A blog about Food & Eating.
Real Name: Jim Galagan Gender: male Member Since: July 17, 2007 Last Signed In: October 12, 2008 Profile Views: 1282 Blog Views: 5564 hot dog lady go's belly-up........ Ditch digging wasn't my worst job Happy B-Day Olivia violence at the skate park mountain bike Does the FCC have any control over the internet. Poppy reserve Did McCain cheat on his wife? Super Tuesday Where is everyone August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Tiger attack who's to blame
The latest reports on the deadly attack at the San Francisco zoo says that the three victims where intoxicated and where taunting the tigers by standing on the top of the railing yelling and waving their arms at the tigers. The Police believe this led to the deadly attack. The report also said that the the wall surrounding the enclosure was four feet shorter then the recommend minimum height. I just saw a poll on who to blame and i was surprised that over 80% said that the victims where to blame. I feel that although the victims did agitate and taunt the tiger the zoo should be held responsible for the attack. Below is the article on this story. My question to you is who do you think is to blame for the tiger attack. The zoo or the victims. 33 comments from 14 users
posted by
weebles
on Jan 18, 2008 at 03:01 PM
I think both are to blame.Zoos have long since outlived their usefulness. I have cats who are now indoor-only, but weren't always. My largest cat is somewhere between 20-25 pounds (not Weebles). He has the run of a 1,700 square foot house. He can go on the tables, counters, floors, up cat furniture that is six feet tall...pretty much anywhere he can reach. But for him, it will never be enough space to meet his needs. And he's a 22 pound animal in a 1,700 sq ft house. Animals in zoos frequently become neurotic from the combined stressors of not enough space, the wrong environment for their species climate-wise, and far too much human attention. It's a sad life for those animals, and I would think that almost anyone could understand why sometimes they snap. The young men knew the rules of conduct for attending the zoo, yet chose to defy them. They were guilty of ignorance more than malice, to be sure, but they were wrong to taunt the animal, in the same manner as someone is wrong to tease dogs through fences, or animals kept on chains, for much the same reason --- sometimes, they break free. I don't believe the men should be punished, as they have been punished enough. But neither do I believe that the zoo owes them some huge amount of money for taunting an animal until it snapped. This round, everyone lost. posted by
madkow2747
on Jan 18, 2008 at 03:18 PM
I think the wall should have been higher, and that is the zoo's fault.I think the boys should have behaved better, that is their (and their parents) fault. Overall, I do not think the boys or the family of the dead boy should get any compensation. The tiger did what it was made to do, it's just a shame that it wasn't in the appropriate place with the appropriate prey. I was biased against the victims immediately when I heard that they might have taunted the tiger and that they were uncooperative with police. Who in their right mind goes to a zoo and taunts the animals? If they hadn't done that, they'd be fine. I agree that zoos are a very bad environment for animals. I wonder if we had zoos like the animal park in San Diego, if the animals would be better? I've never been to that one, but don't they try to keep the environment very natural? I really like to see the animals, so I think it would be sad to not have any zoos. (Did anyone else see the pictures of a tiger attack- I think it was in National Geographic last year- where the tiger attacked the photographer and he snapped pictures as it happened? It was amazing!) posted by
Joty
on Jan 18, 2008 at 03:40 PM
The wall may have not been high enough, but if that was reason alone for this tiger to jump out, why didn't it happen more frequently? And why, when it was inspected didn't the inspecter inform the zoo? Those stupid stupid boys are at fault, and of course they will sue, I only hope the legal system will say tough titty. Zoos may not be ideal, but is becoming extinct ideal? Zoos try, some harder than others. It takes money. The Wild Animal Park in San Diego is awesome, their zoo is one of the better ones also. I'd rather see an animal in a good zoo than in a circus or traveling show. One dead boy, one dead tiger. Punishment for all. posted by
weebles
on Jan 18, 2008 at 03:57 PM
I agree on that, Joty. No circus, no traveling roadshow, no private ownership for any yahoo with a few hundred dollars.My choice for wild animals is right here. I've been a member for years and visit when I get up that way. posted by
Smokey
on Jan 18, 2008 at 04:24 PM
I completely think the boys are to blame. They were somewhere they shouldn't have been. They were taunting something higher than themselves on the food chain. Those two things combined were deadly. Unfortuntaley, I think the zoo is going to be liable legally. Unless they entered the tiger enclosure on purpose or helped the tiger to escape, the zoo is liable.The Zoo owes its patrons an absolute duty to keep them safe from animal attacks, and will be strictly liable for any damages that occur. The zoo will not be helped by their admission that the wall was too short, or by that fact that this same tiger attacked and injured a zoo keeper . These facts show that the zoo was aware of the danger posed by this tiger in particular,yet took little or no precautions. What if this escape happened in the middle of the day in a crowded zoo? The story would be very different if your children were eaten in front of you because a couple of idiots taunted an animal. Bottom line is no animal should be able to escape into the public. At the moment, the zoo and the city are doing what they can to damage the victim's reputations. This legal strategy may influence a jury and make them less sympathetic but ultimately, the zoo is still strictly liable for the injuries caused by the tiger. This case will probably settle long before trial. posted by
weebles
on Jan 18, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Legally I think you're dead on, Smokey. That is exactly what some lawyer will argue to win their 40%.If the taunted animal attacked someone who wasn't involved, different story. But, in this case, she didn't. She attacked the ones who pushed her over the edge. I don't think of their actions and their blood alcohol level as a tactic. It's just the truth. The same truth that would exist if we were talking about a car accident. But yes, some lawyer will make a fortune arguing that it's all the zoo's fault. posted by
Cobwebdumplin
on Jan 18, 2008 at 05:09 PM
I think it's totally unacceptable for that cat to have been able to escape it's enclosure. Unless the young men physically aided the tiger to escape I think the zoo should take 100% responsibility for this. And actually I don't think there should be any way for a visitor to help an animal escape without the use of a hacksaw or 12 foot ladder. And could that possible be true what I read? That there is only a 3 foot fence and some bushes seperating the public from the moat? That's unbelievable!
posted by
awsmom8
on Jan 18, 2008 at 10:09 PM
I think the zoo and the teens should both be held responsible. According to the news last night the teens not only had alcohol on board but tested positive for marijuana also. When the male homo sapien is combined with alcohol, his testosterone level tends to increase accordingly, resulting in foolish and dangerous activity such as teasing a tiger. This has been proven over centuries of time. Should the zoo be held for the teens decision to act stupid? No. But the zoo, as well as the zoo inspector, should be held responsible for the inadequacy of the enclosure, resulting in the tiger's escape. I say the zoo should have to award the families $1 million dollars apiece, then reduce the award by 80% because that is the percentage of fault the teens contributed to causing this tragedy. And by the time their attorney takes his percentage and all the medical bills are paid, the teens won't have anything left.
posted by
TK
on Jan 21, 2008 at 09:44 AM
The zoo didn't build the enclosure yesterday. When it was built, and later when it was renovated, the enclosure met the recommendations at that time. Recommendations change. People remain stupid. Not only do the investigators think the men taunted the tiger, they may have been the ones who threw several objects at the tiger. Also, blood was found within the people-barrier. They may have been hanging over the wall. The tiger was a well-fed creature. He had no reason to exert himself, unless he felt threatened. The Wild Animal Park in San Diego nows shuttles people through the paddocks on buses. I went to it when you would drive your car through and could stop wherever and for how long you wanted. Stupid people squashed that by getting out of their cars to get better photos of the wild animals. People were attacked. Well, duh. These drunk / stoned men who were attacked by the tiger in San Francisco have earned a Darwin Award.
posted by
Joty
on Jan 21, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Unfortunately, a young man died because of his friends' stupidity as well as a beautiful animal who was pushed to her limit. One of the young men has confessed to the taunting, but what do you want to bet he'll file a lawsuit against the zoo as a "victim". I feel the only responsibility the zoo bears is to raise the wall to specifications and in the future, 30 minutes before closing time have employees start ushering people to the exit. posted by
gube
on Jan 21, 2008 at 03:03 PM
Although one of the kids got eaten by the tiger for pissing it off i must say that the zoo is liable for the death. What would have happened if the tiger ate an Innocent bystander? I'm sure the family of the Innocent bystander would sue the zoo. Would the kids be criminally charged? The kids are to blame and the zoo will pay.
posted by
Joty
on Jan 21, 2008 at 05:12 PM
Yep, the zoo will end up paying. That's because America has become a sue happy country of victims who refuse to take personal responsibility. And lots of greedy attorneys out there to fuel the fire. A woman has an appointment with her gynecologist. She asks if it's possible to become pregnant by having anal sex. The doctor replied of course, where do you think attorneys come from? posted by
LuvMyKatz
on Jan 21, 2008 at 06:13 PM
Weebles you said it well........ I do agree that the zoo is partially responsible for underestimating the physical ability of an animal that is `WILD' and as humans we are supposed to have the ability to think and make rational decisions, those boys didn’t do that. Alcohol caused a young man to act stupid and he lost his life buy why should we blame the zoo, after all the tiger had been there for years without incident and if it had displayed some aggressive or potential dangerous behavior the zoo officials should have removed it to another better equipped facility like the San Diego Wild Animal park. I'm sorry Madkow but why should the parents be responsible for the idiotic act of young drunk males acting stupid, after all weren’t' they over 18? I just don't think a parent should always be blamed for stupid things their kids do, in my opinion they have paid the highest price already the death of their child. I hold the boys themselves responsible but I do agree with you in that the families shouldn't receive a dime from the zoo. I wish the officials hadn’t killed the tiger but tranquilized it and then transfer it to SD Wild Animal Park which is a wonderful facility for our wild animals. It is thousands of acres and wide open range for the grazing animals but the tiger and lion enclosures are very large and natural for the cats. Most of the times you never even get a chance to see them because they are so well camouflaged but they are safe behind special enclosures. I think this is just a very sad wake up call for the older zoos to rethink their enclosures and make modifications and if they see anyone taunting the animals—kick them out for their own good.
posted by
madkow2747
on Jan 21, 2008 at 06:28 PM
Were they over 18? Oops, thought they were younger.
posted by
LuvMyKatz
on Jan 21, 2008 at 09:12 PM
I looked it up the one killed was 17 but the others were 19 and 23. I still can't hold the parents responsible at that age, I have a 16 year old son and he knows better than to do something stupid like that, I have taught him right from wrong. Does it mean he won't do something stupid? NO; but I know in my heart I have taught him and I pray he won't cave into peer pressure like that young man did. If anything I would blame the other guys he was with they were older and shouldn't have pressured the kid into proving himself. Peer Pressure sad |
