Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

An endangered gorilla has been shot dead after a 4-yo fell into its zoo enclosure

675 replies

AdrenalineFudge · 29/05/2016 20:32

Why the fuck has this happened... again - to another endangered species?

A little boy fell into an enclosure and the zoo staff decided the best course of action was to shoot the gorilla dead.

I'm not even sure who I'm most angry at. This should not have happened in the first place.

OP posts:
TheWitchesofIzalith · 29/05/2016 20:42

Agree mum, why can't they tranquilise the animal instead of killing it?
Maybe it takes too long to work?

TheWitTank · 29/05/2016 20:42

Tranq darts do not take effect immediately. They also take longer to effect certain animals or may agitate them until they kick in. I really don't think they had any choice sadly.

Motherinlawsdung · 29/05/2016 20:43

They said a tranquilliser dart would not have acted quickly enough. It's really really sad, especially as the gorilla seemed to be acting quite gently after the first moment when he grabbed the child. But I suppose the keepers had no alternative.

NeedACleverNN · 29/05/2016 20:43

Tranquillisers might not even work if the gorilla was very agitated.

Plus if they missed and got the boy it would have killed him.

Reclaimedbaggage · 29/05/2016 20:44

well it shouldn't have happened. The safety measures are obviously inadequate.
But it did.
a gorilla being shot is less awful than a small child being maimed or killed imo

acasualobserver · 29/05/2016 20:44

The news report I read said that tranquillisers were ruled it because they take too long to work.

KatieKaboom · 29/05/2016 20:44

It was a ten minute ordeal, during which the gorilla became progressively violent.

The keepers tried to coax him out;
tranquilizers would have taken time to kick in and the gorilla would be enraged.

Male gorillas are not exactly gentle giants towards the young.

The sainted Media are trying to make us hate the keepers (murderers! ) with selective editing.

Bearbehind · 29/05/2016 20:45

Plus if they missed and got the boy it would have killed him.

And that didn't apply to the bullet that killed the gorilla? Hmm

NeedACleverNN · 29/05/2016 20:45

Unfortunatly it was the child's life over the gorilla. As it should be

dustarr73 · 29/05/2016 20:48

Kids are quick,could have been anyones kids that got through.Its not like he dug a tunnel.In this they where right.They got the other 2 gorillas out but he wouldnt budge.What where they to do.

PaulAnkaTheDog · 29/05/2016 20:48

The boy should not have been able to fall in. That's irrelevant after the fact though, isn't it? The best course of action was very sadly to kill the animal to save the child. There was nothing wrong in how they acted.

acasualobserver · 29/05/2016 20:48

Just out of interest, is there anyone on this thread who thinks the gorilla should not have been killed?

NeedACleverNN · 29/05/2016 20:50

No from me. He wouldn't leave the boy alone, refused to go indoors with the females and was a danger to a child. Only option was to shoot him to protest the child

dustarr73 · 29/05/2016 20:50

Bearbehind dont be so fucking stupid.Of course a child becomes before a gorilla.

NeedACleverNN · 29/05/2016 20:50

Protest=protect

Reclaimedbaggage · 29/05/2016 20:51

I think most people acknowledge that if you allow your child to end up in a gorilla's pen then there is a very strong chance they won't survive therefore they would prevent the situatation ever occurring.

that sounds like you think the child deserved to be ripped apart because of a mishap that the parents "should" have been able to prevent.

Dragonglass · 29/05/2016 20:52

The reports I have seen have said that tranquillisers would have taken too long to work.

Very sad story.

Bearbehind · 29/05/2016 20:52

I don't think the gorilla should have been killed.

He wasn't harming the child from what I've seen.

It should have been an absolutely last resort but it sounds like it was a knee jerk reaction.

Fairuza · 29/05/2016 20:54

Poor child and poor parents.

I don't believe anyone who says they have taken multiple young children to the zoo and watched all of them every second.

I have taken a school trip to the zoo and to be honest getting into a dangerous animal enclosure wasn't even on the risk assessment. I wouldn't have believed it would be possible.

TheWitTank · 29/05/2016 20:55

He was dragging the child around through water and throwing him. It would take about 2 seconds for a gorilla to kill a 4 year old. The violence was increasing as the gorilla became agitated.

NeedACleverNN · 29/05/2016 20:55

bear have you actually seen the part of the video where he is being dragged under water?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=_flos11MZP4&feature=youtu.be

Fairuza · 29/05/2016 20:55

Bearbehind - have you actually watched the videos of the gorilla dragging the child around?

acasualobserver · 29/05/2016 20:56

He wasn't harming the child from what I've seen.

Do you think they should have waited a bit longer then?!

LogicalThinking · 29/05/2016 20:56

There must have been an alternative to killing the animal.
Suggestions?
They had no choice. The child was at too great a risk. Tranquilisers would not have been a safe option.
He shouldn't have been able to fall in to the enclosure.

Bearbehind · 29/05/2016 20:57

I'm not saying the gorilla's life takes priority over the child.

I guess it's part of a bigger question about zoos in general. The gorilla died because he was exactly where he was supposed to be and a child entered his space. That raises huge questions to me about why wild animals are kept in captivity and in a position where this can even happen.