The death of Harambe the gorilla

steddyeddy

Many of you will be aware that a gorilla called Harambe was shot dead after a child climbed into his enclosure at Cincinnati zoo recently. Now there have been debates on focusing on whether it was right or wrong to shoot the gorilla and the liability of the parents and the zoo. I think these are very important questions but for me the primary question is "is it right to take a gorilla from it's natural habitat, place it in a zoo where onlookers stare at it all day and then shoot it when someone enters it's enclosure.

IMHO the answer is no. Gorillas need conservation programmes that's for sure but I think we need to think outside of the box on this one.

Gorillas are extremely intelligent, emotional and generally peaceful animals. This is well researched and it hasn't been placed into my mind by Disney as some people keep spouting. They are endangered animals and many people have lost their lives defending these gorillas. There have been very very few incidents of gorillas killing humans in anything other than self defence.

The gorilla in the incident may have killed the child accidently but I don't think he was trying to kill the child. The child was in the enclosure for ten minutes if Harambe wanted to kill the child it would have done so. There have been two incidents when a child fell into a gorilla enclosure. In both cases the child was safe and in both cases the gorilla acted defensively towards the child. Ian Redmond, a gorilla expert who worked with Dianne Fossey of Gorillas in The Mist fame has this to say in the Guardian. I agree with him and would love opinions on the matter. I would also point you to the link to some excellent gorilla charities at the bottom of the article.

The tragic
events at Cincinnati zoo last Saturday triggered an outpouring of
emotion all over the world. Shock at the killing of a splendid young silverback,
Harambe, mixed with relief that the four-year-old boy came through it relatively
unscathed (though doubtless traumatised). What lessons can we learn from such a
sad turn of events?










Harambe is a KiSwahili word meaning “pull together” – a good name for a
gorilla because gorillas live in stable family groups and they do look out for
one another. Over the past 40 years I have had the good fortune to spend
hundreds of hours in the company of gorillas in their natural habitat. Most of
them were habituated – that is, used to, human observers with an understanding
of gorilla etiquette – but misunderstandings sometimes occur. I have been
charged by a nervous female who thought I was too close to a member of her
group, a blackback (adolescent) male who I was filming feeding; I have been
walloped and bowled over by boisterous blackbacks, treating me just like one of
the family, and on occasion, been on the receiving end of defensive silverbacks
giving their awe-inspiring screaming charge. But I’ve never been hurt by a
gorilla.


These were free-living gorillas, though; if they don’t like your company they
can leave. A captive gorilla doesn’t have that option. Harambe was born in
captivity and raised by caring humans, but always with them in control – so it
is unsurprising he didn’t know what to do when a small boy dropped into his
enclosure. And given that the enclosure had crowds of agitated humans above him
shouting and screaming, it is not surprising the gorilla was stressed. When
stressed, silverbacks strut and display their strength – often by dragging
vegetation, group members or other objects (including humans) – but this is not
a forest with soft leaf-litter but a zoo enclosure of concrete and rock, so such
behaviour carries more risk to the unfortunate person being dragged. In such
circumstances, was Harambe’s death unavoidable?

Clearly if a silverback wanted to kill a child,
he could do so in an instant. But he didn’t

My immediate response to the news was a deep sense of regret and sadness.
Watching the shaky phone video, it is clear that the child was understandably
frightened and the gorilla understandably stressed, but in the video shown on
the news websites, Harambe did not attack the child. He pulled the child through
the water of the moat, at one point held his hand – apparently gently, stood him
up and examined his clothing. The
video is two minutes and 34 seconds long, however, and we are told
the incident lasted some 10 minutes. Clearly if a silverback wanted to kill a
child, he could do so in an instant. But he didn’t. It would seem that the
danger was more to do with whether the boy might bang his head on a rock while
being dragged.





Without knowing what happened in the seconds leading up to the lethal shot,
we are not in a position to judge the outcome. I can imagine the panic of the
child’s mother and the fear of the zoo staff. For a man with a gun thinking a
child is in danger, it is a tough decision and the zoo is standing firmly behind
their use of lethal force.


But there were other possible outcomes. In two other incidents where children
have fallen into zoo gorilla enclosures (Jersey
in 1986 and Chicago
in 1996) neither the gorillas nor the children died. It is cogent to
examine the specifics of each case before drawing conclusions about this
one.







What else might have been tried? I agree with the zoo director who felt a
tranquilliser dart gun, which delivers a painful jab in the behind, could have
startled Harambe and in the time it would take to have an effect, might have put
the child at greater risk. Gorillas have a reasoning mind, however, and if
someone known and trusted by Harambe had tried to calm him, perhaps offering
something that would immediately attract his attention such as a tray of his
favourite fruits, a negotiated settlement might have been possible (all the
while with the marksman in position to shoot if necessary). Perhaps this was
tried, but there has been no mention of it.


If a softly-softly approach failed, a display of force could be the next
option. When the Gorilla
Doctors need to anaesthetise a member of a wild gorilla group in
Rwanda, Uganda or DRC, a line of courageous park staff stand between the
silverback and the patient, giving the vets time to operate to remove a snare or
treat a wound. Perhaps it would even be useful for zoo staff to be trained in
the kind of nonlethal equipment used by police, prison officers and the military
to restrain, stun or disorientate an aggressor without killing them? The point I
am making is there are several possible steps between the fear and panic (both
human and gorilla) shown in the video clips of the start of this event and the
use of lethal force that ended it.


Aside from the wider ethical issues of keeping apes (or indeed any
self-aware, nonhuman beings such as elephants and dolphins) in captivity, this
tragic incident raises two key questions. How is it possible – yet again – for a
child to gain such easy access to any zoo enclosure? Especially when zoos are
primarily a family attraction. Even if no gorillas were involved, surely public
safety standards require that a child cannot get to a 15ft drop so easily. And
second, will zoo professionals amend their emergency protocols to try non-lethal
methods first, with a marksman ready to shoot but only in the event that lethal
force is necessary? Then such tragic events might be avoided in the future.


• To
support one of the charities helping protect gorillas in Africa visit www.4apes.com and click on gorilla. To learn more
about gorillas in their natural habitat by visiting them virtually, go to www.vecotourism.org or download the new UN-GRASP
ApeAppVR for those with virtual reality headsets

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

It's happened again??

razorblunt

Have you not seen the movie Congo?
It's us or them.

steddyeddy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's happened again??

Is that the extent of your opinion on the topic?

Bio Mech

steddyeddy wrote: »

The gorilla in the incident may have killed the child accidently

Ah sure that's grand then. An accident, ah well.

Samaris

I'm naturally a bit skeptical of the chap's writing as I can see he has an agenda he's working with, so a certain natural bias is probably in there. However, the reports I've read otherwise on the whole sad incident suggests that he's fairly accurate in the facts; Harambe did drag the child through the water, but didn't attack or try to harm him. The very act of dragging the kid would have been terrifying to the child and the people watching, it's fair to say though, even if the gorilla had no ill intent.

I'm rather in agreement about the risks of tranqing the animal. Nothing like getting stabbed in the arse and then feeling drunk and woozy to really irritate (well, basically anyone). And if he'd associated the hurt with the child, things could have turned nasty. We will never know if this could have been resolved without harm to either the child or the gorilla, so it seems it's more down to preventing it happening again (i.e. not having enough space for a child to fall in. Plexiglass behind the railings or something so people can still see through without being able to get through).

Overall, I'm pretty against zoos, and while I see some of the conservation arguments for them, it saddens me that it's even necessary. It's not a natural life for them.

Lackey

You didn't like that very few agreed with you over in the parenting forum so you came to after hours?

Alf Stewart.

Who's life to protect, toddler or gorilla?

No brainer really. And I reckon any animal lover with kids will agree.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Gorillas are extremely intelligent, emotional and generally peaceful animals...
...The gorilla in the incident may have killed the child accidently but I don't think he was trying to kill the child.

I'd go with the shoot animal first, inquest as to who is to blame afterwards.

When you say gorillas are peaceful, does that cover gorillas in zoos? I wouldn't test that theory by jumping into a cage with them myself.

SEPT 23 1989

a child's life takes precedence over any wildlife

gramar

steddyeddy wrote: »

Many of you will be aware that a gorilla called Harambe was shot dead after a child climbed into his enclosure at Cincinnati zoo recently. Now there have been debates on focusing on whether it was right or wrong to shoot the gorilla and the liability of the parents and the zoo. I think these are very important questions but for me the primary question is "is it right to take a gorilla from it's natural habitat, place it in a zoo where onlookers stare at it all day and then shoot it when someone enters it's enclosure.

IMHO the answer is no. Gorillas need conservation programmes that's for sure but I think we need to think outside of the box on this one.

Don't you mean outside the enclosure?

But there were other possible outcomes. In two other incidents where children
have fallen into zoo gorilla enclosures (Jersey
in 1986 and Chicago
in 1996) neither the gorillas nor the children died. It is cogent to
examine the specifics of each case before drawing conclusions about this
one.

I'm afraid that among the possible outcomes was that the stressed gorilla might kill the child in an instant, perhaps unintentionally. It's not an option to leave the little guy with a wild animal, hoping for the best. Don't get me wrong, it's a tragedy where the gorilla himself bears no blame or responsibility, but I don't see an option where a little guys life is at stake.

Conservation of gorillas in their habitat is the optimal approach, and the provision of ideal conditions for maximum population growth. Unfortunately, sometimes with the best of intentions this can impact on the humans who's way of life can be compromised by the concern for animals.

A case in point are the Baka - so-called pgymy - tribes of Cameroon, who are being denied the option to continue their way of life in the forests by anti-poaching squads employed by WWF in reserves declared by the government, which brings in foreign revenue for big game hunting licences.

So now a traditional people who lived semi nomadic hunter-gather lifestyles, and who's lives also centred on conserving their surroundings as required by their ATR, forced into towns an cities, unable to speak the language or engage in any commerce, uneducated by modern metrics, and utterly lost in a world they know nothing about and are not equipped to navigate.

http://www.survivalinternational.org/about/southeast-cameroon

They made us carry their belongings to WWF’s base. And it was there that we nearly died from their beatings. Afterwards we couldn’t walk. It took all our strength not to die there on the road.

Every effort should be made to conserve wildlife and in my opinion, other than breeding programs, zoos have very little to offer. I don't think of them as a form of entertainment and the animals born in captivity are not a reflection of how those animals live in the wild, and it's not how they deserve to live.

I don't think anybody with a shred of human empathy can entertain the thought of wildlfe being conserved at the cost of entire tribes of people being wiped out by displacement, and the subsequent poverty, disease, exploitation and/or slavery that is an all too familiar consequence of comfortable white people in the West deciding they know how to do things 'better'.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Who's life to protect, toddler or gorilla?

No brainer really. And I reckon any animal lover with kids will agree.

Or without. I think we can all grasp the situation even without super special "I have reproduced!" powers.

LightsStillOn

I guess this is the catalyst for the ape uprising. And I, for one, welcome our new ape overlords!

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think these are very important questions but for me the primary question is "is it right to take a gorilla from it's natural habitat, place it in a zoo where onlookers stare at it all day and then shoot it when someone enters it's enclosure.

There are really 2 questions there. The first one:

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think these are very important questions but for me the primary question is "is it right to take a gorilla from it's natural habitat, place it in a zoo where onlookers stare at it all day[?]

I don't like zoos much myself (especially the birds in cages) but I'd like to know more about the survival rate of these wild animals (including gorillas) in their natural environment? I'm fairly sure it's often more nuanced than a case of just leaving them alone in their natural habitat and they'll happily live unmolested, in mutual freedom and peace with all the other creatures around them.



The second question:

steddyeddy wrote: »

then shoot it when someone enters it's enclosure.

Given those particular circumstances the zoo staff felt they had no other option apart from lethal force. It's a horrible thing but I don't disagree with it.

The issue should be making absolutely sure that nobody can ever accidentally enter these enclosures.

Didn't a gorilla rape a guy in a gorilla suit in that Trading Places documentary?

Alf Stewart.

Andres White Registry wrote: »

Or without. I think we can all grasp the situation even without super special "I have reproduced!" powers.

I think the point of my post may have been lost. What I'm trying to get across is, anyone screaming foul at the fact the gorilla got wasted, because y'know, it's a "peaceful animal", "one of God's creatures", "it shouldn't be in a zoo anyway" etc etc etc, might think differently if it was their kid that tumbled into the enclosure.

I mean, I'm an animal lover meself, for example, if I have a vermin problem, I prefer to catch em alive, and release em again, far from my property. Have a lovely dog too, that is treated like one of me family.

However, should Rex ever attack one of me lil darlings, he'll be taken out back and gotten rid off.

Absolutely no question about it either.

Your Face

What time is the removal?

gramar

LightsStillOn wrote: »

I guess this is the catalyst for the ape uprising. And I, for one, welcome our new ape overlords!

It could be the start of gorilla warfare.

kneemos

So much angst over one stupid ****ing Gorilla.

steddyeddy

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Who's life to protect, toddler or gorilla?

No brainer really. And I reckon any animal lover with kids will agree.

The only way you could have simplified your point is if you substituted OR for VS.

ScumLord

One way of making zoos give better care to the animals under their control is to maybe put a limit on how many types of animals they can keep, maybe specialising in one or two species. It may allow for bigger enclosures, more focused research and would be easier to keep experts on staff.

I know zoo's are a lot different now and the focus is conservation but they're still businesses and at the moment they can always try getting in some new exotic species to try and get more people through the door.

They're an odd model these days. The people who probably hate seeing these animals in captivity the most end up working in zoo's, they're a sort of legacy attraction that we now can't just abandon because there's a load of animals to take care of. So now we have animal lovers maintaining animal prisons and trying to find ways of making these prisons more helpful to the rest of the animals that got lucky enough to avoid captivity but are still being driven to extinction by human activity.

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

So much angst over one stupid ****ing Gorilla.

Gorillas aren't generally considered stupid.

steddyeddy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

a child's life takes precedence over any wildlife

Yes I agree. What's up for debate is how much danger the child was in and also is it time to rethink putting one of the most intelligent animals on the planet in a zoo.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Gorillas aren't generally considered stupid.

Comparatively.

It's a no brainer. You don't risk a little childs life, if they hadn't shot the gorilla, the outcome could very easy have been a dead toddler and a dead gorilla.

People<animals, every time.

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn't a gorilla rape a guy in a gorilla suit in that Trading Places documentary?

Yep and orang-utans have been known to rape human women in the wild. If this was an orang-utan male I would have a slightly different view.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

Comparatively.

It's a no brainer. You don't risk a little childs life, if they hadn't shot the gorilla, the outcome could very easy have been a dead toddler and a dead gorilla.

People<animals, every time.

Indeed but that's not the question.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I agree. What's up for debate is how much danger the child was in and also is it time to rethink putting one of the most intelligent animals on the planet in a zoo.

If a little child is in the clasp of a wild animal of massive strength, the only option is to secure the child first. Things could turn on a hair, with a sudden noise, with a spike in cortisol. There's no time for that debate in that moment.

You just can't take the chance, it's a risk not worth taking.

steddyeddy

Your Face wrote: »

What time is the removal?

In Virunga national park in the Congo the locals do indeed give the gorillas funerals. A lot of people have died protecting these animals.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

If a little child is in the clasp of a wild animal of massive strength, the only option is to secure the child first. Things could turn on a hair, with a sudden noise, with a spike in cortisol. There's no time for that debate in that moment.

You just can't take the chance, it's a risk not worth taking.

You're generalising all wild animals.

ScumLord

Candie wrote: »

Comparatively.

It's a no brainer. You don't risk a little childs life, if they hadn't shot the gorilla, the outcome could very easy have been a dead toddler and a dead gorilla.

People<animals, every time.

I'd be more worried about spinal injuries than the gorilla actually killing the child. Gorillas don't have a killer instinct, at all. He could kill just about anything by brute force but he'd never really set out with the intention of killing the same way humans would.

steddyeddy

Also guys I'm seeking opinions on the ethics of placing gorillas in zoos after an incident like this. A lot of you would instantly shoot the ape but surely putting them in zoos places them in a situation where they could possibly be shot.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Some good conservation areas are being run in parts of Africa. I watched a Barcroft documentary on them recently, they're protected by rangers from poachers and tourists are brought out into the bush to view them in their natural habitat from afar.

The eternal problem they face is lack of funding. They rely heavily on the gorilla tourist dollar, and tourism is not such a big thing in many of these countries.

Harambe's story is tragic but I fully support the decision made by the zoo staff. A gorilla is still a wild animal with the potential to inflict catastrophic harm on a human. No chances can be taken when a human life hangs in the balance.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed but that's not the question.

I thought the ethics of shooting the gorilla because of the presence of a child in it's enclosure was in question.

from the OP

... but for me the primary question is "is it right to take a gorilla from it's natural habitat, place it in a zoo where onlookers stare at it all day and then shoot it when someone enters it's enclosure.

Yes, it's right to shoot a gorilla when a persons life is at stake.

No, it's not right to take a gorilla from it's natural habitat. I don't know if that happened here with this gorilla.

Yes, it MAY be ethical to breed gorillas in captivity, away from human gaze, if the alternative is extinction.

ScumLord

The ethics are wrong, but the zoo's are needed to house these animals now. They can't go back to the wild.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're generalising all wild animals.

It's a fair generalisation. Violence is the go to tool for every living creature on this planet.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

I'm afraid that among the possible outcomes was that the stressed gorilla might kill the child in an instant, perhaps unintentionally. It's not an option to leave the little guy with a wild animal, hoping for the best. Don't get me wrong, it's a tragedy where the gorilla himself bears no blame or responsibility, but I don't see an option where a little guys life is at stake.

Conservation of gorillas in their habitat is the optimal approach, and the provision of ideal conditions for maximum population growth. Unfortunately, sometimes with the best of intentions this can impact on the humans who's way of life can be compromised by the concern for animals.

A case in point are the Baka - so-called pgymy - tribes of Cameroon, who are being denied the option to continue their way of life in the forests by anti-poaching squads employed by WWF in reserves declared by the government, which brings in foreign revenue for big game hunting licences.

So now a traditional people who lived semi nomadic hunter-gather lifestyles, and who's lives also centred on conserving their surroundings as required by their ATR, forced into towns an cities, unable to speak the language or engage in any commerce, uneducated by modern metrics, and utterly lost in a world they know nothing about and are not equipped to navigate.

http://www.survivalinternational.org/about/southeast-cameroon



Every effort should be made to conserve wildlife and in my opinion, other than breeding programs, zoos have very little to offer. I don't think of them as a form of entertainment and the animals born in captivity are not a reflection of how those animals live in the wild, and it's not how they deserve to live.

I don't think anybody with a shred of human empathy can entertain the thought of wildlfe being conserved at the cost of entire tribes of people being wiped out by displacement, and the subsequent poverty, disease, exploitation and/or slavery that is an all too familiar consequence of comfortable white people in the West deciding they know how to do things 'better'.

Good post Candie but conservation has moved on a lot and the issue you describe is not the norm nor is the moving of tribes entirety because of conservation.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're generalising all wild animals.

No, I'm talking about the gorilla the thread is about.

A gorilla is not a domesticated animal.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

A lot of you would instantly shoot the ape but surely putting them in zoos places them in a situation where they could possibly be shot.

Build better enclosures.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

No, I'm talking about the gorilla the thread is about.

A gorilla is not a domesticated animal.

Domesticated VS undomesticated is not equal to violent VS not violent. I think are several factors here. The parents, the zoo and the need to discuss the ethics of placing gorillas in zoos.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good post Candie but conservation has moved on a lot and the issue you describe is not the norm nor is the moving of tribes entirety because of conservation.

I was in Cameroon a few weeks ago. This is very much an issue, right now, in Cameroon, concerning the Baka people. I interviewed 43 of them.

It's much more prevalent than people think.

Of course deforestation and the profit motive are often the primary cause of displaced traditional tribespeople, but the profit motive is often at play in reserves too.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Build better enclosures.

Yes I agree but also I don't like the idea of placing an animal that can learn sign language and communicate in an enclosure.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Domesticated VS undomesticated is not equal to violent VS not violent. I think are several factors here. The parents, the zoo and the need to discuss the ethics of placing gorillas in zoos.

I never said it was, obviously.

The parents obviously are less than vigilant, at best. However by the time the child was in the Gorillas clasp, that point is moot.

There is nothing to support imprisoning gorillas in zoos, unless they are in the zoo as part of a breeding program and away from human interference as much as possible, and only where the alternative is extinction.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

I was in Cameroon a few weeks ago. This is very much an issue, right now, in Cameroon, concerning the Baka people. I interviewed 43 of them.

It's much more prevalent than people think.

Of course deforestation and the profit motive are often the primary cause of displaced traditional tribespeople, but the profit motive is often at play in reserves too.

Profit and corruption are also prevalent in Virunga too. However I think it's an extremely important cause to preserve both cultural identities and to prevent the loss of one of the great apes on the planet.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Profit and corruption are also prevalent in Virunga too. However I think it's an extremely important cause to preserve both cultural identities and to prevent the loss of one of the great apes on the planet.

You're saying that like I said otherwise, which I haven't.

The optimal approach to conservation isn't breeding programs in zoos, it's supporting the animal by protecting it's natural habitat.

The same applies to humans living in that same habitat, they should be allowed continue their traditional lifestyle in their ancestral lands without interference. Sadly it's sometimes the people displaced to preserve the life of the animals, often not for conservation alone, but for profit.

Canis Lupus

I never realized there were so many gorilla whisperers out there until this incident.

It's sad but they did what was needed. Justice for Harambe my hoop.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I agree but also I don't like the idea of placing an animal that can learn sign language and communicate in an enclosure.

What's best for the gorilla as a species?

I don't know the answer to that question. As I said earlier in the thread - I don't like zoos much myself (especially the birds in cages) but I'd like to know more about the survival rate of these wild animals (including gorillas) in their natural environment? I'm fairly sure it's often more nuanced than a case of just leaving them alone in their natural habitat and they'll happily live unmolested, in mutual freedom and peace with all the other creatures around them.

Wikipedia tells me that of the different species of gorillas, most are critically endangered and the rest are endangered. I'm not convinced at all that we can just leave it all alone and it'll be grand.

So, if we need to get involved, how do we do so? Conservation in their natural habitat seems best, but is that always feasible? What do we do in situations where it's not feasible? Is there another option apart from zoos?

Sometimes getting involved might mean keeping them in conditions that are far from perfect. That might be because a particular zoo is a horrible place and can be improved, but no zoo will be able to replicate their natural habitat.

If we unable to replicate their natural habitat, what should we do then?

I have loads of questions but I have no answers.

Dravokivich

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're generalising all wild animals.

Why wouldn't we?

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

So, if we need to get involved, how do we do so? Conservation in their natural habitat seems best, but is that always feasible? What do we do in situations where it's not feasible? Is there another option apart from zoos?

If Pandas had been left to their own devices, there would be no Pandas.

If we have to intervene, breeding programs away from human gaze so that the animals aren't 'exhibits' would be something I'd support, especially if the ultimate aim was always to release into the natural habitat wherever possible, but breeding programs are expensive and it's a symbiotic relationship, zoos need the money they generate by exhibiting the animals to fund the programs that perpetuate the existence of those same animals.

Perhaps the compromise is in revisiting zoo design, though as zoos tend to be in or near cities to draw the maximum numbers of visitors, the cost of the kind of plot that would allow more natural seeming habitats would be extremely prohibitive.

osarusan

Candie wrote: »

If Pandas had been left to their own devices, there would be no Pandas.

If we have to intervene, breeding programs away from human gaze so that the animals aren't 'exhibits' would be something I'd support, especially if the ultimate aim was always to release into the natural habitat wherever possible, but breeding programs are expensive and it's a symbiotic relationship, zoos need the money they generate by exhibiting the animals to fund the programs that perpetuate the existence of those same animals.

Perhaps the compromise is in revisiting zoo design, though as zoos tend to be in or near cities to draw the maximum numbers of visitors, the cost of the kind of plot that would allow more natural seeming habitats would be extremely prohibitive.

Indeed, in one way solution is simple - find a massive space and recreate natural habitat far better than can be done in a zoo.

Simple, apart from the pesky issue of cost.


It reminds me a bit of those 'hunting safari' we hear about where some guy paid $50,000 or whatever amount to shoot a rhino or a tiger, and the $50,000 goes towards conservation of the rest of the animals.

Sounds awful, and is awful, but it's evidence of a lack of other options.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

Clearly the best solution would have been to shoot the child.

Cienciano

steddyeddy wrote: »

Many of you will be aware that a gorilla called Harambe was shot dead after a child climbed into his enclosure at Cincinnati zoo recently. Now there have been debates on focusing on whether it was right or wrong to shoot the gorilla and the liability of the parents and the zoo. I think these are very important questions but for me the primary question is "is it right to take a gorilla from it's natural habitat, place it in a zoo where onlookers stare at it all day and then shoot it when someone enters it's enclosure.

IMHO the answer is no. Gorillas need conservation programmes that's for sure but I think we need to think outside of the box on this one.

That's a long question. But because you added the bit at the end "and shoot it when someone enters it's enclosure", the answer is yes.