Oh come on, not a lethal current, just enough to discourage trespassers. Farm fencing needs fairly high voltage to overcome the resistance of hide and hair, but a humans bare hands have low resistance.
We all know that. You are missing the point - which is that zoos are used to designing features to prevent unwanted movement. They need not, of course, be the same features each way; all that was required to prevent this accident was some trivial tinkering with the fence they already had.
Point is, it is relatively easy to make a fence a young child can’t climb.
The argument that such a design feature is beyond the reasonable abilities of the zoo is an absurd one and ought not to be seriously pursued.
This isn’t some magic technology of vast expense and unknown to the world. In this very thread, I provided proof that, in my city, every single pool owner is required by law to have such a fence around their pool; I even provided the design specs.
Such a fence need not be much higher than the one the zoo already had (1.2 meters, or around 3’ 11", as opposed to 3 feet); it must merely be designed so as not to afford gaps a kid could crawl through, or features a kid could use as a “ladder” to climb.
There is no reason why such a fence could not have been in place. Indeed, international zoo standards recommend having such a barrier (also demonstrated upthread). Such a fence would not have affected viewing, as the fence was backed by bushes (you could not ‘see through’ it); the gorilla viewing area was raised, so you could see the gorillas despite the fence and bushes.
Not this particular one. The tall, plexiglass walls continue outside, where you can also look in.
Here’s a CNN article with the video of a Silverback breaking the protective glass. Why? Because parents thought it was cute to have their little daughter taunting the gorillas by thumping her chest.
There are other videos there of parents thinking it’s cute to set their toddlers down in front of the glass and let the lion on the other side try to eat them.
Anyway, the zoo is going to put up a new barrier, but it sounds like it’s less than 4’ tall. That might slow a 3 year old down, but I don’t see it stopping a 4 or 5 year old, and certainly won’t stop anyone older. So, nothing really changes. Zoos claim endangered animals are important, but not important enough to keep humans out. The zoo keeps talking about how it is in compliance with zoo standards, but it’s pretty obvious the standards for keeping people out of exhibits is almost not a standard at all. We leave it up to parents, and animals get killed. Humans too sometimes.
Actually I’d like to, but you didn’t link to it.
I didn’t mean lethal current either, I’m talking about the OUTRAGE that the zoo SHOCKED A CHILD !!11!!one! And MADE HIM CRY!! :eek:
I wonder what would’ve happened if someone had grabbed the kid early on.
Well, my mistake then. Here is an example, not just of an “inforgraphic” (which was, as it turns out, rather misleading) but of actual pictures of the “barrier fence” in question, compared with the “infographic”:
As can be seen, the “barrier fence” was: a guardrail with two wires. Easy for a kid to crawl through. Not seriously intended to keep anyone out.
Making the fence more of an actual barrier would have, as can be seen, no impact whatsoever on viewing of the gorillas, as it is backed by bushes you can’t see through anyway and which are substantially taller than the “barrier fence”.
The “infographic” (seen near the bottom of the page) makes the “barrier fence” look like a solid barrier. It wasn’t, assuming these pics are accurate.
Yup. Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo, which has all “ground level with thick safety glass” great ape enclosures. The video occurs in the walk-through building portion of the enclosure.
I think there is still some small amount of “look at the enclosure from above” access for visitors, but not much.
I didn’t want to start a new thread, but the gorilla-cracks-glass video led me to this compilation video of zoo animals attacking.
While most were clearly harmless because the animal was still behind glass, the big cat chasing a zoo worker at 0:10-0:15 looks like it could have ended quite badly. :eek: Does anyone know what happened to the worker? I would hope someone wouldn’t include a serious incident in an otherwise humorous video but…:dubious:
A maybe stupid question… Why use glass barriers that are see-through on the animal’s side?
There’s no such thing as a one-way mirror. You can have reflective glass that you can’t see through, but that’s because the other side is a dark room.
In the case of apes, they can enjoy watching humans. It can provide stimulation to the more intelligent animals.
In my head I can imagine that for them it’s like watching reality TV.
“Sistah, don’t wear that ever again. And lose some weight. And why are you with that loser?”
The fact is the zoo has a duty to protect the animals from humans entering their habitat. They failed in that duty.
This is the closest we’re gonna get.
The requirement is a barrier to keep children from falling, not a barrier to keep children from climbing over (or through) it and then falling. Admittedly, that is probably a better standard that should be used.
That OSHA standard likely is not applicable in this case because the barrier is not really fall protection. There is a four foot ledge on the other side of the fence before the drop off, and that ledge had a growth of plants. If someone is tall enough to accidentally fall over that fence, they will land on that four foot shelf. It takes a deliberate action to circumvent the crowd control device to be at risk of a fall down the 20 foot drop.
I’m not saying the fence was adequate, I am explaining why the current design is not a violation.
Yes, that is what it means. “Fall prevention” is for accidental falls, not deliberate acts. That is called “jumping”.
Because you are inserting a much stronger interpretation. I tried looking at OSHA, but for some reason they don’t actually define the term. However, the assumption in all cases appears to be that falls are not intentional - thus the need for guards and arresting devices. If you intend to go down the hole, then you use climbing gear, not arresting devices.
Such as
Another example:
It stops falling, not deliberate acts to circumvent the safety feature.
No, what I think was meant was a 20 foot deep trench on both sides of the fence - the animal side and the visitor side.
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, I disagree that 3 or 4 year olds should be trusted to that level. Kids are masters of creative interpretation to assume the rules don’t apply to them, or this case is not like that case. They also don’t readily grasp danger. Children that age frequently get in trouble for misbehavior - doing things they’ve been told not to. While I do feel that parents bear much responsibility for watching over their children, I think it is not cost prohibitive to make a protection to that level.
Thank you for that. I had seen a computer graphic on TV, but not an actual picture, and I was curious just how protective a barrier that fence provided.
Back to the OP, I do think zoos should come up with a non-lethal way of dealing with dangerous animals. I am thinking maybe like a riot squad with helmets, body armor, and batons.
I have a friend at the KC Zoo who is on the shooting team and he has said they are trained how to kill the animals (like shooting an elephant in the leg). However he said the only animals he has actually shot were some wild dogs who once got onto the property and jumped into some areas.
I just kinda imagine a bunch of people in a Bastion suit standing around the zoo like those guards-who-wear-bearskin-hats-that-I-forget-the-proper-name-of.
When I was first told the story, I was told that the gorilla gently picked up the baby and was shot AFTER they retrieved the baby as “punishment”. I thought that made absolutely ZERO sense and was sorta frustrated that the zoo would do something so unprofessional (like the people who get their pets put down after it attacks their kid, which isn’t how a zoo should behave at all).
After seeing the video myself, I see that TOTALLY WASN’T THE CASE. Of COURSE they had to shoot the gorilla - what else were they going to do? Go up and say “hey buddy couldya hand that baby back please?”. It sucks that the gorilla had to be put down, and sure there are a lot of fingers that could be pointed here (we could blame laid back security, bad parenting, etc…), but I feel like the direction it’s all gone in is pretty… “weird” to say the least. Maybe if the zoo had a better PR team the story could’ve gone down as “HERO SAVES CHILD WHO FELL INTO GORILLA PIT”. 