US gorilla death compared to Jersey drama

Tuesday 31 May 2016

The shooting of a gorilla after a four-year-old boy fell into its enclosure has provoked outcry on social media and around the world - and has been compared to a similar drama in Jersey 30 years ago.

On Saturday, officials at Cincinnati Zoo in the US shot dead a 17-year-old male western lowland gorilla named Harambe after the boy climbed through a barrier and fell into a moat, where he was grabbed and dragged by the 180 kg ape.

 Judging the boy’s life to be at risk, keepers killed the gorilla.

Cincinnati Zoo Director Thane Maynard said this morning that he stands by the decision to kill 17-year-old silverback Harambe to save the child.

He told CNN: "That child's life was in danger. People who question that don't understand you can't take a risk with a silverback gorilla -- this is a dangerous animal. Looking back, we'd make the same decision. The child is safe."

Witnesses said that the boy went under a rail, through wires and over a moat wall to get into the enclosure.

It was a very different ending to when, in August 1986, five-year-old Levan Merritt fell 12 feet into the enclosure at Jersey Zoo, now Durrell. Lying unconscious, the zoo’s dominant male, Jambo, stood over Levan and appeared to protect him from younger, inquisitive gorillas. When the boy came round, he started to cry and the apes retreated, allowing keepers to rescue the child.

Over the weekend, Brian Le Lion, whose video recording of the drama was broadcast worldwide, reflected on that memorable afternoon. He told the Independent that he believed the main difference between the two incidents was that Levan, who was on holiday in the Island at the time, was unconscious when he fell into the enclosure whereas the little boy in Cincinnati was walking and moving.

Harambe’s death, however, has triggered outrage on social media. Many said male gorilla Harambe should not have been shot dead as he did not intend to hurt the boy, some using the hashtag #JusticeForHarambe. Others said the parents should be held responsible for not looking after their child.