5 ms·

Horrible situation with the escaped chimpanzees, but in this tough situation, I think the zoo made the right call. Human safety comes first.

cduzz 3y ago
100% agree -- a horrible situation from start to finish. You really don't want to be in the same room as a chimpanzee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_Davis_chimpanzee_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_Davis_chimpanzee_att...
- rob74 3y ago
  The article mentions another case: > In one particularly horrifying incident in 2009, a chimpanzee called Travis who had been raised by humans from birth mauled his owner’s friend, biting and tearing her face, ripping out her eyes, removing one of her hands and most of the other. Horrifying indeed...
- jtbayly 3y ago
  "The chimpanzees destroyed a majority of St. James's fingers, his left foot, most of his buttocks, both testicles, part of his torso, and parts of his face including his nose and his lips." Two male chimps.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
NewJazz 3y ago
[flagged]
bedobi 3y ago
Disagree. I know nothing about Zoos, animal keeping or what have you but... chimps gotta eat, couldn't they just have approached them with treats laced with sedative? + in general, in case of situations like this, Zoos should be required to employ people with enough fortitude and good enough relationship with the animals to approach them to dish out said treats, or throw a net on them or whatever, maybe wearing riot gear and other protective equipment or what have you but yeah there should be a requirement that someone takes some degree of risk before jumping straight to shooting the animals, especially if they haven't even yet displayed any aggression or anything. It seems to me Zoos jump straight to shooting them because it's the safest (for them), quickest and cheapest way of ending the situation, which isn't good enough. Actually, Zoos should be banned period lol but yeah.
- tptacek 3y ago
  The article discusses this option.
NewJazz 3y ago
Flagging my comments doesn't make your life more valuable than that of a chimp.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  I've paid attention to how flagging happens on here, and it's strikingly similar to how reports are used on reddit and other sites. I guess it's not a big surprise considering reddit was basically a fork of HN, but it's something I've noticed. The features of websites get abused to facilitate antisocial behavior.
wolverine876 3y ago
> Human safety comes first. Let's look deeper at the real question they faced: How much risk (of life and limb) is it worth to save a chimpanzee's life? Obviously the answers aren't 0 or 100%. If it was 0%, then we wouldn't have zoos, zookeepers, pets of many species, farms, etc. 100% means it's worth trading certain death for a human to save a chimpanzee - arguable philosophically, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll rule it out. The answer is in-between. Everyone takes risks around dogs, horses, cattle - small children play with most of them. Zookeepers take much greater risks, it seems, around wild animals. So do hunters, tourists, etc. How much risk do we tolerate? Do zookeepers take 1/1000 risk of death over their careers?
- RationalDino 3y ago
  The fact that the head of another Swedish wildpark got convicted of manslaughter over the death of a keeper. Given that, it would be hard for those in charge to allow any worker to take risks to save these escaped animals. Even if the worker was willing to do so. That answers how much risk we're willing to tolerate.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    That answers how much risk a certain institution is willing to tolerate. Institutional tolerances differ from individuals IME; many institutions are risk-averse because people seek to protect their jobs, especially if it has a culture of blame. Would you risk your life to save a chimpanzee? I would to some extent. A peaceful, friendly chimp; and with instruction from an expert; I might take the risk. An angry chimp would be unlikely to receive aid that involves risk. Forget violence; what about wading into a flood to rescue an unconscious chimp?
justrealist 3y ago
What would you do about escaped dogs?

cduzz 3y ago

100% agree -- a horrible situation from start to finish. You really don't want to be in the same room as a chimpanzee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_Davis_chimpanzee_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_Davis_chimpanzee_att...

rob74 3y ago
The article mentions another case: > In one particularly horrifying incident in 2009, a chimpanzee called Travis who had been raised by humans from birth mauled his owner’s friend, biting and tearing her face, ripping out her eyes, removing one of her hands and most of the other. Horrifying indeed...
jtbayly 3y ago
"The chimpanzees destroyed a majority of St. James's fingers, his left foot, most of his buttocks, both testicles, part of his torso, and parts of his face including his nose and his lips." Two male chimps.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

NewJazz 3y ago

[flagged]

bedobi 3y ago

Disagree. I know nothing about Zoos, animal keeping or what have you but... chimps gotta eat, couldn't they just have approached them with treats laced with sedative? + in general, in case of situations like this, Zoos should be required to employ people with enough fortitude and good enough relationship with the animals to approach them to dish out said treats, or throw a net on them or whatever, maybe wearing riot gear and other protective equipment or what have you but yeah there should be a requirement that someone takes some degree of risk before jumping straight to shooting the animals, especially if they haven't even yet displayed any aggression or anything. It seems to me Zoos jump straight to shooting them because it's the safest (for them), quickest and cheapest way of ending the situation, which isn't good enough. Actually, Zoos should be banned period lol but yeah.

tptacek 3y ago
The article discusses this option.

NewJazz 3y ago

Flagging my comments doesn't make your life more valuable than that of a chimp.

zlg_codes 3y ago
I've paid attention to how flagging happens on here, and it's strikingly similar to how reports are used on reddit and other sites. I guess it's not a big surprise considering reddit was basically a fork of HN, but it's something I've noticed. The features of websites get abused to facilitate antisocial behavior.

wolverine876 3y ago

> Human safety comes first. Let's look deeper at the real question they faced: How much risk (of life and limb) is it worth to save a chimpanzee's life? Obviously the answers aren't 0 or 100%. If it was 0%, then we wouldn't have zoos, zookeepers, pets of many species, farms, etc. 100% means it's worth trading certain death for a human to save a chimpanzee - arguable philosophically, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll rule it out. The answer is in-between. Everyone takes risks around dogs, horses, cattle - small children play with most of them. Zookeepers take much greater risks, it seems, around wild animals. So do hunters, tourists, etc. How much risk do we tolerate? Do zookeepers take 1/1000 risk of death over their careers?

RationalDino 3y ago
The fact that the head of another Swedish wildpark got convicted of manslaughter over the death of a keeper. Given that, it would be hard for those in charge to allow any worker to take risks to save these escaped animals. Even if the worker was willing to do so. That answers how much risk we're willing to tolerate.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  That answers how much risk a certain institution is willing to tolerate. Institutional tolerances differ from individuals IME; many institutions are risk-averse because people seek to protect their jobs, especially if it has a culture of blame. Would you risk your life to save a chimpanzee? I would to some extent. A peaceful, friendly chimp; and with instruction from an expert; I might take the risk. An angry chimp would be unlikely to receive aid that involves risk. Forget violence; what about wading into a flood to rescue an unconscious chimp?

justrealist 3y ago

What would you do about escaped dogs?