By now you probably learned about what happened when a boy fell in the enclosure of a gorilla named Harambe, they shot Harambe dead. Witnesses say there was no need to kill Harambe because he looked like he was protecting the child. People are angry that Harambe was killed but shouldn't they be more angry that they have this animal imprisoned?
There is always two sides to this story.
1. The child was in possible danger and dragging the child through the water a couple times combined with the people yelling at the gorilla made a situation where the gorilla was possibly getting agitated and tranquilizer could cause more harm to the child as it would be from 30 minutes to a few hours before the tranquilizer took effect and more harm could have befallen the child.
2. The child clearly was not in danger and the gorilla took the time and effort to make sure the child was safe. All zoo people had to do was enter the enclosure and retrieve the child and all would be well.
Either way you look at it the true story here is adequate security around the enclosure. Do to the fact that this is the first incident since 78 is not good enough. The enclosure should have been built in a way that no small child could get through the fence for this type of incident to occur in the first place.
I understand your points Nosaj but you are making a comparison with a very large gorilla living by himself with a domesticated animal. I am against any kind of animal cruelty. If you want a pet then that pet should have adequate room to run about so they don't feel constrained. You wouldn't like it if someone told you that you will be well taken care of so long as you stay in a 20x20 area and couldn't leave now would you?
In many ways the death of Harambe may be a relief and set a new stage about how animals are kept and the risks involved with bringing in people to see them.