It was only a 4 year old tiger. If a 4 year old boy takes gun and kills someone and acts in a manner similar to the tiger, will police kill the 4 year old boy too ?
The tiger had many more years in front of him and had hardly begun to realize his surroundings.
2007-12-27 12:36:34 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
Perhaps you should take the time to read what was going on when the tiger was killed.
It is not like the animal was just sitting there doing nothing, the tiger was ATTACKING when it was shot and killed. Had they tranqued the cat there would have been three dead people instead of only one.
The animal was uncontained and mauling someone when it was killed. Sadly there was no other choice.
2007-12-27 13:32:48 · answer #1 · answered by The Cheshire 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You know very little about animals. A four year old tiger is an adult. An individual tiger powerful enough to leap out of her enclosure and aggressive enough to kill and maim human beings would probably try to do so again in the future had she lived, and besides she was in the process of attacking when she was shot. I am so extremely grateful that niave people like you and others who feel more sorry for an aggressive animal than the people who were maimed and the family who are left to grieve this poor boy who was killed, are not the ones making decisions in these kind of situations or we would have a lot more human fatalities. The boy who was killed was seventeen years old. He had many more years in front of him too.
Yes the enclosure should have been better and it will be altered, but too late for the tiger and her victim. There was no other appropriate response by the police but shooting the tiger at the time of the attack.
2007-12-27 21:01:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Tiger was taunted (pinecones in the moat and a shoe and blood inside the fence) and acted in self-defense.
However this happened so fast that the police got to the scene before the zoo crew with a tranqulizer gun. They found the Tiger mauling the third victim (the three had been together) and when the Tiger approached the four policemen they had no choice but to shoot or be attacked.
Even the national director of Siberian Tigers agreed it was the correct coarse of action considering the danger.
2007-12-28 00:04:17 · answer #3 · answered by Richard V 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The tiger was in an enclosure that it should never have gotten out of.No one knows how long it was out and yes I'm sure the boy's screams of terror made the tiger even more angry.But fact of the matter is that it was mauling the guy it killed when the police shot it.What would you have done? Stood there and watched while she ate him?And how can you begin to possibly compare a 4 year old tiger to a 4 year old boy?At 4 years old the tiger was an adult.
2007-12-27 20:52:59 · answer #4 · answered by Janell T 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, do not know exactly the circumstances.
If it had ahold of another one of the guys, they may have had to kill the tiger to save the guys life.
If not, then they probably should have tried and tranquilize the tiger. But the tiger may have been in such a rage, and so unpredictable, they may have had no option.
But I do hate that they had to take the tigers life. I hope it was a last resort.
2007-12-27 23:43:33 · answer #5 · answered by madcat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rpk39d i believe the police at the time they saw the tiger had no choice but to kill it and quickly.
If Tahila the tiger was in an easy to contain space, had not already attacked and was casually acting like a large quite dog in a park then YES YOU COULD SAFELY TRANQUILISE IT.
I have helped tranquilise(as the muscle to lift & carry or to sit on/ hold lightly drugged), zoo born deer, antelope, chimpanzes, leopods, mountain goats etc.
On a relaxed animal hit at lest than 10metres away it can take 5minutes to make very sleepy but 10minutes to be safe to touch , move or examine / treat wounds. Even then there is always somebody with a high powered rifle standing by as vets, zoo keepers& drivers are more important to managment other staff & their families than any animal even priceless rare ones
NO tranquilise can knockout an animal in under 30secs without killing it. The dart is biger than a dart board dart, is filled with chemicals that would probably cause pain which would further enrage adrenalin filled cat making it more likely to kill several people in seconds.
A highpowered bullet kills, disables, immediately espesiully as you can fire lots at once from a distance compared to a 10-15metres(30-45ft) close range dart that needs many seconds to reload.
AGE OF tiger is erelaVENT AS it would be like the remaining 3 moved to a completly escape proff cage.
IF it was in a building and no one at risk it would of been cedated & relocated. Unfortunitly she was still attacking 3rd victom when police located her, distracted her (saving his life) & then shot her to protect themselves plus allow medical staff to safely treat & keep alive the 2 injured visitors.
This week in Australia a circus elephant lost her balance & tripped while stepping of a truck squashing & killing her handler. The elephant is still alive & will still entertain crowds. She is not concidered dangerous, there is no mob baying for blood. Even if she was consider potentialy dangerous as she was / is contained she would go to a zoo, not stay in circus.
2007-12-28 23:03:43 · answer #6 · answered by Phantom 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't agree with you. The tiger last year had attacked a zoo keeper so you can't say that. Besides it was a teenage boy he had more years a head of him as well. Other than that tigers age differently than humans also. But everyone has their own opinions.
2007-12-27 20:45:52 · answer #7 · answered by Amber W 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
why are people discussing the Tigers age .Its a Tigers Nature to be a killer this isn`t the Tigers fault the Zoo are to blame the Tiger should never have been able to escape They are to blame for the death of the person and also for the death of this animal who it was their responsibility to take care of and protect
.Out of 7 species of Tiger 3 are already extinct ,the rest are on the endangered species list and liable to become extinct in our lifetime
2007-12-28 09:20:29 · answer #8 · answered by keny 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree the Tiger should have been tranquilized and restrained, and then let out in the wild. These beautiful animals are not meant to live in captivity, and this and other incidents, such as the Seigfried and Roy incident clearly show that these animals cannot be tamed. Anyway, as sad as the whole thing is, and as sorry as I feel for the family of the victims, this is a wild animal, and it was just acting on it's natural instincts. I don't take my kids to Zoo's, I've visited them as a kid and felt sad at the animals in their enclosures.
2007-12-27 21:07:06 · answer #9 · answered by Violet 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
this is the worst part i think of the whole ordeal. yes, that poor boy was killed, but he must have done something to scare the tiger. i agree that it was completely barbaric for them to shoot the tiger. If they had to shoot it they should have shot it with a tranquilizer and put more security around it next time. You're right it was probably scared and it did what it thought was right for it to do. And that's that.
2007-12-27 21:26:58 · answer #10 · answered by *live love laugh* 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋