Recently there was an incident that occurred in the Cincinnati Zoo. A little boy fell into a pit with a huge gorilla named Harambe. The little boy was dragged around, but no serious damage was done to that child. Supposedly, the people claim Harambe was trying to protect the boy. However, in case the gorilla meant ill intent, the security shot him down. There is a lot of controversy going on about the zoo killing a rare beast like Harambe. Should they have left Harambe alone with the child and come up with a rescue plan of sorts? Or should they have just shot him down and prevent the child from any injuries? The zoo had to make a tough decision and they chose the latter.
What occurred in my mind is that humans and maybe any other animal are never satisfied. Whether things go one way or the other, there is always conflict. If the boy ended up being seriously injured due to falling in the pit with a 419 pound gorilla because of the irresponsible parents then maybe society would be outraged at why Harambe wasn't put down any earlier. Everyone has their different opinions and that's why arguments and controversy spread so easily. In any case, R.I.P Harambe.
In my opinion the zoo should've had a tranquilizer gun on hand in order to put Haramabe to sleep rather than kill him. There were many different ways to handle this situation but I believe the zoo made a mistake in killing him.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it was a huge mistake to kill a glorious beast such as Harambe. Like Angela said, the zoo should've kept a tranquilizer gun on them to handle a situation like that. I believe the parents were at fault for being irresponsible enough to let their child fall into a gorilla, and the zoo should've been able to respond to that situation much better. However, the child was dragged under water for a decent amount of time and would have ended up severely harmed, and because they didn't have a tranq-gun on them, the only option was to shoot Harambe. Harambe had to die, but he didn't deserve to die. Harambe was a peaceful creature who minded his own business until a child fell into his habitat. He was confused and acted out of his confusion, like any animal would have, and he was killed for that. Harambe will be remembered and loved. Let us put it out for Harambe.
ReplyDeleteMy question is why the zoos security doesn't have tranq guns with them. If you're working in a zoo with dangerous animals, tranq guns should be a priority for protection. Its very sad to hear that Harambe had to die when it could have just been knocked out for a little while if she wasn't shot with a real gun.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought up this issue. In response to the others, it has been mentioned that the zoo was ready to tranquilize Harambe but feared that it would anger him, leading to endangerment of the child. Animals kept in captivity for long periods of time can always act unpredictably. Although Harambe seemed to have no ill intentions, the zoo made the right decision which panned out unfortunately for all parties involved.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, Harambe's death was the unfortunate result of carelessness from the parents. However, I believe this is an issue that goes much deeper than bad parenting. In the long run, zoos should not be a permanent part of our culture because it has been proven that long periods of captivity can do great harm to the mental health of animals. Animals are part of nature and should have their freedom, rather than being pinned in a cage for our own amusement.
I believe the zoo performed the right action. Due to the situation, the zookeepers had to shoot down Harambe. Angela, Natalia, and Peter brought up the possibility of tranquilizing Harambe; however, a gorilla has thick skin which would make it longer for the substances to circulate into his body fluids and delay its effects. In this time, Harambe may have caused serious injury or death to the child.
ReplyDeleteThe people to blame for this situation were the irresponsible parents of the child. If they would have supervised their child, nome of this would have happened.
Although it does seem like it would make more sense to tranquilize Harambe, Javen brings up a good point that tranquilizer darts may not have been able to work quickly enough. I myself am not a professional zookeeper or biologist or anyone who would be knowledgeable in this area, and I haven't read arguments by people who are in a place to discuss this, so I'm going to trust that those who are trained in this sort of job and are paid to do it knew what they were doing. I'm sure there was a tranquilizer gun on hand, but I trust that the zookeepers had a good reason for doing what they did. It's not like the zoo wanted to get rid of Harambe either.
ReplyDelete