Endangered Gorillla or Child?

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
Some sad news. A boy fell into a gorilla enclosure at a zoo. The gorilla was shot dead.

Full Story
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/30/us/gorilla-shot-harambe/index.html

Is the life of a human child more important than an endangered gorilla? Does it depend on circumstances?

The boy (or his parents at least) were careless. They should have watched him more closely. The gorilla was not deliberately trying to harm the child. Quite the opposite, he was trying to protect him. There are some cellphone videos showing this. Why not tranq the gorilla?

This adds to the list of reasons why I despise Zoo's.

Rest in Peace Harambe
 
Poor decision. Surely they could have found a dart gun as quickly as a lethal firearm?

The parents are idiots in not looking after their child, who let's face it probably wasn't a Nobel Laureate waiting to happen if his mother is that thick. The zoo is also culpable because their enclosure wasn't people proof.

Sorry but in my world the gorilla lives and if the kids dies? No great loss and a possible Darwin nomination.
 
I'm on the side of the Zoo. It is tragic that the Gorilla had to be put down basically because of shitty parents, but in this case I think that the life of the child weighs higher than the Gorilla.

Why not a tranq gun? It is a way more uncertain way to neutralize the animal. IF the dart even hits probably it could take minutes before the gorilla is tranquilized. If being shot by the dart pisses the Gorilla of it could kill the kid instantly.

To me there is a distinction between Zoo animals and wild animals as well. In this setting they are basically a more exotic variant of farm animals. They are not disney characters.

For most species it's going to suck to be a zoo animal, but they are "ambassadors" for their species to raise awereness and sympathy in the public plus some research and understanding. The Zoo's should of course make it as good for the animals as possible but it is going to suck for a polar bear to be in an enclosure no matter what. This is justified by the fact that their captivity is helping their species in general. This is how a friend who works at a zoo explained it to me, and it makes sense.
 
Why not tranq the gorilla?
Poor decision. Surely they could have found a dart gun as quickly as a lethal firearm?
Did you guys click the link in the OP?
Tranquilizers do not take effect for several minutes, and the child was in imminent danger. On top of that, the impact from the dart could agitate the animal and cause the situation to get much worse.
My knowledge on the effects of tranquilizer darts on 400lbs gorillas is rather limited so I'm going along with that the experts say in this case.


That aside, I think the parents should be liable for the financial loss associated with this animal due to their negligence.
 
Throw parents in to distract the gorilla :p As someone who has kids, you would be surprised at the ninja skills they have, unless you keep them on a leash they will get away from you at some point.

And Fire to answer your question human > any other animal always that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
 
These days zoos are becoming part of conservation, the animals in them aren't just examples of a large group. Take pandas and tigers for example. No suggestion that this gorilla was part of a breeding programme so I suppose the kid wins, if it was then it's tough luck kid.

Parents should be more careful, kids shouldn't be able to get in to zoo enclosures. Equal blame there and I don't think anything could come of it in court.
 
I read that they were intending on using Harambe for breeding.

The gorilla did nothing wrong. He wasn't being aggressive. He wasn't attaching. He was minding his own business when the kid fell in, people starting screaming and he was in his way trying to protect the boy. I disagree with the officials that say the boy was in imminent danger.

Some video


https://youtu.be/MmtCQCX7sFo
 
Last edited:
This is a no win situation for the zoo. Wait for the gorilla to turn over or release the kid (happened in similar situations in the past) and they are going to get slammed for favoring its life over the kid's.

If the gorilla wanted to act out, the boy would have died within seconds of falling in. But there are no guarantees. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
 
I read that they were intending on using Harambe for breeding.

The gorilla did nothing wrong. He wasn't being aggressive. He wasn't attaching. He was minding his own business when the kid fell in, people starting screaming and he was in his way trying to protect the boy. I disagree with the officials that say the boy was in imminent danger.

Some video


https://youtu.be/MmtCQCX7sFo

Firecat, you have fallen into the trap of the animalist mob.

That is not the right video.

This is:


In the video you psoted, there are two major cuts in the first minute. The two major cuts took away a rather interesting part which showed that the behaviur of the gorilla was not that of "protecting" the child, rather using it as toy.

In the deleted parts, the gorilla violently drags the child through the water to carry him around. Both times by the leg.

That is not "protecting" in any way. It is clear that the gorilla, who was simply being a gorilla, mind you, was playing with the child. Not in the sense that the gorilla was entertaining the kid, but in the sense that the child was the toy.

I am disgusted by those people who got around and cut the video -exactly- to take away what would have destroyed the fairy-tale version of the gentle gorilla. Beware of those people, they tried to trick you to boost their own ideology, regardless of the truth and regardless of your will of knowing the truth.
 
Thanks for posting that. That does change my perspective a bit. I still think the instinct of the gorilla was more protective than playful. The loud gasps and shrieks from the crowd played a factor as well.
 
The zoo did the right but difficult thing. Human life is much more important than an animal. But fuck the parents for letting your child get that far from you. Zoo's have pretty good distance, fencing, and moats to keep people from getting in. Somehow the kid got in without hurting himself without the parents noticing, what the fuck?
 
Would you bet that child's life on that?


In hindsight, knowing all the facts and circumstances, I would. So I've slightly shifted my position. I get why in the moment they did what they did.

I just can't really stomach the fact that this gorilla, taken from its natural habitat and held in captivity, lost its life through no fault of its own. It didn't escape or go on a rampage.

It kind of reminds me of what happened in South Africa not too long ago. Tourists provoked an elephant. Elephant charged. They put down the elephant.

We can't have wild animals on display and the moment there is any "danger" just kill them
 
That ape can move

Oh, yes! That simple video should earn gorillas our respect. They're big and fast and freakishly better than us in a contest of pure strength and speed.
It is very important that everyone understand exactly how incredible the other animals are and avoid fluffying them out into Disney parodies of themselves.

I just can't really stomach the fact that this gorilla, taken from its natural habitat and held in captivity, lost its life through no fault of its own. It didn't escape or go on a rampage.

In a sense, you are right, but in another sense, the gorilla failed to understand that endangering humans is not a great idea when you live among humans and you are held captive by them.

I suppose the gorilla has only been what we expected him to be, and the humans have only been what you may expect them to be. Sad, yes. Totally inefficient, stupid and arrogant on the part of humans, yes. No fault... I think you are antropomorphizing too much the gorilla and at the same time expecting too much from humans. The gorilla was not killed because it was aggresive, but because there was no other way of rescuing the kid safely.

We can't have wild animals on display and the moment there is any "danger" just kill them

I think we shouldn't have animals on display for the bland leisure of people, full stop.
 
Cards on the table. Which is the endangered species here? Over 7 billion humans on the planet v less than 200k lowland gorillas.

I get that the parents would grieve if the kid they ignored died, and believe me I'm not a bleating PETA freak, but this shouldn't even be a subject for debate. A zoo can only justify its existence for the purposes of education and conservation. Remove that by prioritising the life of a human which is, as a species bordering on an incurable virus, against that of a threatened species and their raisin d'?tre vanishes.

I don't advocate sacrificing ourselves as a species to save other animal groups but allowing one endangered animal to live at the cost of a single human life? Different story.
 
Since this happened in the U.S. I can almost sense what will come next: Parents suing the zoo for improper fencing of the gorilla habitat.
 
The child's life and well being rank a lot higher than that of the gorilla's, IMHO.

If using a tranquilizer was not possible or risky - I cannot be the judge of.

[...]
That aside, I think the parents should be liable for the financial loss associated with this animal due to their negligence.

:+1:

I think the recent case where two lions were shot dead because someone tried commit suicide with their help, is much more controversial, IMO.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36352593
Those lions should have kept their little snack and their lives ... *
Saving a child's life in such a situation on the other hand is an absolute no-brainer.

* of course it is hard to judge for the personnel at the zoo. A lot of people who commit suicide are selfish dicks, hurting a lot of people (or even killing) who have nothing or little to do with their pain/problems. This one made an especially gruesome show of it.
 
I think the recent case where two lions were shot dead because someone tried commit suicide with their help, is much more controversial, IMO.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36352593
Those lions should have kept their little snack and their lives ... *
Saving a child's life in such a situation on the other hand is an absolute no-brainer. .
Animal people sometimes go FR without knowing much about the issues they are discussing. Reminds me of Cecil the lion and the craziness of that story.
 
Top