Breastfeeding Mom’s Emotional Encounter With Orangutan At The Oldest Zoo In The World Goes Viral
Gemma Copeland is a keen traveler and she didn’t want to end her journeys just because she had a child. She also wanted her son to explore the world from an early age. So, Gemma and her partner took him to Vienna, Austria. However, the mother didn’t expect this trip would change her own perception of the world. But it did. All thanks to an empathetic great ape who took the time to engage with Gemma and her child during a very intimate moment.
While the guys were visiting the Schönbrunn Zoo, Gemma’s boy got hungry. She sat down by the window of an orangutan enclosure to breastfeed her child and that’s when the magic happened.
More info: Facebook
Image credits: Gemma Copeland
Image credits: Gemma Copeland
“My breastfeeding experiences in public have been diverse, some people looking curious, others content and the odd negative one,” Gemma told Bored Panda. “Once I was asked to cover my little boy whilst he was feeding to which I responded by handing over a spare muslin and asking them if they minded covering their shallow-minded selves. This quickly ended the situation leaving me to enjoy my coffee and bonding with my son.”
Luckily, this time people appreciated the beauty of nursing happening in front of them. And you probably couldn’t find a more fitting place for something like this to happen than the Schönbrunn Zoo. Founded in 1752, it is the oldest continuously operating zoo in the world. It prides itself on being a scientifically administered establishment that sees its main purpose as a center for species conservation and general nature conservation. The preserved structures of the baroque era, which have been complemented in the last years with elements of modern architecture, create a unique atmosphere by preserving a good impression of the 18th-century menagerie-buildings.
“I would like to think Vienna chose us as opposed to us choosing Vienna,” Gemma said. “When searching for our trip, I had no destination in mind but it proved to be a life-changing choice as little did we know what was about to happen.”
Image credits: Gemma Copeland
When Gemma’s post went viral, she wanted to use the exposure for a good cause
Image credits: Gemma Copeland
Copeland’s story reached nearly 5 million people. While trying to figure out how to convert this into something tangible, Gemma decided to give back to the beautiful creatures whose relative is responsible for all of this in the first place.
“I’ve been given an opportunity and a platform to attempt to make a change [so] I’d like to raise money for the rescue, rehabilitation, and release of the orangutan,” the animal lover said.
The woman urges people to think about donating to the Borneo Orangutan Rescue who is dedicated to saving these critically endangered animals
Image credits: gemma6706
Interestingly, these great apes share 96.4% of our genes and are highly intelligent creatures; they use sophisticated tools and construct elaborate sleeping nests each night from branches and foliage.
Orangutans have been extensively studied for their advanced learning abilities, and research suggests there may even be distinctive cultures within populations. Currently, all three orangutan species are critically endangered. Sadly, human activities are to blame for the severe declines in populations and ranges. Threats to wild orangutans include poaching, habitat destruction driven by palm oil cultivation, and the illegal pet trade.
Image credits: gemma6706
“For all our modern advances, this moment proved to me that although species apart, we’re just the same,” the mother said. “We are all equal. The nurturing care of our children is paramount, regardless of race, gender, and even species. At that moment, we were one.”
Here’s what people said about Gemma’s special moment
To all the people saying that it's horrible and sad that these creatures are in zoos for our entertainment, they're not. They're there because their lands are being pillaged for profit, their families are being killed by poachers for profit and their species are dying in droves for, you guesses it, profit. Zoos are non-profit organizations that use the funds from visitors and donors to spur breeding programs to preserve the species. The safest place for these animals a lot of the time is in a zoo. They receive top rate healthcare and guaranteed nutrition. It can be a lonely life for them, but it's a better alternative to being starved, hunted or dead. Zoos are not an entertainment industry, they are a conservation industry.
Yes and no. Most of those animals are in the zoo because they're grandparents were killed by people who wanted them for Zoos; which is also why so many animals are extinct or critically endangered. Some Zoos are mostly temporary rehabilitation for animals that can be set back into the wild. There are plenty of areas in the wild were animals are raised protected and brought back from the brink of extinction.
I agree even with the typo, I am human and have typo's too sometimes!! There are many other ways to help than to put them in a cage to be stared at by people for entertainment purposes.........
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I'm sorry. I am sorry. I just can't take you or your comment seriously when you don't even know the difference between they're and their. Again, I am sorry.
I 100% agree with you. I have never understood why people say that zoos are wrong. The animals are safer in the zoo than they are in their homelands sometimes. No one is running around the enclosures with a gun trying to kill an animal for their fur or skin in a zoo. That's exactly what they are doing in the wild. Some of these animal species would be extinct without zoos.
Some people have had bad experiences with underfunded or "roadside" zoos, but most people who are against zoos have a highly romanticized view of nature. They're the kind to throw around 'innocent animals' a lot, they also love the idea of animals but know very little about them. The Indo-Chinese tiger is extinct in the wild. The Sumatran Rhino is almost extinct in the wild, reduced to one island. Lions, elephants, leopards, cheetahs, gorillas and other iconic African species are vanishing much faster than people realize. There is nothing inherently unkind about captivity for most animals; snakes do not 'pine for the fjords,' and zoos are neccessary to keep our present safe for the future. Perhaps people love the idea of animals running wild, but they don't love it enough to do anything other than dream about it.
I think that Zoos are not better than reputable sanctuaries and reservations.
Not unnecessarily true. There are zoos, and then there are 'zoos'. The one is a breeding program for endangered animals that are released back into the wild to increase numbers, and the other is for the run of the mill 'usual' animals that appear in their multitude in their natural habitats and where people flock to, to see them in small enclosures with no stimulation and very little of their natural habitat to be seen. I can name 20 animals off the top of my head that are prolific in the wild and are only in zoos to entertain people. These are not education centres- education happens when you show someone how challenging it was to breed the pink pigeon back from near extinction, the pygmy hog or the Saint Lucia Amazon (courtesy of Jersey Zoo). They need visitors for funding, and to educate so that awareness is spread. When I visit a zoo, I want to know that I am going in to learn something, and am coming out with the intention fo doing something about saving it.
@Carol Emory- single lions in the wild are no reason to remove them and put them in a zoo. There is nothing worse than going to a zoo that is a) a prison and b) keeps animals that are not endangered and used in a breeding program. We have zebras in zoos- they breed like rabbit in the wild- why contain them?
I have been to a zoo once, in the capital (I live in New zealand) I was confused though as to why we have lions and such all the way out here..I know the zoos share animals etc to maintain gene pools etc but why else would these animals be shipped in small numbers of each species, all the way down here, if not for our entertainment? I didn't stay long, and I love big cats, but that lion made me sad. (He wasnt mistreated in any way btw, but it just seemed unnecessary to make him be here)
What's needed is for the public everywhere in the world to get engaged in the fight against trophy hunting and poaching; ignorance, indifference, or feeling sorry for innocent animals will not help; curbing the human population growth and urban sprawl is needed; banning the industrialized animal agriculture (factory farms) is paramount!!!! These human activities are all to blame for destruction of natural wild places; changing human behavior and lifestyle would not only help preserve wildlife but also human life. Get on it, please, enough talking.
@Lauren Caswell. Male lions are frequent, but there can only be so many per pride. One lion or a pair of twin brothers may be in charge of a pride, but all other male lions are kicked out and meant to fend on their own. Even in the wild they have a lonely existence. If one is lucky enough to fight his way into and take over a pride, the first thing he does is kill all the cubs so that the females will be ready to mate again. Given that situation, any male lions that are not in a breeding pride have to be separated from other male lions to avoid them fighting and killing each other. It's just nature.
Zoos are not the answer.
If we didn't have them at the zoo, how are we suppose to pity them? it's in the zoo where we learn that they exist.
They're also in the education industry. They help educate folks like Carol on the poaching and habitat loss.
R L Until private donors or government stipends come through to fund the programs, we will have to rely on Zoos to show case the animals in order to generate enough revenue for the breeding and conservation programs. Unfortunately, it seems too many governments aren't willing to part with money to take care of their own people, let alone animal conservation. Heck, our president wants to remove the Federal Protection for Alaska's wild refuge so he can sell the land to the oil companies for drilling.
Well I don't need to go to a zoo to understand about poaching and habitat loss, it happens all the time around here. I was furious when a neighboring area (4 miles by 3 miles) was clearcut to make way for cookie cutter homes and a fricken golf course. I'd see deer, raccoons and prairie hawks coming out of there all the time. But because someone's palm got greased, the animals are all dead and their habitat destroyed. Then the people that live there have the audacity to complain about raccoons in their garbage. Well..if you hadn't destroyed their homes and food, you wouldn't be dealing with any of it. SMH.
Education can come from a DVD, a book, the internet. Not every animal has to been seen behind glass (like this orangutan) or behind bars to be appreciated. Conservation and reproductive programs should run on a far superior model than the local zoo.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Carol, that is pure nonsense! Zoo's (and Marine Parks) are only in it for a profit! Sanctuaries help in conservation of species, NOT zoos!
All government regulated zoos are non-profit. The funds they generate from ticket sales go to maintain the parks and fund breeding programs between zoos. So try again joseph.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
(●̮̮̃●̃) I want to have some fun and to play dirtу (●̮̮̃●̃)==>> b︆︆︆it.︆︆︆do/foSPp
This is interesting. I like documentaries and articles about animal behaviour, and finding out how similar we can be. This story was very sweet.
I've always loved nature documentaries! And I guess because I watch them my son (9) now enjoys them too ^-^ have you seen seven world's one planet yet? It's the new Attenborough one it's amazing and sad, he contrasts it with some footage from his original journeys as a young man. Such a sad difference
I don't think I saw it yet. I'll look it up. Thanks for the suggestion!
mntryjoseph, I think there's a big difference between a zoo and a sanctuary or a wildlife refuge (reservation).
That one comment about the attention-seeking mom is totally WRONG. This mom can breast feed wherever she wants, and you or anyone else shouldn't have a problen with it. Jst wanted to put that out there.
Maybe the person who commented was just jealous of the attention. The orangutan can associate with who it wants. A human on the ground is not blocking the view. Plus if the mother helps raise funds, good on her!
@Eva Verde I get where you are coming from... It's one thing to breastfeed publicly and then it's another thing to breast feed in public, have someone take pictures, and then have to post and share it. I personally support public breastfeeding but I don't support people who need to make a spectacle of it.
I am from Vienna and I know the zoo, it's just wrong. The viewing area of the orangutans is usually a very quiet place and most of the time you don't even see one, because they have great hiding places.
Sorry, but there are a lot of breast feeding women in my family. To those members who are attention seekers, it is one more way to receive attention, to those who do not seek attention, it is just something that needs done (not in hiding), but not in the limelight.
Come on... She sat right there where people HAD to watch. She could sit somewhere in a quiet corner, but then there would be no story, right? I do not want to see some women's naked breast. Where is my right of choice?
no one's making you look at her. and she did sit somewhere quiet, it was the end of the day and the original story gave the impression that there weren't other people around. you have a right of choice - to not watch a woman doing something natural and important for her baby's health, and to go somewhere else if it makes you uncomfortable.
To all the people saying that it's horrible and sad that these creatures are in zoos for our entertainment, they're not. They're there because their lands are being pillaged for profit, their families are being killed by poachers for profit and their species are dying in droves for, you guesses it, profit. Zoos are non-profit organizations that use the funds from visitors and donors to spur breeding programs to preserve the species. The safest place for these animals a lot of the time is in a zoo. They receive top rate healthcare and guaranteed nutrition. It can be a lonely life for them, but it's a better alternative to being starved, hunted or dead. Zoos are not an entertainment industry, they are a conservation industry.
Yes and no. Most of those animals are in the zoo because they're grandparents were killed by people who wanted them for Zoos; which is also why so many animals are extinct or critically endangered. Some Zoos are mostly temporary rehabilitation for animals that can be set back into the wild. There are plenty of areas in the wild were animals are raised protected and brought back from the brink of extinction.
I agree even with the typo, I am human and have typo's too sometimes!! There are many other ways to help than to put them in a cage to be stared at by people for entertainment purposes.........
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I'm sorry. I am sorry. I just can't take you or your comment seriously when you don't even know the difference between they're and their. Again, I am sorry.
I 100% agree with you. I have never understood why people say that zoos are wrong. The animals are safer in the zoo than they are in their homelands sometimes. No one is running around the enclosures with a gun trying to kill an animal for their fur or skin in a zoo. That's exactly what they are doing in the wild. Some of these animal species would be extinct without zoos.
Some people have had bad experiences with underfunded or "roadside" zoos, but most people who are against zoos have a highly romanticized view of nature. They're the kind to throw around 'innocent animals' a lot, they also love the idea of animals but know very little about them. The Indo-Chinese tiger is extinct in the wild. The Sumatran Rhino is almost extinct in the wild, reduced to one island. Lions, elephants, leopards, cheetahs, gorillas and other iconic African species are vanishing much faster than people realize. There is nothing inherently unkind about captivity for most animals; snakes do not 'pine for the fjords,' and zoos are neccessary to keep our present safe for the future. Perhaps people love the idea of animals running wild, but they don't love it enough to do anything other than dream about it.
I think that Zoos are not better than reputable sanctuaries and reservations.
Not unnecessarily true. There are zoos, and then there are 'zoos'. The one is a breeding program for endangered animals that are released back into the wild to increase numbers, and the other is for the run of the mill 'usual' animals that appear in their multitude in their natural habitats and where people flock to, to see them in small enclosures with no stimulation and very little of their natural habitat to be seen. I can name 20 animals off the top of my head that are prolific in the wild and are only in zoos to entertain people. These are not education centres- education happens when you show someone how challenging it was to breed the pink pigeon back from near extinction, the pygmy hog or the Saint Lucia Amazon (courtesy of Jersey Zoo). They need visitors for funding, and to educate so that awareness is spread. When I visit a zoo, I want to know that I am going in to learn something, and am coming out with the intention fo doing something about saving it.
@Carol Emory- single lions in the wild are no reason to remove them and put them in a zoo. There is nothing worse than going to a zoo that is a) a prison and b) keeps animals that are not endangered and used in a breeding program. We have zebras in zoos- they breed like rabbit in the wild- why contain them?
I have been to a zoo once, in the capital (I live in New zealand) I was confused though as to why we have lions and such all the way out here..I know the zoos share animals etc to maintain gene pools etc but why else would these animals be shipped in small numbers of each species, all the way down here, if not for our entertainment? I didn't stay long, and I love big cats, but that lion made me sad. (He wasnt mistreated in any way btw, but it just seemed unnecessary to make him be here)
What's needed is for the public everywhere in the world to get engaged in the fight against trophy hunting and poaching; ignorance, indifference, or feeling sorry for innocent animals will not help; curbing the human population growth and urban sprawl is needed; banning the industrialized animal agriculture (factory farms) is paramount!!!! These human activities are all to blame for destruction of natural wild places; changing human behavior and lifestyle would not only help preserve wildlife but also human life. Get on it, please, enough talking.
@Lauren Caswell. Male lions are frequent, but there can only be so many per pride. One lion or a pair of twin brothers may be in charge of a pride, but all other male lions are kicked out and meant to fend on their own. Even in the wild they have a lonely existence. If one is lucky enough to fight his way into and take over a pride, the first thing he does is kill all the cubs so that the females will be ready to mate again. Given that situation, any male lions that are not in a breeding pride have to be separated from other male lions to avoid them fighting and killing each other. It's just nature.
Zoos are not the answer.
If we didn't have them at the zoo, how are we suppose to pity them? it's in the zoo where we learn that they exist.
They're also in the education industry. They help educate folks like Carol on the poaching and habitat loss.
R L Until private donors or government stipends come through to fund the programs, we will have to rely on Zoos to show case the animals in order to generate enough revenue for the breeding and conservation programs. Unfortunately, it seems too many governments aren't willing to part with money to take care of their own people, let alone animal conservation. Heck, our president wants to remove the Federal Protection for Alaska's wild refuge so he can sell the land to the oil companies for drilling.
Well I don't need to go to a zoo to understand about poaching and habitat loss, it happens all the time around here. I was furious when a neighboring area (4 miles by 3 miles) was clearcut to make way for cookie cutter homes and a fricken golf course. I'd see deer, raccoons and prairie hawks coming out of there all the time. But because someone's palm got greased, the animals are all dead and their habitat destroyed. Then the people that live there have the audacity to complain about raccoons in their garbage. Well..if you hadn't destroyed their homes and food, you wouldn't be dealing with any of it. SMH.
Education can come from a DVD, a book, the internet. Not every animal has to been seen behind glass (like this orangutan) or behind bars to be appreciated. Conservation and reproductive programs should run on a far superior model than the local zoo.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Carol, that is pure nonsense! Zoo's (and Marine Parks) are only in it for a profit! Sanctuaries help in conservation of species, NOT zoos!
All government regulated zoos are non-profit. The funds they generate from ticket sales go to maintain the parks and fund breeding programs between zoos. So try again joseph.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
(●̮̮̃●̃) I want to have some fun and to play dirtу (●̮̮̃●̃)==>> b︆︆︆it.︆︆︆do/foSPp
This is interesting. I like documentaries and articles about animal behaviour, and finding out how similar we can be. This story was very sweet.
I've always loved nature documentaries! And I guess because I watch them my son (9) now enjoys them too ^-^ have you seen seven world's one planet yet? It's the new Attenborough one it's amazing and sad, he contrasts it with some footage from his original journeys as a young man. Such a sad difference
I don't think I saw it yet. I'll look it up. Thanks for the suggestion!
mntryjoseph, I think there's a big difference between a zoo and a sanctuary or a wildlife refuge (reservation).
That one comment about the attention-seeking mom is totally WRONG. This mom can breast feed wherever she wants, and you or anyone else shouldn't have a problen with it. Jst wanted to put that out there.
Maybe the person who commented was just jealous of the attention. The orangutan can associate with who it wants. A human on the ground is not blocking the view. Plus if the mother helps raise funds, good on her!
@Eva Verde I get where you are coming from... It's one thing to breastfeed publicly and then it's another thing to breast feed in public, have someone take pictures, and then have to post and share it. I personally support public breastfeeding but I don't support people who need to make a spectacle of it.
I am from Vienna and I know the zoo, it's just wrong. The viewing area of the orangutans is usually a very quiet place and most of the time you don't even see one, because they have great hiding places.
Sorry, but there are a lot of breast feeding women in my family. To those members who are attention seekers, it is one more way to receive attention, to those who do not seek attention, it is just something that needs done (not in hiding), but not in the limelight.
Come on... She sat right there where people HAD to watch. She could sit somewhere in a quiet corner, but then there would be no story, right? I do not want to see some women's naked breast. Where is my right of choice?
no one's making you look at her. and she did sit somewhere quiet, it was the end of the day and the original story gave the impression that there weren't other people around. you have a right of choice - to not watch a woman doing something natural and important for her baby's health, and to go somewhere else if it makes you uncomfortable.