It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rare Silverback Gorilla shot at Cincinnati Zoo, after child falls into enclosure

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   


The group Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN) says the boy who made his way into the gorilla sanctuary should have never been able to do so. The group claims to have proof that the zoo was not up to par on its safety restrictions. The non-profit watchdog group said it will present evidence that the zoo has been cited twice recently for issues with enclosures and facilities, speaking specifically to what happened on Saturday


The design and construction of the enclosures is not keeping anyone safe.



Cincinnati Zoo Director Thayne Maynard says safety is and has always been a top priority at the zoo: "The exhibit is safe and the barrier is safe. That said, any of us in this room could climb over barriers if we choose."


How is this safe if anyone can climb in? My cat rescurer sister has specialized fences where cats are unable to climb them, as well outside predators can't get in.

kpic.com...




posted on May, 31 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: gypsycat

Oh for sure, and yes the zoo should update its enclousures/habitat, regardless if its "in regulation" or not, a baby shouldn't be able to climb into it, period. The whole thing is just sad all around.

You know I'm sure that mom feels bad, I'm just glad her baby is okay after-all.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: gypsycat

I was listening to sean Hannity today talk about this and he said the woman needs to have his child taken away from her. her name is linda the call screener, when I call the show she always is the one to tell me they are not talking about what I want to talk about and call back later or she just hangs up on me.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight



The group Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN) says the boy who made his way into the gorilla sanctuary should have never been able to do so. The group claims to have proof that the zoo was not up to par on its safety restrictions. The non-profit watchdog group said it will present evidence that the zoo has been cited twice recently for issues with enclosures and facilities, speaking specifically to what happened on Saturday


The design and construction of the enclosures is not keeping anyone safe.



Cincinnati Zoo Director Thayne Maynard says safety is and has always been a top priority at the zoo: "The exhibit is safe and the barrier is safe. That said, any of us in this room could climb over barriers if we choose."


How is this safe if anyone can climb in? My cat rescurer sister has specialized fences where cats are unable to climb them, as well outside predators can't get in.

kpic.com...


Thanks for sharing the additional info about it. The not well regarded PETA also addressed it as well.

Updates are saying the parents, especially due to the outrage behind it and due to the info about the boys dad, will be investigated. Will have to see if the barrier issue is addressed the same.

Some info about the "barrier":


Source


From the animated video- included here 12news


Also, according to the zoo's website there has been, prior to the tragedy, plans of updating Gorilla World(the site). They will be working on a viewing platform for one, why not work on the barrier issue that is being addressed now?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 05:21 AM
link   
It's amazing the lengths through which some people will go to defend the parent's failure to supervise their 4 year-old child. Yes, I hate playing the "blame game" and doing so will not bring back the gorilla, but if people can be excused for neglecting to keep watch over their 4 year-old child when out in a public area, near an animal enclosure, events like this will continue to happen.

Think of a trip to the local hardware store. Would any responsible parent leave their 4 year-old unattended to wonder into another isle by themselves? If a 4 year-old picks up screwdriver from the shelf, removes the packaging and ends up harming himself with it, what people blaming the barrier in the zoo example would say is all packaging should be changed so that 4 year-olds cannot risk opening them.

This would equate to treating the symptom (child with injuries), not the cause (leaving a minor who is not legally or socially responsible without adult supervision while in a potentially dangerous environment). Why is this problematic? Because in this case the symptom can easily surface whether in or out of the hardware store, whereas the cause is much more difficult to have an effect either way.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
forgive me if this was posted already...

Amanda O'Donoughue
May 30 at 9:25pm ·



I am going to try to clear up a few things that have been weighing on me about Harambe and the Cinci Zoo since I read the news this afternoon. I have worked with Gorillas as a zookeeper while in my twenties (before children) and they are my favorite animal (out of dozens) that I have ever worked closely with. I am gonna go ahead and list a few facts, thoughts and opinions for those of you that aren't familiar with the species itself, or how a zoo operates in emergency situations. Now Gorillas are considered 'gentle giants' at least when compared with their more aggressive cousins the chimpanzee, but a 400+ pound male in his prime is as strong as roughly 10 adult humans. What can you bench press? OK, now multiply that number by ten.

An adult male silverback gorilla has one job, to protect his group. He does this by bluffing or intimidating anything that he feels threatened by. Gorillas are considered a Class 1 mammal, the most dangerous class of mammals in the animal kingdom, again, merely due to their size and strength. They are grouped in with other apes, tigers, lions, bears, etc. While working in an AZA accredited zoo with Apes, keepers DO NOT work in contact with them. Meaning they do NOT go in with these animals. There is always a welded mesh barrier between the animal and the humans. In more recent decades, zoos have begun to redesign enclosures, removing all obvious caging and attempting to create a seamless view of the animals for the visitor to enjoy watching animals in a more natural looking habitat. *this is great until little children begin falling into exhibits* which of course can happen to anyone, especially in a crowded zoo-like setting.

I have watched this video over again, and with the silverback's posturing, and tight lips, it's pretty much the stuff of any keeper's nightmares, and I have had MANY while working with them. This job is not for the complacent. Gorillas are kind, curious, and sometimes silly, but they are also very large, very strong animals. I always brought my OCD to work with me. checking and rechecking locks to make sure the animals under my care and I remained separated before entering to clean. I keep hearing that the Gorilla was trying to protect the boy. I do not find this to be true. Harambe reaches for the boys hands and arms, but only to position the child better for his own displaying purposes. Males do very elaborate displays when highly agitated, slamming and dragging things about.

Typically they would drag large branches, barrels and heavy weighted balls around to make as much noise as possible. Not in an effort to hurt anyone or anything (usually) but just to intimidate. It was clear to me that he was reacting to the screams coming from the gathering crowd. Harambe was most likely not going to separate himself from that child without seriously hurting him first (again due to mere size and strength, not malicious intent) Why didn't they use treats? well, they attempted to call them off exhibit (which animals hate), the females in the group came in, but Harambe did not. What better treat for a captive animal than a real live kid! They didn't use Tranquilizers for a few reasons, A. Harambe would've taken too long to become immobilized, and could have really injured the child in the process as the drugs used may not work quickly enough depending on the stress of the situation and the dose B. Harambe would've have drowned in the moat if immobilized in the water, and possibly fallen on the boy trapping him and drowning him as well. Many zoos have the protocol to call on their expertly trained dart team in the event of an animal escape or in the event that a human is trapped with a dangerous animal. They will evaluate the scene as quickly and as safely as possible, and will make the most informed decision as how they will handle the animal.

I can't point fingers at anyone in this situation, but we need to really evaluate the safety of the animal enclosures from the visitor side. Not impeding that view is a tough one, but there should be no way that someone can find themselves inside of an animal's exhibit. I know one thing for sure, those keepers lost a beautiful, and I mean gorgeous silverback and friend. I feel their loss with them this week. As educators and conservators of endangered species, all we can do is shine a light on the beauty and majesty of these animals in hopes to spark a love and a need to keep them from vanishing from our planet. Child killers, they are not. It's unfortunate for the conservation of the species, and the loss of revenue a beautiful zoo such as Cinci will lose. tragedy all around.



edit on 1-6-2016 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Here is yet another example of bad parenting. This kid breaks a $15,000 Lego sculpture because the parent is oblivious.

www.cnbc.com...

I would also like to say how people with kids become oblivious to others such as eating at a restaurant with their kids making a mess and shouting while others are trying to enjoy a night out.

Discipline

Best comment on article "next trip the louvre"


edit on 2-6-2016 by NumberMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2016 by NumberMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
"They need to make that place safe".

www.onenewspage.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
As an update, the zoo felt it necessary to modify (raised its height and added netting) the barrier to the gorilla cage.

www.wcpo.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

From your source:


"Our exhibit goes above and beyond standard safety requirements, but in light of what happened, we have modified the outer public barrier to make entry even more difficult,” zoo director Thane Maynard said in a release.



The zoo said that was the first breach at Gorilla World since it opened in 1978. The zoo said it has spent the last several days reevaluating the exhibit.

[The previous barrier passed multiple inspections by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and adhered to safety guidelines, the zoo said in a release.


People directing their anger at the Zoo are either using the event to push an anti-captivity ideology, or are misinformed about the facts surrounding the incident.

Of course any move that makes it harder for the general public to access the enclosure is a good one, but it won't guarantee this will not happen again if parents are not held accountable for supervising their children when out in public.



posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Annee




I think there's more to this story.


It's all us feminized males. Father and mother were distracted and sharing lipstick. Mandela effect.

I hope there is more to the story. It's hard to believe the zoo would be that negligent. But also, is it that hard to believe? A sad reality is that it takes an incident to spur change. Risk management and insurance are about the bottom line.


The father and the mother were busy "fem-splaining" to the director of the zoo how the Gorilla exhibition was wrong and giving children sick ideas of unjust social constructs being portrait by the naturally dominant Silverback gorilla.


edit on America/ChicagovAmerica/ChicagoFri, 03 Jun 2016 17:05:31 -05001620166America/Chicago by everyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: InTheLight

From your source:


"Our exhibit goes above and beyond standard safety requirements, but in light of what happened, we have modified the outer public barrier to make entry even more difficult,” zoo director Thane Maynard said in a release.



The zoo said that was the first breach at Gorilla World since it opened in 1978. The zoo said it has spent the last several days reevaluating the exhibit.

[The previous barrier passed multiple inspections by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and adhered to safety guidelines, the zoo said in a release.


People directing their anger at the Zoo are either using the event to push an anti-captivity ideology, or are misinformed about the facts surrounding the incident.

Of course any move that makes it harder for the general public to access the enclosure is a good one, but it won't guarantee this will not happen again if parents are not held accountable for supervising their children when out in public.


People directing their anger in any direction with what was deemed an accident is the wrong thing to do.

I am all for safety all 'round.
edit on 3-6-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
June 6, 2015

The mother of the little boy was CLEARED of having any fault in this case today. I hope this doesn't send the wrong signal out to some parents.

Story: www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I've been reading a ton of comments about the zoo being responsible and so forth because the kid got in.

Should we child proof earth too? I mean if she loses track of her kid next time it will be an SUV not a gorilla dragging her kid around. A fence and a 15ft drop should take care of the problem. It worked for 30+ years and he's the first to take the leap.

It's the parents fault. If she's distracted with her other kids then she's obviously popped out too many to properly supervise.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: NumberMan
I've been reading a ton of comments about the zoo being responsible and so forth because the kid got in.

Should we child proof earth too? I mean if she loses track of her kid next time it will be an SUV not a gorilla dragging her kid around. A fence and a 15ft drop should take care of the problem. It worked for 30+ years and he's the first to take the leap.

It's the parents fault. If she's distracted with her other kids then she's obviously popped out too many to properly supervise.


The zoo invites families with children to visit, therefore the burden of safety within their grounds rests with them. It is no different than me child proofing my home when I invite small children to visit, because I know their behaviour and what to expect. It is unrealistic to expect parents to fixate their eyes on on a child continuously and children do run, play and dart away...and very quickly.

By the zoo's action of modifying the barrier after the fact, unfortunately may open them up to a lawsuit. I hope not because they did the right thing.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
The zoo invites families with children to visit, therefore the burden of safety within their grounds rests with them. It is no different than me child proofing my home when I invite small children to visit, because I know their behaviour and what to expect. It is unrealistic to expect parents to fixate their eyes on on a child continuously and children do run, play and dart away...and very quickly.

To what degree, however, can the burden of safety be applied? So it's "unrealistic" to expect parents to monitor their children while out in public, but it's realistic to expect the state to account for all and every potential action a child might take?

Let's examine your example of child-proofing your home when you invite small children to visit. Is it possible to child-proof your home in such a way that 100% eliminates all potential risks? No, it is not. All you can do is follow the law, safety guidelines and suggestions. If 1 child in 38 years does manage to harm themselves at your house, was it due exclusively to your failure to child-proof your home?

Back to the zoo example. Their safety measures were intact according to the law, an investigation and 38 years of the enclosure's existence. Just because one kid managed to get inside the enclosure is not evidence that the zoo failed to uphold their safety responsibilities.

edit on 8/6/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: InTheLight
The zoo invites families with children to visit, therefore the burden of safety within their grounds rests with them. It is no different than me child proofing my home when I invite small children to visit, because I know their behaviour and what to expect. It is unrealistic to expect parents to fixate their eyes on on a child continuously and children do run, play and dart away...and very quickly.

To what degree, however, can the burden of safety be applied? So it's "unrealistic" to expect parents to monitor their children while out in public, but it's realistic to expect the state to account for all and every potential action a child might take?

Let's examine your example of child-proofing your home when you invite small children to visit. Is it possible to child-proof your home in such a way that 100% eliminates all potential risks? No, it is not. All you can do is follow the law, safety guidelines and suggestions. If 1 child in 38 years does manage to harm themselves at your house, was it due exclusively to your failure to child-proof your home?

Back to the zoo example. Their safety measures were intact according to the law, an investigation and 38 years of the enclosure's existence. Just because one kid managed to get inside the enclosure is not evidence that the zoo failed to uphold their safety responsibilities.


Experts on CNN have chimed in on that law, stating that the one barrier as being acceptable, is not, and it should be two barriers. The zoo obviously agreed because they now modified the barrier from one (fence) to two barriers (fence (heightened) and netting).

The law chimed in as to the parents' negligence and it was deemed to have been none.

Animal experts chimed in on the zoo's emergency plan and deemed it lacking a third alternative action so as not to kill the animal.


Live and learn, then progress.
edit on 8-6-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

You completely missed the point I was making. But anyway, I'll leave you to your "progressive" ideals...



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: InTheLight

You completely missed the point I was making. But anyway, I'll leave you to your "progressive" ideals...


Do you mean the same way you keep missing mine?
edit on 9-6-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: gypsycat

its not the first time this has ahppened there is another video showing same issue elswhere, the female gorilla grabbed the kid and passed it back to the zoo keepers and protected it from the males.

this incident was a male gorilla and yes it does seem like its protecting it. But not worth the risk as they get territorial and maybe start smashing the kids head around on rocks etc.

sad times for all parties.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join