Found a Reddit thread about this. Some of the users further down in the comments did some digging and found this old news article. Other Redditors mentioned that they don’t give out the glasses anymore, and that the glasses were mainly a marketing plot by an ad agency.
They definitely don’t give those glasses anymore and in fact, the particular gorilla has passed away as well. I believe last year
Thanks for the info, makes sense as this is from 15 years ago
‘Everyday’ - an adjective meaning ‘normal’ and 'mundane.
‘Every day’ - daily.
A trusted news source should know its own language.
OP isn’t a trusted news source…and the subtitle isn’t a quote they pulled from the wiki article
Indeed, still corrected the title
Oh, thanks for the heads up from a non native speaker.
One of the dumbest and most pedantic differences I can think of in the English language.
There are many worse mistakes journalists make, this isn’t one I’m particularly bothered by.
Corrected!
Similarly, it’s always grating to see on a dating profile that a person likes to “hangout.”
All of these people are scheming something comically devious.
Williamina Dafoe in the back there in particular.
no they’re not
👉👈
That image is quite unsettling.
deleted by creator
The combination is what makes it weird to me, I think
Wouldn’t the better solution be to simply not turn gorillas into a public attraction?
Generating awareness and sympathy is probably the biggest factor in keeping many endangered species alive
To add to this, A lot of gorillas that are saved from unsafe/illegal conditions cannot go back into the wild. Places like The Rotterdam zoo provides a lot of enrichment for these animals that you won’t see at say, Joe’s roadside animal park.
Why not save animals from unsafe/illegal conditions and provide enrichment, without turning the animals into an attraction?
Because the attraction rallies support for preserving and protecting their natural habitat. Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.
Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.
But they aren’t necessary for conservation. Conservation can occur without zoos.
Yes, but conservation is not a binary condition. Zoos are responsible for more conservation than we would otherwise have without them.
So you acknowledge that zoos are not necessary for conservation?
i too can come up with technically true statements that are completely useless
I love when people like you suddenly come up with a hot take that absolutely no one has ever thought through ever in the past hundreds of years.
Because people wouldn’t support spending their taxes on it without making them aware of the value. Which is done by educating them.
That doesn’t answer my question.
No one can answer the question of a sealion.
Another lie of capitalism. Species don’t have inherent value, individuals of a species do. Which is why bad treatment of those individuals can’t be justified by appealing to the species’ survival. It’s about money, like everywhere else.
… What. I don’t even know where to start with that. Ecological conservation is about money?
Zoos are about money.
Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world? Which is obviously critical in making people care about protecting it.
Crappy “documentaries” ain’t it by the way. Not to mention that zoos also serve a secondary function in providing for rescue animals, and animals otherwise unable to live in the wild. Zoos are not perfect, but are very clearly the best compromise for fostering interest in our wonderful nature in future generations, who probably won’t even encounter a horse or cow in real life otherwise.
Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world?
By going to their habitats?
obviously critical in making people care about protecting it
No. Zoos are not critical in making people care about protecting wildlife.
Taking tourists into natural habitats is way more destructive than having a few specimens on display in artificial habitats.
Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world?
They shouldn’t.
Which is obviously critical in making people care about protecting it.
Where is the evidence for that?
Not to mention that zoos also serve a secondary function in providing for rescue animals, and animals otherwise unable to live in the wild.
This doesn’t require the animals to be put on display.
Zoos are not perfect, but are very clearly the best compromise for fostering interest in our wonderful nature in future generations, who probably won’t even encounter a horse or cow in real life otherwise.
Or we could stop destroying the natural habitats of those animals instead of making a profit with the remaining individuals.
Do you need evidence that most people have a hard time being invested in something entirely abstract which they will never interact with for their whole life? Something they only ever saw in school books? Which is what animals would be for a massive part of the population.
Kids nowadays at best interact with pets, they know the horses are what people rode in those old western movies and cows are what makes the milk in the carton from the grocery store. Chicken grows in nugget form.
And these are all domesticated animals, not at all exotic in most places around the world. How would they ever come into contact with all the other fascinating creatures we share our planet with? Develop a passion for their protection?
Zoos are about money, yes. That’s not the point under discussion. I’m taking issue with the line ‘species don’t have inherent value’. You’re basically saying it’s ok to drive species extinct as long as its done humanely.
ou’re basically saying it’s ok to drive species extinct
You should read my comment again. This is not what I am saying.
That’s certainly how it comes across when you claim species don’t have inherent value. Why would we bother to preserve and protect something that’s valueless? You may have meant something else, but judging by the downvotes nobody else is getting your intended meaning either.
Collectivist learns individualism speedrun.
Whey do you mean? We entirely dominate them, and transparently acknowledge all species on this planet are either our commercial resources, or our entertainment
If humans could put rainbows in a zoo they would.
For those who didn’t read how obsessed the woman was, let’s just say there’s a good chance she might have been attracted to the gorilla 🦍
Wait, a person came to a zoo every day and stared at a Gorilla?
How many days? Did this person just go to the zoo every single day and mean mug a gorilla?
Is this an anime plotline, a zoo employee, or is OP’s headline a bit misleading?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-gorilla-idUSL3042888320070530/
The 180 kg (397 lb) Bokito seriously injured a woman, who it later emerged has visited the ape almost every day since his arrival at the zoo a year and a half ago
Dutch citizens lost sympathy for the woman after it emerged that she has visited the gorilla about four times a week and said that Bokito “remains her darling” despite suffering a broken arm and wrist and around 100 bites.
Dutch Media widely reported that the woman misunderstood what she perceived as a smile from the gorilla. Experts suggest he was more likely to have been baring his teeth as a threat.
One hundred bites. Holy fuck. Bet it didn’t take him long either.
In a different context I would bust out the horny bat.
And somehow he didn’t even kill her, the gorilla might have been more polite than the woman
Zoo employees had previously warned her against doing this, but she continued, claiming a special bond with him: in an interview with De Telegraaf she said, “When I smile at him, he smiles back”.
If only I could have been that one employee who got to visit her in the hospital and whisper “told ya”.
They then moved the gorilla to a different city, and she followed the gorilla there and continued to stare at him. After he mauled her in the cafe, he just sat around peacefully and waited for the zookeepers to take him away.
Did he try the hot chocolate?
Yeah that ain’t a ‘smile’ he was doing
I mean, it looks like a smile, but when gorillas bear their teeth it’s an act of aggression. They also think we’re being aggressive if we bear our teeth at them (smile).
Somebody should have explained that to her.
They almost certainly did, let’s be real.
You bare teeth. Unless you’re, like, carrying them with the militia?
Fun fact: This incident was huge news in The Netherlands and inspired the new term “bokito-proof,” meaning strong enough to withstand or contain a gorilla.
https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokitoproof Well well!
Good job Bokito. Don’t take anyones shit.
All of these people look like they’re staring at me…? Wouldn’t sunglasses have worked better?
Those might look like freaks with HUGE eyes staring.
