This past week, the internet has been flooded by a story that shocked everyone. An endangered gorilla named Harambe was shot to protect a young boy that had fallen into the gorilla pit at the Cincinnati Zoo. The world is divided on whether or not putting the animal down was right and/or worth it. This video was taken at the Cincinnati Zoo where it all happened, though many report that this clip does not show everything that happened.
Upon hearing this story and seeing the video, I immediately thought of the classic Disney movie "Tarzan." Remember Kerchak, the silverback that lead Tarzan’s pack? He never appreciated how different Tarzan was and always wanted him to leave. Nala, Tarzan’s sweet mother however, always treated him with compassion and upon their first meeting immediately took him in as one of their own without questioning his origins.
Which way would Harambe have acted, if he was given a chance? Briefly, let us go over the general behaviors of a silverback.
Generally speaking, silverbacks are responsible for everyone in the troop and therefore are more aggressive overall, considering he has to fight any other male who comes along for his troop or they will be taken away from him. Competition for adult females is pretty high. Living in solitary for 15 years, a silverback must establish a home range and become very strong before he can begin to start his troop. Because silverbacks are responsible for the safety and protection of the group, there are a couple signs that show when a silverback is in a threatening situation. Beating their chest and letting out a loud scream are classic signs we can all recognize, but they also produce a very distinct, very acrid scent in which humans can pick up from 75 feet away. They will also wildly charge at their target, but research shows that 99% of the time this charge is just a bluff in order to scare the enemy off.
With this information, it definitely does not seem like Harambe would have any intention to hurt the boy. The sIlverback never showed any signs of defensive behavior at all.
Let us remember, however, that the boy was around four years old, and the body has not completely developed at that point. Bone mass does not reach its peak until around 20 years of age, so it can be concluded that at four there is minimal bone tissue present. This points out the obvious fact that a child’s bones are not as strong as an adult’s, so any amount of extra weight or sudden impact could have snapped one or multiple bones in the four-year-old’s body.
The question still stands: Was it okay to shoot a member of an endangered species for a child?
The real answer to this whole situation is that there is no telling what could have been. Gorillas, like humans, are unpredictable. No number of animal specialists can deny that. We can predict what may happen, but nobody can be for sure. Human emotions change at the drop of a dime for no distinct reason sometimes. There could have been a number of stimuli that we did not notice in that video that could have triggered any kind of reaction. We cannot assume that he would be dangerous right off the bat as we did, but we also cannot assume that he would be friendly.
Moving forward, we can only hope that there will be great consideration to both species equally if this happens again and that trained professionals will hopefully be capable enough to turn the situation around in such a way that both species can walk away unscathed.
