The Shooting of Harambe the gorilla

The shooting of Harambe the gorilla at Cincinnati Zoo in May 2016 on the premise that he might have harmed a human was a reminder that human life will always takes precedence over that of an animal whatever the circumstances.

Harambe died through no fault of his own.

On the afternoon of 28 May 2016 a three-year-old boy fell into the moat of the gorilla pen at Cincinnati Zoo in the USA, which at the time contained three gorillas. The two females were tempted from the pen, but Harambe, a 17-year-old male endangered lowland gorilla, was fascinated by the child splashing about in the water and went over to investigate. The screaming crowd of onlookers agitated and confused Harambe and he dragged the child through and out of the water.

Zoo officials were afraid for the child’s life and so the zoo marksman was called and Harambe was shot dead. Although the zoo was criticised for not doing more to save the child and Harambe, Mr Holloway, a zoo spokesman stated, screams from the crowd further agitated Harambe and it’s a horrible call to have to makebut human life will always take precedence over the animal.’ The incident became headline news worldwide and caused considerable controversy and a year after his death he had become the most popular meme of the year with memorials held all over the world.

We prefer animals to entertain us rather than seriously conserve them

Harambe died through no fault of his own, but because he fell foul of our human precedence belief and because we like to treat animals as objects of entertainment. Had his enclosure been designed for the safety and interests of the gorillas over that of the public or better still excluding the public to allow Harambe and his mates to get on with conserving their species undisturbed, he would still be alive.

Hrambe the gorilla shot at Cincinnati zoo 2016
HARAMBIE R.I.P

If we can kill such an endangered animal as a gorilla in a breeding programme doesn’t all this make a mockery of our supposed serious intention to preserve animals for the future.

So the moral of the story is that although gorillas are sentient, are an endangered and protected species, are closely related to us and disappearing at an alarming rate in the wild and that Harambe was doing his bit for conserving his species by being part of a breeding program, none of this saved him or was of any consequence.  I suspect that even if he had been the last male gorilla on the planet, his life would not have been  considered more important than that of a human.  Animals will unfortunately always come second to humans whatever the situation or circumstances as we could never bring ourselves to perhaps save an animal at the expense of a member of our own species.

Related Article:

Japanese Whaling Fleet Returns in Triumph With 223 Whales

The Japanese whaling fleet triumphantly returned this month (June 2020) from its first three month commercial hunt, with almost a full quota of 223 whales caught, amounting to 1,430 tons of frozen meat which costs $140 per kilo to buy. Bolstered by the success the Japanese government wants to spend $48 million to support more hunts even though the eating of whale meat is not as popular.

The ban on commercial whaling is just a gentleman’s agreement.

Japan announced its decision to begin whaling again after 31 years on the 1st. July, 2019 causing  worldwide outrage, because most people were under the misapprehension that whaling had been made illegal. But tragically the so called moratorium was only ever a gentleman’s agreement and a trade bargain which any country could withdraw from at any time if they followed the withdrawal procedure under the Convention.

Why did Japan do it? Well they never really stopped and used the loophole that all countries have of catching whales under the umbrella of “scientific purposes”. Japan also allegedly caught more than its allowed quota of Minke whales for years and tried to persuade member countries to help overturn the moratorium by supporting a vote on their proposal of “small type commercial whaling” (STCW) using small whaling ships in territorial waters. When this didn’t happen they decided to go their own way and hunt in their own waters.

Whaling, illegal whaling, IWC,Commercial whaling ban,whaling moratorium

Any member country of the Convention can just opt out

In 1946 the  Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed by the major whaling nations when it was realised that whales were in imminent danger of becoming extinct, but it was done to“provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry in the future not for the benefit of the whales.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the  Convention and the members meet every two years to decide which species can be hunted, how many and by who and various other policy issues. Any country can join regardless of whether they want to hunt whales or not and each member has voting rights.

The right to withdraw

Article XI of the Convention allows any member Government to withdraw from the agreement on the 30th. June of any year by giving notice before the 1st. January of the same year. Although not morally responsible it is legal. There was a worry that other countries would follow Japan’s lead and pull out, but thankfully this does not appear to be happening at the moment.

Many countries claim an exemption and receive a quota for their “aboriginal” inhabitants to hunt small numbers of small whales for their own needs, but many of these now want to increase their hunting to sell the by-products. Countries which presently hunt whales in one form or another are Japan, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Russia, USA, St. Vincent and Grenadines, South Korea and Greenland.

Unfortunately it would be foolish to believe that the future of the planet’s whales is totally safeguarded.