The Cincinnati Zoo Absolutely Made The Right Choice By Killing Harambe
"He was like one of my sons," said Harambe's caretaker.
On May 28, a gorilla named Harambe was shot dead at the Cincinnati Zoo
Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland silverback (aka the male of the gorilla species) was shot and killed by zoo staff following an incident where a four-year-old boy fell into his enclosure. The incident has caused significant uproar since its occurrence—most notably outrage that the zoo killed a member of a critically endangered species and that a mother was negligent enough in the first place to let her child be the catalyst for the incident.
The child is now safe, but one more member of a critically endangered species is dead, and the boy's parents could possibly be charged with criminal negligence in the situation. So was the decision to kill Harambe right?
In short, yes. The zoo was right to kill Harambe
There's no doubt the situation is very complicated. Harambe was an amazing animal, and there's an entirely other set of ethical concerns surrounding whether or not it's right to keep animals in zoos in the first place. But when a human's life is at stake, basic evolution dictates we are obligated to look out for the survival of our own species.
In case you disagree, you should first see footage of the incident. Be warned—it's quite jarring to watch
In the video, you can see Harambe standing over, holding and dragging four-year-old Isaiah Dickerson through the water in his enclosure.
Many people have argued that the gorilla was trying to protect the child, and others have cited Harambe's aggressive stance indicated he was determined to harm the boy. But arguing over an animal's intentions is completely pointless—there's simply no way to know what Harambe had in mind for the boy. What's clear, though, is that regardless of Harambe's intentions, the child was in an extremely dangerous situation—he was at the whim of a 450 pound animal and was dragged through water easily deep enough to drown him.
Harambe had to be shot. According to the Cincinnati Zoo, "It is important to note that with the child still in the exhibit, tranquilizing the 450-pound gorilla was not an option." The boy was clearly in an emergency situation, and tranquilizers are not immediately effective.
Protestors of Harambe's killing are turning to nearly 30-year-old footage of a gorilla named Jambo defending a boy who fell into his enclosure
They're arguing that this footage proves gorillas are not violent by nature, but this argument is weak at best. Animals' personalities and demeanors vary, and one gorilla's reaction to a particular situation is not indicative of another's reaction.
In the instance of Harambe's death, the Cinncinati Zoo staff—who best knew the animal—made the very difficult decision to kill him. Jack Hanna, renowned wildlife expert, also agreed with the decision. I'm certainly not an animal expert, but these people are, and it should come as no surprise their opinions are more informed and rooted in experience than most any of ours.
People seem to be focusing mostly on the neglect of the parents. Surely, if they'd been more attentive, the incident would never have happened
This is a fair point, and the police should certainly look into the incident. Believe me, I'm all for calling out bad parents.
But slamming a parent's ability has zero value in the heat of the moment when a child's life is at stake. Whether or not the parents were bad parents was not a productive consideration in terms of whether a child's life should be saved.
To people claiming this was a senseless killing that will further shorten the lifespan of the gorilla species on this planet:
Harambe's legacy isn't over yet. It's very sad that he had to be killed and that it wasn't his own fault, but it's invalid to claim his killing will put a quicker end to the species. His genes will continue on.