Your video, Cincinnati Zoo Straps a GoPro to a Cheetah, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 55 Badge!

I have found it interesting that, with all the blame being thrown around recently at the mother and the zoo, no one has mentioned the crowd's culpability in this tragedy.

The people in the crowd getting excited, screaming, shouting, pointing, rushing about, etc. only served to get the gorilla overly excited and aggravate the situation. It really seemed to me that the gorilla was trying to help and move the boy away from all the excitement, not hurt him (clear to me because he didn't just smash, if he wanted to hurt the boy, he would have in a nanosecond).
Had people remained calm, things may have ended quite differently...but that would require some self control, something in short supply today....and this is the consequence.

I also can't understand why, since they already had the rifle there in case it went wrong, they didn't at least TRY to tranquilize him and see if it worked, then take the ultimate action if he seemed to be reacting badly.

So sad.
It's really hard to upvote this, even though it is news with a social message.

From what I've seen about this, there's plenty of blame to go around. Apparently there was only one fence between people and the enclosure, apparently with a hole big enough for a 4 year old or short enough for one to climb over....then there was the 4 year old that was unwatched long enough to get through/over that fence. Once he was in the enclosure in the hands of the Gorilla, they had little choice, sadly. If they tranquilized it and it hurt or killed the boy before going out, the zoo would be sued and close and the keepers likely be charged with some kind of manslaughter by negligence.

Not really though, there are enough people who are fond of cows that we would no doubt keep them alive as pets and zoo animals. Like all the other animals that are extinct in the wild but not in captivity.

Their numbers would certainly dwindle, but I think there's no suffering in not having been born. Besides, if you're concerned about biodiversity the number of species eradicated by expanding pasture land has got to be in the 1,000s, especially in places like rainforests.

@Oxen_Morale
yeah..i am struggling to see how this is a liberal thing.
this is about saving a baby elephant that would have otherwise perished.


this is admirable.

the simple fact is that this woman made a choice and realized the consequences and decided those consequences were acceptable.

should she just have left the baby to die? while having the resources,time and patience to nurture this baby elephant to health,and possible giving it a happy life?

i have saved:baby squirrels,muskrats,racoons,rats and adopted countless puppies,kittens and even birds on occasion.

should i have left them to perish as well?

i think your snap judgement was not very well-thought out.

were you aware there are elephant sanctuaries that accept retired circus elephants and former zoo elephants?

i bet this lady knows about them.so while your concern about this babies future is admirable,this woman knows what she is doing.

Awesome. It's amazing how close you can get to such a powerful wild animal.

In India and Africa the large game animals have learned to regard the vehicles in much the same way as they regard trees. they know they're there, they just don't bother with them in any way.

When we were in India on a tiger safari we had a very similar experience. The amazing thing was that people live and work in these forests. 100yds down the road from the situation in the video may be a party of women collecting firewood. Or one time we found a mahout looking for his elephant that had wandered off in the night!

Tigers are incredibly beautiful animals. they have a quality that sets them apart from lions and other big cats. They are so different in the wild to the animals you might see in zoos. If you've ever wanted to see what real natural beauty looks like then go and see the wild tigers, they're breathtaking.

Right there with ya, Kevin.

I held a Koala for a picture at a zoo in Australia when I visited at age 7 or so, and it went all Sabretooth on me and scratched 3 deep cuts right across my forehead.

I think they're hiding plans of world domination behind that cuteness and 23 hours of sleep a day...

9 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Your video, Polar bear throws stone, breaks glass aquarium wall at zoo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Special for the kid.. not so much for the gorilla who gets to spend the next 35 years locked in a 20x20 ft. room with nothing to do but watch the humans and wait for that next meal that consists of.. salad.

I get it, zoo's do good zoological work, they protect endangered species and (usually) do all they can to make that 35 year stay in a 20 ft. square room something more than the prison that it is.

Your video, Toddler Playing With Gorilla Toddler at the Columbus Zoo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Huh, okay I can see the dynamic now. The initial video felt more like one of those 'fringe'/questionable shows/zoos in some southeast asian country (only because I've seen a lot of sad animal videos come out of there).

It makes me wonder if zoos frequently use dogs as surrogates as a regular alternative? Interesting!

I don't have any more information on the video, but given that it's a zoo context, seems quite similar to this vid where a dog had fostered two lion cubs:

I think it gets back to the "ick" factor, @MilkmanDan. I think. See if this makes sense to you:

At the lizard brain level, if you are strongly heterosexual, same sex activity is repulsive to you -- triply so if you are a man watching male activity. It is instinctive, the revulsion, because it comes from the core of your non-verbal brain.

Even if you are completely in favor of anti-discrimination, you can still understand that instinctive revulsion and can sympathize.

The thing is -- that strong revulsion is in part due to not being exposed to the thing that repulses you. See it enough, have friends and family who are LGBT, that instinctive response gets muted.

And bottom line -- yeah. Private businesses who are open to the public cannot discriminate based on who you are.

Sidebar -- when I was in my early 20's, I lived in Los Angeles. It was at the beginning of acceptance of gay culture, which included what I can only label as "slumming." It was fashionable for heterosexuals to go to known gay clubs. This was deeply annoying to the gay folks, of course, because they were out to have a nice time on a Saturday night, not be essentially creatures in a zoo for entertainment value.

The clubs had a really clever way of dealing with it. The standard policy was -- no open-toed shoes. If you were truly friends and not gawkers, you would know to wear the right shoes. If you were a tourist -- well, most women out for the evening wore open toed shoes.

I was young and stupid and was one of those tourists. My friends and I were turned away. Everyone else was miffed. I was immediately impressed with the whole concept. Yeah. I SHOULD be turned away, and weren't they brilliant at finding a way to do it.

I can still see the sneer on the face of the bouncer. He did NOT like us. That was 40 years ago and I still admire him and that business for protecting themselves from us gawkers.

They had to have special cargo tie-downs installed. You know, like the kind they use when they need to haul a whale between zoo exhibits on a giant truck...