The issue with the Tiger.

DEFTLEFTHAND

As most of you probably know a female zoo keeper was killed by a white tiger during the week.

White tigers in captivity are usually heavily inbred and unpredictable when it comes to their behaviour.

The question is should this cat be put down for his actions or not?

I think the park are on the side of no. The victims mother stated that her daughter wouldn't want the cat to be killed.

Tilikum

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

As most of you probably know a female zoo keeper was killed by a white tiger during the week.

White tigers in captivity are usually heavily inbred and unpredictable when it comes to their behaviour.

The question is should this cat be put down for his actions or not?

I think the park are on the side of no. The victims mother stated that her daughter wouldn't want the cat to be killed.

Close down the zoo. The animals would be far better off.

AudreyHepburn

No it shouldn't be put down. Animals don't attack without reason, it's not like the tiger is some violent uncontrollable monster that killed her out of malice.

It shouldn't be punished for something it probably did out of fear or because it thought it was under threat.

And before anyone says it no I am not blaming the victim or saying she deserved to die.

Big Nasty

I blame the night howlers

A Law

Did he not release a statement saying it was a reaction to a mix of prescription drugs?

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No it shouldn't be put down. Animals don't attack without reason, it's not like the tiger is some violent uncontrollable monster that killed her out of malice.

It shouldn't be punished for something it probably did out of fear or because it thought it was under threat.

And before anyone says it no I am not blaming the victim or saying she deserved to die.

Arra come on. It killed her because it's a tiger. Do we have to go around all the time now ascribing human emotions, and in a bizarrely biased way so we only ascribe the nice stuff - "animals are loving and loyal and giving and caring...but they are never evil or nasty and if they are it was because we scared them".

An animal killed a human. Of course it can't feel malice, it's a tiger, it is a dangerous animal. Forget the blame stuff, let's look at what we do. Continue to cage it but take more precautions? Use sedatives? Release it into the wild, now that it has a taste for people?

Put it down, move on.

Tilikum

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Arra come on. It killed her because it's a tiger. Do we have to go around all the time now ascribing human emotions, and in a bizarrely biased way so we only ascribe the nice stuff - "animals are loving and loyal and giving and caring...but they are never evil or nasty and if they are it was because we scared them".

An animal killed a human. Of course it can't feel malice, it's a tiger, it is a dangerous animal. Forget the blame stuff, let's look at what we do. Continue to cage it but take more precautions? Use sedatives? Release it into the wild, now that it has a taste for people?

Put it down, move on.

Put it down?

It's more likely it attacked because it's gone insane due to captivity.

I'd prefer to see it released, to watch it attack all the gob****es that pay money to stand there pointing fingers at it.

AudreyHepburn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Arra come on. It killed her because it's a tiger. Do we have to go around all the time now ascribing human emotions, and in a bizarrely biased way so we only ascribe the nice stuff - "animals are loving and loyal and giving and caring...but they are never evil or nasty and if they are it was because we scared them".

An animal killed a human. Of course it can't feel malice, it's a tiger, it is a dangerous animal. Forget the blame stuff, let's look at what we do. Continue to cage it but take more precautions? Use sedatives? Release it into the wild, now that it has a taste for people?

Put it down, move on.

Why should it be punished for acting naturally- wild animals attack for many reasons; hunger, fear etc.

It was provoked somehow. It shouldn't suffer for it.

Tilikum

Tilikum wrote: »

Put it down?

It's more likely it attacked because it's gone insane due to captivity.

I'd prefer to see it released, to watch it attack all the gob****es that pay money to stand there pointing fingers at it.

And if it attacks a child in some Indian village, do we shrug and say "that tiger...nuts"?

You may like to see animals attacking humans, that's your prerogative. I'd prefer to see the safest option taken.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It was provoked somehow. It shouldn't suffer for it.

We don't know that was provoked. Maybe it was just bored. Maybe it thought it was playful. We have the answer when one human kills another, we cage them. We don't release them into the wild and pat them on the head. Now, I'm not suggesting we apply penal theory to animals. We should just do whatever we can ensure it won't happen again. I agree it shouldn't suffer, put it down humanely.

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd prefer to see the safest option taken.

Kill them all?

To be really safe let's kill all the Tigers in the wild so no one could think of bringing them into Europe where a careless employee could be killed. There's very few of them left in the wild so could be easily done.

Then, let's go after the Lions in the wild. And once all the Lions are eradicated...

Shur, it'd be the safest option.

Or, and this may be crazy talk, we don't lose the run of ourselves because of one unfortunate event.

Allinall

If he didn't decide to get in the car and drive after drinking a few cans, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Avatar MIA

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Kill them all?.

Who suggested that? That would be silly. Humans can be dangerous, but I wouldn't propose we kill them all. We react to each incident appropriately. It's more than an unfortunate event, someone has died. Put the animal down, learn from it all, move on.

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

Who suggested that?

You wanted the safest option.

Deleted User wrote: »

Put the animal down, learn from it all, move on.

Kill a tiger for being a tiger? Have a think about that for a second.

Avatar MIA

Avatar MIA wrote: »

You wanted the safest option.

Kill a tiger for being a tiger? Have a think about that for a second.

No no, put down an animal that was involved in a fatal attack. And that is the safest option. Not sure what the confusion is, or why you think my point is "kill everything everywhere". If a dog mauled a child, I'd have the dog put down. What would you do?

steddyeddy

I'd put down a dog that killed or even bit a child. I wouldn't put down a tiger for propensity to kill someone because then I'd kill all tigers. They would all kill if they got the chance.

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

No no, put down an animal that was involved in a fatal attack. And that is the safest option. Not sure what the confusion is, or why you think my point is "kill everything everywhere". If a dog mauled a child, I'd have the dog put down. What would you do?

Conor, the only defence I can think for your thinking is that you do not understand the difference between a tiger and a dog. A tiger, every single one in zoos or the willd, will see a human no different than a wart hog - a meal.

Knowing that, how can you put down a tiger for doing what comes natural to them?

steddyeddy

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Conor, the only defence I can think for your thinking is that you do not understand the difference between a tiger and a dog. A tiger, every single one in zoos or the willd, will see a human no different than a wart hog - a meal.

Knowing that, how can you put down a tiger for doing what comes natural to them?

Indeed. Tigers can and do eat humans in places like India or Sumatra.

wakka12

Tilikum wrote: »

Close down the zoo. The animals would be far better off.

Urban myth, many of the animals in zoos around the world today only exist because of the zoos specie preservation programmes. Many of these animals would die in the wild due to human encroachment on their natural habitats

Obviously zoos arent ideal habitats but is extinction a better option?
The demonisation of zoos which try to give animals as good quality of life as possible needs to stop
Dublin zoo for instance treats its animals very well and keeps them in good condition. If they know they arent giving the animal the life it deserves then they give it to a better zoo, such as with the polar bear

wakka12

And putting down the tiger is silly. Its a rare beautiful animal and it has no more chance of killing another human than any other tiger. It is a tragic incident and ending this tigers life will not make anything better

Avatar MIA

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Knowing that, how can you put down a tiger for doing what comes natural to them?

Well we agree on the fact that they are naturally dangerous, and disagree with the posters who say it must have been provoked, or it wouldn't have done something like this normally, or it must have been insane. I agree their natural instinct is to hunt, maul and kill...but I think natural tendencies reduce this risk, they will largely stay away from human settlements. But now this one has interacted with humans, and killed one, it may pose a danger that exceeds that normally posed by tigers in the wild.

Avatar MIA

wakka12 wrote: »

And putting down the tiger is silly. Its a rare beautiful animal and it has no more chance of killing another human than any other tiger. It is a tragic incident and ending this tigers life will not make anything better

Yeah, a key difference here between a tiger and a dog (in case there's any doubt), there's no greater risk now with this animal than there was from the same animal previous to the attack or, and this is key, any other tiger.

So, if it's logical to put down this tiger, then ALL tiger's should be put down.

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Well we agree on the fact that they are naturally dangerous, and disagree with the posters who say it must have been provoked, or it wouldn't have done something like this normally, or it must have been insane. I agree their natural instinct is to hunt, maul and kill...but I think natural tendencies reduce this risk, they will largely stay away from human settlements. But now this one has interacted with humans, and killed one, it may pose a danger that exceeds that normally posed by tigers in the wild.

As I said Conor tigers do hunt and kill humans. I was told in Sumatra that the only caveat they have is that they won't attack someone that's facing them in the wild. They usually sneak up on their prey.

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

Well we agree on the fact that they are naturally dangerous, and disagree with the posters who say it must have been provoked, or it wouldn't have done something like this normally, or it must have been insane. I agree their natural instinct is to hunt, maul and kill...but I think natural tendencies reduce this risk, they will largely stay away from human settlements. But now this one has interacted with humans, and killed one, it may pose a danger that exceeds that normally posed by tigers in the wild.

How is this Tiger different to ANY Tiger kept in a Zoo? Are there some vegan tigers in other zoos that need not the utmost care to ensure they don't do what comes natural to them.

All tigers kept in zoos, no different to the tiger we're talking about, are in similar environments, and comparing them to Tigers in the wild is ridiculous.

Are you saying all Tigers in captivity should be put down. If not, what's the difference between this tiger and others. You must understand any tiger in any zoo will do as this tiger did if put in the same situation, you know... being tigers.

osarusan

I would have imagined that it could just be left where it is. I can understand the need to put it down if it was wild, but it is already (supposed to be) completely separate from humans anyway, so does it pose any extra, unmanageable risk?

Avatar MIA

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Are you saying all Tigers in captivity should be put down...

You have this thing in your head that I'm suggesting all tigers should be killed.

If a human kills another, do you think all humans should be punished? You are arguing against a point that I never made, then building post after post around it.

This tiger killed a human. Put it down.

Sky King

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Animals don't attack without reason.

What? Of course they do. Wild animals in captivity can appear benign for years and totally flip out for no reason or for some reason that makes sense only to tigers or because something spooks them or whatever.

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

This tiger killed a human. Put it down.

You're missing the point I'm making (there's no difference between this Tiger than any other) - however, going by the above sentence, I think you may simply be trolling.

WHIP IT!

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why should it be punished for acting naturally- wild animals attack for many reasons; hunger, fear etc.

It was provoked somehow. It shouldn't suffer for it.

Just wondering what is it you think this awful woman might have done to prompt the poor tiger to kill her? I just wanna know, in case I'm ever in a similar situation - I do not want to p*ss of a tiger.

Avatar MIA

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Your missing the point I'm making (there's no difference between this Tiger than any other) - however, going by the above sentence, I think you may simply be trolling.

Well, I'm not the one getting tied up in knots about "they're all dangerous, kill them all, unlike dogs, dogs are different, as are tigers in zoos, they are different to dogs in the wild".

It could not be simpler, animal attacks human, destroy animal, remove risk it will attack again. That's not trolling at all.

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, I'm not the one getting tied up in knots about "they're all dangerous, kill them all, unlike dogs, dogs are different, as are tigers in zoos, they are different to dogs in the wild".

If you're not trolling quote my actual words and not your own interpretation. You might try answering them, but that takes debate.

Deleted User wrote: »

It could not be simpler, animal attacks human, destroy animal, remove risk it will attack again. That's not trolling at all.

If not trolling it's logic below that of Forrest Gump.

Minderbinder

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

This tiger killed a human. Put it down.

You're missing the point I'm making (there's no difference between this Tiger than any other) - however, going by the above sentence, I think you may simply be trolling.

Ridiculous post. Conor is using logic and you're using emotion. If a tiger gets the taste for human blood then it will attack again. It would put zookeepers at great risk.

Tigers rarely attack in captivity. This is an exceptional case and it must be put down.

Avatar MIA

Minderbinder wrote: »

If a tiger gets the taste for human blood then it will attack again.

A taste for human blood :rolleyes: Tell me what animal if put into an enclosure a Tiger wouldn't attack? Go on Mr Logic, tell us.

Minderbinder wrote: »

Tigers rarely attack in captivity. This is an exceptional case and it must be put down.

Of course attacks are rare in captivity, zookeepers keep their distance and respect they are dealing with a creature evolution has spent millions of years honing into a supreme predator.

This is a zookeeper that used to play football with cheetahs. I think that'll stop now.

Avatar MIA

Avatar MIA wrote: »

it's logic below that of Forrest Gump.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Go on Mr Logic, tell us.

Sometimes animals lose it, and sometimes humans lose it.

Obviously, we can't laugh at what the tiger did...

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously, we can't laugh at what the tiger did...

Are you saying because this is AH you've been joking about killing the tiger?

Avatar MIA

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Are you saying because this is AH you've been joking about killing the tiger?

No no, I didn't joke about the tiger, what it did, or about its destruction.

Mr. CooL ICE

Avatar MIA wrote: »

You're missing the point I'm making (there's no difference between this Tiger than any other) - however, going by the above sentence, I think you may simply be trolling.

Mod: Please refrain from accusing others of trolling. If you think somebody is trolling, report the post and move on

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

You have this thing in your head that I'm suggesting all tigers should be killed.

If a human kills another, do you think all humans should be punished? You are arguing against a point that I never made, then building post after post around it.

This tiger killed a human. Put it down.

That seems to be the implication of your argument. It's not an argument about safety as it has been pointed out to you that all tigers will kill humans if they have the chance. This tiger killed a human and had not previously killed one. So if we're putting down a tiger because it can kill something then the logic is we put down all tigers.

If you're angle is a that we need to punish the tiger it's equally pointless. Punish why? To set an example? To stop this tiger killing again? We've already established all tigers will kill if they get the chance. You might as well kill a tiger at random as they all have the propensity to kill humans.

The best and most logical course of action is to examine the break down in safety that lead to this fatality.

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

Sometimes animals lose it

The Tiger didn't lose it. It didn't sign a contract 'I the undersigned (paw print) will not eat the nice zookeeper that brings me food' and then took umbrage to the meat being served and attacked the zookeeper in a huff.

It simply did what any Tiger will do if given the chance. Are you mistaking this tiger with a pet?

Samaris

Avatar MIA wrote: »

This is a zookeeper that used to play football with cheetahs. I think that'll stop now.

That is actually a rather sad result. Cheetahs, of all the big cats, are surprisingly friendly if trained up from cubs. Certain tribes (I think the Maasai are one) have used them for generations for hunting. Of all the big cat families, cheetahs are actually rather more similar to dogs than any other. Compare that to say, hyenas, which can also be friendly as pups, but will invariably go wild as they grow up.

Not to say they should not be treated with respect, they are still a big animal evolved for hunting and killing. But cheetahs of all wild animals are playful and relatively friendly and trainable. And they do need stimulation and play, whether with humans or each other.

Tigers are a different story.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

That seems to be the implication of your argument. It's not an argument about safety as it has been pointed out to you that all tigers will kill humans if they have the chance...

Well, we agree. Although it is clearly not accepted by others here who insist it was provoked, it must have been nuts, it's the humans fault. I agree tigers will kill humans. But it's about utility, we don't kill all dogs, sharks and tigers because they may kill humans, we assess the risk. And I think it would be perfectly reasonable to assess that this particular animal that has killed a human poses a risk that's too great, it has overcome any natural tendency to stay away from humans. That's not it's fault, but it's not about blame. The alternative is to keep it caged but in a more secure way. I'm not against that tbh.

Avatar MIA

Samaris wrote: »

That is actually a rather sad result.

You probably know more about cheetahs than I do.

I remember my two year old standing close to the fence in Fota wild life park and I was about 10 feet away and watched rooted to the ground as the cheetah stalked my son and made a lunge at him. My son was totally unperturbed.

That's because there was a fence between them. It was both fascinating and not a little eerie.

Lovely creatures.

Murrisk

Tilikum wrote: »

Put it down?

It's more likely it attacked because it's gone insane due to captivity.

I'd prefer to see it released, to watch it attack all the gob****es that pay money to stand there pointing fingers at it.

I love that your username is Tilikum. Very apt!

Murrisk

Deleted User wrote: »

Continue to cage it but take more precautions?

Yes, this option. The death happened because of zoo carelessness, I think. This tiger, if properly enclosed, is no more likely to kill than others. Never mind the "taste for blood now" nonsense. Any tiger will kill a human, given the chance.

Samaris

Avatar MIA wrote: »

You probably know more about cheetahs than I do.

I remember my two year old standing close to the fence in Fota wild life park and I was about 10 feet away and watched rooted to the ground as the cheetah stalked my son and made a lunge at him. My son was totally unperturbed.

That's because there was a fence between them. It was both fascinating and not a little eerie.

Lovely creatures.

They are beautiful animals, and how they have evolved to maximize their running ability is extraordinary. The loss of cheetahs would be a tragedy for the world. I wish I did know -why- cheetahs are more tamable than, say, hyenas or tigers, but I don't.

Yeah, I wouldn't exactly trust a cheetah with a toddler, I admit! And those ones probably were left to keep their natural instincts rather than being socialised with humans on a regular basis. I'd have been watching that with a certain amount of alarm too.

Murrisk

steddyeddy wrote: »

The best and most logical course of action is to examine the break down in safety that lead to this fatality.

Exactly, this is the logical step, IMO. Review the checks and balances that should be in place to keep the keepers a safe distance from the animals.

harry Bailey esq

I've one,I'm constantly messin with it.Im 35.

steddyeddy

Murrisk wrote: »

Exactly, this is the logical step, IMO. Review the checks and balances that should be in place to keep the keepers a safe distance from the animals.

Indeed. Punishment is meaningless when it comes to an animal.

In my opinion when you take a job working with dangerous animals then you know the risks. I read a bit about the girl who died and it sounds like she loved her job, loved animals and she would probably not want the lion put down, she knew the risks and unfortunately she got unlucky. The lion did what lions do..... kill things.