Highly doubt that dolphinmaster. Tranquilizers do not work quick enough and they agitate the animal as soon as their hit with would cause more rage in an attacking animal. I'm glad they were able to tranquilize the Leopard but it would have been a different story if it was attacking someone.
It is the same principle as if someone was stabbing you with a knife would you want someone to shoot that person to put an end to it or tranquilize them and wait 2-5 minutes while being stabbed
What I take from this post, is people on this side of the water don't assess the situation to see if someone is actually in harm before they shoot. Humans are capable of making critical assessments in a fraction of a second. With proper training (which our taxes actually pay for) senseless killing isn't necessary.
In this case Hunan do good.
With gorilla, human do bad.
People got pissed about gorilla.
People compared two dissimilar situations.
That simplifies things :P
Reply
deleted
· 8 years ago
You mean there is a non-violent way of solving things??!??!
Glad I'm not the only one thinking that. I'm so tired of seeing people's post about this saying they should have tranquilized because "the gorilla wasn't even hurting the boy" despite the fact the boy was slammed into a concrete wall and suffered a concussion. They're all looking for the smallest excuse to make the zoo look bad for deciding to shoot instead.
Exactly. The gorilla was curious but he was still a gorilla he can couch a coconut with one hand. He also was not responding to special calls from the zookeepers like the other gorillas. When an animal is hit with a tranquilizers the freak out and since he had hold of the boy he most likely would have been passed off and either threw the boy or start pummeling him.
Exactly. There was a post I read on FB written by a woman that works exclusively with gorillas and she came up with multiple scenarios that could have happened had they attempted to tranquilize. She said that specific specie(silverbacks) have a history of flipping their behavior around in a split second. Even if he seemed protective, he could have killed the child in an instant anyway. Plus tranquilizer drugs take about 10 minutes to take affect. Why would you risk that child's life for another 10 minutes? Plus had the gorilla been tranquilized he could have fallen on and crushed the boy or fallen in the water and drowned itself. It's unfortunate the zoo had to come to this decision, but given the circumstances at the moment of the incident, it was absolutely the right one.
And also, had that boy died due to the zoo attempting to tranquilize the gorilla, everyone would be arguing that the gorilla should have been shot. And if the boy had died, that gorilla would likely have been euthanized later.
Another thing is they tried for a so may minutes to call him away from the boy. When gorillas get something they're not supposed to have zoos usually compromise with the gorillas and try to trade for something they can have but aren't familiar with.
While the gorillas death is tragic unfortunately the reason for not tranquilizing it was because it may have gotten violent and may have actually killed the boy as tranquilizers take time to take an effect
It frustrates me that people are criticizing the decision to shoot the gorilla. The general public didn't know this gorilla. They are having a knee jerk reaction and will forget in a week. The people who shot the gorilla most likely knew the gorilla. They have to live with a difficult decision, which saved a child's life. (though I am glad they got the leopard safely)
Outrage culture is so fucking obnoxious because 90% of the time these people have no fucking clue what they are talking about. They couldn't have tranqed the gorilla because tranqs dont work instantly and in the time before it worked the gorilla would have been aggravated
With gorilla, human do bad.
People got pissed about gorilla.
People compared two dissimilar situations.
That simplifies things :P