Tiger shot dead after US zoo escape?

Question

How do you feel about the tiger being shot dead at the San Francisco Zoo recently?
Link: http://au.news.yahoo.com/071226/2/15dfj.html

Answer 1

I feel that was the only alternative they had at the time, It had already killed one person, and mauled a couple of others.

Answer 2

It doesn't matter if the tiger killed zero or a thousand people. What matters is if it is about to hurt someone and there are no other options to keep people safe.
Even though there were tranquilizer guns available, there wasn't enough time to wait for it while the tiger was threatening to attack some more people. Once the threat is gone, like it was recaptured, there should not be any punishment of the animal. Its enclosure should have been made more safe and that is what needs to be looked at now. I left another answer in zoology that a keeper had seen a tiger jump high enough to escape from this enclosure over 25 years ago when I worked at the SF Zoo. I don't think that anything was done to raise the wall height then, but if enough water was in the moat, then that probably is not the issue. Unfortunately the moats at SF Zoo usually were kept dry or with small rain puddles in them when I used to work there in the 1970's.
I was only an elephant train driver, by the way, which meant that I drove a propane powered fiberglass elephant pulling some trailers full of people through the zoo and talked on a microphone.

Answer 3

It's sad that it had to be killed, but there is no way they could leave it alive when there was still danger of it killing other people, which there was. I'm sure they would have caught it, rather than killing it, if there'd been any way they could do that without further human life being in danger.
I don't agree with anyone who says it was killed because it killed a person. 'An eye for an eye' doesn't work in situations like this. The tiger is a wild animal, and it's the one who is being kept as a captive against it's will so people can stare at it all day long. It's not to be blamed for the fact that it has the instinct to kill. The reason that it had to be killed was not because it had killed a human, but because to leave it alive at that time would have endangered more human lives.

Answer 4

I heard from the very beginning the guys were taunting the Tiger & she only did what any animal would do. The one guy was hanging on the enclosure wall & that's why they found his shoe inside the pen, the tiger jumped at him while he was aggravating her & that's how she got out. Now today on the news they said the 3 idiots had sling shots & were shooting at her. They found Vodka in their car. They all have records of getting into trouble.
I'm glad he's dead & ask yourself this question "WHY DO THE OTHER 2 REFUSE TO TALK TO POLICE" ? Because they know what they did. I feel sorry for that Tiger or any animal that is abused. She was ONLY defending herself & territory.

Answer 5

(after a day or two of listening to the news now),
it seems that it was the only option at the time. sounds like the zoo officials were not prepared/armed and the S.F. police had to do what they thought best. I am sure they, as anyone, were fearful of other tigers loose and waiting, not to mention the unpredictability of the tiger in front of them.
Yeah, it sucks- the death of a tiger.
I am more curious now, what the charges may be on the two surviving dudes, and what happened...

Answer 6

To Jay Bug- water in the moat is meaningless. Tigers can swim and often like to, so that's hardly going to stop them! In fact, it's better not to have water. The moat is just there to deter them from going across the deep space.

Ted S- it's not a popular stance, but I absolutely agree with you. There are more than enough poorly behaved wannabe rapper/criminals/menaces to society in the world causing trouble. Humans are responsible for all the crime and cruelty, death and destruction of the world. Personally, I think the rare tiger is more important as well. Tigers don't pollute, steal, rape, harass, defraud, etc.

To answer the main question:
I am very, very angry about the tiger that was killed. There are less than 400 Siberian tigers in the world. Not all of them are young healthy females who can breed, but Tatiana was. She was very important to her species survival. Healthy young females of all animal species are essential to avoiding extinction. The killing of the tiger puts us one step closer to not having tigers on earth, and I am disgusted that human greed has led to this. It's bad enough that they can't live safely in the wild, but now a very important young animal was brutally shot multiple times for acting on her own instinct. I am incredibly angry at the boys who caused this! The cops aren't trained in animal conservation, so they can't really be blamed for doing what they are trained to do (shoot to save people,) but I want to know why the the animal staff already INSIDE the zoo didn't get there with tranquilizers first before the officers arrived and shot the tiger. Where were they? I think the zoo staff messed up by not getting there first, but mostly I blame the disrespectful kids for tormenting the tiger. I have been so sad about this, it really ruined my Christmas to think of that rare and beautiful animal being mistreated and abused by kids.

Answer 7

There was no alternative. The tiger was next to one of her victims who was still alive, then she went toward the police officers.
She had killed on young man already; the other two survived.
Of course it's not her fault, she's a tiger. She had attacked another staff person last year.
There is speculation somebody let her out. If true, this is reprehensible, and the perpetrator is guilty of murder as well as the death of an endangered tiger.
I await the findings of the investigation now.

Answer 8

People are cruel with animals and don't present any animals with rights unless they are endangered. When an animal kills a person for self defense, it must be killed. When a person kills an animal intentionally, no one cares and the person isn't even punished for it.

Going back to the subject, I think it might of been okay since the animal was charging for the police and it wasn't the 1st time this animal attack, but I believe there could have been different approaches such as tasering, instead of killing the animal.

Answer 9

Very Pissed! Siberian tigers are endangered. A wasted life of a beautiful tiger all because of some people who wanted to tease the tiger. Tigers are wild animals and they should not be pissed off. The fence having to be higher id BS because I have been going to the zoo since I was small and none of the tigers have escaped in all those years. Even when they make the fence higher somewhere someone will find that the fence has to be 30 ft.. I don't think the zoo should loose anything else and this should not discourage anyone from going to the zoo unless they go their to tease a large tiger!

Answer 10

Why didn't they shoot the tiger in its leg or something? Whatever happened to those rubber bullets?
It isn't the tigers fault that it attacked people. Apart from its natural instinct to kill,it's probably is not very happy being in an enclosure, which could have induced it to explode with more rage than usual.
I dont want to sound evil here but a life of a rare tiger is worth more than a life of a human. Lets face it, 6 billion humans, only 6000 tigers left in the wild, so whats the big deal with the tiger killing one human? mankind have done worst.

Answer 11

Many posters are commenting that there should have been safety protocols in place and that the tiger should have been tranquilized via dart gun. I have worked in several zoos, and let me assure you, all AZA-accredited zoos (such as San Francisco) have rigorous safety protocols in place. Their policies on shooting to kill can best be summed up as follows: "Make every attempt to avoid termination of the animal. Shoot to kill only if there is an imminent threat to human life that cannot be resolved in any other way."

Based on the media coverage I have seen, it seems that this situation was handled in accordance with this policy. It is important to understand that tranquilization takes several (usually 5-10) minutes to take affect. (Because the tranquilizer can only be administered subcutaneously via dart, it does not take affect as quickly as when given intraveneously, such as when administered by a doctor prior to surgery.) It can take even longer during an animal attack, as the adrenaline rush can override the tranquilizer. Had the tiger merely escaped from her enclosure, the course of action would have been to shoot her with a tranquilizer gun, follow her until she collapses, relocate her to her holding area, and monitor her through her recovery.

In this particular case, she had not only escaped from her enclosure, but she had fatally attacked one person, and was in the process of attacking two others. Had she been shot with a tranquilizer gun, she would have probably continued the attack for several more minutes, likely leading to at least one more human death. Tragically, shooting to kill was the only way to prevent further loss of human life.

This event is truly tragic, and my thoughts are with the victims, their families, and the staff of the San Francisco Zoo.

*******************

To "Trying..." -- It appears that zoo personnel did try to sedate the tiger....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_re_us/tiger_escapes
Also, aaccording to all media coverage I've seen/read, the tiger began attacking as soon as it escaped, so there was never that window of opportunity where she was loose but not an imminent threat.