SC causes death of entire family of Meerkats

[Lehk]

I bet if you asked the little girl

"would you rather we give you these shots or we kill all the meercats and take apart their brains" she would pick the shots. kids are afraid of shots but they also, in general, love animals and wouldn't want one to die.

[kibbles]

All because one nine year old - old enough to be a rational, thinking, but obviously selfish, being - didn't care, didn't think any of the deterrants to reaching the animals applied to her.

I honestly doubt that despite the fact that the child should know better (again her parent's responsibility), but I sincerely doubt she was being selfish in wanting to pet the "cute and cuddly" animal. Really, there are nine year olds that when they see something soft and cute, often don't think rationally or think to themselves that if they pet them, that will be selfish. That doesn't automatically make the child a bad person - just a normal curious kid. The parent's have the responsibility of teaching how to behave and how to own up to one's mistakes. The mother obviously didn't in this case, so the blame is on her.

Kibbles

[Reyneth]

A simple trench between the visitor wall and the meerkeat enclosure would do it.

A taller fence such that young children cannot reach over it (plexiglass so we can still see them).

Barbed wire or equivalent.

Meerkats in enclosed cages with windows, not open spaces.

There were rocks. There was a barrier the kid squirmed through. Barbed wire, something people equate with prisons? There was a FOUR foot plexiglass barrier in front of the display. The brat would have to really work to reach 3 feet down - that's 36", about the length of an ADULT'S arm to reach the meerkat. How much taller should it have been?

This child was determined to do whatever it took to bother these animals, and she did. And they paid the price. Not her. The zoo has no responsibility in this - those meerkats had been there for years and nothing like this has happened. What was the zoo supposed to do? They did quite a bit of what you suggested. Enclosing the Meerkats in a cage, away from their natural habitat would be cruel.

All because one nine year old - old enough to be a rational, thinking, but obviously selfish, being - didn't care, didn't think any of the deterrants to reaching the animals applied to her.

Should the Zoo, in order to better "protect" any patron determined to touch the WILD animals, without proper supervision of parents, post guards at the corners of each exhibit? Welcome to the Zoo! One adult ticket? That will be $55! And then the "parents" would be upset that the guards dare discipline their pweciouses for still trying to get too close to the exhibits. No, thanks.

I like kids, don't get me wrong. I do despise a lot of kids (and parents) at the zoo who think that the roped-off areas don't apply to them. And this story just makes me even MADDER. I'm going to be in the Twin Cities in two weeks with a free day - I might just try to go to this Zoo now.

[karma_gypsy]

Posting signs would be a good way to keep people out, but then again, signs don't cater to the SC crowd either. Not even if they're 20 feet tall and flashing. . .

[One-Fang]

A simple trench between the visitor wall and the meerkeat enclosure would do it.

A taller fence such that young children cannot reach over it (plexiglass so we can still see them).

Barbed wire or equivalent.

Meerkats in enclosed cages with windows, not open spaces.

Sorry, but there's really heaps that a zoo can do to stop people actually being able to get near certain animals. In the case of meerkats, I suspect the demand from the public is to see them in a 'reachable' situation because they're seen as cute and cuddly, like Timon. Zoos cave (or lack the funding to properly protect every animal's enclosure) and this sort of thing happens.

I'm not "holding the zoo responsible", but I do think a partial blame lies with them. In all things, I've always found that the best way to stop someone doing something you don't want them to do - is to make it impossible. Signs, rules, training, it's all completely useless against that 1/100th of the population that's simply too hellbent on getting in to pay any attention.

That said, I would not have initially said "you need more protection here". Meerkats will not kill you if you do reach in, and rabies shots are available. Who would have ever thought someone would decline the shots and kill the meerkats instead? However, hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

[kibbles]

I'll go one step further, which hasn't been suggested yet. I'm thinking of poor CRH (hope I've got the right CSer there) and the puppy killing story and I'm thinking - the mother and daughter should have been made to perform the euthanising. Now, I'm not saying it should be allowed to be potentially inhumane because they're inexperienced, but that they should what CRH did - administer the final shot under supervision.

ITA 100%, maybe then the shots wouldn't have seemed so bad after all. I never thought of that option before, good one One-Fang!

Kibbles

[PuckishOne]

Kibbles is right - from what I read here, the child was just acting exactly as one would expect a child to. The fault lies partly with the zoo (why wasn't there a better barrier?) and mostly with the mother.

Yes, the child was being...well, a curious child, but I have to argue against holding the zoo at fault here.

Although I'm not familiar with the exact zoo in question, I have never been to a zoo in the US that didn't feature multiple, prominent, boldface-type-printed signs at every animal enclosure warning patrons not to climb or otherwise breach the barriers. Aside from a sign saying "please pet the meerkats," I can't for the life of me think of what would tell a literate adult that it was acceptable to allow a child of any age to reach into any sort of animal enclosure short of a petting farm. Zoos also post signs at all entrances and common areas stating that animals are, well, animals, and as such are unpredictable and not for petting or cuddling. (At our zoo, for example, there is a moat, fencing, walls and various large boulders separating viewers from the large-animal exhibits, and yet there are still signs posted saying "don't jump the moat/the fence/the wall.")

Short of bouncers, or an electric fence aimed at the paying customers, I can't see what else a zoo could be expected to do.

[One-Fang]

Kibbles is right - from what I read here, the child was just acting exactly as one would expect a child to. The fault lies partly with the zoo (why wasn't there a better barrier?) and mostly with the mother.

I have to agree with those who say the mother should be paying for the cost of the euthanising and replacement animals. I wouldn't have said so if there was no choice in this situation but to kill, but when the alternative is only that her pwecious baby doesn't have to have a couple of painful shots ... well.

I'll go one step further, which hasn't been suggested yet. I'm thinking of poor CRH (hope I've got the right CSer there) and the puppy killing story and I'm thinking - the mother and daughter should have been made to perform the euthanising. Now, I'm not saying it should be allowed to be potentially inhumane because they're inexperienced, but that they should what CRH did - administer the final shot under supervision.

She wants five meerkats killed so pwecious doesn't have to have a shot? Let her and pwecious experience the actual killing.

I suspect, like Raps, that she will be known in her home town, and her life will be hell right now.

[karma_gypsy]

That's why meerkats aren't pets. Both mother and daughter should have realized this. You can play with cats, dogs, hamsters, whatever, meerkats are wild animals and will do anything to protect themselves, each other and their young, as in this case.

I enjoy going to the zoo, as with so many other people. That upsets me that some girl had to ruin it for so many other people. I can understand maybe if the exhibits are undergoing changes and the animals aren't around, but because they had to be euthanized because of someone's lack of thinking? that's just wrong.
I have never littered or thrown anything into the exhibits, as I'm sure many other people do as well. I appreciate the animals in their habitats and love to take pictures of them.
Plus I love to feed the lorikeets - which is allowed - but lots of people often throw the little food cups on the ground when they're empty when there is a garbage cans two feet away. There is always a person working just to pick up the empty cups.

The lack of respect some (some, not all) people have animals is disgusting.

[kibbles]

She may be old enough to know better, but I think she is still at the age where a mistake was made and it's the parent's responsibility. I'm not saying that people shouldn't say that she shouldn't have known better, but calling her a brat and saying she deserves being teased at school is a bit much IMO.

[MadMike]

I don't think it's fair to call the child a brat, the child was curious and did something they shouldn't because the parent wasn't watching.

If she was, say, 3 or 4, I'd have to agree with you. But I think by age 9, she was old enough to know better.

[Kiwi]

By nine years old I was smart and obediant enough not to go sticking my hands where they dont belong. Espeically when wild animals are concerned.

Yes it is her parents role to supervise her and stop her from doing things like that, but by 9 if she cant think hmmm wild animal in a cage = do not touch then id be incrediably worried.

I would also not be giving the child the choice, 5 rabies shots would be coming her way.

[kibbles]

Why does that make it worse? The girl is 9 years old, what 9 year old would say that they wouldn't mind getting shots? It's totally the mother's responsibility, she should have to pay a fine of some sort to the zoo or exhibit for not properly watching her child.

JMO,

Kibbles

[wendula]

It gets worse>>>

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...s/15201782.htm


Apparently the girl is the one who didn't want the shots and the parents supported her.

If it were my kid, she wouldn't have been given a choice!

[kibbles]

I don't think it's fair to call the child a brat, the child was curious and did something they shouldn't because the parent wasn't watching. It's not right IMO to automatically assume that she is a brat, and to say that she deserves getting teased at school. Lots of normally well behaved children see something that looks to be soft and cuddly, automatically goes to pet it, it was the parent's responsibility.

JMO,

Kibbles