View Full Version : Details on the Lion Attack at SF Zoo
BalletBaby
01-18-2008, 03:34 AM
"Paul Dhaliwal, 19, told the father of Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, who was killed, that the three yelled and waved at the tiger but insisted they never threw anything into its pen to provoke the cat, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle."
Yelling and waving is provoking the cat. Duh!
Jenny
01-18-2008, 08:00 AM
Oh. Well. I mean the zoo is obliged is to properly protect its guests from dangerous animals... but not if they've yelled. It's not like the animal is being charged with some crime and need to trot out a provocation defence. The simple fact is that the zoo did not have an adequate enclosure. The fact that they boys yelled at the tiger doesn't alter that. It's a zoo. People yell all the time. And they waved? Oh, well, I can see how the zoo should have a different standard of care for wavers. If the tiger can jump the damn fence, the tiger can jump the damn fence. It is perfectly foreseeable that if the tiger can jump the fence that some day if will jump the fence. The idea that they have less liability because there was yelling seems ridiculous to me.
Madcap
01-18-2008, 08:07 AM
Well, it's a tragedy for sure... but it don't take no genius to figure throwing rocks at a fuckin' TIGER might be a bad move...
AudreyLeigh
01-18-2008, 09:49 AM
Oh. Well. I mean the zoo is obliged is to properly protect its guests from dangerous animals... but not if they've yelled. It's not like the animal is being charged with some crime and need to trot out a provocation defence. The simple fact is that the zoo did not have an adequate enclosure. The fact that they boys yelled at the tiger doesn't alter that. It's a zoo. People yell all the time. And they waved? Oh, well, I can see how the zoo should have a different standard of care for wavers. If the tiger can jump the damn fence, the tiger can jump the damn fence. It is perfectly foreseeable that if the tiger can jump the fence that some day if will jump the fence. The idea that they have less liability because there was yelling seems ridiculous to me.
Agreed.
Yekhefah
01-18-2008, 09:51 AM
The zoo was definitely at fault, but I have no sympathy for the boys and full sympathy for the tiger. It's such a tragedy that she was killed for nothing more than being a tiger, and all because the zoo was lazy and these guys wanted to be macho and pick on a penned animal. Poor Tatiana. This just makes me so sad. I hope it never happens again.
Madcap
01-18-2008, 09:53 AM
The zoo was definitely at fault, but I have no sympathy for the boys and full sympathy for the tiger. It's such a tragedy that she was killed for nothing more than being a tiger, and all because the zoo was lazy and these guys wanted to be macho and pick on a penned animal. Poor Tatiana. This just makes me so sad. I hope it never happens again.
QFMFT!
Aint enough Tigers in the world as it is.
AudreyLeigh
01-18-2008, 09:58 AM
The zoo was definitely at fault, but I have no sympathy for the boys and full sympathy for the tiger. It's such a tragedy that she was killed for nothing more than being a tiger, and all because the zoo was lazy and these guys wanted to be macho and pick on a penned animal. Poor Tatiana. This just makes me so sad. I hope it never happens again.
Agree with this too. I just think full blame should not be on the boys. The zoo should have had a proper enclosure, the boys should not have taunted the tiger but the tiger should not have been able to get out. They all paid the price - Tatiana was killed and so was one boy. I hope it was worth it...
Jenny
01-18-2008, 10:08 AM
The zoo was definitely at fault, but I have no sympathy for the boys and full sympathy for the tiger. It's such a tragedy that she was killed for nothing more than being a tiger, and all because the zoo was lazy and these guys wanted to be macho and pick on a penned animal. Poor Tatiana. This just makes me so sad. I hope it never happens again.
Actually when I reread the article I'm think I'm reading it the wrong way. I'm looking at it like legal liability; they are probably looking at it like PR - please don't stop coming to our zoo. The tiger knew those guys were assholes - it doesn't mean animals will eat your children.
Although, I would actually argue that she was killed because the zoo had inadequate enclosure. I totally think WSPA should seek standing to sue for the lack of tiger in the world because of them. And, of course, if they had better emergency procedures in place, the animal might have been saved. Although - I don't know. I know in the movies, little sedation darts work like magic - in real life do they work like an on-off switch?
I can't take yelling at a tiger seriously as tiger harassment though - I mean, at least not to any greater extent than living in a zoo that is not one of those really great zoos. It's a zoo. There is yelling and waving and movement every day all day. And I don't think the tiger was particularly incensed by the fact that the boys were yelling at it - "You stripey asshole! Yeah, you! How do you hide in the jungle like that, orange-face?" I doubt the tiger distinguishes.
Yekhefah
01-18-2008, 10:25 AM
True.
There was a guy at the Memphis Zoo several years ago who decided to prove that G-d was looking out for him. He climbed over the fence into the tiger enclosure, swam across the moat, and approached the tiger, who was a captive-bred animal and not the least bit interested in him. Most would think that was enough proof, but this guy decided to harass the tiger, screaming and smacking him, and finally popping him hard across the nose. The tiger had enough and mauled the guy, who died in the hospital. While all this was going on, the onlookers (he drew quite a crowd) were fetching zookeepers and trying to get the guy out of there.
That tiger was killed, and absolutely should not have been. I think the reason Tatiana's case upsets me so much is because it reminds me so much of the other one. Some guy wants to be a macho prick, and a beautiful endangered cat dies as a result. It's bullshit.
Madcap
01-18-2008, 10:56 AM
Why'd these brats get together in the ambulence and promise "not to tell" if they didn't do anything wrong? From what i hear, evidence says they were throwing things and that Tatiana didn't just look at these kids like cooked turkeys and decide "LUNCH!" They were throwing things at her!
Jenny
01-18-2008, 11:15 AM
http://bigcatnews.blogspot.com/2008/01/wayward-dog-climbs-into-tiger-area-at.html
Well look at this: the Memphis managed to get into an exhibit on time to save a bloody dog. Don't get me wrong, I love dogs; I think it is a good and worthy thing that they weren't all "meh. It's just a dog. We can take our time." But compare the emergency procedure, right?
Although... I just googled looking for your memphis incident... if it makes you feel better the SF Zoo obviously doesn't euthanize every tiger after every mauling. They had actually already been fined like $20000 for inadequate and dangerous animal keeping. For the same tiger, after it ate a zookeepers hand.
Jenny
01-18-2008, 11:17 AM
^^
btw - in case it's coming across the wrong way - I don't mean "the tiger has a history of violence; let's apply the three strikes rule". I realize the tiger is a tiger. I meant more that the zoo has a history of inadequate care AND that they don't, as a matter of course, euthanize every animal that puts a toe out of line.
twisterinAZ
01-18-2008, 11:51 AM
This is going to sound shitty, but if they were throwing rocks and being asses, then they got what they deserved. I feel so bad for the tiger. This whole incident is just a big loss all around.
xdamage
01-18-2008, 12:00 PM
Regarding the blaim...
Suppose the Tiger was stung by some pissed off bees, the tiger is pissed, jumps the fence, and mauls you or your children. In that light it is absolutely clear that the zoo has a responsibility to make sure the damn fence is high enough that it can't happen, regardless of the trigger.
As for the kids provoking the tiger. I think they should be held responsible for that.
Bottom line, if it was up to me, the zoo would be held liable for endangering the public, and the kids would be held responsible for provoking the attack. Both should pay. Any moneys collected should be put towards preventing future tragedies in the zoo, and pay for the use of public services to respond and treat the wounded.
Jenny
01-18-2008, 12:01 PM
I get that you don't think people should "be asses" - but do you really think that you should be killed for throwing a rock (if such a thing even occurred)? Like in the greater scheme of justice in the universe, those things are commensurate? I can't think that you deserve to be killed by tiger because you yelled and carried on at a zoo
Djoser
01-18-2008, 12:40 PM
In the wild, you sure as shit don't go looking around for tigers to throw rocks at, after warming up by taunting any other stray wildlife you come across. In that case, well, you dumb fuck, you throw a rock at a tiger she might decide to kill you. She can.
This was worse. These guys were using captive animals for sadistic entertainment, something that from my understanding has been a recurring problem at many zoos, where animals are often thrown things they think is food but makes them sick, etc.
They topped it off in grand style by fucking with the tiger. Death might seem an extreme price to pay, sure, but I think the kid got what he deserved, according to the laws of nature.
The zoo is of course liable, for failing to have a high enough partition.
Maybe it did turn out for the best--maybe if some other dumb fuck had taunted the tiger when there was some kids around the tiger might have mauled or killed them as well. So this dumb fuck just got himself killed and his dumb fuck friends mauled. They sure won't be taunting any more tigers, will they, lol?
And the tiger...
Obviously if she bit off a previous zoo employee's hand, she's not a nice tiger. But even then, how can you blame the animal? She's sure as shit not where she belongs. In fact if you could have given her a choice somehow--confined in a small enclosure, miserable and pissed off; or having one glorious moment of freedom and power, demonstrating the folly of throwing rocks at an animal that can kill you with ease--she might have picked the way she went.
Who knows...
I think it's sad the tiger had to die. I'm not transfixed with remorse that a guy who likes taunting caged animals had the Law of Nature enforced on his sadistic ass.
twisterinAZ
01-18-2008, 01:09 PM
Jenny..I might be a total bitch, but based on the new details, I'm glad those assholes got attacked. I fucking hate people who abuse and mistreat animals . FUCK them. It sucks for thier families and it just sucks that the tiger had to die. If all it does is sit in a cage anyway, maybe it's happier in tiger heaven. Zoos are like animal jail. They depress me soetimes.
Do i think it's how it should be in the grad scheme of things, I guess not. But thats like hanging your arm out a car window driving fast and then being all surprised when it gets ripped off.
Taylorlila
01-18-2008, 01:16 PM
The zoo was definitely at fault, but I have no sympathy for the boys and full sympathy for the tiger. It's such a tragedy that she was killed for nothing more than being a tiger, and all because the zoo was lazy and these guys wanted to be macho and pick on a penned animal. Poor Tatiana. This just makes me so sad. I hope it never happens again.
I agree completly. It's sad that the tiger had to die because some kids were being drunk and stupid...and the zoo should get their ass handed to them on a plate. The tiger shouldn't have been able to get out, and somebody should have noticed the kids taunting outher animals and kicked them out.
RandomUser
01-18-2008, 01:39 PM
Teenage boys are fucking stupid. I was one. Invincible and unaware of consequences. It is a lethal combination. Lack of respect in this case compounded their stupity quotient. They apparently have had an unmitigated upbringing. All three of them should have been wearing t-shirts "I am with stupid" Do not unto others. Include animals.
This zoo should be banned from having cats. I give them 80 percent liability. Not enough people will learn from this incident to protect the cats from future abuse. They should have a large acreage to run around in any way.
I am not an animal rights actvist but for some reason this episode pisses me off. Which seldom happens.
scarlett_vancouver
01-18-2008, 02:00 PM
"glad the assholes got attacked" and "have no sympathy for the boys"? Seriously?
You're all "the tiger was just being a tiger!" Well, dipshit young boys were being dipshit young boys. Did they deserve to be mauled by a fucking tiger for it?? Even if they yelled, waved and threw rocks. It's a zoo. It's a loud place with screaming kids where any asshole can visit. I'd be less sympathetic if they jumped into the enclosure or something, but 'being obnoxious' does not mean they deserved to die.
I'm sad the tiger was put down, but I understand why it was. I don't think it should have been on display in a zoo in the first place. That's where the wrong was done, imo.
This whole comparing validity of death thing...like somehow the death of a tiger is 'worth more' or 'sadder' than the deaths of the boys...fuck.
twisterinAZ
01-18-2008, 03:14 PM
Um... Yeah. Think about how much provoking they probably had to do to get a rise out of the tiger. It obviously was threatened or pissed enough to do something about it. One of the reasons I don't throw rocks at a tiger is because I don't want to be attacked by a tiger !! Duh. Dipshit kids. Its just common sense.
And I do think it's sad for everyone . Still, my sympathy is more with the tiger.
BalletBaby
01-18-2008, 03:19 PM
This whole comparing validity of death thing...like somehow the death of a tiger is 'worth more' or 'sadder' than the deaths of the boys...fuck.
I think people were saying that because tigers are a LOT less in number. Just my speculation.
Anyways, the zoo should definitely be held liable for not having an adequate enclosure. No more tigers for them.
But, I'm curious, if the enclosure had been under the requirements for a long time, why did she choose to randomly attack these boys?:-\
ETA: Does anyone have a pic of the enclosure? It said the boys were standing atop the railing....
AudreyLeigh
01-18-2008, 04:04 PM
Heres a pic of the enclosure
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/bfranklin82/tiger.jpg
OK, that is definately NOT what I was picturing...
I was picturing a moat THEN a 12 foot wall - not the 'moat' being the wall.... stairs down to moat, run, jump - oh yea I can see this happening. Stupid, stupid boys.
Deogol
01-18-2008, 06:13 PM
What I learned:
Zoo's need to protect their animals from people as much as...
Zoo's need to protect people from their animals.
To much civilization breeds disrespect and foolishness towards nature (and the rest of us - we are animals too!)
And there is moat deep enough to contain my biting verizon pony.
Dirty Ernie
01-18-2008, 07:59 PM
In the strict matter of liability the zoo is 100% at fault. SF Mayor Newsom was on a radio show this week and basically dismissed all this talk about the boys' behavior as immaterial. The city has an absolute responsibility to provide public safety at a facility home to large, wild animals. I should be able to go to the zoo wearing a suit of raw meat and have an expectation of complete safety from any animal as long as I do not enter an exhibit.
Lots of article at sfgate.com re this case.
space_Cadet_28
01-18-2008, 08:17 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNEIUH4B9.DTL
An autopsy conducted by a zoo veterinarian on the Siberian tiger after police shot it to death showed that the animal had been "very determined to get out," Matthews said. Its claws were broken and splintered by clambering up the concrete moat wall, Matthews quoted the veterinarian as saying.
I'll go 75% zoo fault. 25% fault on the young guys. The tiger cage was built in 1942 and this was the first incident.
Jenny
01-18-2008, 08:32 PM
The tiger's determination notwithstanding the fence was less than half the minimum recommended height. And the zoo has been in trouble before for poor procedure and animal care and containment (with the same tiger no less). I don't think you can viably claim that they don't have liability when they are not meeting the minimum recommended standards, and the exact thing that the minimum recommended standards are intended to prevent occurs.
Second - I don't know how great a defence of "we can't be negligent because our negligence has never resulted in injury before" is. I mean, it sort of by definition excludes the first injury of negligent behaviour, and requires that negligence, in addition to meeting the legal definition, have a previous injury attached. This is not exactly coherent. I mean, you could say about a building "We are aware that it is structurally very unsound, but we built it in 1942 and it never fell down on anyone before. It seems like it MUST be their fault."
I think the fact that people are blaming a kid who was mauled to death by a dangerous animal in a facility that admits their negligence, has a history negligent care and control and has no viable emergency procedure, even to the point of going so far as to say "he deserved it" says, if nothing else, that the SF Zoo is running a fricking great PR campaign. I wanna be trained by whoever is working for them.
madmaxine
01-18-2008, 08:36 PM
If find it odd that the SF Zoo couldn't afford a better, safer enclosure for tigers when the Chaffee Zoo in Fresno, CA (not too far away) has an excellent large enclosure for their elephants (sunken below zoo-go-er foot traffic level, it's about the size of a high school gymnasium.)
FWIW, maintaining a zoo is not cheap, the day to day cost of feeding the animals and staffing the zoo is substantial.
FJRider
01-18-2008, 08:56 PM
In the strict matter of liability the zoo is 100% at fault. SF Mayor Newsom was on a radio show this week and basically dismissed all this talk about the boys' behavior as immaterial. The city has an absolute responsibility to provide public safety at a facility home to large, wild animals. I should be able to go to the zoo wearing a suit of raw meat and have an expectation of complete safety from any animal as long as I do not enter an exhibit.
Lots of article at sfgate.com re this case.
It is nice to see one person just state the truth here. Teen age boys together are often best suited to be on display themselves as the south end of north facing Zebra's. But this is a know fact. Big cats are big cats are big cats.
In reading this I am seeing how lucky I am to be in San Diego where we have one of the best zoos in the world. Our large cat enclosures are toped they did away with the large cats in the moot type enclosures 20 years ago I think. There is always some one in the area and lots of security to toss kids like this out. We also have a open area wild animal park with over 1800 acres of land. No it is a not the miles that they have in the wild but it is a hell of a lot better then a cage. Some zoos just suck but also remember that some zoos also do a lot to promote saving endangered species. I have been lucky enough to be behind the scenes all of are zoo and aquariums. I love the large cats and still remember being at Joan Embrie's (the SD zoo spook person) House and getting to handle and play with a 9 month old Cheetah. That was almost 20 years ago and I still see it in my mind like yesterday. When a Zoo is ran properly it can really do a lot to help the animals but again the ones in the zoo pay the price to help the others. I guess that it is like everything else in the world there is a right and wrong way to do it and a lot more places take short cuts and do it the wrong way.
VegasPrincess
01-18-2008, 09:26 PM
Oh. Well. I mean the zoo is obliged is to properly protect its guests from dangerous animals... but not if they've yelled. It's not like the animal is being charged with some crime and need to trot out a provocation defence. The simple fact is that the zoo did not have an adequate enclosure. The fact that they boys yelled at the tiger doesn't alter that. It's a zoo. People yell all the time. And they waved? Oh, well, I can see how the zoo should have a different standard of care for wavers. If the tiger can jump the damn fence, the tiger can jump the damn fence. It is perfectly foreseeable that if the tiger can jump the fence that some day if will jump the fence. The idea that they have less liability because there was yelling seems ridiculous to me.
I totally agree. Those kids shouldn't have been yelling at the tiger, but they were just kids, and I am sure we all did some stupid things in highschool. There should have been no physical way for that tiger to jump the fence.
madmaxine
01-18-2008, 09:44 PM
Some fark.com contributions on the story-
Djoser
01-18-2008, 10:23 PM
I don't think it should have been on display in a zoo in the first place. That's where the wrong was done, imo.
Absolutely. Especially when you consider that "in the wild an Amur or Siberian Tiger would roam and protect up to 400...square miles of territory."*
The big carnivores suffer the most in the zoos. There is a plethora of documented evidence of neurotic behavior amongst the big cats and bears, especially. It looks like they've got it made, to the ignorant eye--no need to chase their dinner, no poachers trying to kill them for their supposed medicinal value. In reality they are miserable, their life one long torment.
Enter the 19 year old human victim (as opposed to the animal victim) and his friends, who think it's fun to torment the animal further.
' "Taunting or not, I just think it's incumbent on the AZA and the zoos to have taunt-proof cages," said wildlife biologist Marc Bekoff, a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "If you are going to have an animal like a Siberian tiger or other predators, you have to protect the public."
Bekoff said taunting is common at zoos. He said students in his animal behavior courses during the 1990s found that 20 to 25 percent of zoo visitors taunted the animals — especially predators such as lions and tigers — by mimicking, yelling, throwing things at them or otherwise aggravating them.
"This is not an isolated incident and the zoo is trying to wrangle itself out," he said. "The kids were not responsible for Tatiana being shipped around like a couch. The kids were not responsible for the enclosure being inadequate. The kids are responsible for the taunting." '**
This seems the most rational view on the subject I have seen yet.
Did the kid 'deserve to die'? In a 'civilized' world, no. In the wild, most assuredly he would have died, and it would have been his own fault. Through the zoo's negligence, the Law of Nature was allowed to prevail, which dictates that if you are dumb enough to fuck with a tiger, you fucking die.
If I was there, with godlike powers, I wouldn't have let the tiger kill the 19 year old 'boy'. I would have put the guy in a tiny cage and let the tiger throw rocks at him for a year or so, by which time the guy would probably be begging for a quick death.
If you read a lot of history, you find--over and over again--incredible cruelty towards animals on the part of humans. Humans seem amazingly able to justify, gloss over, or ignore entirely the horrible nature of the crimes perpetrated on the animal kingdom. "Oh well, it's sad, but they are just animals."
It's not like they are 'rational' beings possessing free will, intelligence, and a conscience.
A sense of 'justice', perhaps...
*http://www.bigcatrescue.org/zoos.htm
**http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080119/ap_on_re_us/tiger_attacks
Dirty Ernie
01-19-2008, 01:03 AM
Maybe the whole zoo concept has outlived it's civic benefits to the point that a few large preserve type places in the country could continue, but most city zoos should be phased out. The world is shrinking and the opportunity for children to learn about foreign, exotic species is accomodated by many tv documentaries, which if in hi-def, are brought nearly into your living room nightly on cable television.
In the early 20th century there was a voyeuristic curiosity to see things from far away places one could only read about. Nowadays there is nothing to be learned from gawking at a confined animal as the confinement itself alters the animals behavior, although perhaps educating children about the animals in peril around the globe is easier when the animals can be observed in person. Perhaps something a little primal at work there.
RoseLeigh
01-19-2008, 01:52 AM
Bekoff said taunting is common at zoos. He said students in his animal behavior courses during the 1990s found that 20 to 25 percent of zoo visitors taunted the animals — especially predators such as lions and tigers — by mimicking, yelling, throwing things at them or otherwise aggravating them.
"This is not an isolated incident and the zoo is trying to wrangle itself out," he said. "The kids were not responsible for Tatiana being shipped around like a couch. The kids were not responsible for the enclosure being inadequate. The kids are responsible for the taunting." '**
I'd be interested to know why people do that. Not just 'because they're jerks' or whatever, but why. I've seen it and it drives me mad. The zoo is responsible for keeping people safe and that includes kicking people out if they're throwing stuff.
Djoser
01-19-2008, 02:36 AM
I'd be interested to know why people do that.
Sadism.
The glorious history of the human race is replete with myriad tales of cruelty to animals (and of course to its own species). There used to be lions all over Europe, until the Romans hunted them all down for use in the 'wild beast hunt' spectacles in the arena. Hundreds and thousands of animals were slaughtered on a daily basis, and no expense was spared to obtain new types of animals for this purpose, from increasingly exotic locations.
Bear baiting was an extremely popular pastime in medieval Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting
If there weren't guards in zoos, and the possibility of arrest and punishment, there is no doubt in my mind that there would be much more of this, and it would result in much greater suffering on the part of the animals.
It is sadism, the delight in tormenting a creature (whether human or not) who cannot fight back.
There was an incident in a University of Michigan fraternity a few years back, where a friend of mine had sort of adopted principle responsibility for looking after the 'house cat'. I met the kitty, BK--he was cool as hell, we all loved it when the guy brought it with him several times to our (separate) fraternity. He was declawed so didn't have much defense.
Well apparently the cat shit in the fireplace occasionally, and one night when my friend was gone, 3 of these fratboys, having drank a bit, decided to 'teach him a lesson'.
They chopped off all four of the cat's paws, one by one, hung the cat from a tree, and set the cat on fire.
They were arrested and got like 50-100 hours community service. One of these intelligent young 'boys' actually complained to a reporter, saying he deserved punishment but it was excessive, since the cat was "just an animal". He was genuinely aggrieved!
Thank god I wasn't in the same town, but in Chicago. As it was there were a few of us who wanted to drive over there. I didn't have a car at the time, thankfully.
Just an animal...
I don't think the affliction of suffering on any defenseless creature should be lightly dismissed. A tiger may not be as smart as a human, it may not be able to erect monumental architecture or compose a symphony, but it will suffer just the same amount of physical and/or mental anguish as a human being.
mollyzmoon
01-19-2008, 08:57 AM
^^Good God, that is so sickening. People are capable of so much evil. It's reading stuff like that, or all that torture of women in the Congo, or babies who the Khmer Rouge threw onto bayonets...kind of makes it hard to really trust a person. Evil evil evil.
Katrine
01-19-2008, 04:21 PM
That tiger didn't go crazy, that tiger went tiger--Chris Rock
madmaxine
01-19-2008, 04:41 PM
This is sooo fucked up but I love Don Asmussen-;D
xdamage
01-20-2008, 10:27 AM
...
Just an animal...
I don't think the affliction of suffering on any defenseless creature should be lightly dismissed. A tiger may not be as smart as a human, it may not be able to erect monumental architecture or compose a symphony, but it will suffer just the same amount of physical and/or mental anguish as a human being.
Agreed 100%. As far as I can see, animals act like us when hurt. They avoid pain the same way we do. Just an animal... BS!
RoseLeigh
01-20-2008, 01:43 PM
Sadism.
The glorious history of the human race is replete with myriad tales of cruelty to animals (and of course to its own species). There used to be lions all over Europe, until the Romans hunted them all down for use in the 'wild beast hunt' spectacles in the arena. Hundreds and thousands of animals were slaughtered on a daily basis, and no expense was spared to obtain new types of animals for this purpose, from increasingly exotic locations.
Bear baiting was an extremely popular pastime in medieval Europe.
If there weren't guards in zoos, and the possibility of arrest and punishment, there is no doubt in my mind that there would be much more of this, and it would result in much greater suffering on the part of the animals.
It is sadism, the delight in tormenting a creature (whether human or not) who cannot fight back.
There was an incident in a University of Michigan fraternity a few years back, where a friend of mine had sort of adopted principle responsibility for looking after the 'house cat'. I met the kitty, BK--he was cool as hell, we all loved it when the guy brought it with him several times to our (separate) fraternity. He was declawed so didn't have much defense.
Well apparently the cat shit in the fireplace occasionally, and one night when my friend was gone, 3 of these fratboys, having drank a bit, decided to 'teach him a lesson'.
They chopped off all four of the cat's paws, one by one, hung the cat from a tree, and set the cat on fire.
They were arrested and got like 50-100 hours community service. One of these intelligent young 'boys' actually complained to a reporter, saying he deserved punishment but it was excessive, since the cat was "just an animal". He was genuinely aggrieved!
Thank god I wasn't in the same town, but in Chicago. As it was there were a few of us who wanted to drive over there. I didn't have a car at the time, thankfully.
Just an animal...
I don't think the affliction of suffering on any defenseless creature should be lightly dismissed. A tiger may not be as smart as a human, it may not be able to erect monumental architecture or compose a symphony, but it will suffer just the same amount of physical and/or mental anguish as a human being.
I really hope 20-25% of people (or zoo visitors) aren't sadists, pure and simple. If that is true, then they really just need to throw people out of zoos, or close them. My thinking (fuzzy as it is right now) was that they way the animals were displayed, or the setting of the zoo was having an effect on the visitors. Like how they used to let people into the sanitoriums to be entertained by the inmates. They're behind bars=tauntable.
Of course, seeing the animals in a more natural habitat doesn't stop the average human from rolling down a window for giraffe or tiger or whatever. So some combo of sadism + idiocy may just be the prob. I just tend to think that setting can make of break a person's actions. See: the sc, or museums.
That story about the cat is awful, Djoser.
Jenny
01-20-2008, 02:38 PM
I'm sorry... but again. Just to be perfectly clear here. There is a position on this thread that is demanding that whatever a person does do an animal is morally justified as being visited upon the person? Because I'm wondering if all y'all have thought this through on a conceptual level.
These kids yelled and waved and there is some conjecture they might have thrown something into the cage. They didn't engage in sadistic removal of the animal's feet and then set it on fire. Those are not even remotely comparable activities.
Madcap
01-20-2008, 02:45 PM
I'm sorry... but again. Just to be perfectly clear here. There is a position on this thread that is demanding that whatever a person does do an animal is morally justified as being visited upon the person? Because I'm wondering if all y'all have thought this through on a conceptual level.
These kids yelled and waved and there is some conjecture they might have thrown something into the cage. They didn't engage in sadistic removal of the animal's feet and then set it on fire. Those are not even remotely comparable activities.
They taunted the Tiger, the Tiger killed one of them. Sure the zoo should have looked out better, but to say these brats aren't also at fault is silly. IMO, the surviving brats should be charged with involuntary manslaughter, or negligent homicide or something.
stripperMBA
01-20-2008, 03:00 PM
Did the kid 'deserve to die'? In a 'civilized' world, no. In the wild, most assuredly he would have died, and it would have been his own fault. Through the zoo's negligence, the Law of Nature was allowed to prevail, which dictates that if you are dumb enough to fuck with a tiger, you fucking die.
I have to agree with this. Sure the tiger should not have been able to get out of the cage. But I am a believer in survival of the fittest, and keeping the stupid alive only hurts the general population. I mean if this young man was stupid enough to fuck with a tiger then he is probably stupid enough to drop rocks over freeway over passes, or drag race through a school zone. By him taunting the tiger he risked all the lives at the zoo at that time. How is it that through his stupidity he should be allowed to risk everyone elses life. Because that is just what he choose to do, and thankfully only his life was lost.
It is also really sad that security is so lacking that they were not thrown out before hand, and that zoo funding is so poor. These animals need better enclosures where they can not get out, and where they can be as comfortable as possible.
Dirty Ernie
01-20-2008, 03:03 PM
MadCap-Seriously!? Damn, when I was in grade school, pretty much all the boys mocked and taunted the chimpanzees. Should we be rounded up and charged or straight to the prison for us? Unless you think an animal can make the distinction between adult and child behavior, and can apply different standards to each.
Djoser
01-20-2008, 03:10 PM
I'm not demanding anything.
I didn't kill the innocent 'victim' of the tiger attack, and if I was there and could have stopped the tiger, I probably would have.
The notion that animals have no rights is the issue, and thus the horribly graphic tale of the cat's torture and murder. Sorry if that bothers anyone. The point of the story, however, being the attitude towards animals of the poor boy who had to suffer a few hours community service after torturing an animal to death.
"It's just an animal." So big deal.
Well apparently it was a big deal to the tiger.
It's apparently perfectly OK to keep animals under conditions harmful to their mental and physical being, year after year, in zoos all over the world, such that they exhibit neurotic behavior from being under constant torment, get sick and die prematurely on a regular basis. Sometimes from eating toxic substances thrown to them by people who think it's funny to torment them.
But if one of them, out of the millions being kept under conditions no human should ever be subjected to, happens to get pissed off when someone throws rocks, and reacts as it would in the wild, I'm supposed to feel sorry for the guy throwing rocks?
I feel sorry for people getting blown up by car bombs. I feel sorry for people who die of cancer. I feel sorry for people starving to death. I feel sorry for the countless, untold millions of people slaughtered and tortured by other people who have power over them and think it's a good idea to do it.
I don't feel sorry for people who think it's fun to torment animals in confinement, and get killed when one of the animals gets mad and actually has a chance to do exactly what its instinct tells it to do, which is to kill the motherfucker throwing rocks.
Madcap
01-20-2008, 03:39 PM
MadCap-Seriously!? Damn, when I was in grade school, pretty much all the boys mocked and taunted the chimpanzees. Should we be rounded up and charged or straight to the prison for us?
Did those chimpanzees get mad enough to escape and kill one of you? No? Then it's a different situation.
Involuntary Manslaughter: The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.
Negligent homicide: a charge brought against people, who by inaction, allow others under their care to die.
Djoser
01-20-2008, 03:49 PM
I really hope 20-25% of people (or zoo visitors) aren't sadists...
They're behind bars=tauntable.
...some combo of sadism + idiocy may just be the prob. I just tend to think that setting can make of break a person's actions. See: the sc, or museums.
That story about the cat is awful, Djoser.
Yeah, sorry, but the point was what he said to the reporter when he complained that it wasn't just that he had to wash a few cop cars. It's the rationalization of cruelty to animals.
"It's just an animal".
As to whether he deserved to have the same thing done to him, if I'd been there when he took the meat cleaver to BK, he might have lost a hand, yeah. Then I'd have gone to jail for years, of course. Justice must be served.
I doubt very much if 20-25% of people are really being that sadistic in zoos. Probably most of them are basically doing the same thing as yelling "moo!" out the window driving by the cow pasture, or maybe a bit worse. But I have no doubt at all that at least 5%, maybe more, are behaving in a sadistic fashion towards animals.
And yes, I think a few of them ought to be put in cages and tormented a while themselves. The ones who cause the animals to die from eating toxic substances, for sure.
Tauries
01-20-2008, 04:01 PM
Tatiana is my new hero....gang banger and faux ghetto fucktard feeding programs should be implemented in all the worlds zoos....imagine that America would actually have something to export again!!! Filming of "feedings" should be requisite watching in pre and elementary schools and juvenile detention halls.....man and animal working together to make the world a better place!!!
amazonas
01-20-2008, 10:01 PM
"glad the assholes got attacked" and "have no sympathy for the boys"? Seriously?
You're all "the tiger was just being a tiger!" Well, dipshit young boys were being dipshit young boys. Did they deserve to be mauled by a fucking tiger for it?? Even if they yelled, waved and threw rocks. It's a zoo. It's a loud place with screaming kids where any asshole can visit. I'd be less sympathetic if they jumped into the enclosure or something, but 'being obnoxious' does not mean they deserved to die.
I'm sad the tiger was put down, but I understand why it was. I don't think it should have been on display in a zoo in the first place. That's where the wrong was done, imo.
This whole comparing validity of death thing...like somehow the death of a tiger is 'worth more' or 'sadder' than the deaths of the boys...fuck.
You took the words out of my mouth! It's amazing that some of these people think the boys deserved what they got, when I'm sure they have done something as sutpid as getting shit face drunk and then driven a car. Do they deserve to die because of that? According to their standards, I guess they do! Young kids do stupid things, we all have, but I don't think anyone deserves to die for just being stupid... Or most of us wouldn't be on this earth!
If you really think that kid deserved to die, according to my standards, the one that needs to be dead is you, for not showing any compassion to HUMAN RACE!
Madcap
01-20-2008, 10:06 PM
You took the words out of my mouth! It's amazing that some of these people think the boys deserved what they got, when I'm sure they have done something as sutpid as getting shit face drunk and then driven a car. Do they deserve to die because of that? According to their standards, I guess they do! Young kids do stupid things, we all have, but I don't think anyone deserves to die for just being stupid... Or most of us wouldn't be on this earth!
If you really think that kid deserved to die, according to my standards, the one that needs to be dead is you, for not showing any compassion to HUMAN RACE!
So by that reasoning, anyone who does something dumb and gets themselves killed as a result isn't at fault?
Asking for it is asking for it. Who's fault was it, Tatiana's? She died, too! The zoo should have had security to boot these brats out first on first, but these dickheads are the ones that threw stuff at and taunted a 'defenseless' wild animal (that is now dead).
Call me a dirtbag, but there's not enough like her and too many like him. FACT, if those brats hadn't done what THEY did, Tatiana wouldn't have done what SHE did. Those brats were capable of higher thinking, Tatiana was not, those brats flushed higher thinking and Tatiana focused like a laser beam and did what a Tiger does.
That wall didn't shrink. It was the same height during the whole time Tatiana was at that zoo. She didn't escape and maul before this, why?