Fury Over Harambe, Cincinnati Zoo Gorilla Shot Dead In ‘Senseless’ Act

First topic message reminder :

A petition has been launched urging police and zoo authorities to hold the parents of the child who entered a gorilla’s enclosure at Cincinnati Zoo - leading to its shooting - responsible for the “senseless death”. Zoo officials shot Harambe, a critically-endangered 17-year-old gorilla, on Saturday after the 4-year-old climbed through a public barrier and fell into the Gorilla World moat. Zoo officials said they shot the 400lb animal when the situation became “life-threatening” for the child. Harambe had picked the child up and had stayed with him for about 10 minutes.

YouTube
A petition has been launching calling on authorities to hold the parent’s of the child seen above to be held responsible for the subsequent shooting of the gorilla 
A petition was launched around 5pm Sunday and within an hour had almost 2,000 signatures. A Facebook page, Justice for Harambe, was also started and has over 3,000 Likes. The petition detailed what led to the shooting, before laying the blame on the child’s parents. It reads: “This beautiful gorrila lost his life because the boy’s parents did not keep their eye on him. If they would of he would have not been able to get inside the enclosure. These parents should be held accountable for their actions of not surpervising their child. Please sign this petition to encourage the Cincinnati Zoo and police department hold them responsible.”



Justice for Harambe
A Facebook page called Justice for Harambe has been started
Anger has been building online since Harambe’s shooting. 
“How dare anyone defend the murdering of this innocent animal. It’s already out of its own habitat,” Jodi Nadeau wrote on the Justice for Harambe Facebook page in a comment echoed by dozens of other animal lovers. She continued: “The parents are wrong for not watching the child. And I’m upset about the innocent murdering of the animal. The parents should be charged with neglect and animal cruelty.” Patrish Dehler wrote: “I’m angry too. What a waste to kill this beautiful creature. How about the parents or ‘watchers’ of this kid get a big fine to be paid to the zoo. If you can’t control your kids then how about not having any!”
Cincinnati Zoo director Thane Maynard said in a statement: “The zoo security team’s quick response saved the child’s life.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fury-over-harambe-cincinnati-zoo-gorilla-shot-dead-over-senseless-killing_uk_574b2081e4b03e9b9ed5deb5?utm_hp_ref=uk



What i do not understand, is do not these zoo's have tranquilizer guns?
Or would that take took long and place the child in danger?
I think people are being over the top here in their attacks of the family.
Its a trajedy that the animal had to be shot, but I fail to see what other choice they had.
What do others think?

Raggamuffin wrote:Look, some people think it's the zoo's fault, and some people think it's the parents' fault. I'm not going to change my mind, but maybe someone else will be convinced

Well those led by reason and the law also would place blame on the zoo for failing to child proof the enclosure.
Those led by emotions blame the parents, which is to me absurd as where is your concentration going to be mainly fixated on like the children?
On the animals.
I mean how many parents have their children on leashes on in prams when in the zoo?
A minority, most want them to enjoy the experince and again like I say, this would not have happened if the enclosure was child proof.
You cannot blame the parents for believing the place was child proof.
If any parent knew it was not child proof,  then no parent would have had their child even go near that enclosure

The hosts of Fox & Friends wondered if the parents of the boy who fell into a Gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo over the weekend should be charged, pointing to the “lengthy criminal record” of the father who was not there at the time.




On at least four occasions, Tuesday’s edition of Fox & Friends brought up a Daily Mail report that detailed the criminal history of Deonne Dickerson, the father of the 4-year-old boy who climbed into a Gorilla enclosure, eventually leading to the animal’s death.

However, the show did not mention that the report found that Dickerson “appears to have turned his life around to become the proud father of four.” “The father has a long rap sheet, including drugs and kidnapping charges,” Fox News host Abby Huntsman noted at the beginning of the program.
“Some say the parents need to be charged,” co-host Ainsley Earhardt later told wildlife expert Grant Kemmerer, “bringing up the dad’s past criminal history who wasn’t even there at the zoo at the time.”

And Brian Kilmeade began his interview with animal expert Jeff Corwin by posing a similar question.
“Some blame the parents of the child, calling them neglectful as reports surface the father has a lengthy criminal history,” Kilmeade said. “Is someone to blame here or was this just a tragic accident?”
“It’s a tragic event,” Corwin advised. “And it’s really hard for us Tuesday morning to kind of tell them what they should have done.”


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/fox-friends-cites-rap-sheet-of-black-dad-who-wasnt-at-zoo-to-blame-him-for-gorillas-death/

Didge wrote:On at least four occasions, Tuesday’s edition of Fox & Friends brought up a Daily Mail report that detailed the criminal history of Deonne Dickerson, the father of the 4-year-old boy who climbed into a Gorilla enclosure, eventually leading to the animal’s death.

That's just Fox News.  They are always making frivolous claims of wrongdoing, totally peripheral to the issue.  Look at their treatment of Hillary Clinton...Benghazi, emails...absolutely no there, there, yet they blather on.

The father in this case has no bearing on the matter.  But the mother should have been paying attention.  It's another in a long list of wrongs, where somebody else pays the price.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:On at least four occasions, Tuesday’s edition of Fox & Friends brought up a Daily Mail report that detailed the criminal history of Deonne Dickerson, the father of the 4-year-old boy who climbed into a Gorilla enclosure, eventually leading to the animal’s death.

That's just Fox News.  They are always making frivolous claims of wrongdoing, totally peripheral to the issue.  Look at their treatment of Hillary Clinton...Benghazi, emails...absolutely no there, there, yet they blather on.

The father in this case has no bearing on the matter.  But the mother should have been paying attention.  It's another in a long list of wrongs, where somebody else pays the price.

As I say the parents are blameless and have demonstrated and reasoned why they are blameless, but I wonder if some perceptions now change from some on here, based on this story

Lets see

sassy wrote:A leash goes around the neck, reins are designed to keep children safe.   Calling reins 'a leash' is your not so sublte way of trying to make something nasty out of nothing again.   And there is no contradiction, if on the ground they would be on reins or in a pushchair.   It's called good parenting, not allowing them to run wild, put themselves and others in danger and make a nuisance in a place other people are trying to enjoy themselves as well.  

Now I'll leave you to rabbit on, because parenting obviously isn't a skill of yours.

Just needed to pick up on a point here: I never believed in reins on a child for many reasons, all personal of course, but if a child is always running off I'd not take them to the zoo.
My daughter is a bit of a runner (bloody saggys! Pfffff) and I am forever telling her but she's stubborn. I find the only thing that works is this:

"Run off again and you're going home!" Then take them home if they do it,

Anyway this is all by the by and Didge is kind of right when he says zoos should make the enclosures child-proof.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:A leash goes around the neck, reins are designed to keep children safe.   Calling reins 'a leash' is your not so sublte way of trying to make something nasty out of nothing again.   And there is no contradiction, if on the ground they would be on reins or in a pushchair.   It's called good parenting, not allowing them to run wild, put themselves and others in danger and make a nuisance in a place other people are trying to enjoy themselves as well.  

Now I'll leave you to rabbit on, because parenting obviously isn't a skill of yours.

Just needed to pick up on a point here: I never believed in reins on a child for many reasons, all personal of course, but if a child is always running off I'd not take them to the zoo.
My daughter is a bit of a runner (bloody saggys! Pfffff) and I am forever telling her but she's stubborn. I find the only thing that works is this:

"Run off again and you're going home!" Then take them home if they do it,

Anyway this is all by the by and Didge is kind of right when he says zoos should make the enclosures child-proof.

+1

Good teaching method, as to me reins do not allow freedom or for the child to learn, where as she is learning by your method.

She will no doubt push this to the extreme at times, but clearly she knows you have a point of no return and then its home time.

Simple measures like this can be far more effective at teaching a child than constraining them with physical measures

This on Facebook, from someone who works at a Zoo.

A post on this site worth reading:
I worked in a zoo, I specialized in landscape design for primate exhibits. So I know pretty much what goes into designing and maintaining a gorilla outdoor exhibit and its pretty much EXTENSIVE. There are THREE levels of barriers: one to keep the gorilla in, one to keep the humans out, and one to keep the gorilla from breaching the human barrier should they get out of their barrier. Additionally, there is signage (in braille too) that states not to enter the exhibits. Placement of all bushes and flowers and trees are so you can see inside the exhibit at all angles..not just for viewing but for safety practices too. So seriously, to suggest a zoo needs to implement a better enclosure while not making this mother responsible, literally infuriates me. As part of my internship I had to sit and watch the outdoor exhibit..I witnessed parents gawk at the exhibit with no mind to their children.I watched kids throw things at the gorillas with no reprimand. I watched parent tell kids to climb on the fence, climb on trees, stand ontop of boulders right by the edge, etc to get a better view. I saw kids snap limbs off trees and beat the fencing with it to antagonize the gorillas. All the parents did was laugh. Some of these trees by the way, are worth thousands of dollars because they are imported from the land the animals come from, or are trees that simulate trees native to the animals' environments. I was appalled by parents lack of attention and their encouragement to breech the barriers. It was said this mom was busy with social media and her child was asking to go inside the exhibit to get closer to the gorilla. We recently took Violet to the zoo....4 adults and we all were taking photos. But we also had our eyes on her at all times. Accident happen, but THIS accident was preventable. And I, by the way, am in agreement that the gorilla had to be euthenized, not tranqued. Too much could have gone wrong with a tranq. But I will tell you this...every movement he made, was about protecting that child. Gorillas HATE moats..he climbed in to protect that boy. He guarded him against the wall when people started shouting..he saw that as a threat to the boy and was protecting him. He was also carrying him like a gorilla carries the young..not to bash him, but to move him. I am so saddened by this....but I knew someday this would happen and that it would hit the social media by storm. My heart is sad for the gorilla and I am fully in support of pressing charges against the mother for endangering her child. Parents need to be more responsible at zoos...so that they can continue to educate and entertain others who ARE responsible!

HoratioTarr wrote:This on Facebook, from someone who works at a Zoo.

A post on this site worth reading:
I worked in a zoo, I specialized in landscape design for primate exhibits. So I know pretty much what goes into designing and maintaining a gorilla outdoor exhibit and its pretty much EXTENSIVE. There are THREE levels of barriers: one to keep the gorilla in, one to keep the humans out, and one to keep the gorilla from breaching the human barrier should they get out of their barrier. Additionally, there is signage (in braille too) that states not to enter the exhibits. Placement of all bushes and flowers and trees are so you can see inside the exhibit at all angles..not just for viewing but for safety practices too. So seriously, to suggest a zoo needs to implement a better enclosure while not making this mother responsible, literally infuriates me. As part of my internship I had to sit and watch the outdoor exhibit..I witnessed parents gawk at the exhibit with no mind to their children.I watched kids throw things at the gorillas with no reprimand. I watched parent tell kids to climb on the fence, climb on trees, stand ontop of boulders right by the edge, etc to get a better view. I saw kids snap limbs off trees and beat the fencing with it to antagonize the gorillas. All the parents did was laugh. Some of these trees by the way, are worth thousands of dollars because they are imported from the land the animals come from, or are trees that simulate trees native to the animals' environments. I was appalled by parents lack of attention and their encouragement to breech the barriers. It was said this mom was busy with social media and her child was asking to go inside the exhibit to get closer to the gorilla. We recently took Violet to the zoo....4 adults and we all were taking photos. But we also had our eyes on her at all times. Accident happen, but THIS accident was preventable. And I, by the way, am in agreement that the gorilla had to be euthenized, not tranqued. Too much could have gone wrong with a tranq. But I will tell you this...every movement he made, was about protecting that child. Gorillas HATE moats..he climbed in to protect that boy. He guarded him against the wall when people started shouting..he saw that as a threat to the boy and was protecting him. He was also carrying him like a gorilla carries the young..not to bash him, but to move him. I am so saddened by this....but I knew someday this would happen and that it would hit the social media by storm. My heart is sad for the gorilla and I am fully in support of pressing charges against the mother for endangering her child. Parents need to be more responsible at zoos...so that they can continue to educate and entertain others who ARE responsible!

Poor apologism for the Zoo and its of no surprise

I do not believe hearsay off facebook either,
This is damage limitation for the simple fact the Zoo never had child proof enclosures

I fail to see how a four year old also can climb a fence.

maybe some older ones, but to base this off another zoo is flawed and try to make excuses for the failings of the Zoo

Paul Ettinger wrote:

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:A leash goes around the neck, reins are designed to keep children safe.   Calling reins 'a leash' is your not so sublte way of trying to make something nasty out of nothing again.   And there is no contradiction, if on the ground they would be on reins or in a pushchair.   It's called good parenting, not allowing them to run wild, put themselves and others in danger and make a nuisance in a place other people are trying to enjoy themselves as well.  

Now I'll leave you to rabbit on, because parenting obviously isn't a skill of yours.

Just needed to pick up on a point here: I never believed in reins on a child for many reasons, all personal of course, but if a child is always running off I'd not take them to the zoo.
My daughter is a bit of a runner (bloody saggys! Pfffff) and I am forever telling her but she's stubborn. I find the only thing that works is this:

"Run off again and you're going home!" Then take them home if they do it,

Anyway this is all by the by and Didge is kind of right when he says zoos should make the enclosures child-proof.

+1

Good teaching method, as to me reins do not allow freedom or for the child to learn, where as she is learning by your method.

She will no doubt push this to the extreme at times, but clearly she knows you have a point of no return and then its home time.

Simple measures like this can be far more effective at teaching a child than constraining them with physical measures

Yes Didge, reins do not teach a child about road safety or being specially aware etc.
I nag, I repeat myself and my daughter says "I KNOW I have to wait at the kerb mummy stop telling me!!" but I still do it, all the time.
She has to have freedom. I never had to do this with my son as he wasn't a wanderer; she's taught me to have a little more patience and bloody eyes in the back of my head and everywhere else!!

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:A leash goes around the neck, reins are designed to keep children safe.   Calling reins 'a leash' is your not so sublte way of trying to make something nasty out of nothing again.   And there is no contradiction, if on the ground they would be on reins or in a pushchair.   It's called good parenting, not allowing them to run wild, put themselves and others in danger and make a nuisance in a place other people are trying to enjoy themselves as well.  

Now I'll leave you to rabbit on, because parenting obviously isn't a skill of yours.

Just needed to pick up on a point here: I never believed in reins on a child for many reasons, all personal of course, but if a child is always running off I'd not take them to the zoo.
My daughter is a bit of a runner (bloody saggys! Pfffff) and I am forever telling her but she's stubborn. I find the only thing that works is this:

"Run off again and you're going home!" Then take them home if they do it,

Anyway this is all by the by and Didge is kind of right when he says zoos should make the enclosures child-proof.

Didge is the 'JERRY SPRINGER' of this community discussion group...pull whatever 'trash' BS into the topic and wait for the minions to prove his feeble points!

As I stated at the beginning of this OP'd ...this little guy was over heard being adamant about 'I want to see the water - I want to go in the water' and despite his mothers FIRM admonishment of "NO" ...he slipped past her! Now her being busy with her other daycare charges/preschool group most likely added to her distraction!  
If as I'd suspected that this little guy is autistic ...having his little arse strapped in a harness would have saved this entire tragic/sad story! SWEET JESUS ...not all toddlers / children respond as you'd hoped that they would and that's where - WE HAVE TO BE BETTER PARENTS!
That's what Sassy & I were agreeing on but poor immature Didgey-dooer, just sees it as more paranoia...everybody hates me mentality
HT ...loved that post, very profound and SPOT ON, to what I've been saying

HoratioTarr wrote:This on Facebook, from someone who works at a Zoo.

A post on this site worth reading:
I worked in a zoo, I specialized in landscape design for primate exhibits. So I know pretty much what goes into designing and maintaining a gorilla outdoor exhibit and its pretty much EXTENSIVE. There are THREE levels of barriers: one to keep the gorilla in, one to keep the humans out, and one to keep the gorilla from breaching the human barrier should they get out of their barrier. Additionally, there is signage (in braille too) that states not to enter the exhibits. Placement of all bushes and flowers and trees are so you can see inside the exhibit at all angles..not just for viewing but for safety practices too. So seriously, to suggest a zoo needs to implement a better enclosure while not making this mother responsible, literally infuriates me. As part of my internship I had to sit and watch the outdoor exhibit..I witnessed parents gawk at the exhibit with no mind to their children.I watched kids throw things at the gorillas with no reprimand. I watched parent tell kids to climb on the fence, climb on trees, stand ontop of boulders right by the edge, etc to get a better view. I saw kids snap limbs off trees and beat the fencing with it to antagonize the gorillas. All the parents did was laugh. Some of these trees by the way, are worth thousands of dollars because they are imported from the land the animals come from, or are trees that simulate trees native to the animals' environments. I was appalled by parents lack of attention and their encouragement to breech the barriers. It was said this mom was busy with social media and her child was asking to go inside the exhibit to get closer to the gorilla. We recently took Violet to the zoo....4 adults and we all were taking photos. But we also had our eyes on her at all times. Accident happen, but THIS accident was preventable. And I, by the way, am in agreement that the gorilla had to be euthenized, not tranqued. Too much could have gone wrong with a tranq. But I will tell you this...every movement he made, was about protecting that child. Gorillas HATE moats..he climbed in to protect that boy. He guarded him against the wall when people started shouting..he saw that as a threat to the boy and was protecting him. He was also carrying him like a gorilla carries the young..not to bash him, but to move him. I am so saddened by this....but I knew someday this would happen and that it would hit the social media by storm. My heart is sad for the gorilla and I am fully in support of pressing charges against the mother for endangering her child. Parents need to be more responsible at zoos...so that they can continue to educate and entertain others who ARE responsible!

TY for bringing that post to our attention.  Have a green one. It brings out all of the salient points.  

1) The animal was most likely protecting the child.  

2) The Institution can only go so far.  Physical safety features are non-adaptive; parents are adaptive and should be actively looking after their children.  

3) The ultimate barrier between a child and a threat is nature's own solution: the parent.  If the parent is unwilling to place some sort of limits on the child, it is an open invitation for disaster...anytime, anywhere.

HT's post sounds about right. I bet we have all seen stupid parents who don't take care of their kids at the expense of their own and others safety.

When we go to Wales the harbour wall has a steep drop to the rocks below when the tide is out. The number of parents who let their kids sit on it, when the only thing that would stop them plunging down is a low bar ...is unbelievable.
Kids as young as 3 or 4 swing on the bar, it gives me vertigo just seing them..and the parents are oblivious.

Some other couple took their eyes off their Daughter,even left her alone longer than this Mom.

They weren't charged!

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:This on Facebook, from someone who works at a Zoo.

A post on this site worth reading:
I worked in a zoo, I specialized in landscape design for primate exhibits. So I know pretty much what goes into designing and maintaining a gorilla outdoor exhibit and its pretty much EXTENSIVE. There are THREE levels of barriers: one to keep the gorilla in, one to keep the humans out, and one to keep the gorilla from breaching the human barrier should they get out of their barrier. Additionally, there is signage (in braille too) that states not to enter the exhibits. Placement of all bushes and flowers and trees are so you can see inside the exhibit at all angles..not just for viewing but for safety practices too. So seriously, to suggest a zoo needs to implement a better enclosure while not making this mother responsible, literally infuriates me. As part of my internship I had to sit and watch the outdoor exhibit..I witnessed parents gawk at the exhibit with no mind to their children.I watched kids throw things at the gorillas with no reprimand. I watched parent tell kids to climb on the fence, climb on trees, stand ontop of boulders right by the edge, etc to get a better view. I saw kids snap limbs off trees and beat the fencing with it to antagonize the gorillas. All the parents did was laugh. Some of these trees by the way, are worth thousands of dollars because they are imported from the land the animals come from, or are trees that simulate trees native to the animals' environments. I was appalled by parents lack of attention and their encouragement to breech the barriers. It was said this mom was busy with social media and her child was asking to go inside the exhibit to get closer to the gorilla. We recently took Violet to the zoo....4 adults and we all were taking photos. But we also had our eyes on her at all times. Accident happen, but THIS accident was preventable. And I, by the way, am in agreement that the gorilla had to be euthenized, not tranqued. Too much could have gone wrong with a tranq. But I will tell you this...every movement he made, was about protecting that child. Gorillas HATE moats..he climbed in to protect that boy. He guarded him against the wall when people started shouting..he saw that as a threat to the boy and was protecting him. He was also carrying him like a gorilla carries the young..not to bash him, but to move him. I am so saddened by this....but I knew someday this would happen and that it would hit the social media by storm. My heart is sad for the gorilla and I am fully in support of pressing charges against the mother for endangering her child. Parents need to be more responsible at zoos...so that they can continue to educate and entertain others who ARE responsible!

TY for bringing that post to our attention.  Have a green one.  It brings out all of the salient points.  

1) The animal was most likely protecting the child.  

2) The Institution can only go so far.  Physical safety features are non-adaptive; parents are adaptive and should be actively looking after their children.  

3) The ultimate barrier between a child and a threat is nature's own solution: the parent.  If the parent is unwilling to place some sort of limits on the child, it is an open invitation for disaster...anytime, anywhere.

Gibberish as the barrier is menat to prevent the child from entering

If that barrier failed it is not child proof

Its as simple as that

The institution can go much further as clearly there is flaws in the barrier.

The above is what poor invented defense laywers do in order to deflect blame

A zoo is there to distract attention to the animals, thus for this reason alone, the zoo has to further ensure safety, as for the majority of the time, the eyes of people will be on the animals

If a barrier is not child proof, then that zoo should have warning signs to this danger.

Thus the zoo has a responsibility as its based around diverting attention to provide a safe environment and if not warn people with signs, and on entry to the Zoo itself

The zoo is 100% to blame


Your reasoning is very much daft

Paul Ettinger wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:There's way too much responsibility shifting by people these days, it's never their fault, and we live in a compensation society where you get big bucks if you successfully sue.   That child should have been under control, not allowed to run around or wriggle under fences.   Kids put their fingers in light sockets and poke their eyes with sticks all the time, it teaches them not to do it again, and as a parent you ensure they don't do it in the first place.  

This is a tragedy.   For all concerned.   That animal died because feckless parents should have had their child safe and in hand.  They are as much to blame as any dodgy fencing, if it was dodgy.

Easy to say that in hindsight after such a tragedy, when not one single partent in the world has ever been able to keep two eyes permenantly on a child ever.
They never can and we have to put and place faith in nothing happening to them when we sleep, go to the bathroom or place their trust in others etc. If you enter a place where it is meant to be safe, in order that you should never have to keep two eyes on your child and that child should never be able to enter through a public barrier, then how on earth can you lay blame on the parents. Kids are inquisitive, curious, at times very mischievous and most of all unpredicable. I am sure many have been to amusement parks or zoo's themselves and have never had two eyes fixed permenantly on their children, as its impossible. Now unless you believe all your children should be placed on leashes, then you simply are being unjust to the parents of this child

Trust me when I say that indisputably, my child at that age would never be out of my sight at any public place like that. My child had to hold my hand at all times in busy, public places, whether they liked it or not, and she was well behaved enough to accept that. The fact that kids are unpredictable, inquisitive and curious is enough to make most parents watch them like hawks. Aside from the fact that this kid could just as easily been abducted if left to run around unsupervised.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Easy to say that in hindsight after such a tragedy, when not one single partent in the world has ever been able to keep two eyes permenantly on a child ever.
They never can and we have to put and place faith in nothing happening to them when we sleep, go to the bathroom or place their trust in others etc. If you enter a place where it is meant to be safe, in order that you should never have to keep two eyes on your child and that child should never be able to enter through a public barrier, then how on earth can you lay blame on the parents. Kids are inquisitive, curious, at times very mischievous and most of all unpredicable. I am sure many have been to amusement parks or zoo's themselves and have never had two eyes fixed permenantly on their children, as its impossible. Now unless you believe all your children should be placed on leashes, then you simply are being unjust to the parents of this child

Trust me when I say that indisputably, my child at that age would never be out of my sight at any public place like that.  My child had to hold my hand at all times in busy, public places,  whether they liked it or not, and she was well behaved enough to accept that.     The fact that kids are unpredictable, inquisitive and curious is enough to make most parents watch them like hawks.   Aside from the fact that this kid could just as easily been abducted if left to run around unsupervised.  

I do not dispute that you would not, but we are talking about a zoo. Where you will be distracted by the animals itself and for that reason alone, which is what the attraction is. In being able to view the animals. Then the zoo has a duty of responsibility in order that you are able to see themselves without fear or harm coming to your child. basing this off what you do and not what generally people do in Zoo's or other attractions is simply ignoring how people come to a place and believe it is safe. Many kids could be abducted even yours, if when you are aleep. So I am sorry to say in a public place you are able to keep your eyes on a child without breaking view of them I simply do not believe. You may do often, but even a split second can see a child through a barriers, if they are not child proof
Its like I said i watched a girl holding the hand of her mother break free and run into a lorry. You simply cannot have a contingency for everything a child does, unless you want to comkpletely restrict them and thus hinder their learning.
Its like I said, if any parent knew that a child could get through, I doubt many would even be allwoing their children to walk around any part of the zoo and very doubtful the place would have any visitors

didge wrote:The institution can go much further as clearly there is flaws in the barrier.

Here is the flaw in your thinking: it's the perennial blame the equipment. In golf, it can't be your form; it's gotta be your clubs. Sometimes it's the person who should be responsible.

In commercial aircraft, they have pilots for a reason. It's nice to have barriers in place in the form of warnings and alarms, but your first and major defense is the existential presence of someone charged with the responsibility of setting things right if they go wrong.

Look to the patterns offered by nature. Nature taught us to navigate. Nature taught us to tell time. Nature even taught us how to fly. Now, listen to nature when it comes to raising our young. The parent is the major, and final barrier between the child and danger.

The physical restraints are just tools and aids. The 'systems failure' here was the pilot wasn't at the controls.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:The institution can go much further as clearly there is flaws in the barrier.

Here is the flaw in your thinking: it's the perennial blame the equipment.  In golf, it can't be your form; it's gotta be your clubs.  Sometimes it's the person who should be responsible.

In commercial aircraft, they have pilots for a reason.  It's nice to have barriers in place in the form of warnings and alarms, but your first and major defense is the existential presence of someone charged with the responsibility of setting things right if they go wrong.

Look to the patterns offered by nature.  Nature taught us to navigate.  Nature taught us to tell time.  Nature even taught us how to fly.  Now, listen to nature when it comes to raising our young.  The parent is the major, and final barrier between the child and danger.

The physical restraints are just tools and aids.  The 'systems failure' here was the pilot wasn't at the controls.

This is not equipment for the people to use, so your reasoning is again utterly daft

Its there as a barrier

And what is the purpose of a barrier Quill?

Take your time on that one

Here is something that contradicts HT's post:

(Copied from FB)

Here's a write up from Amanda O'Donoughue. It's very measured and full of expert opinion rather than amateur speculation and sensationalism:

I am going to try to clear up a few things that have beenb 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 their 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.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Here is the flaw in your thinking: it's the perennial blame the equipment.  In golf, it can't be your form; it's gotta be your clubs.  Sometimes it's the person who should be responsible.

In commercial aircraft, they have pilots for a reason.  It's nice to have barriers in place in the form of warnings and alarms, but your first and major defense is the existential presence of someone charged with the responsibility of setting things right if they go wrong.

Look to the patterns offered by nature.  Nature taught us to navigate.  Nature taught us to tell time.  Nature even taught us how to fly.  Now, listen to nature when it comes to raising our young.  The parent is the major, and final barrier between the child and danger.

The physical restraints are just tools and aids.  The 'systems failure' here was the pilot wasn't at the controls.

This is not equipment for the people to use, so your reasoning is again utterly daft

Its there as a barrier

And what is the purpose of a barrier Quill?

Take your time on that one

Use your brain, didge. Sometimes you are so dull. The analogy is between physical restraint and human care. Between tools and practice.

You think all things can be fixed permanently by putting up a wall or a fence or a moat...some sort of barrier. But, no physical restraint is going to supplant a living, breathing parent...if she is acting properly.

It follows that what caused this tragic incident was the lapse, not in some physical restraint, but in the parenting of the child.

Original Quill wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


This is not equipment for the people to use, so your reasoning is again utterly daft

Its there as a barrier

And what is the purpose of a barrier Quill?

Take your time on that one

Use your brain, didge.  Sometimes you are so dull.  The analogy is between physical restraint and human care.  Between tools and practice.

You think all things can be fixed permanently by putting up a wall or a fence or a moat...some sort of barrier.  But, no physical restraint is going to supplant a living, breathing parent...if she is acting properly.  

It follows that what caused this tragic incident was the lapse, not in some physical restraint, but in the parenting of the child.

I have a brain the question clearly here on numereous threads is whether you do or not

So you are claiming now that the barrier is not safe enough and requires physical restraint.

Fine

Where is the signs warning that the barrier is not effective to prevent children entering?

Take your time again

eddie wrote:Here is something that contradicts HT's post:

(Copied from FB)

Here's a write up from Amanda O'Donoughue. It's very measured and full of expert opinion rather than amateur speculation and sensationalism:

Here is the essential point of your quoted post:

ODonohugh wrote: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.

She is really spokesperson for the other side of the argument, save that she is viewing things from the zookeeper's perspective.  She is saying, not that fences and barriers are all that you need, but that around such animals you need eternal vigilance.  Humans need take care.

Now, transfer that same advice to the parent in question here.  The failure was the parent not paying attention to her charge.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Here is something that contradicts HT's post:

(Copied from FB)

Here's a write up from Amanda O'Donoughue. It's very measured and full of expert opinion rather than amateur speculation and sensationalism:

Here is the essential point of your quoted post:

ODonohugh wrote: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.

She is really spokesperson for the other side of the argument, save that she is viewing things from the zookeepers perspective.  She is saying, not that fences and barriers are all that you need, but that around such animals you need eternal vigilance.  Humans need take care.

Now, transfer that same advice to the parent in question here.  The failure was the parent not paying attention to her charge.

Yes they should be all safe and that is needed as again this is an attraction that is meant to divert your eyes from what you normally fixate on like your children to look at the attraction, the animals. The whole concept of the zoo is a viewing attraction for people to be up and close to see animals for real that they normally could not. I am against Zoo's unless they are santuaries for endangered species. Having said that, then if you are in a place with dangereous animals, where the purpose is to distract people watching them. Then the Zoo has to make it as safe as possible for the people to be able to get up close and see and not fear their child is going to be able to get in one of the enclosures
So your reasoning fails to understand even the concept of the Zoo and what its responsibilities are.
Thank goodness you are not involved in health and safety

wow

I was talking about the fact that many people are saying the child wasn't in danger when he clearly was.

eddie wrote:I was talking about the fact that many people are saying the child wasn't in danger when he clearly was.

It was very interesting and more so if of course this was someone who worked with these animals.

It was better because it was not looking to blame but place first and foremost the safety of everyone, including the animals

Hence why it was not biased

eddie wrote:Here is something that contradicts HT's post: NOT HARDLY

(Copied from FB)

Here's a write up from Amanda O'Donoughue. It's very measured and full of expert opinion rather than amateur speculation and sensationalism:

I am going to try to clear up a few things that have beenb 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 their 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.

For all of the recent - highly educated - known - professional primate people that have come out on the side of:
1.) there was nothing left to do but put the male gorilla DOWN

You're surely not going to place all of this 'wanna be' FB poster's; 'I worked as a zoo keeper some odd years ago and that makes me an F'n know it all about silver back gorilla's  ---   Seriously ...Eddie, I'm thinking you'd be pulling our collective legs at a humorous JOKE!

4EVER2 wrote:

eddie wrote:Here is something that contradicts HT's post: NOT HARDLY

(Copied from FB)

Here's a write up from Amanda O'Donoughue. It's very measured and full of expert opinion rather than amateur speculation and sensationalism:

I am going to try to clear up a few things that have beenb 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 their 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.

For all of the recent - highly educated - known - professional primate people that have come out on the side of:
1.) there was nothing left to do but put the male gorilla DOWN

You're surely not going to place all of this 'wanna be' FB poster's; 'I worked as a zoo keeper some odd years ago and that makes me an F'n know it all about silver back gorilla's  ---   Seriously ...Eddie, I'm thinking you'd be pulling our collective legs at a humorous JOKE!

Well she sounds more knowledgeable on the matter than you as you never reasoned the points that she did.

What is more interesting is you simply did not take on any of her views when I did with the one from horatio

All you did was claim you are an expert, and i never did, but reasoned my poiints

How about you do the same

eddie wrote:I was talking about the fact that many people are saying the child wasn't in danger when he clearly was.

Yes, I realize that.  I don't think she is quite the expert she thinks.  We have the formost expert in primate psychology and communication right here at Berkeley.  As an aside, I have read a lot from her works.  She mentions the pursed lips of the ape as a sign of agitation.  Primates generally open their mouths when they are excited or threatened.  



We often think it's cute; it really means they are preparing for showing their teeth. That is the warning sign for agitation.



So her interpretations are off.  She is reading the animal wrongly.

But the real question here is not about the attitude of the Ape.  It's about the proper way to take precautions, and who is responsible for keeping a child out of harms way.

So another hearsay post from Quill, claiming expertize from someone not even on here

Wow

How about you and foreverclueless address the points made and not claim she is wrong by failinng to show how you claim she is wrong.

She has the health and safety of both the animals and the people first and foremost in her mind.

She has demonstrated how and what to look for as signs that are a danger from such an animal.

She has rightly also shown that Zoo's have been complacent in regards to health and safety in order to have the people be able to view better. But what they have failed to do in doing this is warn the public, that the barriers are not able to prevent children entering. They have sacrificed safety in order to make more money, in order to make their attraction, that more attractive

Didget-dooer bleated > Well she sounds more knowledgeable on the matter than you as you never reasoned the points that she did.
What is more interesting is you simply did not take on any of her views when I did with the one from horatio
All you did was claim you are an expert, LIES are what you do best, but it just makes you such a FOOL and i never did, but reasoned my poiints
How about you do the same

Because you truly are a ½ wit of mega proportions and I'll attempt to treat you like the young Autistic boys I used to work with:
Here's the 2nd time I've pulled my very first post from Page #1 up for you to re-read >  

4EVER2 wrote:I know that the 2 other mothers interviewed after this event had stated: 'this 4yr old boy had been telling his mother quite adamantly [I want to get in there], and the mother kept being firm in her reply - "NO"'  So it does make me wonder about his mental condition, if the boy wasn't autistic? 
But to crawl under one pipe retainer, and up and over several other obstacles and over a vine covered fence to fall 15' into that gorilla enclosure - someone missed the 'PROOF' this to keep humans out hand book! 
Hopefully now all ZOO's will take a closer look at their exhibits from a child's POV and approach any and all obstacles to prove that they are INDEED child proof and no one can slip past barriers to intrude into the animals habitat.
This is such a sad lesson and indeed something that just should never have happened.
Makes my heart bleed for that beautiful gorilla but even if they'd been able to hit their target with a tranquilizer - even if he hadn't gotten angry at that hit - he might very well have fallen over on the child he had in his grasp and that would have caused the little boy more harm too.  
That's my 2¢ worth.

Now return to your favorite pastime and what you do best >

Syl wrote:HT's post sounds about right. I bet we have all seen stupid parents who don't take care of their kids at the expense of their own and others safety.

When we go to Wales the harbour wall has a steep drop to the rocks below when the tide is out. The number of parents who let their kids sit on it, when the only thing that would stop them plunging down is a low bar ...is unbelievable.
Kids as young as 3 or 4 swing on the bar, it gives me vertigo just seing them..and the parents are oblivious.

Would anyone let a four year old run amok on the cliffs at Beachy Head?    I've seen young kids do things that make my hair stand on end.    How well I remember going to a 'family' get together with my ex's inlaws once and this four year old was going round the room with  a fucking air rifle, holding it to the head of the younger kids and pulling the trigger.  Of course, it wasnt' loaded, but to me that was beside the point.   I horrified and disgusted that a parent would allow that to even happen.

4EVER2 wrote:

Didget-dooer bleated > Well she sounds more knowledgeable on the matter than you as you never reasoned the points that she did.
What is more interesting is you simply did not take on any of her views when I did with the one from horatio
All you did was claim you are an expert, LIES are what you do best, but it just makes you such a FOOL and i never did, but reasoned my poiints
How about you do the same

Because you truly are a ½ wit of mega proportions and I'll attempt to treat you like the young Autistic boys I used to work with:
Here's the 2nd time I've pulled my very first post from Page #1 up for you to re-read >  

4EVER2 wrote:I know that the 2 other mothers interviewed after this event had stated: 'this 4yr old boy had been telling his mother quite adamantly [I want to get in there], and the mother kept being firm in her reply - "NO"'  So it does make me wonder about his mental condition, if the boy wasn't autistic? 
But to crawl under one pipe retainer, and up and over several other obstacles and over a vine covered fence to fall 15' into that gorilla enclosure - someone missed the 'PROOF' this to keep humans out hand book! 
Hopefully now all ZOO's will take a closer look at their exhibits from a child's POV and approach any and all obstacles to prove that they are INDEED child proof and no one can slip past barriers to intrude into the animals habitat.
This is such a sad lesson and indeed something that just should never have happened.
Makes my heart bleed for that beautiful gorilla but even if they'd been able to hit their target with a tranquilizer - even if he hadn't gotten angry at that hit - he might very well have fallen over on the child he had in his grasp and that would have caused the little boy more harm too.  
That's my 2¢ worth.

Now return to your favorite pastime and what you do best >

Please do grow up and stop acting like a child

All tha above shows is that you read an article on how the child entered

Anyone can do the same

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

TY for bringing that post to our attention.  Have a green one.  It brings out all of the salient points.  

1) The animal was most likely protecting the child.  

2) The Institution can only go so far.  Physical safety features are non-adaptive; parents are adaptive and should be actively looking after their children.  

3) The ultimate barrier between a child and a threat is nature's own solution: the parent.  If the parent is unwilling to place some sort of limits on the child, it is an open invitation for disaster...anytime, anywhere.

Gibberish as the barrier is menat to prevent the child from entering

If that barrier failed it is not child proof

Its as simple as that

The institution can go much further as clearly there is flaws in the barrier.

The above is what poor invented defense laywers do in order to deflect blame

A zoo is there to distract attention to the animals, thus for this reason alone, the zoo has to further ensure safety, as for the majority of the time, the eyes of people will be on the animals

If a barrier is not child proof, then that zoo should have warning signs to this danger.

Thus the zoo has a responsibility as its based around diverting attention to provide a safe environment and if not warn people with signs, and on entry to the Zoo itself

The zoo is 100% to blame


Your reasoning is very much daft

I think perhaps there should be an age limit on children in zoos. None above say 12. just for certain parts, that could be dangerous. I know that barriers must be safe, but sometimes, kids just climb or slither under or through, and it's very rare for this to happen. You might have a four foot glass barrier, and some kid would break it. Or you'd have fencing that you can't poke a finger through and some kid climbs on the back of another and over they go. The permutations are endless. With young kids like this, parents must take some responsibility.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:HT's post sounds about right. I bet we have all seen stupid parents who don't take care of their kids at the expense of their own and others safety.

When we go to Wales the harbour wall has a steep drop to the rocks below when the tide is out. The number of parents who let their kids sit on it, when the only thing that would stop them plunging down is a low bar ...is unbelievable.
Kids as young as 3 or 4 swing on the bar, it gives me vertigo just seing them..and the parents are oblivious.

Would anyone let a four year old run amok on the cliffs at Beachy Head?    I've seen young kids do things that make my hair stand on end.    How well I remember going to a 'family' get together with my ex's inlaws once and this four year old was going round the room with  a fucking air rifle, holding it  to the head of the younger kids and pulling the trigger.  Of course, it wasnt' loaded, but to me that was beside the point.   I horrified and disgusted that a parent would allow that to even happen.

Sorry now you are being absurd
Again this is a place where its meant to be safe for people to walk freely around.
How many attractions do you know of that allow you to walk to the edge of a cliff, one that is at present having major works on.
So much so they are bringing in boulders from holland to build a platform to straucture the cliffs, as they are now afraid of the railways lines leading from Folkstone and Dover. The cliffs, maybe an attraction, but if its an attraction that people pay to go to see, there is barriers to prevent any harm coming to people. But your point on the cliffs, is absurd as again cliffs are dangerous areas full stop, as the ground can crumble beneath your feet making them unsafe to stand near to. This is not the case with the Zoo, what is happenning is Zoo's are sacrificing safety, to gain more of a better view of the animals and they are failing to warn the public in doing so.
They are thus creating risks, so the blame still is with the zoo

Paul Ettinger wrote:So another hearsay post from Quill, claiming expertize from someone not even on here

Wow

How about you and foreverclueless address the points made and not claim she is wrong by failinng to show how you claim she is wrong.

She has the health and safety of both the animals and the people first and foremost in her mind.

She has demonstrated how and what to look for as signs that are a danger from such an animal.

She has rightly also shown that Zoo's have been complacent in regards to health and safety in order to have the people be able to view better. But what they have failed to do in doing this is warn the public, that the barriers are not able to prevent children entering. They have sacrificed safety in order to make more money, in order to make their attraction, that more attractive

Haha...didge, you haven't realized it yet.  But she doesn't even say what you think.  Nowhere does she say, as you do, that a human doesn't have to be careful around the wild animals.  To the contrary, she speaks of how careful she always was because the animals are dangerous.

You've lost the plot, as usual.  The question was, was this mother blameless in this incident?  You were arguing that the physical features of this zoo could be made flawless; therefore, the mother bore no blame.

Carry on...if you can.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:



Gibberish as the barrier is menat to prevent the child from entering

If that barrier failed it is not child proof

Its as simple as that

The institution can go much further as clearly there is flaws in the barrier.

The above is what poor invented defense laywers do in order to deflect blame

A zoo is there to distract attention to the animals, thus for this reason alone, the zoo has to further ensure safety, as for the majority of the time, the eyes of people will be on the animals

If a barrier is not child proof, then that zoo should have warning signs to this danger.

Thus the zoo has a responsibility as its based around diverting attention to provide a safe environment and if not warn people with signs, and on entry to the Zoo itself

The zoo is 100% to blame


Your reasoning is very much daft

I think perhaps there should be an age limit on children in zoos.   None above say 12.   just for certain parts, that could be dangerous.  I know that barriers must be safe, but sometimes, kids just climb or slither under or through, and it's very rare for this to happen.    You might have a four foot glass barrier, and some kid would break it.  Or you'd have fencing that you can't poke a finger through and some kid climbs on the back of another and over they go.  The permutations are endless.   With young kids like this, parents must take some responsibility.

Why should there be an age limit when most visitors to a zoo are children?
What they should do is in fact do away with zoo's altogether, as its wrong to keep animals in such captivity.
However until they do so, they must ensure the place is safe and that no child is able to enter.
If they had some brains they would build a view entrance on the ground with reinforced glass to view, which would be safe from everyone.

Original Quill wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:So another hearsay post from Quill, claiming expertize from someone not even on here

Wow

How about you and foreverclueless address the points made and not claim she is wrong by failinng to show how you claim she is wrong.

She has the health and safety of both the animals and the people first and foremost in her mind.

She has demonstrated how and what to look for as signs that are a danger from such an animal.

She has rightly also shown that Zoo's have been complacent in regards to health and safety in order to have the people be able to view better. But what they have failed to do in doing this is warn the public, that the barriers are not able to prevent children entering. They have sacrificed safety in order to make more money, in order to make their attraction, that more attractive

Haha...didge, you haven't realized it yet.  But she doesn't even say what you think.  Nowhere does she say, as you do, that a human doesn't have to be careful around the wild animals.  To the contrary, she speaks of how careful she always was because the animals are dangerous.

You've lost the plot, as usual.  The question was, was this mother blameless in this incident?  You were arguing that the physical features of this zoo could be made flawless; therefore, the mother bore no blame.

Carry on...if you can.

I never said she did say what I stated myself, talk about the lefty motto in action again.
But the point is none of the children are actually around the animals
She is
So you have now been relegated to the dumbo section after that stupidity
Youa re really showing up how you are in now way intelligent tonight.
That was hilarious

Paul Ettinger wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Trust me when I say that indisputably, my child at that age would never be out of my sight at any public place like that.  My child had to hold my hand at all times in busy, public places,  whether they liked it or not, and she was well behaved enough to accept that.     The fact that kids are unpredictable, inquisitive and curious is enough to make most parents watch them like hawks.   Aside from the fact that this kid could just as easily been abducted if left to run around unsupervised.  

I do not dispute that you would not, but we are talking about a zoo. Where you will be distracted by the animals itself and for that reason alone, which is what the attraction is. In being able to view the animals. Then the zoo has a duty of responsibility in order that you are able to see themselves without fear or harm coming to your child. basing this off what you do and not what generally people do in Zoo's or other attractions is simply ignoring how people come to a place and believe it is safe. Many kids could be abducted even yours, if when you are aleep. So I am sorry to say in a public place you are able to keep your eyes on a child without breaking view of them I simply do not believe. You may do often, but even a split second can see a child through a barriers, if they are not child proof
Its like I said i watched a girl holding the hand of her mother break free and run into a lorry. You simply cannot have a contingency for everything a child does, unless you want to comkpletely restrict them and thus hinder their learning.
Its like I said, if any parent knew that a child could get through, I doubt many would even be allwoing their children to walk around any part of the zoo and very doubtful the place would have any visitors

No, I wouldn't be distracted. Quite the opposite. I'd be on my guard and protective of my young kids. I would most likely have carried four year old in order that he could see more clearly. Where was the father in all this, BTW?

If, as you say, all parents cannot control or watch their kids like hawks, then there would have already been many more incidents such as this. Responsible parents control their children in public places for their own good.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

I do not dispute that you would not, but we are talking about a zoo. Where you will be distracted by the animals itself and for that reason alone, which is what the attraction is. In being able to view the animals. Then the zoo has a duty of responsibility in order that you are able to see themselves without fear or harm coming to your child. basing this off what you do and not what generally people do in Zoo's or other attractions is simply ignoring how people come to a place and believe it is safe. Many kids could be abducted even yours, if when you are aleep. So I am sorry to say in a public place you are able to keep your eyes on a child without breaking view of them I simply do not believe. You may do often, but even a split second can see a child through a barriers, if they are not child proof
Its like I said i watched a girl holding the hand of her mother break free and run into a lorry. You simply cannot have a contingency for everything a child does, unless you want to comkpletely restrict them and thus hinder their learning.
Its like I said, if any parent knew that a child could get through, I doubt many would even be allwoing their children to walk around any part of the zoo and very doubtful the place would have any visitors

No, I wouldn't be distracted.  Quite the opposite. I'd be on my guard and protective of my young kids.   I would most likely have carried four year old in order that he could see more clearly.   Where was the father in all this, BTW?  

If, as you say, all parents cannot control or watch their kids like hawks, then there would have already been many more incidents such as this.   Responsible parents control their children in public places for their own good.  

Sorry but I find your views being based in hindsight.
You still simply miss th whole point.
The child was able to get into an enclosure that is meant to be child proof
Their sacrificed this safety and did not warn the public.
As works have been done on enclosures to make them have a better view of the animals
Its clear they have sacrificed safety
This is not about controlling children, when you should not even have to when the place is meant to be safe.
Are you telling me you carry your child everywhere in a park and do not allow them to play two feet from you?

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Haha...didge, you haven't realized it yet.  But she doesn't even say what you think.  Nowhere does she say, as you do, that a human doesn't have to be careful around the wild animals.  To the contrary, she speaks of how careful she always was because the animals are dangerous.

You've lost the plot, as usual.  The question was, was this mother blameless in this incident?  You were arguing that the physical features of this zoo could be made flawless; therefore, the mother bore no blame.

Carry on...if you can.

I never said she did say what I stated myself, talk about the lefty motto in action again.
But the point is none of the children are actually around the animals
She is
So you have now been relegated to the dumbo section after that stupidity
Youa re really showing up how you are in now way intelligent tonight.
That was hilarious

So you are changing your story again. My you are slippery.

I don't begrudge you changing. But at least allow me leave to catch up. Your purpose appears to be simply to oppose those who oppose you. That's why you lose the plot so often.

Now, let's sort things once again. We are saying parents have responsibilities at zoos. You were saying they can allow their children to run amok, and the zoos have all the responsibility to assure the child's safety.

Carry on...

Paul Ettinger wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Would anyone let a four year old run amok on the cliffs at Beachy Head?    I've seen young kids do things that make my hair stand on end.    How well I remember going to a 'family' get together with my ex's inlaws once and this four year old was going round the room with  a fucking air rifle, holding it  to the head of the younger kids and pulling the trigger.  Of course, it wasnt' loaded, but to me that was beside the point.   I horrified and disgusted that a parent would allow that to even happen.

Sorry now you are being absurd
Again this is a place where its meant to be safe for people to walk freely around.
How many attractions do you know of that allow you to walk to the edge of a cliff, one that is at present having major works on.
So much so they are bringing in boulders from holland to build a platform to straucture the cliffs, as they are now afraid of the railways lines leading from Folkstone and Dover. The cliffs, maybe an attraction, but if its an attraction that people pay to go to see, there is barriers to prevent any harm coming to people. But your point on the cliffs, is absurd as again cliffs are dangerous areas full stop, as the ground can crumble beneath your feet making them unsafe to stand near to. This is not the case with the Zoo, what is happenning is Zoo's are sacrificing safety, to gain more of a better view of the animals and they are failing to warn the public in doing so.
They are thus creating risks, so the blame still is with the zoo

Yes, the cliffs are dangerous, that was the whole point. But never mind.

I don't personally agree with Zoos. Those animals are no doubt tormented day and night with stupid people and kids gesticulating and copying threat gestures until they react. Is there any need to take a child to a zoo? A caged animal is a pathetic sight.

Original Quill wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

I never said she did say what I stated myself, talk about the lefty motto in action again.
But the point is none of the children are actually around the animals
She is
So you have now been relegated to the dumbo section after that stupidity
Youa re really showing up how you are in now way intelligent tonight.
That was hilarious

So you are changing your story again.  My you are slippery.

I don't begrudge you changing.  But at least allow me leave to catch up.  Your purpose appears to be simply to oppose those who oppose you.  That's why you lose the plot so often.

Now, let's sort things once again.  We are saying parents have responsibilities at zoos.  You were saying they can allow their children to run amok, and the zoos have all the responsibility to assure the child's safety.

Carry on...

lol show me where I have changed any of my story

Its seems you are stuck and again want to divert and deflect and cover up your massive errors Quill, as you did in the previous post.

I am saying that zoos are meant to have child proof enclosures.

If they do not have child proof enclosures, then they should warn the people they are not able to prevent children gaining access and that the children can only view whilst with one parent at a time.

See how simple that is

HoratioTarr wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Sorry now you are being absurd
Again this is a place where its meant to be safe for people to walk freely around.
How many attractions do you know of that allow you to walk to the edge of a cliff, one that is at present having major works on.
So much so they are bringing in boulders from holland to build a platform to straucture the cliffs, as they are now afraid of the railways lines leading from Folkstone and Dover. The cliffs, maybe an attraction, but if its an attraction that people pay to go to see, there is barriers to prevent any harm coming to people. But your point on the cliffs, is absurd as again cliffs are dangerous areas full stop, as the ground can crumble beneath your feet making them unsafe to stand near to. This is not the case with the Zoo, what is happenning is Zoo's are sacrificing safety, to gain more of a better view of the animals and they are failing to warn the public in doing so.
They are thus creating risks, so the blame still is with the zoo

Yes, the cliffs are dangerous, that was the whole point.   But never mind.

I don't personally agree with Zoos.   Those animals are no doubt tormented day and night with stupid people and kids  gesticulating and copying threat gestures until they react.   Is there any need to take a child to a zoo?    A caged animal is a pathetic sight.

Children are fasicnated by animals, many have a favoritie and where there is a demand, there is then a need to accomadate this.
Again i am against Zoo's
Sadly because of poaching and idiots who over hunt animals, then we have to protect them in zoo's, but like I say they should be sanctuaries, which if people want to see them closed to the public. Then people have to put their hands in their pocket, so the places can then have the moeny to support themselves and the animals, public free

Paul Ettinger wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

No, I wouldn't be distracted.  Quite the opposite. I'd be on my guard and protective of my young kids.   I would most likely have carried four year old in order that he could see more clearly.   Where was the father in all this, BTW?  

If, as you say, all parents cannot control or watch their kids like hawks, then there would have already been many more incidents such as this.   Responsible parents control their children in public places for their own good.  

Sorry but I find your views being based in hindsight.
You still simply miss th whole point.
The child was able to get into an enclosure that is meant to be child proof
Their sacrificed this safety and did not warn the public.
As works have been done on enclosures to make them have a better view of the animals
Its clear they have sacrificed safety
This is not about controlling children, when you should not even have to when the place is meant to be safe.
Are you telling me you carry your child everywhere in a park and do not allow them to play two feet from you?

All children need to be controlled and supervised in public places at all times. There are any number of hazards to negotiate not all of them inadequate fencing. If you think you can take your kid to a public place and think it's safe to just let it run loose and unsupervised just because you think the fencing is safe, then you shouldn't have kids.

didge wrote:Its seems you are stuck and again want to divert and deflect and cover up your massive errors Quill, as you did in the previous post.

No, actually...when I win I like to take a pause and reflect. Enjoy the victory and pity the vanquished.

Now...make noise, sweet didge. Make noise...

Paul Ettinger wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Yes, the cliffs are dangerous, that was the whole point.   But never mind.

I don't personally agree with Zoos.   Those animals are no doubt tormented day and night with stupid people and kids  gesticulating and copying threat gestures until they react.   Is there any need to take a child to a zoo?    A caged animal is a pathetic sight.

Children are fasicnated by animals, many have a favoritie and where there is a demand, there is then a need to accomadate this.
Again i am against Zoo's
Sadly because of poaching and idiots who over hunt animals, then we have to protect them in zoo's, but like I say they should be sanctuaries, which if people want to see them closed to the public. Then people have to put their hands in their pocket, so the places can then have the moeny to support themselves and the animals, public free

I'm all for endangered animals to be nurtured but not at the expense of being incarcerated and gawped at in a zoo such as this. As you say, sanctuaries that mimic as closely as possible the animals natural habitat is the ideal, but then people want to get up close and personal. Zoos basically cater for this. And for this reason alone, I think they're morally wrong.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Sorry but I find your views being based in hindsight.
You still simply miss th whole point.
The child was able to get into an enclosure that is meant to be child proof
Their sacrificed this safety and did not warn the public.
As works have been done on enclosures to make them have a better view of the animals
Its clear they have sacrificed safety
This is not about controlling children, when you should not even have to when the place is meant to be safe.
Are you telling me you carry your child everywhere in a park and do not allow them to play two feet from you?

All children need to be controlled and supervised in public places at all times.  There are any number of hazards to negotiate not all of them inadequate fencing.    If you think you can take your kid to a public place and think it's safe to just let it run loose and unsupervised just because you think the fencing is safe, then you shouldn't have kids.

Still glaringly missing the point
You said run losose, as do you know how far away the child was?
Again we are talking about a parent up against an enclosure viewing the animals, and before you know it one has gotten theough the barrier they never should have been able to.
Where is all the nonsense coming from about running amuck?
Are you laiming standing by a barrier with the children next to you is running amuck?

Holy crap on a cracker

HoratioTarr wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Children are fasicnated by animals, many have a favoritie and where there is a demand, there is then a need to accomadate this.
Again i am against Zoo's
Sadly because of poaching and idiots who over hunt animals, then we have to protect them in zoo's, but like I say they should be sanctuaries, which if people want to see them closed to the public. Then people have to put their hands in their pocket, so the places can then have the moeny to support themselves and the animals, public free

I'm all for endangered animals to be nurtured but not at the expense of being incarcerated and gawped at in a zoo such as this.   As you say,  sanctuaries that mimic as closely as possible the animals natural habitat is the ideal, but then people want to get up close and personal.   Zoos basically cater for this.   And for this reason alone, I think they're morally wrong.

Well unless you are able to find a solution to the poachers, then such places are needed in order to keep such animals alive and able to reproduce without fear and loss of their numbers.
It does not mean they have to be cage but in large enclsoures

Paul Ettinger wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm all for endangered animals to be nurtured but not at the expense of being incarcerated and gawped at in a zoo such as this.   As you say,  sanctuaries that mimic as closely as possible the animals natural habitat is the ideal, but then people want to get up close and personal.   Zoos basically cater for this.   And for this reason alone, I think they're morally wrong.

Well unless you are able to find a solution to the poachers, then such places are needed in order to keep such animals alive and able to reproduce without fear and loss of their numbers.
It does not mean they have to be cage but in large enclsoures

There's no need for most of those animals to be in a zoo. Very few are endangered. Zoos were created for humans to gawp at animals. Just another example of man's inhumanity to his fellow creatures.