[RationalDino]

I read that as, "Person who made bad decisions concludes that there was no alternative but the bad decisions made."

The former keeper should have been given a chance to try. Sign a waiver, the keeper knows the risks.

If the chimps leave the zoo, then shoot them. But not when they are in the ape enclosure. And for Pete's sake. Don't put people who want to run rollercoasters in charge of animal welfare.

[chasil]

She wasn't an employee at that point. It likely wasn't possible.

[RationalDino]

The hunters that they brought in who actually did the shooting were also not employees. If they could be there, she could be there.

The fact that outside primatologists say that she was the likely best option supports the fact that she should have been given the chance. Before shooting.

[chasil]

Well, all I can do is quote this section of the article as to why Persson was ignored after her communication attempts:

'(A spokesperson for Furuvik Zoo told me that that they didn’t take Persson up on her offer because they believed that “those currently working with us are the ones who know the chimpanzees best.”)'

I don't think she would have been permitted on the grounds for ideological problems, in addition to legal liabilities.

...and I'm upvoting your comments, as the ratings above aren't fair.