Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the one hand people criticize parents for using leashes on their children in crowded public settings...
And that is something I wish people would stop doing! Particularly in busy setting where a parent can easily be distracted, or if the kiddo is one of those sudden bolters, a child leash is a wonderful safety precaution!
When it comes to busy toddlers, better safe than sorry.
Hence how it was easy for the zoo to act as it did and just kill the "animal".
I can assure you that it was not an easy decision for anyone at the zoo to make. Anyone who is working at a zoo does so because they care deeply about the animals there. They don't want to see them harmed, and they certainly don't want to kill them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy
Back in December 2007 there was the infamous tiger incident at the San Francisco Zoo where a female tiger somehow got out of her enclosure and killed one young man and injured two brothers. Some eyewitnesses said the guys were taunting lions earlier. And supposedly one of the brothers later admitted to the father of the slain man that they were yelling and waving at the tiger.
Regardless, the brothers sued the city and zoo and later received $900,000. The family of the deceased man also settled later with the city and zoo.
It was found later that the walls surrounding the moat were actually four feet shorter than the American Zoo Association's recommendations, and six feet shorter than what the San Francisco Zoo had originally claimed.
That is completely different. The Cincinnati zoo's barriers meet the guidelines in place. The San Francisco Zoo was sued because the tiger should not have been able to get out. It was wrong of the guys to be taunting the animals, but the tiger could have seriously injured or killed others, and that would have been completely on the zoo. I believe it was also stated that after the tiger escaped, two of the brothers tried to seek shelter in a locked cafe, but staff would not let them in. Which was also wrong of the zoo staff.
Although I would say that both of these zoo instances show that people should get involved in other people's business. Eyewitnesses heard the child telling his mom he wanted to go swimming in the gorilla habitat and saw him going over the fence, but assumed the mother would take care of it. If someone would have just grabbed the child instead of minding their own business, things could have turned out differently. Same with the San Francisco Zoo. People saw them taunting the animals, but did they say anything to zoo staff? I've come across rude people at the zoo, and I have no problem reporting them to staff. I'll even say something to the parents when their kids are being obnoxious and banging on the glass. At the St Louis Zoo there is a phone number to call and report any misbehavior. All zoos should have this information so people know that such behavior is not acceptable.
And that is something I wish people would stop doing! Particularly in busy setting where a parent can easily be distracted, or if the kiddo is one of those sudden bolters, a child leash is a wonderful safety precaution!
When it comes to busy toddlers, better safe than sorry.
I personally think the animal back pack leashes are adorable, and think more people should use them. And the animal theme goes along great with a zoo visit. Maybe zoos should start renting them along with the strollers.
This is a great post and illustrates the hypocrisy of those we're dealing with.
All that long-winded post points out is that the poster thinks she knows the opinions of all the posters, on various issues. Wow. Her filing system must be extraordinary.
Fact: There's no hypocrisy from this little girl because I'm (I don't keep notes on other posters) just as angry about parents leaving kids in hot cars. And, BTW, I'm vehemently opposed to zoos.
Thank you. I likewise just tried to rep you with the same result.
I listed a bunch of other threads where this is prevalent. One of them was closed when I pointed out, in that thread, the prevalence of such self-righteousness.
On one of them I asked advice about going to a high school reunion where I was going to see someone who I had known since 1972. I mentioned recent tensions as a possible reason not to go. The people first faulted me for bringing up events going back to Nixon's presidency (I was giving a time frame for the relationship) and then suggesting that I avoid the reunion since I was likely to start a fight.
Absurd since that is about the last thing that I would do. I have personally not belted anyone since early 1972, when I was still 14 or 15.
I started to read the threads you posted for me last night and had to stop. It's all a little too Schadenfreude for my taste.
All that long-winded post points out is that the poster thinks she knows the opinions of all the posters, on various issues. Wow. Her filing system must be extraordinary.
Fact: There's no hypocrisy from this little girl because I'm (I don't keep notes on other posters) just as angry about parents leaving kids in hot cars. And, BTW, I'm vehemently opposed to zoos.
In other words, you're both wrong.
This thread isn't about whether or not you oppose zoos.
If you have liberal people for the unethical treatment of animals going around creating controversy and headlines for complaining about quality care zoos are trying to provide for protected animals on limited budgets and resources, there may not be any zoos to worry about.
I don't know what "liberal" has to do with this situation. We are supposed to be the caretakers of all animals. It isn't a political debate. Although the Cincinnati Zoo is one of the better ones, many of them force large animals like elephants to stand all day on concrete, which is cruel and inhumane. Large animals should also not be kept in cages. By the way, if a zoo has "limited resources" and cannot care properly for its animals, it should not be in business. I wouldn't adopt a dog if I couldn't feed it or take it for walks and I wouldn't make cats use a filthy litter box either. Let's just stick to the subject, okay? The Cincinnati Zoo hasn't experienced an incident like this in nearly 4 decades, so this has nothing to do with animal activists, only a parent who should have kept a closer watch on her child.
I am very sad and disturbed that such a beautiful animal was put down, but IMHO the zoo had no choice. The gorilla could have fallen on the child if he were tranquilized or, if the drug didn't take effect immediately, the animal could have caused serious injury to the child. I think all the shouting from the crowd got the gorilla agitated, which is why he began acting aggressively.
Last edited by justNancy; 05-31-2016 at 09:39 PM..
Who is saying send her to jail? Haven't read all the comments, but most are saying the family should be billed for the cost of having the zoo staff that had to handle the situation, and the cost of the gorilla.
There should be some fine, just like these idiots who go hiking unprepared and get lost, and a search and rescue has to done.
Stop being so dramatic.
Just logged back in. The thread is a couple dozen pages longer now. Here's one, on the first page I looked at. From Senior member pennyone. Post #430:
Quote:
No, I heard the parent may face possible charges. I really hope so. She is a negligent idiotic mother who failed to control her kid that led directly to the death of an endangered animal. I hope she gets fined and thrown in jail at the very least.
And you don't have to look long to find more. I find the whole thing smacks of racism. Mother mentioned as running a day care center. Father mentioned as a criminal. Why? He wasn't even at the zoo! If the parents were white and the father an executive at Procter & Gamble or a professor at the University of Cincinnati would there be this outrage?
So many stupid comments on this page. Blaming the parents. Calling on Child Services to investigate. Completely hard hearted and cold and ridiculous to an extreme. Must never have raised a child. Did you see the completely porous railing and four feet of shrubs between the walkway and the drop to the moat? If there is any blame, it should go to the zoo for designing an enclosure that easy for a toddler to penetrate.
Why is it cold and hard hearted to blame the parents? Could they not also see the "completely porous railing and four feet of shrubs. Should they have not wanted to protect their child from that danger?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) just as angry about parents leaving kids in hot cars. And, BTW, I'm vehemently opposed to zoos.
