If a zoo animal attacks should it be put down?

Question

If an animal in a zoo accidently kills a person it is always put down? Is this really fair and should be done everytime? The animal does not know any better and often things like this are the zoo's fault and the animal is just acting on intinsct. When we try to rebuild endangered animals through captivity and then kill one due to an attack it seems unwise.

Answer 1

All AZA-accredited zoos have rigorous safety protocols in place, and strict policies governing when an animal may be destroyed.

Animals are rarely put down retroactively following an attack. Responsible zoo personnel recognize the inherent risk in keeping wild animals, and the flawed reasoning behind killing a wild animal for behaving a like wild animal.

The exception is when there is an *imminent* threat to human life that cannot be resolved in any other way. That is what we are seeing with the tragedy in San Francisco. That tiger was in the process of killing her victims, and tragically, there was no other way to stop her than to use lethal force.

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

ADDITION: THIS IS A RESPONSE I POSTED IN ANOTHER FORUM....

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.

Answer 2

G.G has it on the mark- though in my state, if a dangerous wild animal (bear, wolves, tigers, buffalo, etc) gets loose, they are shot with intent to kill- too dangerous and tranqulizers take too long to work, especially if it is mauling a human as you are waiting for the tranq's to work.


Any "non dangerous" animal-zebras, ungulates, camels, etc are usually just tranq'ed because they are usually not an immediate threat to humans.


The tiger was acting out it's nature, and was within the tiger's bounds of what to do, but human safety was involved- what if the tiger got out of the zoo and ran loose in the city? How many deaths would you consider "justifiable"?

Human safety is the main concern in all zoos, and the zoo acted accordingly.

Answer 3

I dont think it should bc its a wild animal and its the zoos fault if the animal gets out. I agree that the animal is just actingon instinct. Its probably dying for some action after being locked up lol

Answer 4

The zoo that had the tiger killings had a previous incident with a lion. The lion got a hold of the keepers arm during feeding time and mauled her. The lion wasn't put down. The zoo was fined and ordered to put in better safety measures.

I think the lion should have been put down. Once a wild carnivore gets the taste of blood it considers that type of animal (humans included) to be a form of food. They'll look for an opportunity to "get a meal" after that.

Answer 5

If your speaking about the incident at the San Francisco Zoo then yes....The Tiger was mauling a man at the time the police got there, the tiger then started toward the police so they shot it. It sucks.... but I give more value to Human life than any animal.

Answer 6

that is why animal activists want to close the zoos they are in them with no freedom and unhappy and get exposed to unknown diseases,or like in China waiting for some jerks to come along and steal or poach them.They say that the natural habitat zoos are more humane and work best.

Answer 7

I completely agree with you. It is not the tiger's fault that he was forced into an unknown and scary environment. I think the cops acted too hastily in killing the tiger. Zoo officials could have sedated it, thereby saving its life. It's so tragic that both the tiger and visitor were both killed.

Answer 8

No they should be recaptured. Apparently those that could have recaptured the tiger were not readily available and the cat posed an immediate danger to the police, so she was shot.

Answer 9

That is a tough question. Can you blame a wild animal that has been imprisoned against it's will for acting naturally?

Answer 10

I really agree with you .. They don't want to be there just like we don't want to be in jail.. That's the responsibility we take when do capture wild animals look at that Steve guy