"What are you having for Christmas Tatiana?"BBC said:
"Same as last year. Human, they're grrrrrrreat!"
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
San Francisco Zoo: Tiger Kills Visitor!
- Thread starter mpw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Same as last year. Human, they're grrrrrrreat!"
Maybe add a line about it being Siberian and preferring them frosted?Awww, you beat me to the bad taste joke!
Why should they kill it because it mauled a trainer. Humans took it out of it natural habitat where it kills for food. So it's a natural born killer. We are the ones that know the consequences, the animal does not. Am I missing something?
Nuc
Why should they kill it because it mauled a trainer. Humans took it out of it natural habitat where it kills for food. So it's a natural born killer. We are the ones that know the consequences, the animal does not. Am I missing something?
Nuc
Except possibly that the animal was raised in captivity. But that's just splitting hairs. It's instinct is to kill for food or protection.
Why should they kill it because it mauled a trainer. Humans took it out of it natural habitat where it kills for food. So it's a natural born killer. We are the ones that know the consequences, the animal does not. Am I missing something?
Nuc
exactly. The only instance it warrants being shot dead is if they can't capture it peacefully and risk further human loss. Even then... hmmm. This tiger didn't ask to be put into a zoo.
exactly x2
It really pisses me off when I hear of the animals being killed in situations like this. It's a TIGER for ****'s sake!
How about a little accountability from the zoo who didn't mind well enough and let it get out of its enclosure to roam into a cafe? I suppose shooting the animal for following its instincts is solution enough.
It's not really the police who killed the tiger: It's whoever's responsible for it getting loose. Ultimately, it is the zoo. Next, it's whoever designed the methods by which tigers are locked in. Next, it's whoever developed the quality assurance plan for that process. Then it's whoever was responsible for managing the implementation of the plans and processes. Then it's whoever was supposed to be implementing the lockdown process and QA procedures.
When something goes this wrong, there are usually multiple failures. Actually, by definition when something goes this wrong there are multiple failures (if a system can fail catastrophically from a single failure, then the system design is a second failure (and the most serious one).
When something goes this wrong, there are usually multiple failures. Actually, by definition when something goes this wrong there are multiple failures (if a system can fail catastrophically from a single failure, then the system design is a second failure (and the most serious one).
true.
i agree with others, the zoo is the one to be held accountable. not the animal.
What about for a rug? <<<<<<That's a joke btw
It reminds me of another ggggreat story.
This gut starts a new job at a zoo, he has virtually no training or experience, but loves animals. A couple of days into the job he's sent to feed the tigers in their cage, but nobody told him to throw the meat through the bars and instead he passes it through, his arm between the bars. Of course the tiger takes his arm along with it's meal and mauls it good and proper.
As luck would have it a TV crew are on site doing a documentary and capture the aftermath for the news.
They film him being taken to hospital and in the ER a doctor prepares him for surgery explaining(he's been conscious throughout) that they aren't going to be able to save his arm. The doctor takes a brief medical history before putting him under and asks the (amazingly calm) guy whether he's allergic to anything? "Yeah, just tigers."
He returned to his job at the zoo with no hard feelings to the tiger, accepting it was just human error and the tiger had, as said above, just gone tiger.
Why should they kill it because it mauled a trainer. Humans took it out of it natural habitat where it kills for food. So it's a natural born killer. We are the ones that know the consequences, the animal does not. Am I missing something?
Nuc
I feel the same. WHAT?? It acted like a tiger?? I mean seriously, this is just tragic for everyone. It's hardly the animal's fault. It's hardly the victims fault. No. The zoo failed here. Human's encroaching on natural habitat is the enemy in the big big picture. Soon these magnificent predators will be extinct and the ignorance of posts like the one above do nothing to make me feel any better about it. Some day the only one's in zoos (or anywhere) will be animatronic. Won't that be thrilling.
While I certainly agree with the sentiment, technically speaking I suspect that the tiger was indeed "crazy."
The SF zoo is atrocious. The worst I have ever seen. It was built as one of the works projects during the new deal and has seen few changes since those days. The enclosures are tiny and were not built with the animal's health or well being in mind. Nearly all the animals show clear neurotic behavior, and in my opinion the tigers (perhaps the elephants) were by far the most neurotic.
The tiger enclosures are tiny, and the animals pace back and forth all day wearing a deep trench into the dirt. These animals absolutely exhibit signs of serious mental health problems and the only surprising part of this story is that in all these years the zoo has not improved the care of these animals. I am surprised its even legal to keep any animal, let alone a highly endangered one, in such conditions.
The tiger wasn't killed because it was "being a tiger". It was killed because once an animal like this learns that humans are "prey" they can no longer be kept safely.
If you want to argue about whether zoos are humane or not, go for it, but once a tiger kills a human there is no reasonable alternative but to destroy it whether it's in a zoo or in the wild.
If you want to argue about whether zoos are humane or not, go for it, but once a tiger kills a human there is no reasonable alternative but to destroy it whether it's in a zoo or in the wild.
That's not what has been reported. It was killed because it was attacking somebody, the cop would've probably shot a person if they'd been the attacker. And rightly so.
Even before the tiger had attacked anybody it wouldn't have been safe to let it into the cafe.
The tiger would have been safe it they could've kept it secure.
Kept in a secure enclosure I don't see how it would've been unreasonable to let it live.
Awww look at the big fluffy puddy cat
FS: One Tiger - Good condition, slight blood-lust.
"Hello, I'm from San Francisco. What time do they serve dinner? Loving those stripes by the way.
"
This is definitely a tragic event, but there was simply no other choice but to kill the tiger. Even if there was a way to contain the tiger without killing it I'm sure it would have ultimately been put down because of lawsuits.
Tigers are beautiful animals and it's sad that it had to die.
Tigers are beautiful animals and it's sad that it had to die.
There are plenty of tigers in the wild (India) that eat humans. You're saying we should hunt them down and kill them? I don't agree. There's plenty of humans. Not very many tigers.
It was killed because it was actively mauling visitors. ...The tiger's death was unfortunate but unavoidable.exactly x2
It really pisses me off when I hear of the animals being killed in situations like this. It's a TIGER for ****'s sake!
How about a little accountability from the zoo who didn't mind well enough and let it get out of its enclosure to roam into a cafe? I suppose shooting the animal for following its instincts is solution enough.