world

Cincinnati Zoo director defends killing gorilla to save boy

67 Comments
By DAN SEWELL

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

67 Comments
Login to comment

Who hasn't lost contact with their child at some point? I did once at a public pool and died a thousand deaths until we connected again. I was talking with his swim instructor and off he went. Thoughts of him drowning or being abducted filled my head. I seriously wondered how I would tell my wife. Then I found him. Years later, my wife told me about the time she "lost" him and thought the same thoughts. I suspect this happens to most parents at least once. Most times, a kind stranger, not a gorilla, finds the child.

As for shooting the gorilla, I wondered about the wisdom of it, too, then I saw the video of the gorilla treating the boy like a rag doll ...

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Hey everyone: Gorilla lives matter.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

None of us have a detailed perspective on what led up to this incident but as the witness in the article testified, a four year old suddenly wondering off under a fenced off barrier and jumping 10 feet down into a moat without saying a word to anyon is extremely improbable. So unthinkable it had never happened before in the 40 years of this exhibit.

It reminds me of that killing of a boy by painted dogs at the Pittsburgh zoo a few years ago. Intelligent, nurturing, interesting character as the keepers described Harambe. That child being in that exhibit was totally foreign to him. He’s used to people, but not children or screaming onlookers. From the animals’ perspective I can imagine they are thinking “What just fell into our enclosure? Let’s go and see! It’s not scary, but it’s moving—let’s play with it (assuming they did; I don’t know if they did)! Our keepers are trying to distract us, but this thing is new and way more interesting...”

And all the mother can manage is screaming “mommies right here.” Where the hell was she when it really counted ?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Hey everyone: Gorilla lives matter.

But not as much as that as a fellow 4 year old human child, regardless of the consequences of how they came into contact. If people prefer Gorilla lives then maybe we should return to the jungle. See how you like Gorillas v Humans then. Humans were killing apes for Human protection centuries ago, so lets not go overboard with placing a Gorilla on the same level as a 4 year old.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Who hasn't lost contact with their child at some point?

Fair point, but not many people lose a child in a gorilla enclosure. This isn't an everyday occurrence.

They had to shoot the gorilla. Hopefully Harambe is at peace. Zoo life must be bad enough, then you get shot because some fool's child went under a rail, through wires and over a moat wall to get into your enclosure.

Sad all round. Thankfully the child is safe.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The video looked like gorilla was trying to pull back the boy from falling and trying fescue the boy. What the boy's mother doing? Gorilla populations are down and down. This gorilla is about size of sumo wrestler? Couldn't shoot her leg?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

A similar incident occurred at Jersey zoo some years ago. In that case they were able to rescue the boy without killing the gorilla, or even tranquilising him.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There is no excuse for not watching like a hawk so to speak small children around dangerous animals. Absolutely zero.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Bottom line is, this was the right call.

The conservationists and ultra PC brigade ("justice for Harambe' wtf!!!) are missing the point. Gorillas being an endangered species and paraded in zoos is the problem, shooting a gorilla to save a human's life is not.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

But not as much as that as a fellow 4 year old human child... In YOUR opinion. Gorillas are dying out because of stupid humans and this is a fine example of why we need to rethink zoos and how we treats other species other than our own.

The parents needs to be accountable for the cost of all of this and the life of that poor creature. Do I think the zoo made the right call? I can't say for sure. What I do know is that this women supposedly had three kids with her so perhaps zoos needs to start making a rule about how many adults they need to have with kids if adults can't keep their eye on the kids they're supposed to be looking after. It's not like getting into a zoo pen of such an animal takes only seconds and is easy to do. Better yet, close all zoos and put these animals in sanctuaries so they don'T have to deal with crap like this.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

As always, JT posters condemn everyone.

Sometimes things are just an accident.

A parent with their kids at the zoo should rightfully expect that their kids are safe from falling into animal enclosures at said zoo. There are no cars at zoos, so letting your kid roam free a bit is not a big issue. The zoo probably thought no one could get into the enclosure, as it had never happened before (and isn't clear how it happened this time). They will need to take a closer look at how to prevent this from happening again in the future.

But no one is necessarily at fault here - it was an accident (or if it wasn't, then someone is at fault).

0 ( +6 / -6 )

There are no cars at zoos, so letting your kid roam free a bit is not a big issue.

No, it IS a big issue. When parents take their kids anywhere they are responsible for looking after their well being. You don't allow a four year old to "roam free" anywhere, more so a crowded zoo with animals that could hurt them. They aren't old enough to look after themselves. That's their care givers responsibility.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

No, it IS a big issue. When parents take their kids anywhere they are responsible for looking after their well being. You don't allow a four year old to "roam free" anywhere

This is the belief of helicopter parents, and/or those who only have one child.

People are too paranoid these days, and it's ruining our children. People are afraid to let kids be kids, because there is a possibility that something could go wrong, but in 'protecting' them, they never learn how to take care of themselves, and end up helpless/hopeless adults.

more so a crowded zoo with animals that could hurt them.

In what zoo are the animals free to hurt the kids? Every zoo I've been to has the animals in enclosures, with the exception of petting zoos which I think (hope) we can agree aren't dangerous to the children.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Attorneys always find someone at fault. In their eyes someone is always to blame....as long as profit rewards. The zoos insurance will increase shortly.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Stranger, would you be so flippant about this all is that child had died? I highly doubt it.

Petting zoos can also be dangerous - which is why there are signs all over telling parents to watch their kids. It's not just for the safety of the kids either. Kids can cause problems - and death - to animals if they are not watched properly. You know, like what happened here. Dead gorilla because of... a child.

Yes, kids should be kids but since when is allowing your four year old free reign at a zoo something a responsible parent does? There re parks, backyards and play areas FOR such times.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Sanctuaries would be ideal for building up and maintaining genetically healthy populations of animals as a back-up for endangered species if you could trust laws to stop poachers and habitat destroyers that created the problem in the first place. Yes there is a laundry list of problems with breeding programs but alongside that there is a slew of thousands of species that have been successfully brought back from the brink. Parks can keep them safe in the wild at the same time conservation biologists are establishing a successful international captive breeding program. It takes a global partnership of scientists, zoos, sanctuaries, conservationists and governmental and non-governmental organizations to help save the endangered plants, animals and ecosystems of the world. :)

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Stranger, would you be so flippant about this all is that child had died? I highly doubt it.

I'm not flippant about it, I'm just pointing out that sometimes things are accidents, and not everything is always someone's fault.

Petting zoos can also be dangerous - which is why there are signs all over telling parents to watch their kids.

Walking on the street can be dangerous. Taking a bath can be dangerous. Sleeping in your bed can be dangerous. Pretty much everything can be dangerous. But when something happens, it isn't always someones fault.

kids should be kids but since when is allowing your four year old free reign at a zoo something a responsible parent does?

Who says she allowed the kid free reign? Maybe the kid got out of her sight for a moment - if she had multiple kids as has been mentioned here, that happens to every parent. If there is anywhere you would expect a kid to be safe for a moment, it would be a zoo.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Walking on the street can be dangerous. Taking a bath can be dangerous. Sleeping in your bed can be dangerous. Pretty much everything can be dangerous. But when something happens, it isn't always someones fault.

Which is why one should hold their small child's hand. Which is why one doesn't leave their small child in the bath alone. Which is why one shouldn't use heavy blankets for small children. Want to keep playing the game?

A "moment" isn't long enough for a kid to be able to do what this child did. Give me a break. You ARE being flippant. Tell me something, you fine with the parents who allowed their kid to be a kid in the forest in Hokkaido? You know, a little freedom and all that.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Which is why one should hold their small child's hand. Which is why one doesn't leave their small child in the bath alone. Which is why one shouldn't use heavy blankets for small children. Want to keep playing the game?

Yeah, small children. Yet the people who think kids should never be out of their parents' sight continue holding their hands until they are adults, and that's where the problem is.

A "moment" isn't long enough for a kid to be able to do what this child did.

Sure it is. Do you not have kids? They can be fast.

You ARE being flippant.

Call it what you want, I'm just pointing out that not everything is someone's fault.

Tell me something, you fine with the parents who allowed their kid to be a kid in the forest in Hokkaido?

Not the same thing is it.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

The child was FOUR!! He IS a small child.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Yeah, and they were in a zoo - a place a parent should rightfully think is safe.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

We have very different ideas of what "safe" means then if you think a crowded area full of strangers is a "safe" place for a four year old.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

But not as much as that as a fellow 4 year old human child... In YOUR opinion

Your comments seem just as flippant, tmarie. Do you seriously think that a gorilla's life is more important than the child's life in this situation? I am not disagreeing that we humans need to take much better care of animal life or that parents need to watch over their kids at zoos or anywhere, for that matter, because we do. But let's stop all this bickering.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

We have very different ideas of what "safe" means then if you think a crowded area full of strangers is a "safe" place for a four year old.

Millions of kids go into millions of areas with millions of strangers every day without incident.

Of course it depends on the place and circumstance, but no, I don't think that a crowded area full of strangers is by default unsafe, which is what you seem to be implying.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

In YOUR opinion. Gorillas are dying out because of stupid humans and this is a fine example of why we need to rethink zoos and how we treats other species other than our own.

I cant work out which side of the debate tmarie is on. Arguing about Zoos or no Zoos, or parental responsibilities on daytrips etc are irrelevant. This situation actually happened and the Zookeepers had no time to debate about animal cruelty. They did the right thing in order to save the childs life.

As for posters claiming the Gorilla was protecting the child - its easy to make unqualified judgements from your sofa but I myself would rather leave that judgement to the professionals and they say the child was in danger. End of story.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

There's losing your child for a few seconds and then there's losing your child in a gorilla cage at a zoo. That's when you know you've failed at life

5 ( +9 / -4 )

I know I'm asking for downvotes, but just look at the population numbers...

Lowland gorillas: possibly 100,000 individuals, maybe less.

Homo sapiens sapiens: 7.4 billion people.

I wonder who is more worthy of protection and care.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Lowland gorillas: possibly 100,000 individuals, maybe less.

Homo sapiens sapiens: 7.4 billion people.

I wonder who is more worthy of protection and care.

We cannot reverse evolution. Thats why Gorillas are in Zoos and not Humans. And thats why we choose the life of a 4 year old Human in place of a Gorilla.

If the police believed a 17 year old Human male was threatening the life of a 4 year old, many police forces would shoot the 17 year old to stop him, and many of us would accept that situation. So when zookeepers shoot a 17 year old Gorilla because they felt he was threatening the life of a 4 year old, why do people get all upset about it??

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@tmarie, Lizz, Ronrii - I agree.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@ Tigers: We cannot reverse evolution, that's true. But we are humans, and that's why we can stand up against Darwinism, social and otherwise.

From all the videos I have watched so far, none of them indicated the boy was endangered by the gorilla. If you have access to other vids, please post the links. I'm always willing to learn and amend my views.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Word on the street is that if the gorilla was tranquilized it would have gone crazy from being startled and there would have been a very high chance of the boy being killed or hurt badly in this case. As much as I love gorillas, 4 year old children are more important and the right decision was made. That being said, the zoo has to make sure there are no gaps in any fencing or fortifications and make it impossible to get into an animal holding area.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I guess the zoo was correct in shooting the ape although it did not threaten the child -- it would probably have been too difficult to retrieve the child otherwise. But the idiot parents should be banned from visiting the zoo for life, at least. There is no excuse for letting a 4 year old run around alone near a gorilla enclosure. None.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As an aside it was 'interesting' to see a gorilla's interaction with a human being and how protective he was (that was a bit surreal actually). Would love to hear what the experts think about the encounter.

Hope to hear from the kid too (he owes us one!)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you seriously think that a gorilla's life is more important than the child's life in this situation?

This poster summed it up nicely for me. **Lowland gorillas: possibly 100,000 individuals, maybe less.

Homo sapiens sapiens: 7.4 billion people.

I wonder who is more worthy of protection and care.**

As for the poster question which side of the fence I am in, I am 100% against zoos but know that most people are not. I'm not dumb enough to think that this would change the mind of millions who have no ideas with animals being stressed out in cages and areas far too small for them. Add in the screaming crowds, the banging on glass/windows... But hey, Johnny gets to see a gorilla so who care about the animals?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

tmarie, this is not about zoos or no-zoos. In that situation the question is would you save the life of a 4 year old child before you have the chance to debate animals in captivity. You probably wouldnt have reacted quick enough to save the child. They did.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You were the one that said you didn't know which side of the fence I was on, I believe. Just clearing it up for you.

"They" being the people trained to do so. I would hope so since that is their job.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yeah, and they were in a zoo - a place a parent should rightfully think is safe.

Maybe at an aquarium where animals are behind glass. I've been at many zoos that a short jump over the fence and you can be hanging out with animals that will treat you like an appetizer.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@tmarie: Walking on the street can be dangerous. Taking a bath can be dangerous. Sleeping in your bed can be dangerous. Pretty much everything can be dangerous. But when something happens, it isn't always someones fault. …Which is why one should hold their small child's hand.

Says somebody who has no idea that you cannot hold your child’s hand all the time, especially when they are having fun. 2, 3, 4-year old kids want to explore their independence and quite often disregard their parents’ warnings. It is one of those things which are easy to say but difficult to achieve. Believe it or not, no matter how hard you try, even you will not be able to hold your child’s hand when he/she gets to that age. Just wait and see.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

toshiku:

" This gorilla is about size of sumo wrestler? Couldn't shoot her leg? " Are you joking? The last thing you´d want to in that situation is an injured and angry gorilla. If shooting was the only option, then clearly shoot to kill was the only way.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@tmarie

I think you should re-evaluate your opinion regarding zoos... if it weren't for zoos people would not know the existence of many, many animals in this world. If it weren't for zoos, several spices would have gone extinct or be in even more precarious situation. If it weren't for zoos, our understanding of many animals behavior, physiology, psychology and sociology would be a mystery, even we would not even know how to save and treat medically some animals to save their lives.

The existence of zoos and aquariums are important in order for us humans to learn about animals and so we can be able to save them.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

While it seems like there genuinely weren't any other options in this case -- a tranquilliser risked the child's life even more -- I can't help but think that if the gorilla weren't there in the first place this would never have been an issue. So, ultimately, yes, it is the zoo's fault.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Animals always suffer from the stupidity of humans... this is such a case.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I can't help but think that if the gorilla weren't there in the first place this would never have been an issue.

Tell me, do you take the same stance in regards to the bases in Okinawa?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

As a few posters here I am not convinced that a kid's life is more valued than a gorilla's. We could lose a few kids, will save some space and resources on the planet, and apply some natural selection...

Daniel Neagari I think you should re-evaluate your opinion regarding zoos... if it weren't for zoos people would not know the existence of many, many animals in this world. If it weren't for zoos, several spices would have gone extinct or be in even more precarious situation. If it weren't for zoos, our understanding of many animals behavior, physiology, psychology and sociology would be a mystery, even we would not even know how to save and treat medically some animals to save their lives.

Not obvious, pretty sure our understanding is mostly coming from natural habitat studying rather than zoos.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Who here remembers David Attenborough being welcomed by a family of gorillas? Being hugged by them... no aggression whatsoever... and they were wild ones!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I was glued to my computer when my two-year-old walked out of the house stark naked and was found at the local supermarket. An indignant neighbor brought him home and just walked away muttering. It's really easy to get distracted and bad things can happen in a short time. That gorilla would be alive today if he hadn't dragged the boy around like a ragdoll.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Thanks for sharing a real story of parenting Homotenashi. Some people here think that parenting is a simple process where nothing can ever go wrong if you are doing it right. Real life has shown most parents that sometimes things will go wrong, even when you're doing all you can. It's impossible to be on top of 100% of everything, 100% of the time. Literally impossible, as any parent can tell you.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It's truly a tragedy that the gorilla was killed. The child had been dragged rather violently, however, and was made nervous by all the humans above. Of course, it would have been preferable if the child could have been extracted without harming either the child or the gorilla, but the zoo couldn't risk the child being seriously injured or killed by the gorilla. Truly a tragic outcome.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those who support the zoo's shooting of this gorilla are totally IGNORANT of gorilla behaviour.

30 years ago - in 1986 - a small boy accidentally fell into the gorilla enclosure at Jersey Zoo. The main gorilla there went and protected the boy, stroking him sympathetically to revive him (he had been knocked unconscious in the fall), and the keepers then drew all the gorillas away and rescued the boy. Gorillas do NOT attack small children.

If you look at the video from the Cincinnati cae the gorilla rescued the boy from the water and then sat next to him gently holding his hand. Gorillas do NOT attack small children.

Indeed, gorillas do not attack humans at all, if they do not feel threatened - just look at the film of David Attenborough mingling peacefully with wild gorillas in the jungle in Africa.

Cincinnati zoo panicked and grossly over-reacted. Shooting the gentle, peaceful gorilla who was caring for the boy was a vile and appalling thing to do.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

As an expert said, 'Couldn't they have tranquilized the gorilla while sharp shooters watched with rifles ready'?

Having said that, my first reaction was the zoo must have overreacted but, watching that footage, the gorilla dragged the boy by one of his legs at speed. A terribly difficult decision for the head of the zoo to make, but how long could the zoo staff wait to see whether the gorilla was going to hurt the boy or not? Sadly, it wasn't worth the risk and a beautiful gorilla ended up dying because of the stupidity of humans.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Gorillas do NOT attack small children.

Heh. If he was your son would you still be saying this? Be honest. I like most creatures but if that gorilla took my child into one of their caves with no visual, I'd be worried beyond sick.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Homotenashi wrote:

That gorilla would be alive today if he hadn't dragged the boy around like a ragdoll.

..or if the mother and the father who was also there had been more attentive. They were responsible for not only their own children, but others as well.

It should be obvious to any parent(and obviously it's not) that children under 5 require even more supervision - especially at a zoo.

Parenting is hard but these type situations due to parental neglect happen far too often in the US, not only involving animals, but firearms.

What will really fan the flames is if the parents decide to sue the zoo for failing to properly enclose the area.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I was glued to my computer when my two-year-old walked out of the house stark naked and was found at the local supermarket.

Then you call your neighbour 'indignant. Very balanced self assessment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe animals should be protected, but there is no comparison between their life and a human. In my opinion, the zoo did the right thing. Now the case of the nitwit in Chile who on purpose took off his clothes and jumped into the lions enclosure and was being mauled by the lions before they were shot, well he got what he deserved since he was old enough to know better, and though I have no sympathy for him, it is a shame that the lions had to be put down. The same as back in 2009 on Christmas Day at the San Francisco zoo, when two young adults (stoners) decided to tease a tiger in an enclosure to the point where the big cat jumped out and attacked them, again they deserved it since they knowingly were teasing a big cat and the animal did what an animal will do attack. Yes the cat had to be put down, even though those two "humans" in my opinion lives mattered more than the tigers, but they had it coming to them. This case, as tragic as it is for the boy, only had one outcome, the gorilla must be put down.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Right on, bill Adams.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As a few posters here I am not convinced that a kid's life is more valued than a gorilla's. We could lose a few kids, will save some space and resources on the planet, and apply some natural selection...

I hope you, and tmarie, keep this in mind if you or any of your family members happen to be face-to-face with an endangered or at-risk animal that has the ability to kill you. That you can say this shows serious problems in how you view others.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@iamme. this gorilla was confined in a zoo, for petes sake. the zoo has the responsibility to take care of him but instead they gun him down. Its sickening. Chalk another on up for the human species.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

the zoo has the responsibility to take care of him but instead they gun him down

They do, but at the point where the gorilla has a child and is acting aggressive, there was no other decision to be made. They would be criticized no matter what they did, but at least with this solution the outcome was not a dead child. Now whether or not mistakes were made by the zoo before this (in not creating a method of preventing kids from being able to get into the compound), that is a different question.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I hope you, and tmarie, keep this in mind if you or any of your family members happen to be face-to-face with an endangered or at-risk animal that has the ability to kill you. That you can say this shows serious problems in how you view others.

Been in the wild with endangered and at-risk animals. If they had decided to attack me, frankly, too bad for me. I was in THEIR space. I feel exactly the same about family members - be it wild animals like such as the ones I believe you are referring to, zoo animals, sharks...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@tmarie Really? You would make no attempt to protect your child if they were attacked by, say, a Siberian tiger if it means possibly killing the tiger? Shrug and say "Too bad for you, we intruded in their territory. I pick the tiger over you, son"? If this is truly how you feel (and you aren't being argumentative just to be argumentative), glad that you aren't a relative of mine.

@outrider The zoo does have responsibility concerning the gorilla, but they have responsibility concerning visitors as well. I am not a huge fan of zoos either and think animals are to be seen in the wild, but placing animals above humans (and relatives, for goodness sakes!) in any circumstance? I just can't do it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If this incident teaches other mothers to watch children at ALL times then the gorilla's death wasn't in vain. People are signing up to establish "Harambe's Law" which would make visitors at zoos responsible (and punishable) if endangered animal is killed due to their neglect. Please look up and sign at Change.org

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Poor Harumbe.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There should be signs everywhere at zoos stating that people are responsible for following the rules, insuring that their children follow the rules and that lethal action will not be taken against any animal that visitors may experience danger from due to their own stupidity. Enough is enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You would make no attempt to protect your child if they were attacked by, say, a Siberian tiger if it means possibly killing the tiger? Shrug and say "Too bad for you, we intruded in their territory. I pick the tiger over you, son"?

Oh dear, is that what you took out of my post? Not worth wasting my time if you clearly don't have common sense to understand that is not what I said at all.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If they had decided to attack me, frankly, too bad for me. I was in THEIR space. I feel exactly the same about family members.

I actually assumed it was poorly written and not what you meant, and I apologize for the snide remark. And let's just agree to disagree concerning the matter of this event, and agree on the worth(lesness) of zoos.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Watching the footage it was hard not to think the mother was just trying to make herself look better when she said, 'Mommy is right here'.

I can imagine the boy thinking, 'Mommy, I beg to differ. You are way up there and behind a fence. I'm down here with a 400-pound gorilla.'

'Mommy is right here.'

'Yes I can see that Mommy. Care to join me down here?!'

'Mommy is right here.'

'No, you aren't here, you are there. It's quite a different place to be.'

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites