I wish that parents kept their children at their side while at the zoo

[question everything]

StarTribune.com

Last update: August 04, 2006 – 2:11 PM

Rabies tests on zoo's meerkats come back negative

Bob Von Sternberg and Chao Xoing, Star Tribune

A family of five Minnesota Zoo meerkats destroyed after a girl was bitten did not have rabies after all, a zoo official said today. The 9-year-old girl, who has not been identified, was bitten Wednesday when she reached her hand into the animals' exhibit.

The meerkats -- two mates and their three offspring born this spring -- had been vaccinated for rabies but were killed because the girl's parents didn't want her to have to undergo a series of rabies shots, said zoo collections manager Tony Fisher.


(snip)

A 1994 study of meerkats found that only 10 documented cases of rabies-infected meerkats attacking humans or domestic animals in the previous decade. The girl had climbed atop 3 feet of rock work and reached over a 4-foot glass barrier Wednesday afternoon when she was bitten, said zoo collections manager Tony Fisher. The rock work is designed to allow kids to climb up for a better view, he said.

(snip)

The entire family of meerkats was destroyed because it is unknown which one bit the girl, Fisher said, adding there is little to no chance that the animals carried the disease. Meerkats are curious, bold animals, traits that make them highly popular at zoos, Fisher said, but they are still wild. "We handle them with thick leather gloves," he said. "They're not pets."

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/595384.html

(Later report in the local TV station said that rabies shots are not painful and that only five are necessary but the family did not want.. Animal lovers are outraged..)

[prole_for_peace]

1. i would have just told the parents too damn bad

she would have to get the shots because it wasn't the zoo's fault that her parents don't control her.

[Deja Q]

2. Agreed. Fences are around animals for generally good reasons...

Especially animals that have bred and are raising offspring.

[Pale Blue Dot]

12. At the Philadelphia Zoo, the meerkat exhibit has no fence.

It's an open enclosure, and kids, who are naturally impulsive and curious, could concievably reach there hand into the area in one of the microseconds that a parent is not focused exclusively on that child's hand.

[Catchawave]

3. Another story here:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137834300457

No animal should have to die because of
irresponsible parents. :mad:

[question everything]

4. Really sad

Perhaps every child who enters a zoo has to be given a bright yellow bib that says: WATCH ME!

And perhaps we can fine parents whose neglect causes the destruction of an animal.

[LeftyMom]

5. Dear bad girl and asshole parents,

Fuck you. Five healthy animals are dead because you are fucking morons who can't be bothered to follow basic instructions or simple common sense and then unwilling to deal with the consequences of your own stupidity.

I hope the other kids at school find out the animals are dead because of you and give you hell for it.

I hope all three of you see the babies in your dreams.

I hope you cry everytime you watch The Lion King.

I hope the bite hurts like hell.

Fuck you all you disgusting selfish fucks.

Love,
LM

[ThomCat]

6. I second that.

x(

[Pale Blue Dot]

13. You're a parent.

Does your child do what he/she's supposed to 24/7? Are you able to track his every movement?

At the Philadelphia ZOo, the meerkat exhibit is open. Let's say that, just for a second, you got interested in some part of the zoo that was not directly related to what your child was doing. At that moment, your child sticks his hand in the open enclosure. Would you say this to yourself?:

"Fuck you. Five healthy animals are dead because you are fucking morons who can't be bothered to follow basic instructions or simple common sense and then unwilling to deal with the consequences of your own stupidity.

I hope the other kids at school find out the animals are dead because of you and give you hell for it.

I hope all three of you see the babies in your dreams.

I hope you cry everytime you watch The Lion King.

I hope the bite hurts like hell.

Fuck you all you disgusting selfish fucks."

If so, I feel sorry for you.

Kids are kids. Parents are people. And accidents happen.

[LeftyMom]

14. I was a nine year old girl once, and helped to raise another.

We did some astonishingly stupid things, but even at much younger ages we'd not have done that.

LeftyKid, being a five year old boy, has an amazing capacity for self-destruction. Even he knows better than to do anything like that, and he didn't get out of the sling or stroller anyplace potentially dangerous until he did. And I hold his hand and watch him like a hawk to be sure.

A girl old enough to know better did something stupid, her parents let it happen. They compounded thier irresponsibility by declining the course of vaccinations, which resulted in the death of the meerkats. If they'd done the right thing and got the shots so the animals could live, I'd feel bad for them. As is, I don't think they're deserving of any sympathy at all.

[Der Blaue Engel]

7. I don't even understand the logic here

The meerkats -- two mates and their three offspring born this spring -- had been vaccinated for rabies but were killed because the girl's parents didn't want her to have to undergo a series of rabies shots, said zoo collections manager Tony Fisher.

They killed the meerkats because they didn't want the girl to get rabies shots? How the hell does that work? If they're dead, she can't have rabies? If they're dead, we don't care if she has rabies? :wtf: Am I the only person absolutely baffled by this statement?

[LeftyMom]

8. There are two ways to test for rabies

One is to kill the animal and test thier brain. The other is to isolate them and wait for symptoms, but that only works when the incubation period is known and short enough that it the person who was bit could start shots if the animal is symptomatic.

If the animal is unknown or will not be killed for testing, rabies shots are administered as a precaution. The "parents" objected to that, which is why the meerkats were killed in order to test thier brain tissue for rabies.

I don't see why this needed to be done if the animals had rabies vaccinations anyhow. I got bit by a dog once. The owners showed that he had current shots and offered to keep him in the backyard in the future and that was the end of it.

[question everything]

10. Mostly because there are not enough date about meerkats as there are

about dogs. They are, after all, wild animals.

This is why the zoo said that "even though we were 99 percent sure they didn't have rabies. We had to protect the child."

[LeftyMom]

11. Offer to pay for the rabies shots then

:shrug:

No sense killing the meerkats when a much better solution exists.

[question everything]

17. Well... the final decision for a shot rests with the parents

can you imagine "Leftykid" steps on a rusty nail in a play ground... the decision to give him a tetanus shot really should be yours, right?

I do agree with your anger (this is why I posted in the first place) and the story is still creating a lot of anger locally and beyond but the reality is that any medical procedure does rest with the parents (even when a teenager gets pregnant, sigh).

[Kat45]

9. I believe they have to go inside the animal's brain to find out

if it has rabies. That's why they'd kill a dog (without documentation of rabies shots) or a rat that bit someone.

[Arkansas Granny]

15. How about charging the parents with something like child

endangerment for allowing their child to do something as reckless as to ignore the barriers placed between the public and the animals. Are they not responsible for their daughters behavior and their lack of supervision?

[jobycom]

16. I'd like to know why the zoo had exhibits a child could reach into and

get bitten. I don't agree with the parents' decision to force the animals to be destroyed, although I admit I don't know the risks of a rabies vaccination, and might change my mind if I did, but why would a zoo have an exhibit that obviously attractive to children and not have the exhibit better child-proofed? I'm a damn good parent who monitors my children closely, and they still do things I tell them not to do. I'm sure I'm not the only parent who can say that.

The zoo needs a lot of blame here. Not all, but a lot.

[China_cat]

18. Oh good grief

The new rabies series is 3 shots...in the ARM.

These were probably parents who also didn't have her vaccinated for anything.

[dropkickpa]

19. Not quite correct

The PRE-exposure series is 3 shots. The POST-exposure series (after a bite) for unvaccinated people is 6-8 shots, the first two done at the same time, one dose is rabies immuno-globulin shot (often broken up into multiple sticks as it is quite a large volume, and given in a large muscle group such as the thigh or butt if the site if the bite cannot be injected with that volume) to give passive protection, and the other is the actual vaccine. Then the following 4 shots of vaccine are given over the course of 28 days. Some people can become ill during the series.

I am vaccinated but, even so, if I were exposed, I would have to do a shortened series of 2 shots.

The zoo IS at least partly to blame due to poor exclosure design. Unless they are a petting zoo animal, the public should NOT have any chance of coming into contact with an animal (this is both to prtect the people AND animals).

At the Pittsburgh Zoo meerkat display, there is no chance of contact with the animals, but kids can get a great up close look through a series of tunnels and observation bubbles.

pittsburgh zoo

[China_cat]

21. It's still not like the old series of shots

that were done through the navel and were many more in number. And you're right, the person who exposes others to danger from animals under their control are responsible if those animals harm someone. No matter what that someone might be doing.

Last time I was 'home' (at my sister's) we wanted to go to the zoo but it was raining and we ended up at Buhl instead.

[nini]

20. I was ready to defend the family... then I reread this

"The girl had climbed atop 3 feet of rock work and reached over a 4-foot glass barrier when she was bitten"

The responsibility falls on the parents of the kid once she reached over a wall like that to touch them.

The zoo, while being somewhat at fault for not making it harder to reach over, did make an attempt to separate the kids from the animals. The zoo should have refused to put the animals down and forced it to court.

Both sides are at fault to some extent. Too bad the zoo didn't fire back at the parents with some legal crap themselves and force the parents to take responsibility for their kid's actions.