Harambe the Gorilla - What the REAL Problem is....

[Asclepias]

Like the OP said, Gorillas are highly intelligent animals. The silver backs are capable of interacting with their young very gently. When Harambe begin dragging the child around that violently that should have tipped everyone off that this situation was going south. He was treating the kid more as the beginning of a threat display than anything else.

 

[ChrisL]

This might come off as contrarian, but I agree with the overall theme here coyote. .....



BUT....



In willing to bet the idjits who dont understand the power of an animal arent all THAT numerous.

I would hope so but I'm feeling pretty cynical....

What i do for the instances of thinking "the worlds lost its common sense/everyone is stewpitt," is sit and take stock of who I know and how many would seriously think its ok and perfectly safe to go and pet a tiger.

Jokes ^ that comment easily sets up aside....

its not that many.

320million peeps, one national zoo story in how long......the odds are so low, we are actually doing well, numerically, in this regard.

I think that she is talking about all the people who are outraged that the gorilla was shot and killed and not "tranquilized." They keep saying that the gorilla would not have hurt the child, but that is a pretty risky assumption to make when it comes to the life of a human baby whose parents and others are watching. It takes up to 10 minutes for the tranquilizers to take affect and nobody knows how the gorilla would have reacted after getting shot with a tranquilizer dart. Another person had said it could have even fallen over on top the child and killed the child, and that is very true.

ahh.

well, i agree he had to be killed in the scenario as described.


chalk it up to shit happens


if harambe was in the wild and killed a kid, know what hed say if he could speak?



evolution bitch






nature of the beast......humans have and deserve the earth as a habitat as much as any other animal does

Well, IMO, zoos have outlived their purpose, really. The only animals that should be in a zoo are those that cannot survive on their own in the wild for some reason. It's pretty cruel to the animal whose natural habitat may span hundreds of miles to keep it locked up in what is basically a prison for people to look at it, laugh at it, whatever. Kind of depressing.

 

[G.T.]

This might come off as contrarian, but I agree with the overall theme here coyote. .....



BUT....



In willing to bet the idjits who dont understand the power of an animal arent all THAT numerous.

I would hope so but I'm feeling pretty cynical....

What i do for the instances of thinking "the worlds lost its common sense/everyone is stewpitt," is sit and take stock of who I know and how many would seriously think its ok and perfectly safe to go and pet a tiger.

Jokes ^ that comment easily sets up aside....

its not that many.

320million peeps, one national zoo story in how long......the odds are so low, we are actually doing well, numerically, in this regard.

I think that she is talking about all the people who are outraged that the gorilla was shot and killed and not "tranquilized." They keep saying that the gorilla would not have hurt the child, but that is a pretty risky assumption to make when it comes to the life of a human baby whose parents and others are watching. It takes up to 10 minutes for the tranquilizers to take affect and nobody knows how the gorilla would have reacted after getting shot with a tranquilizer dart. Another person had said it could have even fallen over on top the child and killed the child, and that is very true.

ahh.

well, i agree he had to be killed in the scenario as described.


chalk it up to shit happens


if harambe was in the wild and killed a kid, know what hed say if he could speak?



evolution bitch






nature of the beast......humans have and deserve the earth as a habitat as much as any other animal does

Well, IMO, zoos have outlived their purpose, really. The only animals that should be in a zoo are those that cannot survive on their own in the wild for some reason. It's pretty cruel to the animal whose natural habitat may span hundreds of miles to keep it locked up in what is basically a prison for people to look at it, laugh at it, whatever. Kind of depressing.

im on......several fences, on this issue. lol

itd make a good chat over draankz

 

[Coyote]

I've been talking with someone via pm about zoos also....so, I'll say the same thing here - zoos, well run zoos, so serve a valuable purpose.

I have mixed feeling about zoos. If they are well run, they aren't cruel and they serve an important function that people don't realize, in that they preserve the gene pools of many endangered animals, and have even successfully been able to reintroduce certain species back into the wild. There is often little we can do in the short term to halt environmental degradation and habitat loss, which endangers many species - or poaching which threatens the tiger, elephants and has now added the black rhinocerous to the list of extinct mammals in the wild. Zoos allow people to research species and their behavior in order to better understand how to protect them, or breed them for eventual re-release into the wild. The other side of zoos of course, is the public display. A well run zoo is highly conscious of balancing the need of the animals for "privacy" vs the need to be able to have the public see them, and see for themselves what they are like, in a simulated natural environment. That's the hardest part, but I think it too is necessary. There is a difference between seeing a picture of a tiger, and seeing it in the flesh where you can get a true sense of it's majesty.....

as the poet Blake put it

Tiger tiger burning bright
in the forests of the night
what immortal hand or eye
could frame thy fearful symmetry?

When people feel that connection, then they can also understand why it's so vital to save them.

Unfortunately, sad to say - the nearest zoo to me now is a dreadful little "wild animal park", a roadside zoos. Those do nothing to help the animals and are frequently poorly run and cruel.

 

[Asclepias]

The population density at zoos are unnatural and the space too limited. True the provide a link to the wild and a limited education on animal behavior but they should only be for animals that cannot be returned to the wild.

 

[rightwinger]

I've been talking with someone via pm about zoos also....so, I'll say the same thing here - zoos, well run zoos, so serve a valuable purpose.

I have mixed feeling about zoos. If they are well run, they aren't cruel and they serve an important function that people don't realize, in that they preserve the gene pools of many endangered animals, and have even successfully been able to reintroduce certain species back into the wild. There is often little we can do in the short term to halt environmental degradation and habitat loss, which endangers many species - or poaching which threatens the tiger, elephants and has now added the black rhinocerous to the list of extinct mammals in the wild. Zoos allow people to research species and their behavior in order to better understand how to protect them, or breed them for eventual re-release into the wild. The other side of zoos of course, is the public display. A well run zoo is highly conscious of balancing the need of the animals for "privacy" vs the need to be able to have the public see them, and see for themselves what they are like, in a simulated natural environment. That's the hardest part, but I think it too is necessary. There is a difference between seeing a picture of a tiger, and seeing it in the flesh where you can get a true sense of it's majesty.....

as the poet Blake put it

Tiger tiger burning bright
in the forests of the night
what immortal hand or eye
could frame thy fearful symmetry?

When people feel that connection, then they can also understand why it's so vital to save them.

Unfortunately, sad to say - the nearest zoo to me now is a dreadful little "wild animal park", a roadside zoos. Those do nothing to help the animals and are frequently poorly run and cruel.

I don't care as long as they don't have Coyotes in the zoo

 

[ChrisL]

I've been talking with someone via pm about zoos also....so, I'll say the same thing here - zoos, well run zoos, so serve a valuable purpose.

I have mixed feeling about zoos. If they are well run, they aren't cruel and they serve an important function that people don't realize, in that they preserve the gene pools of many endangered animals, and have even successfully been able to reintroduce certain species back into the wild. There is often little we can do in the short term to halt environmental degradation and habitat loss, which endangers many species - or poaching which threatens the tiger, elephants and has now added the black rhinocerous to the list of extinct mammals in the wild. Zoos allow people to research species and their behavior in order to better understand how to protect them, or breed them for eventual re-release into the wild. The other side of zoos of course, is the public display. A well run zoo is highly conscious of balancing the need of the animals for "privacy" vs the need to be able to have the public see them, and see for themselves what they are like, in a simulated natural environment. That's the hardest part, but I think it too is necessary. There is a difference between seeing a picture of a tiger, and seeing it in the flesh where you can get a true sense of it's majesty.....

as the poet Blake put it

Tiger tiger burning bright
in the forests of the night
what immortal hand or eye
could frame thy fearful symmetry?

When people feel that connection, then they can also understand why it's so vital to save them.

Unfortunately, sad to say - the nearest zoo to me now is a dreadful little "wild animal park", a roadside zoos. Those do nothing to help the animals and are frequently poorly run and cruel.

They cannot possibly provide enough room to match the animals' natural habitats though. Such as an elephant. I think it is so cruel to keep elephants in captivity, zoos and circuses.

 

[ChrisL]

Monkeys too. Monkeys are too smart. That is what got me thinking about all this stuff about zoos. When I went to the monkey exhibit years ago with my son, and they just stared at us as if to say, "we are not freaks for your entertainment." I left the zoo that day feeling pretty bad.

 

[Coyote]

The population density at zoos are unnatural and the space too limited. True the provide a link to the wild and a limited education on animal behavior but they should only be for animals that cannot be returned to the wild.

It depends on the zoos....some of them "specialize" - instead of trying to keep all number of species, they specialize in a few and try to create large natural habitats. Others, like the National Zoo - have supplemental facilities not open to the public, where there is a lot more space, where research and breeding programs exist, animals are rotated in and out of exhibits.

Like I said, I have mixed feelings but I do think they serve a valuable purpose and educating the public is vital to any preservation efforts. I went to one where they had a raptor exhibit, and a man brought out individual birds and talked to them. All of them were from a wildlife rehab center, and the birds though recovered, could not be returned to the wild as they were still too damaged. We saw others that were in the recovery process and were going to be released once ready. The California Kondor is one example of a species once prevalent that was driven almost to extinction, that was successfully reintroduced to the wild.

 

[Coyote]

I've been talking with someone via pm about zoos also....so, I'll say the same thing here - zoos, well run zoos, so serve a valuable purpose.

I have mixed feeling about zoos. If they are well run, they aren't cruel and they serve an important function that people don't realize, in that they preserve the gene pools of many endangered animals, and have even successfully been able to reintroduce certain species back into the wild. There is often little we can do in the short term to halt environmental degradation and habitat loss, which endangers many species - or poaching which threatens the tiger, elephants and has now added the black rhinocerous to the list of extinct mammals in the wild. Zoos allow people to research species and their behavior in order to better understand how to protect them, or breed them for eventual re-release into the wild. The other side of zoos of course, is the public display. A well run zoo is highly conscious of balancing the need of the animals for "privacy" vs the need to be able to have the public see them, and see for themselves what they are like, in a simulated natural environment. That's the hardest part, but I think it too is necessary. There is a difference between seeing a picture of a tiger, and seeing it in the flesh where you can get a true sense of it's majesty.....

as the poet Blake put it

Tiger tiger burning bright
in the forests of the night
what immortal hand or eye
could frame thy fearful symmetry?

When people feel that connection, then they can also understand why it's so vital to save them.

Unfortunately, sad to say - the nearest zoo to me now is a dreadful little "wild animal park", a roadside zoos. Those do nothing to help the animals and are frequently poorly run and cruel.

They cannot possibly provide enough room to match the animals' natural habitats though. Such as an elephant. I think it is so cruel to keep elephants in captivity, zoos and circuses.

That is true, and I'm so happy to see circus' ending the use of elephants. But, elephants are also endangered

 

[Coyote]

Monkeys too. Monkeys are too smart. That is what got me thinking about all this stuff about zoos. When I went to the monkey exhibit years ago with my son, and they just stared at us as if to say, "we are not freaks for your entertainment." I left the zoo that day feeling pretty bad.

Agree...and there have been incidences of chipanzees throwing stuff, and putting on angry displays at being stared at - they hate it.

 

[Asclepias]

The population density at zoos are unnatural and the space too limited. True the provide a link to the wild and a limited education on animal behavior but they should only be for animals that cannot be returned to the wild.

It depends on the zoos....some of them "specialize" - instead of trying to keep all number of species, they specialize in a few and try to create large natural habitats. Others, like the National Zoo - have supplemental facilities not open to the public, where there is a lot more space, where research and breeding programs exist, animals are rotated in and out of exhibits.

Like I said, I have mixed feelings but I do think they serve a valuable purpose and educating the public is vital to any preservation efforts. I went to one where they had a raptor exhibit, and a man brought out individual birds and talked to them. All of them were from a wildlife rehab center, and the birds though recovered, could not be returned to the wild as they were still too damaged. We saw others that were in the recovery process and were going to be released once ready. The California Kondor is one example of a species once prevalent that was driven almost to extinction, that was successfully reintroduced to the wild.

I dont have a problem with those types of facilities. The ones that keep their animals cramped up so they end up becoming psychotic are mostly the ones i will not patronize. My daughter is a wildlife biologist and she works in some of the bigger facilities here and overseas.

 

[G.T.]

just a guess..... but if an animal was more sentient than their current status..

and was cognizant that theyve no doctors, no guaranteed food or water.... and will likely die a horrible death of being chewed up while still alive, have their babies eaten also

versus


staying at an all inclusive resort with guaranteed food, sex, water, attention, love, doctors....and a little less space?

man....id betchya wed have so many animals in agreement that we'd still have zoos

 

[Coyote]

The population density at zoos are unnatural and the space too limited. True the provide a link to the wild and a limited education on animal behavior but they should only be for animals that cannot be returned to the wild.

It depends on the zoos....some of them "specialize" - instead of trying to keep all number of species, they specialize in a few and try to create large natural habitats. Others, like the National Zoo - have supplemental facilities not open to the public, where there is a lot more space, where research and breeding programs exist, animals are rotated in and out of exhibits.

Like I said, I have mixed feelings but I do think they serve a valuable purpose and educating the public is vital to any preservation efforts. I went to one where they had a raptor exhibit, and a man brought out individual birds and talked to them. All of them were from a wildlife rehab center, and the birds though recovered, could not be returned to the wild as they were still too damaged. We saw others that were in the recovery process and were going to be released once ready. The California Kondor is one example of a species once prevalent that was driven almost to extinction, that was successfully reintroduced to the wild.

I dont have a problem with those types of facilities. The ones that keep their animals cramped up so they end up becoming psychotic are mostly the ones i will not patronize. My daughter is a wildlife biologist and she works in some of the bigger facilities here and overseas.

Unfortunately - those kind are still all too common

I grew up in the DC suburbs and grew up with the National Zoo. 45 years ago, I remember the concrete cages and bars, with a few fake boulders and caves and pools that were the habitats for many animals, and they'd pace, circle, rock or just sit. It was heartbreaking. But, things changed and with it a growing awareness that this was not the way to keep animals, and over the years there were huge changes - one exibit at a time got modernized. I remember how exciting it was to go to the zoo each year and seeing the new environments and what a stark difference they were to the old concrete and iron.

 

[Coyote]

just a guess..... but if an animal was more sentient than their current status..

and was cognizant that theyve no doctors, no guaranteed food or water.... and will likely die a horrible death of being chewed up while still alive, have their babies eaten also

versus


staying at an all inclusive resort with guaranteed food, sex, water, attention, love, doctors....and a little less space?

man....id betchya wed have so many animals in agreement that we'd still have zoos

kind of like some people?

 

[Asclepias]

just a guess..... but if an animal was more sentient than their current status..

and was cognizant that theyve no doctors, no guaranteed food or water.... and will likely die a horrible death of being chewed up while still alive, have their babies eaten also

versus


staying at an all inclusive resort with guaranteed food, sex, water, attention, love, doctors....and a little less space?

man....id betchya wed have so many animals in agreement that we'd still have zoos

Nope. Youre looking at it through your human eyes. Animals love freedom. They understand death is a part of life. Whales are extremely sentient animals and you dont see them flocking to Seaworld.

 

[Coyote]

just a guess..... but if an animal was more sentient than their current status..

and was cognizant that theyve no doctors, no guaranteed food or water.... and will likely die a horrible death of being chewed up while still alive, have their babies eaten also

versus


staying at an all inclusive resort with guaranteed food, sex, water, attention, love, doctors....and a little less space?

man....id betchya wed have so many animals in agreement that we'd still have zoos

Nope. Youre looking at it through your human eyes. Animals love freedom. They understand death is a part of life. Whales are extremely sentient animals and you dont see them flocking to Seaworld.

And finally - finally - Seaworld is ending it's Orca breeding program.

 

[ChrisL]

Where do zoos get their animals?

Zoos breed their animals or acquire them from other zoos. Babies are great crowd-pleasers, but when the babies grow up, they don’t attract the same number of people, so zoos often sell them off in order to make room for younger animals. The unwanted adult animals are sometimes sold to “game” farms where hunters pay to kill them; some are killed for their meat and/or hides. Other “surplus” animals may be sold to smaller, more poorly run zoos or, worse, to laboratories for experiments.

 

[G.T.]

just a guess..... but if an animal was more sentient than their current status..

and was cognizant that theyve no doctors, no guaranteed food or water.... and will likely die a horrible death of being chewed up while still alive, have their babies eaten also

versus


staying at an all inclusive resort with guaranteed food, sex, water, attention, love, doctors....and a little less space?

man....id betchya wed have so many animals in agreement that we'd still have zoos

Nope. Youre looking at it through your human eyes. Animals love freedom. They understand death is a part of life. Whales are extremely sentient animals and you dont see them flocking to Seaworld.

lol dont tell me what an animal understands until you and i, and they, can sit at a coffee table and talk about it

 

[Asclepias]

The population density at zoos are unnatural and the space too limited. True the provide a link to the wild and a limited education on animal behavior but they should only be for animals that cannot be returned to the wild.

It depends on the zoos....some of them "specialize" - instead of trying to keep all number of species, they specialize in a few and try to create large natural habitats. Others, like the National Zoo - have supplemental facilities not open to the public, where there is a lot more space, where research and breeding programs exist, animals are rotated in and out of exhibits.

Like I said, I have mixed feelings but I do think they serve a valuable purpose and educating the public is vital to any preservation efforts. I went to one where they had a raptor exhibit, and a man brought out individual birds and talked to them. All of them were from a wildlife rehab center, and the birds though recovered, could not be returned to the wild as they were still too damaged. We saw others that were in the recovery process and were going to be released once ready. The California Kondor is one example of a species once prevalent that was driven almost to extinction, that was successfully reintroduced to the wild.

I dont have a problem with those types of facilities. The ones that keep their animals cramped up so they end up becoming psychotic are mostly the ones i will not patronize. My daughter is a wildlife biologist and she works in some of the bigger facilities here and overseas.

Unfortunately - those kind are still all too common

I grew up in the DC suburbs and grew up with the National Zoo. 45 years ago, I remember the concrete cages and bars, with a few fake boulders and caves and pools that were the habitats for many animals, and they'd pace, circle, rock or just sit. It was heartbreaking. But, things changed and with it a growing awareness that this was not the way to keep animals, and over the years there were huge changes - one exibit at a time got modernized. I remember how exciting it was to go to the zoo each year and seeing the new environments and what a stark difference they were to the old concrete and iron.

I remember as a child going to the zoo and watching this leopard that had obviously lost his mind. I remember asking my mother what they did with animals that were crazy and she told me they put them to sleep. I never wanted to go back to the zoo again after that.