Cincinnati Zoo, Harambe Thoughts?

[placebo]

The fault's with the mom. Like.. You dumb fucktard, why not look after your child?

The death of Harambe could and should of been avoided. That's all I have to say on the matter.

[RootBeerFloatie]

Warning: I'm beyond pissed about this. I think this world needs more gorillas and less bratty kids with no rules and negligent mothers. So if my opinion is going to make you mad, feel free to skip it. Or not. Whatever.

People blaming the zoo don't seem to understand that those people loved and cared for Harambe, and they didn't want this to have to happen. Would you shoot your dog if it was hurting someone? I wouldn't. He wasn't a pet but I think the analogy stands, just imagine how hard of a choice this was for them. Gorillas are intelligent, beautiful creatures. Hell, Harambe was smarter than Michelle Gregg and her kid, that's for sure.

She should be charged with the same crime that a gorilla poacher would be. Her husband has a long rap sheet including drug trafficking and kidnapping, so they're obviously no strangers to crime.

We've all been out in public and seen kids who do what they want, when they want, where they want. Either the parents pay them no attention, or just let them run around rampant wherever they choose. Isiah told his mother he wanted to go into the exhibit and she ignored him. Now I'm sure she didn't think he'd be able to get in but it's her job to keep her son safe, not the zoo's.

I know that sometimes kids get lost, but he was able to get into the bushes, through the railing, to the edge of the moat, and down into the exhibit before she knew he was gone. And it's not like he knew he could, he wasn't scoping out the place, so I imagine he dawdled around trying to figure out how to get in.

The idea that this woman is the director of a daycare is laughable. She needs to be fired immediately, she's not trustworthy when it comes to watching children.

The worst part, imo, is that she expresses no regret and sympathy over the situation. She instead just thanks the zoo for the decision they made to kill Harambe. She refuses to accept blame, and doesn't seem to give a shit that a critically endangered, extremely intelligent gorilla was killed because she can't stop popping out more kids than she and her career criminal husband can handle.

Rant over. But fuck that bitch.

[gypsophila]

Ultimately, it's the zoo's failure to protect the animals. Then I veer off into should zoos even exist? Which goes on to: they need to exist to help keep certain species from extinction. That leads to: you can only fund that through selling tickets to zoos. It's a vicious cycle really. I also don't believe in Seaquarium type places either.

In this situation, precautions failed. The zoo had no choice but to shoot the gorilla. It's not fair, but it's their protocol and it's correct.

I don't think zoos should exist. They are never fair to the animals. The habitats are never good enough. I consider them to be jail and torture for the animals. I wish things were universally different, but zoos suck all over the world.

I can't imagine not having control of my kid, and there should be a fine or stiff penalty for the family. But if the security was lax enough to let a 3 year old thwart it all, then that definitely is a big problem. He could have died just from the initial 15 foot fall. Then this would be a different story too.

[RootBeerFloatie]

It wasn't like he just accidentally fell into the exhibit though, he had to climb through the bushes, find a gap in the fence, and jump down. It would be different if he'd accidentally fallen in, but he deliberately found a way into the exhibit. An older child may not have been able to fit to get in, and a kid his age or younger should have been supervised and therefore unable to sneak in. The zoo should definitely review the incident and prevent it in the future, but I don't think they're responsible for someone's kid's misbehaving.

[gypsophila]

Technically, he fell down the 15 ft to the moat area. Very dangerous. He was being bratty and out of control. And he was fast. His parents should have had control of him. It shouldn't be possible for any kid to even do that at any age or size. It sounds poorly designed. I think the exhibits where everyone is behind unbreakable glass is better for safety. Then at least the animals are not being assaulted by crowd noise and can just be out in their habitat more freely. Not that I'm in favour of captivity. Only in cases where it is helping a species in some way.

[saltliferocks]

This story makes me so angry! I agree with all of you regarding the mother being at fault. I've read reports that she was taking selfies when this happened..

[PostyMcPosterston]

I have many feelings, too. I actually do appreciate the mother requesting people who want to donate to do so at the zoo in Harambe's name.

I tried taking my 2.5 yr old and 4 month old (at the time) to the zoo alone. Nope. Toddlers are unpredictable jerks some times, at least mine is. I learned my lesson and there has to be another set of hands available when it comes to the zoo.

I think the mother is so blame for not keeping her son out of the exhibit. But I'm not going to blame her, if that makes sense. I can totally imagine it happening, especially after seeing the mock up of the barrier. She should have removed him from the situation when he was testing her by repeatedly saying he was going to go in. But some times you make the wrong choice and never think your kid could actually get into the exhibit (or whatever the situation may be that ends up being very serious).

I have to disagree with the pet analogy though. If my pet was hurting someone, I'd be able to approach my pet and remove his vicious Yorkie (haha) self away from the child. If I couldn't remove my pet from the child and I knew the child was in danger... And having the risk of him becoming more aggressive (gorilla was said to be agitated and protective but even though he wasn't being aggressive to the kid, he was hurting him and could have potentially hurt him a lot worse by accident without intent) I would definitely kill my pet over letting my pet possibly kill a child. I can't run that risk. I love my pet more than I love a stranger child. But a human life (usually) is more important to me than an animals. This is why I'm not vegan. Ha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[staceymj]

I think that both the zoo and the mother are to blame.

The mother should of been watching her child. Kids disappear quickly, there's no denying it. In a public place like a zoo you need to watch your children like a hawk because there's creepy people in the world. You obviously don't expect your child to get into a gorilla enclosure but you should still always watch your children closely at the zoo. The mother is an incompetent idiot.

The zoo needs to take some responsibility too, no 4 year old should have been able to get over that little barrier and into the enclosure. Obviously it's not the most safe enclosure for both animals and humans if a 4 year old can get into the enclosure. I have no doubt that the zoo did not want to shoot harambe but did what they thought was necessary in a split second to get that child out safely. It's such a shame that an innocent gorilla is the one who suffered the most because this mother was an incompete moron.

I would love to know just how long that kid was trying to get into the enclosure. I don't believe for one second that it was a "split second" that he got away and just launched himself in there. I bet he was working at it for a good 5 minutes at least.

[fossilfinger]

Ultimately, it's the zoo's failure to protect the animals. Then I veer off into should zoos even exist? Which goes on to: they need to exist to help keep certain species from extinction. That leads to: you can only fund that through selling tickets to zoos. It's a vicious cycle really. I also don't believe in Seaquarium type places either.

I don't think zoos need to exist. Sanctuaries probably cost less than zoos because they don't need to provide food courts, entertainment, guides, train rides, etc., and they don't keep non-endangered animal species or petting zoos. I agree that funding would still be difficult for animal sanctuaries if zoos were limited, but I think that is the only humane way this could go. I absolutely do not support ANY zoo, and especially hate that they keep super intelligent animals like monkeys, apes, tigers, and elephants who should not be viewed by humans for entertainment. Some sanctuaries (like farm sanctuaries) allow small groups to visit on guided tours, and they can also sell media and products like t-shirts and bags to raise money. It just sucks because I feel most zoos do more harm than good, even if some of their efforts go toward endangered species. Would YOU want to sit in a glass cage every day while thousands of people stare at you and bug you? That's how the apes feel. They're no different than humans in wanting their freedom.

[gypsophila]

I agree, I don't think zoos should exist for the most part. Sanctuaries are better, if they're required. I hate the thought of zoos and wouldn't go to one. It especially bothers me to have animals who would normally live in hot climates, being stuck in zoos in places that have a hardcore winter season. Or the reverse, Arctic animals in tropical states or something like that. And sealife, don't get me started on whales, dolphins and sharks.

[Vincere]

Quite late to this party.
Actually Zoos are cheaper to run because you have entry fee and you pay for all the rides, so they make profit.
Also, a lot of the zoos are involved in scientific research and species protection and repopulation.
Furthermore, they should educate the people about the climate change and effect on animals.

I also agree that a lot of zoos are more for profit than for education and a lot of animals suffers but I want to believe that many do good.

At the end is the fcking human that ruins everything!