Child mauled by tapir at Dublin Zoo!!! :(

steddyeddy

Title does what it says on the tin I'm afraid. A 2 year old girl received serious arm and stomach injuries during a "supervised visit" to a tapir enclosure at Dublin Zoo.

First of all I wish a speedy recovery to the girl involved but I have to ask what the feck was a 2 year old girl doing in an enclosure with a sometimes dangerous wild animal? The tapir has a calf in the enclosure so that makes it more dangerous to be around. Thoughts?


Edit: link attached

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-zoo-mother-and-daughter-2-recovering-after-attack-by-tapir-29485408.html

MagicMarker

What the **** is a tapir?

anncoates

MagicMarker wrote: »

What the **** is a tapir?

Looks like an anteater mixed with a donkey.

SEPT 23 1989

http://brucekrasting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/tapir.jpg

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Sorry she was hurt and all but she had no business being around a wild animal like that. 100% her parents (or whoever was supervising her) responsibility/fault if they lacked the common sense to keep her out of harms way. Hopefully the animal won't be destroyed, and hopefully you don't see Dublin zoo being sued for someone else's stupidity.

Wow, if true then Dublin Zoo have a lot to answer for. Chances are that the poor animal might be slaughtered now too.

Das Kitty

The tapir only had a calf a week or so ago, it seems like it was very bad timing.

Poor little toddler though, she won't forget that in a hurry.

Rented Mule

MagicMarker wrote: »

What the **** is a tapir?

It's like a tracker mortgage.

Das Kitty

The keepers do these supervised visits.

shruikan2553

How many tapir attacks are recorded each year? Cant believe i actually asked that...

The animals they use for the petting zoo type things would have been hand reared and used to humans. Although I agree that probably best to move it somewhere else if she had a calf.

Amirani

I wouldn't say the animal will be destroyed.

elfy4eva

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Sorry she was hurt and all but she had no business being around a wild animal like that. 100% her parents (or whoever was supervising her) responsibility/fault if they lacked the common sense to keep her out of harms way. Hopefully the animal won't be destroyed, and hopefully you don't see Dublin zoo being sued for someone else's stupidity.

According to the press it was a close-up encounter supervised by Zookeepers. If true it's actually zookeepers at fault here. Apparently her mother received injuries too when intervening in the attack

sweetie

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Sorry she was hurt and all but she had no business being around a wild animal like that. 100% her parents (or whoever was supervising her) responsibility/fault if they lacked the common sense to keep her out of harms way. Hopefully the animal won't be destroyed, and hopefully you don't see Dublin zoo being sued for someone else's stupidity.

read the article, it was a supervised visit.

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow, if true then Dublin Zoo have a lot to answer for. Chances are that the poor animal might be slaughtered now too.

It wont be slaughtered likely. Zoos are generally sensible when it comes to animals and don't slaughter animals that are dangerous.

Nozebleed

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wow, if true then Dublin Zoo have a lot to answer for. Chances are that the poor animal might be slaughtered now too.

Hmmmmmm....Bacon.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Supervised visit or no supervised visit, you'd want to be an absolute thick to put a tiny child in there, with a new mother/wild animal.

Jesus, even a cat would tear you asunder if you were at her kittens a week later.

steddyeddy

Dublin zoo has a lot to answer for here aswell.

Tabnabs

I'm no zoologist, but a quick google shows that Tapir attacks are not unknown and generally occur when the young are around or nearby.

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/tapir_attack_in_Oklahoma_City_PartTwo.html

http://www.tapirs.org/news/interviews/carlosmr-echandi-interview.html

Atomic Pineapple

Indeed, the supervising Zoo keepers fault for A) Letting a two year old in with the animal in the first place and Failing to monitor the visit enough to make sure nothing like this could happen.

No grounds for destroying the animal at all.

Oink

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Supervised visit or no supervised visit, you'd want to be an absolute thick to put a tiny child in there, with a new mother/wild animal.

Jesus, even a cat would tear you asunder if you were at her kittens a week later.

Sure what could go wrong when you put a toddler next to a 150-300 kg animal which has just given birth. There are experts around.


tapir bacon hey? mmm.....

SEPT 23 1989

This little girls life has been changed forever and i hope she will be compensated accordingly

tin79

MagicMarker wrote: »

What the **** is a tapir?

Planet express ships favourite nocturnal mammal!

sweetie

I can just imagine Tom Dunne doing the voiceover...

Mongarra

A Tapir is an animal found mainly in Central and South America and South-east Asia. It is about the size of a pig (according to RTÉ news this morning) and it resembles a small, smooth-skinned, hornless rhinoceros with a snout extended as a short trunk (or like an anteater - RTÉ news again). it is a nocturnal animal.

Chucky the tree

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Sorry she was hurt and all but she had no business being around a wild animal like that. 100% her parents (or whoever was supervising her) responsibility/fault if they lacked the common sense to keep her out of harms way. Hopefully the animal won't be destroyed, and hopefully you don't see Dublin zoo being sued for someone else's stupidity.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Supervised visit or no supervised visit, you'd want to be an absolute thick to put a tiny child in there, with a new mother/wild animal.

Jesus, even a cat would tear you asunder if you were at her kittens a week later.

So it's clearly the zoo who are at fault here. The zoo staff are supposed to be well trained so for them to allow a mother and small child into an area where their is a mother and baby wild animal then it's a shocking mistake on the part of the zoo. I don't think the animal should be destroyed but someone in the Zoo should be sacked.

seamus

Parenting/Animals 101:

Children and wild animals do not mix.

Seriously, like. If this was a "supervised visit" organised by Dublin Zoo, then the keeper that allowed the child into the enclosure needs firing.

The injuries sound serious, but they don't sound like anything which will have any permanent effects aside from scars. Hopefully she makes a full and quick recovery.

Oink

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

No grounds for destroying the animal at all.

I don't agree. It should be destroyed on grounds of bacon.

On the other hand, I agree. The experts should be destroyed instead.

token101

elfy4eva wrote: »

According to the press it was a close-up encounter supervised by Zookeepers. If true it's actually zookeepers at fault here. Apparently her mother received injuries too when intervening in the attack

The mother intervened? Where were the zookeepers?? Surely they'd carry a dart gun as a precaution if they're allowing the public hang around with wild animals.

Fratoue

Is the Tapir alright?

anncoates

With a bit of common sense from the zoo keepers, these attacks will hopefully tapir off.

vitani

seamus wrote: »

Parenting/Animals 101:

Children and wild animals do not mix.

Seriously, like. If this was a "supervised visit" organised by Dublin Zoo, then the keeper that allowed the child into the enclosure needs firing.

Maybe the keeper didn't have a choice. It wouldn't surprise me if management 'encouraged' them to keep supervised visits going.

Having said that, there's still no need to have a 2 year old in the enclosure though. It's older children who'd benefit more, and could be trusted to behave more respectfully. 2 year olds would be as excited by seeing cows and sheep.

Amirani

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

This little girls life has been changed forever and i hope she will be compensated accordingly

I doubt Dublin Zoo have any liability here.

SEPT 23 1989

NiallSparky wrote: »

I doubt Dublin Zoo have any liability here.

100% liable

tin79

NiallSparky wrote: »

I doubt Dublin Zoo have any liability here.

How exactly do you figure that?

Amirani

tin79 wrote: »

How exactly do you figure that?

I presume her parents had to give legal consent.

suicide_circus

Tapir babies are Sweeeet!!!

http://www.rte.ie/presspack/files/2013/03/DUBLINZOO-003.jpg

OpenYourEyes

Not the Tapirs fault - its an animal and probably felt it's newborn calf was threatened.

Not really the parents fault, assuming the child wasn't jumping on top of it and screaming at it - if the keeper was there and said it was ok etc. then I think it was reasonable of the parents to think the situation was ok.

That leaves it as the keepers fauly unfortunately. I say unfortunately because the keepers in Dublin seem to be a good bunch doing an excellent job for people and animals alike in a well-run and modern zoo.

But a mistake is a mistake, and the poor child has obviously gone through a lot. I'm sure the keeper will be disciplined accordingly, and the animal won't be destroyed.

Amirani

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

100% liable

In a legal sense? Do you reckon?

steddyeddy

[QUOTE=Tabnabs;85911284]I'm no zoologist, but a quick google shows that Tapir attacks are not unknown and generally occur when the young are around or nearby.

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/tapir_attack_in_Oklahoma_City_PartTwo.html

http://www.tapirs.org/news/interviews/carlosmr-echandi-interview.html[/QUOTE]

Well then you have a lot in common with most Dublin zoo staff. The zoo has attracted international attention for it's lack of qualified zoologists. A lot of staff got the position because of family members I'm sad to say. That's not critique of the staff's skill by the way, Dublin Zoo is generally very well run.

Uriel.

It's silly from the parent and equally if not more silly from the zoo.

You'd wonder though how they managed to get a supervised visit so close to the animal(s)? How does one get this kind of permission. I know the zoo says they do these kind of visits regularly, but how do you go about it. I am just wondering if the mother in question had some clout/pull.

I can't see the animal being destroyed.

Obviously, no one wanted this to happen and it's an unfortunate incident, but you would certainly see the zoo being liable here. I wonder if they (the visitors) had to sign a waiver/terms and conditions.

I would have thought that allowing any non-qualified person near a wild animal so soon after that animal gave birth would be totally off the radar.

I hope the girl makes a full recovery.

steddyeddy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

100% liable

This!

Grayson

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Supervised visit or no supervised visit, you'd want to be an absolute thick to put a tiny child in there, with a new mother/wild animal.

Jesus, even a cat would tear you asunder if you were at her kittens a week later.

Actually, as someone who's had cats that have had litters, the mothers were always docile and friendly. They'd let us pick up the kittens no problem.

I'd imagine the tapir is kinda like having a pet pig or any other animal. It's probably incredibly domisticated at this stage and used to children. However like any animal, and that includes the most docile family pets, there is always a risk, however small, that the animal could attack.
I'd feel just as safe letting a child near it as I would letting it near a shetland pony or a guide dog for the blind. And I'd believe the risk to the child would be similar.

seamus

vitani wrote: »

Maybe the keeper didn't have a choice. It wouldn't surprise me if management 'encouraged' them to keep supervised visits going.

Any keeper worth their salt would never allow managements' direction to override basic sense. If that is the case the both the keeper and management need firing.

It's kind of core to the running of any Zoo that keepers have the last word when it comes to the treatment of the animals and public access to the animals.

I'm withholding judgement on this though. From being at Fota a few weeks back (which is owned by Dublin Zoo), I'd be surprised if the Zoo were intentionally stupid about this. Tapirs wouldn't in a cage, but there would be a small fence you could hop to get to them. As pointed out above, the fact that the keepers didn't intervene suggests to me that maybe the child and her mother had wandered away from the keepers and got too close, but who knows without more information.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

NiallSparky wrote: »

I doubt Dublin Zoo have any liability here.

Fail to how the wouldn't, they allowed her in with the animal, she didnt sneak in.
Seems that allowing a child of that age in with a wild animal would reek of negligance and a failure of duty of care.

anncoates

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

But a mistake is a mistake, and the poor child has obviously gone through a lot. I'm sure the keeper will be disciplined accordingly, and the animal won't be destroyed.

If the keeper just decided to allow children to be in proximity to the animal, obviously that's quite serious but I assume it's a practice authorized at management level and therefore the keeper shouldn't really carry the can.

SEPT 23 1989

NiallSparky wrote: »

In a legal sense? Do you reckon?

yep but they will have insurance to cover this sort of incident

if they don't bye bye Dublin Zoo

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

Actually, as someone who's had cats that have had litters, the mothers were always docile and friendly. They'd let us pick up the kittens no problem.

I'd imagine the tapir is kinda like having a pet pig or any other animal. It's probably incredibly domisticated at this stage and used to children. However like any animal, and that includes the most docile family pets, there is always a risk, however small, that the animal could attack.
I'd feel just as safe letting a child near it as I would letting it near a shetland pony or a guide dog for the blind. And I'd believe the risk to the child would be similar.

There's a big difference between an animal that has been largely domesticated for a very long time (like a pig, a cat, a dog, etc.) and an animal that has always been predominantly wild.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

Any keeper worth their salt would never allow managements' direction to override basic sense. If that is the case the both the keeper and management need firing.

It's kind of core to the running of any Zoo that keepers have the last word when it comes to the treatment of the animals and public access to the animals.

I'm withholding judgement on this though. From being at Fota a few weeks back (which is owned by Dublin Zoo), I'd be surprised if the Zoo were intentionally stupid about this. Tapirs wouldn't in a cage, but there would be a small fence you could hop to get to them. As pointed out above, the fact that the keepers didn't intervene suggests to me that maybe the child and her mother had wandered away from the keepers and got too close, but who knows without more information.

The new head of Dublin zoo is a zoologist. I doubt he pushed this.

OpenYourEyes

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then you have a lot in common with most Dublin zoo staff. The zoo has attracted international attention for it's lack of qualified zoologists. A lot of staff got the position because of family members I'm sad to say. That's not critique of the staff's skill by the way, Dublin Zoo is generally very well run.

I think someone with veterinary qualifications, and some knowledge of exotic and wild animals, would be more qualified to work in a zoo than a zoologist though?

And I say that as someone with a zoology degree, and who know's vets of varying levels of experience.

steddyeddy

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I think someone with veterinary qualifications, and some knowledge of exotic and wild animals, would be more qualified to work in a zoo than a zoologist though?

And I say that as someone with a zoology degree, and who know's vets of varying levels of experience.

Well a vet wouldn't have the level of expertise in animal behavior and a zoologist would generally be required for a conservation programme.

bbam

In fairness this looks like a serious lack of judgement in a zookeepers behalf.

Following from this the zoo are most probably liable and the insurance will take a hit.

Animals wild or domesticated don't much like people being close when they have young about. As a farmer I've seen cows go mad when you try and approach their calves, so I'd imagine a wild animal being worse.

It's horrible for all concerned. Hopefully the child and it's mam recover well and hopefully the zoo suffers no long lasting effects either. It's a great zoo and hugely successful.