<p>I didn’t see another thread on the incident in the SF zoo, where a tiger leapt from an enclosure ( four feet below minimum) and killed one young man while injuring others.</p>
<p>However- I think this incident along with some others adds to the body of information about what animals should we house in zoos & what sort of facilities should we provide for them.</p>
<p>I realize that overall our zoos nationally are much healthier for the animals than they were 40 years ago. But still we have a huge amount of new research that indicates some animals really need much more than a zoo environment can provide.</p>
<p>Zoos are terrible and inhumane. There is very little justification for their existence, other than to entertain and make money. This includes the many zoos that claim to have natural habitats.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t make such a blanket statement as that.
I think there is a place for them, they can educate and inspire people to learn more about the animals and in preserving natural habitat by visiting a zoo.</p>
<p>Many people live far from farms and in any case small family farms are rare- a"free range" chicken might live in a coop the size of a football field but have the door open at one or both ends. Think the chicken notices?</p>
<p>WPZ has a family farm exhibit that gives kids a chance to learn about farm animals close up- both of my kids learned to ride and care for horses at the zoo ( until the program was cut so they could use the land for a merry go round and conference center)</p>
<p>Exhibits of monkeys, bird and other small animals also inspire visitors to learn about other parts of the word and spark interest in career choices.</p>
<p>However- I think the animal health should take precedence over entertainment value.</p>
<p>Yes Kitty, your argument to support them is the usual one. There are other, more humane ways to educate.</p>
<p>I feel zoos are comparable to using animals for research and testing cosmetics. Both are being replaced by computer simulations and other means, gradually, and there is still plenty of it in existence.</p>
<p>I came to this way of thinking through my children. When they were young I took them to zoos frequently. Eventually, they no longer wanted to go. They were sensitive enough to realize it was painful to the animals.</p>
<p>It’s going to depend on the zoo of course. But I don’t know, habitat loss and hunting are still reducing animals across the globe. It’s kind of hard to be too critical of progressive zoos that are trying to improve and naturalize habitats. I haven’t seen too much that is better… even the african wildlife preserves have problems. </p>
<p>As far as the tiger situation, it continues to prove that man is the only species that allows it’s “stupids” to survive somewhat. In the wild, most stupid animals die, in our world they have more children. </p>
<p>“What will we do today? I know! let’s harrass the tiger at the zoo, maybe we can throw rocks or shoot at it with a slingshot… what fun!”</p>
<p>I feel for the tiger, not that it was captive, but in was put down for it’s reaction. I have little empathy for those whose actions cause their own situation.</p>
<p>I like a good zoo. I think saying it is like animal testing is absurd. No stress looking for the next meal or worrying about predators. It’s too bad we just can’t take volunteers.</p>
<p>The harsh criticism of the SF Zoo is absurd, and most off the criticisms are because of the hysteria the media has created, and the false information the media gives out. First of all, this “4 foot below minimum” argument doesn’t really work. The standards were changed 2 YEARS AGO. This zoo housed tigers for FORTY YEARS with no incidents. A zoo can not pull millions of dollars out of no where within a 2 year period to change the enclosure. </p>
<p>Plus, the previous incident with this tiger…which people like Bill O’Reilly use against the zoo without really understanding what happened there, was not an attack. The staff member held out her arm with food, but not close enough for the tiger to reach the food, so the tiger grabbed her arm to pull the food closer. Anyone who works with tigers or has observed tigers knows that this was not an attack-the tiger simply wanted the food closer so it could get to it. IF IT WAS AN ATTACK, THE WOMAN WOULD HAVE LOST HER ARM.</p>
<p>Quite frankly, tigers can not jump out of that enclosure, neither straight up or with a running jump. Considering investigators found a shoe and blood IN THE ENCLOSURE, the first victim must have physically helped the animal out of the enclosure, either purposefully or accidentally.</p>
<p>Sorry, but the false facts the media gives out and the subsequent crucification of the SF Zoo really makes me angry. This Tiger didn’t deserve to die. Neither did the last two zoo visitors deserve to get hurt. The verdict is still out for the first victim. She was a really nice tiger.</p>
<p>Edit: to keep this post on topic, I’ll say that having to keep animals in Zoos is regrettable, but unfortunately they would be wiped out in the wild. Most animals are quickly losing or have lost their wild habitat, and Zoos are a valuable way to keep to preserve genetic material when the species are extinct in the wild.</p>
<p>well regarding the tiger-in SF, the police chief stated that no shoe was found in the enclosure.
Other national zoos also have higher walls for their big cats.
I think if the accreditation agency noted that the wall was 1/4 shorter than it should be for safety, they were negligent in not enforcing that.</p>
<p>that’s the key question to this whole thing… what motivated the tiger to do this at this time, when the opportunity has always been there? What did these kids do ( I doubt “nothing”) to tick this cat off?</p>
<p>Have any of you been to the San Diego Wild Animal Park? It’s a part of (but removed by 30 miles or so) the San Diego Zoo and allows most of the animals to live in a more natural habitat where the humans are confined to a tram and the animals are the ones roaming. There’s been a lot of success there in breeding endangered animals including the California Condor which was once down to about 22 birds in the wild.</p>
<p>I generally have a good feeling touring the WAP. I’m not as enthused by a more traditional zoo though where the animals are more confined and some zoos are downright terrible due to the confinement. </p>
<p>I don’t understand the SF Zoo ‘teasing’ statements that I’ve heard made. Regardless, a tiger should not be able to escape the enclosure. I wonder if the statements are just so SF can try to not lose as much as they’re likely to in the lawsuits that will result from their failure to contain the animal.</p>
<p>The gene pool for tigers and some other big cats is so small that the speicies is doomed. I am on the fence regarding the moral issue of keeping animals in zoos, I think it may depend on the species, there are certain frogs who spend their whole lives on one plant, for example. But in the case of severely endangered animals, well I don’t know, that may be the only chance of any survival.</p>
<p>Perhaps those who have had the opportunity to see animals in Kenya, Tanzania, Yukon or Alaska in the wild can relate to my posts dissing zoos. If not, there are many nature shows on TV showing these animals in their natural habitats, and the vast difference in their behavior from “caged zoo animals”.</p>
<p>I do understand the reasons for them to perpetuate a species heading for extinction. Perhaps the species should be extinct, or there are other ways to protect them.</p>
<p>Polar bears are headed for extinction because of global warming.</p>
<p>I heard on the news in passing yesterday that a bottle of a vodka and a slingshot were found nearby…I was at the gym and didn’t get the whole thing. Did anyone else hear something like this? If so, it would support the idea that the animal was provoked.</p>
<p>I don’t know if the animal was provoked or not, I sure hope it wasn’t, but regardless, there’s no way the animal should be able to make it out of the enclosure even if it was provoked. The zoo was clearly at fault here in having the wall of the enclosure too short - lower than the recommended minimum height.</p>
<p>this reminds me of a great story in Songs of a Gorilla Nation about an incident at the WPZ. The Woodland park zoo has “naturalistic” habitat, but also includes glassed covered areas where a floor to ceiling window is all that seperates the vistors from the animals.</p>
<p>The author( Dawn Hughes) was observing the gorilla family- including Congo the silverback who was the patriarch of all. Some boys began teasing a young girl and upsetting her and Dawn was just about to intervene when Congo who had been watching them, came up to the glass and began pounding on it, making threatening gestures to the boys.
They looked at him and what they thought was evident on their faces * Oh, sh***
They stopped.
;)</p>
<p>Perhaps the species should be extinct? Who gets to decide that perhaps a species should be extinct?</p>
<p>I read a horrifying article not long ago about people murdering Gorillas in protected areas. And about park rangers too, being killed trying to protect them. There does not seem to be adequate protection for many of these animals.</p>
<p>It seems likely, at least according to the newspaper accounts of the Tiger escape, that the tiger was provoked. It shouldn’t have been able to escape, regardless of what happened. But, I am kind of surprised at the lack of any kind of protection (for the animals) from this type of harassment occurring. No cameras. Poor supervision – only a couple of security people on duty after hours, and things like that.</p>