It seems to me that the animal should not have been in the zoo after chewing a zookeeper's arm. There are refuges and stuff for animals who are not sociable enough to thrive in zoos (or other public environments.)
(Does this title remind anyone else of that horrid song that was played all over the place my senior year in HS?)
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I love that song!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There was a follow up article on CNN.com about this that said, "Tiger had history of violent acts."
Um...Well duh, tigers are not especially friendly by nature. It's akin to saying, "Fish had history of swimming."
I don't think there was anything wrong with the tiger in these instances. The zoo security seems to have gotten sloppy, and a tiger attacking a zoo keeper who was too close to the bars is to be expected if they are not careful.
If they had simply deposed of the tiger after the first incident the zoo stood to lose money in lost revenues and whatever costs incured to relocate the tiger.
Tigers don't like living in zoos, it's not natural for them. I fully expect some of them to grow angry or insane and try to escape.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yeah, and it *was* a cafe, after all!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
BB, I know they would lose money but I think it would be a liability issue to have an animal with a violent history at the zoo, for just this reason.
Some tigers can adapt more easily to zoo life than others, much like some people are more suited to jobs working with people than others, and if they have an animal who really cannot adapt it is their responsibility to do the right thing.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Actually, I think most tigers are quite happy in zoos. It's similar to having an indoor cat. Their personalities are very similar to house cats', except for the whole being 2500 pounds thing and all, plus being wild animals instead of domestic. I mean, I think there is always a danger when you're the right size to be a prey species, but tigers in general do very well in zoos and reproduce readily (which is a good measure of how happy an animal is).
But my feral cat Drive By would definitely slice your arm up or whatever if you weren't careful and you were trying to give her medicine or do something to her she didn't like. I wonder if someone was taunting Tatiana or prodding her or doing something to get a response out of her. It would not surprise me if that turned out to be the case.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Funny how I knew exactly what this thread was about before I opened it...
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Actually, I think most tigers are quite happy in zoos. It's similar to having an indoor cat. Their personalities are very similar to house cats', except for the whole being 2500 pounds thing and all, plus being wild animals instead of domestic.
Errr...doesn't being a wild animal rather preclude similarity to a domesticated animal? The bars and great big pits are there for a reason, and it's not because the animals are made more happy by the decour.
I'm not saying I think we should shut down zoos. I'm just saying that a zoo is not a preserve, where the animals can to some extent live out what's in their instincts and upbringing to do. In a zoo, they can be acclimated to it...but I don't see animals just walking up to trappers to be hauled to zoos either, or staying in their enclosures when the enclosures are gone.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:but I don't see animals just walking up to trappers to be hauled to zoos either
Most tigers in captivity (and many other kinds of animals) were born in captivity.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yeah, they love being in the zoo. Didn't you watch that exquisite documentary "Madagascar".
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
From what I've read in Temple Grandin's books on the subject, it isn't uncommon for well-treated zoo animals in healthy living conditions to be "happy".
Though she makes a note to avoid anthropomorphizing the animal version of happiness. Animals have emotions, but they don't seem to work quite the way human ones do.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
There's a story on Fark right now saying that the "victims" teased the cat and even helped him escape. One of the victims bloody shoes was found in the cage.
Look for the story with "Darwin Award" in the headline.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sure that'll come as a comedic relief to the family who lost their son on Christmas Day.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, their genes aren't being passed on, so who cares if they can take a joke or not?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm not convinced that there are good sources on whether or not the victims taunted Tatiana and helped her to escape. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be true, but unless there were cameras pointing or good eyewitness testimony we may never know.
Edit: there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that said there were sticks and pinecones in the moat which could not have fallen there naturally, which might lead one to believe they were thrown at the tiger by some human(s). Also, there was blood and shoes in a location that might indicate someone climbed the outside barrier and was dangling his legs into the moat. So those are suggestive things.
What I know for sure is that whatever happened, and whoever's fault it was, it wasn't Tatiana's fault. She was just being a tiger and they shot her for it. I feel terrible about this. Siberian tigers are an endangered species.
I'm not minimizing the tragedy of the humans who were killed and injured. But I do mourn for the tiger as well.
[ December 27, 2007, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I must admit that ever since I read that the three victims were young men aged 19 and 20, I have been expecting to see some news of their involvement.
This may seem stereotypical and cruel but, statistically, the fact that these three young men were the ones killed seems less like they were innocent bystanders and more like they were involved somehow.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Teshi, I thought the same thing, but then I told myself that's evil stereotyping. It sounds like, too, that rather than rampaging among random zoo customers, she pursued these exact guys who were outside her cage who ran away. That sounds like reasonable cat behavior to me, to grab something that's dangling in front of them and chase down prey that draws their attention then runs away.
I think if it's true it shows that zoo animals need more protection from the patrons than we've given them, and that barriers need to be impossible to cross for the animals on both sides of the barrier, not just the inside.
See the animal in his cage that you've built Are you sure what side you're on? Better not look him too closely in the eye Are you sure which side of the glass you are on?
[ December 28, 2007, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by BunnV (Member # 6816) on :
Love the lyrics Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I grew up going to the SF zoo, and nothing like this has happened in my memory. But I once went to a Lion feeding, and will never forget the smell and the ferocity of the lions.
shocking that young men would fall victim to tiger attack. Young men are so unassuming...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Now they should strip their lawyer of his license.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Now they should strip their lawyer of his license.
I'm curious, what do you think the lawyer did which would warrant disbarring?
As I understand it, a lawyer is paid to represent the position of the client. His professional responsibility is to do exactly that. As best I can tell, all this lawyer has done is to repeat the story which the clients have also told publicly. Which is what the ethics of his profession demand. It is not the responsibility of the lawyer to determine whether or not his client is lying. It is not the responsibility of the lawyer to tell everything he knows to be true. In fact, if the lawyer had come out and told the public his clients were taunting the cat in contradiction to his clients public statements and without explicit permission from the client, he would be disbarred.
(Dag, please let me know if this is indeed correct?)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm not surprised they were drunk and taunting the tiger, I suspected it.
That said, it still doesn't mean they and the families of the deceased don't deserve compensation for what happened. Regardless of how stupid people act, the zoo has a responsibility to protect the public from dangerous animals. Had the men jumped into the tiger cage on their own and been eaten, I'd have said too bad. But, the tiger got out - regardless of what the men did, it is inexcusable that the tiger was able to get out. People have been taunting animals in zoos since they were created - the zoo should have taken into account that maybe this tiger might want to go after somebody someday and do something to prevent it happening. Remember that not only the drunk, stupid young men were in danger from that tiger, but everybody in the zoo was at risk.
Not to mention the poor tiger itself, which had to be killed. That's the zoo's responsibility - they messed up somewhere, and there needs to be accountability for that.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The article I read said the wall was actually below the minimum suggested for safety. I think the zoo is probably liable. However, it isn't uncommon for young fellas to dumb, risky things that result in death. These guys were doing more than one. I feel bad for the tiger, and the families, mostly.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
An article by a tiger expert in the SF Bay Guardian. Sounds like it wasn't the height of the wall, but the width of the moat at the top. Interesting info about tigers here (and a nice refresher for me of Life of Pi ).
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Well, Carlos Sousa Jr. probably just assured himself at least a nomination in this year's Darwin awards.
I feel worse for the tiger now... (and for Sousa's family, who is left to grieve / wonder about the stupid and senseless loss of a family member).
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Maybe it's just me, but I found the juxtaposition of this ad and this article pretty disturbing.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I feel terrible about this. Siberian tigers are an endangered species.