Zoo’s Killing of Gorilla Holding a Boy Prompts Outrage

You keep not answering my question. Why is it different for a zoo than any other business?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And what does that physically look like? I'm genuinely curious here, I'm not trying to be provocative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

He doesn't need to, hundreds of other zoos have already figured it out. Even this zoo managed to keep three-year-olds out of the other dangerous animal enclosures, which only emphasizes their failure with this one.

You can't tell the difference between a zoo, which markets itself to families and children as a combination educational and entertainment exhibit, from businesses like banks or transportation hubs like subway stations that are their to serve adults? It appears there is no reasoning with you.

 

I don't build enclosures, but I also am a normal person who understands building an enclosure that can keep a 3 year old out is not rocket science. I can recall different zoos where they have elevated walkways that look down in the enclosures, but the enclosure is fenced off at the bottom and there is a large gap between the fence and the walkway so kids can't fall in. They also build upwards, so that the animals can be at eye level but have no way of getting over the fence. The fact you guys think it's difficult to build something that a 3 year old can't get in to, to protect it from a silverback gorilla is asinine. Lol.

 

How are the others different? It would be pretty inconsentant for them to have a different type of security for other big dangerous animals. So give me an example.

Children take the subway too.

 

Why did it took you three replies to come up with something like that? You see I had something all along but wanted you to exercise your brain. It's easy to say "they should make it child proof". It's another thing to come up with it. My idea is to have a slope down to a 10 ft wall from a 20 ft walkway. The slope to the wall would have thorny bushes. All this is added to the security already in place. Now I'm pretty sure neither of our ideas is 100% child proof but is better than the security in place. The question now is does the zoo have enough funds to do either ideas. Like I said before the security was standard. They passed inspection didn't they?

 

I just read a report that cincinnati used the first fenceless enclosure of a gorilla in US zoos. That might not have been the smartest idea and they are already in the process of increasing the height of the barrier to reopen it. So obviously they can prevent little kids from simply climbing a small barrier and falling in to a cage with a big gorilla. And yes they passed inspection. The inspectors should be liable also. They only have two simple things they have to worry about, animals getting out, and little kids getting in. It really is not that hard to keep a little kid out of an enclosure with dangerous animals. The fact you guys are making it out to be some impossible feat is hilarious.

 

To make something 100% is nearly impossible. Especially when dealing with stupid.

 

Sure it's possible. It's actually very easy to make something 100% impenetrable by a tiny child. And I'm not saying people don't make mistakes and miss out on areas that can be exploited by little kids, just saying it's possible to have it impossible for a little kid on his own to be able to get in an area with a dangerous animal.

 

And that's what I'm talking about. Missed areas.

 

Amusement parks market themselves to families. Swimming pools market themselves to families and accidents happen in both of those places. Maybe ski resorts should remove every single tree because someone crashes into one every year. More kids die at frickin' daycare than the zoo. They could make the enclosure 100% impenetrable by cinder blocking the sides and top I guess, but who would enjoy that? Not the people and not the gorillas I'm sure. Should everyone else's experience have to suffer because one lady wasn't watching her kid? Millions of other parents have walked by with their 3 year olds and they've not tumbled into the gorilla exhibit. I agree, the kid shouldn't have been in there and if there are reasonable modifications they can make like planting thorny plants or raising the fence a bit I'm sure they will. They do not want to shoot another gorilla so I'm sure they will add some things. But statistically I don't think one accident in all of the years of that exhibit justifies completely redoing it. They raised our zoo's fence at the tiger exhibit to keep people from leaning over, and instead parents just set their kid on top of it so they can see better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

They don't need to cinder block the sides. Many zoos have impenetrable enclosures. The fact you act like it's so difficult to keep a child from entering an area with a gorilla is crazy. I didn't even know people thought like that, lol.

 

That exhibit has been impenetrable for decades until last week. I'm not disagreeing that a kid shouldn't be in there, but I am saying that patrons have a responsibility to obey and follow the safety rules put in place. I hope the zoo does put thorny plants or an electric fence in to help, but I also hope the family doesn't sue the zoo because the zoo thought they had an impenetrable exhibit until that kid fell in. My point is that the zoo was not negligent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The only difference I'm personally aware of is that zero toddlers get into most zoos' animal enclosures despite having thousands upon thousands of children visiting them every year. Unless you think it's only because no kid has ever tried to get into them, I'd say it's evidence of better design.

Most parents approach a subway station with a very different mindset than a zoo. For one thing, the subway isn't there for entertainment. For another, parents don't take their children to the subway station with the assumption that it's been child-proofed. Subway trains are also controlled by adult humans, not wild animals. I guess I could go on but the absurdity of your post suggests you'll ignore common sense observations like this.

 

Actually my husband I were talking about this incident. There is a child leash you can buy and this particular child was a good candidate. But chances are....the same people lamenting about this Gorilla and demanding "justice" would have been outraged at a mother who would put her child on a leash.

 

Do you have evidence for that? I mean this is only one incident. It's more logical to say no one else tried on the other exhibits than to say they skimped on the gorilla exhibit.

Zoos aren't controlled by wild animals.

 

Gorilla lives matter.

 

If a kid falls in a wild animal pit, the wild animal is controlled by a wild animal. If a kid falls on a train track, the train is controlled by an adult human.

 

Which the train can't stop on a dime, so in a sense the train is in control.