There is plenty of technology available to create practically invisible barriers more than adequate to keep exhibits in and visitors with poor judgement (like all four year olds by definition) out, while allowing close and unobstructed viewing. Many zoos use them. Intelligent design is concerned with both keeping dangerous creatures in and visitors out. A venue marketed for children may hope for constant close supervision but would be idiotic to assume that every child is hands on closely supervised every second they are there.
This is not realistic. Until our legal scholars get here, I’ll just mention that the law does keep in mind the “realistic” expectations of safety, and “due” considerations against harm. It isn’t all black and white.
I love all these knee-jerk uninformed opinions by all these perfect parents and professional zookeepers.
First, only the mother was there and she was watching other parents kids not just her 4 year old. Perhaps we also need to bring charges against those other parents for putting them in her care, too.
Second as for one comment quizzing that since Zoo A was able to get a kid out without shooting the animal, this zoo should be able to do the same. As if a 800 pound animal with the strength of 8 weightlifters dragging a child gives the zoo hours to plan a rescue.
Finally, what does it say about our society that we are more outraged at the death of an animal than we are grateful a child’s life was saved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is not “realistic” to plan zoo attractions with the expectation that young children may visit them and temporarily escape parental custody? I disagree.
Most zoos have plans to deal with such scenarios: they have a “lost child” procedure, for example. Why? Because they know that stuff like that happens: kids can, and do, get separated from their parents.
An example: http://www.pzda.org.au/2015/11/18/lost-child-procedure/
Given that they reasonably know it will happen, it would be highly unreasonable for them not to plan for it happening, by designing their exhibits accordingly.
I can’t 100% say if this was the mothers fault. Some children are just impossible. Hence Darwins Natural Law of Selection. If your 4 year old is stupid enough to jump into a gorilla cage after being instructed not to do so, what other bad decisions will he make?
I’d guess that most decent zoos have a separate children’s play area, or at least a children’s petting zoo section. That would be designed for small children. Every zoo I’ve been to has very clearly posted rules about bothering the animals with excessive noise or ever attempting to cross any barrier, mote, fence or whatever else is separating guests from the animals. So, no. The entire zoo is not a children’s play ground, just because it admits children.
Please, point us to them. I am very interested in design, and if these systems are as perfect as you say, I’d like to visit the zoos using them for a close look.
My mistake, I didn’t mean to have your post in there, but a third one from Pylesos. Sorry about that, your post was fine.
Disagree. You need not be a “perfect parent” to keep an especially close eye on very young children, even several of them, when they’re in any potentially dangerous area. For lots and lots of parents, it really is not that difficult or complicated.
For parents and other people who DO find it difficult or complicated, maybe they should avoid putting themselves and children in their care into such situations. “Easy for you to say, but you’d feel different if it were your kid and someone was judging you!” is what some apologists for negligent parents say. The thing is, yes it is easy for me to say, and if it were my kid I’d be so consumed with guilt and emotional pain at having been NEGLIGENT that the very last thing I’d be doing is hopping onto Facebook to lecture people about how I keep a “tight watch” on my children and how ashamed they should be to lecture me. This woman takes not even a little responsibility for this kid having breached the barrier, even though according to witnesses he kept telling her he wanted to get into the water with the gorillas. In fact she’s seething that anyone would dare suggest she might’ve paid closer attention to the kid.
As for your final question - “Finally, what does it say about our society that we are more outraged at the death of an animal than we are grateful a child’s life was saved.” - for starters I guess it says that not everyone in our society adheres to a notion of moral absolutes or otherwise shares your apparent value system concerning such things.
Kids aren’t on the endangered species list. 
Silver Back Gorillas are.
Yeah, we have to save the little brat too. But they should have the guy with the rifle ready and tried getting the kid out without shooting.Take the shot if necessary.
A four year old is generally unlikely to be reading said “clearly posted” rules or procedures. 
The issue is whether a kid will escape from a parent’s supervision, and whether the facilities are designed for such a contingency.
Which will happen on occasion, despite any “clearly posted rules” - if you admit young children, it is pretty well a certainty. Why should zoos not be held to the standard of taking measures for preventing a very reasonably foreseeable hazard?
OK, thank you.
Very much agreed. Same with most museums, theaters, libraries, sports venues, and most kinds of parks.
I dunno, release the gorillas?
Aggressive moves like “pick him up and drag him around”?
Come on, its a half ton sack of muscle holding a four year old, the gorilla could have broken that child in two without even meaning to, its not really a situation in which you wait another ten minutes hoping the toddler doesn’t accidentally get stood on.
BTW, the European Zoo Association has published zoo design guidelines.
[emphasis]
See: “EAZA Standards for the Accommodation and Care of Animals in Zoos and Aquaria” (A PDF).
Seems sensible enough: any place a child could fall, should be guarded by a barrier capable of preventing that fall - because posted signage is obviously insufficient.
This zoo didn’t meet that standard: the kid managed to go through the barrier and fell into the moat. The barrier was not “capable of restraining children from falling”.
I realize that is European and the zoo was in the US; but if zoos in Europe can meet that standard, there is no reason why zoos in the US can’t.
It wasn’t the first option. The keepers had used commands that the gorillas generally know mean to leave the enclosure area. The female gorillas did just that (there were 2 females in the enclosure, too). The male did not.
Do not post personal insults in this forum.
Pylesos, even though you aren’t addressing another poster, you are out of bounds with this post. You can express your frustration, but this type of unnecessary and inflammatory language doesn’t belong here. From the registration agreement (bolding mine):
I wasn’t aware of that. Thank you for the information. It helps to know they did try something before shooting.
Well, the Lincoln Park zoo in Chicago uses very thick plexiglass to separate great apes and humans. See here. No way for either party to get through the barrier. Every so often one of the big silverbacks flings himself full force at the window. Not even a crack. It’s pretty secure.
One of the neat things about it is that the apes can choose to get up close and look at you, which is really cool, or retreat if they don’t feel like getting close to people. Same for the kids, too - they can get up close or stand at the back of the room they’re in.
I didn’t want to watch the video because I don’t want to see the gorilla getting shot.
But I watched the portion where the gorilla drags a kid through the moat. The kid is in obvious danger. Authorities did the right thing by killing that gorilla ASAP after watching that.
It would be even better if zoos no longer existed though. If people want their kids to see exotic animals they can watch Animal Planet. Nothing sadder than see a pacing tiger because it’s gone insane from being in a cage.