Originally Posted By jonvn "Did the zoo know the fence was too low?" It was their job to ensure that it was the proper height. Now, according to the director of the zoo, he indicated their records said the enclosure height was several feet higher than it actually was. That means that at some point in time, the zoo possibly falsified its records. This is not good, either. "Had the safe height of fencing been changed since this exhibit been opened?" No. It's been sitting there for a good 60 years like that. Tigers have escaped from it before. "Hadn't this zoo recently been inspected and NOT notified of any fence issues?" It is up to the zoo to know the height of its enclosures. If, for example, the inspection simply involved looking at zoo paperwork, and the zoo paperwork was wrong, then that is a problem at the zoo, you see.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I've often thought that the owners of these dogs are not held responsible when their Rott, Pot Bull, whatever, attacks and kills a child or an adult or whatever" Each state has different laws regarding this. In Georgia, its a lot easier on the dog owners than it is in California.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains What is the point of an inspection if they are not actually inspecting the zoo - I would have thought they actually checked things out - I thought it was an inspection that caused them to loose their elephant!!
Originally Posted By jonvn "What is the point of an inspection if they are not actually inspecting the zoo" There are different inspections for different things, I imagine. If the zoo had paperwork that said "The height is X," then that's a lot easier to go by than going out to the cage with a yard stick to measure a 60 year old enclosure. But who knows.
Originally Posted By barboy "What's the difference if some jerk teenagers stress the animal or a noisy baby does it?" X, very good question and I will try and answer when I get back in a few hours after I hit San Fran for a late lunch or early dinner. Well maybe I shouldn't after all as this is more ParkPass's territory than the rest of us--- maybe he could help out with this one.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan So what would you be saying if it HAD been a crying baby that "provoked" the tiger into escaping?<< I would be more empathetic to the victim and angrier at the zoo. But again, that ISN'T what happened here. The tiger was taunted by these stooges, to the point that it went on the attack. If they had simply been viewing the animal, talking and laughing, even talking loudly, I would be angrier at the zoo. Instead, these guys stood on the rails -- about as dumb a move as it gets -- and yelled and screamed. Would it have been the zoo's fault if these guys stood on the rails and fell into the moat? Again, it's not okay the animal escaped. It's not okay there is such a lack of supervision at the zoo that people have the opportunity to stand on the railing and taunt an animal. But don't expect me to feel the same empathy for these "victims" as I would for someone attacked while behaving themselves in a decent way and obeying basic safety rules.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"What is the point of an inspection if they are not actually inspecting the zoo"<< Exactly. This is why the circumstances -- all the contributing factors -- are important. Maybe if an "inspection" means just examining paperwork rather than physically measuring the enclosures is how it's done, then that's a procedure that clearly needs to be reconsidered. That's something that would benefit ALL zoos and zoo guests.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Would it have been the zoo's fault if these guys stood on the rails and fell into the moat?" The rail is set back from the moat. If they fell into the moat, or climbed in, then I don't think it would be the same thing at all.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The rail is set back from the moat.<< Yes, but the point is, the purpose of the rail isn't as a viewing platform, designed to be stood upon. It isn't inconcievable that they could have lost their balance and landed on the other side of the rail, especially while intoxicated. There are air gates on Big Thunder. If I decide to stand on them while the train is coming into the station, is that okay as long as i don''t fall on the tracks?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "It isn't inconcievable that they could have lost their balance and landed on the other side of the rail, especially while intoxicated." You seem to be missing the point -- if the boys had been on the rails and the tiger got them, that would be one thing. But the tiger escaped from its enclosure all on it's own, without any help -- hence, the zoo is at fault.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm not missing the point. I am trying to take into account all the factors of the incident. Some believe "The tiger escaped, it's all the zoo's fault, that's that." I am saying the zoo is at fault for several things, but guests should be accountable for their behavior, too. It wasn't a crying baby. It wasn't an attack on three people behaving themselves. It was an attack aggrivated by the actions of the victims, drunk, high and intent on angering a tiger to see what would happen. Unless one believes that zoo animals should be penned in, subjected to any amount of noise, taunting, provocation without limit, I don't see how you can ignore the circumstances of this case. The zoo has plenty of responsibility. Animals shouldn't have ways of escaping. But guests have some responsibility, too. The zoo's biggest failings were in not ensuring that the animals were protected from the guests as well as vice versa. Get some security in the place in addition to whatever shoring up of the enclosures need to be done. And send jerks OUT of the place so the don't endanger themselves, other guests, or the animals. Is that missing the point?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "The zoo's biggest failings were in not ensuring that the animals were protected from the guests as well as vice versa." No, the zoo's biggest failing was in not having an enclosure that was high enough to keep the tiger from getting out. Yes, there should have been some security and those boys should have been thrown out, but that really doesn't take away from the main point that the zoo is ultimately responsible for keeping the animals in their enclosure. Yes, these guys were obviously jerks and were taunting an animal - but no matter what, taunting should not have been enough to allow the animal to escape.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No, the zoo's biggest failing was in not having an enclosure that was high enough to keep the tiger from getting out.<< We're actually saying the same thing. I'm just adding that the zoo's responsibility is to protect BOTH the animals and the guests. I have trouble with the idea that an animal should endure ANY amount of taunting and not be expected at some point to attempt an attack. Yes, stupid human behavior should be factored into the design of zoos. Maybe 100' fences would do the trick, why stop at 20'? Plenty of docents or security should be on hand to oust people incapable of behaving decently. Cameras should be installed so the zoo can respond much quicker to stop these incidents before they start.
Originally Posted By Mr X K2M, please stop with the hyperbole here. Of course they don't need 100 foot fences or whatever...but they DO need something that works. As has been pointed out, the fence was far shorter than the standard and obviously short enough for a tiger to escape over the top. That's not right.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>K2M, please stop with the hyperbole here.<< I didn't call it tiger armageddon.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I have trouble with the idea that an animal should endure ANY amount of taunting and not be expected at some point to attempt an attack." I agree with you, but still, no matter how much taunting the animal has to endure, it shouldn't be able to get out. Sure, it may attempt an attack, but unless the taunter actually happens to be physically in the enclosure, the attack shouldn't be successful. And if the animal does get out, I think it's the zoos fault, not the person taunting the animal. (I know that doesn't seem fair, but it doesn't always take a jerk to upset an animal - sometimes it can be something that seems totally innocent. Either way, the animal shouldn't be able to escape.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It wasn't hyperbole, by the way. People are saying that no matter what, the tiger shouldn't be allowed to escape, regardless of how much taunting that went on. I'm agreeing. If drunken people are tempted to stand atop a railing, then the railing is too short. Take into account drunken behavior, protect the guests and the animals, build a fence high enough that people and animals can't easily scale it. If it means that people will need binoculars to see the animals, so be it. It's this idiocy that requires safety belts on Heimlich's Chew Chew Train, and constant reminders to watch your children at Disneyland. Common sense has left the building.
Originally Posted By Mr X **it doesn't always take a jerk to upset an animal - sometimes it can be something that seems totally innocent. Either way, the animal shouldn't be able to escape.** This is all I've been trying to say the whole time. In that regard, any taunting or whatever (crappy though it would be, I'm not saying otherwise) is irrelevant to the result. Besides THAT fact, everyone can cheer on the beast and say "yeah! they were jerks and deserved it", and maybe so, but there were also innocent bystanders around. The zoo is responsible for THEIR safety too (and in that sense it's their fault for not catching the taunters, if that scenario was actually true which I suppose we'll never know).
Originally Posted By Mr X **It's this idiocy that requires safety belts on Heimlich's Chew Chew Train, and constant reminders to watch your children at Disneyland. Common sense has left the building.** I'm sorry, but no. These are different things entirely. No matter WHAT, a zoo needs to build an enclosure so it's virtually impossible for a dangerous animal to escape. Not "well, as long as no-one bothers the animal or whatever, it should be alright". That's nowhere NEAR good enough, and if that's the way zoos run the show then I need to know that, cause I'll simply never go to one again (especially with my CHILD! yikes!).
