Cincinnati Zoo Kills Gorilla to Protect Child Who Fell in Enclosure

[Progenitor]

easy, 5-10 Foot Plexiglas. wall just after the regular little wire blockade. you can still see the animals, and children can no longer volunteer for Darwin awards. solves both issues. it might be a bit expensive to do for all exhibits, but i'd say avoiding lawsuits down the line would be worth it.

Most zoos have already done this. I'm surprised it wasn't already in place for such a prestigious zoo.

[vla1ne]

Most zoos have already done this. I'm surprised it wasn't already in place for such a prestigious zoo.

they'd been protected by common sense up until then (don't jump into the cage with the animals that could easily kill you). sadly, common sense doesn't guard you from outside ignorance.

[Delibirb]

I'm not claiming to be an expert in animal psychology, but plexiglass isn't invisible, even to animals. It might irritate the animals - namely those smart enough to recognize that it wasn't there before - as they previously were used to having some idea that they weren't just in a fishbowl, and could cause them to act out or something. They're not sentient, or as sentient as us, but most do have some understanding of when they're being caged as opposed to separated by circumstance, ie a sheer cliff.

[vla1ne]

I'm not claiming to be an expert in animal psychology, but plexiglass isn't invisible, even to animals. It might irritate the animals - namely those smart enough to recognize that it wasn't there before - as they previously were used to having some idea that they weren't just in a fishbowl, and could cause them to act out or something. They're not sentient, or as sentient as us, but most do have some understanding of when they're being caged as opposed to separated by circumstance, ie a sheer cliff.

it's either that, or wait until another kid falls in. it's the best solution for the situation, and the only form or barrier that might cause minimal stress upon the animals. so it's either glass wall, or shot gorilla. no solutions going to be perfect, but this one's the most neutral. 

[Delibirb]

There's no absolutes here, though. If people are more aware of the safety barriers that are functional and are already in place, everything will be fine. As someone said earlier, this isn't an epidemic, this was the accident of a crummy guest, and the only one at this zoo apparently. There's no glass walls on high-rise balconies, but as a result death and injury still occurs, and we don't call out for reform because it's unnecessary; were aware that it's nearly always user error, not a fault of the apparatus. Will another kid fall in? I'm sure eventually, it's certainly not out of the question. But that's irrelevant. The current system, like any system, works until an idiot finds it. But idiot proofing this is wasteful and potentially more harmful than it's worth.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I see no reason that Harambe's law shouldn't be passed. Looking to the future this kind of incident needs to be stopped

[Aerion Brightflame]

Passing the law won't stop these incidents though. Because this is an isolated incident as a result of a mistake, not something systematic that exploits some existing gap in the law. At the very worst it is because of safety standards. 

 

All passing the law does is mean that when something like this might happens again somewhere else whenever it may be, is that someone gets punished for it because of the public outcry in response. It's not going to make people more hyper accuate around zoo enclosures because of a risk of prosecution in case a one ina million incident happens. 

 

The best thing to do is to just refine the safety standards for enclosures. That does far more to prevent more accidents than a knee-jerk law designed because of a public need to punish someone for an accident. 

 

So instead of the existing proposal - Let's make Harambe's law something that redefines the minimum safety standards of zoo enclosures like this one. That actually would make a real difference. 

[vla1ne]

There's no absolutes here, though. If people are more aware of the safety barriers that are functional and are already in place, everything will be fine. As someone said earlier, this isn't an epidemic, this was the accident of a crummy guest, and the only one at this zoo apparently. There's no glass walls on high-rise balconies, but as a result death and injury still occurs, and we don't call out for reform because it's unnecessary; were aware that it's nearly always user error, not a fault of the apparatus. Will another kid fall in? I'm sure eventually, it's certainly not out of the question. But that's irrelevant. The current system, like any system, works until an idiot finds it. But idiot proofing this is wasteful and potentially more harmful than it's worth.

it wouldn't say it's unnecessary, because if an idiot gets hurt, you can be sued by said idiot, or that idiots' family. the glass wall is the only compromise that prevents as many future damages as possible while minimizing interference. again, it's sad animal or dead animal, because no matter how rare the incident, the time until the next one is not guaranteed. harambe was a healthy male of an endangered species, more than one of these incidents within the span of 10 years is too much, we've already had one, yes, it might depress them, but it needs to happen if you don't want to repeat the incident. it's a matter of avoiding collateral damages. it's the least intrusive solution apart from doing nothing, but unlike doing nothing, it at least prevents future incidents. i agree that idiots should be left to be idiots, but when it comes at the potential expense of lawsuits and lives, something has to be done, to mitigate damages.

[Delibirb]

You fail to realize the result of "sad" gorillas. Depression will kill them. They may refuse to eat, have difficulty sleeping, not approach keepers when they're sick or refuse treatment when it's discovered they are. They will die prematurely. One gorilla death is not ideal, but it's better as opposed to the potential extinction of all in captivity.

 

I'm not saying it's guaranteed because, as I said, I'm not claiming expertise. But it is naive to jump the gun and build a wall over an unprecedented and unlikely, although tragic, accident.

[The Amazing Avian]

It's a freak accident that was publicized and nothing actually needs doing here. You can't blame the zoo for not putting a plexiglass wall up to stop spectators, you can't blame the parents for not putting a leash on their kid, and you can't blame the emergency teams for shooting a gorilla who could have easily killed that kid because he was curious. Accidents happen all the time, this one just happened to involve a gorilla in a zoo and now everyone is up in arms trying to find out who was responsible for it when really it was nobody's fault.

[vla1ne]

i'm not trying to blame anybody i'm saying it should at least be attempted. it might lead to depression, it might not. it wouldn't be the first zoo to have said barriers, but it would at least show, in the case of any future incidents, that the attempt was made, i'm speaking from a business perspective, if it leads to depression, then it can be removed, but the attempt would at least put on record that the animals reacted negatively to the wall, that way, in case of future incidents, you would have at least cursory protection. incidents happen, yes, i get it, but lawsuits can follow those incidents, and the attempt of putting up a wall would remove any ammunition of said lawsuit. as it stands, if this incident ever happens again, and the result veers south, of this one, then they could say they tried the wall, but it proved to be a negative effect, but if the wall turns out to have 0 negatives, then the problem remains solved. it's the attempt, which would proof them against future lawsuits that i am arguing for. if it leads to negative side effects, then that's one thing, but in this case, it should be at least tried, if only to protect their wallets down the line.

[Delibirb]

i'm not trying to blame anybody i'm saying it should at least be attempted. it might lead to depression, it might not. it wouldn't be the first zoo to have said barriers, but it would at least show, in the case of any future incidents, that the attempt was made, i'm speaking from a business perspective, if it leads to depression, then it can be removed, but the attempt would at least put on record that the animals reacted negatively to the wall, that way, in case of future incidents, you would have at least cursory protection. incidents happen, yes, i get it, but lawsuits can follow those incidents, and the attempt of putting up a wall would remove any ammunition of said lawsuit. as it stands, if this incident ever happens again, and the result veers south, of this one, then they could say they tried the wall, but it proved to be a negative effect, but if the wall turns out to have 0 negatives, then the problem remains solved. it's the attempt, which would proof them against future lawsuits that i am arguing for. if it leads to negative side effects, then that's one thing, but in this case, it should be at least tried, if only to protect their wallets down the line.

Don't attempt it. Research and experiment first, then implement. This is biology and psychology, sciences that require tests and other such nonsense.

[Progenitor]

Uhhhh guys. You DO realize that the moat is NOT part of the gorilla's natural roaming ground right? Like sure they are ABLE to go down there, but there is no reason to. The moat's purpose is actually to do 2 things: if an idiot falls in somehow, that person doesn't land in the middle of a group of one of natures strongest animals, and for said idiot not to die from the fall itself.

 

Therefore there is about 10-15 feet of moat surrounding the enclosure width wise, and it is at least 10 feet deep. If you erect a 10 foot wall of glass in front of the railings, I HIGHLY doubt it will have ANY effect on the gorillas. Why? Because the glass is literally 10-15 feet away from anywhere they may wander to. Plexiglass is barely noticeable from that distance to a HUMAN, let along gorilla eyes.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

There was only 1 woman in the crowd who told them to stop screaming cause it would agitate (and it did) the gorilla

 

How are the masses so damn ignorant >_>

[Aerion Brightflame]

There was only 1 woman in the crowd who told them to stop screaming cause it would agitate (and it did) the gorilla

 

How are the masses so damn ignorant >_>

 

Because most people don't study the behavioural patterns of Gorilla's? 

 

Additionally high stress situations generally don't have the general populace thinking much. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Because most people don't study the behavioural patterns of Gorilla's? 

 

Additionally high stress situations generally don't have the general populace thinking much. 

I mean it's a shared behavior for most animals (including humans). Screaming at someone is likely to agitate then

 

Agree with the second point, but that's a problem, calm-rationalizing in the face of stress is a good trait to develop 

[T. Sankara]

I say we put up a wall around every Gorilla, from here to Mexico!

 

And we make the gorillas pay for it!

[Miror B]

There was only 1 woman in the crowd who told them to stop screaming cause it would agitate (and it did) the gorilla

 

How are the masses so damn ignorant >_>

You ever see someone walking look down, spy a toad they're about to step on and jump to the side freaked out as if touching that toad will cause them to bleed out?

 

Replace toad with something that actually poses a threat and then you'll find out why. It's easy for you to say in the moment that these people are stupid for not knowing this, but if you're put into the situation yourself your first instinct will be to make noise.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You ever see someone walking look down, spy a toad they're about to step on and jump to the side freaked out as if touching that toad will cause them to bleed out?

 

Replace toad with something that actually poses a threat and then you'll find out why. It's easy for you to say in the moment that these people are stupid for not knowing this, but if you're put into the situation yourself your first instinct will be to make noise.

Well if we're going anecdotal, there's also people who carefully back away from a venomous snake instead of waking the dead

 

A little public education, maybe even a simple warning sign, might go a long way 

[Progenitor]

Well if we're going anecdotal, there's also people who carefully back away from a venomous snake instead of waking the dead

 

A little public education, maybe even a simple warning sign, might go a long way 

 

No it won't.  In the words of good old Agent K:

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

 

People tend to follow the herd mentality.  It's part of our very instincts.  Psychologists have studied this phenomenon for generations.  In this type of setting, Gustave Le Bon's theory is most acceptable.  He states that:

crowds existed in three stages: submergence, contagion, and suggestion.

• During submergence, the individuals in the crowd lose their sense of individual self and personal responsibility. This is quite heavily induced by the anonymity of the crowd.
• Contagion refers to the propensity for individuals in a crowd to unquestioningly follow the predominant ideas and emotions of the crowd. In Le Bon's view, this effect is capable of spreading between "submerged" individuals much like a disease.
• Suggestion refers to the period in which the ideas and emotions of the crowd are primarily drawn from a shared racial unconscious. This behavior comes from an archaic shared unconscious and is therefore uncivilized in nature. It is limited by the moral and cognitive abilities of the least capable members.

So when someone starts screaming, your immediate, instinctual response is to become scared.  You activate your fight or flight and scan for the danger.  This feeling is multiplied by the collective feelings of everyone else in your herd who are having the same response to said scream.  There is no reason or thought behind it.  It's incredibly difficult for someone who is educated enough to realize that there is no danger to become the leader of that group and calm everyone, unless that person is one already viewed as "important".

 

Why do you think the president comes on TV to address matters of national security?  Because everyone is scared.  And in America, the President is viewed as THE most important individual.  He is the natural born "super-ego" (to use Freudian terminology) to lead america, because that's what the president is.  There is VERY rarely a "super-ego" in a random crowd, unfortunately, so the crowd follows the destructive nature of Le Bon's theory

[Aerion Brightflame]

http://www.wtol.com/story/32118971/wrong-mom-harassed-after-gorilla-death-at-cincinnati-zoo

 

I probably shouldn't resurrect this thread, and it's a terrible source, but hey this elaborates on my previous points. 

 

People take to blaming someone they think is the women whose child fell in, because of some misplaced sense of self righteousness about the situation. And because it's done in haste, what a surprise it's the wrong funking women. So they'd spent time sending death threats and the usual array of messages to a woman who had nothing to do with the situation, because they felt like they had to assign blame to someone. That it couldn't just be an accident, and left at that - Someone had to be to blame. 

 

But hey you know, none of these people will get in trouble for the death threats, because it was just an honest mistake that could happen to anyone being inattentive enough right? (And yes, I'm drawing a very shitty parallel here to highlight again how stupid I think it is to instantly seek to assign blame to someone in this situation without any evidence).