Primatologist: the barricade around the zoo's gorilla enclosure was inadequate.

[pnwmom]

Being a parent is hard. Paying full attention to a child or multiple children 100% of the time is almost impossible.

On the other hand, building a fixed zoo enclosure that could keep all unauthorized human animals out should be achievable. And this zoo enclosure lacked the secondary barrier that it should have had.

Why are so many so quick to blame the mother -- who witnesses say had other children with her. Were the blamers such perfect parents themselves, all the time? Did they keep an eye on every child, 100% of the time? Did they never have to drop a child's hand? Were they ever parents at all?


P.S. That whole zoo should be carefully inspected for similar problems in design and/or maintenance.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/mother-of-boy-who-fell-into-gorilla-enclosure-lashes-out-at-critics/news-story/4bcae24f7d62ad0fd2841ebc8ee6d3f4

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals primatologist Julia Gallucci said the barricade around the enclosure was inadequate.

“Yet again, captivity has taken an animal’s life. The gorilla enclosure should have been surrounded by a secondary barrier between the humans and the animals to prevent exactly this type of incident,” she said in a statement to News Corp.

“Gorillas have shown that they can be protective of smaller living beings and react the same way any human would to a child in danger. ... This tragedy is exactly why PETA urges families to stay away from any facility that displays animals as sideshows for humans to gawk at.”

[TreasonousBastard]

1. You may have noticed...

that every time there's a tragedy of some sort the amateur experts and ethicists come out of the woodwork in droves to point their little fingers at the evildoers who were responsible.

It's really sickening.

Live a thousand miles away and never been to a zoo but read a news story and know exactly what happened, why, and who is to blame.

[Ex Lurker]

2. Because I've seen too many parents letting their little darlings run amuck in public

Being a parent is hard, but a lot of parents don't put any effort at all into it. Perhaps this mother did all they could, but based on my personal observation of so many others, probably not. And based on her posts on social media, she is taking no responsibility, showing no remorse, and has learned not a damn thing from this tragedy.

[TransitJohn]

3. She's guilty of negligence and child endangerment.

She chose to not pay attention to her kid. This is indisputable. I am not sure where you are coming from. Because things are hard, that absolves one of responsibility. It's hard to make ends meet, so I'll just squat in other people's property and not pay rent. It's hard to make enough money, alright???

[lunamagica]

6. What about the father?

[TransitJohn]

10. If he was there, he is too.

If a babysitter or field trip leader took the kid to the zoo AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIM THERE, they would be too. This isn't rocket surgery. Sheesh.

[pnwmom]

7. The zoo enclosure wasn't designed well enough to withstand even a 4 year old.

That is indisputable.

[TransitJohn]

11. How many decades have gone by without children climbing into said enclosure?

Why give this family special dispensation and blame the zoo?

[CincyDem]

18. 37 years - 44+ million visitors. n/t

[Major Nikon]

95. How does that change the fact that it was defeated by a 3 year old?

[pnwmom]

9. You don't know what distracted her, do you? Why are you assuming she "chose" not to pay attention?

[TransitJohn]

12. It doesn't matter what distracted to her.

She failed to prevent her kid from climbing into a wild animal's habitat. How is this so confusing?

[pnwmom]

14. The zoo enclosure was badly designed. It couldn't even keep a 4 year old out. How is this confusing?

[Beaverhausen]

17. Thousands and thousands of other children managed not to jump into the enclosure

It's not really confusing at all.

[pnwmom]

20. The enclosure lacked the secondary barrier that modern standards call for. This has been

a problem in other zoos. I remember a case with a tiger a number of years ago.

[CincyDem]

22. When you visited Cincinnati Zoo - what was it you noticed about the barrier ?

I ask because the clarity of your conclusion must be based on both enclosure design expertise and a thorough assessment of this particular enclosure.

[pnwmom]

23. The primatologist said it lacked a secondary barrier. She would have been able to tell that

by viewing it.

And the child crawled under the railing. The railing shouldn't have been high enough for a child to crawl under it.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/Saturday-was-first-barrier-breach-at-Cincinnati-Zoo-s-Gorilla-World-since-1978-opening/39787050

The boy crawled under a railing and through wires and bushes to make it into Gorilla World before falling 15 feet into a moat surrounding the yard.

[Ms. Toad]

28. Railing = primary barrier; Wires = secondary barrier

Bushes = third barrier.

Time & investigation will tell whether the barriers need to be further improved, but I don't put much stock in a PETA primatologist who says there needs to be a secondary barrier when every report I've seen that expressly discussed barriers mentions three barriers.

[pnwmom]

29. Bushes as a barrier? And a railing that can be crawled under, and wires of some description.

Yes, time and investigation will tell whether these were adequate. But I can't imagine that they'll say a rail with space under it for a 4 year old to crawl under is acceptable.

[Ms. Toad]

34. The question isn't whether it is acceptable -

but whether the commentary you are reciting is an appropriate source for critique that should be given any deference.

The PETA commentary faults them for not having more than one. Every article recited three barriers. Even as you quote the PETA report damning them for not having more than one barrier, you quote one of the articles that describes three barriers. If the basis for their criticism is that they don't have more than one, when in fact they have three, I have no interest in anything else they have to say.

As to whether it is adequate - time and investigations will tell. My only point is that criticism that is based on demonstrably false information should carry no weight at all.

[pnwmom]

35. Do we know that bushes are considered a barrier in zoo terms?

[Ms. Toad]

38. Even if they aren't, that still leaves a primary barrier and a secondary barrier.

So the criticism is still based on demonstrably false information - the asserted lack of a secondary barrier.

And if the point of barriers is to make crossing from point A to point B more challenging, bushes certainly fit the bill. It's one of the reasons people build bush rows between them and their next-door neighbors.

Whether it was an adequate tertiary barrier, intended to serve as a barrier, or would be acceptable from a primatological standpoint is a different question. One, again, I am not interested in hearing from at least this particular PETA primatologist about. If she can't get basic factual information correct before issuing a condemnation, I certainly don't trust her to objectively evaluate whether the zoo had appropriate barriers.

[pnwmom]

50. Unless, as some people think, the wire and railing were connected into one barrier. We don't know,

as you have said before, until there is a real investigation.

[Ms. Toad]

57. My only concern is that the PETA primatologist's evaluation is inherently unreliable, since she is

chose to speak and condemn based on demonstrably erroneous facts. Her credibility is shot, as far as I'm concerned, even if she makes another pronouncement based on accurate facts.

That boy who cried wolf thing.

[jberryhill]

58. Res Ipsa Loquitur

A barrier that can be defeated by a child is, by definition, insufficient.

[Ms. Toad]

67. First - that's a different question.

My comments were directed to whether the PETA primatologist's opinion should be given any weight. The primatologist condemned the zoo for not having a secondary barrier. Every report I've seen mentions not only a primary barrier, but a secondary one, a tertiary one, and in some cases a quaternary one as well. Any expert who ignores the facts to reach the conclusion they want to reach is not an expert I trust.

As to res ipsa, there's no black box under the exclusive control of the zoo out that produced an outcome one would not normally expect to occur absent negligence within the black box. This will be an ordinary negligence claim, with everyone pointing their fingers at everyone else and plenty of evidence as to causation. The outcome may be the same, but not based on a theory of res ipsa. I expect, if it goes to court, there will also be parental contributory negligence and the liability will end up being split.

The owner of a barrier that, given enough time and ingenuity, can be defeated by a child who announces his intentions to go swim with the gorillas is not necessarily wholly responsible, if a reasonable parent hearing that pronouncement and tending multiple other children would have realized she would be unable to keep kiddo safe, should he make a serious break for it, and would have moved to an area of the zoo that did not have gorillas to swim with. (Or would have had kiddo in a strollern or on a leash, or would have enlisted additional assistance for the zoo trip.) Not to mention the possibility that, as the administrator of a daycare regularly charged with caring for large numbers of children (60), Mom may be held to an even higher standard.

[jberryhill]

68. Anything involving dangerous animals is strict liability

A gorilla enclosure which requires parental supervision to keep out children is an inadequate enclosure.

Children get separated from parents in all kinds of places. This is expected and normal behavior. It is especially true at places of special interest and attraction to children, such as zoos.

If the enclosure is built on the premise that parental effort is required to keep out a child, it is clearly inadequate to the task. We know it is inadequate, because a child did, in fact, enter the enclosure.

[Ms. Toad]

69. You'd be correct, but for the public duty exception to strict liability.

For zookeepers, and others under a public duty to keep wild animals, a showing of negligence is required.

On top of that, the injuries I am aware of were not from the gorilla, but from the fall. So because the physical injuries were not the result of the gorilla acting like a gorilla, that is an additional strike against strict liability.

As to whether the barrier is adequate, since this is the first time the barrier has been breached in 140 years, with millions of zoo visitors, you've got a hard sell that the barriers require parental effort to keep children out. I do a fair amount of time in child care, and there are children who are escape artists. Normally effective barriers are about as effective as tissue paper. So the success of a child in conquering a barrier does not inherently make the barrier inadequate.

[Ms. Toad]

92. Seriously? If you're old enough to have a DU account, you should have no trouble

understanding the difference.

Princess = abstract fantasy, in all likelihood connected to Disney princesses. Certainly nothing to do with Queen Elizabeth - or with sharing physical space with Queen Elizabeth.

I'm going to swim with the gorillas = concrete expression of an intended act (swimming with the gorillas) that is consistent with the present physical surroundings (the moat for swimming - in the enclosure with gorillas, 15 feet below where the boy is standing when he expresses his intent).

Any responsible parent would have at least enough warning bells going off to keep their eye on that child to make sure they didn't try to make good on their intent.

On the other hand, even if you had some reason to believe your daughter meant she wanted to be Queen Elizabeth's daughter - AND you were standing behind some barriers with Queen Elizabeth passing by, stating that she intended to be a princess is not an expresson of a threatened action from which you should protect either your daughter or Queen Elizabeth.

Sheesh.

[Ms. Toad]

94. I'd say it is pretty darn concrete,

considering that is EXACTLY what he did, moments after announcing what he was going to do.

Aside from caring for my own child, I have provided child care for nearly 3 decades to more than 100 children his age. this was a real-but-lacking-any-comprehension-of-danger expression of intent that should set off warning bells in any parent's or caregiver's head that he might actually attempt it.

So did your daughter manage to become a princess in under 20 minutes? Make any serious attempt to knock of royalty to snag their title? Didn't think so.

[CincyDem]

30. A primatologist with an agenda...

I agree with your point that blaming the parents is an exercise in crazy. Energetic, curious 4-year olds can be a handful even 1:1 and something like this takes just a moment to escalate. I recently saw a comment that there are about 100 million seconds in a 4 year old's life and dropping your guard at the wrong 3-4 seconds can be devastating. Not purposeful, and not the focus of blame but still devastating.

Regarding the primatologist opinion, I respect the competency that her credentials imply and I submit that her agenda is more focused on the evils of zoos in general rather than an objective assessment of this particular zoo enclosure. This is much like quoting a climatologist working for Exxon-Mobil or the Koch Brothers when he says "...there are still many may questions regarding climate change".

As to your point about the entire zoo...I'm sure that will be the case. 37 years, 44 million visitors - no incidents. And that clock starts over again this weekend.

[snooper2]

79. This story will only be hugh for about 37 more hours...just FYI

[trumad]

49. You are shouting at a wall pnwmom

Sometimes this place defies reason.

[trueblue2007]

26. the ZOO should make her pay for the gorilla that her in-attention caused the murder of gorilla

[Bucky]

81. and for the cost of the bullets too, right?

[wallyworld2]

60. I do not think

that any child's life should be at risk of attack at any zoo.

No matter how responsible the parent is.

If there is a possibility of attack from those wild animals, there ought to be a warning, visitors lives may be at risk when entering this zoo because it is too hard to build a secure wild animal enclosure.

We did not have the time to review the security of our wild animal enclosures on a regular basis.

We think they are secure enough as it is.

Good luck.

Weapons will not be allowed on site for the protection of the animals.

[catnhatnh]

72. You mean

no matter how IR-responsible the parents are, right?

[wallyworld2]

73. One thing I know

for sure.

The child was able to get into a gorilla exhibit.

Which makes the zoo, the one not responsible in my book.

At the very least they should have posted, at the entry to the zoo, their exhibits are not secure and children are at risk when entering this facility.

[secondwind]

64. The child went through several barriers.. when did she begin to miss him?

[MH1]

4. I wonder about the enclosure too.

But I think any zoo that doesn't have perfect enclosures for ALL dangerous animals, should have a new rule: there must be at least one adult in a group for every child under 12. (Or 16. or whatever age makes sense.)

I do blame someone for taking children to a zoo and not having enough other adults around to make sure the children are properly supervised. Sorry if that is harsh. I have been to a zoo with small kids and there were always more adults than kids, and we ALL watched ALL the kids.

[mainer]

5. One witness said the kid was running around, uncontrollable

I wonder if he was hyperactive and just too much for Mom to handle? In which case, maybe a leash would have been appropriate for this particular kid. Don't laugh -- a kiddie leash has saved many a poor Mom from losing her child.

[killbotfactory]

25. My daughter was a runner at around 3yo

It made going to any store where she couldn't sit in a cart incredibly stressful. We lived next to a busy road, so we bought a leash so she couldn't make a mad dash for the road. when we used it to play outside for a while, several people we knew drove by and gave us grief about it later.

Personally I would not expect a zoo to have easy access to such dangerous animals, and can't believe the mother is getting so much hate.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. Opinions are subjective. nt

[roamer65]

74. The kid shouldn't have been in that exhibit.

There should be age limits and parents smart enough to know not where to take their out of control children.

[stone space]

8. Asking for gorilla cages to be childproofed is too much.

That would be like asking folks not to leave loaded guns lying around where children can find them.

Better to blame the parents for not having the foresight to put their kids on a leash.

Folks are talking about this as if the mother boosted the kid up on her shoulders so he could make it over the fence.

[cilla4progress]

13. What about dad?

Why do men get off the hook (if one was present...)?

[ToxMarz]

40. Maybe he has two Moms

[cilla4progress]

44. I considered

That.

[eissa]

15. If only Polly Klass' mom had paid better attention

her daughter would not have been abducted from her home. Nor would the thousands of other children who in a matter of seconds managed to slip away from mostly attentive parents and fall into a pool, run into the street, or tumble down the stairs.

I have two kids. One was very easy, the other an absolute handful. We did our best but accidents do happen, luckily nothing remotely close to this. I don't know these parents. Maybe they're amazing, maybe they're morons. All I know is that blaming them entirely for the actions of what appears to be a rambunctious child is pretty harsh. Not as harsh as having to kill a beautiful animal, of course. This was tragic all around and hopefully measures will be put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again.

[mnhtnbb]

16. I have been a parent at the zoo when my child got out of my sight

and we were 1:1 parent to child ratio.

I'm not excusing the mother. All I'm saying is that kids can get out of your sight in nothing flat.
There should have been witnesses to whether the mom realized the kid was gone--and how she reacted--before
the kid was seen falling into the gorilla enclosure.

See my post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7867130

It may have been a perfect storm kind of accident. Inattentive mom, hyper excited kid,
loophole in access to the enclosure and whammo.

Then you have the crowd reacting--yelling, screaming--when they probably should have all just shut up
to not threaten the gorilla. Tranquilizers don't take effect immediately. The gorilla could have fallen
over and crushed the kid. He could have drowned the kid dragging it around in the moat. (Have you watched
the video? It's horrifying.) It does look like the gorilla was protecting the kid until people started all the yelling/screaming.

The whole thing was just a nightmare. For everybody. I lean towards feeling more awful for the zoo family, though, because
I suspect the mom didn't think her kid could/would get into such trouble so fast. Having had two boys myself, I know how
much trouble they can get themselves into in record time.

[pnwmom]

19. Thanks for the thoughtful post, mnhtnbb. You might be interested

in the addition I just made to the OP -- a primatologist who says the enclosure wasn't adequate. It lacked a secondary barrier.

[mnhtnbb]

32. Seeming more like a perfect storm...

[Arazi]

21. That exhibit had been open 38 years without incident. Millions had visited there

Parents fault

[pnwmom]

24. And yet the railing was high enough that a 4 year old could crawl under it.

This is why all exhibits for dangerous animals need a secondary barrier.

[Squinch]

27. I haven't seen the zoo in question, but I keep thinking that if a 4 year old could figure out how

to get in, a gorilla could figure out how to get out.

[CincyDem]

33. Not so...and Cincinnati Zoo has never had an escaped animal situation.

The way this particular enclosure is designed would require the gorilla to cross a moat AND scale a 15' polished cement wall. The enclosure is inspected daily to ensure no debris has fallen in a way that would enable escape (read that tree limbs and the like).

This energetic, curious, determined 4 year old found a way "in"...that involved falling down the 15' wall into the moat. After 37 years and 44 million visitors, young Issac found the hole in the enclosure. Maybe it was there for 37 years and never seen...maybe it just appeared last week with the dying of a bush or falling of a rock. Either way - he found it.

The zoo will be inspecting all of their enclosures. In addition to ensuring they keep the "wild" animals in, they'll likely be putting more emphasis on keeping the human ones out.

[pnwmom]

37. The article said he crawled under a railing. The railing must have had too high a gap. nt

[CincyDem]

45. Not sure what the news said and I haven't been there this year yet...

...my recollection (and it's ONLY that) is that the railing is about adult waist high and the area below it is chain linked fencing.

Given where the kid appears to have landed in the videos I've seen, I suspect he worked his way between the chain link and the wall at the side of the enclosure. That's just a guess and him actually falling doesn't appear to be on any videos at this point.

Cincinnati Zoo holds a unique position in the community relative to other major zoos and this is on the top of everyone's mind. I'm sure we'll get a full accounting of how the kid found what weakness and what's being done with this enclosure specifically and all enclosures in general to ensure there's no repeat.

I thought I'd toss in the most recent local coverage...

http://local12.com/news/local/zoo-director-not-pointing-fingers-over-harambe-incident

...as well as a commentary from a primatologist that might bring a little more objectivity to the question. Note two things about his comments. First - easy decision to second guess and a terribly difficult decision to make in situ while event are unfolding. Second - in the p.s. "I have now seen an unedited video, which makes the situation look even worse because apart from the gorilla’s behavior, the water also poses a danger to the child."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/rip-harambe

[pnwmom]

48. Thanks for the additional info. Yes, the water posed a special danger because

the child could have drowned even if the gorilla didn't mean to harm him.

[passiveporcupine]

41. I disagree

the zoo got lucky. If it was that easy for a kid to get in, it was a barrier problem.

[Ed Suspicious]

42. The worlds most irresponsible parents? Really? That's your conclusion? This one in several million

kid and parents were cunning enough to beat the completely adequate security that no other family was able to get beyond?

[jberryhill]

59. So what?

Ask any lawyer. Any one at all. The law here is quite clear.

[bucolic_frolic]

31. Someday there will be

an instant sleep microchip

[LibDemAlways]

36. If the child was able to slip in, the safeguards weren't adequate

to keep him out. Of course parents should watch their children, but ultimately the zoo has a responsibility to create fullproof barriers that keep the public separate from the animals. Obviously, this was not the case.

[McCamy Taylor]

39. A sane parent would assume that a sane zoo knew how to build a safe enclosure.

If the zoo is not "kid safe", then they should make it adult only and post a big warning.

The zoo is 100% negligent in this case.

[brer cat]

46. Thanks for the effort, pnwmom.

The heavy-duty blaming of the mother is very disturbing. We sure have a lot of people who "know" what happened. Do you suppose they were all there to witness the entire event and talk to the mother?

[magical thyme]

47. the mother should have known up front that one adult cannot control 4 small children at once

especially with the baby in her arms instead of a stroller.

She should not have gone to the zoo with 4 little kids, especially with both an infant and a toddler. Either plan your trips in public with with your spouse or with a close friend or relative, or put the runners on leashes, or stay home.

The zoo has probably had millions of visitors over its nearly 4 decades without a single incident.

They should institute a couple new rules: no more than 2 small children per supervising adult, and babies in strollers so parents hands are free to restrain 2nd child.

[LisaL]

55. In 38 years, nobody gotten in.

[jberryhill]

61. So what?

In 51 years, I have not kidnapped a child. Would you like me to babysit yours?

[itsrobert]

51. That is obvious

A child should never be able to get in/fall into a gorilla enclosure. The zoo is at fault. Anyone blaming the mother/parents is an idiot.

[Aristus]

52. 'Inadequate.'

So was that mother's parenting skills...

[LisaL]

53. Well, considering PETA thinks animals shouldn't be in zoos to begin with, would this guy find

any enclosure adequate?

[mudstump]

54. The lack of a proper barrier is exactly why this mother should have ahold of her kids hands.

Barrier or no barrier....a parent or guardians top job is to keep kids safe. Were the parents distracted by cell phones?....did they take too many kids to properly watch? Were they talking to other adults and not paying attention? It only takes a second for something bad to happen. I was a careful mother and in situations like that I would have insisted that I hold my four-year-old son's hand.

[pnwmom]

66. Can you say that you were 100% attentive with all of your children 100% of the time?

Did one child never distract you from another?

Could it be that most of us are just lucky we never had a moment when something terrible did happen?

[zalinda]

56. As an observer it is interesting

on who is blaming the zoo and who is blaming the mother. Very interesting.

Z

[Nay]

89. It is, isn't it? I have to wonder if ANY of the mom blamers have ever had

kids, for one thing. Kids can be SLIPPERY LITTLE DEVILS. I can have plenty of disgust over parents who seat their children on the edge of the fence, hold them over an animal pen, etc., but this woman did nothing but lose track of her kid for a few minutes. I bet you a gazillion dollars that the zoo has a dozen lost kids a week, at least. There is no way that ANY parent of a lost 4 yr old would think that the child would so easily and quickly be able to breach a gorilla enclosure (except for exceptionally paranoid parents, like myself).

For all I know, part of the mom-hating is actually woman-hating, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

And when I found out today that the family is black (albeit very light-skinned), then racism entered the mix.

All of the above really calls into question the ability of most people to make observant, unemotional, rational, weighted decisions about liability, fault, etc., on the merits of the case, not on primitive passions/emotions. Please, God, may I never be subject to a jury full of these people.

[Rex]

62. It is amazing this did not happen until now with millions of parents and children attending

the gorilla enclosure for decades. Sometimes a tragedy must happen for flaws to manifest themselves. I feel sorry for the family, what a total nightmare and RIP poor gorilla that did nothing wrong.

[Nay]

88. It's possible that the flaw in the barrier developed over time -- erosion, rusty fence

that easily fell apart, crumbly cement that finally opened a hole, etc. -- but even if that was not the case, the zoo would most likely be liable. The fact that no other kids fell in in past years is immaterial and irrelevant. If this child had been 14 instead of 4 and catapulted himself into the enclosure, we could make a defense that the 14 yr old willfully overcame the barriers and was old enough to know better. You can never say that of a 4 yr old.

It is a nightmare, for the family, the poor gorilla, the keepers, and the zoo itself. I've been reading the threads on this and I am appalled at quite a few of the illogical, vituperative and irrelevant comments. Not too many people take logic courses anymore, that's for sure.

[Rex]

91. Critical thinking lost it's appeal years ago.

You make a very good point.

[Hoppy]

63. In the Bronx Zoo, primates are viewed from behind a glass enclosure.

Tigers? You get on the elevated tram and you are about 30 feet above the tiger enclosure.

Cobra? Class enclosure with a note: Don't tap on the glass. What are you going to do if it breaks?

[pnwmom]

65. I would expect that the "glass" is actually safety glass that shouldn't break with a tap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughened_glass

Buildings and structures

Toughened glass is also used in buildings for unframed assemblies (such as frameless glass doors), structurally loaded applications, and any other application that would become dangerous in the event of human impact. Tempered and heat strengthened glass can be three to seven times stronger than annealed glass.[1] Building codes in the United States require tempered or laminated glass in several situations including some skylights,[2] near doorways and stairways, large windows, windows which extend close to floor level, sliding doors, elevators, fire department access panels, and near swimming pools.

[Luminous Animal]

70. And even if you are 100% observant, sometimes you cannot properly access the risk.

A two year old fell through a gap between the sidewalk and the roadway on the Golden Gate bridge ten or so years ago. Nothing like this had ever happened in 50+ years. Parents will often trust the designers and architects to make the right decisions. Designers and architects think they have it covered.

It is sad that this gorilla was killed. Every part of this story is but a series of hard choices and unfortunate events.

[Initech]

71. But why did they shoot it with live fucking ammo instead of a tranquilizer?

That is what's puzzling me. Whoever made that call is the one who should get the blame for this.

[Initech]

86. But there could have been at least some solution where the kid and the gorilla both survive right?

[Nay]

90. The gorillas (there were 3 of them) were called and called to come into their

smaller enclosure, but the male refused to come. The keepers wanted to sequester the gorillas so they could go get the child. Once it was apparent the male was going to drag and toss the child, there was no other option quick enough to save the child. They made the correct call.

[Bucky]

84. Very good question. For an animal that size, a tranq takes over 30 seconds to kayo the beast

Drugged and wounded animals can sometimes go into a rage, thus further endangering the child.

This is why they're not tranqing Donald Trump during his press conferences

[Initech]

85. That is a good point!