Many have said that they didn't, but what was the alternative?
On a radio phone-in this morning, one person was foolish enough to suggest that the parents of the child staged this, so that they could obtain video footage to later sell to the media and put on youtube.
A mail journalist has taken up yards of newsprint in today's edition anthropmorhising this situation, and the gorilla's behaviour, centering in the fact that for a new seconds the gorilla held the child's hand. This sort of handwringing sob-fest goes against the facts and the potential of the situation - a large and potentially lethal primate, part of a...
AOG.... Its certainly not the poor animals fault but I can't see that the Zoo officials had any choice.
I am still waiting for the Zoo to say why it was so easy for such a small child to get into the enclosure. As someone has already said, little kids do climb and are adventurous but it shouldn't have been this easy for him to get in.
How many parents have momentarily taken their eyes off their kids, turned round and their gone. It's that easy for a young kid to slip their parents. What is utterly unforgivable, is that a zoo, with wild animals, has such lax barriers that a 4 year old can breach them. The keepers did the right thing by shooting the gorilla, as awful as it is.
Maybe they should have thrown the parents in and told them to go get their son.
I think that the Zoo made the only decision that they could. I don't know if the child was actually at risk but with an animal of that size things could turn nasty very quickly.
America is the land where people sue ~ maybe the Zoo should sue the parents.
I totally agree, Rocky. There are posts on FB blaming the parents, what utter tosh!! All it takes is someone to speak to you for you to turn around and not see your child.
First time in nearly 40 years that those barriers have been breached, so there must have been something out of the ordinary. It is wrong to assume it is the zoo at fault.
Unfortunately it was the correct decision a child's life was in danger and while the Gorilla may not have had any intention of harming him there is always the possibility of accidentally harming him. A Gorillas infant is much more robust than a human child and what may not have harmed an infant may have harmed a child
Strange how we take an attachment to an animal more identifying to a human being.
If it had been in the lions or tiger's enclosure there would have been hardly any criticisms regarding the shooting and killing of those equally dangerous animals.
Does anyone remember than wonder clip of David Attenborough and those mountain gorillas. Slightly off topic, I know, but I thought of that when I first saw the news report from America.
Not being an expert and not being there I have to assume they did what was necessary. That said the gorilla didn't look that aggressive, and I'm wondering id they were very keen to err on the side of no hard to the kid. I suspect the gorilla's decision to drag his new playmate around the place, signed his death warrant. Gut feeling is that it would have been ok not to shoot, but what do I know ?
The alternative would be to ensure the fences etc. were regularly inspected and no dumb kid can get through them, take a fall, and find themselves in trouble. Another alternative would be to have alert parents looking out for their offspring and ensuring they don't do anything dumb.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.