Gorilla Shooting: Mums on Mars Comments

There's been a lot of cafuffle over this incident. We aim to present a fair argument, with views from each side.

Questions To Consider...

1.  Why was the zoo not held responsible for ensuring their barriers were child-proof?
2.  Incidents similar to this have been seen in the news - why is this a recurring theme?
3.  Where were staff at the time of the incident? Why was there no crowd  control?
4.  If animal rights activists and campaigners are in the right, why did zoo officials shoot dead an animal that had been in their care for years?
5. What are the benefits of taking children to zoos where dangerous animals reside? Do these benefits outweigh the obvious risks posed to small children?

Alternate scenarios 

• Child could have been killed if guns not used
• If the gorilla was tranquilised, the time child is in danger is prolonged

Key Points
- Even if parents had been more watchful of child, it's only a matter of time before an incident like this would happen with low level security
- No caring parent would knowingly allow their child to stumble into a life-threatening scenario 
  

Our Views 

The fault is not entirely the parents': In our personal opinion, whilst it is true that parents need to closely monitor their children, it is the fault of the zoo that the child was put in danger in the first place - had there been sufficient barriers, this accident would not have happened at all. That said, there is a huge risk posed to small children who visit wildlife parks, safaris and zoos and there is always the potential for accidents like this to happen. All parents and carers need to be prepared when taking out unruly children who are more likely to wander off.

The action taken was justified: Whilst in an ideal world a tranquiliser gun would have been used, it is simply not realistic - animal experts stated this could have provoked the gorilla, heightening the risk to the child. Although the gorilla was an innocent creature, the first priority of zookeepers is the protection of their customers - the public. If this situation had been left any longer, the child could have easily been killed and the zoo shut down. This is a great loss to both parties and there is never a best outcome for each side. In short, the gorilla would have sparked more outrage if the child was killed, after which point the animal would have to be euthanised anyway!

The zoo should be taking the blame: It is not the fault of the parents, or the public, or the child's that the barriers were not made sufficiently enough to prevent serious injury to a very small child - who is arguably more at risk than an adult. Children cannot make informed decisions for themselves, which is why no one has blamed the child. Both the gorilla and the child were innocent parties. The zoo have the responsibility to look after their animals and ensure their safety as well as the public's. This means that they should not be running a profitable business without first ensuring that the zoo is appropriate for all members of the public to visit. Enclosure proofing is one of the basic requirements of any exhibit and we strongly feel that the zoo has not met the most basic of standards. 

We have created the danger: Taking animals out of their natural habitat is risky and the results cannot be guaranteed. Should such sites as zoos be made available to the public if incidents like this are continually occurring? It is not natural for a silverback gorilla to be engaging with the public in Cincinnatee, just as it would not be natural for a human to reside in the gorilla's natural habitat of the forests in central Africa.