posted
Did they kill him because they saw no other way of getting him under control, or did they kill him because he hurt and killed people?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Police fired in self defence. He was charging them.
And in a situation like that, you are relieved of the obligation to give a verbal warning or of firing a warning shot. . . . . . . . . . . . (Yes, I DO know how stupid and useless that would have been - you would have to have the warning given in sign language for a gorilla!Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love watching monkeys/apes because of how fascinatingly they remind me of people, but they scare me!
In the Philippines I got too close to one. I was a missionary doing a service project sweeping the streets of a neighborhood. It was weird, there were just these monkeys in cages right there on the side of the street. (I dunno why.)
Anyway, I saw that the area around the cage needed sweeping, so I went over and got to work. I didn't think the monkey could reach me. Then all of a sudden, no warning at all, this monkey reaches his hand out and grabs my haircomb (a decorative hair-holder) along with a huge chunk of hair! Freaked me out. I managed to get half of the haircomb back from him and let him keep the other half. I have never trusted a monkey since, or any wild animal for that matter. I like to keep them at a safe distance. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My family and I are members at the zoo and I'm fairly sure I know the Gorilla in question (I think they only had one full grown male here). Very sad... I remember watching him play hide and seek with his kids (seriously, it was way cool). I cannot imagine what enraged him, but he apparently beat down a large, steel door. Is there a 'rilla heaven? Hope so...
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Belle, but this really was a gentle animal and I watched/knew him as a father, not a raging beast. I understand it needed to be done, but it's still sad.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also don't mean to come off as NOT sorry for the kid or others who were attacked... apologies if I gave that impression.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It needs more gorillas that don't attack children, and less that do.
I'm pretty sure the only places those attacks have happened have been zoos. In the wild, it tends to be the gorilla that gets attacked - pretty savagely at times.
Not trying to justify gorilla violence against humans, here.
I think what the world needs is fewer gorillas in zoos and more in large wildlife refuges protected from humans.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A child has been hurt, seriously. That is of much more importance to me, than a gorilla. In the outpouring of sympathy for an animal, it would be nice if everyone remembers that people were injured.
Am I glad the gorilla's dead? Of course not. It's a tragedy, because I don't like to see any animal harmed, but if this animal would attack and bite people and injure a child, then it definitely needed to be destroyed before it hurt anyone else.
The fault here is with the zoo, it's their responsibility to see to the safety of both their animals and their guests, and they failed miserably.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it wrong that I feel more for a gorilla than a mouse/frog? Certainly more than the chicken I'm going to eat for dinner tonight. I'd like to highlight Belle's final sentiment that it's not the folks having sympathy for the gorilla that hurt the child. It's the negligence that caused him to get loose. If I had always lived in a cage, I imagine I'd be incredibly unnerved to be out in the open.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, I'm getting sort of tired of zoos. Unless they are providing habitats and doing something about breeding as well. Many (perhaps even most) zoos are doing this. But still too many zoos are just cages or concrete habitats where the animals hang out with nothing to do and with no hope of the zoo ever returning ANY animals to the wild.
At best, such places serve as a gene bank. Not a bad thing, but still, not very good.
I had this proposal that would turn the entire border with Mexico into a wild game-filled region. We could jointly manage it with Mexico and manage it with reasonable resources to curb poaching.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gorillas are so endangered, and people are so numerous, that I feel the earth loses more with the death of a single gorilla than that of a human. Not that either death is desireable. I just hate it that this happened, all around. I wonder what it was that upset him so?
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:manage it with reasonable resources to curb poaching.
Why am I picturing that kitten from the "least disturbing thread? The Rambo kitten. Arming the animals would definitely be a deterrent to poaching. Is the idea also to deter immigration, or what was the significance of it being along the border?
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ever been to the border? It's just land that nobody cares about. And we could do some pretty cool things there.
Whether it would actually curb illegal immigration to the US, I don't know. But if the region became a place that people cared about, maybe we could create jobs there for both country's citizens.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never been to the actual border, no, but I've been through El Paso TX and lived in West TX. I think I kind of got the idea. But isn't it a bit arid?
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, there's this great place in Louisiana called Global Wildlife where they have a bunch of land and free roaming animals-MANY varieties of deer, zebras, giraffes, buffalo, cows, emus, and they take people out in wagons to see and feed the animals. It wayyyy cooler than a zoo for people going, and is a much better place for the animals.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My sister works for the Dallas Zoo. She was there during the incident.
Here are the facts:
Jabari was a young gorilla- 13 years old and only 300 pounds (he weighed as much as one of the women he attacked) He was not, by any means a huge gorilla.
The zoo does NOT know how Jabari escaped. They have two theories as of 11:43PM CST on Friday:
quote: They were left with two theories, both of which seemed highly unlikely, zoo officials and experts said.
One was that the ape somehow bounded over the habitat's barrier wall. The other was that the gorilla scaled a tree inside the enclosure and used it to cross over into public areas....
Vertical Leap
The gorilla habitat is surrounded by a concave wall – out of the sight line of zoo visitors – that would require a 12- to 16-foot vertical leap. The rim is surrounded by a "hot wire" that delivers an electric shock equivalent to a bee sting.
When the habitat was built in 1990, the wall was tested by rock climbers to prove that it was unassailable, Mr. Buickerood said. The design won an award for "significant achievement" by the American Zoological and Aquarium Association in 1992.
Dan Wharton of the Central Park Zoo in New York City said he had seen the Dallas gorilla habitat and thought its security was impressive. Mr. Wharton, the American Zoological and Aquarium Association's designated expert on gorillas, also said he thought Jabari would be incapable of surmounting the wall.
"I just can't imagine it," he said. "If you look at the size of the gorilla and the height of the wall, it would just be a phenomenal leap. I don't see how it would be possible."
Tree theory
Another theory was that Jabari scaled a tree to make his escape. But the trees carry netting and electric wiring designed to foil any escape attempt.
Furthermore, a 300-pound ape could not have crossed the tree without disturbing the netting, the branches or the areas outside the enclosure. No disturbance was found, zoo curator Ken Kaemmerer said.
"There's no evidence of fur, footprints, hair in the wires, feces, fluids, bent grass – nothing that would tell you that he had been there," Mr. Kaemmerer said.
Nonetheless, Mr. Buickerood said, zoo officials would press for an explanation and would make changes to prevent future incidents.
He did not break the steel "cage" or the entry doors. No forced entry was founs. In fact- zoo officials are still mystified at how this happened.
Also- according to my sister, who was sitting in a monorail car watching the whole incident- the Dallas Police have no jurisdiction in the zoo when animals are let loose. They shouldn't have been there. The zoo has their own tactial team, the vets have tranquilizer guns, and they are supposed to have full jurisdiction over the zoo unless the animal leaves the gates.
My sister heard the police on the radio ask for permission to shoot- the animal was in sight. Permission was not given. The vet was about two minutes away from Jabari (with tranquilizer gun in hand) Shots were heard. Jabari died.
The police shouldn't have even been there. By that time all the people were in "safe places" (rooms with no windows and deadbolt locks- all over the zoo in case of incidents such as this.)
Jabari will be missed. This shouldn't have happened.
posted
Oh also- it's been reported that children were taunting the gorilla all day- gorillas don't like loud noises, and eye contact is seen as a threat. So, if the attackees were taunting him, screaming, or making eye contact....
Posts: 862 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then what? Then the kids got what they deserved?
Even if that were the case, the kids who would have taunted the most annoyingly (I would guess pre-pubescent boys)were not the children attacked. What is a two year old child capable of from that distance?
I know that with dogs my husband grew up with, even if they were teased, they were trained to take it and not bite. That is the responsibility of the owner or, in this case, the zoo.
And if gorillas are really smart and ethical and all that, then one would would attack a child so savagely clearly needs to be put down any way.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that you can fully blame the children in provoking the animal, and I don't think you can fully blame the animal for reacting...
the children may or may not have known what they were doing and it's dangers...and one must remember the difference between gorillas and dogs...even in captivity, a gorilla is still a wild animal...they have not been domesticated to my knowledge, like dogs have been...therefore it is not so simple as training it like one would train a dog...this was a lose - lose situation, and there does not seem to be any full blame to be placed in any one location...
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Sachiko, because we're really teaching apes to hone their animal instincts by tossing them in a concrete jungle to be ogled and pointed at.
I'd be pissed, too, if somebody tossed me in a hotwired, net covered cage.
Certainly, the 2-year-old didn't deserve death...but neither did the gorilla. If we find that it was human error that allowed the gorilla to escape, should they be killed, too?
posted
I think you guys misunderstand the gorilla habitat area at the dallas zoo... it's enormous, I'd bet an acre if not several and not at all a cage... it's just kinda moated off which results in it having high walls as far as escape is concerned.
I apologize for spreading misinformation about how Jabari got out... I was going by second hand description of a news report... will have to needle my source about that one.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we find that it was human error that allowed the gorilla to escape, should they be killed, too?
The same standards are not used to evaluate whether an animal should be killed and whether a person should be. An animal that has already injured someone, not yet under control, with the possibility of escaping and injuring someone else calls for strong action.
The zoo might have jurisdiction within its gates, but once a child has been injured a potential crime has occurred. This makes it police business. Frankly, if the vets were 2 minutes away, their response time isn't fast enough to preclude police action.
Will it turn out that there was probably some way to bring the gorilla under control without killing it? Probably. Should we look for additional ways to non-lethally retrieve escaped animals? Sure. But I'd rather have the police bring the animal under control any way they can rather than potentially let it escape, given that a child was injured by it.
quote:I don't think you can fully blame the animal for reacting
It's not a question of blame. There are cases where an animal needs to be killed even though it is not at fault.
posted
I agree, Dag. The police should not be blamed for what they did - if the animal charged them they were more than justified in killing it.
Are you saying that because he weighed the same as one of his victims, the gorilla wasn't harmful? Do you honestly mean to compare the potential danger of a 300 lb enraged gorilla with that of a 300 lb woman? A gorilla is an incredibly strong animal, 300 lbs on it is 300 lbs of power, 300 lbs on a woman is a hindrance.
I personally wouldn't rely on this zoo tactical team, they didn't do that great of a job responding in the first place, if they were still two minutes away when the police were in position to shoot. It's not as if the police are in the zoo just waiting for an escape, which presumably this tactical team IS.
aka, I would have to say our philosophies are as divergent as possible. I would sacrifice every gorilla on the planet to save the life of my child, and of anybody elses' child.
Animals are to be respected, and cared for and not abused, but they are not people, and their lives are not equivalent to that of people, and certainly not more important than people.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It needs more gorillas that don't attack children, and less that do.
Humans are more important than animals, period. But, while a human was hurt, an amazing animal died, and probably largely due to mismanagement of humans. Stating sorrow over that isn't inappropriate.
So why the snarky comment, Belle?
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Anne Kate meant that she, personally, thought a gorilla's life more worthy of preservation than a single human being's life. She did say that 'the earth' loses more, and frankly from an ecological standpoint, she's right. From an ecology standpoint, one human life is 1/6,000,000,000,000 of the whole. With gorillas, the fraction is quite a bit larger.
Now if Anne Kate said, "I would sacrifice a human being to save a gorilla," then I'd be disagreeing too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Am I glad the gorilla's dead? Of course not. It's a tragedy, because I don't like to see any animal harmed, but if this animal would attack and bite people and injure a child, then it definitely needed to be destroyed before it hurt anyone else.
The fault here is with the zoo, it's their responsibility to see to the safety of both their animals and their guests, and they failed miserably.
This is something that's interested me before. You will, occassionally, meet someone who says, "Sacrifice the human before the animal," and that honestly puzzles the heck out of me.
But on the other hand, gorillas are rare. Very rare. I'm no environmentalist, but I feel that the earth-and humanity-does lose something when species are extinct and endangered.
The people are not dead, they are injured. They will go on with their lives, hopefully a little wiser-personally I don't believe a gorilla just goes berserk. And besides, people get injured all the time. How often do we read about endangered simians being killed unnecessarily?
Edit:
PS: Not to make a big thing about it, but good to e-see you, Ralphie Hope life's treatin' you good
posted
The snarky comment came because I saw a lot of people expressing sympathy for the death of an animal and ignoring the fact that a child was hurt, and according to the reports at the time, was injured seriously.
An animal that will attack, bite humans, and injure a child that severely does not need to be alive. Gorillas are normally very peaceful creatures, we've all seen the footage of the gorilla that protected the little boy that fell into the enclosure. Dogs are wondeful creatures too, and usually dont attack people but when one does, I think it should be destroyed. So, when this gorilla crossed the line and became an imminent danger to humans - by all means it should have been killed, and quickly, before it hurt someone else.
I don't think that's snarky. If it is, then I'll just set up residence in Snarkville.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They will go on with their lives, hopefully a little wiser-personally I don't believe a gorilla just goes berserk.
Back to blaming the victim, are we? Its the child's fault he was attacked? The people that were bitten, it's their fault?
If the gorilla was taunted - then the zoo employees should have stopped the kids from taunting him. Has anyone here proven that little 3 year old Noah was one of the people doing the taunting? What did he and his mother do to deserve what happened? Noah is now in fair condition, btw, with multiple bites to the head and chest. He may be scarred for life, no one says, but I'm still scarred from a dog bite 15 years ago so its reasonable. Does he deserve them, Jeff? Should he look in the mirror 20 years from now and say "Yep, I'm wiser now. I shouldn't have been walking in the zoo with my Mom."
I am amazed at the utter lack of caring and sympathy for a HUMAN life being displayed. Sure, he may not die, but being viciously attacked and possibly horrifically scarred is not exactly something I'd want my 3 year olds to experience.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It needs more gorillas that don't attack children, and less that do
With It needs more lions that don't attack children, and less that do
They are both wild animals, taken out of their natural habitats, and caged. I'm sorry some human child got hurt. But that's not the gorilla's fault at all. He's not human, he doesn't follow human rules. And no matter what we do, the world is not going to get gorillas that won't attack children under some circumstance or another.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back to blaming the victim, are we? Its the child's fault he was attacked? The people that were bitten, it's their fault?
Alright, fair enough. I should've been more specific. By 'they' I meant the zoo personnel-although I'm still not at all sure the gorilla wasn't provoked in some way. Please bear in mind, too, that I think 'provocation' means something entirely different with animals than it does with people.
Gorilla attacked a human being, a child no less, and was put down. I have no problem with that.
quote:An animal that will attack, bite humans, and injure a child that severely does not need to be alive. Gorillas are normally very peaceful creatures, we've all seen the footage of the gorilla that protected the little boy that fell into the enclosure. Dogs are wondeful creatures too, and usually dont attack people but when one does, I think it should be destroyed. So, when this gorilla crossed the line and became an imminent danger to humans - by all means it should have been killed, and quickly, before it hurt someone else.
But you know what? Gorillas aren't peaceful creatures. Calling them peaceful is inaccurate at best. It is more correct to label them peaceful and nonviolent when they feel unthreatened or provoked. The gorilla didn't 'cross the line', either-something happened that set it off. The gorilla isn't domesticated by any means. The line never existed, except maybe for a moat and some vertical bars.
quote:I am amazed at the utter lack of caring and sympathy for a HUMAN life being displayed. Sure, he may not die, but being viciously attacked and possibly horrifically scarred is not exactly something I'd want my 3 year olds to experience.
I'm surprised that I'm being insulted with a claim that I don't care and have no sympathy for a child that was mauled, Adrian. I feel that was an unfair thing of you to say, but that's your own business, I suppose.
posted
Sad fact is that FirstWorlders consider animal life to be more valuable than human life: consider the amount they spend on their pets. Or consider that an American cow receives more in annual agricultural subsidies than an individual of the economicly poorest billion people earns in a year; more is spent subsidizing a European cow than an individual of the second poorest billion people earns.
Of course, that caring extends mostly to domesticated animals, even feral. A large minority, possibly even a majority, have no hesitation in killing any wildlife if they can make or save a penny or two. Or rather if some spinmeister can convince them that they might be incovenienced a pennysworth.
quote:But on the other hand, gorillas are rare. Very rare. I'm no environmentalist, but I feel that the earth-and humanity-does lose something when species are extinct and endangered.
The people are not dead, they are injured. They will go on with their lives, hopefully a little wiser-personally I don't believe a gorilla just goes berserk. And besides, people get injured all the time.
I don't see a lot of sympathy for a mauled child being exhibted in those statements.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
"It needs more lions that don't attack children, and less that do"
Yep. That's correct. If a lion becomes a maneater, it should be destroyed.
Why is that hard to understand? If an animal kills people once it will likely do so again. It should be destroyed before it gets that chance.
Is it the animal's fault? NO. Because animals cannot reason, they can't be assigned "blame" in the way a human can. The zoo was at fault for allowing the animal to escape. There is no question of that in my mind.
But, once it's on the loose and has proven itself to be dangerous, it should be killed, immediately unless it can be tranquilized. Since the tranquilizer guns weren't there and available at the time the animal charged the police, they did the right thing.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It feels like a PC requirement to NEED to state that human life is so important before commenting on the tragedy of losing an animal like that. As if an opinion isn't legitimate until everyone states a disclaimer at the beginning.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about a form you have to sign before you enter the zoo saying "This zoo is run for the benefit of the animals who live here, and for the continued health and viability of their populations both wild and captive. Though we make every effort to assure the safety of everyone involved, there is a small yet unavoidable risk when dealing with any wild animal. By signing this statement and entering the zoo, you agree to accept this risk. If the risk is unacceptable to you, then by all means we invite you to stay home and watch animal planet on television instead."
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can't be about blame if we're talking a 3 year old human or a 2 year old gorilla as the potential blamees.
Clearly something was wrong at the zoo and neither the animal nor the child is responsible for it.
There's a national organization of zoos (they are an accreditation board, I believe) that will swoop down after the fact and may actually decertify a place to house animals if they can't get this cleared up. But the fact remains that human error is the cause, ultimately, of any "accident" like this. Since it's impossible for the animal to scale the wall or climb the trees, then it didn't get out that way. What's left but the back way through the support facilities where the staff come and go?
So someone left a cage open, or a latch broke or something. There are supposed to be procedures in place to avoid that kind of thing. What happened?
And now the world has one less gorilla and the people who screwed up have the near death of a child on their hands. There is no good news in this situation and no way to satisfy the human reaction to affix blame and punish the perpetrators when someone is hurt.
Once the police are called, the probability that the incident will end in death of the animal goes way up. Sorry, but that's their training and they aren't going to let anyone else get hurt. To protect and to serve. Bottom line if the animal isn't captured by caretakers, it's dead.
It's a darned shame, but you can't blame the police either.
It just sucks all around.
And zoos can be wonderful institutions, but if they are exhibiting animals to the public they are making compromises that sometimes go in the wrong direction. And this kind of thing will result.
Game preserves closed to the public would be better.
Restoring and preserving natural habitat would be best of all.
Zoos used to be among my favorite places to visit in a city. Then I saw that they are also a major cause of species depletion and often have no clue how to work out a captive breeding program let alone return any animals to the wild eventually.
And the move toward larger habitats is good, but its still not nature. And the mixed bag troops that are cobbled together in those enclosures are usually stressed and the individual animals have no way to get out of the situation. In nature, the ones that want to go elsewhere can.
This is just dumb.
Zoos are getting better, but they still have a lot of history to make up for, and their current practices are still less than ideal.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never signed such a form, aka. In fact, in all the times I've been to the Bham zoo I've never been asked to sign anything.
Before I make further comment, I'd like to ask you to clarify your position. Do you intend to state the child and his mother have no recourse, because they were in the "animal's zoo?" Do you intend to state that if anyone is injured by an animal, it's their own fault and the animal should never be destroyed?
I have a feeling where you stand on this, but it would be unfair for me to jump to conclusions, so please, state precisely what you mean, if you don't mind.
To clarify my position - I think it's a tragedy the gorilla is dead, but I think what happened to Noah and his mom and the other victims is a greater tragedy. I think the zoo is at fault, I think the police did the right thing. I think any animal that becomes vicious and dangerous to a human should be destroyed, be it a dog, a gorilla, a lion, etc.
Now, if Noah and his Mom were walking in the jungle in gorilla territory and were attacked, then I'd have to say yes, they probably should share some blame for what happened to them. But they weren't.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
So be it. My point is that I would've thought it went without saying I felt sympathy for the child. Let me just say that had you not said so, I would not have doubted, and that it's likely you would feel insulted just as I do, and leave it at that.
One other thing: the gorilla didn't 'become' vicious, it always had the capacity for viciousness. It's a wild animal. And I have never disputed that the police shouldn'tve shot it, either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff I don't doubt you had sympathy for the child, but your statement that they might be wiser now and they wouldn't die and people get injured eveyr day seems to imply that you think the injury was no big deal. That's what upset me - not that you had no sympathy, but that you seemed to think the injuries were insignifcant when compared to the life of a gorilla - and I totally disagree.
And I'm sorry for my earlier post - I re-read aka's post and realized that she wasnt saying there was such a disclaimer, but that people should sign one. I should read more carefully, but I'm just keyed up.
I'm having a hard time lately with the attitude I see around me (not necessarily at hatrack) that human life is not that important. There's some stuff going on I can't talk about, but I'm just sick at my stomach at the lack of regard for life I see, so I'm ultra sensitive here.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
