Tiger mauling at S.F. zoo

[kari]

Was there no thread about this at all? I did a search...

If you haven't heard about it, a tiger escaped from it's enclosure and killed one guy and mauled two others. The tiger was killed by police. There has been lots of speculation that they taunted the animal. The wall keeping the tiger in was only 12 foot high whereas it should have been higher.

Anyway, it came out that they did taunt the animal and were drunk and had marijuana in their system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_re_us/tiger_attacks;_ylt=Avk2M9OcGmUt2WFoiNeSvX.s0NUE

[laura]

There is probably no thread b/c it was "big news" when CC was down. Anyway...

We live in the area, so we have been hearing this story on the news. I'm sorry, but I call BS on the "taunting" the tiger in its enclosure "being responsible" for the tiger escaping. I mean it is just inconceivable to me that that is being used as 'justification' for this happening. I am not advocating taunting caged animals, but I don't think there is any way those men did that thinking the tiger would climb out and attack them, or that they would have done it if they had known the tiger had the ability to climb out of the enclosure. The blood is still on the zoo's hands, as far as I am concerned. What if it was a group of kids taunting the tiger? Again, I'm not advocating that, but I'm sure it happens. It seems like the press/police/whoever are trying to write this off as the fault of the victims b/c they happened to be drunk/high. Obviously I'm not condoning their behavior, but I just think it is 2 separate issues.

[kedzieb]

Yeah, it sounds like the flaw was in the structure, not the victims. I mean people taunt animals at the zoo all the time. Which I agree they shouldn't do - but perhaps in an environment of caged and displayed animals we shouldn't quibble over whether taunting is the worst treatment issue here. The expectation should still be that they could expect to be safe outside of the cage/enclosure.

My favorite quote on this story was from Chris Rock (although I can't remember if it was for this tiger attack or the Siegfried & Roy one):

"That tiger didn't go crazy. That tiger went tiger."

[kedzieb]

Or, what L said. Ha - we cross-posted the same thing.

[jajacobsen]

Well I will probably get flamed for this but:

People who taunt caged animals get what they deserve. I have no sympathy. The tiger paid with her life. They were mean, cruel assholes who taunted an animal because they thought it was safe to do so. Why is it "fair" only when the animal is the victim? It's not like the tiger was picking a fight with them.

While we all argue that the tiger's wall should have been higher, the zoo had passed several AZA inspections without comment. If those men had not taunted that tiger, it wouldn't have come over that wall.

[jajacobsen]

"That tiger didn't go crazy. That tiger went tiger."

Well that sort of goes to my point. People who do dangerous things bear the consequences of them. The tiger was acting like a tiger.

[PG-rated]

While we all argue that the tiger's wall should have been higher, the zoo had passed several AZA inspections without comment. If those men had not taunted that tiger, it wouldn't have come over that wall.
Well, I think the response to that is that zoos have a responsibility to keep both animals and people safe from the consequences of their own bad behavior. And I definitely think the death of the tiger was a big part of the tragedy of the situation.

[pixiecat]

This one is hard for me b/c we LOVE the zoo, are supporting members and go at least 2x month. I am angry at those kids for taunting the tiger, and am sad that the tiger was killed. However, in the end, feel that it *is* the zoo's responsibility (and AZA's to certify) that the animals should not be able to get out of their enclosures.

[Sue]

Well I will probably get flamed for this but:

People who taunt caged animals get what they deserve. I have no sympathy. The tiger paid with her life. They were mean, cruel assholes who taunted an animal because they thought it was safe to do so. Why is it "fair" only when the animal is the victim? It's not like the tiger was picking a fight with them.

While we all argue that the tiger's wall should have been higher, the zoo had passed several AZA inspections without comment. If those men had not taunted that tiger, it wouldn't have come over that wall.

Won't get flamed by me, I agree 100%.

[laura]

If those men had not taunted that tiger, it wouldn't have come over that wall.

I think it's probably true the tiger wouldn't have come over the wall at them, but if it had the ability to get out of the enclosure if so inclined, it's hard to argue it never would have come over the wall. I get what you are saying - people are frequently very idiotic - but I still think it is the zoo's responsibility to keep people safe from the animals they are displaying. If you own a zoo, you have to assume that your animals will be taunted, and you need to have precautions in place. I mean that is just lesson #1 to a zoo owner. I work at a university and I would say about 50% of my job is saving people (students, faculty, etc) from their own bad decisions- obviously not life threatening decisions, but in any situation, part of my job is to plan for the worst and be prepared for it, ykwim? In my opinion, the zoo failed here. And if they passed inspections, then the inspectors or the inspection system also failed.

We took my friends and their small child to that zoo. As a zoo client, there is no way in HELL I would have taken them there if I knew the tiger had the ability to escape its enclosure, if taunted "properly". When I said the blood was on the zoo's hands, I meant that of the victim and the tiger.

[jajacobsen]

PG - I do agree somewhat but it's not like the tiger was just on a chain. To me, it seems reasonable care was taken on the part of the zoo. FTR, there was a previous incident with this tiger and a zookeeper, the circumstances of which I am not clear (teh zookeper was injured but is alive and well).

My point is, the tiger did not scale the fence and go after children or families harmlessly viewing it. The tiger was viewed by thousands of people without incident, and I am sure some of them engaged in poor behavior. Initial reports are that the behavior of these indviduals was extreme.

You don't hav eto agree with me, and I know many won't, but I think if you are stupid - and cruel - enough to taunt a tiger, well then you get what you deserve. Nature is often brutal - and quite efficient.

One wonders what these people might have done to other animals.

[Lucy Van Pelt]

Well I will probably get flamed for this but:

People who taunt caged animals get what they deserve. I have no sympathy. The tiger paid with her life. They were mean, cruel assholes who taunted an animal because they thought it was safe to do so. Why is it "fair" only when the animal is the victim? It's not like the tiger was picking a fight with them.

While we all argue that the tiger's wall should have been higher, the zoo had passed several AZA inspections without comment. If those men had not taunted that tiger, it wouldn't have come over that wall.

I am also in the SF Bay Area and this story is huge here. I completely agree with you! It is a tragedy that the boy was killed because, according to reports, he actually lured the tiger away when it was attacking one of the two survivors. The biggest tragedy, in my opinion, is the death of Tatiana who was killed simply for acting like a tiger.

The brothers who survived have finally admitted they were standing on the fence yelling and waving their arms like assholes at Tatiana before she escaped. I personally believe they probably did much more. That enclosure was smaller than what is acceptable now, but let's not forget that the enclosure has held tigers for many years and they have never tried to escape...what would make Tatiana so agitated that she escaped that night? What are three young men doing at the zoo on Christmas Day? They had alcohol in their system. Marijuana was found in their car. Not exactly your typical zoo visitor...

[jajacobsen]

Anyone who has worked with animals knows there is almost no 100% escape proof enlosure. Animals escape from zoos all the time. And I am talking really, really good zoos like the Bronx Zoo, the Columbus Zoo, etc. Usually they are less "dangerous" animals than tigers but they could still harm someone. Usually, the opposite happens - they get harmed by people or harm themselves.

Certainly zoos should take great care with large, dangerous animals. But all animals can be dangerous, and while zoos do the best the can to conform to standards - and are regularly inspected by the AZA as the San Francisco Zoo was - there are no 100% guarantees.

[kedzieb]

Well, I think if you have a problem with people taunting animals at the zoo, maybe your problem should also be with the concept of zoos. They capture and display animals in relatively small enclosures while strange people stare at them all day. I personally don't particularly like going to zoos for this reason, even though I know that they take in a lot of injured animals and have been much better about treatment & approriately sized cages.

I guess my point is these guys, while obviously idiots, were also probably not much worse than other visiters at the zoo. Zookeepers, knowing this, usually make sure to keep people and animals apart. The enclosure didn't protect the tiger or the people.

[jesvet]

I'm torn. Obviously the ultimate culpability is on the zoo. Obviously no one deserves to die being mauled by a tiger.

That being said, I don't know if there was negligence on the part of the zoo, as it had passed multiple inspections and AFAIK there was not a problem with an open door, etc. When you talk about standards in terms of zoo enclosures, they are based on what we know of animals- which is admittedly not everything. For 99.9% of animals that enclosure would have been sufficient. In a normal situation to the best of everyone's knowledge, a tiger should not have been able to scale a wall of that magnitude.

So the question is, do tigers normally do that? Apparently what one animal is capable of under extreme duress is beyond what anyone could have imagined. It shocked everyone. I'm sure if anyone thought the animal could get out of that enclosure it wouldn't have been left the way it was. And the patrons did contribute to that duress, regardless of whether or not they thought the tiger could get out. It was a tragedy for everyone, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say they "deserved" it, they surely bear some responsibility for their actions- it wasn't as though they were an innocent bystander at the gorilla exhibit when the tiger randomly attacked them.

At the end of the day, no zoo is 100% safe- accidents happen everywhere. To tempt fate like that is stupid. It's hard to say the zoo could have done anything differently since up to that point everyone felt that enclosure would be appropriate. Animals surprise you with what they are capable of. Zoos rely a lot on the idea of an animal not WANTING to leave the enclosure as well (thinking specifically of the San Diego Zoo here). They would have to have some strong motivation to leave their safe spot.

I think about that every time I stand under the glass at the polar bear exhibit at the San Diego Zoo- the bears swim right up to you and stare at you and the little kids...thinking "just one crack in the glass, that's all I need..."

ETA: I remember going to see Siegfried and Roy and being kind of amazed that they could get away with having the tigers RIGHT THERE with a human buffet not 10 feet away. And as sad as it was that Roy was injured, thank god no one in the audience was hurt or killed. In general, animals don't attack without some reason...predation, protection, etc. In most of the instances there is some pinpointable reason a person was attacked.

[kari]

The other incident with the tiger was the keeper's fault - the way she fed the tiger through the bars or something. The injury was to the keeper's arm. It was entirely the keeper's fault and the tiger wasn't punished at all.

I agree that the zoo definitely has some liability, but I hope those guys are punished and I agree with you, jajacobsen, they deserved whatever they got. Drunk, stupid a$$holes. Of course, the animal always loses in these situations.

[Anna Low]

Well I will probably get flamed for this but:

People who taunt caged animals get what they deserve. I have no sympathy. The tiger paid with her life. They were mean, cruel assholes who taunted an animal because they thought it was safe to do so. Why is it "fair" only when the animal is the victim? It's not like the tiger was picking a fight with them.

While we all argue that the tiger's wall should have been higher, the zoo had passed several AZA inspections without comment. If those men had not taunted that tiger, it wouldn't have come over that wall.

No flames from me. I agree completely.

[pixiecat]

I agree that the zoo definitely has some liability, but I hope those guys are punished and I agree with you, jajacobsen, they deserved whatever they got. Drunk, stupid a$$holes. Of course, the animal always loses in these situations.

I wish that they would be punished too... Of course the reality is that they are probably going to get millions of $$. It makes me kind of sick really.

[Ericka_Jarett]

I have been to the SF zoo with the 4 boys I was a nanny for and their Aunt, Uncle and baby cousin. We felt perfectly safe in the zoo. I am sure more will come out in the story of what those kids did to the tiger. They lied to the public and media saying they didn't do anything, now it comes out that they taunted and stood literally in the tigers space (being up on a fence that is part of the tigers domain) add to the fact that they were drunk and high, they can't remember what they did. They probably did throw things at the tiger, for all we know they were teasing it with food even.

It's ashame that a tiger is no longer able to be viewed by thousands because of some stupid actions by 3 guys. My condolences to the families involved, just wish those guys would have used their brain and 1 wouldn't be dead and 2 injured.

[kari]

pixiecat do you really think they will get millions? From what? Suing the zoo? They caused it. They should get nothing but jail time.

[jesvet]

kari, I would be shocked if they didn't sue and win millions. People throw cats on barbeques and drown puppies and get away with it, throwing stuff at a tiger won't get them any punishment. At the end of the day in the eyes of the law, the zoo should have protected the kids from their own stupidity. Thank God no innocent bystanders were injured.

[kari]

I have been to the SF zoo with the 4 boys I was a nanny for and their Aunt, Uncle and baby cousin. We felt perfectly safe in the zoo. I am sure more will come out in the story of what those kids did to the tiger. They lied to the public and media saying they didn't do anything, now it comes out that they taunted and stood literally in the tigers space (being up on a fence that is part of the tigers domain) add to the fact that they were drunk and high, they can't remember what they did. They probably did throw things at the tiger, for all we know they were teasing it with food even.

It's ashame that a tiger is no longer able to be viewed by thousands because of some stupid actions by 3 guys. My condolences to the families involved, just wish those guys would have used their brain and 1 wouldn't be dead and 2 injured.

I bolded because this reminds me that it was reported at one time that there was blood somewhere on the railing (I got the impression it was not any of the guys blood because the attack didn't happen there). I always thought, could this have come from like a dead chicken or piece of meat they brought to tease the tiger?

I was so frustrated when the guys wouldn't speak (and no one was making them) and their lawyer was saying that by people talking about them taunting the tiger was slandering their character. Then it comes out that yea, they were taunting.

[kari]

kari, I would be shocked if they didn't sue and win millions. People throw cats on barbeques and drown puppies and get away with it, throwing stuff at a tiger won't get them any punishment. At the end of the day in the eyes of the law, the zoo should have protected the kids from their own stupidity. Thank God no innocent bystanders were injured.

But someone lost their life. Also an endangered species too. Wouldn't this be a CRIME?

[pocket]

I live in the Bay Area and pretty much everyone said - 18 year old boys from San Jose at the SF Zoo were more than likely drunk and stoned. Obviously. But just looking at the pictures of the tiger enclosure, anyone who has a cat at home can see that a strong and determined tiger could get up that wall. A cat can jump straight up in the air to the top of a 4 foot high table with no trouble at all. of course a tiger can jump up a 12 foot wall.

[jesvet]

But someone lost their life. Also an endangered species too. Wouldn't this be a CRIME?

In the eyes of the law, no. The animal lost its life because it was attacking a person, so its death was justifiable in defense of human life. The fact that the human in question had provoked it to the point it felt the need to take action is not relevant.

There is probably some misdemeanor offense available for harassing or provoking an animal, we've all seen the signs in wildlife areas and the like. But jail time for harassment, in a highly publicized event where one of the perpetrators died? Highly unlikely. Not saying it is right, but that is the way it is. If people were appropriately dealt with for this kind of behavior in the first place, maybe this could have been averted. Just another symptom of humankind's general disregard for other lifeforms.

[ejs]

I live in the Bay Area and I have to admit that I am so tired of hearing about this case.

The guys were drunk and high and they should not have provoked the tiger. But one of them should not have died because the tiger got out of the enclosure. Tatiana never should have been able to get out of the enclosure.

She attacked a trainer last year. The feeding process was inspected and changed, but nobody has ever said if the enclosure wall was measured.

Some experts have said that provoking the tiger would not cause her to attack, others have. I guess it all depends on who is paying the "experts."

For those of you who say the guys deserved to be attacked because they were teasing the cat. What if I was standing at the wall with a burger in my hand watching the cat and she decided she was hungry. She smelled my burger, jumped out, and attacked me. Would I deserve it? Or would you then be saying that there should have been no way for the tiger to escape?

[boilermaker]

I'm glad to see the truth is finally coming out about this tragedy.

I do think that taunting of animals is horrible behavior. But I don't think being attacked by a tiger is a justifiable effect of that taunting. Being removed from the zoo, being charged with disorderly conduct, having to perform community service, etc. That is what I would consider reasonable punishment for taunting. Not paying with your life or serious injury.

That being said, I hope this takes a lot of the wind out of their sails for the civil lawsuit. I do believe they were partially culpable and hope that the outcome of a lawsuit reflects that.

Just because the zoo passed inspection doesn't mean the enclosure was adequate in my mind. To me, passing the inspection is the bare minimum you should do. That zoo should have been up to date on recommended enclosure sizes and heights. Just the fact that it had been that way for ?? years (I don't recall the exact number but wasn't it quite some time) aught to have been a clue that it should have been revisited. I kind of compare this to daycares. A lot of daycares around here pass accreditation but there is no way in heck I would send my child there because I would consider the care substandard. I think the visitors to the zoo have the right to expect a zoo in such a high touristy area to be more on top of its game.

[yby1]

How does someone get into the zoo that drunk and high? Maybe the didn't show signs of being intoxicated upon entrance, but I doubt it.

[westamp]

I wish that they would be punished too... Of course the reality is that they are probably going to get millions of $$. It makes me kind of sick really.

Well they can enjoy their millions in jail because it is a federal offense to taunt an endangered species (whether in the wild or contained). People have been stressing that point online. Maybe that's why they hired Geragos (he is a defense lawyer). It's in anticipation of a federal charge.

[tunibell]

Here's my .02 (as a member and regular S.F. Zoo goer)...obviously, the boys shouldn't have taunted the tiger, but I also don't think anyone deserves to be mauled by a tiger at the zoo either. It was the zoo's responsibility to make sure the public and the tiger were safe, and I think they failed on both counts.

Now here's what really gets me...turns out that the moat separating the public from one of the polar bears is also too shallow. One would think that given all the press, they would get on that one asap...but last week when DD and I went to the zoo, everything looked normal, and there wasn't a zoo employee or a surveillance camera in sight over at the Grizzly Gulch.

[ejs]

Here's my .02 (as a member and regular S.F. Zoo goer)...obviously, the boys shouldn't have taunted the tiger, but I also don't think anyone deserves to be mauled by a tiger at the zoo either. It was the zoo's responsibility to make sure the public and the tiger were safe, and I think they failed on both counts.

Now here's what really gets me...turns out that the moat separating the public from one of the polar bears is also too shallow. One would think that given all the press, they would get on that one asap...but last week when DD and I went to the zoo, everything looked normal, and there wasn't a zoo employee or a surveillance camera in sight over at the Grizzly Gulch.

Actually, they did fix the wall in the polar bear exhibit.
http:// www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/12/MNGQUDP11.DTL

[Niobe]

Another area resident weighing in - yes, the boys were taunting the cat. Yes, that is bad. But the cat shouldn't have been able to get out of the enclose - for the protection of the people AND the cat. Had the zoo done it's job, and maintained safe enclosures that were up to regulation standards, neither the boy nor the cat would be dead. So, to me, it is completely the fault of the zoo. My understanding of a zoo is that it's purpose is to protect the animals it's keeping and help maintain the endangered species, as well as allow the public to safely view the wild, exotic creatures. The S.F. zoo failed at both it's responsibilities, it failed to protect the public, but even more importantly to me, it failed to protect the endangered animal it was tasked with caring for.

The zoo just failed, period. The wall the cat escaped over was four feet shorter then the recommended height by the AZA (and six feet shorter then the zoo claimed it was). This was not a proper facility for the cat to be in. It was a 12 foot wall meant to enclose a fully grown, Siberian tiger. The attack happened after closing time - the guys shouldn't have even been in the park. They really shouldn't have been allowed to climb up on the fence, yelling and throwing things at the animals. Why wasn't there staff anywhere to stop the boys, or to encourage them to get out of the now-closed park?

I haven't been to the S.F. zoo, mostly because even before this happened, I'd heard almost exclusively negative things about the facilities for the animals - "small" and "old" are the two main adjectives I've heard used to describe the zoo and it's enclosures. They've had a number of animals die in recent years, including three of their four elephants (the fourth is in a sanctuary, thankfully). This (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/30/MNNQU63KP.DTL) article from the S.F. Chronicle goes into detail about all the problems with the zoo. It's not a great facility and I question whether it shouldn't just be closed down. There really isn't land enough in this city for a proper zoo and the Oakland Zoo has far better modern, natural habitats.

[pixiecat]

Regarding the polar bears - when I went to the zoo on 1/6 (maybe 3 days after it opened?), the polar bears were not out. Today, I saw that the polar bear walls had been extended.

Regarding Geragos being a defense lawyer... I guess I didn't see it that way. I think that he is just a media whore who saw the potential for a lot of publicity and money. I sincerely doubt that the brothers called him (rather than the other way around!).

Niobe - I used to think that about the zoo too... but once I went, my mind was really changed. They are refurbishing all of the areas in the zoo, and the new ones are quite nice (safari area, lemur area, grizzly gulch, etc.) Also, there are not a ton of animals there, so they seem to have room. They haven't had elephants in a long time, and I do remember that there were problems with that.

I'm probably coming off as a crazy zoo person (and I used to be against them in theory!) but to see my daughter (at just a little over 2) learn about the animals, & love the animals is amazing. The zoo also offers incredible educational programs and promotes a culture of conservation... & the city would be less without it.

[imagirliegirl]

It's too bad that people failed in every way. Those parents failed to teach their children to have a little respect for animals. Those boys should not have thought taunting an animal was appropriate. People also failed by taking wild animals, locking them up in exhibits, and not making sure the facilities would adequately protect against something like this.

I feel worse for that poor tiger than anything.

[phoenics]

It's too bad that people failed in every way. Those parents failed to teach their children to have a little respect for animals. Those boys should not have thought taunting an animal was appropriate. People also failed by taking wild animals, locking them up in exhibits, and not making sure the facilities would adequately protect against something like this.

I feel worse for that poor tiger than anything.

I feel worse for the boy who died. I'm sorry but he didn't deserve to die for being stupid. The tiger didn't either though.

I just think that had the victims been other teenagers that weren't such easy targets, the zoo's 'it's their own fault' garbage wouldn't be sticking as much as it is.

The zoo is at fault. Period.

And how do you know the parents didn't teach their children to respect animals? Sometimes kids just don't do what they are taught - because they're kids, er, teenagers. I know kids who were taught not to drink and certainly not to drink and drive, yet those kids did both. It doesn't mean the parents didn't teach them, it means the kids simply were not behaving correctly.

I think that IF the boys did taunt the tiger, they did so believing they couldn't be harmed. Was this wrong? Yes. A lapse in judgement? Yes. But the boy who died didn't deserve to die and the other boys didn't deserve to be mauled. If the zoo had done what it was supposed to do, the tiger could/would not have gotten out.

Since we're now 'ranking' victims, I guess I should make a plug for the families of these boys - specifically the family of the boy who died.

I'm all for animal rights, but these days it seems like some value the lives of animals over human beings.

[camberne]

I certainly feel sorrow for the victims and for the family of the boy who died. However, yes, you have to be able to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions. The zoo, where ultimately responsible because it was at their facility, is at no more fault IMO than the boys who were hurt/killed.

I feel that the zoo is being punished in a way that a homeowner does when burglar who gets hurt when they're robbing homeowner's house. Person A does illegal things and gets hurt while doing, so Person B gets punished because it was on their property.

The zoo had not received any violations from the AZA from their inspections of the tiger attraction facility. So, even though the height didn't meet the current recommended height, it was still apparently within compliance of standards.

[laura]

If a person breaks into a house and is harmed (mauled, killed) by the homeowner's pet, no, I don't blame the homeowner. If the homeowner has a party, invites people over, doesn't take care to adequately lock up their dog, the dog attacks/mauls/kills a guest at the party - then yes, I blame the homeowners. I disagree w/ the burgler analogy at all b/c these boys were guests at the zoo. Yes, they were being assholes, but I don't think anyone should have had to pay w/ their life b/c of that.

[jajacobsen]

Well then please don't come to my house as a guest, get drunk and high, and taunt my pets which I have carefully locked away in an inspected facility. A cage, I might add, that they have never scaled before.

As Jesvet said, it's not like the boys were innocently looking at the gorillas when they were attacked. The tiger did not attack any other guests, only the ones that were taunting it.

[jajacobsen]

I just think that had the victims been other teenagers that weren't such easy targets, the zoo's 'it's their own fault' garbage wouldn't be sticking as much as it is.



Please elaborate EXACTLY what you mean by this. I really wouldn't want to misconstrue or misunderstand what I take to be pretty offensive remarks.

[camberne]

If a person breaks into a house and is harmed (mauled, killed) by the homeowner's pet, no, I don't blame the homeowner. <snip> I disagree w/ the burgler analogy at all b/c these boys were guests at the zoo. Yes, they were being assholes, but I don't think anyone should have had to pay w/ their life b/c of that.If a person breaks into a house and is mauled or can't get out of the garage for a week and has to survive on the dog food in the homeowner's house, the homeowner (by cases actually won by burglars who brought charges against homeowners) is responsible.

And, these kids were drunk and high (illegal), up on the tiger facility wall (illegal) and on the property after the zoo closed (illegal). So, why exactly would this analogy not be applicable?[/color]

[imagirliegirl]

I feel worse for the boy who died. I'm sorry but he didn't deserve to die for being stupid. The tiger didn't either though.


I never said the kid deserved to die. I merely gave my opinion which you are welcome to take or leave.

ETA - The reason I feel most sorry for the tiger is because this incident is a result of HUMAN failure. It wasn't this tiger's fault that people wanted it in a cage, failed to give it adequate protection and then some other stupid people thought it would be funny to taunt it. None of what happened was the poor cat's fault.

If someone, somewhere would have made better choices, the animal wouldn't have had to suffer for being a wild animal and acting like a wild animal acts.

[phoenics]

I never said the kid deserved to die. I merely gave my opinion which you are welcome to take or leave.

ETA - The reason I feel most sorry for the tiger is because this incident is a result of HUMAN failure. It wasn't this tiger's fault that people wanted it in a cage, failed to give it adequate protection and then some other stupid people thought it would be funny to taunt it. None of what happened was the poor cat's fault.

If someone, somewhere would have made better choices, the animal wouldn't have had to suffer for being a wild animal and acting like a wild animal acts.


No - I got what you were saying but I still feel worse for the boy and his family than the tiger. I get it that the tiger was innocent (just doing what a tiger does) but I just don't think the tiger will be missed in the same way that a human being would have been missed. Thus, the bulk of my sympathy goes to the human beings in this situation who were hurt or killed.

My viewpoint on tigers being locked up in a cage is separate from who gets the most sympathy from me. I can't imagine standing near the family of the boy who got killed and saying, 'I feel most sorry for the tiger'. I don't value the life of a tiger the same way I value the life of a human being. Not saying that the tiger's life wasn't worth anything or worth saving, just that to ME, the value of a human life is greater.

I'm not sure how to state that opinion without sounding like I think humans should trump all other animals (because I don't agree with that - animals shouldn't lose their habitats because of us, etc..), it's just that I think sometimes the attitude of some is to almost minimize what has happened to people in favor of animals. Not saying you did this, just that it's an issue that's been bothering me lately in general.

I hope that made sense.

[laura]

I didn't say I misunderstood the analogy, I said I disagree with it. You don't have to agree with my opinion, however.

[phoenics]

Please elaborate EXACTLY what you mean by this. I really wouldn't want to misconstrue or misunderstand what I take to be pretty offensive remarks.

'Thuggish' looking kids. I think that this makes them easier targets for the zoo to push their agenda of shirking their own responsibility of not having a high enough wall. The taunting, imo, is immaterial. I think that if the kids came from wealthy families or didn't fit the 'thug' profile so nicely, people would in general be more outraged because they would view the victims as solely victims. It's sort of the same strategy that defense lawyers take with rape victims - they use the victims appearance, lifestyle, etc.. as a way to deflect.

[jajacobsen]

Well considering I have not seen a picture of the perpetraitors, their appearance in no way impact my opinions; their actions do, however.

[tinkerbelljenny]

People who taunt caged animals get what they deserve. I have no sympathy. The tiger paid with her life. They were mean, cruel assholes who taunted an animal because they thought it was safe to do so. Why is it "fair" only when the animal is the victim? It's not like the tiger was picking a fight with them.


ITA. I don't have one drop of sympathy for the boys.

[imagirliegirl]

My viewpoint on tigers being locked up in a cage is separate from who gets the most sympathy from me.

I get that. I just happen to have a different opinion.

...it's just that I think sometimes the attitude of some is to almost minimize what has happened to people in favor of animals.

I don't think it's beyond the realm of reason to say someone who taunts a wild animal shouldn't be shocked if the thing acts on its instincts and attacks them. Of course, we expect the zoo to protect both the animal and us, but human error occurs.

In the case of an animal that was doing nothing but existing in the habitat it was forced in and did nothing but act like a wild animal does, I cannot see how you cannot feel a high degree of sympathy for it. For me, I feel worse for it then some dipshit kids who thought they could pick on it with no repercussions.

It's not like the family lab turned on little Bobby and bit him in this face. This was a WILD animal that, like a previous poster said, wasn't doing anything wrong.

I think that if the kids came from wealthy families or didn't fit the 'thug' profile so nicely, people would in general be more outraged because they would view the victims as solely victims.

I strongly disagree. Had it been a "thug" or an upper class future Yale student, an asshole kid that taunts a tiger is nothing more than an asshole kid that taunts a tiger. I don't think the zoo is trying to skirt responsibility because of race.

[phoenics]

I don't think the zoo is trying to skirt responsibility because of race.

I never used the term race - I was mostly going on how they were dressed when I saw them onscreen and what they'd been doing (drinking and smoking blunts). I think it's likely that they don't come from money, etc.. I think the zoo is trying to take advantage of that.

I don't even know what 'race' they are. In the shot I saw, I thought they were either white or possibly white-hispanic? Though race does play a part in some things, that's not where I was coming from in my comment.

I think the zoo is trying to use the boys' appearance (thuggish clothing, etc..) and any assumptions that can be made about them due to that appearance to weasel out of their own responsibility in hopes that the 'it's their fault' argument will fly (I don't even know what race they are - I'm going on a shot I saw of one of them with a hoodie on and I immediately thought 'thuggish'. They looked either white or possibly hispanic to me, but I have only seen them onscreen once).

[miel]

I'm trying to figure something out I can't find the answer to: How do people taunt a caged tiger? Did they throw things at it? It's not like calling an animal names is really a provocation. I'm assuming tigers don't understand speech.

What did they do?

I hope this doesn't upset anyone but I read there are three animals that regularly prey on humans as food: Tigers, polar bears and crocodiles. I saw a very scary documentary about people who live near one tiger forest in India in the Sundarbans and the tigers swim into very deep water when they are fishing and pull them off boats. They kind of accept it. They don't kill the tigers. Well, it's illegal to. So I'd say that zoos should be pretty damn careful of tigers. Legally, I can't imagine they could lose a civil suit.

[Sage]

I'm trying to figure something out I can't find the answer to: How do people taunt a caged tiger? Did they throw things at it? It's not like calling an animal names is really a provocation. I'm assuming tigers don't understand speech.

What did they do?

I was wondering this too. I think they admitted to standing on the railing and waving and yelling--but did they do something else that I'm missing?

While they acted like idiots, I don't think that just yelling and waving is such cruel behavior that they deserved getting attacked or that they don't deserve any sympathy.

I really think the zoo failed on all accounts. It failed to protect its animals from the public, and it failed to protect the public from its animals.

[yby1]

I'm trying to figure something out I can't find the answer to: How do people taunt a caged tiger? Did they throw things at it? It's not like calling an animal names is really a provocation. I'm assuming tigers don't understand speech.

What did they do?

I hope this doesn't upset anyone but I read there are three animals that regularly prey on humans as food: Tigers, polar bears and crocodiles. I saw a very scary documentary about people who live near one tiger forest in India in the Sundarbans and the tigers swim into very deep water when they are fishing and pull them off boats. They kind of accept it. They don't kill the tigers. Well, it's illegal to. So I'd say that zoos should be pretty damn careful of tigers. Legally, I can't imagine they could lose a civil suit.



I've seen that documentary. It was pretty scary for those people.

[Niobe]

I was wondering this too. I think they admitted to standing on the railing and waving and yelling--but did they do something else that I'm missing?

There is speculation they were throwing things - sticks, maybe pine cones - and dangling legs or arms over the railing, though they maintain they did no such things.

[camberne]

I didn't say I misunderstood the analogy, I said I disagree with it. You don't have to agree with my opinion, however.I didn't say you misunderstood the analogy, but you said that you disagreed with the analogy because the kids were "guests of the zoo" so I pointed out that they were acting illegally in several respects one being that they were no longer "guests of the zoo" since the zoo was closed and they were illegally on the property. So I don't understand why you "disagreed with the analogy". That's all.

[imagirliegirl]

I think the zoo is trying to use the boys' appearance (thuggish clothing, etc..) and any assumptions that can be made about them due to that appearance to weasel out of their own responsibility in hopes that the 'it's their fault' argument will fly

I must have misread your initial post and thought it said race. Sorry.

Regardless though, I think the zoo would weasel out of this no matter who it was. No zoo (or amusement park etc...) is going to just come out and say "yep, entirely our fault". Does it probably help that this kids can come off as little punks? Perhaps. But had they been "regular" looking people I still think we'd be getting a similar, if not the same, result.

[laura]

I didn't say you misunderstood the analogy, but you said that you disagreed with the analogy because the kids were "guests of the zoo" so I pointed out that they were acting illegally in several respects one being that they were no longer "guests of the zoo" since the zoo was closed and they were illegally on the property. So I don't understand why you "disagreed with the analogy". That's all.

I just don't have anything else to say - ? I presented my counterpoints, which you don't have to agree with? I don't think breaking into someone's private residence = paying admission to a public zoo, even with the issues you've mentioned. I could go on and on about why I don't think those are the same thing (such as the zoo has a responsibility as a public facility to keep its residents and guests safe, which sometimes means safe from their own stupidity), but we are obviously not going to agree on that point so I don't see what purpose it would serve.

[phoenics]

I must have misread your initial post and thought it said race. Sorry.

Regardless though, I think the zoo would weasel out of this no matter who it was. No zoo (or amusement park etc...) is going to just come out and say "yep, entirely our fault". Does it probably help that this kids can come off as little punks? Perhaps. But had they been "regular" looking people I still think we'd be getting a similar, if not the same, result.

Maybe so. I just thought that they looked like punks made it easier, as you just said... ;)