(June 2, 2016 at 2:26 pm)lanapoland1973 Wrote: Maybe if the parents were more protective and watched the child better. It is a parents job to watch their kids. Maybe you can't watch all the time, but near a gorilla enclosure it was really really necessary. Now an innocent animal is dead because of a negligent parent. That was the animals enclosure, it's wild, it's home....it reacted natural, that is why it was in enclosure in first place.  It was curious. Shame on you.

It's not the parent's fault at all. They trust the zoo, how are they meant to anticipate the the gorilla enclosure open to the public for exhibition is unsafe? They were on somebody else's property (the zoo) and it was up to the zoo to ensure the safety of their facilities for visitors. But: 1. It's just an animal, and 2. The parents were certainly in no position to go in and retrieve their child, that responsibility was the zoo's. And 3. the zoo did their job - yes their barrier was breeched, but following that they brought about the child's safe retrieval. So no one did anything wrong here, and I don't understand why idiots such as yourself feel the need to unnecessarily point fingers at others.

(June 2, 2016 at 9:03 pm)Aractus Wrote: It's not the parent's fault at all.

Honestly?

Kidnappings can happen anywhere, especially in crowded places. Those who kidnap know this, and parents make the claim they took their eyes off the kid for a second.

Sometimes the fault does lie with the parent(s).

There's enough blame to go around.

Because parents need to watch their children better. The optimal word is "their" children. It was not the zoos responsibility, the zoo is not a armory or babysitter. That's the parents responsibility. Alot of parents want title but don't want to actually be a parent. To many parents put their responsibility of on other people, and hold others responsible. Parents need to recognize which responsibilities are theirs and theirs alone

NaNa

If they're going to imprison wild animals and charge people money to gawk at them, the least they could do was keep them safe.

The animals I presume ... hope?

(June 2, 2016 at 9:34 pm)IATIA Wrote: The animals I presume ... hope?

Yes, I was referring to the animals. It's complete bullshit that the gorillas weren't being protected from this kind of shit. If you're going to have the gorilla you should at the very least be required to keep out anything from its cage that could harm it.

The animal should not even be there to begin with.

(June 2, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: The animal should not even be there to begin with.

(June 2, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: The animal should not even be there to begin with.

That is a moot point. The animals are there. A lot of them are born in captivity and wouldn't survive in the wild. Zoos do a lot through research and habitat restoration/preservation that there is a sort of utilitarian use for these animals. Also, getting the public a view of these extraordinary animals is a wonderful social force for minimizing the amount of big game hunters and maximizing the awareness of habitat loss/endangered species is important. Specifically the Gorilla exhibit at this zoo is doing crucial breeding research/programs for this critically endangered species.

There is a discussion to be had about zoos and the positives and negatives that they present. But not knowing that animal's history, it is very likely that Harambe had never seen a wild jungle and therefore wouldn't survive if he wasn't in a zoo.

I do not understand the black/white thinking. The parent made a mistake, I don't think that makes her negligent. Again, how many good parents have lost their child in a grocery store or a mall? That isn't a TV trope for no reason. I lost my then 3 year old nephew in my own house. Fucker went out the doggie door after Tanner. I was making him dinner, and didn't get alarmed at the sound of the dog door flapping, because I have a dog that uses it at his leisure. I don't think I was negligent. Kids get a bug up their butt and fucking disappear quick.

The mom could have done better, just as I could have. The zoo had an enclosure that was good enough for a long time. If you don't have any issues, why would you spend tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars updating an enclosure that hasn't shown itself to be faulty? My understanding is that it was an aluminum fence with bars that were 3-4" apart, then a hedge, then a 12 foot fall to a water moat. Hindsight is 20/20, but before this incident, I would bet that no one here would have said that system represented a danger and/or needed to be overhauled at taxpayer expense.