2007-12-27 12:54:15 · 25 answers · asked by *rasberryswirlgirl* 2 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
Let me clarify my point Dont you think the jungle needs to be far away from the city where untrained people are that cant defend themselves? Comeon the Zoo needs to close until they can really protect the people! I am all for human life! But really a tiger doesnt belong near any ordinary people!! The tiger doesnt ride the bus with you to the zoo we make the tiger be in a cage here which isnt the right environment for the tiger!!
2007-12-27 18:03:23 · update #1
I just think We need to be better prepared for this likely situation and try to just respect the animal life too. All the tiger knows is to kill!! So who is at fault?Yes it is logical to kill the animal if they are attacking but but its our own fault for letting the animal out of their own land!! Why should we kill an animal two wrongs dont make a right. Now what do you all have to say??
2007-12-27 18:14:43 · update #2
We are in the twenty 1st century why cant we have a better more efficient way to sedate rather than kill with the same effectiveness to stop immediately If we can send a man to the moon why cant we have a better more powerful tranquilizer? Anyone in agreeance?
2007-12-27 18:26:17 · update #3
I see your sympathy is with the tiger, not the family of the dead man or the 2 injured people and their families.
This question doesn't belong in hunting.
2007-12-27 13:02:36 · answer #1 · answered by boker_magnum 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋
gee, let me think, they know that a tiger is loose, they know that victims are possibly still alive or that other people may be killed at any moment, they rush in to save lives only to have the tiger attack a man in front of them and then come at them. Do I want them to wait for a sedative if I'm either a victim, an about to be victim, or one of the cops? hell no, shoot the tiger and save lives. Yes I'm sorry for the tiger, but it is the Zoo's fault. This is the second time that same tiger has attacked a person, why is not important, just the fact that it was able too is the point. Obviously the zoo is at fault for not provising a safe enclosure for the tiger, or the public.
2007-12-28 13:42:36 · answer #2 · answered by randy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The main point here is that it did not have to happen to the people or the Tiger.* It was preventable, but the zoo did nothing to prevent it from happening.* When it attacked a year earlier, that tiger should have been relocated or safety measures should have been taken to make absolutely certain that what did happen, should never have happened, for the safety of the people and the Tiger.* Negligence on the part of the Zoo is responsible for this happening in the first place.*
2007-12-28 20:33:53 · answer #3 · answered by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. It was proper to protect human life by ending the tiger's. If you prefer a live tiger to dead humans then you need to talk with some serious professional help. The real problem is steps weren't taken earlier at the attacking of the keeper.
2. Should the tiger have been in captivity if the form of captivity was lacking? Everything in life is a risk. You take a bigger risk when you get out of bed in the morning. From stepping into the shower to driving your car to the corner coffee shop.
3. This has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with someone with no clue as to the facts of life and reality. All this has done is more deeply entrench in the brain the fact that some people need to experience reality before they are allowed out into public.
2007-12-29 14:06:50 · answer #4 · answered by LostInSpaces 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course you're right. The next time it happens, just volunteer to hold the tiger back from its next victim while the rest of us go look for a tranquilizer gun.
I know you're taking a lot of hits over your question. But even if a tranquilizer gun was used, a non-lethal dose probably wouldn't have brought it down before it could reach another victim.
Look at it this way, the officers shot it at "handgun" range, with probably .40 calibre S&W rounds, or 9mm rounds. A tiger can run at about 50 mph, which means he probably could have covered the distance separating him from the police officers in about three seconds.
The tiger's adrenalin was obviously up, which means bring it down can be even tougher.
Where did the officers have an option other than to use their side arms?
2007-12-27 22:03:24 · answer #5 · answered by 6.02x10e23 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Well..........Why don't you go ahead and make that super duper tranquilizer then? Go on, show us how it's done. Honestly. If it weren't for zoos, that tiger probably never would have existed. It's not likely someone found it in the wild and transported it to the zoo, it was more than likely bred at, or for, that particular zoo. You want us to release all of the animals at the zoo? 99% would not survive in the wild, and the rest would become nuisances and have to be put down any way. Any more bright ideas? Why is this in the hunting section in the first place?
2007-12-28 04:14:05 · answer #6 · answered by Stocky 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they should have called a time out in the tiger mauling so people could run away and get the dart guns. I'm sure the tiger would have seen the time out called and stopped biting people until the dart man got back. That's how it works in football, and after all, tiger attacks are just another sport, right?
2007-12-28 22:16:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right. The tiger had just mauled two people that they knew of and looked like it was about to attack again. That isn't the time to tranquilize, even if they'd had a tranquilizer gun handy, unless there were a couple of guys with large-bore rifles right there for back-up, and that certainly wasn't the case.
It's fine to sit safe at home and talk about the dwindling number of tigers, but the cat wasn't worth any more lives lost. My hat's off to the cops who went in knowing they were undergunned for the situation.
2007-12-27 21:42:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The tiger attacked three humans and killed one.
If you have a problem understanding why it was right and prudent for the police officers to shoot and kill that tiger on the spot, then perhaps you need to see a professional therapist, or better, see a clergy member and have a discussion about understanding the differences beetween right and wrong.
2007-12-27 21:01:19 · answer #9 · answered by DJ 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
''Why should we kill an animal two wrongs dont make a right. Now what do you all have to say??"
I say your logic is flawed. There was nothing wrong with shooting the tiger. It had just killed one, was in the process of killing two more, and had turned its attention toward the police officers. Shooting it was absolutely the RIGHT thing to do.
2007-12-28 08:18:33 · answer #10 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yeah right, I would have shot it over and over and prayed.
Tigers are the most fierce of all the big cats. Not scared of anything. If you shot one with a sedative it would most likely rip you a new one before it went down.
Here is what happened to some guys trying to sedate a Bengal tigress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jojNzvtP6LY
2007-12-27 21:59:20 · answer #11 · answered by evo741hpr3 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋