Do you think it was right that the tiger which escaped from the zoo should have been shot?

Question

Yes it clearly posed risk to human life but are human lives more valuable than that of the tiger and why not just tranquilize it? Also it was human error which led to the tiger escaping as the enclosure walls were too low and it simply followed its natural instincts.

Answer 1

I think every effort should have been made to capture or tranquilize it. It was clearly acting on instinct out of stress, irritation, or fear. It has disgusted me to hear so many people suggest that it deserves to be shot dead, as though we can ascribe normative judgments to the behavior of a wild animal. Siberian tigers are among the most endangered species in the world, with only 400 remaining in the wild. They are bred in captivity in order to prevent utter extinction, so it's sad that we cannot better protect them from stupid people like the boys who taunted this particular tiger.

Humans made many mistakes on this front. It was human error that the enclosure was not up to standards, and it was human "error" that the boys were dumb enough cross the fence and taunt the poor animal. Why should the tiger be killed for acting exactly as tigers do, especially since it was provoked? I know that towards the end, the tiger was starting towards the officers (and these particular officers didn't have tranquilizer guns), but everyone should have been equipped with tranquilizers. This entire situation is extremely sad and ridiculous.

Answer 2

When an animal like a large cat predator becomes a people killer there is only one option. You can not put the public at risk. Tigers kill, this notion of having to kill to survive is now foreign to most humans. People incorrectly attribute behavior to an animal that is just plain wrong. Wild animals have the potential to be deadly. That is what all people should remember. Not some animated character from a Disney movie.

You know in America, the domestic dog causes more harm and deaths than ANY animal. When a dog attacks a person it is killed. As far as I am concerned people should be more worried about dogs than any animal that might get out of a zoo and become a danger.

Answer 3

Yes humans were wrong to make an enclosure that was not escape-proof. And humans may be ethically wrong for putting animals in zoos in the first place...depends on your point of view and circumstances.

BUT, yeah, the tiger definitely should have been shot. It attacked what, 3 people? You got a 400 pound animal with 3 inch claws and fangs looking for more people to attack, so yeah, damn right it should be shot, even it it was human error that led to the circumstances.

Answer 4

Yes if the animal was immediatly endangering a life however if a warning shot could have been discharged to scare the animal off then that should have been tried then there may have been time to deploy a tranquilizer dart.

[1] The animal is not ment to live in a cage
[2] The animals owner should now be charged with the abuse and neglect of the animal both abuse and neglect lead to the animals death.
[3] Zoo authority should also be made to answer questions about the hight of walls etc that they certified as being suitable

Answer 5

People please, as previously stated the tiger was in the process of attacking when the police arrived. I also doubt the police had tranquilizers and if the did as previously stated they take minutes to work. Also can you imagin sitting there while someone is torn apart.

"Yeah that's right kid fight her off, upper cut upper cut! Oh bad luck."

I just can't see anyone doing that, it is the job of the police to protect people and unfortunatly the tiger is their last priority.

In addition, they didn't know the circumstances when they arrived, they had no clue how or why the tiger was attacking nor would it really have made a difference if they had known.

Hope this helps,

Answer 6

I'm at a loss to think why people should object in principle to an animal such as a tiger being kept in a zoo (subject to the commonly understood provisions that the zoo is operated to regular high standards of animal care).

This is an unusual case (which is why it is making the news), but a tiger in a zoo is far safer than a tiger at risk from poachers. In an ideal world, tigers would live in their natural environment untroubled by man, but when that environment is being subjected to encroachment and destruction by human activity, a zoo performs a highly useful and preservationist function.

Answer 7

that's not significant if the tiger killed 0 or 1000 human beings. What concerns is not any count number if that's approximately to harm somebody and there are actually not the different recommendations to maintain human beings risk-free. even although there have been tranquilizer weapons available, there wasn't sufficient time to watch for it jointly as the tiger grew to become into threatening to attack some greater human beings. as quickly as the risk is long previous, like it grew to become into recaptured, there should not be any punishment of the animal. Its enclosure ought to have been made greater risk-free and that's what desires to be regarded at now. I left yet another answer in zoology that a keeper had seen a tiger leap extreme sufficient to flee from this enclosure over 25 years in the past as quickly as I labored on the SF Zoo. i do no longer think of that something grew to become into achieved to advance the wall height then, yet while sufficient water grew to become into interior the moat, then that probably isn't the subject. regrettably the moats at SF Zoo in lots of situations have been saved dry or with small rain puddles in them as quickly as I used to paintings there interior the 1970's. i grew to become into in elementary terms an elephant prepare motive force, by means of ways, which meant that I drove a propane powered fiberglass elephant pulling some trailers crammed with human beings during the zoo and talked on a microphone.

Answer 8

Tranquilize it? Yes. While the 300 pound tiger is racing towards them, they'll sit down, get out their erector set, and fashion themselves a tranquilizer gun, as well as a dart with barbiturates that they happen to have in their back pocket. Not to mention, it isn't like the movies. Tranquilizers take a few minutes to fully take effect.

But hey, it's better not to fight, right? So, maybe you'll be able to defeat the tiger with your wits and cunning non-lethal decision making skills MacGyver.


Digital G: You're telling me, if a 300 pound tiger is charging at you, and you have a gun in your hand, you're going to touch one off towards the sky to, hmmm..maybe see if he'll stop running at you?. By the time you realize that the tiger didn't give a s***, you'd be a puddle.

Answer 9

It had a history of attacking people. It attacked a zookeeper a year ago, and then three more this week.

It is such a shame the tiger had to be killed, but they couldn't let it attack more people. And even if they let it live, what kind of enclosure do you think they would have to keep it in to prevent further attacks?

Answer 10

Tranquilizers take a few minutes to work, so the only option was to shoot it unfortunately. I agree, in an ideal world these animals should be left to roam in their natural state in the wild, but as man is busy destroying a lot of it, then unless we want them to become extinct, we do have to take measures such as using zoos, to protect them.
The short answer to your question, unfortunately, has to be yes in this case.