# Let's shoot the animal...for being exactly what the animal is supposed to be?



## Shimmer (Dec 27, 2007)

Tiger in zoo attack was shot to death by police after it mauled 3 people.

Well. No shit. A tiger...a big cat predator...attacks people? 

Really?

It's a tragic death for the family but that's what those animals are bred to do...hunt and catch prey. They shot an endangered specimen for doing what it does naturally.

I do not agree with this decision. Tranquilize it and send it elsewhere? Absolutely. Make better enclosures? Yes. Shoot it? No. Sorry. I don't agree with that.


----------



## lilifee (Dec 27, 2007)

Exactly my opinion. 
don#t they have any tranquillizer guns in a zoo for emergency cases!!!!


----------



## Shimmer (Dec 27, 2007)

They do, but people panicked and caused a fair measure of chaos.


----------



## almmaaa (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Tiger in zoo attack was shot to death by police after it mauled 3 people.

Well. No shit. A tiger...a big cat predator...attacks people? 

Really?

It's a tragic death for the family but that's what those animals are bred to do...hunt and catch prey. They shot an endangered specimen for doing what it does naturally.

I do not agree with this decision. Tranquilize it and send it elsewhere? Absolutely. Make better enclosures? Yes. Shoot it? No. Sorry. I don't agree with that._

 

I agree 100%  makes me so sad I love animals!!!!


----------



## *Stargazer* (Dec 27, 2007)

Nope, sorry, but if I come up on a tiger that is crouched over someone trying to maul them and then it turns on me, you bet your butt I'm protecting myself with whatever I've got. 

You can argue that the Zoo itself didn't have proper procedures in place but I can't blame the people who killed the tiger after it turned toward them. The tiger never should have been in that exhibit after attacking a zookeeper last year. The blame here lies solely with the Zoo, IMO.


----------



## Shimmer (Dec 27, 2007)

I don't disagree with that at all, and I understand and endorse self defense 100%, you know that. 
But, I do think that instead of managing the panicked public so poorly that the police had to be called and resort to the death of the animal, the zoo should have had the procedure in place to handle the situation.

And, if it turns out the victims were taunting the animal and helped it escape, like the article  suggests may have happened, my sympathy with them is nonexistent.


----------



## Juneplum (Dec 27, 2007)

r u f***ING KIDDING ME? THEY SHOT THE TIGER??????????????????????? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








  WTF man????????????????


----------



## *Stargazer* (Dec 27, 2007)

I'm not sure that anyone really had time to react properly. Combine that with the fact that the zoo is obviously very poorly prepared and you have this disaster. I feel for the people who were attacked (although I agree - if they brought this on themselves, then they did in fact get what they deserved) and the poor tiger. And anyone that witnessed that attack. That had to be so freaking scary. 

There are so many questions here. Like, why are police involved? Were they just there? Are they regularly just there? Is there actual zoo security? That kind of thing.

eta: I feel bad for those cops too. Having to kill that tiger probably doesn't feel real good to them either.


----------



## alexisdeadly (Dec 27, 2007)

I said the same exact thing when I heard about it!


----------



## Shimmer (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_I'm not sure that anyone really had time to react properly. Combine that with the fact that the zoo is obviously very poorly prepared and you have this disaster. I feel for the people who were attacked (although I agree - if they brought this on themselves, then they did in fact get what they deserved) and the poor tiger. And anyone that witnessed that attack. That had to be so freaking scary. 

There are so many questions here. Like, why are police involved? Were they just there? Are they regularly just there? Is there actual zoo security? That kind of thing.

eta: I feel bad for those cops too. Having to kill that tiger probably doesn't feel real good to them either._

 
All really good points. 

The zoo is supposed to have a response team, though why they weren't ... y'know...responding...isn't mentioned in the article.


----------



## redambition (Dec 27, 2007)

The poor tiger 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I nearly cried when I read that it had been shot.

Shame on the zoo for not being prepared for this kind of situation. A beautiful, endangered animal has been destroyed because the police had to do something to stop it attacking... and with no response team in sight, what do you honestly think they're going to do?

I feel for those attacked (only if they weren't taunting it and trying to lure it out - if you're going to do something that stupid then deal with the consequences), and I feel for the police officers that had to make the decision to shoot it.


----------



## purrtykitty (Dec 27, 2007)

I agree with everyone.  And this wasn't the first time the tiger had attacked, so I'm wondering why the zoo didn't find alternative arrangements after the first incident.  After the first attack the zoo knew the propensity of the animal to attack, so in my mind, I have a hard time justifying what was done.  The zoo should have shipped that poor kitty off to a nature reserve somewhere.


----------



## SparklingWaves (Dec 27, 2007)

They are WILD animals. I really have an issue with killing these animals for doing what they would do in nature. They want to stick them in cages. If they act like what they are, predators, they kill them. 

I see so many shows where they go into the cages and let these WILD animals hug on them or beat them into standing up. When one has enough of that foolishness, he slaps the stupid man or pins them down and the wounds are severe. They don't respect these animals are WILD and always will be WILD and powerful animals.

In the animal kingdom, the laws are clear. You threaten  or tease me. That means you want to fight me. The lesson can be deadly. You don't tease what is bigger & more powerful than you. Now, that's common sense.


----------



## nunu (Dec 27, 2007)

I blame the Zoo for not securing the place properly, I mean they know that tigers are wild animals. A lot of people die in zoo's and circus's because of poor security around the cages etc. 
They shouldn't have shot the tiger maybe shoot it with a sedator or something that would've callmed the tiger down. I guess people just panicked and did what they thought was best in an impulse.


----------



## Starz777 (Dec 27, 2007)

I'm sooo upset that this happened! A ZOO is where these animals and the public should be safe. The animal got out. I blame the zoo. People killed/injured. I blame the zoo. Animal killed. Again the zoo is to blame. I think this incident should inspire all zoos to review all their safety procedures!


----------



## DaisyPie (Dec 27, 2007)

"Let's let the tiger eat the man - he's only doing what he does naturally!"


----------



## DaisyPie (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *redambition* 

 
_I feel for those attacked (only if they weren't taunting it and trying to lure it out - if you're going to do something that stupid then deal with the consequences), and I feel for the police officers that had to make the decision to shoot it._

 
The people attacked were eating at an outdoor cafe.


----------



## *Stargazer* (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *DaisyPie* 

 
_The people attacked were eating at an outdoor cafe._

 
Where did you read that?


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Dec 27, 2007)

Tranquilizers are far too slow.
If its killing people, they are going to have to do something about it ASAP, Its sad the tiger had to die ,but If its about to kill some little kids, sorry but its getting shot.Tranquilizers just aren't going to cut it when something like that is happening.\


Perhaps we should think twice before caging up wild animals for the public to stare at.


----------



## purrtykitty (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *DaisyPie* 

 
_"Let's let the tiger eat the man - he's only doing what he does naturally!" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
I don't think anyone here is saying that they should have let the tiger continue to dine, what we're saying is that the zoo and the police handled the situation very poorly.  Tranquilizing the tiger would have been equally effective and it would have minimized the loss of life.  That tiger should not have been killed because it was acting as nature intended.  That tiger does not know the difference between a zebra and a person.  All he saw was something move and he went into attack mode.  It's not the tiger's fault, nor is it the attack victims' faults...it's the zoo.  The zoo is the one who wasn't prepared and didn't have adequate facilities to keep this kitty in check.


----------



## messhead (Dec 27, 2007)

When I first heard about the story I was upset that the police officers killed the Tiger, especially because it is an extremely endangered specie. *IF* it is true that the victim was taunting the tiger than I don't know if I feel so bad for him... No one deserves death, but he shouldn't have done what he did if he did it. I also thought about the police officers, for those saying it was not necessary to kill it, what if it was you in that situation??? I am a true animal lover, however, I would prefer my husband (a fellow police officer) to come home to his family at night.

Nevertheless this is a true tragedy for everyone involved.


----------



## purrtykitty (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *DaisyPie* 

 
_The people attacked were eating at an outdoor cafe._

 
According to the article Shimmer posted, only one of the victims was at the cafe.  The authorities found blood and a shoe in and around the moat near the tiger's enclosure indicating that one of the victims may have been dangling his/her legs down, possibly pointing to one or more people taunting the tiger.


----------



## redambition (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MxAxC-_ATTACK* 

 
_Tranquilizers are far too slow.
If its killing people, they are going to have to do something about it ASAP, Its sad the tiger had to die ,but If its about to kill some little kids, sorry but its getting shot.Tranquilizers just aren't going to cut it when something like that is happening.\


Perhaps we should think twice before caging up wild animals for the public to stare at._

 
tranq darts work pretty fast if the appropriate dosage for the animal is in the dart.

DaisyPie - if the people attacked were indeed innocent bystanders - then yes, I have a large amount of sympathy for them. I have heard through the media that it's a possibility that one or more of the people attacked were taunting the tiger and trying to get it out - if that's true then those people did something stupid without any thought of the consequences of their actions.


----------



## purrtykitty (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MxAxC-_ATTACK* 

 
_Tranquilizers are far too slow._

 
If that's the case, then why even bother having tranquilizers...why don't all rampaging animals just get shot?  I don't believe that's necessarily true.  I think zoos and animal control stock tranquilizers for a reason.  Because it's the alternative to killing an animal who doesn't know any better.


----------



## ratmist (Dec 27, 2007)

I might be the only one thinking it, but accidents happen.  

As for the previous incident with Tatiana, where she mauled another zoo keeper:  "A year ago, Tatiana reached its paws through a set of bars and tore into zoo keeper Lori Komejan's arm during a regular afternoon feeding at a cage enclosure known as the Lion House in December of 2006.  Dozens of zoo visitors were watching the feeding. The Lion House was closed to the public because of that incident and only re-opened three months ago" (from Yahoo! News UK).  That's just normal for a tiger.  That's not a good enough reason to shoot the tiger or to even "release it into the wild" somewhere.  

As for the "animals don't belong in cages" argument, or the "release it back into the wild or in some nature reserve" argument, in Tatiana's species there are "fewer than 400 surviving in the remote forests of Russia’s Sikhote-Alin mountain range, east of the Amur River. Another 600 are kept in captivity (from Times Online).  I think returning such a creature, who probably was born into captivity and raised in captivity, back into the wild or even into a nature reserve was clearly not an option.  Furthermore, she was part of a breeding programme, which brings me to my next point.

There is a huge difference between cruelty towards animals and the role of zoos like the San Francisco Zoo.  Like almost every charity-registered zoo in the world, they are crucial to conservation programmes around the world.  So long as there are critically endangered animal species, zoos need to stay open because they are the last refuge for animal species that would otherwise be completely obliterated from existence.  They are at the front line, engaging in research, breeding and conservation initiatives around the world, dedicated as pressure groups and charities to help preserve species that would otherwise be left to fade away.  If you've ever spoken with any of the scientists running these places, you'd find they spend millions trying to educate the public, motivate the government and generate the research we need to understand the biology of our planet and the role we all must play in conservation.  It's not all about taking the kids to the zoo for the day.  There is a much bigger picture at stake.

I think the zoo needs to publically take responsibility for the attack, if they haven't already done so.  They need to be able to reassure the public that the safety of visitors at the zoo is of paramout importance - even over the safety of the animals.  

The tiger wall was reportedly four feet shorter than the recommended minimum height, but there are reports the boys at the zoo, involved in the attack, could've been provoking the animal.  The San Francisco Chronicle reported, "San Francisco police are investigating the possibility that one of the victims in the fatal tiger mauling on Christmas Day climbed over a waist-high fence and then dangled a leg or other body part over the edge of a moat that kept the big cat away from the public, sources close to the investigation said Wednesday.  The minimal evidence found at the scene included a shoe and blood in an area between the gate and the edge of the 25- to 30-foot-wide moat, raising questions about what role, if any, the victims might have had in accidentally helping the animal escape.  (From The San Francisco Chronicle.)

Other reports are denying this.  Either way, you can bet the zoo, the handlers and the keepers are heartbroken, both for the family and the tiger.  It is a loss for the planet as well as a sad loss for the victim's family.


----------



## DaisyPie (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_Where did you read that?_

 
That's what they were saying on the TV News here.

I agree that it is the Zoo's fault 100% - if they can't supply a safe and proper habitat for the animals, then don't keep them in a zoo. But if I came across a tiger mauling a person and I only had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot it. If I had a tranq gun instead then I would obviously have used that, but I wouldn't want to wait around an extra minute or two while someone fetches one if it meant saving someones life.


----------



## DaisyPie (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *redambition* 

 
_tranq darts work pretty fast if the appropriate dosage for the animal is in the dart.

DaisyPie - if the people attacked were indeed innocent bystanders - then yes, I have a large amount of sympathy for them. I have heard through the media that it's a possibility that one or more of the people attacked were taunting the tiger and trying to get it out - if that's true then those people did something stupid without any thought of the consequences of their actions._

 
Ah okay, I didn't realise it was a provoked attack. When I heard it earlier on the News all they said was the tiger has escaped and mauled some people at an outdoor cafe.


----------



## ratmist (Dec 27, 2007)

Also, can I just say, in defense of the zoo:

Everyone seems to be implying or outright claiming that no one at the zoo was prepared for something like this.  This is clearly a case where mistakes have been made, but that does not mean that the San Francisco Zoo - and every other quality zoo in the world - does not spend a lot of money on research, planning and development for every enclosure.  Until the investigation is complete, it would be stupid for the zoo to issue any further statements.  I think everyone should give the zoo and the authorities a chance to explain what exactly happened.  There are security cameras all over these places.  I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get footage very soon that will explain all of it.

As for the 'gawking at animals = bad' argument, I have to say this:  there is a fine balance between ensuring an animal can live safely, peacefully and healthily and ensuring the public can see exactly what the fuss is all about.  It's one thing to hear, "Save the gorillas!", but if you've never seen one, you don't know what the fuss is all about.  There is no replacement for looking into a gorilla's eyes and being struck with awe at the intelligence staring back into yours.  It's that kind of feeling that inspires people to do something to ensure that those species survive.  There is a fine line between gawking and visual learning, but a zoo's intention is definitely the latter.  And while you're busy learning that the animal is incredible, the scientists and zoos are working together to learn everything we can about it.  It's called zoology for a reason, people.


----------



## tara_hearts (Dec 27, 2007)

The part that makes me mad is in the article it said they found a shoe and blood INSIDE the enclosure, like someone dangled a leg at it to taunt it. Ugh. I hate they had to kill the tiger 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I agree with everyone who said where the F*ck were the tranquilizer guns?? Shouldn't that go hand in hand with animals that will KILL you if they get out?


----------



## *Stargazer* (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MxAxC-_ATTACK* 

 
_Perhaps we should think twice before caging up wild animals for the public to stare at._

 
I agree, to an extent. In situations where an animal benefits greatly from conservation efforts undertaken by zoos and rescues, I find it hard to find fault with the idea of a zoo. But in general, I have issues with caging up wild animals. There is an argument that is made that it helps conservation movements when you have animal ambassadors that people can view. I'm not sure if I wholeheartedly agree with that line of thought, but I do understand the intent behind it. 

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *purrtykitty* 

 
_I don't think anyone here is saying that they should have let the tiger continue to dine, what we're saying is that the zoo and the police handled the situation very poorly._

 
I do not fault the police at all. Earlier I asked some questions about their presence. I did some more reading and the cops were there because someone from the zoo called them. They should never ever have been the first line of defense against an escaped animal. The zoo should have taken the first action. I don't find fault with calling the police, but if the zoo didn't attempt to tranquilize this animal first, then their protocol for dealing with this needs to be reviewed. I also just read that the zoo director has admitted that the wall of the enclosure was 4 feet lower than the recommendations made by the national agency that accredits zoos and other sanctuaries. I place the blame for this squarely on the zoo. And the victims if they were in fact guilty of taunting the animal.


----------



## *Stargazer* (Dec 27, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_ There are security cameras all over these places.  I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get footage very soon that will explain all of it._

 
I just heard the director of the zoo saying that they were going to put cameras in the zoo directed at the exhibits to deal with any future issues. I wonder if there is any footage of this. I think it will be interesting to see what happens if there is because there will be the inevitable argument that it should or shouldn't be released to the public.


----------



## mariecinder (Dec 27, 2007)

My dad told me about this earlier today and I almost started sobbing. When he told me that the teenagers were prevoking the tiger I got so angry. That poor beautiful cat...sometimes I really hate people.


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *purrtykitty* 

 
_If that's the case, then why even bother having tranquilizers...why don't all rampaging animals just get shot?  I don't believe that's necessarily true.  I think zoos and animal control stock tranquilizers for a reason.  Because it's the alternative to killing an animal who doesn't know any better._

 
tranquilizers are (mainly) made for transporting animals safely. not for stopping a a rampaging animal.
If there is a bear or other large wild animal, walking in a neighborhood, they can safely tranquilize it and remove it. If its currently mauling someone. a tranquilizer will not work quick enough, the sedative has to be pumped through their body and that takes  a minute or so.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Dec 28, 2007)

I feel bad for the tiger, the police, and any innocent victims. I don't feel bad for the zoo or if the people provoked the tiger. Who the hell provokes a tiger? What kind of dumbass does that seriously? I wouldn't provoked a frickin' squirrel, let alone something that huge and powerful.

I place a lot of blame on the zoo, because why on earth were people allowed to get so close to the tiger. I've seen tigers and lions at zoos, and I don't think I felt like I could get that close to them to taunt them, unless I threw something at them.


----------



## purrtykitty (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MxAxC-_ATTACK* 

 
_tranquilizers are (mainly) made for transporting animals safely. not for stopping a a rampaging animal.
If there is a bear or other large wild animal, walking in a neighborhood, they can safely tranquilize it and remove it. If its currently mauling someone. a tranquilizer will not work quick enough, the sedative has to be pumped through their body and that takes a minute or so._

 
According to the article (and the other reports I've heard) the tiger wasn't mauling anyone at the time it was shot dead.  The police and zoo personnel had to search for the animal.  I'm guessing the poor creature was scared and looking for a safe place to go.  In my mind, the zoo and police should have tranq'ed the tiger.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Dec 28, 2007)

The police are probably not trained to handle tigers roaming. I'm for animal rights (vegetarian, etc., etc.), but I have to admit I might shoot a tiger if I thought it were rampaging and killing people.


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_I agree, to an extent. In situations where an animal benefits greatly from conservation efforts undertaken by zoos and rescues, I find it hard to find fault with the idea of a zoo. But in general, I have issues with caging up wild animals. There is an argument that is made that it helps conservation movements when you have animal ambassadors that people can view. I'm not sure if I wholeheartedly agree with that line of thought, but I do understand the intent behind it. _

 
I 100% agree, Places like the San Diego Wild animal park have a VERY VERY large park for the "Cat species" to roam (Its amazing, I've been through it). But places like The hotel in Vegas where the Lions have a very small place to roam most of the day just so people can look through the glass at them , makes me sad and angry. (I'd be a pist kitty in that situation too!!)


----------



## MiCHiE (Dec 28, 2007)

Stories like these are why I don't really care for zoos and circuses. The only thing I hate more than this is hearing about people who go after sharks that attack swimmers. Sorry, but GTFO of the bodies of water where they live. When they start walking on sidewalks, release your ammo.


----------



## BRYNN013 (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_Nope, sorry, but if I come up on a tiger that is crouched over someone trying to maul them and then it turns on me, you bet your butt I'm protecting myself with whatever I've got. 

You can argue that the Zoo itself didn't have proper procedures in place but I can't blame the people who killed the tiger after it turned toward them. The tiger never should have been in that exhibit after attacking a zookeeper last year. The blame here lies solely with the Zoo, IMO._

 
I agree.  The zoo should have had tranquilizers, but if they weren't there, I would kill that tiger (if I could) so fast... I'm sorry, I like animals they are okay but if they start killing people I think it's time to let them go...


----------



## nunu (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *BRYNN013* 

 
_I agree. The zoo should have had tranquilizers, but if they weren't there, I would kill that tiger (if I could) so fast... I'm sorry, I like animals they are okay but* if they start killing people* I think it's time to let them go..._

 
But thats wild animals for you. Thats why we differentiate between pets and wild animals. They don't need to be provoked to kill someone/an animal, this is what they do and hence the name wild predators. That's their source of food 'meat'
We can't do much about it because this is what they are this is nature.


----------



## BRYNN013 (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *nunu* 

 
_But thats wild animals for you. Thats why we differentiate between pets and wild animals. They don't need to be provoked to kill someone/an animal, this is what they do and hence the name wild predators. That's their source of food 'meat'
We can't do much about it because this is what they are this is nature._

 
Yeah.  I don't think they are evil, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to!  And humans should realize that.  But still, if its killing humans, it relaly does need to die.


----------



## tsukiyomi (Dec 28, 2007)

I agree. I think zoos are barbaric anyway. I mean, why would you take the animal out of their own environment just to make money off of them? That's sad.


----------



## user79 (Dec 28, 2007)

I absolutely HATE when stuff like this happens. If I ever have kids I will never take them to a circus that has animals, and I'd have reservations about zoos too. Ugh.


----------



## Shimmer (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *tsukiyomi* 

 
_I agree. I think zoos are barbaric anyway. I mean, why would you take the animal out of their own environment just to make money off of them? That's sad._

 
because that's the only way that _many_ children ever experience ANY kind of live animal, excluding a domesticated cat and dog?
Because many of the animals in a wildlife exhibit (big cats like tigers, along with pandas, for example) are on highly monitored breeding programs that are fighting every single day to bring the animals back to numbers that aren't endangered due to poaching and killing?
Because in the larger zoos, the exhibits are actually really well designed (and barring the fact this cat escaped somehow), usually made to mirror the animal's native habitat?


I agree and believe that _having to_ cage an animal is sad. It shouldn't be necessary...but were the pandas, tigers, lions, cheetahs, snow leopards, African Wild Dogs, etc. NOT on a monitored status, and bred regularly, they *would be gone*.  No questions, gone. Extinct. I'd rather see them caged in a huge habitat and monitored than gone.


----------



## *Stargazer* (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MissChievous* 

 
_I absolutely HATE when stuff like this happens. If I ever have kids I will never take them to a circus that has animals, and I'd have reservations about zoos too. Ugh._

 
I don't do circuses. I am completely and totally opposed to them and the way they treat animals. My kids will never see a circus that has live animals. 

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Because many of the animals in a wildlife exhibit (big cats like tigers, along with pandas, for example) are on highly monitored breeding programs that are fighting every single day to bring the animals back to numbers that aren't endangered due to poaching and killing?_

 
Yup. Zoos, when properly funded and run, play a vital role in the survival of many animals. My problem is with the people that have exotic animals just to have them and zoos that are poorly run (the Baltimore Zoo comes to mind - it may be better now but it was downright depressing the last time I was there). I think oversight on this issue needs to be re-evaluated.


----------



## CantAffordMAC (Dec 28, 2007)

This is very sad. I hope the people weren't taunting the tiger, if they were then they got what they deserved.


----------



## tsukiyomi (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_because that's the only way that many children ever experience ANY kind of live animal, excluding a domesticated cat and dog?
Because many of the animals in a wildlife exhibit (big cats like tigers, along with pandas, for example) are on highly monitored breeding programs that are fighting every single day to bring the animals back to numbers that aren't endangered due to poaching and killing?
Because in the larger zoos, the exhibits are actually really well designed (and barring the fact this cat escaped somehow), usually made to mirror the animal's native habitat?


I agree and believe that having to cage an animal is sad. It shouldn't be necessary...but were the pandas, tigers, lions, cheetahs, snow leopards, African Wild Dogs, etc. NOT on a monitored status, and bred regularly, they *would be gone*.  No questions, gone. Extinct. I'd rather see them caged in a huge habitat and monitored than gone._

 
I see where you are going. But I still think it's terrible to cage a wild animal.


----------



## Shimmer (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *tsukiyomi* 

 
_I see where you are going. But I still think it's terrible to cage a wild animal._

 
Because it's better to allow them to expire into extinction?

Something we will _never_ change is human nature, and...these animal skins are coveted and hunted and poached.  We'll never be able to change that no matter what we do, or say, or what laws we pass.  Expecting human nature to change is too much, because it's not going to happen. 

Better to protect them as best we can from the ones who would kill them.


----------



## purrtykitty (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Because it's better to allow them to expire into extinction?

Something we will never change is human nature, and...these animal skins are coveted and hunted and poached. We'll never be able to change that no matter what we do, or say, or what laws we pass. Expecting human nature to change is too much, because it's not going to happen. 

Better to protect them as best we can from the ones who would kill them._

 
Exactly.  I live in Omaha where the Henry Doorly Zoo (supposed to be one of the best in the nation) and they take extreme care to ensure that the animals surroundings are as close to their natural habitat as possible.  And the zoo is always building something bigger and better to provide even more comfort for the animals.

I heard something like 99% of all species that once roamed the Earth are now extinct.  Now granted, much of those may be due to natural disasters (asteroids and such), but I wonder how many died because of humans?  If we have the ability to save a dwindling species, then as good stewards of the Earth, it is our _duty_ to do so.


----------



## tsukiyomi (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Because it's better to allow them to expire into extinction?

Something we will never change is human nature, and...these animal skins are coveted and hunted and poached.  We'll never be able to change that no matter what we do, or say, or what laws we pass.  Expecting human nature to change is too much, because it's not going to happen. 

Better to protect them as best we can from the ones who would kill them._

 
See, that's an area that I am not too sure on. I hate caging wild animals but extinction is sad too. They are both evils.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Dec 29, 2007)

I think the Washington, DC (The National Zoo) is the best zoo I've been to. When I was thinking about animals and how one would get to them, I think you'd have to practically be dropped or jump into the animal exhibit in order to the tigers or lions to get to you. 

I can't obviously sense everything about animals, but I've been to zoo and aquariums. The seals look happy, flirting with people and such. You have to remember that people domesticated the animals we have as pets. I'm not advocating that we should start domesticating tigers for pets, but I think there are adaptations animals can have that are indeed better than alternatives.

Of course, we can strive for better than what we have already with zoos. I hear the Disney zoo is wonderful, but I haven't been there.


----------



## kimmy (Dec 30, 2007)

i think it's ridiculous that the police were called. the keepers should have been able to get the tiger under control (with tranqs) and shouldn't have needed the police there. i suppose maybe calling the cops after the fact to keep the crowd in check would have been acceptable.

but the fact of the matter is, a cop is not the one for the job. 

it upsets me that an animal who's species consists of what, six hundred? individuals was killed for doing what nature intended it to do. i can't really blame the cops though, because again, they were NOT the ones for the job.


----------



## blahblah03 (Jan 1, 2008)

i found out that the kid that died, carlos sousa goes to my school. so sad..


----------



## HOTasFCUK (Jan 2, 2008)

This is what happens when animals are taken away from their natural environment. They did a whole special on this on nancy grace the other night and yes it is tragic but theres more behind the story and i really think those boys were causing some shit! I don't agree with them shooting the animal. They should've shot it with a tranquilizer to control the situation, not kill it! But i guess that's all those cops could do in the heat of the moment. What a beautiful animal, such a shame.


----------

