opinion

A gorilla is dead and a child is alive, that is the way it had to be.

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."

The death of Harambe could not be avoided. If it could have been avoided it would have. The workers at Cincinnati Zoo loved Harambe.

Mourners must remember that Harambe - however gentle he appeared - was also a 200kg wild animal and wild animals are unpredictable.

Countless are the instances where a loving family dog has suddenly turned, where a tame creature has acted out and even where a gorilla has attacked a woman and pulled her into its enclosure.

In 2007 a much-loved gorilla named Bokito escaped his enclosure and viciously attacked a woman who had been watching him. The woman was dragged along the ground, her bones fracturing as Bokito lay more than a hundred bites across her battered body.

The woman had been a regular visitor of Bokito who had often smiled at the primate. Primatologists believe smiling is misinterpreted by apes to be a sign of aggression.

The unintended communication may have been the reason why Bokito chose her out of the crowd, or it could have been a simple case of coincidence or, who knows the reason because we are human and can't know what a gorilla is thinking.

It will never be known because gorillas - however advanced they are at communication, however much we feel we have a connection to them - are still wild animals.

Watch the footage of Harambe and the child. Post continues after video...

There are so many, 'maybes' and 'what ifs' that have surfaced as a result of this incident.

Harambe is dead and speculation as to what may have happened if he was left to be with that little boy in the enclosure will offer nothing other than more questions. More 'what ifs'. More 'whys'.

There is only one certainty in the case of Harambe: The bullet that killed him didn't just take the life of a 17-year-old gorilla, it took away the very big risk that a little boy might die too.

Related Stories

Recommended

Top Comments

Laura Palmer 8 years ago

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.

Zepgirl 8 years ago

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.

ellaa 8 years ago

Yes, most definitely!


squish 8 years ago

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?

Zepgirl 8 years ago

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.'

Guest 8 years ago

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.

ellaa 8 years ago

I said the same thing elsewhere! Sick of the excuses.

squish 8 years ago

So if had been an older child; say 6, and in Reception? The point still stands.