They could've tranquilised it but there was no reason to kill it.
It just killed 1 man, there are more than 6 billion people in this world....
There are less than 1000 Tiger in the World
2007-12-27 03:24:46 · 30 answers · asked by Kokujo- Evil Pervert & Genius! 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Once a wild animal gets the taste of human blood it is never the same. He killed a person and maimed two others. They also thought they had fixed the problem with regard to its escaping, and they hadn't. Best to put the animal down.
2007-12-27 03:30:44 · answer #1 · answered by goinupru 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I am a big animal lover but my view is this, since we were not there, we did not know the circumstances, I feel they did what they had to do. Perhaps they didn't have time to get a tranquilizer gun, in order to prevent the tiger from killing the other two people as well, perhaps the zoo staff had to react quickly with whatever weapon they had on hand. By no means do I feel any of the zoo staff would have killed the tiger if it was not neccessary to do so.
If a tiger was ripping me apart and all the staff had on hand on short notice was a gun, then by all means shoot to kill. Saying it just killed one man... what if that one man were your dad, your son, your husband, your boyfriend and if the tiger was then turning on another family member, and all the zoo could grab quickly was a gun...???
2007-12-27 12:08:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay:
You're a police officer. You get a call that there's a tiger running loose in a zoo that has already mauled at least one person (who turns out to be dead when you get there) and is now running loose in the zoo. Do you stop to try to track someone down who has a tranquilizer or do you hope you can stop the tiger from mauling/killing anyone else as quickly as possible?
I hold cats as sacred animals, but the tiger was in the process of mauling a man when the officers found him. I'd have done the same thing if a full-grown tiger turned towards me when I tried to distract it from the person it was attacking.
)O(
2007-12-27 11:43:05 · answer #3 · answered by wyvern1313 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It was the police who killed it and they don't carry tranquilizers. They responded to the scene to find a tiger who had killed one man and was mauling another. When they yelled at the tiger, she turned on them and they did what they unfortunately had to do to save the victim's life as well as their own. It's a shame that the tigress was killed, but I can't blame the officers in that case. If you have a thousand pound, blood-thirsty cat staring you down like her next meal, I doubt you'd stop to think of the fact that she's an endangered species.
It's a sad case all the way around and I'll be interested to see if I'm right and this wasn't just a case of a tiger making some miraculous escape over a 20-foot moat and an 18-foot wall.
2007-12-27 11:33:08 · answer #4 · answered by OhKatie! 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because it had already killed a keeper about a year previously and obviously had a taste for blood. It cannot have been hungry. Also you could not expect a police man to have the prescence of mind when faced with an attacking tiger to think, well, hang on a minute, lets get a tranquilizer, it will only take a few minutes to work, and meanwhile it can get on with killing someone else! A policeman is not trained in tiger behaviour!
Grow up, I love animals, but sometimes you cannot afford to be sentimental over something so dangerous!
2007-12-27 11:32:25 · answer #5 · answered by zakiit 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
In this case, I agree with killing the animal. What I don't agree with is when a jogger/hiker gets mauled by a mountain lion or bear...and people feel like that have to GO OUT and hunt down the animal and kill it. The chances of finding the same animal is pretty slim...and the jogger/hiker was encroaching on their "space" to begin with.
But in the case of the zoo, the tiger is roaming among people..not in it's own habitat. There is no other choice but to kill it at that point.
2007-12-27 11:32:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I was upset about that as well. They may not have been properly equipped to deal with the situation quickly. It was actually mauling a person when the police got there. I am sure the guy is happy they got it off of him but it is a shame they had to kill it. Especially because it is endangered.
But you can't blame the tiger, I would be upset as well if I lived in a cage my whole life.
2007-12-27 11:39:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Can you imagine going to the zoo with friends on Christmas day to have a little fun--and winding up getting mauled to death by a Siberian tiger? If I believed in luck, I'd say this guy's was very bad.
2007-12-27 11:40:34 · answer #8 · answered by David S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Once an animal like a tiger or a lion tastes human blood they will always crave it. They become what is known as manhunters. No human would have ever been safe around this tiger again. Not its handler, the person that feeds it, or a vet. Eventually it would have killed again for the taste of human blood.
2007-12-27 11:34:59 · answer #9 · answered by mattface 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't know. It really is the zoo's fault for slacking and allowing the tiger to escape. If they really wanted to find out how this happened they should have kept the animal for research. And also this same tiger attacked a zookeeper last year. Why was this problem not fixed then?
2007-12-27 11:30:46 · answer #10 · answered by #6 Due in Sep :) 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Good Point. I realize it killed a person, but did anyone else happen to notice that they strongly believe the group was taunting the animal? They said there was no way it jumped that high to get out. The father of the dead guy said his son would never tease an animal. What teenager hasn't done something stupid, only to see they got in deeper than they expected( myself included back in the day).
2007-12-27 11:30:48 · answer #11 · answered by Lisa T (Stop BSL) 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋