Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think it's unfair to blame the mother of child hurt by gorilla?

497 replies

pinkladyapple · 30/05/2016 22:02

Yes if she was holding his hand maybe he wouldn't have ended up in the enclosure. But he could have gone over/through the fence in a split second. And the zoo should have fencing which makes this impossible, surely?

The parents aren't being prosecuted for negligence and yet the Internet seem angry at the mother.

But then the people who think that also seem to think a tranquilliser works instantly, and the gorilla wouldn't react to the pain or impact of the dart.

It's sad and terrible though. For everyone.

OP posts:
EvansOvalPies · 02/06/2016 19:15

Cheerio - Good Zoos are absolutely fundamental in the survival of endangered species. Without them, many species of animal would now be extinct. In the civilised world, animals are not "removed" from their habitat, instead rescued from the habitat which is fast-disappearing, and being encouraged to breed so the species may survive. The fact that they are in exhibits (again, most of which, in the western world are good Zoos) for all the world to 'gawp at' is to raise the funds for the species to thrive and survive. I would say 99.9% of animals in Zoos or Wildlife parks in Europe are very well cared for. And Zoos are mostly essential for the animal's survival. There are bad Zoos over the world, and they should be shut down, as they are bad, bad bad. But the good zoos are doing a good thing

EvansOvalPies · 02/06/2016 19:17

Cheerio - the zoos are not displaying the animals for profit - they are displaying them to raise funds for their very survival.

EvansOvalPies · 02/06/2016 19:23

Think of this scenario:

OMG - all the gorillas/tigers/white rhinos/lions/gorillas ... ad infinitum ... have died out. If ONLY someone had thought of setting up a breeding programme to try to save them

EvansOvalPies · 02/06/2016 19:36

Oh - and try to raise funds to support the project whilst doing so. That would be such a marvellous idea, wouldn't it? 'Why didn't anyone ever think of that, I wonder? We could exhibt the animals we're trying to save, at great expense - lets see if members of the public would like to come and see them, whilst we are doing this great work. Oh, yes they would kike to come and see them, and pay us to try to help us to save these magnificent creatures (large or small, mammal or insect). Good idea. Who knew that further down the line, there are STILL going to be stupid people who think that all these wonderful creatures, who are under threat of being wiped off the earth without the help of conservationists and zoo staff, think that these marvellous animals should not be rescued and cared for. Which is, of course, what is happening, because in their own habitat, which is being wiped out at the moment, is going to happen. Without the intervention of caring people who are prepared to make a difference, there will not be too many animals left for people to see, before we know it.

MyNewBearTotoro · 02/06/2016 20:56

There are plenty of ways to save endangered animals without putting them in zoos.

And there are plenty of species of animals in zoos who aren't endangered or don't need to be 'rescued' from habitats. They're there purely for people to gawp at.

And yes, the enclosures look good because we're comparing them with the cages that used to house zoo animals several decades ago but compare the enclosures in zoos to the wild and they're awful. Many large mammals would literally cover miles of ground in a single day. The whole point of a zoo is that the animals are visible to the public so they can't offer the animals the space they need (especially large animals) because if they did then they would be far harder for people to see as they could be miles from the viewing areas.

Plus most zoos breed endangered animals but then just ship them to other zoos - very few have programs for reintroducing these animals back into the wild or increasing wild populations of the animals. Most zoos are businesses for profit and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise or say that because they do some good with regards to breeding endangered animals they're not cruel.

RufusTheReindeer · 02/06/2016 21:00

evans

I dont believe anyone was comparing eating an endangered animal to eating a cow, and i completley understand what you are saying

Its the very many comments regarding an innocent animal when all animals are "innocent" which was annoying

If the postsers concerned had said they were devastated by the death of an endangered animal no one woukd have said boo. But some people are just talking about "innocent" animals...which is fucking infantile

Endangered animal? I agree...very upsetting. Cute/attractive animal? Ok upsetting ...meh. Innocent animal? Fuck off

EvansOvalPies · 02/06/2016 21:53

Rufus - please don't tell me to fuck off (I am hoping you didn't mean that, and I think actually we are of the same opinion, perhaps I didn't express it eloquently enough). There are indeed some posters who have compared the killing of this gorilla with vegetarianism and veganism ("all life is valuable, blah blah blah, and "what is the difference between a gorilla and a chicken"). It may not be this thread, but on others, there are at least three threads running on this forum alone on the same subject and I think I've contributed to all three, so please forgive me if I've got them all confused. Difference between a chicken and a gorilla - BIG difference. One is bred for meat for omnivores, part of the food chain, Gorilla endangered species, not bred for the food chain. I did not say it was an innocent animal - what I said was that this animal was acting in his natural way. I have also said elsewhere that a gorilla is not 'cute'. He/she is far from it. However, the animal was in captivity, the zoo was charging for it to be viewed, therefore, the zoo was liable for the safety of both animal and members of the public. Some people are equating this sad occurrence with ALL poor animals on the planet, others are bizarrely comparing with the tragic Madeline McCann (of course, tragic in its own right, but bears no resemblance to this discussion whatsoever).

EvansOvalPies · 02/06/2016 21:58

MyNewBearTotoro - there are lots of reintroduction programmes for captive-bred animals to the wild. A quick internet search will tell you that, before common sense even kicks in.

RufusTheReindeer · 02/06/2016 22:14

I didnt say fuck off to you...i didnt say it to anyone Shock

I said that people could fuck off with the innocent animal comment

You yourself said that you didn't say "innocent animals"

For goodness sake

RufusTheReindeer · 02/06/2016 22:16
  • But some people are just talking about "innocent" animals...which is fucking infantile

Endangered animal? I agree...very upsetting. Cute/attractive animal? Ok upsetting ...meh. Innocent animal? Fuck off*

Thats what i said...

Mrsfrumble · 02/06/2016 22:38

"Innocent animal" is an annoying turn of phrase, but I kind of understand it in this context. While we can argue (with varying degrees of legitimacy) that the zoo, parents, or child himself were to "blame", no can reasonably apportion any responsibility to the gorilla. He was the most "innocent" component in the whole sorry incident.

MyNewBearTotoro · 02/06/2016 22:43

I did do an Internet search and I maintain that the vast majority of animals bred in zoos are bred with no intention to ever release them into the wild. Okay, some of the zoos do have a minimal number of re-introduction programs (eg: London zoo breeds field crickets to be introduced into the UK, Chester zoo similarly has breeding programs to reintroduce native species such as dormice to the UK whilst Marwell zoo reibtroduces Przewalski’s horses to Mongolia) but they are also quite clear that most animals bred in zoos are sent to other zoos and for the majority of animals being bred there doesn't appear to be any short or medium-term plans to get them out of zoos and into the wild. I couldn't really find anything about large endangered mammals (who arguably suffer the most in zoos as it's harder to meet their needs in terms of space and habitat), likely because most captive-bred animals would struggle to adapt to living in the wild So breeding programs designed to increase the number of animals in captivity aren't then going to be able to just release those animals into the wild. The majority of animals born in zoos will live out their lives in zoos (as will their descendants) - they might get moved from zoo to zoo or if they're lucky end up in a safari park with more space and freedom but it's highly unlikely they'll end up in the wild.

I don't disagree that zoos do some good with regard to conservation but I do maintain that it is not in their interests to get animals out of zoo and into the wild and that they don't really have the interests of individual animals in mind, even if they have good long-term goals for a species.

CheeriAndO · 02/06/2016 22:43

Evans Oh wonderful, the West has "good zoos" now! Well it was the West's 'exploration' that led to modern zoos in the first place. Animals are losing their habitats due the Western way of life's insatiable need for resources which we luckily encouraged the world to copy as we 'civilised' them.
You do realise that humans used to be displayed in zoos too but that ended thanks to the championing of universal human rights. Sadly, animals don't have a voice so the practice continues. Let's not pretend that zoos originally had anything to do with conservation. Reserves are better and animal rights charities are better funded than children's charities so zoos only real purpose is entertainment. Therefore the zoos should ensure the safety of the animals and the paying customers

RufusTheReindeer · 02/06/2016 22:46

But the point is if you are expressing concern for one innocent animal why dont you care about other innocent animals

Or have i entered a Douglas adams reality where the meat asks to be eaten

You are right mrs its an annoying phrase

As i said before ...i dont mind endangered or even beautiful/majestic at a push....but i really object to "innocent"

And i am not keen on a 3/4 year old being guilty either Hmm

Mrsfrumble · 02/06/2016 23:04

No, I definitely don't think the child is "guilty", or even "bratty" as some here have said. I don't think it's particularly unusual for a child that age to ignore their parents saying "no" when they are really determined to do something. Just in this case it had a unusually horrible outcome.

The zoo and the parents? Who knows, unless they were there and saw the whole incident (and even then eyewitness accounts seem to vary). I'm inclined to believe it was an unfortunate combination of circumstances that led to a fluke tragedy.

RufusTheReindeer · 02/06/2016 23:12

Completely agree mrs Smile

Jenny70 · 03/06/2016 00:08

Do we see the enclosure now has new fence? A whopping 42" this time Shock. No self respecting child can climb a fence 1m tall Mmmmmmmm

To think it's unfair to blame the mother of child hurt by gorilla?
flappingbingowings · 03/06/2016 00:38

It would have made much better TV if they had let the gorilla slowly dismember the child.

CheeriAndO · 03/06/2016 00:40

So there's a new fence? Does that mean there's also another Gorilla in the pipeline to replace Harambe? The zoo can't lose its attractions after all

Thefitfatty · 03/06/2016 05:16

Jenny70 if that is really the new fence then the zoos health and safety people need to be fired. How in the world is that an improvement?

Jenny70 · 03/06/2016 05:31

I believe it is the "new fence", how ridiculous.

I think they have female gorillas in the enclosure still, I recall hearing they tempted the females off display when the boy fell/climbed in... but the male didn't respond to being called back to the night enclosure...

IrisPrima · 03/06/2016 07:00

Don't be so utterly ridiculous. I cannot believe that you are seriously suggesting that fence is the only thing between the gorillas and the public.

This argument has reached the realms of the incredible. Go find your brain cells and use them.

Nataleejah · 03/06/2016 07:13

No, I definitely don't think the child is "guilty", or even "bratty" as some here have said. I don't think it's particularly unusual for a child that age to ignore their parents saying "no" when they are really determined to do something. Just in this case it had a unusually horrible outcome.
The child is not "guilty" in a sense as "to be held responsible" - that would be bonkers. However, it was not a slip-and-fall accident. He deliberately made his way. Most of us have been to a zoo at similar age. How many actually attempted to clamber into animal enclosures?
--
Another commentary by Captain Paul Watson

Since the violent killing of the captive gorilla Harambe, we have seen the usual justifications paraded forth with so called experts trotted out to defend the shooting. Experts like Jack Hanna who is the go-to "expert" anytime animals are killed because he will always provide a justification for killing for the media. And there was some woman zoo-keeper who it's not even worth mentioning her name because she was seeking attention in her role as an "expert" in justifying the killing. She is merely a prison guard.

But there really are only two experts whose opinion I respect when it comes to primates. Jane Goodall and Birute Galdikas

Birute, the leading voice in the world for the Orangutang tweeted:

Birute Mary Galdikas

It is arrogant to think that humans are more important than ‪#‎animals‬. It's a form of human failing that is even now destroying the earth.

Jane Goodall also observed that the gorilla's movements were not aggressive.

In two prior instances one in Chicago in 1996 and the other in Jersey (U.K.) in 1986, where a child fell into an enclosure the child was rescued by a gorilla. There was no reason to believe that Harambe would have harmed the child and in fact did not harm the child despite being with the child for over 10 minutes.

Was the boy dragged? Yes he was, he was dragged from the water. Why by the leg? Because that is how a gorilla would have dragged a young gorilla in a similar situation and dragging by the leg has less potential for injury than dragging by a more fragile arm.

Both Harambe's parents were killed because of negligence by a zoo and now at 17, Harambe was violently slain.

And as I predicted a few days ago, the parents of the boy now intend to sue the Zoo and most likely the zoo will settle for an undisclosed amount and their incompetence as parents will be rewarded financially.

And for those who say I should not be judgmental about the character of the parents, I can only say I have no need to be judgmental. The criminal records speak to that quite adequately.

Zoos have no social or ecological redeeming value. They should be replaced by sanctuaries that care for wild animals. Breeding should be banned in zoos because they don't breed animals to return to the wild, they breed for sale and trade to other zoos.

The first thing they did with Harambe's body was extract his sperm for breeding purposes. It was profit on their minds, not remorse.

And finally for those who told me to stick to whales and not to comment on other animals well, I will comment on any damn thing I want on this page be it whales, gorillas, lions or unicorns if I so choose. It's my facebook page and thus my decision as to what is posted.

My wildlife conservation experience has not been restricted to whales and fish. I spent a year working on anti-poaching activities in Africa. I've seen gorillas and lions in the wild and seen the thugs (poachers) who kill them and in my opinion the fingers that pulled the trigger on Harambe are just as guilty as any gorilla poacher in the wild and even worse in many ways because they should have known better. It was a cowardly act. In Jersey in 1986 three men jumped into the enclosure to retrieve the boy and the silverback stood guard as they did. These men were heroes unlike the cowards at the Cincinnati Zoo.

What happened in Cincinnati was despicable, unforgivable and outrageously irresponsible. This zoo should be closed.

IrisPrima · 03/06/2016 07:18

Well everyone has a opinion don't they? Doesn't make them right.

And you can bet your ass I'd be suing a zoo who couldn't keep gorillas and the public apart.

CheeriAndO · 03/06/2016 08:31

Don't be so utterly ridiculous. I cannot believe that you are seriously suggesting that fence is the only thing between the gorillas and the public

If the original fence could not stop a three-year-old then will this fence seriously protect the gorillas the next time someone decides to go in? Please Google 'zoo accidents' to see how often the animals are inadequately protected from paying customers.