Police: Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Ken-L

All points of view have been expressed.

Except mine.

You're forgetting one very important factor: the assumption of responsibility for the animal's actions by the owners.

If you have a dog that attacks a person, YOU are responsible. Why? You've chosen to own the dog with a clear understanding (whether you admit it or not) that it is not a person, cannot necessarily make the same decisions that a person can make and has no free will in the eyes of the law and society.

By accepting the responsibility for the dog as the owner, you have to provide basic shelter, food, water, and the necessities which the animal needs to live. You also have to provide security for the animal from the general public since it cannot make decisions that are acceptable to the general public.

My German Shepherd is quite capable of killing anyone I point her at and say the right series of commands. She knows it and I know it. But she won't do it without those commands, EVEN if I'm attacked. She'll defend me but won't go further. Why?

Control. I assumed control of our relationship when I assumed responsibility for the animal. I am, most assuredly, the Alpha in our "pack". She knows it and never, ever questions it.

Zoos assume responsibility for their animals with this ownership as well. In a NORMAL encounter with tiger vs man, the same results that we see here would be justified and accepted as the natural course of things. But the zoo is not a natural place. It assumes responsibility for the animal AS WELL AS the responsibility for visitors. That's the agreement: we pay money, you show us the animals in a PROTECTED environment for both of us.

The zoo is ultimately responsible for this attack. Why?

1. The zoo owned the tiger. Ownership assumes responsibility for the actions.
2. The zoo designed the enclosure for the security of both the animal and the public.
3. The zoo has an unwritten promise that when you enter its grounds, the animals stay on their side of the fence and you stay on your's...and the design should reflect that.
4. Witnesses saw the issue PRIOR to the event. That indicates behavior that should have been picked up by employees who seemed to have been missing at the time (the zoo hasn't acknowledged short staffing but witness accounts imply it).
5. The zoo has acknowledged that the wall was FOUR FEET LOWER than AZA recommendations.

That last was the killer for the zoo's liability, imo.

Were the kids at fault for initiating the incident? Probably. But the responsibility for the effect of that initiation lies with whoever has taken responsibility for the animal.

[heartseye]

Brian....who takes responsibility for the idiots who taunted the tiger? The booze manufacturer?? The store that sold them the booze? The school system for poorly educating them about civilised behaviour.....
Answer is that THEY. THE IDIOTS do. If they had driven into a ravine because of drunk driving would the result be the ravine's fault?
To make the zoo utterly safe, they should just have a picture of a tiger maybe......geeeeeesh!
It would have been nice if the end result was less terrible......but the Humans CHOSE the victim. And the victim reacted entirely reasonably.....

[Athena]

I think having a photograph rather than a real captive tiger is a great idea for the zoo.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by heartseye

Brian....who takes responsibility for the idiots who taunted the tiger? The booze manufacturer?? The store that sold them the booze? The school system for poorly educating them about civilised behaviour.....
Answer is that THEY. THE IDIOTS do. If they had driven into a ravine because of drunk driving would the result be the ravine's fault?
To make the zoo utterly safe, they should just have a picture of a tiger maybe......geeeeeesh!
It would have been nice if the end result was less terrible......but the Humans CHOSE the victim. And the victim reacted entirely reasonably.....

Bad analogy, Bob. Ravines, cars, guns, and other inanimate objects don't have a set of rules within them that determine a decision making process independent of their owners.

Sure, the school system, the parents, and society in general are all partially to blame for their actions. WE, as a society, have let these things happen. This is an effect from a culture that does not promote based on performance and instead accepts people as who they are rather than where they fit in cultural norms.

But you still haven't addressed the point I brought up: the zoo is responsible for the tiger. That's just the way it is. If your dog is penned up in your front yard and someone comes up to tease it, who is responsible if the dog jumps the fence and kills the taunter? Your local community may say the taunter...but the law says it's you.

[badpickev]

its the finer points that some choose to ignore.

the subject that instigated this episode is ultimately responsible. had that not happened the tiger would not have attacked.

in a previous post there is a link stating they were earlier seen teasing the lions. does any one here know what the lion or tiger views teasing as? every person has a breaking point, wild animals breaking is a lot less.

trying to put human values of reasoning and temperament on a wild animal is sheer lunacy. this is what is being done here.

[MagicNikon]

Originally Posted by badpickev

its the finer points that some choose to ignore.

the subject that instigated this episode is ultimately responsible. had that not happened the tiger would not have attacked.

Did the roaring and waving from the three boys magically give the tiger the ability to leap from it's enclosure? If the tiger was able to get out on December 25th, it had been capable of it for most of it's adult life.

How can you say that they facilitated the tigers escape? They didn't help it out at all. That is one of the finer points that you seem to be ignoring

[peterst6906]

Originally Posted by Athena

I think having a photograph rather than a real captive tiger is a great idea for the zoo.

I have a mixed feeling about this aspect of it Athena.

There is very much a conservation angle in zoos these days, not just a public attraction aspect.

The breeding programs that exist in zoos to protect and re-populate endangered species only work because the animals can be protected in zoos and the breeding can be controlled and enhanced.

I know that in my own country, the major focus of zoos is breeding and education of the public on the plight of animals and the need to conserve the environment.

The money aspect of it is a distant second, because the zoos are supported by Government funding.

Some of it (eg. seal shows) is exploitative, but on the whole, I think zoos serve what is unfortunately a necessary function due to our neglect of natural habitats and because of poaching and hunting.

On the issue of the attack, my view is that the boys are responsible for their actions and the zoo is responsible for the tigers actions. Fault on both sides. The only one not responsible is the tiger, although it paid the ultimate price for the stupidity of the boys and neglect of the zoo management.

The loss of both lives is regrettable and should not have happened.

Regards,

Peter

[ljh34465]

[quote=peterst6906;332732]I have a mixed feeling about this aspect of it Athena.

The only one not responsible is the tiger, although it paid the ultimate price for the stupidity of the boys and neglect of the zoo management.

To me, this is the biggest tragedy - the one entity not responsible pays the ultimate price. I don't think the tiger was vested with magical powers but obviously, it did not choose to leave the enclosure on prior occasions (even if the enclosure did not meet the standards)so the provocation must have played a role.

One bit of data I have not seen is how long the tiger lived in the enclosure prior to this unfortunate episode??

I also agree with Brian's assessment of the parents and society's role in failing to teach values, morality or whatever label would apply. Might be the same failure obvious in Michael Vick

[Killjoy]

This shot was taken last June during a field trip to the San Francisco Zoo.
The bunch of six and seven year old kids we were with were better behaved than the three "boys" on Christmas day.

I won't get into the argument of who I think was wrong. With the exception of the fact that they should have tried to tranquilize Tatiana before shooting her to death.

Sorry if the shot is a tad OOF. It was at the long end of a 300mm zoom lens, no IS and no tripod that day.

[heartseye]

We appear to have come to a point in society where when an idiot chooses to do a stupid act, that the consequenses are always someone elses fault.....The tiger had never escaped before because the enclosure was entirely adequate for any foreseeable event. No one considered a drunk, high idiot getting up on the high fence and taunting the animal to be a reasonably likely occurence.
The tiger may also have escaped had there been an earthquake, flood etc.
My point is simply this: Society has an obligation to ensure a level of safety. But That does not mean that every idiot should, or can, be protected against his own willful stupidity. People should be accountable for the consequenses of extreme acts.
Athena......I never go to circuses or zoos because I saddens me to see captive animals. I have taken my grandkids to a zoo though, because they have no opportunity to see such wonderful animals in the flesh any other way....but even they can see the sadness of captivity to the animals involved...
Respects to all.....Bob