Not sure what “not exclusive” is supposed to mean. Tell me more about “zoo safety guidelines” because that kinda sounds like Miss Manners guide to etiquette, with about as much legal enforcement. If the zoo doesn’t have impenetrable barriers everywhere it’s more than likely there is no law saying they have to. Advertising something as “fun for families” doesn’t mean impenetrable barriers everywhere. Geez, don’t take your kids to the Grand Canyon.
Is that a law, or a recommendation?
Zoos serve two purposes. They protect endangered animals, and they give people access to animals. This zoo clearly failed the first objective, and should not be trusted with endanged animals in the future. I hope those two female gorillas they didn’t kill can find a safer home.
Zoos should expect rambunctious four year olds and four year olds shouldn’t be able to get into exhibits, especially exhibits with dangerous or rare animals.
Costs? You speak as if a lowland gorilla is a replaceable commodity.
Honestly, while I generally hold the life of any human above that of an animal, I’m not completely certain I feel that way in this case. Gorillas are nearly human, and extremely rare.
I have no doubt they took the action most likely to save the kid. I’m not sure it was the best action. I wonder if driving away all the screaming visitors and trying to calm the gorilla might have been worth trying, even though it obviously would have put the child at more risk. But how much more risk, vs. the certain death of the gorilla?
Yeah, this.
Okay, we’re talking about what is to be reasonably expected of zoos. What is reasonably expected of parents and adult guardians? What kind of moron sees a small useless fence, some bushes and a steep drop off and thinks, “I’ll let my kid run free? The world must be safe, even though I can see with my own eyes my kid could easily chuck himself off that ledge?”
Should zoos expect parents to keep track of their children?
Sure, it’s replaceable, the question here is the cost of the replacement: that’s why the parents must bear the costs here. User Magiver claimed that the insurance will reimburse the zoo for the costs, but when asked whether the zoo, in fact, has an insurance that’ll cover the costs, refused to back up his claims.
On that, we both agree. Looking at parental history of both mother and father, they’d have no problem replacing the kid in under one year flat. ( not that they should be encouraged to do so, of course)
It means that having the one (signs) does not preclude the zoo from having the other (a child-proof barrier).
The Grand Canyon isn’t a zoo … and there is no need for “barriers everywhere”, only where there is a fall hazard the zoo itself designed.
A “guideline” is typically a non-binding set of recommendations that establishes best practices for an industry.
It is “non binding” in the sense that, depending on who issues the guideline, it doesn’t itself have the force of law: meaning that the government cannot take enforcement action against you for breach of such guidelines (this isn’t 100% true - if a government agency issues guidelines as guides to interpretation of statutes, they can take the position that they believe breach of guidelines = breach of the statute, as they interpret it. A Court may well disagree, though).
Although guidelines are “non binding”, are indeed in this case published by a European zoo organization, they are often used as evidence of what the appropriate “standard of care” is for an industry: a member of that industry may well argue that they meet the “standard of care” even though they don’t follow the guidelines - but that argument is a tough one to make, when an accident has happened and you don’t meet the guidelines.
In this case, the zoo would have to argue that in effect the European association’s guidelines were excessively strict, that they met the required standard of care in the US despite falling below the standard expected internationally as evidenced by the guidelines. That would be a difficult argument to make.
God hates gorillas.
Personally, it seems to me it should not be all that difficult to make enclosures impenetrable to four-year-olds. I know you read about Yahoos jumping into wild-animal pits all the time, but those are adults. Something seems just a bit, just a tiny bit amiss if a small child can get in that easily. (This is in no way meant to excuse the mother.)
Always bothers me when folk say “kids will be kids” or “kids will do xyz.” No, kids do not climb over fences and into animal enclosures. Poorly behaved children who have been poorly parented and monitored - will.
Where do zoo gorillas come from? According to this, it’s illegal to import them, which is good because killing their parents and group to steal babies is gruesome just to keep them captive on display for the amusement of three-year-olds. New gorillas come from captive breeding, exclusively for the zoo trade, the babies are taken from the parents and raised by humans and stuck back in the cage, and zero of them are ever being reintroduced to the wild. That’s not what zoos do. That would be a sanctuary or rehab center.
Seems like an electric fence would be a good deterrent that also minimizes visual obstruction. No, not a death-dealing megavoltage fry-and-die fence - just the same sort of thing that’s often used to contain livestock, with a potent enough zap to make you voluntarily reverse course.
A well-run zoo should assume that a certain fraction of parents will be irresponsible or otherwise unable to control their kids. No, they absolutely should not reply on parental supervision. They should expect MOST parents to supervise, and they should do everything they can to encourage parental supervision, but assuming there will always be good supervision of small children is creating an attractive nuisance, and zoos should absolutely be held responsible when kids get into enclosures in any but the most bizarre circumstances.
The circumstances of this case don’t sound even a little bizarre.
Um… lots of things aren’t replaceable. I’m highly dubious that a healthy adult lowland gorilla is replaceable.
“We’ll build a giant fence. And we’ll make the apes pay for it!” – Donald Trump
More like make the parents pay for it.
Shyt happens. There is no question the ape needed to be put down immediately. Who’s at fault is open to debate, and there’s plenty to go around. Mom and Dad will certainly be more careful in the future, and the zoo inspectors will be going around looking at things with a new sense of responsibility. Cost for these improvements: One dead gorilla.
I can’t believe this thread goes on for 5 pages. :rolleyes:
I’m glad we have so many parents here who have never had their child outside their view for three milliseconds but in the real world it happens. I suspect that if I had a private detective follow you around there will be moments that your kid slips away even if you won’t admit it because it is too much fun for you to play harass the poor mother. Although I rather suspect most of you aren’t parents even though you’re all such experts on the subject.
Well, “I can’t watch my kids every second” doesn’t mean “the world should and it’s the world’s fault and I’m sueing because while I can’t watch my own kids every second I totally expect everyone else to.”
Hell, managed to avoid having any of my 3 kids die before they attained adulthood, despite the fact that I regularly INTENTIONALLY took them places far more potentially dangerous than zoos. I intentionally thought there was a benefit in placing them in potentially dangerous places, in order to teach them of the exercising the necessary care to enjoy such places.
Yeah, shit happens - but it happens more regularly to fuck ups and their fucked up spawn. And, unfortunately, gorillas who come in contact with them.
Your post is perhaps an example of “survivorship bias”.
You took your kids to potentially dangerous places, and they were fine. That may (or may not) be proof that you teachings worked, and that those who took their kids to the same places and were not fine were “fuck ups” with “fucked up spawn”.
Or, conversely, they were just unlucky. Particularly an issue where the actual danger is pretty uncommon: fuck-ups and good parents alike have been going to the zoo for years and no kids have fallen in.
Similar to the “we rode around without bike helmets as kids and we were fine, so bike helmets are unnecessary because only dumb, careless people get hurt” argument. It seems kinda harsh to generalize fault from a bad, but very rare, consequence.
If I’m at a zoo with plenty of parents and kids and we go up to an animal enclosure with a couple rows deep of kids I should feel safe standing back 10 feet and letting my 4 year-old go up to the enclosure. I shouldn’t be expected to have to examine the barrier and make sure a child can not crawl underneath it.
This was a U.S. zoo, not some wildlife sanctuary in Kenya.
A U.S. zoo should be a safe place for kids to roam within eyesight of a parent.
Only if you assume zoos are day care centers, which they are not. That’s why they aren’t called “licensed day care centers.”
If zoos are supposed to be day care centers, then I am now more than ever opposed to zoos. Toddlers gain nothing from captive animals. Keep your kids in day care centers and have them watch wildlife documentaries on TV.
Just curious, has the mother apologized anywhere for her child’s actions? Publicly or privately to the zoo?
I don’t know about you guys but if my (hypothetical) child was the cause of ANY animal losing its life I’d be mortified and devastated and apologizing all over the place.