@why-animals-do-the-thing / blog.whyanimalsdothething.com
The Woodland Park Zoo had a spring event this past weekend, which I had to hit up for the fun enrichment. My favorite of all is the maned wolves - who you rarely ever get such a good chance to see!
One moment, they're elegant and ethereal. Then there's enrichment, and you realize they're just long-legged stinky goofballs [affectionate].
Meet Rosario (with tail) and Urso (tail-less).
Elegant, ethereal, unreal:
Ridiculous, adorable, dogs-running-fox-software:
5 year anniversary of the miette post \o/
995 years left on mother's sentence
I'm convinced that every cat has a Weird Game that it likes; your duty as the cat's owner is to discover what its favourite Weird Game is.
One of the most common question types this blog gets is some flavor of asking if Weird Games are okay. The people writing in are always very concerned for their pet’s safety and welfare (which I applaud) and often looking for an explanation of the behavior (which I have zero ability to give). This speaks to how common it is for cats - and other pets - to enjoy Weird Games.
This video is a great example of the best way to tell if a Weird Game is a thing your animal actually likes: let them initiate! The cat is being carried in a weird way when the video starts, but then immediately runs back to the designated “game spot” and asks for it to happen again. If you’re not sure if an animal likes an interaction - be it petting or a Weird Game - just stop, and see if they actively re-engage. If yes, you’re good to go!
Obviously, physical safety is an aspect of Weird Games too. The cat in this video apparently likes being carried upside down, which could injure it if it happened too much. But what we see is that their person supports the cat very securely, moves slowly, doesn’t go very far, puts the cat down on a soft and easy to reach surface, and doesn’t let the Game go on for too long. The cat also isn’t being held tightly and could clearly get free / ask to be put down if it became uncomfortable or wanted to be done. That seems like a good way to make that Weird Game safe to me (vets, please feel free to correct me here). If you’re worried about if a Weird Game is safe, ask your vet! You’ll make their day and get some useful information.
Do you have a snoot noodle or other variation of sighthound? If yes, there’s new heart health research for the breed happening!
A researcher at Texas A&M whose work I’m familiar with is starting a new study looking at genetic factors contributing to heart disease in Borzoi and related breeds. They just put out a call for dog owners who are willing to submit saliva samples & (noodle) medical records. Studies like this need a big sample size! They’re accepting new sign-ups starting now until March 1, 2025, for dogs both in the US and internationally.
Let’s help make some science!
From the study page:
“Background and purpose
Recent research in Borzoi dogs has revealed that dogs of this breed experience sudden, unexplained death. About 85% of sudden, unexplained deaths in humans are linked to an underlying heart disease. Our existing research in Borzoi dogs has shown that they are predisposed to developing arrhythmias (abnormal heart rhythms) and dilated cardiomyopathy (a heart muscle disease causing dilated heart chambers and weak pumping function).
Due to our documentation of the frequency of these conditions in Borzoi dogs, we seek to identify responsible genetic variations similar to what is seen in humans with electrical cardiac diseases that trigger arrhythmias and dilated cardiomyopathy.
The objective of our study is to identify genetic mutations associated with heart disease in Borzoi dogs and document their existence in other sighthound breeds.
What happens in this study
We are collecting saliva samples from both healthy Borzoi and Borzoi dogs affected with arrhythmias and/or dilated cardiomyopathy. We will also collect saliva samples from any other sighthound breeds.
We will extract DNA from these samples and perform genomic sequencing on a select number while retaining the remainder for further screening.By analyzing the sequencing data, we can compare the genes of healthy and affected Borzoi dogs and identify variants linked to their heart conditions. We will also compare the findings in Borzoi dogs to results from other sighthound breeds.
Pet owner responsibilities
A swab kit will be sent to you for at home use along with a link to an instructional video on how to properly obtain a swab of the mouth. The kit will contain equipment to collect the saliva swab, a history form for your pet, a client consent form and a shipping label to return samples to us.
Participation requirements
To participate, you must have a Borzoi dog or a sighthound breed that is either healthy or affected by arrhythmias and/or dilated cardiomyopathy. Pets may be any age or sex. Electronic or paper veterinary medical records will need to be provided.
Benefits and risks of participating
There is little to no risk for taking a brief swab of the mouth for saliva collection if procedures outlined in the video are followed. No individual genetic test results will be provided to study participants.
Compensation
There is no cost to the owner for participating in this study. No compensation will be provided.”
Over the last few years, I’ve begun to heavily encourage people to think of a zoo or aquarium or sanctuary being accredited as conveying important information about their ethos / operations / politics - but not as an inherent indicator of quality. Why? Because accrediting groups can be and are fallible. There are issues with all of the accrediting groups and programs, to varying degrees, and so they’re just a piece of information for a discerning zoo-goer to incorporate into their overall opinion. I just saw a news article go by with some data that proves my point.
First off, good for Houston, no commentary that follows is directed that them.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a headline like this - there was one a couple years ago, about Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado also getting a perfect inspection. But here’s what bugs me about it.
If you see/hear the phrase “Facility X has been accredited by Y organization, which holds the highest standards in the world for this type of facility”, it kind of implies that facility X meets all of those standards, doesn’t it? Not most of them, not the majority. When you hear that a zoological facility has gone through a rigorous process to earn an accreditation branded (by the accrediting org) as “the gold standard” in the industry… the general public is going to interpret that as saying these facilities are in compliance with every single rule or standard. And what these headlines tell us, alongside the commentary from AZA in the articles, is that it’s not only not true - it never has been true. Most AZA accredited facilities apparently don’t meet all the AZA standards when they’re inspected, and that’s both okay with them and normal enough to talk about without worrying about the optics.
Let’s start with the basic information in the Houston Chronicle article, which will have been provided to them by the zoo and the AZA.
“Since it's inception in 1974, the AZA has conducted more than 2,700 inspections and awarded only eight perfect evaluations throughout the process's 50-year history. Houston Zoo's final report is 26 pages long — and filled with A's and A-pluses."
Okay, so… doing that math, less than one percent of AZA accreditation inspections don’t meet all the standards at the time of inspection. But, wait, that’s not just what that says. That bit of information isn’t talk about AZA accredited facilities vs the ones that got denied accreditation: this is telling us that of facilities that earned AZA accreditation, basically none of them meet all the standards at the time. This isn’t talking about tabled accreditations or provisional ones where they come back and check that something improved. Given that math from earlier, this information means that most - if not all - AZA accredited facilities have repeatedly failed to meet all of the standards at one point in time … and have still been accredited anyway.
That tracks with what was said about Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, back in 2021 when they got their perfect accreditation.
“Cheyenne Mountain Zoo has earned an incredibly rare clean report of inspection and its seventh consecutive five-year accreditation from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). In nearly 50 years of accreditations, CMZoo is only the fourth organization to earn a ‘clean’ report, which means there wasn’t a single major or minor concern reported”
Seven consecutive accreditation processes - and only one of them where they actually met all the standard at the time.
Here’s what the AZA CEO had to say about Houston’s accreditation achievement in that article, which reinforces my conclusion here:
"AZA president and CEO Dan Ashe says the multi-day inspection process, which occurs every five years, has been described as "comprehensive, exhausting and intimidating."
"We send a team of experts in who spend several days talking to employees, guests and the governing board. They look at animal care and husbandry. They look at the governance structure and finances. They look comprehensively at the organization," Ashe explains. "For a facility like Houston Zoo to have a completely clean accreditation and inspection is extremely rare. These inspectors are experts, it's hard to get to the point where they can't find something.""
Now, here’s the rub. We, as members of the public, will never have any idea which standards it is deemed okay for a given AZA facility to not meet. All of the zoological accrediting groups consider accreditation information proprietary - the only way we find out information about how a facility does during accreditation is if they choose to share it themselves.
On top of that, it’s complicated by the fact that last time I read them AZA had over 212 pages of accreditation standards and related guidance that facilities had to comply with. Now, AZA doesn’t accredit facilities if there are major deviations from their standards, or if there’s an issue on something important or highly contentious. So - based on my completely outsider but heavily researched perspective - this probably means that most zoos are in non-compliance with a couple of standards, but not more than a handful.
To make trying to figure this out even more fun, it is also important to know that AZA’s standards are performance standards: whether or not they’re “met” is based on a subjective assessment performed by the accreditation inspectors and the accreditation committee. This means that what qualifies as fulfilling the standards can and does vary between facilities, depending on who inspected them and the composition of the committee at the time.
So why do I care so much? Because when it comes to public trust, branding matters. AZA has gained a reputation as the most stringent accrediting group in the country - to the point that it can lobby legislators to write exceptions into state and federal laws just for its members - based on how they message about their accreditation program. How intensive it is, how much oversight it provides, what a high level of rigor the facilities are held to. That… doesn’t track with “well, actually, the vast majority of the zoos meet most of the standards most of the time.” People who support AZA - people who visit AZA accredited zoos specifically because of what it means about the quality of the facility - believe that accreditation means all the standards are being met!
To be clear: most AZA zoos do meet some pretty high standards. It’s likely that what are being let slide are pretty minor things. I expect it’s on stuff the facility can improve without too much hassle, and it might be that doing so is probably part of what’s required. There’s not enough information available to people outside the fold. But I will say, I don’t think any zoo is getting accredited despite AZA having knowledge of a serious problem.
Where I take issue with this whole situations is the ethics of the marketing and branding. AZA frames themselves as being the best-of-the-best, the gold standard, when it turns out that most of their accredited zoos aren’t totally in compliance, and they know and it’s fine. They seem to be approaching accreditation like a grade, where anything over a certain amount of compliance is acceptable. The public, though, is being fed a narrative that implies it’s a 99/100 pass/fail type of situation. That’s not super honest, imho, which shows up in how there’s zero transparency with the public about it - it goes unspoken and unacknowledged, except when it’s used for promotional gain.
And then, like, on top of the honesty in marketing part, it’s just… something that gets joked about, which really rubs me the wrong way. Like this statement from the media releases for the Cheyenne Mountain accreditation:
“Another of our ‘We Believe’ statements is, ‘We value laughter as good medicine,’” said Chastain. “To put this clean accreditation into perspective, when I asked Dan Ashe, AZA president and CEO, for his comments about how rare this is, he joked, ‘A completely clean inspection report is so unusual, and so unlikely, it brings one word to mind — bribery!’“
So, TL;DR, even AZA accreditation is designed so that their accredited zoos don’t have to - and mostly don’t - actually fully meet all the standards. I’d love to know more about what types of standards AZA is willing to let slide when they accredit a facility, but given the proprietary nature of that information, it’s pretty unlikely there will ever be more information available. AZA accreditation tells you what standards a zoo aspires to meet, what their approximate ethics are, and what political pool they play in. When it comes to the quality of a facility and their animal care, though, sporting an accreditation acronym is just a piece of the larger puzzle.
'Boop someone' day?
You obviously mean 'BITE someone' day.
Feat. the Lincoln Park Zoo lion littles, last spring.
He was not thriving, as the people championing the ideal of "freedom" claimed.
He was poisoned.
He was sick.
He was suffering.
"Freedom" would have eventually killed him. A building just happened to do it first.
"Postmortem testing has been completed for Flaco, the Eurasian eagle owl that was found down in the courtyard of a Manhattan building a little over a year after his enclosure at the Central Park Zoo was vandalized on February 2, 2023. Onlookers reported that Flaco had flown into a building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on February 23, 2024, and acute trauma was found at necropsy. Bronx Zoo veterinary pathologists determined that in addition to the traumatic injuries, Flaco had two significant underlying conditions. He had a severe pigeon herpesvirus from eating feral pigeons that had become part of his diet, and exposure to four different anticoagulant rodenticides that are commonly used for rat control in New York City. These factors would have been debilitating and ultimately fatal, even without a traumatic injury, and may have predisposed him to flying into or falling from the building. The identified herpesvirus can be carried by healthy pigeons but may cause fatal disease in birds of prey including owls infected by eating pigeons. This virus has been previously found in New York City pigeons and owls. In Flaco’s case, the viral infection caused severe tissue damage and inflammation in many organs, including the spleen, liver, gastrointestinal tract, bone marrow, and brain. No other contributing factors were identified through the extensive testing that was performed. Flaco’s severe illness and death are ultimately attributed to a combination of factors—infectious disease, toxin exposures, and traumatic injuries—that underscore the hazards faced by wild birds, especially in an urban setting."
The naturalistic fallacy kills animals in horrible ways. The romanticism of what humans want to think of as a "free, wild, pure life" cannot be allowed supplant the reality of injury, sickness, and death. Releasing captive animals (or keeping them from being recaptured) because it's "better" for them to suffer untethered than live a healthy, safe, captive life is inhumane and horrific.
Flaco's life didn't have to end in pain, sickness, and suffering.
Flaco's death didn't have to be tragic.
But once the idea of "freedom" entered the chat, Flaco's fate was unavoidable.
Question relevant to Flaco-
It's my understanding that birds are generally able to see UV light, invisible to us. Do you think it would be feasible to create a mesh visible in UV, but not the human visible spectrum, that could be applied to windows and outer surfaces of buildings to reduce bird impacts? Not really concerned about the economic feasibility, just the functional.
This does exist!
UV stickers you can put on residential windows are pretty common these days (if you can access the outside of them - not so good for a Manhattan skyscraper).
I found a couple companies offering UV-reflective options for commercial buildings, in addition to some other visually deterrent options. Guardian BirdFirst UV is a coating, and GlasPro Bird Safe UV looks to be a patterned UV layer inserted between the exterior layers of glass windows.
None of these are totally invisible to the human eye (especially if the surface is wet, for some reason) but they're fairly easy to ignore. Normally they look like stripes or little square dots in a repeating pattern.
This is from the GlasPro site, human vision on the left, bird on the right.
It comes down to convincing people to use them: they have to believe it's important and be willing to put up with something not perfectly invisible that might be "unpleasing" or something. I also don't know how much these coatings cost, but I'd guess they're probably something only organizations that really care will want to shell out for.
I present to you: the aforementioned tiger shenanigans.
This is Amur tiger brothers Luka and Dmitri, who just turned two a few days ago! Two boys and their boomer ball.
I don’t need a third memory card for a zoo day, I said, 96GB is more than enough.
Then the second card ran out in the middle of tiger sibling shenanigans.
If there was one animal literacy thing I could change with a wave of a wand, it would be increasing people's understanding of how dangerous megafauna are. I think that in the US (and probably other Western countries too), we're so removed from wildlife and even large domesticated animals that people really have no perspective on how much a big animal can fuck you up. Even if they're "gentle."
This is a discussion going on on Twitter, too, the last few days: there was a thing where an Iditarod musher shot a moose to protect their team, and a lot of people are confused as to why that needed to happen. Apparently this moose had been hanging around the course for quite a while and was becoming quite dangerous to the sled dog teams. Moose are territorial and not to be fucked with. Everyone from Alaska or areas with moose are like "yup, that's just reality."
Same thing with the bison birth I watched last year. Folk really thought the staff should be in the habitat on the ground with the bison herd, helping with the birth. Sure, that's what we do with cows if we have to, but... bison are definitely not cows and, again, will squish you.
People tend to get it more with the predators. Few people will argue that a cougar or an alligator or a bear isn't dangerous. I think people kinda go both ways on wild pigs / boars depending on their experience. But herbivores or things that don't look traditionally pointy... it just kinda doesn't click.
Any large animal is probably stronger than you think and more likely to hurt you than you realize. Be it a dolphin, an elk, a sea lion, or even an emperor penguin... just don't go near them, buds.
An adult moose is 6-7 feet tall and over 800 pounds/363 kg (female) or 1100 pounds/817 kg (male). They're enormous. Much bigger than you'd think if you've never seen one. Same goes for a lot of other large animals.
And herbivores can get really dangerous. People think that herbivores aren't as dangerous as carnivores because they don't hunt to eat. BUT. They're still going to protect themselves. There's always the possibility of accidents, either because of bad luck (like a car hitting a moose at night) or because an animal feels threatened.
Moose are so much bigger than you think. And not only can they hurt you if they feel threatened or territorial, sometimes they just don't like the way you looked at them, and then you're dead.
At the time I made this post, I'd forgotten about some photos I took last October at a large-acreage facility out in the PNW. I've wanted to talk about them but was worried that without proper context they might encourage copycat behavior. I think this is the right place for them.
But to be clear.
Even in a captive setting, with hand-raised moose, this is... a really bad idea, honestly.
So last fall, I was playing with a new telephoto lens, and I decided I'd go out to the local facility that focuses on native species. They have a large-acreage drive-through with bison, elk, deer, and moose, and I took a special tour in a staff-driven jeep to be able to get better photos.
This facility has three hand-raised juvenile moose, all rescues from Alaska. A bull, Atlas, and two cows, Luna and Callisto. At the time I was there, they would have been about a year and a half old. Very importantly, they were hand-raised by the keeper staff. Now that the moose are older, they live in the 435-acre drive-through section of the park, which is very heavily wooded and has a lot of complex terrain.
So we're out in the drive-through section of the park nice and early in the morning. The tour guide is on the radio with keeper staff discussing where the moose might have bedded down overnight, and once they're found, we drive over there. And we watch as this keeper pulls up in a truck near the moose... and then gets out? and walks directly over to the moose? And then gets directly down on the ground with them?
Everyone else on the tour is cooing about how sweet it is, and the tour guide is telling us about the bond between the staff and the moose they hand-raised. Meanwhile my jaw is on the floor. I asked the tour guide if this was normal husbandry practice (because how??) and was told yes, this is how the keeper staff regularly interact with the moose. It's known by management, considered appropriate, and basically encouraged.
(AN: Normally, I'd edit the keepers face out of photos like this, to protect their privacy. However, the facility regularly posts him interacting with the moose on their social media, including his full face and his name.)
Two months before, in a press release, the facility had indicated that all three calves now stood almost 5 feet tall at the shoulder. Atlas weighed in at over 730 pounds at the time, and the cows were 664 pounds and 554 pounds respectively.
We sit there for a while and watch the keeper kneel on the ground with one of the cows, checking over her head and neck and giving her scratches.
After a while he gets up and moves over to the other cow, who stands patiently while he checks her body over (the tour guide tells us this is the most effective way for the staff to remove ticks). At times, she rests her head on his body while he's looking at her chest and legs, as pictured below.
Atlas, the bull, wandered down eventually. I don't have photos of him getting a tick check. The keeper then grabbed a stick and used it to pull high-up branches down, so all three moose could snack on the leaves. That put him in close proximity to all three as they grazed.
This next part was the most heart-stopping thing I've seen in person.
Atlas, the tour guide told us, was just coming out of his first rut. When in rut, moose are very hormonal and very dangerous to be around. We were told they'd pretty much stayed free-contact with him throughout, because he had a good relationship with his keepers.
Sure, but... then we watched him repeatedly try to push the keeper over. I don't know what the provocation was (or if it was just the end of rut), but partway through eating the proffered branch, he started pinning his ears back and eyeballing the keeper. When that didn't do anything, Atlas progressed to shoving the guy backwards with his head.
Atlas even followed the keeper after he moved away, approached him, and pushed him over again. I've got probably... five discrete instances of the behavior in my photos? There wasn't a ton of effort behind it, but the keeper had to hustle to not be knocked down. What really worried me was that the keeper didn't seem distressed by the interaction, or like it was even really worthy of much notice - it felt, watching it and reviewing my photos, like it was just a normal thing. Which. uh. yikes.
This is an AZA accredited facility. The last thing I ever expected to see is staff working free-contact with moose (even yearlings). It's dangerous, it's a liability for the zoo, and it encourages guests to think that it is safe to interact with moose. No matter how many times a tour guide stresses that "this is only safe because of x", you know people are just gonna go "oh man I want to do that too."
To be clear: I don't think this is anything to do with the specific keeper's choices. The facility's Facebook page shows videos regularly filmed by different keepers who are in that habitat, free-contact with the moose. Even now that they're almost two years old, and even bigger. I think it's just what they're told the job is.
Now, I don't have personal experience working with hoofstock, maybe there was something I was missing. So I reached out to a number of career zoo professionals who have that background and asked for their thoughts. The response, to a T, was basically “this is playing with fire." They stressed that hoofstock - especially hand-raised animals- can/will randomly decide to hurt you. Even if they've known you forever, despite a previously good relationship, without a visible trigger. "Smaller" deer and antelope regularly charge, strike, gore, trample, and kill people. Those incidents don't tend to happen with captive moose because nobody goes in with them.
I'm really concerned for the safety of those zookeepers in the long-term. Here's the thing: I took those photos with a very good telephoto lens from across a lake, and they were at the very end of my zoom range. We were probably a good five-ten minute drive away from being able to reach him, over rough roads with tight turns and steep terrain. Coming in from outside the drive-through would have taken even longer. That keeper was out there, alone, and not close enough to his car to run back to it it easily. I don't see a radio on his belt (he was using a cell phone to document stuff about body condition) or any sort of protective backup gear (like how carnivore keepers carry pepper spray). And staff have clearly been OK'd (maybe even asked, idk) to use their phones to take photos and/or create social media content while they're out there!
If something were to go wrong... there's nobody nearby those keepers to help. At least if there were two people out there together, the second person could call for help, or pull you to safety, or try to distract the moose. Something. They could do something. With the way the facility appears to have their husbandry set up, each keeper is just out there alone. Nobody can get there quickly. They're on their own, and that's a terrible place to be if even a half-grown moose decides it wants to end you.
TL;DR? No matter what you see the "professionals" doing, don't fuck with moose. It's important to remember that even they (or their management) can make make dangerous, irresponsible decisions and not consider the optics of a situation. Instead, follow the rule of thumb: if you hold your thumb up in the direction of a wild animal, can you blot them out? If your thumb doesn't cover the entire outline of the wild animal, you're too damn close.
Twin polar bear cubs Kallik and Kallu from the Toledo Zoo.
Spring is slowly creeping into the Pacific Northwest, which means it's time for nest building! I've seen the fully-made nests of taveta golden weaver birds before, but had never gotten to watch the process of construction. The males in this colony-living species weave plant matter into complex hanging nests, and the quality of their weaving skills is what wins over the females!
For mid-February, the guy in the video sure had gotten a jump start on the process.
Everyone else's nests in the aviary looked more like this:
If there was one animal literacy thing I could change with a wave of a wand, it would be increasing people's understanding of how dangerous megafauna are. I think that in the US (and probably other Western countries too), we're so removed from wildlife and even large domesticated animals that people really have no perspective on how much a big animal can fuck you up. Even if they're "gentle."
This is a discussion going on on Twitter, too, the last few days: there was a thing where an Iditarod musher shot a moose to protect their team, and a lot of people are confused as to why that needed to happen. Apparently this moose had been hanging around the course for quite a while and was becoming quite dangerous to the sled dog teams. Moose are territorial and not to be fucked with. Everyone from Alaska or areas with moose are like "yup, that's just reality."
Same thing with the bison birth I watched last year. Folk really thought the staff should be in the habitat on the ground with the bison herd, helping with the birth. Sure, that's what we do with cows if we have to, but... bison are definitely not cows and, again, will squish you.
People tend to get it more with the predators. Few people will argue that a cougar or an alligator or a bear isn't dangerous. I think people kinda go both ways on wild pigs / boars depending on their experience. But herbivores or things that don't look traditionally pointy... it just kinda doesn't click.
Any large animal is probably stronger than you think and more likely to hurt you than you realize. Be it a dolphin, an elk, a sea lion, or even an emperor penguin... just don't go near them, buds.
There's a viral video circulating from the Fort Worth Zoo, of two keepers who ended up in a habitat at the same time as a silverback gorilla. Spoiler for good news: neither the humans nor the gorilla got hurt. It's a bad situation that ended extremely well, and that's why I want to talk about it.
The audio for this video is mostly someone praying loudly, so if you need to turn the audio off to watch it, you won't miss anything relevant. If you don't want to watch it, here's the summary: it starts with a keeper running around the corner into the main exhibit, pursued by a large male gorilla. She is quickly able to get into a doorway at the back of the exhibit, but does not completely close the door because the gorilla is standing across from her, watching. He eventually moves off to the right hand side of the exhibit, where we can see a keeper is trapped in the corner at the front. She was trying to move towards the exit as he moved to the right, and she stops, standing very still behind a tree, while he stays along the far right wall. They stay like that for a minute, and then the gorilla runs to the front right corner, and the keeper is able to run to the door in the back of the exhibit and get to safety.
Let's start with basic information. Even though it's just going viral now, this video is from October of 2023. It was taken not by a guest, but by the zoo security officer responding to the situation. Hmmm, seems like he maybe should have been doing something else during that situation, instead of than taking a phone video. It's going viral now because the guy (who is no longer employed at the zoo) decided to post it on TikTok for his five minutes of fame. This guy immediately started giving all sorts of media interviews, answering questions like "why no tranquilizers" inappropriately, making memes out of his own video, generally distasteful shit.
Zoo spokesperson Avery Elander gave a public statement that "thankfully, there was no physical contact between keepers and gorilla, and all staff and animals are safe." A comment from the zoo has also indicated that the incident was due to keeper error. (As opposed to, for instance, something in the fencing breaking.) According to the guy who posted the video, a lock was left unsecured and the gorilla was able to open the door to the habitat. I don't know if I buy it, and again, this just... is probably why he doesn't have a job anymore. By sharing that detail - real or not - he places a ton of public scrutiny and blame on that keeper team. (If that's what happened, I can promise you it will have been dealt with internally.) He also was nice enough to say he wouldn't name the women in the video... but verified they're still staffers at the zoo... which means they're eminently identifiable! Excuse me while I ragequit for a second.
So there's two reasons I wanted to talk about this. The first is to make sure it is well known that this guy is purposefully and intentionally exploiting the worst day of someone's life for media attention. Their lives were in danger, and he's using it for fame. His name is in the media articles - I'm not going to share it because he doesn't deserve that attention. The second reason, though, is because this video is a masterclass on how to survive if you end up sharing space with a gorilla. Every zoo person I've spoken to or seen comment on the video is so, so impressed with how the keepers handled themselves.
The gorilla in this video is 34-year-old Elmo. All apes in AZA zoos are managed in protected contact, so keepers are supposed to be separated from them by a barrier at all times. The zookeepers were in the habitat putting out a mid-day meal when he got out. Watching the video, you can see he's not actively being aggressive towards them - he's not making threat displays or trying to approach them. Mostly, Elmo seems like he doesn't know what is going on and he's kinda freaked out about it. (This is confirmed in the zoo's press statement, too). The staff stayed calm, and importantly, watched and waited to see how he'd move and act.
The zoo did say one thing, though, that's a bit misleading. In one article, their press person I quote as saying “In general, gorillas are considered the “gentle giants” of the great ape species.” Just because this may be true in comparison to other great ape species doesn't meant gorilla aren't still incredibly dangerous. This type of messaging always worries me, because I think it leads people to misunderstand the risks of being close to megafauna. Gorilla are extremely strong animals, and their social norms/behaviors are very different from that of humans. That's why it's such a big deal any time people end up in gorilla habitats, and why sometimes in those circumstances lethal measures have to be taken to protect human life.
These keepers are incredibly lucky to be unharmed. These women stayed safe specifically because they're trained professionals who knew how to act around gorilla, they knew this particular animal well, and they'd learned the escapes from the exhibit just in case this ever happened. We should applaud them for their cool heads and quick thinking.
As for the guy who posted the video? As a colleague put it, may he always step on a Lego.
The keepers did everything right- they must have a really good sense of the big guy's body language, because it looks like they were taking really good care not to excite him any more than he already is. This could have been an extremely bad situation, and the fact that the security guy just stood there and filmed it and then put it on TikTok...
well, I think he deserves harsher than stepping on a Lego. Blacklisted from the industry seems appropriate because even if he wasn't going to use tranqs, the fact that he pulled out his phone and started filming means that he was willing to be distracted in an extremely risky situation. By filming instead of giving his undivided attention and being ready to react, he made a dangerous situation worse!
What the security guy should have been doing: keeping the public calm, getting them out of there. Commotion from people at viewing windows absolutely could have upset Elmo and exacerbated the danger of the situation. (This is actually what happened with Harambe - witnesses noted that the screams of the people watching spooked him.) He also should have been keeping an eye on the situation and reporting back to management as needed - for instance, on if the situation devolved and they might have needed to call up the dart/gun team.
The responding security officer would not have been the person using tranquilizers. Zoos have specifically trained DART teams (dangerous animal response teams) that respond to situations like this. There's a lot of complicated factors to using tranquilizers: they don't knock an animal down immediately, and they can be come more dangerous when aggravated by being hit with a dart before it takes effect; tranquilizers have to be dosed for the animal's body weight and must be prepared by vet staff; tranquilizers and dart guns and also actual guns are always stored safely and require some time to access (e.g. in safes). The first person on the scene, even if they were part of the dart team, needs to stay and monitor what's happening.
There's always safety protocols for all of this stuff. Zoos put a ton of time into contingency planning and doing drills for possible adverse events. This dude did not follow any of it.
There's a viral video circulating from the Fort Worth Zoo, of two keepers who ended up in a habitat at the same time as a silverback gorilla. Spoiler for good news: neither the humans nor the gorilla got hurt. It's a bad situation that ended extremely well, and that's why I want to talk about it.
The audio for this video is mostly someone praying loudly, so if you need to turn the audio off to watch it, you won't miss anything relevant. If you don't want to watch it, here's the summary: it starts with a keeper running around the corner into the main exhibit, pursued by a large male gorilla. She is quickly able to get into a doorway at the back of the exhibit, but does not completely close the door because the gorilla is standing across from her, watching. He eventually moves off to the right hand side of the exhibit, where we can see a keeper is trapped in the corner at the front. She was trying to move towards the exit as he moved to the right, and she stops, standing very still behind a tree, while he stays along the far right wall. They stay like that for a minute, and then the gorilla runs to the front right corner, and the keeper is able to run to the door in the back of the exhibit and get to safety.
Let's start with basic information. Even though it's just going viral now, this video is from October of 2023. It was taken not by a guest, but by the zoo security officer responding to the situation. Hmmm, seems like he maybe should have been doing something else during that situation, instead of than taking a phone video. It's going viral now because the guy (who is no longer employed at the zoo) decided to post it on TikTok for his five minutes of fame. This guy immediately started giving all sorts of media interviews, answering questions like "why no tranquilizers" inappropriately, making memes out of his own video, generally distasteful shit.
Zoo spokesperson Avery Elander gave a public statement that "thankfully, there was no physical contact between keepers and gorilla, and all staff and animals are safe." A comment from the zoo has also indicated that the incident was due to keeper error. (As opposed to, for instance, something in the fencing breaking.) According to the guy who posted the video, a lock was left unsecured and the gorilla was able to open the door to the habitat. I don't know if I buy it, and again, this just... is probably why he doesn't have a job anymore. By sharing that detail - real or not - he places a ton of public scrutiny and blame on that keeper team. (If that's what happened, I can promise you it will have been dealt with internally.) He also was nice enough to say he wouldn't name the women in the video... but verified they're still staffers at the zoo... which means they're eminently identifiable! Excuse me while I ragequit for a second.
So there's two reasons I wanted to talk about this. The first is to make sure it is well known that this guy is purposefully and intentionally exploiting the worst day of someone's life for media attention. Their lives were in danger, and he's using it for fame. His name is in the media articles - I'm not going to share it because he doesn't deserve that attention. The second reason, though, is because this video is a masterclass on how to survive if you end up sharing space with a gorilla. Every zoo person I've spoken to or seen comment on the video is so, so impressed with how the keepers handled themselves.
The gorilla in this video is 34-year-old Elmo. All apes in AZA zoos are managed in protected contact, so keepers are supposed to be separated from them by a barrier at all times. The zookeepers were in the habitat putting out a mid-day meal when he got out. Watching the video, you can see he's not actively being aggressive towards them - he's not making threat displays or trying to approach them. Mostly, Elmo seems like he doesn't know what is going on and he's kinda freaked out about it. (This is confirmed in the zoo's press statement, too). The staff stayed calm, and importantly, watched and waited to see how he'd move and act.
The zoo did say one thing, though, that's a bit misleading. In one article, their press person I quote as saying “In general, gorillas are considered the “gentle giants” of the great ape species.” Just because this may be true in comparison to other great ape species doesn't meant gorilla aren't still incredibly dangerous. This type of messaging always worries me, because I think it leads people to misunderstand the risks of being close to megafauna. Gorilla are extremely strong animals, and their social norms/behaviors are very different from that of humans. That's why it's such a big deal any time people end up in gorilla habitats, and why sometimes in those circumstances lethal measures have to be taken to protect human life.
These keepers are incredibly lucky to be unharmed. These women stayed safe specifically because they're trained professionals who knew how to act around gorilla, they knew this particular animal well, and they'd learned the escapes from the exhibit just in case this ever happened. We should applaud them for their cool heads and quick thinking.
As for the guy who posted the video? As a colleague put it, may he always step on a Lego.
My heart melted seeing the Lincoln Park zoo pride, the cubs are yearlings and already getting big, they grow up so fast😭. Lomelok just went through surgery yesterday to correct a slipped spinal disc. Plz send good vibes to Chicago! I think Lomelok is a testament to how excellent veterinary care is for zoo animals, in the wild he probably would’ve died before his first birthday as he started showing experiencing weakness in his hind legs and tired easily as a tiny cub. Just wanted to share.
According to the zoo yesterday, he's out of surgery and doing well!
"The update we’ve all been waiting for with bated breath. Last night, around midnight, Lomelok fully stood up on his own for the first time! This is a huge milestone for his recovery but is one of the first literal and figurative steps in his journey. Afterward, he took a long 5-hour nap as the care team observed from nearby via camera so he could rest undisturbed.
Lomelok is currently recovering in a small space that controls the level of his activity during these critical first 72 hours."
