Cincinnati gorilla shooting

I see that the animal rights activists have started to get 'involved'. There's an ongoing debate in social media about whether the zoo were right to shoot the gorilla.

Some say that it 'looked like' the gorilla was trying to 'protect' the child from the screaming crowds and should not have been shot. Do they think the decision to shoot was arbitrary and ill thought out? What numpties.

I see that the police are now investigating the child's parents - to see if there is anything amiss. - quite right.

 

I can quite believe that the gorilla meant no arm to the child (I mean...some mothers, around here, carry their kid like that !!!) and King Kong in the movie meant no harm either...

But: was there no way to sedate the Gorilla heavily enough to make him harmless...? Also...what was the mother doing while her kid was about to fall?

 

right decision was made, no way could the zoo take the risk and it kill the child. I believe the zoo is at fault with have an enclosure that allowed a child to gain access. My nearest zoo is twycross and there is no way any child could gain access to an enclosure

 

I grieve for the gorilla, but sorry to agree the zoo officials had no choice, questions must be asked about accessibility, and what the parents were doing. I lived quite local to Dudley zoo, and frequently piled my children and any others about into the car, whizz round the zoo for a quick jaunt, I was aware of all children and what they were doing, especially what they shouldn`t be doing. It was in the rules.

 

Seem to remember something similar happening around here a few years ago.
Might have been at Port Lympne, were a kid managed to get into the gorilla enclosure, the outcome, if I remember rightly was very different.

Yes in this case they should "throw the book" at the parents, and hopefully end up paying a very large fine.

 

Was it that long ago?

 

Well I'm probably about to upset everyone BUT I cant help my feelings!
Firstly why was the child allowed to climb up the fence??
Secondly why wasn't there proper fencing to stop a child climbing over the fence?
Thirdly why didn't the parents pull the child down from the fence & at the very least give a good telling off?
Last but by no means least why was the gorilla shot? Surely until it actually hurt the child ;which it didn't) it didn't need to be shot!
* Just climbing down from my hobby horse!*

 

Totally agree with your first 3 statements, in todays p.c. world "children should be allowed to express themselves, and allowed to do what they wish, with no verbal or physical correction " unfortunately it ain`t working.
The third, yes they were very quick to shoot the animal, it was all being aggravated by the screaming crowd, they should have been FORCED back but I think to wait until it hurt the child would have been too late.

 

I agree @pamsdish, the crowd would have been making the situation much worse & I guess the mother was freaking out, BUT why couldn't they dart the animal to sedate him? whilst the animal was asleep the zoo keeper could then have removed the child? From the footage I've seen the gorilla didn't look like he was about to harm the child .
For me personally this is another case of 'gun happy' humans & a crowd of silly onlookers who wanted a bit of drama!

 

The incident at Jersey Zoo was in 1986 and the Gorillas name was Jambo and in those days the brave keepers only had a stick to fend off the male Silver Backs.There are clips of it on You Tube as a visitor had filmed the whole event on his Camcorder

All is not lost though with the American Silverback that was shot as some bright spark had the forethought to take sperm samples from the Gorilla after they had shot him so no doubt hundreds of baby Silverbacks will be born over the next few years

Can't understand why they could have just darted the animal if they are that rare

 

I think I heard a recording of a "phone call" the mother made to "emergency services" on the radio today.
I mean?
You're at a zoo, you let your kid climb a fence, ....fall into a gorilla pen,.........and what's the first thing you think of doing?
I know,... Ill call 911, (999), they should be here in about a half an hour.

I can under stand why they didn't tranquilize the gorilla, as he could have killed the kid with one hand if he wanted to, before that would have taken effect.

The fault lies totally with the zoo, (for not making the compound idiot proof for those trying to break in, rather than just to stop the gorillas getting out), and the parents.

 

Sounds like another case of the media pushing for a prosecution to me. No parents are perfect and if you watch the footage it's a silverback violently pulling the child through water. You could dart him but it could still easily kill that child in less than a second.

 

I wouldn't jump in. So parent jumps in. Gorilla sees adult monkey of another group enter his territory. Unknown adult monkey is hurrying towards him. Gorilla is intelligent, but not intelligent enough to immediately understand that the invading monkey is not hostile. Gorilla attacks and kills invading monkey. Now fallen baby monkey from other tribe has no dad. And is still in at least as much danger as before. Possibly more because now the gorilla is agitated after the adult monkey invaded.