What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gorilla Rescues Toddler at Zoo, Gorilla Euthanized (1 Viewer)

Quez said:
Everyone is blaming the mother, but the zoo is responsible for this.  I just can't comprehend how there is anyway a toddler can get into any exhibit.  It's not like an 8yo who can climb a tree.  The entire zoo should be closed, and every square inch examined.
Click to expand...
I see you never been to a zoo.   Parents put their kids in really dumb places there.

 
Football Menace said:
What's even more scary to me about this whole situation is that there are people who actually believe that the gorilla's life was more valuable than the boy's.  Euthanized the boy,  and spare the gorilla?  WTF?  ####ttt parenting?  Absolutely!!!  But the kids was just being a kid. 
Click to expand...
Yeah....they had no choice at all. Obviously the parents are idiots in allowing a child to plunge into a Gorilla enclave. Insane in fact. But this is a wild animal who would in all likelihood seriously injure and possible kill a 3 year old child. Even if the gorilla possibly would do no such thing....you can't take that chance ever.

I love animals as much as the next person. Especially silver back gorilla's who are incredible and highly intelligent mammals.  But a child's life is at stake and people are upset the Gorilla was killed? Give me a ####### break already.

Lock those morons up as well. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cheese said:
Put me in the lower intelligence group then. I take a kid the same age to that same zoo and it would take my kid about 4 seconds of me looking down or messing with the baby to get in that gorilla area..or many other areas. TBH I'm scared to go right now and I'm not sure how it doesn't happen more.  
Click to expand...
Then you/your kids would be in big trouble raising them where I live.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How anyone here be on either side of the "they're kids, it's easy to lose track of them for a second" or "how in the world do you not have close enough eyes on your kids so they can't get into a gorilla enclosure at the zoo" argument without knowing the facts of how the kid actually got into the gorilla enclosure is just silly and wasting time. 

As a parent, it's absolutely not possible to have eyes on your children every second of every day.  So, did the kid literally slip through a fence and was into some bushes (out of sight) in the blink of an eye, then out of sight through those bushes and down into the gorilla pit?  Or was the kid spending five minutes stacking boxes in order to scale a wall that's reasonably constructed to keep kids out?  And enough with the "but the kid even said he wanted to play with the gorillas!" so the mom should've been watching the kid like a hawk nonsense.  A four year old shouldn't be able to get into a gorilla enclosure at a zoo, period.  A ten year old might be a different story, but a four year old?  C'mon. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42 said:
I don't know about some of you and where you live, but I live in a very large city, crowded streets, crowded roads with fast moving cars, and a lot of bad people around. I stop paying attention for more than 5-10 seconds, and the results could be catastrophic. 
Click to expand...
Something catastrophic could happen in those first 5 seconds too. 

 
Godsbrother said:
That 4 year old figured out a way into the gorilla exhibit that had alluded other 4-year olds for 38+ years and now you call him stupid?
Click to expand...
it had allude dumb 4 year olds...the rest were smart enough not to try to play with the dangerous animals...

 
Are people serious with this "the gorilla wasn't acting violently" stuff?

It's a gorilla and a 3-year old. Every time that Gorilla touches the child there's a chance he could kill them. There's no such thing as not "acting violently" in that situation.

 
Skoo said:
Are people serious with this "the gorilla wasn't acting violently" stuff?

It's a gorilla and a 3-year old. Every time that Gorilla touches the child there's a chance he could kill them. There's no such thing as not "acting violently" in that situation.
Click to expand...
Same could be said of any adult human.

 
Shoot the gorilla to save the kid....then bill the parents the cost of the gorilla and the bullet(s) for allowing their kid to trespass. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thunderlips said:
Shoot the gorilla to save the kid....then bill the parents the cost of the gorilla and the bullet(s) for allowing their kid to trespass. 
Click to expand...
Or sue the Zoo for the trauma caused to the child because they are unable to keep 3 year-olds out of their Gorilla cages.

 
Skoo said:
Or sue the Zoo for the trauma caused to the child because they are unable to keep 3 year-olds out of their Gorilla cages.
Click to expand...
Yes, sue the zoo. The zoo that has managed to keep millions of people out of the gorilla cage for almost 40 years, clearly this enclosure was absolutely inadequate.

 
You know the cost effective way to deal with this in the future is to hire Rodeo clowns.  They can run into the exhibit and distract the animal and entertain the crowd with their zany antics.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Yes, sue the zoo. The zoo that has managed to keep millions of people out of the gorilla cage for almost 40 years, clearly this enclosure was absolutely inadequate.
Click to expand...
I don't know, if a little kid dies as a result of getting into one of their enclosures I doubt that's gonna help them much in court.

My point was you can blame the parents or the zoo, they are both deserving. Parents should be keeping an eye on their kids, Zoos should be doing what it takes to not let small children enter their enclosures.

 
Skoo said:
I don't know, if a little kid dies as a result of getting into one of their enclosures I doubt that's gonna help them much in court.

My point was you can blame the parents or the zoo, they are both deserving. Parents should be keeping an eye on their kids, Zoos should be doing what it takes to not let small children enter their enclosures.
Click to expand...
Why should the parents sue then? Being that they absolutely deserve some of the blame... 

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Why should the parents sue then? Being that they absolutely deserve some of the blame... 
Click to expand...
If someone gets hurt on your property, they can sue you.

Even if they are doing something incredibly stupid, without your permission. If they are injured on your property, they can sue you for damages.

Not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

 
I would expect that the zoo carries a hefty insurance policy for all the possibilities that could go wrong, and correspondingly I would think that the insurance company would regularly verify that incidents like this could not be carried out solely by a three year-old.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Is it reasonable to expect the zoo to anticipate that a kid is going to fall into a Gorilla exhibit?  It hadn't happened in the 40+ years the exhibit has been open.  So, whatever they were doing seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
The bolded doesn't matter. Not even a little bit.

For one -- I would hope an enclosure built in the late 1970s has been inspected regularly and updated/renovated as needed. If it turns out inspections/repairs are lax, records are incomplete, etc., the zoo won't be able to lean on "it never happened before!"

For two -- I don't know about zoos in other areas, but -- for example -- the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans looks a lot different today than when I went there on a school field trip in the 1970s. Few enclosures today are actually cages. Everything's been updated ... most of the large-animal enclosures are moated and double-fenced, with the inner fence hard-to-scale Plexiglass (or a lookalike material) lacking hand/foot holds. The downside is that it's harder to see the animals in these newer enclosures -- the animals are typically pretty far away because of the space taken up by moats and fencing. The upside is that people can go over the outer railings all day and the worst that would happen is they'd fall into a shallow moat (most, I believe, also have netting).

IOW -- are we quite sure that the Cincinnati Zoo's gorilla enclosure was totally up to 2016 zoological standards? Was anything out of date, out of repair, etc. I'm not sure I'd necessarily be going around bragging about my 38-year-old enclosure.

 
GroveDiesel said:
People that elevate animals to the level of humans (or perhaps it's really vice versa) scare the crap out of me. 
Click to expand...
I think its a continuum.  I'm personally not in the camp of gorilla=human, but I bet I'm a lot closer to that than the average joe.  I definitely don't just shrug my shoulders and say, it's just a stupid animal.  Who cares.  We humans are soooo much different.

 
Doug B said:
The bolded doesn't matter. Not even a little bit.

For one -- I would hope an enclosure built in the late 1970s has been inspected regularly and updated/renovated as needed. If it turns out inspections/repairs are lax, records are incomplete, etc., the zoo won't be able to lean on "it never happened before!"

For two -- I don't know about zoos in other areas, but -- for example -- the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans looks a lot different today than when I went there on a school field trip in the 1970s. Few enclosures today are actually cages. Everything's been updated ... most of the large-animal enclosures are moated and double-fenced, with the inner fence hard-to-scale Plexiglass (or a lookalike material) lacking hand/foot holds. The downside is that it's harder to see the animals in these newer enclosures -- the animals are typically pretty far away because of the space taken up by moats and fencing. The upside is that people can go over the outer railings all day and the worst that would happen is they'd fall into a shallow moat (most, I believe, also have netting).

IOW -- are we quite sure that the Cincinnati Zoo's gorilla enclosure was totally up to 2016 zoological standards? Was anything out of date, out of repair, etc. I'm not sure I'd necessarily be going around bragging about my 38-year-old enclosure.
Click to expand...
Here is a solution!  http://www.amazon.com/Sentry-Safety-Pool-Fence-Black/dp/B002QRMKFI

 
Skoo said:
Are people serious with this "the gorilla wasn't acting violently" stuff?

It's a gorilla and a 3-year old. Every time that Gorilla touches the child there's a chance he could kill them. There's no such thing as not "acting violently" in that situation.
Click to expand...
No ####...The way he dragged him thru the water ..It's a wonder the kids head didn't clang off of something...Heard on the news that the gorilla was able to squeeze coconuts until they busted open....Kids head may have been inviting..

 
Doug B said:
The bolded doesn't matter. Not even a little bit.

For one -- I would hope an enclosure built in the late 1970s has been inspected regularly and updated/renovated as needed. If it turns out inspections/repairs are lax, records are incomplete, etc., the zoo won't be able to lean on "it never happened before!"

For two -- I don't know about zoos in other areas, but -- for example -- the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans looks a lot different today than when I went there on a school field trip in the 1970s. Few enclosures today are actually cages. Everything's been updated ... most of the large-animal enclosures are moated and double-fenced, with the inner fence hard-to-scale Plexiglass (or a lookalike material) lacking hand/foot holds. The downside is that it's harder to see the animals in these newer enclosures -- the animals are typically pretty far away because of the space taken up by moats and fencing. The upside is that people can go over the outer railings all day and the worst that would happen is they'd fall into a shallow moat (most, I believe, also have netting).

IOW -- are we quite sure that the Cincinnati Zoo's gorilla enclosure was totally up to 2016 zoological standards? Was anything out of date, out of repair, etc. I'm not sure I'd necessarily be going around bragging about my 38-year-old enclosure.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it probably does matter.  A lot.

The issue is whether the enclosure reasonably protect the public.  So, when you are incident free for 38-years, you can point to that and say, yes, this is reasonably secure.

That does not mean that the exhibit is hermetically sealed with no means of entry.  It means the zoo has taken reasonable precautions to avoid animals killing humans.

The legal question will be was it foreseeable that a 3-yo kid would fall into the moat.  And given that it had not happened in 38 years is a defense that it was not foreseeable.  The zoo is not required to provide a 100% safe environment - it has to guard against reasonably foreseeable dangers.

 
Sinn Fein said:
The issue is whether the enclosure reasonably protect the public.  So, when you are incident free for 38-years, you can point to that and say, yes, this is reasonably secure.
Click to expand...
Granted, what I'm posting below is about accreditation of facilities and not a legal standard.

The standard for facilities to receive Zoological Association of America (ZAA) accreditation goes further than merely "protecting the public":

From III. General Regulations of Captive Wildlife (PDF, pg 8):

2. Caging Requirements:
   a. Enclosures housing captive wildlife shall be sufficiently strong to prevent escape and to protect the caged animal from injury, and shall be equipped with structural safety barriers to prevent any physical contact with the caged animal by the public.
Click to expand...


From IV. Structural Caging Requirements for Class I, II and III Wildlife (same link, pg 11):

1. In addition to the standard caging requirements set forth above, Class I and Class II animals shall be housed in accordance with the following requirements:
   a. A fence sufficient to deter entry by the public, which shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in height, shall be present around the premises wherein Class I or Class II animals are housed or exercised outdoors. [Great apes are among the Class I animals - db]
Click to expand...


From Primates (same link, pg 17):

c. Gorillas.

iii. Wet or dry moats may be substituted for the required fencing provided ZAA written approval has been obtained. For island exhibits, wet moats shall be used that are no less than 20 feet wide, with 50 percent of the water having a depth twice the height of the tallest animal.
Click to expand...

 
Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Ohio Accredited through September 2019[also accredited by the American Alliance of Museums]

 
Doug B said:
Granted, what I'm posting below is about accreditation of facilities and not a legal standard.

The standard for facilities to receive Zoological Association of America (ZAA) accreditation goes further than merely "protecting the public":

From III. General Regulations of Captive Wildlife (PDF, pg 8):

From IV. Structural Caging Requirements for Class I, II and III Wildlife (same link, pg 11):

From Primates (same link, pg 17):
Click to expand...
So deficient water depth, and likely deficient width.

 
1. In addition to the standard caging requirements set forth above, Class I and Class II animals shall be housed in accordance with the following requirements:
   a. A fence sufficient to deter entry by the public, which shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in height, shall be present around the premises wherein Class I or Class II animals are housed or exercised outdoors. [Great apes are among the Class I animals - db]
Click to expand...
From Primates (same link, pg 17):

c. Gorillas.

iii. ... wet moats shall be used that are no less than 20 feet wide, with 50 percent of the water having a depth twice the height of the tallest animal.
Click to expand...


Sinn Fein said:
So, any more questions on accreditation?
Click to expand...
Somebody may have let the Cincy zoo slide on the recommendations. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

the moops
What's a typical weekday for you?
2
Replies
85
Views
3K
MAC_32
MAC_32
supermike80
Thread---Marital Advice
2
Replies
70
Views
3K
coopersdad
C
Joe Bryant
A Glimpse of Beauty In an Ugly Place
Replies
0
Views
361
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top