why didnt they just tarnqulized that tiger from the zoo they killed?

Question

him..when he just being what he is a wild animal he should be in the duh wild not caged up that mighta drove him more nuts and mad,

Answer 1

Although this situation is a rare occasion at zoos, I personally disagree with keeping any animal in captivity for entertainment value. I am completely supportive of wildlife programs and captive breeding to perpetuate an endangered species, and I support animal rescue organizations, but zoos that are for profit are not something I am in favor of. Although zoos have come a long way and enclosures are better and more spacious, and animals are stimulated as best as they can be, I still feel it's unnatural to keep a wild animal in captivity to entertain the masses.

If the tiger had been tranquilized instead of killed, the public backlash would have been HUGE. They want blood for blood, even though the animal was likely acting out of anxiety and stress

Answer 2

Tigers are not domesticated animals. They're wild animals period. It's unfortunate that someone had to loose their life because of a fatal error on the part of this Zoo. It's not the tiger's fault. After all, the tiger didn't exactly say "Could someone please take me into human custody so that I could live my life in cage and a simulated jungle type setting." ( o _ 0 )

P.S.

I think the reason why they killed this tiger is due to the fact that once a dangerous animal such as a tiger tastes human blood that's not a good thing. Could you imagine being the handler of a tiger that knows what human beings tastes like?
( o _ 0 )

Answer 3

Tranquilizers are not instantaneous, tasers are short-range and not guaranteed to work. Tigers are very large, very dangerous animals, and since this one was known to be a threat they took the course of action that would be most effective at removing the threat without putting any other people in danger.

With many species if we leave them solely in the wild they would soon be extinct. Maintaining populations in captivity keeps the species alive and provides breeding stock for attempts to breed and release the animals.

Answer 4

They probably didn't have tranquilizer guns and I don't know that tazers have the same effect on an animal as a human. They were responding to an emergency and did what they had to do. It sounds to me like the tiger was let out by someone but as of the last thing I heard that had not been determined.

Answer 5

Most often the drug for tranquilizing are controlled and must be locked up, in a safe, in which only certain people have access to. It would have taken quite a while to obtain the drugs and much more damage may have occurred. Even to the animal.

Yes he is an undomesticated animal and living like that can take a heavy toll. It is sad, but people PAY to see them and that generates the interest in keeping them locked up and on display.

Answer 6

Once a captive animal gets a taste for live kills they can not go back to being satisfied with slabs of meat. Besides, it's not as easy as you may think to tranquilize an animal, considering the weight and health, etc. of the individual animal.

Answer 7

The tranquilizer takes 5-10 minutes to work.
When police spotted the tiger, it was in the process of savaging one of its victims; when the police shouted, hoping to distract it, it turned to attack them.
There was no time for the tranquilizer.
Nobody blames the tiger for acting like a tiger.
If tigers aren't kept in zoos, they may become extinct entirely.

Answer 8

Last time I checked, tranquilizer guns loaded with darts filled with barbiturates are not a standard issue carry for patrol officers.

Of course if they tazed the tiger, there would've been a public outcry, and the tiger would've taken them to court....

Answer 9

B/c that's the same TIGER that attacked that chick last yr. 2's a charm....

Answer 10

it is so sad
the same tiger attacked some one before
i for one do not like zoos at all and this is why