One in four zoo visitors taunts the animals. And Tatiana had a history

of previously attacking a keeper.

http://herald-zeitung.com/wire.lasso?report=/dynamic/stories/T/TIGER_ATTACKS&-session=HeraldZeitung:40DA3C4E02e2036EBCTvP2BAF2A1

SNIP

Some animal behaviorists said Friday that the visitors' alleged actions would not exonerate the zoo or its accrediting agency, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

Zoo officials have acknowledged the wall surrounding the tiger's open-air enclosure was four feet lower than recommended by the AZA. The same tiger ripped the flesh off a zookeeper's arm in December 2006. After that attack, the zoo revamped the bars enclosing the indoor cages where she and other big cats were kept.

"Taunting or not, I just think it's incumbent on the AZA and the zoos to have taunt-proof cages," said wildlife biologist Marc Bekoff, a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "If you are going to have an animal like a Siberian tiger or other predators, you have to protect the public."

Bekoff said taunting is common at zoos. He said students in his animal behavior courses during the 1990s found that 20 to 25 percent of zoo visitors taunted the animals - especially predators such as lions and tigers - by mimicking, yelling, throwing things at them or otherwise aggravating them.

"This is not an isolated incident and the zoo is trying to wrangle itself out," he said. "The kids were not responsible for Tatiana being shipped around like a couch. The kids were not responsible for the enclosure being inadequate. The kids are responsible for the taunting."

SNIP

:)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2716977&mesg_id=2716977

Geesh That's hard to believe.

My family has a an annual zoo membership, so we go to our local zoo quite often. I never see anyone taunting the animals, but I go at times when it's mostly parents and children.

On second thought - I have seen people "taunt" the larger birds, expecting them to talk, and I have seen people try to imitate the primates. :crazy: Maybe our zoo has more employees and monitors than most. I dunno.

right in sight of the securely caged animals they taunted. :mad:


I am so frigging sick of some DUers defending these jackasses actions. Is the zoo negligent? Absolutely. Should the tiger NEVER have been able to get out? Absolutely. But defending these idiots whose actions ultimately put hundreds at risk, ended up getting their friend killed, and led to the death of an endangered tiger as a result of their jackass stupidity. Defending this is revolting.

But it would have been logical for them to assume the enclosure and the moat would keep them safe as they waved their arms and yelled at the tiger. (If that's what they did.) Anyone going through a zoo has seen that kind of "taunting," and it doesn't result in animal attacks.

The zoo's failure to maintain safe enclosures, and the accrediting agency's failure to cite them, are what ultimately put lives at risk.

But they did climb the fence, one was legally drunk and all had been drinking and smoking pot. They were three adult size men taunting a tiger --no surprise that she felt threatened. What was not expected that the tiger could get to them. Stupid, stupid incident all the way around.

and i did a lot of stupid things myself when i was younger. just not stupid and cruel things.
:shrug:

enclosure, so someone who stands on the fence would not fall in easily.

That's so annoying.

:sarcasm:

But, I sure as hell hope you don't teach your kids to be such irresponsible, abusive, ignorant louts.

IF YOU see people taunting animals YOU have a responsibility to report it. ALL of us do. These animals are in our protection. They behave as they instinctively would. Humans, however should know better. This behavior is harmful. It stresses the animals, influencing their overall health, their fertility, and sometimes their lifespan. And yes, it can make the animals more dangerous, for their keepers, veterinarians, and others.

Defending such abusive behavior goes beyond the pale.

the young men "deserved what they got" and who felt that it was their fault, not the zoo's.

I'm a quiet person and so are my kids. So no, I don't teach them to go around yelling at animals. But, unlike some DUers, I don't advocate the death penalty for those who do make that mistake.

you and I agree.

And given the opportunity, nature will mete it out with utmost dispassion. Nor is there any appeal. (Paraphrase from R.A. Heinlein)

Only the unnatural artificial environment with which we surround ourselves stands in her way, to keep it from being exacted more often.

And the people who designed and accredited the unnatural artificial environment should have followed the known standards.

This is what I keep going back to: who set the standard and monitored it? If it was only the zoo itself, that's one thing. If the zoo was accredited then it must have met some external standards.

approved it even though the enclosures didn't meet their standards.

So the accrediting agency is probably liable, too.

...these young men expected to be able to act stupidly with impunity.

The zoo may well be held liable, for failing to properly confine the tiger. They should be too, because it might have been a wasp or some other impetus which drove the animal over the barriers and into perhaps a crowd of schoolchildren.

But that does not in any way change the facts that stupidity attracted the sentence that sooner or later goes with such behaviour. Be it speeding, drink driving, tagging a storm water drain, or throwing rubbish at a tiger in a zoo.

They got what anyone who behaved the way they did might possibly get. They raised the probability of an attack from zero (if they had behaved in a proper, normal manner) to some higher, non-zero value. Things with non-zero probability will sometimes occur. In a life-or-death matter, the only acceptable risk is zero.

All this says is that they had incredibly bad judgment and did not really think before acting. That's not quite the same as a moral argument that they "deserved" what they got. They foolishly made it possible, but that's about as far as I can go at this point.

according to former zoo employees.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/30/MNNQU63KP.DTL

Employees characterize the current regime as arrogant, autocratic and dismissive of those with experience and institutional knowledge. Keepers, who know the animals and their habitats inside and out, say they have little input and are not listened to by Mollinedo and Bob Jenkins, the zoo's director of animal care and conservation. Workers of every variety fear they're being spied upon and will not speak publicly, afraid of reprisals. Even before the Christmas rampage, information was tightly controlled.

SNIP

One ex-employee said worn-down zoo workers would sometimes say: "It won't change until somebody dies."

SNIP

A former management person at the zoo said, "Here you've got a young cat that's testing her environment - very agile, very strong. A cautious zoo manager would call other zoos and say, 'How big is your moat?' ... This is like having Hannibal Lecter. There's a reason they put that mask on him."

The zoo had reinforced Tatiana's indoor cage after Komejan was mauled - but the fatal attack Christmas afternoon took place in her outdoor quarters.
"That place is a whirling dervish," said a onetime keeper. "And it's ready to spin out of control."

SNIP

Waving arms and making faces is not exactly "beyond the pale."

Keeping a tiger in an exhibit that does not meet it's need to be restrained from acting on it's instinct to attack is, however.

as to justify such behavior, you just proved me wrong.... :eyes:

Jumping into the grotto would be beyond the pale, certainly. But waving arms and making faces -- the type of thing one out of four visitors do, apparently -- is, by definition, NOT beyond the pale.

I'm disgusted that you think so casually of these endangered creatures AND the humans who are charged with their care. Enough. I thought better of you, pnwmom. I guess I was wrong in that respect.

hunted down and killed.
This animal had already attacked her keeper and mauled her arm.
I believe the keeper might sue the zoo for her injuries.

protecting THEM and providing for THEIR welfare, at the same time protecting humans FROM them. It is our responsibility. The zoo failed, clearly, but not only in the respect that they failed to provide adequate secured enclosure. They also failed to enforce rules against stupid, drunken humans taunting these animals. And, visitors SHOULD be prosecuted for such behavior.

The tiger is a tiger. It does what it does. I am simply stating the fact, that in the wild, man eating tigers are hunted down and killed, no matter how endangered they are.
As for the keeper incident, the zoo was fined for it, and had to pay to remodel the cages. The keeper might also sue the zoo for her injuries.
Considering all that, why weren't walls to the enclosure remodeled to be at least as high as recommended?

whatever...:shrug:

Why is this all and the only thing that you post?

Otherwise, you're not making any sense.

now. You ought to stop making up shit about other posters.

her post on anything but this story.

sake that's idiotic.

But after all, if you didn't see her other posts they must not exist. :eyes:

here in the San Francisco zoo incident or attacking animal rights activists.

Why are you defending her here? She has the ability to post. My bet is that she would admit to thinking that zoo animals should be destroyed if they act as wild animals normally do, even if it is in response to someone getting drunk and violating their enclosure.

Do you want to do the search to find those posts?

If you donated, even a minimal amount, you'd be able to search too.

If you want to be pompous about your ability to search, tell us what you got?

I do not think you know what "pompous" means. It's not giving you the rules. Here is a link to definitions (now I'm being pedantic) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pompous

If you were friendly, or showed yourself to be a decent person, I might feel more like helping you out, but you aren't. Search is limited to donating members.

Zoo responsible for fixing their enclosures? They knew they didn't meet the standard.

I wouldn't expect the average zoo visitor to know that much about the animals there. Would you -- honestly, realistically? Aren't you aware that the average zoo visitor is NOT as well educated as you probably are? There were no signs warning the visitors about teasing -- they were added, AFTER the incident. And there was no zoo employee supervising the exhibit -- though animal behaviorists recommend it.

So why are you blaming the teens who obviously didn't know any better -- whose friend has DIED -- and not the zoo officials who did know better and failed to act?

Give me a f_king break.

Kindly show me in ALL of my posts where I fail to say the zoo is responsible for what happened through their negligence! That does NOT excuse culpability of these cretins. It is a tragedy that through their irresponsibility, their friend died and others were endangered. Yes, the zoo has the bulk of liability, but these boys had some culpability as well. Do I celebrate their injuries? Absolutely NOT.

I wish someone had caught the little thugs and thrown the book at them. Let them clean up roadsides from here to eternity paying fines.

.02 and .04.

There were no signs warning visitors not to tease the animals -- the Zoo has now put some up.

These two have already had a friend die because of their mistake. I think that's punishment enough.

I feel sorriest for the tiger.

Who had such assholes for friends.

of the zoo. It may affect the award, however

that would affect their sttlement, certainly. they probably won;t even admit the taunting in court...

That's a non-issue.

and eject anyone caught taunting animals. There's no excuse for it.

It also probably drives down zoo attendance. I don't like visiting the zoo when there are gangs of idiots disrupting everyone's good time and harassing the animals.

and they are more interested in the profits from the alcohol they sell at their restaurant than in keeping their wards or their visitors safe.

:grr:

Didn't know that.

shouldn't be at the fucking zoo

The S.D. Zoo had a gorilla who would throw his feces at taunters. One day, I and a friend were walking around the zoo when we happened on the gorilla's grotto. There was already a crowd of about 15-20 visitors standing there taunting him. As we passed by we saw the gorilla reach behind and flip a fistful of feces at the crowd. We watched the crowd quickly disperse as the visitors attempted to get out of the way of the flying feces, laughing hysterically all the while. I wondered who the higher primates really were, and I understood then why T.V. was so popular...

Signs all over the place and rangers going by warning people about staring at or taunting the Gorillas because three of them could potentially pitch for the Padres, but all it took was one young tweener type showing off for his friends, and three people got splattered in the face. Didn't even see the windup, it was that fast.

Haele

I can look at what happened from both sides. Those assholes should not have been taunting the tiger, but I'm sorry for the asshole who died. He had some growing up to do and now he can't do it.

In light of this, should zoos be able to impose fines on those who taunt the animals? I'm more concerned about the animals than I am a repeat of this incident which was admittedly rare. How many times had stupid teenagers done this to Tatiana before she found a way out of the tiger exhibit? Now that humans have been killed and injured (after who knows how many taunting incidents) maybe fines can be imposed to "protect the public."

God knows we'd never impose fines for taunting a stupid animal. :eyes:

I just can't understand people in other threads who seemed to support the death penalty (thought the kid "got what he deserved.")

Rocks and sticks were found by police in the tiger's enclosure, thrown by these pricks, who were drunk, and whose first overheard words when the EMS medical response got there, were, "Don't tell them what we did." Almost all animal taunting results in the animal being hurt and terrorized, not with the animal getting a chance to attack. Only the animal was a victim here.

it could have been dropped in by OTHER recent visitors. With one out of four zoo visitors teasing the animals, the tiger had probably gone through several other incidents that day.

We don't know what these boys did. Maybe they didn't want anyone to know that they were standing on the fence and waving their arms. There's no evidence of anything more, even after the police searched their cell phones and car.

The things were not "dropped" from that disrance, they were thrown. Police have by now gotten enough of an account that they know that the "boys" (drunks) were throwing them and taunting the animal, until the animal could not stand it any more. I do not care why you are excusing this act--you are always excusing rapists on threads, etc.; so I am unimpressed--but you are making things up off the top of your head to justify everything no matter what it is. "Maybe" this, "there is no evidence" no matter how much evidence has by now been amassed, on and on. How sensitive you are, never accepting any evidence, as you turn, ice-cold, away from animal cruelty.

You must be referring to my consistent defense of the Duke students, based on records that were made public within the first few months, records that were ignored by so many for so long because nobody could believe that the Democratic prosecutor, Nifong, could be such a bad guy. Well he was.

You're the one who doesn't accept evidence, since you are still referring to the Duke students as rapists, despite the mountains of evidence that completely exonerated them and a formal apology from the State of North Carolina.

With regard to the tiger attack, where is your evidence that the boys admitted throwing things at the tiger? And do you understand that blood alcohol readings of .02 and .04 are well under the level of intoxication?

I don't know why you keep claiming that the police found this and the police found that. They didn't find anything.

"The police investigation into the tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo will soon be reclassified as "inactive" after a search failed to turn up evidence that the victims taunted the animal or committed other crimes, authorities said Friday."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/19/MNKDUHQRQ.DTL&hw=tiger&sn=003&sc=747


"Basically, they're arguing that if you go to the zoo and wave at the animals, you get the death penalty... And that's just nonsense." Defense attorney.

welcome to my watch list.

A single stone was found in the enclosure. No sticks. And one small metal washer which doesn't match anything found in their car. These weren't even turned up by the police investigating but were 'found' by zoo officials looking to cover their arses Add this up with the fact that there is no way to know who tossed them or even if they were tossed by a visitor and you have a couple jerks calling out to the tiger, waving their arms and making faces.

Making faces. Do you really think that tiger even knew they were making faces at it? Sheesh.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/19/MNKDUHQRQ.DTL&hw=tiger&sn=003&sc=747

attracting any notice.

Augh

A couple of them.

There are the animal rights activist types, and they have valid reasons for their point of view.

And there are people like me, who were distressed to see all the prejudging that was going on around here, apparently based on what these teens looked like.

But if you're not interested, fine. Go back to Brittany.

These punks thought they could get away with abusing something that wouldn't fight back. Well guess what? It did! Piece of shit stupid coward BULLIES DID get what they deserved.
And if we're talking about pasts here, what about one of the Thug Brothers who had a past arrest for beating up a police officer? The trainer in question stuck her arm in while the tiger was eating. That's something you don't do, and in her instinct the tiger attacked the trainer. Now what kind of "instinct" did Thug Brother have?
I'm sick of the DOMINIONISTS who think people have a right to do whatever they want to animals with no consequences. Siberian tigers are rare. Punk young men are a dime a dozen...

(to an animal who doesn't speak English) constitute "abuse." At least, it's not any more abusive than having the tiger in a zoo in the first place.

There's no evidence that the youth did anything more than that.

and it has extreme consequences over time. Many species, including pandas are so sensitive, they will not breed and may in fact stop eating with just these kind of stressors. To defend this kind of ignorant behavior is despiccable. Those who do, should be majorly fined and not allowed back in this or any other zoo.

But the death penalty is going overboard.

:shrug:

"deserved what they got."

I'm reacting to that.

Personally, the zoo is at fault for the fence, the fence should have been able to hold Tatiana, boys were stupid, but not their fault they got attacked. But this is to the point of guns and abortion, everybody has their own opinion and nothing is going to change their mind.

I love animals, I foster labs, and what happened to the tiger is the zoo's fault. But this discussion is going nowhere fast.

That includes protecting the wild critters from their own instinctual behavior. There is a dead tiger to prove they failed in their duty.

There are already laws on the books to deal with harassing animals by unruly visitors. Perhaps activists should spend their efforts where they could do some good - changing the zoo to better serve the needs of the animals.

Britney.

:hi: :wink:

At least among the "adults".

at least recognize when people are drunk or just give up on zoo's with caged wild animals which would be best .

I recall back in the 60's while in Chicago at the Brooksfield zoo they had small vending machines where you could put in quarter and turn the knob and get peanuts to feed certain animals . A father with his two sons were tossing peanuts at a male gorilla who decided to hose down the fools with piss and that stopped that .

They did get rid of these machines and had people watch the areas to keep people in line . However back then people were not so stupid and out of control to taunt the animals , most came to see the animals .

so there would be no need for endless speculations as to why and how this tiger got out.
And by the way, is it too much to ask that the walls to the tigers enclosure were of recommended height?

:eyes:

The three students who were found completely innocent of the rape charges. Remember them?

I was disappointed that in the Zoo tragedy many DUers had the SAME immediate inclination to blame these three, based on little more than HOW THEY LOOKED. And, based on practically no evidence, DUers were quick to say that they "deserved" whatever they got. The death penalty? For some yelling and arm waving?

Yes, I'm always going to go to bat for people who are being prejudged based on their appearance, whether they look too "preppie" or too much like "gang bangers."

On second thought, I AM related to them. To the Duke students and to these kids in San Francisco. We're all human and we all make mistakes. And the mistakes these six kids actually made are awfully small compared to the punishment they've already faced.

Where's the compassion I would hope to see here? Their friend DIED because of their mistake. They're already going through hell. They don't need us piling on.

might be appetizing to a tiger. I'm just sayin'...

You claim "no one knows" what happened, then you claim it was "some yelling and arm waving," definitively, as if you were there. The police found sticks and rocks thrown in the enclosure and the drunks (who were not "kids" or "boys" at all, although you bizarrely still call them that) said "Don't tell them what we did," did not cooperate even when the situation was dire and panicked at the beginning--calculated--at least one has a domestic violence arrest, but according to you it is the animal with the "history," yet you do "not prejudge," etc., etc. My reference was not only to the Duke thread, as you apparently pretended to read my mind there, but to any number of threads about violence against women--you jump on, over and over as here, and attack anyone who shows compassion for a victim and/or anger at an attacker. You never even admit that any such thing exists, as here. You appear to have emotional issues with a cold lack of compassion or identification with victims, far beyond any one issue. Stop pretending to be a martyr or "activist," for one thing. Your earlier line that the rocks and sticks could have been in the enclosure for "years without attracting any notice," (reply 40), is again, bizarre. They go into these things every day to feed the animals and clean the areas.

That's just slander.

Go pile on somewhere else.

The OP hasn't excused rapists.

against women or where I have ever "attacked" anyone who shows compassion for a victim or anger at a (real) attacker. You won't find one because this is a figment of your imagination. The only threads where I got involved in any discussions related to this had to do with the Duke case, where I was speaking up against the railroading of the Duke students -- after it became ABUNDANTLY clear that they could NOT be guilty.

And where have I pretended to be a martyr or an activist? (Other than standing on street corners with my Iraq war signs.) I have no idea what you could mean.

I do not have the ability to search threads, but I remember your name clearly on threads where there was a specific case of rape or domestic violence, with a name, not a generality. You were always, that I recall, claiming that there was "no evidence that anything happened," as here; "don't prejudge," as here; trivializing it, as here, etc. If you want to remember the names of threads, some from months ago, feel free--I was struck by the similarity on the same type of issue and situation. You did not mention my references to your phony jargon on this thread, on the subject, and I have no recollection of titles of earlier threads. Your use of the word "real" in parentheses is exactly the point, though--this is what I have read you doing on many other threads about women; you never admit it was proven! This is what I have read over and over.

for themselves.

Other than threads about female genital mutilation -- which I oppose, in all its forms -- the only threads I've participated in involving the subject of rape or violence toward women have to do with the Duke students, and I did participate in many of those.

And that is why I put "real" in parentheses. They never attacked her, never raped her. The whole incident was a figment of the accuser's imagination, just as your claims here about me are a figment of yours.

A "victim", like, say, someone who got KILLED BY A LOOSE FUCKING TIGER? :shrug:

are trying to defend them here?

Is that what you're talking about?

Don't you think having their friend killed -- and being torn into themselves -- was enough of a punishment?

But you appear to be nitpicking as to what exactly they have admitted. Why are you defending these criminals? Why?

.02 and .04 show only that they had a beer or two, not that they were intoxicated.

The OP has come down hard in defense of a number of people who were being virtually stoned by the mob, including the Duke Lacrosse players.

I don't necessarily agree with her on this matter, but I think she's very consistent in her defense of some getting tried in the media, based on known facts.

I don't say they deserved to die (the one who did anyway - who ironically appeared to be the one actually -not- being such a turd) but I won't cry over their fate...

with the investigation which leads me to believe there's even worse that isn't known.

I don't mean to call you out - you're high on the scale of DU posters I respect. But the OP is as well, because she's very consistent in her defense based on the known facts.

:D

With regard to the zoo's liability, if there are standards for enclosures that they met, then I think they did what they were supposed to do.

I still feel worse for the cat than anyone else in this story.

The zoo actually admitted it, after measuring the wall after the tigers' attack.

I don't know anything about zoos. I don't know if there are national standards they are held to or not (which might or might not differ from recommendations).

don't have mandatory standards, just recommendations.
Which makes me wonder why that sort of thing doesn't happen more often.

is no set of legal minimum standards to ensure safety.

<shrug>

One would think there would be some sort of minimum mandatory standard for enclosures that are used to keep dangerous animals such as tigers but I guess not.

Hearing the lions roar at dinner time has its charm, but not so much the prospect of them showing up at my house.

but I've certainly never felt unsafe when I took my kids there. Now I'm going to be looking around with a different set of eyes.

plaintive coo.

there was one (at least one) living on a road near me for years. I would just see it walking around in the grass, but I never heard it coo. I don't know if it was wild, or what it was doing there, taking a regular stroll in an eastside neighborhood.

Actually, I haven't seen it in a while, so maybe I will have to go to the zoo. Have you been to the other one, the one in Tacoma? My daughter likes to see the walruses there, so we sometimes go during Zoo Lights time in December.

:-)

in the small cages, and their conditions didn't look good. I remember a lot of people screaming and gesturing at the animals, to try and get a reaction.
Those visits would always get me sad, because of the poor conditions for the animals.

I was happy when they redesigned Seattle's zoo, but it never occurred to me that visitors might be safer with the old one.

for it to get out, unless the cage door is left open.
I am frankly surprised by many people who claim that the tiger would not try to get out, and something extra ordinary just had to have happened for her to try and get out.
Here is a good article on the subject.
"These animals are bored. They're smart, they're agile, they're emotional and they're working 24/7 to get out of their prison because that's what they're in: a prison cell," said Mark Bekoff, a former professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado.

"I would not frankly want to live around a zoo that has big cats in it now — they're bound to get out, it's just going to happen," he said. "I think this is a warning flag for zoos — if they're going to keep big cats they need to be more careful."


http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=4061070&page=1
Of course it's really depressing to look at the animal in a small cage.

It makes total sense, though. I also couldn't understand all the posters who thought the tigers would just contentedly sit in their grottos, unless stupid "ASSHOLES" waved their arms or something. These animals can't be happy being cooped up all the time, even in a grotto.

as they can be sued if the animals escape and maul people.
I guess that is not good enough.

But you forgot about the part where they want to stop "frivolous lawsuits." I'm sure the zoo people will consider this frivolous, too.

The question is why the accrediting agency approved them anyway.

I don't blame the cat, that's for sure. I blame the people who were responsible for keeping the tiger and the visitors apart.

note GWB's approval rating for corroboration.

:rofl:

took out 1/1000 of the estimated global population of Siberian Tigers and 1/1500000000 of the estimated global population of human dickweeds. I'm sadder about the tiger by about an equal proportion.

But what bothered me most about the human side of this tragedy was the knee-jerk reaction of some DUers. They were judging the boys and the young man based on their APPEARANCE. They looked like "gang bangers," people here were exclaiming -- they DESERVED what they got!

I'm always disappointed when I see DUers -- people I expect to know better -- judging people based on being different, or even just looking different. Aren't you? Doesn't that bother you when that happens?

I think the zoo is liable--tigers are great swimmers and can stretch up to 15'. It doesn't change my estimation of people who would tease and torture a caged animal.

If indeed people are against these idiot/assholes strictly because of their attire or appearance, they are wrong... but that doesn't make the kids right by a longshot.

Maybe if the zoo had put the water in it, the tiger would have had less of chance to escape, but it was a dry moat. I wonder, when this enclosure was designed, if the moat was supposed to be filled with water or not.

(snip)

Both Dhaliwal brothers were wounded Christmas Day when a Siberian tiger at the zoo escaped from its outdoor grotto and killed Paul Dhaliwal's friend Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, of San Jose.

At the time of the escape, Paul Dhaliwal was on felony probation after pleading no contest Oct. 31 to reckless driving, driving under the influence, resisting an officer and providing a false name, court records show.

He was arrested after leading a Santa Clara County sheriff's deputy on a chase of up to 140 mph before crashing into a tree in San Jose, according to a police report. At one point he drove over traffic cones placed near a Caltrans work crew, the report said.

Dhaliwal tried to run away when an officer attempted to handcuff him, and he later identified himself to police as his brother Kulbir, the police report said.

Paul Dhaliwal also has an outstanding misdemeanor case for underage drinking, prosecutors and his attorney said. A separate misdemeanor case for public drunkenness was dismissed in July after Dhaliwal attended 10 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, court records show.

more…
http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2008/01/15/chronicle/archive/2008/01/15/BA51UFVP4.html?tsp=1

-------------

(snip)

And just before Thanksgiving, a telephone call startled Carlos' (Sousa) father awake at 4 a.m. It was the police. His son had been pulled over on McKee Road, near Jackson, for making an illegal left turn. He didn't have a driver's license and was driving Paul's car. Paul was in the passenger seat, Sousa said, and had been drinking. …

more…
http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_7955219?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

But I recall when an amish kid threw a tomato at some guy's car, and the guy killed him, there were posts defending the guy and saying the kid got what he deserved.
Seriously, I think if it were some five year olds waiving and screaming at the tigers, and the tiger got out and mauled them, there still would be posters here claiming the five year olds got what they deserved.
Probably not as many though.

try and keep people from taunting the animals, and we were always very busy. One example was a little boy about 10 was throwing rocks at the gorillas. I walked up behind him and caught his arm in mid-air before he could throw his rock. His mother turned to me and said "what are you doing"? I gently explained to her that the zoo didn't allow throwing rocks at the animals - she grumbled something and they all walked off in a huff. I don't understand why people aren't embarrassed by their own actions in cases like this. How could that woman possibly think it was ok to throw rocks at a caged animal?

It's too bad this zoo didn't think to post signs about not teasing the animals until AFTER the tragedy occurred. And it's too bad this zoo didn't have any employee supervising the exhibits with the dangerous animals.

They are machines designed to do what they do. If you play on the freeway, expect to get hit by a car. If you taunt animals, expect them to react to your taunting.

It is really very fucking simple. Follow the rules at the zoo, and don't taunt the animals.

Why do people have such a hard time with that?

do not expect animals to be able to get out of the enclosures.
I think it's not too much to expect for the zoos to keep dangerous animals in enclosures that the animals are not able to escape from.
Why do people have such a hard time with that?

Taunting animals is a violation of the rules and common sense.

Yet you keep posting post after post after post after post defending these perps.

What is your stake in this?

just as you express yours.

As for the rules, the zoo decided after the fact to finally post a sign warning visitors not to tease the animals.

The zoo has had a long history of management problems. The manager there -- who was paid to keep zoo animals and visitors safe, no matter what -- is the one who bears the most responsibility, not the young men who waved their arms and made faces.

What these teens (and young man) did was equivalent to playing on the sidewalk. Where they were playing SHOULD have been safe -- and tiger-free.

If they had alcohol with them at the zoo, that was a violation of any number of state and municipal laws.

Next, after getting drunk, they began taunting animals in violation of the rules of the zoo (and very common sense). At some point, they violated the enclosure put there to protect both animals and people.

So at this point, they had ventured out drunk into the first lane of the freeway.

Then when they got hit, they tried to cover up all of the above violations of law.

from being intoxicated. The third was drunk. So what.

They never violated the enclosure. They stood on top of a low fence, they didn't go beyond it.

And it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that the enclosure wasn't properly designed, and the zoo has been grossly mismanaged.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/30/MNNQU63KP.DTL

SNIP

A former management person at the zoo said, "Here you've got a young cat that's testing her environment - very agile, very strong. A cautious zoo manager would call other zoos and say, 'How big is your moat?' ... This is like having Hannibal Lecter. There's a reason they put that mask on him."

The zoo had reinforced Tatiana's indoor cage after Komejan was mauled - but the fatal attack Christmas afternoon took place in her outdoor quarters.
"That place is a whirling dervish," said a onetime keeper. "And it's ready to spin out of control."

SNIP

That their system lowered their blood alcohol levels before a blood alcohol test took place is well understood by everyone but you.

"Standing on top of the (fucking) enclosure" is violating it. Zoo patrons are not allowed to "stand on top of enclosures." Have you lost it?

That the enclosure was or was not designed properly, which the experts will have to decide does not exonerate numerous criminal acts perpetrated by those at issue here.

What personal stake do you have in repeatedly defending the perpetrators here?

its guarantees of a fair trial.

As an occasional zoo visitor, I also have a personal stake in knowing that the enclosures which are designed to hold dangerous animals will actually work -- even if some kids wave their arms, make faces, or roar at the lions.

What is your personal stake in prejudging these three and assuming facts that are not in evidence?

Zoos have to figure out that animals are animals and people can taunt them. Not excusing them, but zoos need to take that into consideration. After all, "no one could ever have predicted" anyone would ever taunt a zoo animal, esp a dangerous one.

flawed human behavior as well as expected animal behavior into account. The idea is to keep both groups apart, no matter what.

(snip)

What might fuel a tiger to jump 12 1/2 feet to get outside its pen?

Two experts said today that yelling and waving hands at a tiger wouldn't be enough to provoke it to attack, and that not even throwing rocks would necessarily mean the cat would be angered enough to leave its home and track down its taunter.

"Hitting it in the face, or poking any animal repeatedly," answered Diana McCourt, president of the Siberian Tiger Conservation in Gambier, Ohio.

And, of course, she added: "Urinating would provoke it, too." The Mercury News sought tiger trainers' opinions following a San Francisco police search warrant made public Thursday, where a police affidavit states Paul Dhaliwal, 19, of San Jose acknowledged that he, his brother, Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, and friend, Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, were "waving their hands and yelling at the tiger," on Christmas Day at the San Francisco Zoo. That's the day that Tatiana, a 250-pound Siberian tiger, leaped from her grotto, killing Carlos and injuring the Dhaliwals.

(snip)

She added that if rocks are thrown, how a tiger would react would depend on where it was struck: Its head? Its hip? Some tigers might back away, she said, while others might bare their teeth and growl or act as Tatiana did.

"You get six to eight tigers, " McCourt said, "and you'll get six to eight different reactions. They all have different personalities."

more…
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8010609

Food for tought from page 5 of the police search warrant affidavit:

…Affiant received a call from an anonymous caller stating that she was at the zoo the day of the tiger attack with her grandchildren. While they were at the Siberian Tiger exhibit they saw three males at the exhibit, with one male leaning over the rail doing something with his hands. The anonymous caller said that one of the individuals made eye contact with her and said, "Lady, what are you looking at?" The anonymous caller said she felt uncomfortable and left the area. The anonymous caller could not identify the individuals other than one of them had long hair, and she thought she recognized two of the individuals from watching the news. The anonymous caller said her husband told her not to get involved and she refused any contact information.

http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/tiger_searchwarrant_011808.pdf

Hitting the tiger on the face or poking it repeatedly? I guess poking it one time would be o'key?
How would anyone accomplish that?
That tiger almost took an arm off the keeper because the keeper got too close to its food.
How do you envision someone being able to hit the tiger on the face or poke it repeatedly, and still be alive (which two out of three are)?

the three victims of the attack. If one out of four zoo visitors teases the animals, then Tatiana had probably been teased off and on all day long.

Any sort of bullshit educational mission is not worth subjecting animals to captivity, stress and abuse.

The zoos do important preservation work. Pretty soon some animals would not be found in the wild at all. And considering human population is getting larger, this is not likely to change.

Because keeping damaged individuals in small spaces and unnatural groups is not a species survival plan, it's just cruel.

Those bigfoot commercials have new meaning

Seriously just how DUMB do you have to be to taunt a Lion or a Tiger? Even if they're in a zoo, you don't know what they can do if they get angry enough.

OK, so the Zoo isn't up to recommended specs, and I really do feel sorry for the kid's family. But I can't help but feel that the kid died of terminal stupidy.

warning people not to annoy the animals?

And didn't have anyone supervising the exhibit, and had enclosures that were too short, etc.

Two of the kids were just teenagers -- I hold the adults involved with the zoo and the accrediting agency more responsible. Where's the Darwin award for them?

I never said the zoo was blameless, but even for a teenager that's just dam dumb. With or without a sign. Yes, the zoo and accrediting agency should be held accountable.

One in Four people do it? Isn't that same percentage of people who approve of Bush?

Stupid. I rest my case.

the attack. I think they should be all over the zoo, along with the possible penalties -- a misdemeanor penalty, though, not a death sentence.

in a closed zoo. My assumption may be wrong.

But I have a hard time holding the zoo responsible for what people who break into it do.

on Christmas day.

So going back to my point, if you are in a zoo after closing time I'm not sure how liable the zoo can be held for your activities.

As far as I understand it, then the patrons have an hour to leave the zoo.
So, in fact, as far as I understand it, if someone is there after five, but before six, then they would be there legally because they have an hour to leave the zoo.
Furthermore, I am not entirely clear that the attack had to have happened after five. From the timing, I think the attack could have happened before 5.
First call to 911 came pretty soon after five, at 5:05 pm, from a zoo employee.
So, the attack could have happened a little bit before five, because obviously it would have taken some time for the men to go ask for help.

The zoo closes at 5 PM. The first 911 call was logged at 5:05PM.

If you had seen a map of the zoo and read news articles of the incident you'd understand that the tiger must have been loose at least 15 minutes and maybe more to have attacked the first person and cover the distance it did to track down the other two men.

that should common sense to anyone over the age of about 10 or so.

paid over $300,000 per year would have enclosures meeting all the safety standards -- so that dangerous animals couldn't escape even if someone waved their arms and shouted at them.

But that's just me.

and i never said anything about that

all animal exhibits, and not allowed to have pets!

Idiots!

of some kind, and fined.

The ultimate responsibility lies with the zoo for not having an enclosure that kept the tiger contained. They are accountable for that, for a loose tiger endangers the innocent as well as the taunters.

I frankly have little sympathy for those who climb the fence and engage in behavior intended to stir the tiger up. A little respect on their part, and those who are like-minded, would go a long way to making the world a better place.

Bullies in the zoo are no more appropriate than bullies on the playground. When will our culture stop excusing such behavior?

Unlike some others, who thought the teens "deserved what they got."

But I think the idea of fines is a good one.

I didn't see it as a punishment, but a natural outcome of that kind of behavior.

The impulse to taunt, to establish ourselves as powerful over others, to increase our own perceived power through bullying, the need to grow power through gang membership, whether your gang is a street gang, a sports team, a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, a political party, etc., lacks empathy and is directly behind all of the atrocities ever committed. It also tends to provoke a reaction in turn.

What is the point of taunting ANY captive? Of course the consequence in this case was extreme, and fines would be more appropriate than a tiger attack.