. Sending them to prison won't make them feel any worse than they do already and it would hardly be a deterrent as it's not something anyone sets out to do.

Re one's own lounge v a zoo, yes, you'll normally be more vigilant in an unfamiliar area but I don't think it would ever really cross my mind that it was possible to get into an animal enclosure! Getting lost amongst the crowds or getting in other people's way would be at the for front of my mind, I think.

My ds1 spent half his childhood in A&E. I don't think it was all my fault as none of my other three matched his record, plus he's continued to have daft accidents into his 40's!

The father was incredibly not prosecuted

Granjura what would you have charged the hapless French father with, and for what purpose?

Unless there was a history of neglect, substance abuse, etc., I can't understand why you would want the father prosecuted.

SueD- in this tragic case, the father did routinely take the child to nursery.

As said, yes things can happena nd go wrong very quickly- but your own lounge is not quite the same, re vigilance, as a zoo with dangerous animals, or a mountain environment, etc, surely.

Grandjura, that sort of incident is a well-known phenomenon within psychology. If it wasn't the father's normal duty to take the child to nursery, then he wouldn't have had the usual triggers to remember that he hadn't dropped off the baby at nursery. It's all to do with routines. Maybe nurseries should have some sort of system to alert parents if a child doesn't arrive? I would get a text message within an hour of school starting if my Dd wasn't at her register class, so it can be done.

I agree that sadly there was no choice about the gorilla. Whilst at that point the boy wasn't too badly injured, a male gorilla will kill any young he considers are not his own and there may have come a point when that's what he did.

Blaming the parents is ridiculous. It takes just a moment for an accident to happen - one of my grandsons fell out of his cot whilst his mother was right by him in the room! Fortunately he was fine but these things happen in a flash.

I would like to see photos or a plan of the area and how the little one managed to get through so easily, without being noticed.

We all know as parents and grand-parents how quickly things can happen with toddlers- however we normally make sure we anticipate trouble. There are places where you just don't let go- ever, never.

Talking about negligence and prosecuting parents- not sure it would help, really? Last year here we had a tragedy I still can't understand. A father from nearby France, working over the border, was supposed to drop the 1 year old baby at the nursery on his way. The child fell asleep in his seat- and as he was stressed due to work deadlines, he forgot all about the baby- who was left in the car in the car park all day- and died. The father was incredibly not prosecuted- as it was said he had suffered enough. I can understand, perhaps, forgetting about the child for a few minutes or 1 hour or so- but surely at some point you'd jump and think 'OMG - I've forgotten little one' - but apparently he totally forgot till the evening. Did no-one hear or see the child??? Did they walk away thinking it was none of their business and shouldn't get involved- I still can't get over it (and wouldn't like to have to live with theri conscience) (: so tragic.

I agree too that the zoo had no choice but to shoot the poor animal. But there should have been better security. It was a long way to fall.
When I was teaching I once took my class to London Zoo and before leaving noticed that one girl was missing . I eventually found her in the primate section, TG, but in those days they were behind glass ( I think.) Lately there's been a trend to give the animals a more natural habitat.

I too think the zoo had no choice - it would have been terrible if the little boy had been severely injured or killed. From the footage I saw, the gorilla - maybe not intentionally - was rough with the child and dragged him through water. It was also said that the child was taken to hospital afterwards for treatment for minor injuries.

I can think of a number of occasions on which I have lost sight of my children or grandchildren. Perhaps that makes me a bad mother/grandparent but I would guess I'm not alone.

I think it's the responsibility of a zoo to ensure that enclosures are absolutely secure. I don't think any parent would imagine it was possible that a child could access a potentially dangerous animal's enclosure.

Although in the past I used to enjoy going to zoos and taking the children there, I feel a bit differently now. I tend to agree with the view that it would be far better if these animals were free rather than enduring relatively safe but highly unnatural lives of what to us would be the equivalent of lifelong "house arrest".

What would have happened if that child had been killed or seriously injured? - the zoo had no choice but to kill the animal. But it also had a responsibility to ensure that no-one can get into the animal enclosures. I am not surprised that prosecution is being suggested.

Without the screaming crowd the gorilla might have been able to work out that the child was no threat but just needed looking after. Apparently the boy in the Jersey incident has said that he remembers it all being very quiet. Perhaps that made the difference. I think Amanda is probably right and there was nothing else they could do, but it should never have happened in the first place. As it is the zoo has lost a beautiful and very valuable animal and the whole dynamic of the gorilla group has been damaged.

There should be no Zoo in any country, such pretence that they are there for the animals not for people to pay and watch a wild animal in captivity

Hate Zoos. They shouldn't exist. Harambe should not have been in such a place. Zoo should be closed and the animals should be rehoused away from gawping crowds. A mighty cock-up by everyone and a beautiful creature paid with his life.

I agree the zoo had no choice- but how tragic and sad.

Nonnie, the first line of your post said: the Zoo is 100% accountable for this - and this is what I was replying to.

vickimac:thank you for that post which make more sense of what happened. Let's hope that lessons have been learned and nothing like this happens again.

The zoo staff were between a rock and a hard place. Damned if they shot the gorilla but I suspect even more damned if they didn't and an innocent child was hurt. Blame should be with parents for not looking after child and zoo for seemingly having inadequate fencing.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

typo does not do.

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

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'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