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
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
