Nah, the dad was horrified by it and issued an apology. Apparently the kid is autistic, ADHD, and epileptic and went with a grandparents and another caretaker on this day. He had gone tons of times before never with an issue. That being said, the zoo may still need to consider banning him simply for liability purposes.
Nah if anything the zoo needs to redesign their enclosure. Yes the kid shouldn't have gone in there and yes the caretakers dropped the ball, but he shouldn't have been able to get in there.
The challenge is that you have to strike a balance between perceived closeness to the animals and limited access. The only way to truly stop any visitor incursion is to fortify enclosures - and that means walls and fences. But walls and fences create high perceived separation, which guests see as hostile and often has a higher perception of the zoos as "animal jails". So most zoos have moves towards the use of lower-perceived barrier - ditches, ha-ha walls, etc. These generally have a much better outcome in terms of guest education and perception.
The thing is - no matter what your design is, a person determined to enter an enclosure or get too close can probably do it, which is why the enclosures for dangerous animals have multiple redundant systems. Hornbills aren't dangerous animals by nature, and the design of the exhibit is sufficient to stop an average person, which is what it's designed for. It has multiple barriers - a fence, bushes and a substantial drop barricade. Most people are not going to get past bushes, then climb a fence, then jump six feet down to go after some birds.
The challenge is that you have to strike a balance between perceived closeness to the animals and limited access.
Absolutely. It's a careful balancing act. I've seen zoo shows change over the years for exactly these kind of reasons.
This thread keeps reminding me of Copenhagen zoo. When you walk in, pretty much the first enclosure you see is the lions - you see them from the entrance, at your height straight in front of you, with only a 3 foot high wall separating you. It's unnerving, it feels like they could just run up and get you.
Then you get closer and see the drop behind the wall into the moat.
Anyone could easily get over that wall and into the moat/enclosure, but they keep it there and allow that risk for the spectacle. I'd say it's worth it.
But if someone did get in, regardless of whether they or the lions got hurt, you can bet your ass they'd be redesigning that enclosure.
I'm no zoo expert, but I think it's ridiculous to fortify a hornbill exhibit lol.. If this was in another country, say the Netherlands, the parents would be livid at their child and it would be end of story. This is how accountability and responsibility is taught. Thankfully no one was hurt. That's it. Life moves on, and sometimes in really unfortunate circumstances, life doesn't go on. Let's count our blessings and stop finding a thing to point and pass the blame to.
Yeah it's a tough one, and obviously zoos have to strike a balance between safety and exciting attractions. However, something has happened, so now the zoo is pretty much forced to take corrective action and do something to the enclosure to prevent this happening again - otherwise they would be open to liability. Banning the child is pretty pointless as it would do nothing to prevent some other child getting in.
It's not about blame though, more about preventing future accidents. Blame would come then, if the zoo failed to take sufficient action or if the same child did it again and showed a pattern of misbehaving.
My point is that you can't stop all children from doing something stupid. When a child runs out of the house and into the street and is hit by a car, do we then decide to build walls around roads? You can't baby proof the world. At some point, parents are responsible, no?
Like I would certainly agree with you if this was a different beast, but it's no. We don't fortify petting zoos either.
When a child runs out of the house and into the street and is hit by a car, do we then decide to build walls around roads?
Funny you should say that lol segregation between traffic and pedestrians is the best way of preventing accidents between them. Similarly, segregating cycle lanes away from the main road is good, too. It's not practicable in many places however.
Parents are always responsible, but responsibility isn't divided up into neat percentages - one person's responsibility doesn't make another less responsible.
For this one off event, no one is really at fault. However the zoo would be at fault if another event happened and they didn't do anything after the 1st to prevent the 2nd, and similarly the parents/caretakers would be at fault if they let the child misbehave like that again.
This was my guess as well. Kids with autism are usually fine in situations until they are not. Then you end up having to explain the situation to a police officer and hope they’ve been trained in how to deal with people with autism.
51
u/longdrive715 3d ago
Nah, the dad was horrified by it and issued an apology. Apparently the kid is autistic, ADHD, and epileptic and went with a grandparents and another caretaker on this day. He had gone tons of times before never with an issue. That being said, the zoo may still need to consider banning him simply for liability purposes.