I think of any of us were being dragged around by a gorilla, we'd like someone to save us. Tranqs can take up to 15 minutes to really work, and 15 minutes of even greater agitation would've killed the kid. If you think about it, the gorilla would've probably been put down anyway if the child was killed.
I agree with almost everything you sad except this bit here. This effects anyone who steps foot in a zoo. I think anyone who goes to one expects that animals will be on one side and the humans on the other. It should be virtually impossible to get into that enclosure. Even with the most vigilant parents, kids do stupid things. The option to get in in the first place should never have been there. Even if it's makes the part look less aesthetically attractive, who cares? We're already caging up animals for our entertainment, the very least the zoo could do was keep both of us safe. Not just the humans. But the animals too. That is what an enclosure is for. The zoo completely failed in that regard. So yes, it does effect those outside the family and zoo. I'd be surprised if there weren't some parents who thought twice about going to a zoo now. Or even that particular child. After all, if one child can get in, why not somebody else's? You keep bringing up this argument. As someone else had already pointed out, who said he'd be great? What if he was the next biggest serial killer in America's history? What if he ran a terrorist organisation? The argument can go both ways. And it's pointless. What if the gorilla saved his species and stopped them from going extinct while this guy went on a murderous rampage? Who's more valuable then? We can all do this all day. It's an irrelevant argument. Especially when you're not considering both sides of the coin. This is what I have been saying all along. The mother has a role to play to some extent. But if a child can get in, it obviously wasn't doing a good enough job to keep people out. Again, OF COURSE we would want to be saved. Unless of course we jumped into a gorilla enclosure to try and get ourselves killed. This is not a logical argument and this is exactly why we or our family would not be the ones who made the decision. It's left to the experts. It's left to the objective third party. And no, the gorilla should not have been put down. The gorilla did not do anything wrong. Humans started this in in the first place. By ruining their environment and almost making them extinct. By creating the reason in the first place for having them be bred in captivity. For needing to cage animals up for our entertainment. And then not even providing safe barriers.a Knowing humas though and the media going nuts over it, that's probably exactly what would have happened. It'd have been sensationalised as a murdering gorilla. Rather than a boy falling into a wild animal enclosure. How that gorilla got there in the first place probably wouldn't even be considered by society.
We have debated some important topics and usually agree...however I wish you would reconsider this statement. I don't even care that it's a rare animal because as I stated before...an animal never supercedes a human life in my opinion. Dont argue that it is the family and the zoo who are involved...but society as a whole does have a vested interest. For those who allow the same thing to happen even when they know the end result is a fool. We should never allow a bad history to repeat itself. We should learn from our past and this is part of "our past". Why would we not want to learn from this tragedy? Can we make other exhibits safer in the future? Shouldnt we at least try?
An animals life should always be put before a humans life. All humans do is destroy and make this earth a worse place, can't say the same for the animals.
Agreed. All zoos should be looking at their enclosures and asking themselves if it is sufficient to keep everyone out. What has happened has happened. We need to learn from our mistakes and try to prevent it happening again. For an animal and a human's sake.
I see you don't understand the "could be." I agree he could be a serial killer. I agree he could be the leader of a terrorist organization. However, do you underestimate the abilities of each person? I am an optimist, so I understand that the most common reality is that the kid will go on to be an average joe civilian with a chip on his shoulder. I will argue this, however, how can that one ape save a dying species whilst in a cage? What good does it do to be held captive for "safety" when we as humans are really doing more harm than good. Wouldn't it be better off to let them loose in the wild and let nature take its respective course for the future of this species? It's funny to me how just because it's an endangered gorilla makes such a large impact. No one would care if it was any other species that wasn't endangered. Hell, the killing would be applauded if it were something like a lion or tiger. Let us not forget that Mother Nature will take the species if it wishes, and we cannot change the fate of this species. I think it was a sad thing yes, but really is being overly dragged out and morphed by the media, as Cheese stated. In all reality I don't think that there was an alternative. The "experts" are saying it was agitated. So what it was holding its hand? It was in a state of agitation apparently, and thus no alternative. I wish to believe that there was, and if it there was that it would have been taken.
I understand perfectly, thanks. I was only providing the other side of the argument. Which you didn't seem to consider. Mine were could be situations also. Really the point is that this is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered when making a decision. I could be the next Einstein, right? Therefore I demand the top education to help me get there. I could be the next genius!!! The fact that you are an optimist does not discount that the other side could be true too. If we considered this every time a decision is made, we'd get nowhere. A person could go a million different ways in life. It's not logical to consider it. We can only deal with the information we do know. Similarly, I'm sure the experts considered several different possibilities when making a decision. The difference is they are experts in the field. No one would know animals and their behaviour better than them and hence are in a position to make a judgement call. The whole point of bring endangered species into captivity is to facilitate their breeding and increase numbers. Humans are trying to reverse what they set in motion in first place by destroying their habitat. I'm not sure it would be applauded but yes, the fact that it is an endangered species makes it even more important. Are lions or tigers endangered? I'm not sure, don't think they are. Lets say for the sake of argument, they're not. Gorillas ARE endangered. There are very few left in the wild. The less there is, the harder to reproduce which means there numbers will keep getting lower and lower. That is not the case for a non endangered species. Hence why they are not considered endangered. Not everyone believes in fate and mother nature. Mother nature didn't kill them off in the first place. We did by destroying their habitat. Breeding in captivity is an attempt to get their numbers back up. What I find funny is how every one is rightly up in arms about an endangered species with few left in the wild. Yet the fact that there are 7 billion humans is irrelevant. Of course it was dragged out by the media. That's what the media does. They get a small tid bit of information and the next thing you know the gorilla escaped from the zoo and grabbed the boy, rather than the boy climbing in. They over exaggerate. Theh twist the truth. They do whatever they need to get people buying their newspapers and magazines. Everyone knows that. Experts are in the best position to give an educated opinion on the matter. Though even experts differ in the opinion. Just as they did in this case. Some said Harambe was only curious of the boy. Had he wanted to kill him, he'd be dead. Experts can all have differing opinions. Ultimately the zoo decided the kid was more important. And as such here we are. We need to learn from it and try to make sure it doesn't happen again. I hope the zoo did do their best to think of a way to get both out alive. Though it wouldn't be surprising if they made the decision based on which cause them the least trouble.
I agree, we killed the habitat. Can we make up for it? Yes. We do what we can to ensure we don't kill out more species for no reason. However, concerning not everyone believes in fate and such, this was bound to happen. Every species will die out eventually. We have no full control on what or who dies. Best thing we can do is, and I agree, let the experts do there job. Though I will ask, wouldn't bringing apes together make for a more functioning species? Wouldn't they be able to breed more efficiently, replenish themselves as a species? I'm no expert, I wouldn't know, but is a question I would like some to respond too.
We'll never have full control. But I believe if we have the power to help save them, we should do everything we can. Maybe we can't 'fix it' but we can try help them get their numbers up. I imagine there would be more gorillas there. Not just the one.
What's more ridiculous is, all these people are getting outraged over this, but not all the corruption within our police departments and in our politicians. So despicable.
Iit's a gorilla. Why should it care? And yes, because tranq darts induce sleep, not ballistic child-killing rage. I don't think you watched the whole video - I think you have latched on to the quick clips. Also your idea of top speed, as with Domo's star-trek inspired hyperspeed, is grossly incorrect and sensationalized. Go ahead and google what their top speed is. Also @wolfie, Hypnotically aye?
Sorry but I think a gorilla tearing away a child pretty quickly is still dangerous? Might not be the fastest a gorilla can run but it's still faster than a child should ever be dragged. And that's my point... It doesn't care for the safety of the child, but the family did. The best point made in this entire thread was when Snoopy said it would have gotten out down if it hurt the child anyways
Did you consider the fact it was dragging the child away from the screaming humans? And why did it sit and hold his hand? Nah, course not. Just jumped to the worst possible conclusion to suit your own opinions. Was the child severely injured from this apparently high speed dragging you keep referring to? No.
The experts said it was in a state of agitation. Wasn't it you who said we should trust the experts and let them handle this all?
Experts also have differing opinions. Some said Harambe was curious of the kid and was investigating him. And not sure what I said to Purple that was contrary to saying experts know best. Purple has made a snap judgement on something he/she clearly knows very little about. I was pointing out the fact that they're only seeing what they want to suit they're view rather than looking at it holistically. Purple you're harping on about being dragged high speed. Well he was dragged and he wasn't hurt. Which is what you've based your whole argument on.
But if the gorilla kept dragging him that fast he could have been? He also has some huge scabs and bruises so he was hurt, just not too severely. Like kids are so fragile don't any of you have younger siblings? They're limbs are practically noodles. Even if it was trying to protect the kid it's too strong to be left with a child while parents are screaming.
And oh sorry do you study animals all of a sudden? What makes you think you know anymore about the gorilla than the rest of The people on this thread? My judgment isn't snap I just believe saving the kids life was important in all this. Yes, it's sad the gorilla died, but it was captive bred and if the child had died or even just had minor injuries the zoo would have been sued and the gorilla put down.
I wonder how would people react if this was not about a child, an animal which happen to belong to endangered species and a zoo with questionable negligence and a media-hugging video.. Change one of the variables and the issue would swing on any direction.