Taunting The Tiger

Message

Sir_Galahad · #1 Post by **Sir_Galahad** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:35 am

This is typically not a good idea. Now, a report is published in the (gulp) N.Y. Post regarding last week's attack by the tiger in the S.F. Zoo.

" SAN FRANCISCO - Two brothers who were injured when a tiger attacked them at the San Francisco Zoo had slingshots on them at the time, a source said.

An empty vodka bottle was also found in a car used by Amritpal Dhaliwal, 19, and his brother, Kulbir, 23, on the day of the mauling, which left 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. dead, according to the source.

The discoveries could be an indication that the brothers may have taunted the 350-pound Siberian tiger before it leapt from its grotto.

San Francisco cops have said since the Christmas Day incident that there was no indication the tiger was provoked.

The brothers have not commented since they left a hospital Saturday."

So, it looks like they put down the tiger under the "shoot first and ask questions later" scenario. So, the question begs to be asked, "should any of these kids be awarded any damages?" I feel bad for the family of the kid that was mauled to death but, if this is found to be true, it was not an unprovoked attack by a wild animal. I'm not going to say they got what they deserved but you'd really have to take a good long look at the circumstances.

MarleysGh0st · #2 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:42 am

I heard a rumor about that, this morning. If there's any truth to it, their lawyer will ensure that they never say a word to anyone. Were there any other witnesses to the incident?

Once the tiger was loose, with more people at risk--including the police officers--there really was no other option than opening fire.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #3 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:15 am

I knew deep down that the three men were probably doing something to provoke the tiger. Why else would three young men be in the tiger area after closing time.

I hope that they don't get one penny of damages, in my opinion getting mauled by the tiger is their own fault. The fact that the tiger wall was only 12 feet tall is incidental because they shouldn't have been tauting the animal. Hopefully they and other idiots like them will learn from this experience.

The tiger was being a tiger and it's horrible that it had to die because three people were idiots.

Appa23 · #4 Post by **Appa23** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:33 pm

Many interesting factual issues with this tiger attack, that may or may not impact on future damage claims.

The tiger (Tatiana) previously had attacked a zoo worker that was feeding it. This is bad for the zoo on two accounts. First, it is a prior instance of the particular tiger's "dangerous" behavior. Second, it proves the point that any taunting may not have been a cause of the attack. As Simmons explained in a news article, tiger and lions are carnivores, so they will attack whether in the wild or even if they have spent their entire life in a zoo. It is the reason why zoo personnel are attacked, despite having personal relationships with the animals.

I also am curious why reports discuss the moat in the enclosure, but there is no mention of the depth of the water in the moat. Our zoo makes it impossible for a tiger or lion to leap out of the enclosures, with a 30-foot wide moat, 25+ foor walls, plus 5 feet of water in the moats. A Big Cat has trouble jumping if he is up to his head in water.

In addition, where were the zoo's sharpshooters? Again, our zoo never has less than 4 sharpshooters on duty, ready to tranquilize or kill, if needed.

Whatever the stupid guys were doing, my guess is that the zoo will be forking over some money. (Unless it is discovered that the guys threw a board into the moat, allowing the tiger to traverse the wall) Plus, there is going to be lots of money expended to upgrade the safety of the zoo's exhibits.

(Has anybody been to the San Fran zoo? This certainly was not a ringing endorsement for it. Safety stinks, and only 5 tigers?)

andrewjackson · #5 Post by **andrewjackson** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:08 pm

Appa23 wrote: Second, it proves the point that any taunting may not have been a cause of the attack.

How does it "prove" the point that any taunting may not have been a cause of the attack?

I'm not sure that you can "prove" the rest of that statement at all. I would think that the statement is self-evident. "may not have been a cause" would seem to cover a lot of ground. If I taunt a tiger that had never attacked anyone and the tiger subsequently attacked me, it would still be true that my taunting "may not have been a cause of the attack."

Appa23 wrote:I also am curious why reports discuss the moat in the enclosure, but there is no mention of the depth of the water in the moat. Our zoo makes it impossible for a tiger or lion to leap out of the enclosures, with a 30-foot wide moat, 25+ foor walls, plus 5 feet of water in the moats. A Big Cat has trouble jumping if he is up to his head in water.

I don't think there was any water in the "moat". Moat does not necessarily mean a trench filled with water. Moat originally meant the mound in the middle of a trench dug to create the mound. Over time the term came to refer to the trench itself. Many "moats" in zoos do not have water in them but function to increase the relative height of the wall.

Here is an illustration which shows how it works without any water. I don't think any of these "moats" have water in them.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 71.graphic

fuzzywuzzy · #6 Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:10 pm

Appa23 wrote:(Has anybody been to the San Fran zoo? This certainly was not a ringing endorsement for it. Safety stinks, and only 5 tigers?)

First off, I have been to the SF Zoo, and it needs alot of changes made to it and upgrades. For many different reasons...

Example: polar bear exhibit... 50 ft away... seal exhibit. Talk about stress level.

I have seen the tigers there and did not even think about the "escape' issue. However, I have witnessed people visiting Zoos and taunting animals.

Here's my story: I had just finished my research for the day at the Zoo, and friends of mine and fwh wanted a tour.

I brought them around the zoo, and then down to the tiger enclosure.

Outside of the fencing of the tiger enclosure is tall grass. I saw a woman push through the grass to get a better look at the tiger, and she surprised the tiger, and the tiger charged the fence. The people around her thought that this way cool to see the tiger charge.

Another group of people saw this and were going to do the same thing until I spoke up, and told them not to, and to leave the tiger alone. They walked away. Hey, what would happen if a stranger came to your home and scared you but, didn't really mean it?

Why is it that "people" think that animals are here for their own amusement?

I'll never understand...

fuzzy

andrewjackson · #7 Post by **andrewjackson** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:24 pm

I did some more reading on moats around zoo enclosures. Dry moats are recommended for most zoos and animals because it reduces the water usage of the zoo and so that you don't have stagnant water near the animals.

Wet moats are only recommended if the moat is one-sided and has a gradual decline on the animal side that animals are warned of increasing depth and so that they can get out of the water. A steep two-sided moat such as the one at the SF zoo should not have water in it.

Appa23 · #8 Post by **Appa23** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:33 pm

andrewjackson wrote:How does it "prove" the point that any taunting may not have been a cause of the attack?[

I'm not sure that you can "prove" the rest of that statement at all. I would think that the statement is self-evident. "may not have been a cause" would seem to cover a lot of ground. If I taunt a tiger that had never attacked anyone and the tiger subsequently attacked me, it would still be true that my taunting "may not have been a cause of the attack."
quote="andrewjackson"]

My point was that taunting likely had nothing to do with this matter. As PSM noted, the tiger acted like a tiger acts, which includes unprovoked attacks. (Unless you count merely being in the vicinity of a tiger "provocation".)

Appa23 wrote:I also am curious why reports discuss the moat in the enclosure, but there is no mention of the depth of the water in the moat. Our zoo makes it impossible for a tiger or lion to leap out of the enclosures, with a 30-foot wide moat, 25+ foor walls, plus 5 feet of water in the moats. A Big Cat has trouble jumping if he is up to his head in water.
I don't think there was any water in the "moat". Moat does not necessarily mean a trench filled with water. Moat originally meant the mound in the middle of a trench dug to create the mound. Over time the term came to refer to the trench itself. Many "moats" in zoos do not have water in them but function to increase the relative height of the wall.

Here is an illustration which shows how it works without any water. I don't think any of these "moats" have water in them.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 71.graphic

O.K. I was giving the SF Zoo the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that it used a moat to the utmost of its safety use. Without water, it was not. [/quote]

Appa23 · #9 Post by **Appa23** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:37 pm

andrewjackson wrote:I did some more reading on moats around zoo enclosures. Dry moats are recommended for most zoos and animals because it reduces the water usage of the zoo and so that you don't have stagnant water near the animals.

Wet moats are only recommended if the moat is one-sided and has a gradual decline on the animal side that animals are warned of increasing depth and so that they can get out of the water. A steep two-sided moat such as the one at the SF zoo should not have water in it.

Good info.

My frame of reference mainly is the local zoo, which is one of the best in the country.

In the cat areas, it is a one-sided moat, as the cat house sits behind all of the outdoor cat environments. (Allowing them to come into another enclosure, if necessary.)

Appa23 · #10 Post by **Appa23** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:43 pm

fuzzywuzzy wrote:
Appa23 wrote:(Has anybody been to the San Fran zoo? This certainly was not a ringing endorsement for it. Safety stinks, and only 5 tigers?)
First off, I have been to the SF Zoo, and it needs alot of changes made to it and upgrades. For many different reasons...

Example: polar bear exhibit... 50 ft away... seal exhibit. Talk about stress level.

I have seen the tigers there and did not even think about the "escape' issue. However, I have witnessed people visiting Zoos and taunting animals.

Here's my story: I had just finished my research for the day at the Zoo, and friends of mine and fwh wanted a tour.

I brought them around the zoo, and then down to the tiger enclosure.

Outside of the fencing of the tiger enclosure is tall grass. I saw a woman push through the grass to get a better look at the tiger, and she surprised the tiger, and the tiger charged the fence. The people around her thought that this way cool to see the tiger charge.

Another group of people saw this and were going to do the same thing until I spoke up, and told them not to, and to leave the tiger alone. They walked away. Hey, what would happen if a stranger came to your home and scared you but, didn't really mean it?

Why is it that "people" think that animals are here for their own amusement?

I'll never understand...

fuzzy

Fuzzy, this reminds me of one of the funnier placards that I recently saw in the indoor portion of our zoo's gorilla area. It noted that one of the larger silverbacks enjoyed charging the glass in order to see the patrons reactions.

[The best sign was the one near the Orang area. It noted the discovery that had been made years earlier about one of them. On several mornings, zoo personnel would discover the Orangs out of their enclosure when they checked early in the morning. They kept blaming night personnel, for leaving doors ajar or unlocked. Then, they decided to see up some surveillance cameras. What they discovered was one of the Orangs dislodging wires from a lighting fixture, hiding the wire along his gum line, then later picking the lock so that they could escape.

)

starfish1113 · #11 Post by **starfish1113** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:02 pm

andrewjackson wrote:
Here is an illustration which shows how it works without any water. I don't think any of these "moats" have water in them.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 71.graphic

Is the current theory that the animal walked down into the moat and then jumped the 12 feet up? Or are they saying that the tiger jumped the 30 feet across? Or is there another possibility that I'm missing?

Bob Juch · #12 Post by **Bob Juch** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:19 pm

andrewjackson wrote:I did some more reading on moats around zoo enclosures. Dry moats are recommended for most zoos and animals because it reduces the water usage of the zoo and so that you don't have stagnant water near the animals.

Wet moats are only recommended if the moat is one-sided and has a gradual decline on the animal side that animals are warned of increasing depth and so that they can get out of the water. A steep two-sided moat such as the one at the SF zoo should not have water in it.

That may be, but you need a lot of water available for tigers.

Here are some photos I have:

Appa23 · #13 Post by **Appa23** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:37 pm

starfish1113 wrote:
andrewjackson wrote:
Here is an illustration which shows how it works without any water. I don't think any of these "moats" have water in them.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 71.graphic
Is the current theory that the animal walked down into the moat and then jumped the 12 feet up? Or are they saying that the tiger jumped the 30 feet across? Or is there another possibility that I'm missing?

Reading more unverified reports on the Internet, it seems that tigers regularly jumped up from the moat, often getting their paws over the top. This may have been the first time that a tiger jumped high enough andf with enough momentum to pull/push himself over.

TheConfessor · #14 Post by **TheConfessor** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:20 pm

"Taunting the tiger"? Is that what the kids call it these days? Anyone who "taunts his tiger" in a public place is just asking for trouble!

nitrah55 · #15 Post by **nitrah55** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:42 pm

TheConfessor wrote:"Taunting the tiger"? Is that what the kids call it these days? Anyone who "taunts his tiger" in a public place is just asking for trouble!

Ed, you have got to get a grip.

Ok, let me re-phrase that....

VAdame · #16 Post by **VAdame** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:54 pm

This may have been the first time that a tiger jumped high enough andf with enough momentum to pull/push himself over.

Herself! This particular tiger was a girl tiger.

themanintheseersuckersuit · #17 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:10 pm

I found this article on the mind set at the zoo interesting

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 0U6PR7.DTL

But escaping from an enclosure at the zoo is not beyond the ability of a Siberian tiger, according to a retired longtime keeper and other zoo veterans interviewed by The Chronicle.

And many people who worked at the zoo knew it, the keeper said.

The keeper, who spent decades at the zoo and asked not to be publicly identified, said he got the word about Siberian tigers - and the apparently inadequate 12 1/2-foot-high moat wall that protects the public from them - in a most dramatic fashion, not long after he began working at the zoo.

"I was putting a sign up in front of the tiger exhibit, with my butt hanging over the edge," said the former keeper. "The cat was pacing back and forth at the bottom of the grotto."

The keeper said one of his more seasoned colleagues happened by, grabbed him by the belt loop and jerked him back, away from the edge.

"He shared the secret that people knew - the cat could jump up and take me down," the keeper said.