Update on real life Zoo Tycoon freakout

Previously I wrote an entry called “Real Life Zoo Tycoon Freakout” in which I discussed the Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo that resulted in one death and two injured persons. I asserted that the guys who were attacked must have provoked the animal, and that’s why the tiger crossed a 33-foot wide moat and somehow jumped and/or scaled a 12.5 foot wall, apparently just to attack those specific people. My reasoning was that without provocation on the part of the humans who were attacked, the behavior of the animal makes no sense.

Sure enough, a witness has come forward who saw those same young men roaring at the big cats shortly before the tiger escaped and attacked them. The young men were acting in such a threatening manner toward the big cats that the witness’s children were frightened by it, and had to be removed from the area.

What kind of idiot roars at the wild cats in a zoo, especially in a manner so threatening that it frightens nearby children? Did they really not understand that what they did would be viewed as a threat by a wild animal? I think they intentionally threatened that poor animal, thinking it was safe to do that since the tiger assumably couldn’t get out of the enclosure.

This is starting to make a lot more sense, and this is what I think happened. The guys roared at the big cats, at least one of them acted as if he was going into the enclosure (remember, they found a shoe print there) and the tiger acted in self-defense by clearing the enclosure and attacking those particular young men, and not anybody else.

Think about it. When you are threatened, what happens? You get a sudden jolt of adrenalin, which makes you capable of doing a lot of things you could otherwise never do in order to save your life; it’s called the “fight or flight response”. Wild animals have an even stronger fight or flight response than we have, because they still need it to survive on an ongoing basis.

Problem is, that tiger couldn’t flee, because it was in an enclosed area and there was nowhere to go. A tiger doesn’t understand that the moat and fence is there to separate it from people; to an animal, it’s just part of its environment. Feeling threatened and not being able to retreat, the tiger cleared the moat and the fence, and did the only thing it could do: fight.

An empty vodka bottle was also found in the vehicle of the young men who were attacked, so it is possible they had a little liquid courage before they went into the zoo. And everyone involved who are familiar with wild animals in general, and that tiger in particular, has agreed that there is no way the tiger would have reacted the way it did unless it had felt threatened. The zoo director made a statement to that effect, but stopped short of blaming the victims, undoubtedly because the victims have lawyered up already. However, I won’t stop short of blaming them. I said it before, and I’ll say it again. Those guys provoked that animal into attacking, so it’s their own fault.

The zoo has now reopened, with new signs everywhere warning against tapping on glass enclosures, throwing objects into exhibits, making excessive noise, and teasing or calling out to animals. The big cat area remains closed, and they are building a taller fence around it.

It’s a damn shame that zoos have to actually tell people not to torment the animals. That should be not only common sense, as these are wild animals, but it is also so cruel to torment animals in captivity that people should not even want to do it. Unfortunately, common sense is not common, and there are a lot of extremely cruel people in the world.

Perhaps something good will come of this, though. Perhaps zoos will start expelling patrons who torment the animals, rather than letting the price of admission act as a license for people act like wild animals themselves. The animals deserve to be protected from creeps like them. They didn’t ask to be taken into captivity, but once they were, their captors have a moral responsibility to protect them.

As for the inevitable lawsuit, I don’t think they should get a dime. This is all about personal responsibility. If you place yourself in danger of being attacked by a wild animal, by going out of your way to act in a threatening manner toward that wild animal, it is no one’s fault but your own when you get attacked.

Incidentally, the lawyer for the survivors is Mark Geragos; those guys really lawyered up fast, didn’t they? Geragos, of course, previously represented Scott Peterson (the guy who killed his extremely pregnant wife Lacey and, of course, their unborn son).

I’m personally surprised Geragos chose the victims’ side of this dispute, since he’s accustomed to representing animals.

Sorry, couldn’t resist (and my apologies to animals everywhere, for comparing them to Scott Peterson).

Geragos claims his clients didn’t taunt the tiger, but then again he also claims the police are lying when they say they found an empty vodka bottle in their car. Next he’ll probably claim that his clients cooperated completely, though officials have already said that at first they refused to cooperate.

I guess we’re all beginning to understand why they refused to cooperate.

______________________________________

Sources:

MSNBC: Zoo reopens 9 days after fatal tiger attack, New public alert system, more signs warn not to pester the animals

MSNBC: Zoo visitor says tigers were taunted prior to attack