The "Gorilla" thread...

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

That is a great argument since I am the exact same thing as an ape. By the way, go let that potted plant out to be free!

Humans and apes share 98.5% of the same DNA. So you're right, you're not the exact same thing. However, it's relatively super close.

I like when Neil Degrass Tyson talks about this. The difference in 1.5% of DNA is the difference between roaming in jungles and being able to walk on the Moon. He goes on to say: what if there's an alien species with 1.5% of DNA more advanced than ours? Or better yet, 5, 10, or 50%?

Point is that we're not as wonderfully above other animals as we like to think of ourselves. Especially when you consider the scale of suffering we're able to dish out. I'm not "team human" as much as the average person who slept through biology who spews the ole "oh but that's an animal and we're *royal trumpet sounds* HUMAN BEINGS! Yeah, which is an animal too, nimrods.

That being said, they had to kill the ape. Letting it smash the kid while riflemen were holding their fire could've been uglier, and humans grieve a lot longer and harder than any other animal. Plus, yes, team human is the biggest factor, it would've caused 10x more of a ****storm. It's a shame, but there are big lessons to be learned, and the ape went quickly.

[Taylor703]

They did what they needed to do. The gorilla being killed is incredibly unfortunate but there was no way around it. There's not much else to it.

[BornaSkinsFan83]

The parents are at fault for not keeping an eye on their child. The zoo is at fault for killing the gorilla. Doesn't make either party wrong.

I am not exactly sure why a big deal needs to be made of it. Any parent person claiming the zoo screwed up by shooting the gorilla would fell different if their kid fell in the enclosure. The zoo did the right thing in killing the gorilla.

Now, if the parents end up suing the zoo? I will revise my opinion a bit...

This is how I feel. It's a ****ed up situation and RIP to the gorilla but **** happens. Not really mad at anyone.

Edit: Would it be too much to hope some of the PETA crowd decide to set themselves on fire to protest this?

[Koolblue13]

They did what they needed to do. The gorilla being killed is incredibly unfortunate but there was no way around it. There's not much else to it.

I agree. The situation sucks, but that's all you can do. Gorilla would have killed him by accident.

I think there's other issues involved that should be the conversation.

This is how I feel. It's a ****ed up situation and RIP to the gorilla but **** happens. Not really mad at anyone.

Edit: Would it be too much to hope some of the PETA crowd decide to set themselves on fire to protest this?

death for peaceful protesters is great!

[Xameil]

Well he's probably not from Lambda Lambda Lambda, if you know what I mean

Could be from Lambda Lambda Lambda at Atoms college.

But I think they're too smart for that

[Major Harris]

death for peaceful protesters is great!

To be fair, if they light themselves on fire, are they still peaceful protesters?

[Koolblue13]

So, the mother is a professional child handler and runs a day care.

[Major Harris]

So, the mother is a professional child handler and runs a day care.

I'm sure business will pick up

[codeorama]

The zoo is at fault here.   As a parent,  when I take my children to the zoo,  I should have 100% confidence my 4 year old toddler can't make his way into a dangerous animal enclosure.    If you have children,  you know how far they can move in the 5 seconds your head was turned.   The mother isn't negligent.   This wasn't the curb on a busy highway where you would expect to have to hold tight the hand of your child to keep him/her from stepping off the curb. This is public entertainment venue that has a certain expectation of safety.  Certainly enough to prevent a toddler from getting into the gorilla enclosure. That there is any debate about this is mind numbing.  I'd sue there ass off as they failed completely to maintain a minimum of safety.   I've had my children to the zoo many times as toddlers, and we let them run back and forth between the exhibits as we watched them,  mostly concerned of stranger danger,  but often times not close enough to grab one in time if there had been easy access into an exhibit. 

 

 

 

I agree with you in that Zoo's are generally for kids, when you go to a zoo, kids are most prominent.  The zoo has the responsibility to make sure that their enclosures are kid safe.  As others have pointed out, kids do stupid things, that's why they are kids and any one of us could have had the same thing happen.

[Koolblue13]

I agree that the liability should be on the zoo. 

 

One of the things that pop out, they've said that one of the reasons they had to shoot him, was the crowds reaction creating the high stress situation and making it impossible to remove the child safely.

 

Animals also don't like to be stared at, so I'm not sure why they're not always behind a sound proof safety glass.

 

My opinion is that safety was compromised, for pageantry and profit. 

[Koolblue13]

A broader reexamination of our relationship with animals may be the best remembrance we can offer poor Harambe.

 

http://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2016/05/remembering-harambe-the-gorilla.html

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/gorillas-shooting-harambe-cincinnati-zoo

 

 

I’ve spent a lifetime with gorillas. Shooting them should be a last resort

 

 

Aside from the wider ethical issues of keeping apes (or indeed any self-aware, nonhuman beings such as elephants and dolphins) in captivity, this tragic incident raises two key questions. How is it possible – yet again – for a child to gain such easy access to any zoo enclosure? Especially when zoos are primarily a family attraction. Even if no gorillas were involved, surely public safety standards require that a child cannot get to a 15ft drop so easily. And second, will zoo professionals amend their emergency protocols to try non-lethal methods first, with a marksman ready to shoot but only in the event that lethal force is necessary? Then such tragic events might be avoided in the future.

[Corcaigh]

Ohio is far better than the congested craphole that is NoVA. Its really not even close

You are a humorless, miserable heckler.

[Popeman38]

I agree that the liability should be on the zoo. 

 

One of the things that pop out, they've said that one of the reasons they had to shoot him, was the crowds reaction creating the high stress situation and making it impossible to remove the child safely.

 

Animals also don't like to be stared at, so I'm not sure why they're not always behind a sound proof safety glass.

 

My opinion is that safety was compromised, for pageantry and profit. 

Really? It would be "healthier" for the animal to be behind soundproof glass? In order to create a soundproof enclosure, the animal would have to be completely encased. Meaning the animals wouldn't be outside. No sun. No fresh air. No weather.

 

Have we really reached the point in our pussified society where there can be no risk associated with an activity? If someone gets hurt, wherever the injury occurs is liable? The DC zoo has ropes in the open the orangutans can traverse. Your logic prevents that. I can feed a giraffe at the Green Bay zoo. Your logic would prevent that because someone could be hurt accidentally and the zoo is liable. Hell, what about petting zoos we take our kids to? A goat could hurt the kids (hint: it happens EVERY year and no parents sue), or the donkey could kick, or the zebra could bite, or....

 

The zoo, IMO, has no liability to make an exhibit impenetrable. This gorilla exhibit has been around for years, and I am pretty sure this is the first instance of a kid "falling" in. Falling in quotes because he had to maneuver past 3 obstacles to fall. Out of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of visitors, one incident. Statistically insignificant, by any measure. And you want to revamp the entire zoo system? Should air travel be revamped because a person on the ground is killed by a bolt that fell off a plane at 30k feet?

[TheGreatBuzz]

Well since you put it that way, you're right, every animal except Humans love confinement.

 

 

humans are pretty close to apes.

But if you actually think animals, especially some of the most intelligent are closer to plants than people, then there is no possible way to communicate to you why your comment is idiotic.

 

 

Humans and apes share 98.5% of the same DNA. So you're right, you're not the exact same thing. However, it's relatively super close.

I like when Neil Degrass Tyson talks about this. The difference in 1.5% of DNA is the difference between roaming in jungles and being able to walk on the Moon. He goes on to say: what if there's an alien species with 1.5% of DNA more advanced than ours? Or better yet, 5, 10, or 50%?

Point is that we're not as wonderfully above other animals as we like to think of ourselves. Especially when you consider the scale of suffering we're able to dish out. I'm not "team human" as much as the average person who slept through biology who spews the ole "oh but that's an animal and we're *royal trumpet sounds* HUMAN BEINGS! Yeah, which is an animal too, nimrods.

That being said, they had to kill the ape. Letting it smash the kid while riflemen were holding their fire could've been uglier, and humans grieve a lot longer and harder than any other animal. Plus, yes, team human is the biggest factor, it would've caused 10x more of a ****storm. It's a shame, but there are big lessons to be learned, and the ape went quickly.

I am aware of all this.  I was only making the comparison because KoolBlue had asked if I would like being locked in a 10,000 sqft mansion and the comparison doesn't hold water.  Apes and humans obviously still have a lot of differences.  In my opinion, zoo's are a necessity and while they would prefer not to be locked up, every effort is made to make their pens as enjoyable as possible for both the animal and the spectators. 

[Popeman38]

Aside from the wider ethical issues of keeping apes (or indeed any self-aware, nonhuman beings such as elephants and dolphins) in captivity, this tragic incident raises two key questions. How is it possible – yet again – for a child to gain such easy access to any zoo enclosure? Especially when zoos are primarily a family attraction. Even if no gorillas were involved, surely public safety standards require that a child cannot get to a 15ft drop so easily. And second, will zoo professionals amend their emergency protocols to try non-lethal methods first, with a marksman ready to shoot but only in the event that lethal force is necessary? Then such tragic events might be avoided in the future.

Close the Grand Canyon, cause a child can't get that close to a drop...

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I wish I could view the Extremeskins tailgate in the alternate universe where the gorilla smashed the kid's head against a wall.

[stevenaa]

 

 

The zoo, IMO, has no liability to make an exhibit impenetrable.

I find that statement remarkable. It should certainly be impenetrable to a toddler.  Of course they have liability.  There's no way you can justify a dangerous animal enclosure that can be accessed by a toddler.    I have stairs in my house.  When my kids were toddlers, I put up a barrier they could not climb over or through to keep them from falling down the stairs.  Certainly the zoo  could have done the same to prevent a child failing 12 feet into an ape exhibit.  It is such a simple precaution.  None of this would be an issue if the zoo took simple steps to make the exhibit safe for kids.  

[CBass1724]

Dammit, Taze beat me to Guerilla Radio.

[stevenaa]

Close the Grand Canyon, cause a child can't get that close to a drop...

No comparison.  You're being intentionally provocative.   I walk up to the edge of the Grand Canyon, where there are no barriers,  having a full expectation of the associated risk.  I take my toddler to the zoo with 100% expectation they can't get into an ape enclosure. 

[daveakl]

No comparison. You're being intentionally provocative. I walk up to the edge of the Grand Canyon, where there are no barriers, having a full expectation of the associated risk. I take my toddler to the zoo with 100% expectation they can't get into an ape enclosure.

What about a person that has a pool in their back yard. They put up a 4ft fence per code, have an alarm on the gate per code, and lock the gate per code.

A 4yo pulls something over to the gate, climbs over, and ends up drowing. Are the home owners with the pool liable?

[daveakl]

I'll do another one.

At marbles (kids museum in raleigh) there is a bridge on the second floor that spans the lower level. It's "bouncy" and intended to teach kids about how bridges work and swaying is build into their design to resist winds from damaging them.

The railing is about 4ft high. Could a 4yo pull themselves over it and fall to the floor below? Sure. Would the museum be liable?

[Boss_Hogg]

Family of Boy Who Fell Into Gorilla Enclosure Says Child Is 'Doing Well,' Asks Donations Be Sent to Cincinnati Zoo in Harambe's Name

 

"Some have offered money to the family, which we do not want and will not accept," the statement continued. "If anyone wishes to make a gift, we recommend a donation to the Cincinnati Zoo in Harambe's name." 

 

http://www.people.com/article/family-says-boy-doing-well-after-falling-into-gorilla-exhibit

[Popeman38]

I find that statement remarkable. It should certainly be impenetrable to a toddler.  Of course they have liability.  There's no way you can justify a dangerous animal enclosure that can be accessed by a toddler.    I have stairs in my house.  When my kids were toddlers, I put up a barrier they could not climb over or through to keep them from falling down the stairs.  Certainly the zoo  could have done the same to prevent a child failing 12 feet into an ape exhibit.  It is such a simple precaution.  None of this would be an issue if the zoo took simple steps to make the exhibit safe for kids.  

Really?

Gorilla World's barrier setup exceeds required protocols and has been in place for 38 years without incident, Maynard said. Exhibits are inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture twice a year and by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums every five years for accreditation, he said.

 

"The exhibit is safe, the barrier is safe," he said. "The zoo was not negligent."

So the Federal Government says the exhibit is safe, the barriers exceed required protocols, but you think because 1 child in 38 years of operations penetrates the exhibit it is unsafe? Do the math on the number of kids that have been to the exhibit in 38 years versus the number of incidents. Statistically insignificant. 

 

And your house? If your toddler really wanted to fall down those stairs, they could have navigated over the gates. Read the instructions with the gate and they will tell you to never leave a child unaccompanied near the gate. Why? Because it is only an impediment and not meant to be 100% effective in preventing a child from getting over it. Just like the zoo enclosure. 

[Popeman38]

No comparison.  You're being intentionally provocative.   I walk up to the edge of the Grand Canyon, where there are no barriers,  having a full expectation of the associated risk.  I take my toddler to the zoo with 100% expectation they can't get into an ape enclosure. 

Do you allow your toddler to run around the zoo while you sit on a bench and drink coffee? Why not? You are obligated as a parent to prevent your child from attempting to access the ape enclosure.

 

Like I said earlier, I don't blame the parents. They are clearly at fault here, because the kid told his mom he wanted to go into the exhibit. That should clue you in that you need to pay extra attention to little Johnny. He has stated what he wants to do. If a toddler tells you what they want, they are going to try to get what they want. 

[CBass1724]

Can we just chalk this up to "$#!% Happens"? 

 

I know everyone wants to blame someone.  It was just an unfortunate accident.  Nothing more.  Nothing less. 

 

The knee jerk reaction in society these days is terrible.  Parents don't need to be arrested and zoo employees don't need to be fired.  Sheesh.