Jump to content
Airbrush

Zoo Tragedy

Recommended Posts

Agreed. No offense. No worries. :)

For the most part, I was also trying to process my own feelings about the event and appreciate being able to do so safely.

 

I like this forum because people, by and large post their independent opinions which can get a bit electric sometimes, which is good. I would hate for SFN to to turn into one big circle jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I thought I had said that in my initial reply post #2 but your post iNow (+1 BTW) shows the value of eloquence over concision.

 

 

You know. Or not. We could of course keep yelling about things literally impossible to change. I suppose that's an option, too.

 

 

Captain Hindsight, the only perfect super-hero. :) .

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The zoo did the right thing to shoot the gorilla. The mother feels terribly guilty about what happened.

 

There must be a way to child-proof a barrier like that. How can you build a 3-foot barrier that will deter a child? Have bushes with thorns that prick anyone that tries to cross them but cause no serious injury. What kind of bushes did they have? Child-friendly bushes? Duhhhhhhh?

 

Or as someone suggested an alarm that goes off when you pass a trip laser light. That would immediately alert everyone nearby.

 

There must be harnesses with leashes that parents can hook up to their tiny tots so they don't get kidnapped as well as fall into the gorilla's den. Even surfers wear leashes.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Control is illusory, a leash only adds to the illusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post iNow. +1

 

Your post reminded me that my very blunt, direct speech has gotten me in trouble more than once as people often rightfully interpret it as aggression or in some other negative way. That is not my intent, but as the speaker the responsibility lies with me to be aware of the tone I am projecting.

My apologies if that happened here and I offended anyone.

It is so difficult to communicate online because it often leads to people misunderstanding your tone and mood. It's a fundamental flaw of mine to respond first emotionally and unfortunately I am too sensitive and emotional. After sleeping on it, I do see a lot of validity in your points, Zapatos. These sort of stories elicit such a strong emotional response from one and it's difficult to be logical when faced with a tragedy involving a child and an animal. I certainly can understand your points.

 

Thank you iNow for broaching the topic logically.

Edited by Sirona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different

 

 

201606_0913_hiigc_sm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the zoo did the right thing but still its partially their fault. they should not have big enough hols in cages that people can get in. how did the mother not notice, i would think she kept a good eye on him if she had no other kid to look after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the zoo did the right thing but still its partially their fault. they should not have big enough hols in cages that people can get in. how did the mother not notice, i would think she kept a good eye on him if she had no other kid to look after.

In the eyes of a young child adults are so S-L-O-O-W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see a glass fence working. Still transparent, but too sheer for a child to climb.

 

I have seen child leashes, but think they send the wrong message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I detest monkeys and apes, but I still think it's sad that the gorilla had to be killed because of a child's actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see a glass fence working. Still transparent, but too sheer for a child to climb.

 

I have seen child leashes, but think they send the wrong message.

 

In my generation most children had leashes - although my parents called them reins (basically a mini-climbing harness with 2-3 metre straps). My Mum and Dad had 4 inquisitive boys to look after and the youngest (me) was tethered to either Mum, Dad, or a Bigger Brother. I don't know of any lasting damage to me - but then I suppose through the nature of oppression I wouldn't would I? >:D

 

I know that I was once pulled back up a cliff by my reins, and Jeremy the next eldest was pulled from quicksand by them - I suppose they gave my parents the ability to go to interesting places and still maintain safe control.

 

Unfortunately children are not the best arbiters of their own safety - this is practically definitional; once you can be trusted to do the sensible thing you are no longer a child. It is great to give children freedom and they have to be allowed to make bad decisions in order to learn how to make decisions at all - but if freedom is only given at the cost of making the environment safe and hazard-free or avoiding those places which are not as such then I think the the price is too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know that I was once pulled back up a cliff by my reins, and Jeremy the next eldest was pulled from quicksand by them - I suppose they gave my parents the ability to go to interesting places and still maintain safe control.

I would use them, they are safety devices not control devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many in here have made posts I agree with in context to events. The child had inadequate supervision and the zoo staff made a tough choice that errored on the side of a child life. However I can't help but wonder why this is still a thing? Why enclosing animals that aren't domesticated in viewing centers so people can stand around looking at them purely for entertainment is still a thing. Lots of really good work being done out there by filmmakers and photographers capturing animals in their natural environment. That work allows us to see them is a more edicational and dynamic manner. Why imprison a guerilla in an aritificial envirnment and watch it sit around growing old? Perhaps it would be healthier for society if we had more gardens, observatories, refuges, and etc rather than zoos?

 

Stuff happens. Of course parents should be watching their kids but we all know they don't; not 100% of the time. Everyone makes mistakes and has slip ups. Did any of our parents prevent us from 100% of the stupid stuff we did? Part of properly accessing risk is understanding that stuff doesn't always go the way it should. So while the zoo staff have primary jobs that don't involve saving children; they are in a business where thousands of their customers are children and they should have some basic plans in place for the unseen. Animal interaction with people at a zoo is not an out of left field emergent issue that no one ever could have imagined. The zoo should have been prepared. Dito for parents; if you are takening your children someplace to see "wild" animals understand there are risks associated with that.

 

In context to what happened the zoo did what was the most straight forward a safest for the child in the situation. Big picture the situation was sort of stupid and perhaps zoos antiquated places that shouldn't still be a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to "thatsneakyguy" who posted above the illustration of the exhibit barrier cross section.

 

It shows a fence 3' high but you cannot tell how easy it would be to pass under the bar. Anyone know what kind of fence it is? Did the child climb over or slip through the fence? It is set back from the 15' drop by ONLY 4'. I propose they might consider a set-back more than only 4', more like 8'. I saw video of bushes the child penetrated between the fence and the pit. Those are easy to penetrate!!!! Zoo management, get a brain in your head and replace those bushes with some that are just as lush and green, but thick with thorns. There are many varieties of draught-resistant thorn bushes. With some thorn bushes you don't even notice the thorns until you get close enough to see them. Rose bushes?

 

A recent news story shows the zoo put up another 4' wooden fence in front of the 3' fence with vertical posts close enough together to prevent a kid from slipping through and jagged top to make it difficult to climb over. Good work zoo, maybe you don't need bushes with thorns. :)

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to "thatsneakyguy" who posted above the illustration of the exhibit barrier cross section.

 

Cool, your welcome!

 

It shows a fence 3' high but you cannot tell how easy it would be to pass under the bar. Anyone know what kind of fence it is? Did the child climb over or slip through the fence? It is set back from the 15' drop by ONLY 4'. I propose they might consider a set-back more than only 4', more like 8'. I saw video of bushes the child penetrated between the fence and the pit. Those are easy to penetrate!!!! Zoo management, get a brain in your head and replace those bushes with some that are just as lush and green, but thick with thorns. There are many varieties of draught-resistant thorn bushes. With some thorn bushes you don't even notice the thorns until you get close enough to see them. Rose bushes?

 

A recent news story shows the zoo put up another 4' wooden fence in front of the 3' fence with vertical posts close enough together to prevent a kid from slipping through and jagged top to make it difficult to climb over. Good work zoo, maybe you don't need bushes with thorns. :)

 

 

I think thick thorny bushes are a good idea. The kid probably would have yelled or cried as soon as he got over the fence. But the more I think about it, it seems to me that the kid kind of seem determined to cross the barrier.

 

Considering how rare accidents happen at this particular enclosure I have to conclude the zoo has taken adequate steps to ensure safety.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/us/cincinnati-zoo-gorilla-shot/

The zoo defended its safety barriers, saying this is the first time Gorilla World has experienced a breach since the exhibit opened in 1978. The exhibit is inspected regularly by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums and the United States Department of Agriculture, and adheres to safety guidelines, according to the zoo.

 

"The safety of our visitors and our animals is our No. 1 priority," Maynard said. "The barrier that we have in place has been effective for 38 years. Nevertheless, we will study this incident as we work toward continuous improvement for the safety of our visitors and animals."

 

 

Any individual, determined enough, could breach the security features. But if this is indeed the first accident I think the safety measures are adequate.

 

As I said before the zoo has to determine how close visitors can get to the animals while still being safe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to "thatsneakyguy" who posted above the illustration of the exhibit barrier cross section.

 

It shows a fence 3' high but you cannot tell how easy it would be to pass under the bar. Anyone know what kind of fence it is? Did the child climb over or slip through the fence? It is set back from the 15' drop by ONLY 4'. I propose they might consider a set-back more than only 4', more like 8'. I saw video of bushes the child penetrated between the fence and the pit. Those are easy to penetrate!!!! Zoo management, get a brain in your head and replace those bushes with some that are just as lush and green, but thick with thorns. There are many varieties of draught-resistant thorn bushes. With some thorn bushes you don't even notice the thorns until you get close enough to see them. Rose bushes?

 

A recent news story shows the zoo put up another 4' wooden fence in front of the 3' fence with vertical posts close enough together to prevent a kid from slipping through and jagged top to make it difficult to climb over. Good work zoo, maybe you don't need bushes with thorns. :)

 

 

Good work captain hindsight... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The zoo apparently installed a temporary barrier that was far safer (it had jagged wooden vertical pickets) than the permanent new barrier they installed at the gorilla den. The new barrier is 42 inches high and still very easy for a small child to climb over. The plants are plain to view, some kind of delicate bushes that little boys routinely play inside of and are very easy to penetrate. They don't want to spend on installing thorn bushes that would discourage a child, or even an adult, from visiting the gorillas up close. Whomever has been inspecting the gorilla exhibit and declaring it safe was mistaken. It's never been safe and it still is not. But an incident like this will never happen again because most parents are now aware of what happened and will be watching their kids very close around the gorilla den and anywhere else dangerous but accessible to kids. But what about other dangerous animal exhibits in the zoo? Are they as easy for a kid to access?

 

Sorry I can't copy and paste anymore. And when I try to quote someone all I get is the reply window without any quote. Anyone ever have that problem? Maybe I can figure out what went wrong.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The zoo apparently installed a temporary barrier that was far safer (it had jagged wooden vertical pickets) than the permanent new barrier they installed at the gorilla den. The new barrier is 42 inches high and still very easy for a small child to climb over. The plants are plain to view, some kind of delicate bushes that little boys routinely play inside of and are very easy to penetrate. Stupid, stupid. They don't want to spend on installing thorn bushes that would discourage a child, or even an adult, from visiting the gorillas up close.

 

Sorry I can't copy and paste anymore. And when I try to quote someone all I get is the reply window without any quote. Maybe I can figure out what went wrong.

If that happens - quoting - click on More Reply Options then click on the icon button on the top right next to the eraser. Changing from one format to the other then back seems to do the trick

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that happens - quoting - click on More Reply Options then click on the icon button on the top right next to the eraser. Changing from one format to the other then back seems to do the trick

Thank you very much Mr. StringJunky!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Any individual, determined enough, could breach the security features. But if this is indeed the first accident I think the safety measures are adequate.

 

As I said before the zoo has to determine how close visitors can get to the animals while still being safe.

 

 

 

I agree. As the saying goes, locks are there to keep honest people honest. Similarly, these safeguards are not there to keep determined people away, nor can one expect them to stop every instance of possible breach. Zero risk is impossible, given the constraints. 1 incident /(38 years x 360 days open a year) is less than 0.01%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I agree. As the saying goes, locks are there to keep honest people honest. Similarly, these safeguards are not there to keep determined people away, nor can one expect them to stop every instance of possible breach. Zero risk is impossible, given the constraints. 1 incident /(38 years x 360 days open a year) is less than 0.01%.

Add in the fact the child was 3, not 4, and she had three other children with her; he scampered off whilst attending to one of them. It was a Sod' Law day. If he was put on a lead with a choker chain and lead boots he'd have still probably done it; they'll find a way.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...these safeguards are not there to keep determined people away, nor can one expect them to stop every instance of possible breach. Zero risk is impossible, given the constraints. 1 incident /(38 years x 360 days open a year) is less than 0.01%.

Maybe this is not the only "incident". Did someone search all breaches by kids of zoo barriers to all dangerous animal exhibits at all zoos? It seems to me that risk is only for the history of that one exhibit.

 

The new horizontal beam is smooth and rounded, an invitation for people to rest their hands and arms on it. For a little boy it is an invitation to climb over it. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that once over the fence there are bushes (which are easy to penetrate) that actually CONCEAL the hazard which is a 15-foot drop into a shallow mote. Maybe the little boy told him mom he wanted to get closer to the gorilla because the bushes actually concealed from the child the hazard? Maybe he thought there was a bridge or stairway beyond the bushes. Those bushes could be the hazard.

 

Why would anyone plan an exhibit like that and NOT use thorn bushes as a practical, cheep barrier? Because stupidity is often the norm in this world. Just get used to it.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is not the only "incident". Did someone search all breaches by kids of zoo barriers to all dangerous animal exhibits at all zoos? It seems to me that risk is only for the history of that one exhibit.

 

 

 

This one exhibit is what we're discussing. That this one breach was the first was previously established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is not the only "incident". Did someone search all breaches by kids of zoo barriers to all dangerous animal exhibits at all zoos? It seems to me that risk is only for the history of that one exhibit.

People being harmed by animals in zoos is not that uncommon. Here is an example. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/20/nyregion/polar-bears-kill-a-child-at-prospect-park-zoo.html. Generally it is because those people do stupid things. Darwin's theory in action I guess. People going past barricades and getting too close to an enclosure to have their picture taken is common. I once saw a child, I would guess he was 8 years old, who had went under a pathway railing, and walked about 5 yards to a tiger cage and was reaching through the bars petting the tiger. This was at the Knoxville Zoo. The tiger seemed to be enjoying it. My guess is that the tiger was rather tame, but still it was a tiger. About 20 yards down the trail was a zoo attendant so when I reached her I pointed out the child petting a tiger and she freaked out. Through her actions I thought she might spook the tiger causing it to harm the child but luckily all ended well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I blame the mother in this situation,

Really, that's interesting.

Was the father present? Some reports call it a family trip which suggests he might have been. The police are on record as saying that the parents (plural) won't face criminal charges.

 

Why is that attention all on the mother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.