Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The issue with the Tiger.

  • 04-06-2017 07:09AM
    #1
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,499 ✭✭✭✭


    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.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Tilikum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭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.


  • #3
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭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.


  • #4
    Big Nasty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,066 ✭✭✭✭Big Nasty


    I blame the night howlers


  • #5
    A Law
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 928 ✭✭✭A Law


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


  • #6
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Tilikum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭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.


  • #8
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭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.


  • #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #10
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #11
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Allinall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭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.


  • #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #14
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭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.


  • #15
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #16
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #17
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭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?


  • #18
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #19
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭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


  • #20
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭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


  • #21
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭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.


  • #23
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #24
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭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.


  • #25
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,059 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #26
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #27
    Sky King
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭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.


  • #28
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭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.


  • #29
    WHIP IT!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,887 ✭✭✭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.


  • #30
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement
Advertisement