Killing of Gorilla at Ohio Zoo to Save Boy Sparks Outrage

[c.d.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/killing-of-gorilla-to-save-boy-at-ohio-zoo-sparks-outrage/ar-BBtCunM?li=BBnb7Kz

c.d.

[John Wheat]

It sounds like the boy would have been fine. So the Gorilla got shot for no reason. Sad.

[Geddy2112]

From the video I saw the kid got dragged round like a rag doll through water for a few minuets. I'd be surprised if the kid is okay.

Still very sad and of course stupid on behalf of the parents not taking better care.

[GUT]

The parents, well what can you say.

It seemed reasonably OK till people started yelling then the Gorilla looked to get agitated.

Some say why not use a tranquilliser to me it's because they take time to work during which time he may well have become even more agitated.

[Pcdunn]

Heard on the news tonight that animal-rights activists held a memorial service for the silverback gorilla at the zoo, stating they hoped that measures could be taken in the future so this sort of thing wouldn't happen again. I agree with that, but think better safety precautions and parental care should be required of both the zoos and the visitors.

The zoo representative stated that the boy was in danger, and anyone attempting to say otherwise does not understand anything about silverback gorillas.

I agree with this too. While it seems that the gorilla saved the boy, his defensive stance over the child could be a sign that he'd fight anyone coming in to take the boy away. It's a great shame that huge beast had to be killed, but I think we should allow that the zoo folks knew better than we do.

Lastly, so far the police have not pressed charges against the mother of the boy who fell into the gorilla's habitat, and I hope they will investigate the case well enough to find out how the boy managed to do that.

[Harry D]

It sounds like the boy would have been fine. So the Gorilla got shot for no reason. Sad.

Not really. We're talking a 400lb animal that is known to be unpredictable and could've snapped the boy like a twig at any moment. The zoo did the right thing, but the boy should've never been able to get in there in the first place.

[Rosella]

This was a wild animal and wild animals are unpredictable. Goodness knows there have been enough examples of whales, tigers etc turning on humans who have worked with them for years, let alone some little creature suddenly coming near him that this gorilla didn't know.

Perhaps he wouldn't have hurt the boy, we don't know. However, it seemed to be getting quite agitated with screams and cries from onlookers and hundreds of eyes peering at him from above.

So I think, tragic though the decision to kill this endangered gorilla was, it was the right one in the circumstances. However, IMO this doesn't let the zoo or the child's mother off the hook. There should not have been any way for the public to access that enclosure at all, ever. Apparently the facilities around that enclosure hadn't been really improved in forty years.

And lastly, if you take a small child to the zoo and they express a wish to play with a wild animal they are viewing you take hold of their hand, hold it as tightly as you possibly can and move off to take a look at the penguins, koalas or anteaters or something.

[Robert]

Very sad that this should have happened. Worth saying perhaps that animals are animals, just like us. The beautiful Orcas that people drool over will band together in packs and over several hours or days pursue sperm whales, especially the calves, until their victims are too exhausted to put up any further struggle. The cute dolphins that people love will kill porpoises, gouging out their eyes. And the mischievous chimps will literally tear off the arms and legs of any apes that trespass on their territory.

[MsWeatherwax]

I'm not going to comment on the parenting skills of this little boy's family, because there but for the grace of the fluffy sky fairy go I (we've all taken our eye off the ball once or twice, and I wasn't there to see how he got into the enclosure).

However...the zoo need a full strength kick up the backside, with a run up. As a public space, there are just certain terms and conditions that you have to meet, whether you like them or not. In terms of a zoo, one of those T&C's is that, under no circumstances should a small child be able to fall into your enclosure, forcing you to shoot an endangered animal dead. Quite apart from the tragedy of the loss of such a beautiful creature, it's a public relations disaster and rightly so.

I can't even say that I'd retract that if it turns out Mum or Dad were doing something stupid (I'll take a guess Junior was being lifted over the edge of the enclosure or something). Unfortunately, people do stupid things all the time. Sadly, in this day and age some of us are in jobs just to look at things like gorilla enclosures, point and say 'someone is going to lift their child over that, or jump into it themselves - we need a second barrier'. About the only thing that I can think of that would let the zoo off the hook is if the enclosure had actually been tampered with, or the parents or A.N Other had malicious intent in some way.

Everyone concerned is very lucky the whole incident didn't end with a dead gorilla and a dead little boy. Just horrible all round, and I fully expect lawsuits to follow. I just feel so sorry for the gorilla and his keepers, and of course, for the little boy. Hopefully he's not hurt too badly.

[John Wheat]

Not really. We're talking a 400lb animal that is known to be unpredictable and could've snapped the boy like a twig at any moment. The zoo did the right thing, but the boy should've never been able to get in there in the first place.

The Gorilla seemed to be protecting the boy. There's no reason why they couldn't have darted the Gorilla and if that had agitated the Gorilla then shot him as a last resort.

[Jon Guy]

You can sign the petition for Justice for Harambe the gorilla, below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36416350

If you`re going to do one good thing today let this be it !!

[Pcdunn]

The Gorilla seemed to be protecting the boy. There's no reason why they couldn't have darted the Gorilla and if that had agitated the Gorilla then shot him as a last resort.

I know it does look at first as if the gorilla saved the child from deeper water near the waterfall (apparently where the boy fell in), and dragged him to shallower water, then stood over him.

But last night I saw additional footage showing the boy managing to scramble away and stand up on a rock in the water. Harambe reached out a giant hand, hooked it around the child's waist and pulled him close, then shoved the boy behind him. Even that might be how infant gorillas get treated by their parents, but a short time later, the gorilla dashed off dragging the boy by a limb, splashing through the water.

The child was endangered, I think-- and I'm as much of an animal lover as anyone. Darting doesn't work immediately, and the gorilla could well have turned on the little boy before the drug took effect.

[Errata]

The Gorilla seemed to be protecting the boy. There's no reason why they couldn't have darted the Gorilla and if that had agitated the Gorilla then shot him as a last resort.

Haramba was gorilla gentle with that boy. But he could not be human gentle. The child could have drowned from being dragged with his head under water, and god forbid Haramba pulled the child in close like he would a baby gorilla, or he would have snapped the child's neck. That was the fear, and why they killed him instead of darting him. That in trying to protect the boy the gorilla would kill him.

[Abby Normal]

once again dumb ass parents involved.