The Internet exploded recently due to the news of a gorilla being shot and killed at the Cincinnati Zoo. The primate in question, Harambe, is a silverback gorilla that was seventeen years old as of 2016. Harambe was born in captivity in 1999 at the Gladys Porter Zoo in Texas, where he was noted to be a playful baby. At the time of his birth, there was an ad in the newspaper announcing a naming contest, and Dan Van Coppenolle sent in his submission of Harambe, which is Swahili for "working together" or "caring/sharing". Years later, the young Harambe was moved to the Cincinnati Zoo, where he would eventually meet his end at the hands of humans. A three-year-old child was visiting the zoo with his family when the boy made his way through many barriers before finally falling into the gorilla's enclosure. Harambe studied the boy for a moment before finally grabbing the boy by the leg and dragging him through the water rapidly. After ten minutes of these antics, Harambe was ultimately shot.
There are many questions posed from this issue. Who is to blame? Did the zoo's staff do the right thing by shooting Harambe? Are zoos ethical, or are they just cruel means of human entertainment?
When a uproar such as this occurs, it is only natural for people to point fingers, because we always need someone to blame, apparently. Many people have criticized the parents, stating that they should "control their kid". Many have wondered, "Were they even watching their son?" There is some truth to these statements and questions, as parents should know that toddlers are uncontrollable, and they should have had held his hand or kept him in their line of sight. However, at the time of the boy's entrance to the gorilla's enclosure, the parents were frantically searching for their son in a panic.
To me, this is not the mark of negligent parents. Hundreds of people visit zoos each day, and it is increasingly easy to lose sight of your family, friends, or group, especially if this person is young and does not know any better. This boy is three, and he was curious, so he ran off. People are calling for justice, as they should, but there have been online petitions stating that the family should be the one to pay the price for this tragedy. Some people have also been placing blame on the zoo's staff and safety. The child easily made it past all of the barriers separating the public from the animals, and then he fell in. I would agree that the zoo blatantly disregarded safety measures, but at the same time, no person could have foreseen this event. Then, while the boy was in the enclosure, the staff made the decision to shoot Harambe, which is another strong controversy. They could have used a tranquilizer, but they claimed that it would not have worked immediately. I have my doubts about this statement, but there is nothing to be done now.
So, who is to blame?
All of us. Each of us should be blamed for this tragedy, because in every situation in life, there is always something that we could have done differently. The parents could have held onto their son, and the zoo staff could have ensured that the barriers were intact. The zoo staff could have chosen another course of action. There are always countless possibilities, and now we must accept it.
In my own opinion, I do not believe shooting Harambe was the best option, but I am biased towards animals, so this clouds my opinion. Be that as it may, I believe the staff should have at least tried the tranquilizer. Maybe they could have tried distracting Harmabe and the other gorillas and then pulled the boy to safety. Shooting should have been an absolute last resort, but unfortunately, it was the first action taken.
And now I will pose all of my readers the question of the ethics behind zoos. Is it right or wrong to remove animals from their natural habitats and place them in enclosures? Some argue that there is no violation of animal rights and safety, since the animal's enclosures mimic the temperament of their true homes. Again, in my own personal opinion, I lean towards being against zoos. Like any lover of animals, I enjoy being able to see exotic animals right here at the Philadelphia Zoo, but when I see some animals lying in the shade, barely moving, it leaves my stomach in knots, because by visiting the zoo, I am funding this. I am indirectly allowing these animals to feel miserable.
Are you questioning my biases?
On nine out of ten zoo visits, I have witnessed the polar bear all the way at the opposite end of its enclosure, facing the wall. It has some roaming space, toys, and a large tank of water for swimming, but this is not the Arctic. This is a ninety degree Philadelphia summer, and that polar bear does not belong here. As interesting as it is for humans to witness, this is blatantly unfair and cruel, almost sadistic, how we can identify the fact that an animal is unhappy, yet we continue to stare at it, begging it to move for our own enjoyment. Moreover, we bang on the glass to get a reaction, and we throw harmful food into pens.
How would we feel if we were forced from our home and sent to a completely different country? Stuffed in a cage while passerby stare or torment us?
I rest my case.
The outrage at Harmbe's death is justified, as many people have a strong love for animals, as do I, and seeing an animal die in such a sudden, brutal way is cause for unrest. It stirs people's emotions and awakens their voices. However, it is moments like this that are important, for whenever their is a popular story in the media, there is an influx of discussion that begins circulating. It is through these discussions that seeds of change are planted. It is my assumption that Harambe's death will not rest easily, and reforms will be made to zoos and the way animals are treated as a whole.
