San Fran Zoo Tiger Attack

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by Jokerswild

Pretty stupid to tease a tiger. The zoo's wall was too low also if you've been following this story. That tiger should never have gotten out in the first place.

Thats just some bull$#!t theory of displaced responsibility. The men were responsible for teasing the tiger. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter if it was a stone wall that was too short or one of them losing an arm (the gap in the fence was too wide BS), they are responsible for their actions and not the wall or the enclosure. If the tigers never got out before then obviously it has been safe enough.

This falls under the same heading as "coffee is hot" common sense. You are responsible if you burn yourself with hot coffee, you are responsible if a wild creature finds any way possible out of the cage after you tormented them.

[Reloadron]

Originally Posted by oldman_gamer

My sentiments gazactly...where was security when these intoxicated individuals were there? Security not only protects the people, but the welfare of the animales as well.

Wandering into a zoo when stoned and intoxicated is not all that difficult. Many, many years ago myself and friends would frequently wander into Disneyland in that state. Unless you are blatantly screwed up falling over drunk entering any park is not all that difficult. Short of divine intervention Security can't be everywhere seeing everything.

Ron

[onebxr]

Originally Posted by PTRMAN

I haven't been to a zoo in a while, but how would three young men - drunk and stoned, no doubt - get into a zoo? Not that I would expect breathalyzers and cops at the entrance, but don't they usually exhibit behavior that might seem a bit odd?

They pay the fee and walk in.
The Zoo should sue the kids families that were attacked for provoking the tiger. The zoo should then take the money won from the settlement and fix the wall.
-1

[screwballl]

most zoos have a sign that says "we are not responsible for any damage or injuries occurred while using our facilities."

[One4yu2c]

Originally Posted by Jokerswild

Pretty stupid to tease a tiger. The zoo's wall was too low also if you've been following this story. That tiger should never have gotten out in the first place.

Agreed, on all accounts. According to the article, the wall was "4 feet shorter than the recommended minimum." The asshats should never have been taunting the tiger in the first place (shame on them), and at the same time, you gotta know that stuff like that is going to occur (shame on the zoo...maybe. See below). Imagine if the tiger would have mauled some small children not involved in the incident while it was roaming free. That's a scary thought.

Of course, it's all speculation on our part, as nobody seems to be giving a true account of what really happpened. A FoxNews article had this to say:

Originally Posted by FoxNews Article

One zoo official insisted the tiger did not get out through an open door and must have climbed or leaped out. But Jack Hanna, former director of the Columbus Zoo and a frequent guest on TV, said such a leap would be an unbelievable feat, and "virtually impossible."

"There's something going on here. It just doesn't feel right to me," he said. "It just doesn't add up to me."

Instead, he speculated that visitors might have been fooling around and might have taunted the animal and perhaps even helped it get out by, say, putting a board in the moat.

[PTRMAN]

I read somewhere, and I don't have time to find it again, that the "recommended" height by some zoo regulatory agency is just that - recommended. Not required or anything like that. Plus the agency has no authority. Apparently the wall was originally built many years ago. And the initial "expert" comments about the "impossibility" of the leap were based on faulty speculation about the actual height of the wall.

[Reloadron]

The retaining wall, built many years ago served just fine. Jack Hanna I am quite familiar with and he is a noted authority on many animals and zoos in general. His real specialty, however, was primates. He did one hell of a job expanding and developing the Columbus, Ohio zoo.

Now to me, in my simple way of thinking, what this is really about is money. The smell of money rings true through all of this.

The zoo does have a responsibility to the public just as any public place has to afford a safe environment. Apparently, the environment was safe right till.... Years of a safe environment right till some people decide it would be fun to taunt a tiger.

I have no clue what a provoked tiger is capable of and if I had to learn such things I would prefer to learn at great distance. I would venture a guess that a really, really pissed off tiger could leap a great distance (do tigers produce adrenalin)?

To my way of thinking, the bottom line is stupid people are looking to collect money for doing something stupid that resulted in death and injury. We can't save stupid people from themselves, however, I would like to save things from being changed as a result of stupid people.

Ron

[One4yu2c]

Originally Posted by Reloadron

The retaining wall, built many years ago served just fine.

Up until a tiger leaped over it (maybe - see above). THIS time the 'victims' were apparently the agitators, but what about next time?

Originally Posted by Reloadron

We can't save stupid people from themselves,

That's always a given, but my viewpoint is that precautions need to be taken to protect the innocent from the actions of the stupid. If that means a higher wall that meets the recommended minimum, then so be it. If it's ultimately determined that the tiger made the leap, then I'd be heartily disappointed if safeguards weren't taken to prevent the possibility of a similar incident occuring again. Next time, the victim could be a small child's first visit to the zoo, or a newborn along for the ride, etc.

[PTRMAN]

Yeah - isn't there ANY assumption of people being responsible for their own behavior?

What if they had just climbed up on the fence and then fallen? Could they sue the zoo if they were hurt? How can the zoo be responsible for ensuring that no one can ever get hurt anywhere on their property? Might as well close down because it can't be done.

Understand a wild animal getting loose is a somewhat different scenario, but in this case there are simularities - stupid people exercising extremely poor judgement.

[One4yu2c]

Let me also clarify that I'm not siding with the agitators, nor do I think they deserve a settlement based on what we know so far (drunk, high, taunting, and who knows what else).

Originally Posted by PTRMAN

How can the zoo be responsible for ensuring that no one can ever get hurt anywhere on their property? Might as well close down because it can't be done.

Or taking it to the other extreme, let all the animals roam free throughout the park and have visitors enter at their own risk.