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

[Guest]

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.

I have no doubt. My kids say all kinds of stuff.

[Ausmumof3]

 

One example at our local zoo is Tasmanian devils. They aren't endangered due to habitat destruction but a rare facial cancer that kills 90pc The zoo is breeding an insurance population while working in figuring out a solution for the wild population. Obviously the captive population will never be able to be released while the cancer is still running wild but it's a chance that wouldn't exist.

 

Edited to add... Not a rare facial cancer I don't know how the rare got in there! If it was rare it wouldn't be a problem.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Ausmumof3

[Ausmumof3]

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.

Again our zoo (sorry) is selling those beads that make an income for the widows of the Rangers that are killed in anti poaching efforts. I don't think it's mutually exclusive.

[Ausmumof3]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/monarto-zoos-pygmy-blue-tongue-lizard-breeding-success/7195136

 

Another story about or local zoo and a breeding programme for a nearly extinct animal.

[Ausmumof3]

I think the difference with devils is that they are not large animals. It is possible to give them a relatively acceptable habitat. Having said that, I've seen devils in captivity who were displaying signs of extreme distress. Awful.

 

I agree though that this is one area zoos are doing good work. I guess they can do that work without us gawking at them, which has to be a stressor for the devils, although the money would then have to come from private or government benefactors.

And this is the tricky bit. While I personally might give money to a wildlife based charity my dh wouldn't but he doesn't mind a membership to a zoo or whatever. And there's lots of "little bits of money" that the zoo gets with each visit. I agree it would be awesome if everyone would just donate altruistically to wildlife but I don't think they would. It's kind of like how charity programmes go with a sponsor a child program rather than faceless help the children program. In some ways it feels demeaning but maybe it works better overall. It's easier to get people involved in a cause with a face and a name than an abstract concept.

[LucyStoner]

I am ambivalent about zoos. I see both sides of the various arguments for and against.

 

I do know that transitioning animals born into captivity into the wild is tricky business. Some species would be fully eradicated now if they weren't in zoos. Not that I think zoos are the epitome of great conservation efforts but there is that fact.

 

I am glad that progress is being made to send certain species of animals to refuges rather than keep them in small contained areas.

 

I think people who blame this boy's parents are full of sh!t. Some kids can vanish in a nanosecond. Have some empathy, be glad it wasn't your child and don't fall prey to the idea that nothing like that would ever happen to a child in your care. There but for the grace of God and all that...

[Ausmumof3]

I think the difference with devils is that they are not large animals. It is possible to give them a relatively acceptable habitat. Having said that, I've seen devils in captivity who were displaying signs of extreme distress. Awful.

 

I agree though that this is one area zoos are doing good work. I guess they can do that work without us gawking at them, which has to be a stressor for the devils, although the money would then have to come from private or government benefactors.

Yeah agreed although I don't know what their actual natural range is.

 

I would love to see a model where all larger fauna is managed in an open range zoo setting if at all. I don't know if it's possible to replicate anything close to an elephant habitat though.

[Ausmumof3]

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.

And again this is something that is talked about on every single bus tour at our safari zoo. How the stuff in rhino horn is actually pretty much the same as fingernails so it's totally pointless. Hopefully some people get the message.

[Ausmumof3]

 

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.

 

 

You don't have to watch the video but if you do there is pretty much no question that the child's life was in danger. Not because the gorilla intended to kill him but because he is so strong and has no idea about how vulnerable to child is.

[Bluegoat]

I think the difference with devils is that they are not large animals. It is possible to give them a relatively acceptable habitat. Having said that, I've seen devils in captivity who were displaying signs of extreme distress. Awful.

 

I agree though that this is one area zoos are doing good work. I guess they can do that work without us gawking at them, which has to be a stressor for the devils, although the money would then have to come from private or government benefactors. 

 

I think stressing from observers depends on how it's done (and the type of animal, some don't seem to care.)  Many of them need to be able to get away from being seen, or be unaware that they are seen.

 

My province doesn't have an y large zoos, there is a small not great one, and two "wildlife parks" which are largely local animals.  Anyone, on of them has a moose enclosure which is really huge and wooded, and it is a bit of a local joke that they don't actually have any moose in there, because visitors don't often see them.  (In actuality I have seen the moose several times, but I tend to go in the fall and winter when the animals are much more likely to be out and about.  Both because of visitors and the temperature.)

 

The deer and raccoons OTOH seem to purposefully be interested in the people.

[JulieA97]

I saw this post was shared on Facebook from a former zoo keeper:
 

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 postering, 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 my animals 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.

*me working (very carefully) with a 400+ pound silverback circa 2009

 

The friend that shared it mentioned something similar almost happened to her son years ago.  It was very crowded, the crowd knocked him away from her and in the 5 seconds it took to find him, he was close to climbing the fence to the lions.  She is an excellent mother, very attentive but the combination of the crowds and a very curious toddler almost led to tragedy.  She was holding his hand the entire time, was not on her phone, but all it takes is a second.  It can happen to anyone.

 

It sounds like from this post and other experts I have seen and heard, the zoo did the right thing.  It is unfortunate but there is no way that child would have survived.

[Guest]

What if this had gone the other way? What if that 400 pound gorilla picked up the boy and ripped his arm off, right there in front of the whole world? I imagine the outcry against zoos and the ensuing lawsuits would bankrupt them. Really, once the boy entered the enclosure, the best outcome was a quick death for the gorilla.

 

I have a 4yo. We put new porch railings up and I made sure she couldn't fit under. And I'm just trying to keep her from a 2 ft drop, not a giant gorilla! Shame on the zoo for not making the outer fence childproof.

[Bluegoat]

What if this had gone the other way? What if that 400 pound gorilla picked up the boy and ripped his arm off, right there in front of the whole world? I imagine the outcry against zoos and the ensuing lawsuits would bankrupt them. Really, once the boy entered the enclosure, the best outcome was a quick death for the gorilla.

 

I have a 4yo. We put new porch railings up and I made sure she couldn't fit under. And I'm just trying to keep her from a 2 ft drop, not a giant gorilla! Shame on the zoo for not making the outer fence childproof.

 

They probably thought it was childproof.  If I understand correctly, it has been there for many many years, and no one has squeezed under it before.

[umsami]

I don't like how the parents are being vilified and now investigated.  It is a tragedy.  I wish for a different outcome.  But I'm very uncomfortable about the articles trashing the Mom and Dad.  I don't think they willingly wanted their son to end up in the gorilla habitat. 

[happi duck]

I wonder if it's part of the emergency plan for other zoo workers to get the crowd to step back and be quiet. If not it seems like it should be.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Listened to the 911 call.  That struck me as odd.  Mother said stuff like I can't look I can't look.  I would probably feel compelled to jump in there!

 

But who knows how I'd actually respond in such a situation.

 

I think in general people are being way too harsh towards the mother.  I agree with Umsami.  So so tired of having every thing that goes wrong being blamed on parents not hawking over their kids.  Granted, I was not there, but people seem to mostly be responding in that way because the gorilla was put down.  Which yes that is tragic.  Doesn't mean the parents were being neglectful. 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm curious as to why they couldn't use something non lethal on the gorilla.  Maybe that stuff doesn't work quickly enough. 

[catz]

I can't believe the parents are being investigated.  Total waste of taxpayer money IMO unless there have been other CPS type issues with this particular family. 

 

Totally off topic and unrelated, but it shocks me that parents who let their child get hold of a loaded gun and accidentally use it never seem to be prosecuted.  Lose control of an active toddler in a zoo for a minute and you're under investigation?

[wendyroo]

I'm curious as to why they couldn't use something non lethal on the gorilla.  Maybe that stuff doesn't work quickly enough. 

 

They said that 1) getting hit with a tranquilizer dart could have further spooked the gorilla, 2) the tranquilizer would have taken 10-30 minutes to take effect, 3) if the gorilla was tranquilized in the moat he would have drowned himself and/or the boy and 4) if the 400+ lb gorilla had collapsed on the boy that could be fatal.

 

Wendy

[SparklyUnicorn]

I can't believe the parents are being investigated.  Total waste of taxpayer money IMO unless there have been other CPS type issues with this particular family. 

 

Totally off topic and unrelated, but it shocks me that parents who let their child get hold of a loaded gun and accidentally use it never seem to be prosecuted.  Lose control of an active toddler in a zoo for a minute and you're under investigation?

 

I know.  Pretty stunning that this is drawing more outrage than the scenario you mention generally does. 

 

There was a local case of a kid getting a hold of a gun and accidentally shooting his friend.  They were middle school aged.  The mother of the vicitim was then on a mission to change something making this more difficult to happen and/or have people be held accountable.  She was not anti gun nor seeking to put an end to gun ownership.  People harassed the crud out of her.  Just sick. People are so weird.

[SparklyUnicorn]

They said that 1) getting hit with a tranquilizer dart could have further spooked the gorilla, 2) the tranquilizer would have taken 10-30 minutes to take effect, 3) if the gorilla was tranquilized in the moat he would have drowned himself and/or the boy and 4) if the 400+ lb gorilla had collapsed on the boy that could be fatal.

 

Wendy

 

That makes sense.  I did figure unless that could be immediate he could have been incensed by being shot with something and flip out.

[wendyroo]

I think in general people are being way too harsh towards the mother.  I agree with Umsami.  So so tired of having every thing that goes wrong being blamed on parents not hawking over their kids.  Granted, I was not there, but people seem to mostly be responding in that way because the gorilla was put down.  Which yes that is tragic.  Doesn't mean the parents were being neglectful. 

 

This is completely conjecture, but I think some of this might be less about the particular incident, and more about a general public backlash against more and more permissive parenting.

 

I think parenting and kids' role in society has changed very quickly in the last 50ish years and many people feel a low level of annoyance about the issue on a daily basis.  When a tragic situation arises that could, hypothetically, have been caused by permissive parenting, then the uproar is primarily fueled not by the child sneaking in with the gorillas, but by John Q. Public's daily experiences of parents allowing kids to misbehave in restaurants, tantrumming kids being bribed at grocery stores, unruly kids being too loud at the library, "Special Snowflakes" never being told no, etc.

 

Wendy

[Bluegoat]

This is completely conjecture, but I think some of this might be less about the particular incident, and more about a general public backlash against more and more permissive parenting.

 

I think parenting and kids' role in society has changed very quickly in the last 50ish years and many people feel a low level of annoyance about the issue on a daily basis.  When a tragic situation arises that could, hypothetically, have been caused by permissive parenting, then the uproar is primarily fueled not by the child sneaking in with the gorillas, but by John Q. Public's daily experiences of parents allowing kids to misbehave in restaurants, tantrumming kids being bribed at grocery stores, unruly kids being too loud at the library, "Special Snowflakes" never being told no, etc.

 

Wendy

 

Yeah, I think that does affect people.  In the same way, some people who are getting upset about the decision to shoot the gorilla seem to really be motivated by being upset with zoos in general. 

 

As far as people being upset with permissive parenting - I would not say it is never an issue, but I think a lot of it is people not having enough experience with kids to know what is normal.  The one person on my FB feed who posted something negative about the parenting in this situation is a guy with no kids, and I think that is because he really has no idea how irrational, cunning, and fast they can be.

[Guest]

People like to think "this could never happen to me, I'm a better parent" anytime there is a tragedy. Which makes sense. No one wants to think that this could happen to them. Plus, social media makes everyone think tgat they need to share all their thoughts.

[creekland]

People like to think "this could never happen to me, I'm a better parent" anytime there is a tragedy. Which makes sense. No one wants to think that this could happen to them. 

 

Humans are like this.  Think of how many text and drive since "they can handle it just fine."  Yet every single day (on average) eight folks pay for their thoughts with their lives (or someone else's life).  This doesn't even include injuries - just deaths.

 

Then everyone left continues to think they can handle it just fine and few change their ways.

[wendyroo]

Yeah, I think that does affect people.  In the same way, some people who are getting upset about the decision to shoot the gorilla seem to really be motivated by being upset with zoos in general. 

 

As far as people being upset with permissive parenting - I would not say it is never an issue, but I think a lot of it is people not having enough experience with kids to know what is normal.  The one person on my FB feed who posted something negative about the parenting in this situation is a guy with no kids, and I think that is because he really has no idea how irrational, cunning, and fast they can be.

 

I agree completely that the child behaved in an age-appropriate way.  I think one problem is that society has started putting kids in age-inappropriate situations...and at the same time, ironically "protecting" them from many age-appropriate activities that in the past taught common sense and responsibility.

 

60 years ago, when my mom was 3, that was still considered a "baby".  "Babies" didn't go to restaurants or libraries or zoos...the family only had one car, as was common then, so taking kids on outings at all was very rare.  My mom and her siblings rarely left the house (and backyard) until they turned 5 and started walking "by themselves" (with all the other neighborhood kids) to kindergarten.

 

My mom grew up 15 minutes from a large zoo, but the first time she went was when her grandparents took her for her tenth birthday.  Back then, 10 was still a kid, not a tween, just like 3 was still a baby, not a preschooler.

 

Wendy

[ktgrok]

 

60 years ago, when my mom was 3, that was still considered a "baby".

 

 

I was watching the old Lucille Ball movie, Yours, Mine and Ours the other day, and was struck by this. There was a baby (maybe 10 months, maybe a year) and another "baby" that was at LEAST 2 years old it looked like. But was referred to as a "baby" the whole movie. 

 

By and large this seems like a good idea. But when you send 18 month olds to "school" it's hard to consider a 3 year old as a baby, in our society. 

 

As for permissive parenting being more rampant, I don't know. I mean, on the one hand I see kids act up, sure. But they used to be totally unsupervised, often beating each other up out of sight of parental eyes. Are they really any worse or better behaved, or just more likely to be visible when they act up?

[hornblower]

I was watching the old Lucille Ball movie, Yours, Mine and Ours the other day, and was struck by this. There was a baby (maybe 10 months, maybe a year) and another "baby" that was at LEAST 2 years old it looked like. But was referred to as a "baby" the whole movie. 

 

By and large this seems like a good idea. But when you send 18 month olds to "school" it's hard to consider a 3 year old as a baby, in our society. 

 

As for permissive parenting being more rampant, I don't know. I mean, on the one hand I see kids act up, sure. But they used to be totally unsupervised, often beating each other up out of sight of parental eyes. Are they really any worse or better behaved, or just more likely to be visible when they act up?

 

In Anne of Green Gables Minnie May Barry was about 3+ years old when Anne saves her from croup and the doctor proclaims that without Anne's intervention that baby would have died. 

 

""That little redheaded girl they have over at Cuthbert's is as smart as they make 'em. I tell you she saved that baby's life, for it would have been too late by the time I got there. She seems to have a skill and presence of mind perfectly wonderful in a child of her age. I never saw anything like the eyes of her when she was explaining the case to me."

[ktgrok]

In Anne of Green Gables Minnie May Barry was about 3+ years old when Anne saves her from croup and the doctor proclaims that without Anne's intervention that baby would have died. 

 

""That little redheaded girl they have over at Cuthbert's is as smart as they make 'em. I tell you she saved that baby's life, for it would have been too late by the time I got there. She seems to have a skill and presence of mind perfectly wonderful in a child of her age. I never saw anything like the eyes of her when she was explaining the case to me."

 

Good point!

 

Honestly, with my first I was so hyper concerned about so much around the 2 year old age or so. But now, I realize they ARE babies at that age. And they grow out of almost all their bad habits. It's so much less stressful that way.

[Ausmumof3]

I was watching the old Lucille Ball movie, Yours, Mine and Ours the other day, and was struck by this. There was a baby (maybe 10 months, maybe a year) and another "baby" that was at LEAST 2 years old it looked like. But was referred to as a "baby" the whole movie.

 

By and large this seems like a good idea. But when you send 18 month olds to "school" it's hard to consider a 3 year old as a baby, in our society.

 

As for permissive parenting being more rampant, I don't know. I mean, on the one hand I see kids act up, sure. But they used to be totally unsupervised, often beating each other up out of sight of parental eyes. Are they really any worse or better behaved, or just more likely to be visible when they act up?

Yeah I think it's kind of the opposite. Because kids are less likely to be left unsupervised they get taken more places because it's the only way anyone gets anywhere. But even then I would have thought a zoo outing was about as family friendly as it gets. I mean if you can't take your kids for a day out at the zoo, where can you take them?

[mom2scouts]

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

 

We have a small local zoo that is known for how well they are doing breeding endangered large cats. They have lions, tigers, snow leopards, and jaguars. I go to this zoo many times a year and the cats are never pacing. They are lying around looking like very relaxed cats, jumping to platforms or high rocks, playing with each other, grooming each other, watching visitors with interest, and sometimes even pouncing on an unlucky chipmunk that happened to enter their habitat. The zoo works very hard at providing enrichment activities for the animals.

 

As for donating to conservation efforts, I hate the shaming of people who do just that. I love animals and that is where I will likely put more time and money when my homeschooling days are over.  I often hear people complaining that people donate to animal causes instead of human charities. It's not that I don't care about poor or sick children, or human trafficking, or the millions of other worthwhile causes. It's just that my interests and passion is towards animals, so I think that is where I should put my efforts.

Edited June 2, 2016 by mom2scouts

[wendyroo]

As for permissive parenting being more rampant, I don't know. I mean, on the one hand I see kids act up, sure. But they used to be totally unsupervised, often beating each other up out of sight of parental eyes. Are they really any worse or better behaved, or just more likely to be visible when they act up?

 

I guess the thing that annoys me isn't exactly permissive parenting, but rather parents feeling like they have the right to not be inconvenienced by their kids.

 

First, parents feel like just because they have kids (and no child care) they should not have to sacrifice going places they want to go even if the places are not conducive to children.

 

Then, when the child starts getting loud and acting inappropriately for the venue (restaurant, movie, library, homeschool convention, zoo) the parents don't do much or anything because they feel they have the right to not have their meal/entertainment/plans interrupted.

 

Baloney!!  Kids are inconvenient.  That might mean taking a child out of the restaurant for a time out or having to have a meal boxed to go home because the kid just won't stop screaming.  It might mean not getting to attend a homeschool convention you really want to.  It might mean a couple years of not being able to browse at the library and just having to pick up books you put on hold.  Or, it might mean avoiding the zoo or having one adult per child if you have a 3 year old prone to running away from you and climbing things...and really, all 3 year olds are unpredictable and fully capable of going rogue on a whim.

 

Of course, I don't have a clue if that was the case in the Cincinnati zoo incident; maybe the parent truly took reasonable precautions and what happened was an unavoidable accident.  Either way, I have a feeling that is the sort of thinking that makes people vilify the parents in these cases.

 

Wendy

[creekland]

I agree completely that the child behaved in an age-appropriate way.  I think one problem is that society has started putting kids in age-inappropriate situations...and at the same time, ironically "protecting" them from many age-appropriate activities that in the past taught common sense and responsibility.

 

60 years ago, when my mom was 3, that was still considered a "baby".  "Babies" didn't go to restaurants or libraries or zoos...the family only had one car, as was common then, so taking kids on outings at all was very rare.  My mom and her siblings rarely left the house (and backyard) until they turned 5 and started walking "by themselves" (with all the other neighborhood kids) to kindergarten.

 

My mom grew up 15 minutes from a large zoo, but the first time she went was when her grandparents took her for her tenth birthday.  Back then, 10 was still a kid, not a tween, just like 3 was still a baby, not a preschooler.

 

Wendy

 

While "baby" might have been used for longer age periods, some families still took their youngsters places.  My mom was the second oldest of six and her + older sister were often "in charge" of their siblings when they went places.

 

How much people traveled or did with their kids is really family dependent and probably money dependent.  I've been traveling since I was in diapers (there are pics to prove it).  So have my kids.  So did my parents, although their traveling was more local than far flung.

 

That's interesting. But I'm not sure it's more than just an anecdote. I'm 54+, with siblings 60+. My parents brought us to public places constantly. There were library visits, camping trips, restaurants, and zoos. I have a box of old photos from the Houston zoo that is filled with toddler sized kids in front of the fish pond and the petting zoo. We've got pics of a baby me at amusement parks. Yes, most families probably had only one car, but this was before seat belt laws so everyone just crammed themselves in.

I do agree with your first statements. I see it when we go to an Amish farm. The little kids are climbing fences, leading huge horses back to their barn, etc. I used to gasp a bit and worry they'd get hurt, but now I just sit and stare at how apt they are. Yesterday I watched a tiny 4 year old carry his 5 month old sister all around the plant nursery. I probably would have gotten a bit out of sorts if it had been a non-Amish kid, honestly.

 

This is more of what I'm used to - including kids helping out.  Farm kids often start helping out young.  I started helping my grandfather with the dairy cows around kindergarten age.  It doesn't take much to use a pitchfork to pull manure into a gutter.  I loved the job.

 

My kids started helping out with our ponies from the time we got them.  We moved to this farm (and got ponies) when my oldest was five.

 

Sometime in early elementary school my oldest had an argument with a peer.  My guy insisted his peer's visit to his grandmother couldn't be considered "a trip," because "a trip" had to mean at least one overnight away from home and not at a relative's house.   :lol:   We never taught him that... It gave us a chuckle though.

[Ausmumof3]

I have older picture books from I guess the 1950s with stories like "my day at the zoo" aimed at 3-4 year olds. I don't think taking to preschoolers to the zoo is a new thing. Maybe it was more of a family outing with mum dad and all the kids, not just a mums day out thing. But that has more to do with busy lives and less regular working hours than anything else.

 

I also don't think it's a new thing for kids to be taken all kind of places although there is a definite change in the expectations of kids behaviour.

 

I for one definitely appreciate being able to take my kids to a wide variety of activities that have been made very accessible for kids.

[monstermama]

Here's an article with pictures of the enclosure at the zoo and the changes they're making to the fencing.

[teachermom2834]

I have visited zoos and aquariums and thought to myself that it was amazing people didn't get into the exhibits. We have a local aquarium with sharks that is open at the top. Makes me so nervous. Wiggly kid or unstable adult could be in that shark tank easily. We like zoos and always took the little kids but I would hover and get nervous around some exhibits. Always seemed like alot could go wrong but it seemed it never did.

 

I read an article that gave a long list of incidents where kids ended up in exhibits. I guess it happens more than I realized.

[kitten18]

Here's an article with pictures of the enclosure at the zoo and the changes they're making to the fencing.

That was the first real picture I've seen. 😳

[Guest]

That is a great enclosure if your only goal is to keep the animal in. But, keeping people out has to be addressed.

[creekland]

That is a great enclosure if your only goal is to keep the animal in. But, keeping people out has to be addressed.

 

I disagree.  I don't think we have to protect from every little thing.  Incidents are rare as it is.  We humans don't need to be put into styrofoam boxes to protect ourselves.

 

One thing I really like about other countries is how little protection they have from roads to zoos to parks or whatever, and yet, their citizens lives too.

 

To a large extent, I think we might have overprotected in this country.  We might be losing our common sense.

 

Not long ago I read an article (probably posted on the Hive) about a school for young kids in Europe that purposely let them explore with dangerous things like knives and fires, etc.  They didn't kill themselves, but they did learn respect for their world.

[ktgrok]

I disagree.  I don't think we have to protect from every little thing.  Incidents are rare as it is.  We humans don't need to be put into styrofoam boxes to protect ourselves.

 

One thing I really like about other countries is how little protection they have from roads to zoos to parks or whatever, and yet, their citizens lives too.

 

To a large extent, I think we might have overprotected in this country.  We might be losing our common sense.

 

Not long ago I read an article (probably posted on the Hive) about a school for young kids in Europe that purposely let them explore with dangerous things like knives and fires, etc.  They didn't kill themselves, but they did learn respect for their world.

 

You know, I think a pocket knife and a 15ft drop into a gorilla pen are very different levels of danger. If the worst case is a cut finger, sure, let them figure it out on their own. If the worst case is death, put up a barrier a bit taller than 3 feet. Or at least make it a SOLID 3 feet, not something a kid can wiggle right through. 

 

I bet lots of bad things happen in those other countries with little protection from roads and zoos, we just don't hear about it. Heck, people still talk about the good old days with no helmets on bikes and no seatbelt in the "way back" of the station wagon and say "I lived". Well yes, but the ones that didn't aren't here to tell their side. 

[Bluegoat]

You know, I think a pocket knife and a 15ft drop into a gorilla pen are very different levels of danger. If the worst case is a cut finger, sure, let them figure it out on their own. If the worst case is death, put up a barrier a bit taller than 3 feet. Or at least make it a SOLID 3 feet, not something a kid can wiggle right through. 

 

I bet lots of bad things happen in those other countries with little protection from roads and zoos, we just don't hear about it. Heck, people still talk about the good old days with no helmets on bikes and no seatbelt in the "way back" of the station wagon and say "I lived". Well yes, but the ones that didn't aren't here to tell their side. 

 

Maybe it is, but I don't have any kind of faith in our collective ability to assess that, our sense of risk has become out of proportion and bizarre.  I can't say I would consider the universal requirement of bike helmets to be a good example of how that is not the case.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I have visited zoos and aquariums and thought to myself that it was amazing people didn't get into the exhibits. We have a local aquarium with sharks that is open at the top. Makes me so nervous. Wiggly kid or unstable adult could be in that shark tank easily. We like zoos and always took the little kids but I would hover and get nervous around some exhibits. Always seemed like alot could go wrong but it seemed it never did.

 

I read an article that gave a long list of incidents where kids ended up in exhibits. I guess it happens more than I realized.

 

I have too and was always surprised by that.  It wouldn't take much to get into the enclosures.

 

I once went to a zoo in Germany where they had some sort of monkey and people could walk right through their habitat.  They warned people to be careful of their eyeglasses because they would sometimes try to pull them off people's faces.  That was neat, but different for sure.

[Scarlett]

I have an only child. When he was 4 we were at the Tulsa zoo. My son was right there with me...maybe 4 feet ahead of me. Before I could blink he had stepped under the fence at elephant exhibit. He was probably six feet from the edge of the moat type area. I almost collapsed from fear. I managed to call his name and he turned immediately and came back to me. I was there recently and they have a better system there now....

 

So I know kids get away fast. Even obedient ones just don't have the impulse control in that type of situation.

[creekland]

Maybe it is, but I don't have any kind of faith in our collective ability to assess that, our sense of risk has become out of proportion and bizarre. 

 

This.  We worry about zoo enclosures, but:

 

At any given daylight moment across America, approximately 660,000 drivers are using cell phones or manipulating electronic devices while driving, a number that has held steady since 2010. (NOPUS)

 

http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html

 

Life is deadly from conception on.  It's really weird how humans assess risk though.

 

I do not care to live in styrofoam to protect from the odd incident here and there.  I NEVER use a cell phone while driving.

[ktgrok]

This.  We worry about zoo enclosures, but:

 

At any given daylight moment across America, approximately 660,000 drivers are using cell phones or manipulating electronic devices while driving, a number that has held steady since 2010. (NOPUS)

 

http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html

 

Life is deadly from conception on.  It's really weird how humans assess risk though.

 

I do not care to live in styrofoam to protect from the odd incident here and there.  I NEVER use a cell phone while driving.

 

I agree that people often ignore greater risks and yet flip out over minor risks (like a pocket knife). 

 

that said, I'm not sure a gorilla has ever in our history been considered a minor risk. I don't want to live in styrofoam, but a solid barrier between me and my family and the gorilla seems like a smart idea. 

[poppy]

Lots of zoos use a solid barrier.  Or a higher fence.  Surely everyone agrees that SOME level of protection between people and gorillas is reasonable, it's just a matter of how much.

[Ausmumof3]

Interestingly when you read a little about zoo history, originally they were mostly about showing wealth and prestige and were for the kings and queens etc. when the concept of zoos first started the cages were very solid with an emphasis on safety of the people watching. I wonder if these incidents were rarer before open style enclosures became common.

 

I also think that although obviously enclosures look a lot better - really how different is it for the animals? Bigger size is definitely better but really whether it's cage bars or a moat they can't cross the outcome for the animal is the same.

[hornblower]

Interestingly when you read a little about zoo history, originally they were mostly about showing wealth and prestige and were for the kings and queens etc. when the concept of zoos first started the cages were very solid with an emphasis on safety of the people watching. I wonder if these incidents were rarer before open style enclosures became common.

 

I also think that although obviously enclosures look a lot better - really how different is it for the animals? Bigger size is definitely better but really whether it's cage bars or a moat they can't cross the outcome for the animal is the same.

I think it's to make US feel better about imprisoning them.  Space, habitat enrichment, hiding places are benefits to the animal. Lack of bars is imo mostly for us. 

[Ausmumof3]

I think it's to make US feel better about imprisoning them. Space, habitat enrichment, hiding places are benefits to the animal. Lack of bars is imo mostly for us.

Yes. What makes for easier viewing for people is not so great for animals who want some peace and privacy.

[Bluegoat]

My sense is that whether there are bars are not is pretty indifferent to the animals - it's other aspects of the habitat that are either suitable or unsuitable.  Getting rid of them is more about the viewing, and also the size of the habitat - in the places where it is really quite large fencing might not be the most practical choice.