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.
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
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."
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...
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...