A magnificent 17-year-old endangered Silverback gorilla is dead and a 4-year-old child is alive today and in the end, that is the way it had to be.
Harambe the gorilla from a Cincinnati zoo was killed on the weekend for a reason and it’s a good one.
The powerful, wild animal was shot dead after a 4-year-old boy somehow managed to fall into its enclosure. Up until that Sunday, the barrier had been effective for 38 years.
We've seen the footage. A little boy in a moat of water and Harambe suddenly dragging him by a foot up stream. Then down stream. Sudden. Strong. People above screaming and filming.
The screams rise. The gorilla is behind something and we can't see. Then a shot.
Images of the gentle way the gorilla moved the child were released today and thousands have been vocal about how angry they are over the decision to shoot-to-kill rather than tranquilise.
But this anger is misplaced. There was a single and clear choice on that Sunday. It was the choice between a 4-year- old boy and a gorilla. The boy wins.
The shot that killed Harambe was a necessity.
It needed to be a bullet and not a tranquiliser as zoo staff knew tranquilizers would take too long to immobilise - and can also cause aggression.
Do you really believe that the trained animal caretakers, who have looked after, fed cared for and taken these endangered animals to medical appointments would have wanted to shoot Harambe?
Chief executive of Twycross Zoo in Leicestershire, Dr Sharon Redrobe told Metro why a tranquiliser would have been ineffective.
"Tranquillising the gorilla with a dart just simply wouldn’t have worked in this situation," she said. "It would have taken up to 10 minutes to take affect and the animal may have become violent which would have had catastrophic consequences."
Top Comments
Of course the gorilla had to be shot, the boy was more important. However, the parents have to take some responsibility for the death of this gorilla and putting their child in danger. Yes, accidents happen, but accidents are often caused by humans acting irresponsibly and sometimes humans have to wear the fact that they had a part in the accident happening and make ammends. The child had already tried to get in the enclosure several time and the parents were not watching. They have some fault in this, as does the zoo for having an enclosure so unsecured that a 4 year old could get in.
Yeah, I agree. If they had been very contrite and apologetic and said that they felt devastated by what had happened they might have fared better in this whole media circus.
Yes, most definitely!
If this had happened on a school excursion and it had been a teacher rather than a parent in charge of the child, would we be having the same argument?
I daresay we would, but we'd be saying, 'How come the teachers weren't supervising him properly? Teachers these days are so irresponsible, she was probably looking at her phone the whole bloody time.'
Most 4 year olds are attending kindergarten/pre-school and would not be taken on such an excursion for the simple reason they are still unpredictable and hard to keep track of.
I said the same thing elsewhere! Sick of the excuses.
So if had been an older child; say 6, and in Reception? The point still stands.