Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The death of Harambe the gorilla

2456

Comments

  • #32
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #35
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #38
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,819 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #41
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #43
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #45
    Canis Lupus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,880 ✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,819 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    You're generalising all wild animals.

    Why wouldn't we?


  • #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #49
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,819 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    Ronald Wilson Reagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭Ronald Wilson Reagan


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


  • #51
    Cienciano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,132 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    osarusan wrote: »
    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.

    It's a big source of income in some countries and to protect it, and the animals that brings the bucks, there are quite a few people who have been run out of their ancestral lands. Corruption is a huge issue, and often charities that outsource the policing but have no direct involvement. One vested interest tries to protect it's livelihood at the expense of another vested interest, and so on down the line until the innocents are caught up.

    All so a dentist can shoot a lion and have a picture taken with it's corpse. :(


  • #53
    daRobot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭daRobot


    With an endangered animal like this, it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    There would be far worse coverage had the Gorilla killed the child.

    It's a really sad situation to be honest, but the ultimate blame lies with the parent of the child, who allowed that situation to occur through not keeping a proper eye on them.


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    daRobot wrote: »
    With an endangered animal like this, it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    There would be far worse coverage had the Gorilla killed the child.

    It's a really sad situation to be honest, but the ultimate blame lies with the parent of the child, who allowed that situation to occur through not keeping a proper eye on them.

    I think you have to question the design of the enclosure if a 3 year old can just drop into it with little trouble.

    The parents should have been watching the kid, but the kid shouldn't have been able to breach the enclosure either.

    The zoo is at fault here for not protecting the kid, or if you prefer, not protecting the gorilla from the consequences of the poor design that allowed the kid to access it.


  • #55
    valoren
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭valoren


    We won't be able to make any more toast if we get rid of all the gorilla's.


  • #56
    YFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    The mother knew beforehand that the child was going to climb into the enclosure.


  • #57
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Canis Lupus wrote: »
    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.

    Well regardless of whether he had to be shot or not I don't think it's just that an endangered and very intelligent species be taken out of it's natural habitat, let down by both the zoo and maybe the parent of the child and end up shot.

    It's also not just for the hundreds of people who protect these species year in year out. Also the people who died protecting these species. All in all that is not just. We can take a single snapshot in time of the gorilla in the cage with an infant and infer a correct action (shooting, sedating ect) but when we look at it as a whole the situation isn't very just.

    As Candie said I think the zoo was responsible here. Also the enclosure was inspected by an external body in April and classed as safe. I don't think an enclosure which prevented little barrier to an infant can be regarded as safe.


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well regardless of whether he had to be shot or not I don't think it's just that an endangered and very intelligent species be taken out of it's natural habitat, let down by both the zoo and maybe the parent of the child and end up shot.

    Apparently Harambe is captive bred.

    I'd like to know what the reasoning was for deciding to shoot him instead of tranquilizing him. Maybe he didn't move far enough away from the baby to trank him, though that probably means he was being protective of him if so.

    A very preventable tragedy, and the fault at the very micro level is the zoos. He's an animal in captivity, in an enclosure not fit for purpose.


  • #59
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Candie wrote: »
    Apparently Harambe is captive bred.

    I'd like to know what the reasoning was for deciding to shoot him instead of tranquilizing him. Maybe he didn't move far enough away from the baby to trank him, though that probably means he was being protective of him if so.
    Despite what the movies will tell you, it actually takes minutes for tranquilisers to work fully. It would be a lot shorter if it's injected directly into the bloodstream but that wasn't going to happen with a gun.


  • #60
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Peregrine wrote: »
    Despite what the movies will tell you, it actually takes minutes for tranquilisers to work fully. It would be a lot shorter if it's injected directly into the bloodstream but that wasn't going to happen with a gun.

    He also could have had a bad reaction to the tranquilser and acted out violently before the drug took hold.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Peregrine wrote: »
    Despite what the movies will tell you, it actually takes minutes for tranquilisers to work fully. It would be a lot shorter if it's injected directly into the bloodstream but that wasn't going to happen with a gun.

    I would have thought that if they were strong enough they'd at least fell and incapacitate him, if not knock him out straight away.


Advertisement