Cincinnati Zoo Incident - What do you think of zoos? Do you go to zoos?

[TXBeth]

If the kid fell then he was climbing somewhere he should not have been. This is not the fault of the gorilla, who IMO should not have had to pay with his life for doing what gorillas do.

Yes it is tragic that the gorilla had to be killed. But are you saying it would be better for the 4-year-old boy to pay with his life for doing what 4-year-olds do?

[maize]

I like zoos, they inspire joy and wonder and delight in my children and in many others.

 

I want zoos to be as comfortable for the animals as possible, but I think if I reach a point where I am deeply concerned for the happiness and comfort of all animals there are a lot of places I would start with before zoos. Such as dairy farms--I've never been to a dairy farm that appeared to be as pleasant for the animals as a zoo. Since I happily partake of dairy products, I can't find it in me to get worked up about zoos.

[Guest]

Since I happily partake of dairy products, I can't find it in me to get worked up about zoos.

There is nothing inherent in zoos that make it impossible for you to seek out and support dairies that dont tug on your conscience, though.

 

Or are you saying something more like " look at all this milk in my fridge, i clearly dont care that much about animals?"

I believe i know thatbis not true of you, but the above reasoning doesnt shake out.

[SKL]

I saw a more complete video, and yes, that boy was in serious danger.

 

As a parent, I'd love to think that could never happen to *my* kid, but parenthood has been humbling enough that I rarely say that.

 

I am so so glad the little boy is going to be OK.

 

There's always room for improvement at zoos and everywhere else.  However, this really does seem like a freak accident (even though the 4yo wanted in there, he is way under the age of reason to be considered guilty).  Some accidents are going to happen no matter what.  People need to understand that even when everyone is doing their best, sad things are going to happen.  Why can't we just be sad and learn and move on, vs. being outraged that people are human and accidents happen?

[SKL]

Yeah, my trip to a commercial dairy farm last year was way more traumatic than anything I've seen at a zoo.  But no, I haven't stopped putting milk in my coffee.  I figure that is all those cows have ever known, so they probably don't care too much.

 

As for big primates, well, what can I say, I spend most of my life in a very small enclosure, sitting still and looking out at the people & animals outside, and it doesn't really bother me.  So maybe it doesn't bother born-in-captivity gorillas and chimps either.  They are a lot like us, after all.  :)

[Crimson Wife]

zoos are partly funded through government subsidization. So?

 

Money could just be moved around.

 

It's bizarre to state as you have ere that, on one hand, we need zoos to induce wealthy people to write checks, but on the other hand, it's elitist for families to only visit zoos that don't give them the creeps. I don't understand how you've squared those two thoughts in your mind?

 

Zoos charge admissions that are affordable to middle-class families AND solicit 4, 5, and 6 figure donations from wealthy patrons that help support conservation efforts. The latter doesn't make the former untrue.

 

It is totally elitist to call for the elimination of zoos on the basis that people should just go visit pricey safari parks or travel to see the animals in their natural habitats. Your family may have the disposable cash to drop $500 on a day visit to a safari park, but most American families don't.

[MercyA]

Yeah, my trip to a commercial dairy farm last year was way more traumatic than anything I've seen at a zoo.  But no, I haven't stopped putting milk in my coffee.  I figure that is all those cows have ever known, so they probably don't care too much.

 

They absolutely do care when their babies are taken away from them. I visited a friend's dairy farm, a fairly nice place as dairy farms go. The cows are milked by robotic milking machines when they want to be, and receive a special treat while they're being milked. They have "water bed" mattresses on which to rest. They have nice pastures in which to graze. However, I saw a new mother whose calf had been taken away from her that day. It was obvious to me that she was distressed. Her eyes were looked like they were bulging out of her head, like the eyes of the cow in the second picture, here. I asked our tour guide if she was upset about her calf. He said, "Oh, no, they don't care." Later that morning, we passed by the cow again. She was bellowing over and over. The guide said off-handedly, "She's calling for her calf." This was the same young man who earlier said she didn't care. Talk about cognitive dissonance. 

 

I also toured an organic dairy farm on another occasion. A calf there was lucky enough (?) to have stayed with his mother for a week or two. He stayed so close to her side, and it was obvious she was very attached to him as well. I asked about him, and the owner admitted a truck would be arriving to take him soon. It was heartbreaking. 

 

I do agree with the PP that it seems illogical and inconsistent to care about one situation and not the other. I've been thinking about it a lot lately, thanks to posters here.

Edited May 31, 2016 by MercyA

[hornblower]

 

I also toured an organic dairy farm on another occasion. A calf there was lucky enough (?) to have stayed with his mother for a week or two. He stayed so close to her side, and it was obvious she was very attached to him as well. I asked about him, and the owner admitted a truck would be arriving to take him soon. It was heartbreaking. 

 

you might enjoy this video from The Gentle Barn.

 

Maybelle's Story 

 

 https://www.facebook.com/TheGentleBarn/posts/10153846845134039

 

Not graphic & has happy ending. Though some of us need kleenex for it. 

 

I meant to post it on Mother's Day & forgot so it only made it to the ITT thread :)

Edited May 31, 2016 by hornblower

[hornblower]

on the issue of zoos & conservation: 

"The best animals for restocking wild populations are those from highly endangered species born in the wild (or, failing that, to wild-born parents), and kept in their natural habitat and social groups. The worst candidates are those species not in immediate threat of extinction, bred for generations in captivity, in environmental conditions very different from their natural habitat, especially those subjected to frequent relocation (which disrupts social grouping). Unfortunately these are precisely the animals produced in the main by the international zoo community – the alleged ‘ark’ for the preservation of species."

http://www.bornfree.org.uk/campaigns/zoo-check/uk-zoos/zoo-conservation/do-zoos-help-conservation/

[Tita Gidge]

It is totally elitist to call for the elimination of zoos on the basis that people should just go visit pricey safari parks or travel to see the animals in their natural habitats. Your family may have the disposable cash to drop $500 on a day visit to a safari park, but most American families don't.

 

Look, I have three times more kids than you do and I live on a fixed income because I am a divorcee who retired a few years ago. I'm not first in line at the safari park by the stretch of ANYONE's imagination, so I get your point on the affordability and accessibility of zoos (regardless of how I feel about zoos personally).

 

But this isn't about that, it's about defining ELITISM - a word introduced and repeated by you throughout the conversation.

 

Is it not also elitist to believe that the middle class or "most American families" require access to any given experience? Excluding basic human rights, of course.

[MercyA]

you might enjoy this video from The Gentle Barn.

 

Maybelle's Story 

 

 https://www.facebook.com/TheGentleBarn/posts/10153846845134039

 

Not graphic & has happy ending. Though some of us need kleenex for it. 

 

I meant to post it on Mother's Day & forgot so it only made it to the ITT thread :)

 

Loved it, thank you!!! What a lovely Amish family, too.

[El...]

It's appalling how this mother has been attacked.  I don't understand it.  

 

A friend of a friend of mine lost a child in a swimming pool accident.  This is what he posted on this matter:

 

"There was a time when I myself was one of those "I could never let that happen to my child" 

It was a lack of remembering 

Like the time my first born fell out of his crib 

I never even thought he could do that at 1 years old 

Or the time my 4 year old daughter got bit in the face by our dalmatian 

I never in a million years would want that to happen to her but it did 

Those things i didn't remember about being a parent that happened on my watch 

When I read stories about kids getting hurt or that are put in danger I used to say "what is wrong with that parent?" 

I know a mother who was trying to get home after she picked her kids up from daycare 

They were hungry 

She was tired from working 

She went to go around a school bus that was broke down on a two Lane highway 

A truck pulling a horse trailer came from the other direction 

She steered to the left ditch trying to avoid being hit 

She didn't make it 

All three of her small children died 

She somehow carries the incredible guilt 

People said of her that she was careless and in too big of a hurry 

But 

Since we lost our son 

My empathy level may be higher than most 

I'm really glad that woman at the zoo didn't lose her baby 

I hope in my heart the publicity of the negative comments she sees does not settle in her"

To "like" this isn't quite the thing....

 

That poor mom.  She is going to have nightmares over this week's incident for a LONG time.  I'm so sorry for your friend's loss.  There needs to be a lot more mercy shown to those who suffer these things. 

[J-rap]

I used to love zoos.  They're such a great way to get to know and love animals that you otherwise would never see!   And, I think zoos are really making an effort to have good, sort of natural environments for their animals, with room to roam.

 

But in the last few years, I've been having a hard time with even that.  I guess especially with larger animals.  I'm starting to think that all animals should just be left alone in their natural environment.  I don't know.  I'm still thinking this through.

[Anne in CA]

In Costa Rica I visited a small zoo where really wild animals were being kept captive. It really freaked me out. Nothing like American zoos at all. There was a jaguar/ panther, a wild black cat of some sort, that was MAH to be in a cage and was screaming like a woman in frustration. It was awful.

[mamiof5]

It's appalling how this mother has been attacked. I don't understand it.

 

A friend of a friend of mine lost a child in a swimming pool accident. This is what he posted on this matter:

 

"There was a time when I myself was one of those "I could never let that happen to my child"

It was a lack of remembering

Like the time my first born fell out of his crib

I never even thought he could do that at 1 years old

Or the time my 4 year old daughter got bit in the face by our dalmatian

I never in a million years would want that to happen to her but it did

Those things i didn't remember about being a parent that happened on my watch

When I read stories about kids getting hurt or that are put in danger I used to say "what is wrong with that parent?"

I know a mother who was trying to get home after she picked her kids up from daycare

They were hungry

She was tired from working

She went to go around a school bus that was broke down on a two Lane highway

A truck pulling a horse trailer came from the other direction

She steered to the left ditch trying to avoid being hit

She didn't make it

All three of her small children died

She somehow carries the incredible guilt

People said of her that she was careless and in too big of a hurry

But

Since we lost our son

My empathy level may be higher than most

I'm really glad that woman at the zoo didn't lose her baby

I hope in my heart the publicity of the negative comments she sees does not settle in her"

This is such a tragic post (I got teary eyed when reading your post), but thanks so much for sharing it!!! I haven't stopped thinking of the little boy's mom... I'm glad he's well, but I still can't imagine what she went through. Sadly, I know there's people out there who purposely hurt their kids, and as tragic as it is I like to believe there's an illness or something behind the story, but as far as I know most parents try their best to protect their children. The fact that this mom,and this little boy are being called names is just unacceptable:(

[creekland]

In Costa Rica I visited a small zoo where really wild animals were being kept captive. It really freaked me out. Nothing like American zoos at all. There was a jaguar/ panther, a wild black cat of some sort, that was MAH to be in a cage and was screaming like a woman in frustration. It was awful.

 

That sort of zoo I do not care for.  I'm not fond of people who keep their pets cooped up forever either.

[Bluegoat]

I think zoos can and do some important work.  I'm not against having wild animals in captivity in principle, if their needs can be met - that is easy with some animals and difficult with others.  I think there is nothing wrong with using zoos as an educational place for humans, or even just a place to enjoy, as long as it is compatible with their other goals.  In fact - even if there was no other advantage for conservation of research, as long as the animal's needs were met, I have no issue with them being places for people to observe animals.  (I once worked at a museum that had some amphibians and reptiles in captivity, and I remember vividly a lady trying to argue with one of the on-duty naturalists that they should be "free" - I wanted to tell her that freedom as an abstract ideal was not something toads and snakes were interested in.)

 

Sometime compromises are made in terms of ideal situations and other worthwhile values like research - in other cases some zoos just do a poor job.

 

I think the greatest moral conflict for zoos tends to come from money issues, from wanting the zoo to be appealing in order to bring in funds. 

 

I think that sometimes zoo visitors can be inclined to sentimentalize animals and that also tends to cause the zoos problems.  To some extent its natural though where people feel they have made a personal connection with animals, and sometimes zoos actually encourage that because it brings in visitors. 

 

[Bluegoat]

They absolutely do care when their babies are taken away from them. I visited a friend's dairy farm, a fairly nice place as dairy farms go. The cows are milked by robotic milking machines when they want to be, and receive a special treat while they're being milked. They have "water bed" mattresses on which to rest. They have nice pastures in which to graze. However, I saw a new mother whose calf had been taken away from her that day. It was obvious to me that she was distressed. Her eyes were looked like they were bulging out of her head, like the eyes of the cow in the second picture, here. I asked our tour guide if she was upset about her calf. He said, "Oh, no, they don't care." Later that morning, we passed by the cow again. She was bellowing over and over. The guide said off-handedly, "She's calling for her calf." This was the same young man who earlier said she didn't care. Talk about cognitive dissonance. 

 

I also toured an organic dairy farm on another occasion. A calf there was lucky enough (?) to have stayed with his mother for a week or two. He stayed so close to her side, and it was obvious she was very attached to him as well. I asked about him, and the owner admitted a truck would be arriving to take him soon. It was heartbreaking. 

 

I do agree with the PP that it seems illogical and inconsistent to care about one situation and not the other. I've been thinking about it a lot lately, thanks to posters here.

 

I've known quite a few people with one or a few cows or goats for their own use to keep the babies with the mothers as well as milk - with dairy breeds there is generally enough milk for both.  It's hard to get access to that though, it's generally illegal to sell milk in those situations.

 

I did read a few years ago though about a larger dairy close to me where the farmer had been fostering his calves (the females, that is) onto older cows - he said typically even on an older cow that wasn't economic to milk, he could foster four calves.  There was a certain time commitment to enabling the fostering at the beginning but then the cow really became the caretaker, and he felt there were health benefits for the calves and also that they ended up more emotionally stable.

[ktgrok]

I think there CAN be zoos that do good work if they work within their limits. My favorite that is sort of local has decent habitats, and more importantly, doesn't have things like tigers, elephants, etc. They do have some giraffes, and rhinos. They solve the problem of large enclosures/versus seeing the animals by having feeding times, where you can feed the giraffes sweet potatoes and carrots and what not, so they choose to come near people. But they can also choose to wander off. No gorillas or chimpanzees or great apes. No large cats. 

 

My favorite animal experiences though are the rescues, where animals that can't be returned to the wild are kept. Often they are confiscated from the pet trade. There is one in south florida I used to go to, that had only native Florida animals, and all had injuries or behavior reasons that they couldn't be returned to the wild. Any animals that were brought in that could be rehabbed WERE rehabbed. Loved that place. But, on the flip side, money was tight so the enclosures were not as large as I would have liked, by any measure. 

 

I think the animals like elephants, gorillas, chimps etc probably shouldn't be in zoos at all, but if they are need to be in the biggest/best run ones, not everywhere. 

[shawthorne44]

For those that are against zoos and think that the animal conservation should be done in some other method, how much money/time have you contributed to another method?    If you've contributed any, you are a rare bird.   

Zoos are the best chance to bring in money that can support the animals and keep the animal's DNA around in sufficient numbers to be sustainable.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's appalling how this mother has been attacked.  I don't understand it.  

 

 

I agree.  I don't understand it either.  Young kids can be so unpredictable.  Even if the mother wasn't as attentive as she should have been, it was an accident.  She didn't throw him in there. 

 

People used to make fun of me for hawking over my kids.  I seriously lived in fear of something happening and on top of that being torn apart for being human.  People make no sense.  What is it?  I'm supposed to hawk over my kid or I'm not supposed to?

[Bluegoat]

For those that are against zoos and think that the animal conservation should be done in some other method, how much money/time have you contributed to another method?    If you've contributed any, you are a rare bird.   

Zoos are the best chance to bring in money that can support the animals and keep the animal's DNA around in sufficient numbers to be sustainable.  

 

Something else about this - for some animals, being "wild" often isn't all that wild.  Many gorrillas are living in close proximity to humans and depend on them to some extent to keep the populations viable - gorilla conservationists and scientists are already heavily involved in their daily lives and they are completely acclimated to humans. And their habitat is not necessarily what you would describe as contiguous wilderness either.

 

So the distinction between a wild population in the wilderness and a population that is captive and involved with humans is not as great as we might like.

[SKL]

Right, it's not like there is an endless amount of wild land, preserved for wild animals, and having the right food supply to properly support said wild animals.  Most of the wild animals that come to mind are from places where people are in desperate poverty and don't have the luxury of respecting the animals' needs over humans' needs.  And I agree that funding to protect said wild animals has to come from rich countries where people are informed about animals.  Yes, I know you can look at an encyclopedia or video and get an idea of animals, but most people need something more to get really inspired to sacrifice for animals far away.

[Guest]

For those that are against zoos and think that the animal conservation should be done in some other method, how much money/time have you contributed to another method?    If you've contributed any, you are a rare bird.   

Zoos are the best chance to bring in money that can support the animals and keep the animal's DNA around in sufficient numbers to be sustainable.  

 

If zoos are animal's best chance, every animal on the planet is completely screwed.

 

at many zoos, Boyle says, only 1 percent of the budget goes to conservation. He says AZA is pushing members to get to 3 percent, but there’s no minimum required donation for AZA accreditation by the association. A boost to 10 percent would send $800 million a year to wildlife, which according to the Wildilfe Conservation Network and Jane Goodall Institute currently receives 0.1 percent of international philanthropy. (Pets get more.)

 

[...]

 

Of more than 200 AZA-accredited zoos in the U.S., says Jean-Gaël Collomb, Ph.D., director of conservation programs at Wildlife Conservation Network (a Bay Area–based group that directly funds field conservationists through donations, not the operator of the Bronx Zoo), “I think maybe 40 might actually conceive of wildlife conservation the way I do: field-based, action-oriented wildlife conservation providing support to those in country trying to mitigate threats to their particular species. Many institutions, because they’re breeding an endangered animal, they think that’s conservation. To me that doesn’t necessarily contribute to protecting that animal in the wild. They think because they sent a zookeeper to the field, that’s supporting conservation. But you have no idea if that had any positive impact or whether they just went on a nice vacation. My personal opinion is that if you exhibit animals from all over the world, you have the responsibility to contribute to the conservation of all of those animals in the wild.â€

 

 

 

Some of us are advocating for a paradigm shift in how we as a species view our relationship toward nature. Entertainment is an obstacle to connection in my view...and this man who works in conservation's view:

 

Perhaps the biggest hindrance to zoos’ greater involvement in stemming the extinction crisis is that when the news about wildlife is so frequently bad, it’s especially difficult to get the message of urgency to visitors who didn’t spend $50 to get bummed out on a Saturday.

 

 

 

 

As for what people can do...my kids and I take part in local habitat rehabilitation regularly. That's one thing.

 

But think about the numbers in that article.

 

There are HALF as many wild lions now as there were in 2001. Zoos have been around doing all that CONSERVATION WORK that everyone says is so important all that time. Lions will die out in our children's lifetimes!!!!! if we---humanity, globe conquerors with a conscience-- don't do something different.

[hornblower]

For those wanting to contribute to animal organizations which support animals in their wild habitats, for gorillas specifically I can recommend 

Gorilla Doctors http://www.gorilladoctors.org/

 

For elephants & rhinos 

David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/

Generally 

Black Mambas Anti Poaching Unit http://www.blackmambas.org/

International Anti Poaching Federation http://www.iapf.org/

International Fund for Animal Welfare http://www.ifaw.org/

 

Born Free - Keep Wildlife in the Wild http://www.bornfree.org.uk/



The idea that your visit & purchase of a ticket to a zoo somehow gives  you moral authority to look down on conservationists and question the work animal rights activists do is absurd.  

In fact, I would suggest that if your visit to the zoo has worked so well (because of the supposed first hand contact that some argue is needed for humans to care about the plight of these animals), then  it should be motivating every visitor to become a donor to the organizations that work in the areas of habitat & species preservation on the ground.  I hope you're donating tons to those efforts. 

Edited May 31, 2016 by hornblower

[Guest]

In other words, all that inspiration we in the first world are getting from seeing animals with our own eyes is doing JACK for wildlife.

 

So, yes, we can support forging a better way.

[Bluegoat]

It might be worthwhile to remember that public education is only part of what zoos do for conservation. 

[Anne in CA]

That sort of zoo I do not care for.  I'm not fond of people who keep their pets cooped up forever either.

Oh, yeah on the pets. When dh was in college I found the worst aspect of apartment living is how many people keep pets in apartments that should not live that way. The worst was a German Shepherd who lived on someone's back porch facing my back porch day in and day out, as far as I can tell never leaving that porch. But one woman kept a large pet pig in an apartment, not a pot bellied one. She used to walk it after dinner.

 

My dad's ex girlfriend kept all manner of exotic pets that died because they were not supposed to live in the eastern Oregon cold, or be domesticated at all. She had a lynx that was killed by a tom cat because she had had it declawed. Not that I was sorry the lynx was gone 'cause I could tell it was dying to eat my 2yo. She really should have been stopped, but knowing her she has all sorts of these pets now. She has not impulse control about acquiring pets and will not do what's best for them. Grrr.

[Guest]

It might be worthwhile to remember that public education is only part of what zoos do for conservation. 

 

Everything that they do combined is a drop in the bucket compared to more focused conservation efforts.

 

And the whole bucketful isn't getting it done yet.

 

----

 

People should just say I like to see animals because it tickles me, and me and my kid's being entertained is worth whatever personal qualms I have about the zoo (which are less that what others harbor, and that's OK).

 

Because all other justifications offered don't hold water, and at least it is honest. Zoos are not set up or run primarily for the BENEFIT of animals. Just be for real about what they actually are.

[hornblower]

It might be worthwhile to remember that public education is only part of what zoos do for conservation. 

 

There's actually no proof of this.

 

I'm going to link to a National Geo article, not some 'crazy animal rights group' ;) 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1113_031113_zoorole.html

 

 

"less than 3 percent of the budgets of these 212 accredited zoos go toward conservation efforts. At the same time, they point to the billions of dollars spent every year on hi-tech exhibits and marketing efforts to lure visitors. Many zoos not affiliated with the AZA spend nothing on conservation."

 

 

this idea that they're good for conservation & the animals is just a good marketing ploy  

 

""Zoos have painted themselves as saviors of the wild," says Hancocks. "I fear this has instilled a false sense of security in the public mind. Many people now believe they don't have to worry about saving animals, because zoos are doing the job.""

[frogger]

I've never managed to find a Zoo where a carnivore isn't pacing. Not one.

[Bluegoat]

I don't really know anyone that thinks that zoos can save wild animals themselves, unless they are not actually at all interested in the topic, in which case nothing is likely to inform them differently.

 

I disagree that zoos do not contribute to conservation, but perhaps I define that differently - I consider learning more about the animals - research, essentially, to be a benefit to conservation.  And I suppose just a benefit more generally.  It was work in zoos for example that discovered that most other primates are incapable of hearing music.  What insights will that bring - well, I don't really know, practically it told them there is no point to making up a playlist for the primates.  But it suggests all kinds of interesting things about the brain and what makes us all different.

 

OTOH, I don't actually object to people visiting primates in zoos so long as their various needs are met, I don't think it is somehow outside their dignity.

[shawthorne44]

In other words, all that inspiration we in the first world are getting from seeing animals with our own eyes is doing JACK for wildlife.

 

So, yes, we can support forging a better way.

 

What is the better way, and how is that working out?   The stakes are too critical to just stop doing the thing that is somewhat working, and hope that a more perfect method can be found.   For people that don't want zoos to be around, these other methods need to be implemented and be effective to the point that the zoos aren't needed to conserve animals.    At that point, and only at that point, would the anti-zoo people have the moral authority. 

 

For example, we were on a Gulf Coast vacation recently.   At a small Natural History museum, they had some pictures of local animal that had gone extinct or near extinct in the wild, I think from disease, and then was repopulated using zoo animals.  It said that they were doing rather well.  I was only half paying attention as you do when very tired so I can't say what animal it was.  It wasn't a sexy animal like a Tiger or Elephant, but it deserved to be saved and it was.  

[hornblower]

What is the better way, and how is that working out?  

 

Habitat preservation, anti poaching regimes, stronger punishments for habitat destruction & stronger environmental protections, strengthening of the CITES regulations and enforcement. 

 

The stakes are too critical to just stop doing the thing that is somewhat working 

 

except it isn't. It's just making people feel something is working. It's a tiny drop in the bucket and is not really addressing the real needs. It's like saying well education is awful but we have educational programs on tv so we're ok!  It really isn't an effective strategy & that quote I posted above I think explains the problem 

 

"I fear this has instilled a false sense of security in the public mind. Many people now believe they don't have to worry about saving animals, because zoos are doing the job.""

 

 

For example, we were on a Gulf Coast vacation recently.   At a small Natural History museum, they had some pictures of local animal that had gone extinct or near extinct in the wild, I think from disease, and then was repopulated using zoo animals.  It said that they were doing rather well.  I was only half paying attention as you do when very tired so I can't say what animal it was.  It wasn't a sexy animal like a Tiger or Elephant, but it deserved to be saved and it was.  

 

"in the last century, only 16 of 145 reintroduction programs worldwide ever actually restored any animal populations to the wild. Of those, most were carried out by government agencies, not zoos."

 

[creekland]

But think about the numbers in that article.

 

There are HALF as many wild lions now as there were in 2001. Zoos have been around doing all that CONSERVATION WORK that everyone says is so important all that time. Lions will die out in our children's lifetimes!!!!! if we---humanity, globe conquerors with a conscience-- don't do something different.

 

We definitely see things with a different viewpoint.  I look at species like lions or rhinos and how their populations are decreasing due to habitat loss and poaching, etc, and find myself thankful that at least some are being spared in zoos.

 

I don't have confidence that mankind will change their ways (poaching can be stopped, etc).

 

Of course, it's good to try education and laws, etc, but the real world still exists and in that real world there are plenty who wouldn't care if they shot that last rhino.  They might even brag about it among friends.

[Guest]

I'm going into zoo PR when I graduate dang.

[Guest]

It is a complicated issue. Poachers aren't killing for sport, they are trying to make money to eat and live. Maybe we need to take better care of people before we try to save all the animals??

[creekland]

It is a complicated issue. Poachers aren't killing for sport, they are trying to make money to eat and live. Maybe we need to take better care of people before we try to save all the animals??

 

Some poachers definitely kill for sport.  It all depends upon the person.

[hornblower]

It is a complicated issue. Poachers aren't killing for sport, they are trying to make money to eat and live. Maybe we need to take better care of people before we try to save all the animals??

 

 

many poachers ARE killing for sport. The guy who killed Cecil the lion already had previous poaching convictions. 

 

 

As far as taking care of the people, that is true too and I don't really know any reputable wildlife organization which doesn't also work their fingers to the bone to get the local community buy in through promotion of income producing alternatives for the area. 

 

Nobody is eating the rhinos. They're cutting off the horns and selling them for tons of money to superstitious and status seeking in Asia. 

[Guest]

It is a complicated issue. Poachers aren't killing for sport, they are trying to make money to eat and live. Maybe we need to take better care of people before we try to save all the animals??

 

One won't live without the other. There is no "before."

 

We all need the same things. Clean air, clean water, enough space, our natural diet.

[hornblower]

This is a very good piece which examines a lot of different aspects of this story & the bigger picture of animals in captivity.


It includes a long quote from someone familiar with the gorillas. Harambe was probably not dangerous at all. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201605/why-was-the-gorilla-harambe-killed-the-cincinnati-zoo

 

"Harambe's movements and positions during the encounter presented nothing more than curiosity and protection for an unfamiliar child inside his environment. What I learned from studying captive Western Lowland gorillas at the Cleveland Zoo was that they are deep contemplators. They are observers more than reactive aggressors. They move their eyes, lips, and heads slowly to communicate through subtle movements. They are rarely vocal and rarely dramatically expressive. Even when threatened by other gorillas, an individual will choose to avoid confrontation more often than engage in harmful behaviors. In avoidance gorillas often run past other individuals beating their chest, stand still on all four limbs biting their lips or they will hit a wall/tree/anything close and then run off."

 

[SKL]

This is a very good piece which examines a lot of different aspects of this story & the bigger picture of animals in captivity.

 

 

It includes a long quote from someone familiar with the gorillas. Harambe was probably not dangerous at all. 

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201605/why-was-the-gorilla-harambe-killed-the-cincinnati-zoo

 

"Harambe's movements and positions during the encounter presented nothing more than curiosity and protection for an unfamiliar child inside his environment. What I learned from studying captive Western Lowland gorillas at the Cleveland Zoo was that they are deep contemplators. They are observers more than reactive aggressors. They move their eyes, lips, and heads slowly to communicate through subtle movements. They are rarely vocal and rarely dramatically expressive. Even when threatened by other gorillas, an individual will choose to avoid confrontation more often than engage in harmful behaviors. In avoidance gorillas often run past other individuals beating their chest, stand still on all four limbs biting their lips or they will hit a wall/tree/anything close and then run off."

 

 

 

Did you see the video where Harambe violently flung the child around by his arm more than once?  Or only the edited one that cut out all the scary parts?

 

[SKL]

Oh and how can that commenter know anything if all s/he did was study gorillas at the Cleveland Zoo?  Zoos are evil and their animals are ill-treated and mentally damaged according to many of the above posts.  (I'm being sarcastic, but really?  I watched gorillas in another zoo (presumably without kids in their enclosures), so I know some other gorilla would never do xyz?)  Reading the whole comment quoted indicates the person they are quoting didn't see the full video nor read the reports of what actually happened (the zoo employees did unsuccessfully attempt to get Harambe to come away from the boy before deciding to shoot).  If this sort of person is where we get our information about endangered animals, lord help us and them.

 

I agree with the comments about people acting like this gorilla's life was way more important than the lives of humans killed in various ways.  I know, humans aren't endangered, humans usually aren't helpless to defend themselves etc.  But still.

Edited May 31, 2016 by SKL

[hornblower]

Oh and how an he know anything if all he did was study gorillas at the Cleveland Zoo?  Zoos are evil and their animals are ill-treated and mentally damaged according to many of the above posts.  (I'm being sarcastic, but really?  I watched gorillas in another zoo (presumably without kids in their enclosures), so I know some other gorilla would never do xyz?)

 

ftr, that was the opinion of someone else (Jennifer Miller's) not Marc Bekoff's. If we can't learn anything about the behavior of these animals then what is the point of any captivity programs? 

 

Nobody knows how it would have played out. As Dr Bekoff says though, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking lots of questions about all the different aspects of this.  

 

 

& fwiw, I haven't seen any video of it & don't plan to. 

 

 

[Guest]

many poachers ARE killing for sport. The guy who killed Cecil the lion already had previous poaching convictions.

 

 

As far as taking care of the people, that is true too and I don't really know any reputable wildlife organization which doesn't also work their fingers to the bone to get the local community buy in through promotion of income producing alternatives for the area.

 

Nobody is eating the rhinos. They're cutting off the horns and selling them for tons of money to superstitious and status seeking in Asia.

The people that the rich dentist paid to help him were not hunting for sport. There were trying to make money to provide food and shelter to their families.

[hornblower]

The people that the rich dentist paid to help him were not hunting for sport. There were trying to make money to provide food and shelter to their families.

 

 

we can excuse any exploitation that way.  Cecil was hunted for sport.  

 

The fact that many along the way profit, including many who are desperate, is really not the point here. 

 

 

However, the fact that many are desperate is a cause for concern for many social justice activists; human poverty and global inequality are indeed worthy of our attention.  This is why I think the $25 adult admission to the Cincinnati zoo could be spent in other, better ways. 

[abcmommy]

I'm thinking the Zoo is as much at fault as anyone else, I mean by having such a large gap under the fence.

Its been that way for 38 years and this is the first kid who has done this.  To me the zoo has clearly minimized risk.  This kid worked for his gorilla playtime and he is lucky he didnt die of a head injury.

 

I have been taking my kids to that zoo for almost twenty years.  The worst parenting on earth has been on display with those gorillas in that time.  LOL  WAY worse than my local walmart.

 

Notable: a man throwing french fries in there in 1997 and later some os the dumbest anti evolution "teaching" I have ever heard in my life.  

[Slojo]

This is a very good piece which examines a lot of different aspects of this story & the bigger picture of animals in captivity.

 

 

It includes a long quote from someone familiar with the gorillas. Harambe was probably not dangerous at all. 

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201605/why-was-the-gorilla-harambe-killed-the-cincinnati-zoo

 

"Harambe's movements and positions during the encounter presented nothing more than curiosity and protection for an unfamiliar child inside his environment. What I learned from studying captive Western Lowland gorillas at the Cleveland Zoo was that they are deep contemplators. They are observers more than reactive aggressors. 

 

The problem with "nothing more than security and protection" is that it looks a heck of a lot different when there is a 425 lb difference between protector and protectee. The protector may indeed mean no harm, but what seems "gentle" to the protector does not feel gentle to the protectee. My protector human boys could have easily hurt their infant sister by "forgetting" that she's not built like them. No aggression needed. Just not knowing that a baby can't stand/walk/hold their head up/keep themselves from rolling off a couch, etc.... all the more so for a gorilla. Intelligent, protector instincts indeed - it it was clear that Harambe was not able to assess that the humans that were yelling were not "threats" to him personally, but were reacting to the situation of the human child. The only thing anyone wanted was to get that human baby back to his human mother. Harambe couldn't have known that. And was getting more agitated (due to humans' natural reaction of screaming. It was terrifying to watch, and screaming seems - well, human). Maybe if there was time to get all the humans out so that the only humans in there were trained to not scream, things could have been different. 

 

Additionally, the boy was dragged by the leg and then the arm through water, and was screaming himself. A 4 year old cannot be expected to "remain calm", "no sudden movements." At some point, those screams might continue to agitate. Might be able to coach an older kid or adult through staying calm. But a 4 year old? -- I think the "gentle non-aggressor" argument has to be treated with more caution and thought given the specifics. The other instances in which gorillas aided a human child were children that fell and were knocked unconscious from the fall - thus, no screaming or agitating the animal. 

 

Did you see how fast Harambe pulled that baby by the leg through the water (with no ability to assess if the baby's leg was broken, and if that was indeed the safest way to carry a human baby - which, by the way, it's not)? He was probably being "protective" - getting the baby away from all the yelling, but that baby's head could have been bashed against the side, anything, by being dragged like that. You are asking a lot of a wild animal with "Baby Huey" like protective instincts, and the ability to hold or squeeze too tight, all in an effort to keep a human child safe. Harambe was doing his best, but each passing moment of "his best" was still an endangerment to the child. The humans have to do better to make the barrier between humans and animals safer.  But once the barrier was breeched, there were real dangers to be managed. 

[Bluegoat]

yes, that whole gentle non-agresive bit is a bit silly IMO.  It is entirely possible that was his intent and that is what would have played out.  But gorillas like many male animals can be unaware of their own strength, and also unpredictable.  Female gorillas know this enough to be very careful of them around their babies.  A large gorilla like that could have become frustrated with the situation and killed that little boy in an instant.  That doesn't reflect on him morally in any way, or mean he would be "at fault" if it happened.

[TravelingChris]

Apparently there is at least one eyewitness who says the boy announced his intention to go into the gorilla enclosure to his mom before he went.  ALso, unlike the what the police originally said about no charges, they are still investigating.