No, I didn't miss that ... but how do you know that was an act of aggression? Just as likely the gorilla was dragging him out of the water to save him from drowning.

I repeat about the harris hawk - this is a large and potentially dangerous raptor, about twice the size of a crow, with lethal talons. Not of course as potentially dangerous as a gorilla, but nonetheless more than capable of doing far more than just "scratching Alfie's head"! It could have blinded him and inflicted deep lacerations had I panicked and not whipped him away from her. Unlike the stupid mother of the child in question, who did panic, I acted calmly and decisively to avoid possible serious injury to Alfie - not death, I agree, but serious injury nonetheless.

Life is a risk - in my opinion we are far too nannified as it is. If we choose to take our children to the zoo and fail to supervise them correctly, then it is extremely unreasonable to expect the zoo staff to shoot an endangered animal simply because it could have caused the death of a child ... to me it is a no-brainer I'm afraid.

You are completely missing the point, it does not matter if it was aggression or as you put it saving the boy from drowning....

Another act like that could have resulted in the death of the boy .

Again with the hark YOU are able to intervene , you could not possible go in with the gorilla and shoo it away, that's the difference, no one could go in there with the gorilla, it was to dangerous....

Gnasher Are you saying they should have let the Gorilla kill the child?
He was dragging the child around by his leg.
The keepers have said the Gorilla was clearly agitated, they tried to get his attention and failed.
I think what happened was tragic but the zoo was damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Of course they opted to save the child as would most of us.
That doesn't mean we think the parents are blameless.
It means we understand the zoo's dilemma.

So the child pays with his life for a less than vigilant mother, an inadequate barrier system?

Wow!

I hate to sound callous - but so what? Why should a gorilla's life be so cheap, and a child's so expensive? I'm sorry, but I cannot follow your biased logic.

As for intervening with the hawk, do you think that had I been stupid enough to allow Alfie to get into the gorilla's space that I would just run up and down screaming hysterically? You bet your bottom dollar I would not! I would have done everything in my power to distract him away from Alfie and hopefully allow the keepers to rescue him. I believe you are a granny Jackie, and I am sure you would do exactly the same for your grandchild.

And if the gorilla then attacked me, as most likely he would because he would view me, being an adult, as a threat, that I would not attempt to defend myself? You bet I would ... THAT is fair, that is nature, that is animal instinct. But to shoot the gorilla on the off-chance that he may or may not have killed the child, no, that is indefensible and abusing our place on the planet as head species.

I understand the zoo's dilemma - but I believe they acted wrongly, out of concern for elf and safety and being sued.

Phew, that's a little harsh Chris - but yes, in a nutshell IF the child was at risk of death, and I do not believe it was, then yes. As harsh as that sounds, I just cannot justify the killing of an innocent and highly endangered animal to POSSIBLY save the young of a species who is most definitely not endangered.

I cannot accept that the child was at risk of being killed. It is a well known fact that gorillas are gentle creatures ... gentle giants. I was highly influenced by that wonderful sequence of a young David Attenborough lying quietly beside a troop of gorillas, including a silverback. It made an enormous impression on me at a young age and I have never forgotten it.

No Gnasher they acted properly, out of concern for the child's well being. They were no doubt somewhat shocked by what happened and they had very little time to react. The Gorilla was in no danger from the child but the child was in immense danger from a 400lb Gorilla, even if he was being playful. The keepers know the Gorilla best and it's highly likely they are just as upset at the shooting of the Gorilla as everyone else. I think it's mad to claim they had anything but the welfare of child in their mind.

Well, as much as I hate to admit that I would lend credence to ANYTHING that appears in the Mirror, I have viewed a video on their website which clearly shows that far from being a threat to the child, the gorilla was being protective. The child, as I initially thought, is showing absolutely no fear whatsoever - the gorilla is showing absolutely no sign of aggression. I am no gorilla expert of course, neither have I had the privilege of looking after this magnificent animal, but to me this is an absolute and extremely unnecessary tragedy and I bet the poor man who had to pull the trigger is absolutely traumatised.

I am still of the same opinion that this has been the most awful travesty of justice for the poor gorilla - a peaceful beautiful animal who meant no harm whatsoever towards that little mite.

Are we going to slaughter everything that could ever possibly be a threat to us ... just in case?

I had to right a fallen young tup in the field next to my parent's place the other day - I am crippled at the moment with an arthritic hip, and can only walk on one leg with the aid of a stick, but I hauled my bulk over the wall and somehow managed to drag him to his feet. I was at some risk of having what is left of my left hip even more damaged, but thankfully I escaped unharmed. Had he butted the hell out of me, as tups are want to do, then should the gardener have shot him to save me from a battering, had he had a gun?

I know it is highly unlikely that the tup could kill me, but nonetheless he could have done me a huge amount of damage in my fragile state - maybe smashed my leg such that a hip replacement was impossible? Does this give me the right to have him shot to save my mobility? No it bloody well does not!!