I've spent all morning trying to find out how many people have been killed by gorillas ... Wild or in zoos ... And can find nothing specific. My conclusion is that the male silverbacks are very dangerous if challenged or threatened by adult humans but children they are gentle and non-aggressive. Even when fighting amongst themselves they rarely hurt each other ... They box in a controlled way. However the male silverbacks have been known to kill the young of rival silverbacks. The females do not appear to be violent at all.

I am even more convinced that this young boy was in no danger.

Wow - so much supposition in this thread!

Perhaps everyone ought to read this article by a woman experienced with handling and caring for gorillas.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyl...[a social network]-post/

Of course it is a terrible tragedy this gorilla had to be shot, but I really feel the zoo had no other options available to them.

For those who say the child should have been left to die due to the gorilla being an endangered species ... I really have no words.

Yes, the parents should have been watching over their children but accidents happen! That's life. A young child did not deserve to be left to his fate and possibly be killed (whether in aggression or in play/confusion). No, the gorilla also didn't deserve to die, but there really was no other choice imo.

While I think it's tragic (and feel these zoos are to blame - we should not be caging animals in this day and age unless it is genuinely for conservation purposes) I don't agree with your statement. The boy was in danger simply because he was in 'custody' of a very large, very powerful, wild animal. Even if Harambe was trying to 'protect' the boy he could have done some serious damage to him by dragging him around like a doll, stepping on him or worse.

I don't know why they didn't try to tranquillise him first and just have the shoot squad on standby to fire at any second.

Either way, imo, primary blame lies with the zoo (enclosures should prevent breaches), society (for allowing these stupid things to exist) followed by parents (who should have ultimately been looking after their kids).

Well I like zoo's and have visited quite a few with my kids over the years. They may not provide a perfect environment for the animal but in a lot of cases they are the only hope of survival for some species.
Where else would we get to see these animals in our lives, close up enough to really appreciate them.
I think zoo's get a lot of unnecessary stick.

The reason they said they could not use a tranquilliser is because they could have put the boy in more danger if the gorilla had reacted to the drug, sometimes tranquillisers can take longer to work if said animal is stressed, it could have made the situation worse, fall on the boy , attack the boy, they said it was just to risky .

Those suggesting they know the gorilla was not aggressive and protecting the boy, is ridiculous , they know nothing about gorillas yet are voicing an opinion that they seem to know better that the people who have worked with them for years .

It may interest you to know , but from what I read, the fact the gorilla had hold of the child's hand is not what they were worried about, it was its facial expression, the lips and so on, like we can read subtle Bobby language of our dogs, they do so with the gorilla , also dragging the child around was a posturing gesture, one to warn off danger, and anyone who has watched them on to will have seen this action it's usually followed you them throwing hat they have hold of.

It beggars belief reading some of these views her, jezzzz, the child was in danger, comparing it to a hawk and a sheep in a field is bonkers !

Good point Trouble. I can't say I like zoos exactly, but I believe that they are a necessary evil for the education of otherwise ignorant human beings - and I include myself in that statement. Where else can you get up close and personal with a magnificent animal like a gorilla? I prefer safari parks to zoos, but for obvious reasons you couldn't drive through an enclosure of gorillas I guess - although thinking about it, why not?!!

The particular zoo in question seem to be offering an amazing home for their gorillas - the moat area appears absolutely splendid and I take my hat off to them for this, I just wish they hadn't shot that beautiful animal so unnecessarily. I am so totally convinced that the gorilla had no thought of harming the boy.

Rams (tups) are extremely dangerous potentially:-

"Rams (male sheep) can be very dangerous animals if you find yourself alone with one and he decides to charge you. An angry ram must be taken seriously––his horns, strength and mass can severely injure you or even cause death.

If a ram is likely to charge you or is actually charging you, there are some simple precautions and steps to follow; just be aware that this is about reacting should you be unlucky enough to find yourself in this situation and you should '''never''' provoke a ram or place yourself in a situation where a ram could harm you."

Article about an attack on a boy called Alfie in 2012 taken from the Daily Mail:-

"A toddler was nearly blinded after a pet hawk ripped his face with its talons as he played in a park.
Two-year-old Alfie Hall was in a playground with relatives when a Harris hawk named Bonnie swooped on to his head.
Her razor-sharp talons cut his cheek, narrowly missing his eye, and severed part of his left ear. Alfie’s mother Elysia, 23, said doctors had to glue the ear back together.
Terrible: Covered in blood with scratches and tears all over his face, brave Alfie Hall just after being attacked by a hawk as he played

She said: ‘There was blood everywhere. The bird ripped several chunks out of his head, including a big gash right next to his eye which needed stitches.
'The doctors told us he was lucky not to lose his sight.
‘Alfie was totally shocked, his eye was swollen and I could see his ear was badly injured too.
‘We called an ambulance and they whisked Alfie off to the hospital, where he was given anaesthetic and kept in overnight.’
Miss Hall, from Church Crookham, Hampshire, said Bonnie ignored the calls of her teenage owner and ‘dive-bombed’ Alfie as he stood in the park in a council estate in Farnborough.
But the hawk’s owner, Scott Brewer, 18, yesterday denied the bird had deliberately attacked Alfie and insisted she was safe around children.
He said: ‘If she had meant to attack him, the extent of his injuries would have been a lot worse.
'Their talons lock into place, so she could have ripped his face off if she meant to.’
Mr Brewer said he had twice warned a group of children, including Alfie, not to bother Bonnie while she was feeding minutes before the incident.

Not as powerful as a gorilla, but nonetheless potentially far more dangerous.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4ASySSoZN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on [a social network]

But my point is that the child was not left to die - he was absolutely not in any danger of serious harm, in my opinion. Now, if the child had fallen into an enclosure containing chimps that would be a completely different story. They are potentially far more dangerous than gorillas. But he did not, he was in an enclosure of gorillas and in my opinion at little risk at all of serious harm.