Posted on 12/27/2007 2:35:00 PM PST by Shermy
The wall of a moat that surrounds the enclosure from which a 350-pound tiger escaped on Christmas Day was actually far shorter than San Francisco Zoo officials thought and what national standards recommend, authorities said today.
Zoo officials have gone back and forth on the grotto's measurements since Tuesday's attack, which killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. and seriously injured his friends. Relatives and public records identify the friends as brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23.
Earlier this week, zoo officials said the moat's wall was at least 20 feet tall. Today they said it was little over 12 feet. Officials have given at least five different measurements for the enclosure, which is surrounded by a moat, two walls on either side of the moat, a small patch of grass and then another waist-high fence. Experts say that the depth of the moat and height of the walls could have a large impact on the animal's ability to escape the enclosure...
..Zoo officials and police authorities today are backing off earlier statements to The Chronicle that the victims may have dangled a limb over the animal's enclosure, helping the 350-pound cat escape. But they would not rule it out.
At a news conference this morning at the zoo, officials said there was no shoe found in the enclosure. On Wednesday, unnamed sources had said that authorities found a shoe and blood on the grass inside the enclosure; today, Police Chief Heather Fong said there was no shoe found in the grotto. A shoe was discovered near where the third victim was attacked, she said; and a shoeprint was also found on the railing of the waist-high fence surrounding the grotto.
...An examination of the tiger's body also revealed a significant amount of concrete in its back paws..
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
fyi - a guy on Nancy Grace just said the guy killed wasn’t the first one attacked - one of the survivors was taunting her and was actually attacked first. The other 2 ran away at first, and then the one killed had run back to help his friend and was then killed.
I don't mean to tar all zoos. But a deficient enclosure that was not up to AZA standards clearly places the ultimate responsibility in one set of hands -- the SF zoo management.
They had to know the wall's height was deficient. That is their profession, their business! So, they were either ignorant or lackadaisical.
Yes, the kids might have provoked the incident. But two lives were lost and two were injured because, ultimately. the zoo was negligent. Criminally so.
The 16'4" standard applies to all tigers except, perhaps, Sumatran tigers (which are quite small and usually kept in roofed cages). And there's no way it wouldn't apply to a Siberian.
The fact that the tiger hadn't tried to scale the wall before (that we know of) is irrelevant. See #118.
I drove by our zoo today and there were workers on the “roof” near the cats. They seemed to be “looking”
I lived outside of Salisbury and have frequented that zoo many times...did you know it is affiliated with the Belize Zoo? I have been to that one as well.
Zoos know that jerks are going to throw stuff at the chimps, whistle at the tigers, etc. The SF zoo also knew that it had a tiger that attacked a zoo keeper last year with NO provocation (she was feeding it and dropped something) and the tiger was therefore dangerous and special care should have been taken. And now it looks like the zoo didn’t even meet the minimum standards...not good.
Normally, I think people suing the city (for slipping when they get off a bus, for example) are gold-diggers with no justification. But I lived in SF for years and have family out there, and I can tell you, carelessness is practically a hallmark of SF, in every respect, and this, to me, looks like San Francisco carelessness.
“I don’t mean to tar all zoos. But a deficient enclosure that was not up to AZA standards clearly places the ultimate responsibility in one set of hands — the SF zoo management.
They had to know the wall’s height was deficient. That is their profession, their business! So, they were either ignorant or lackadaisical.
Yes, the kids might have provoked the incident. But two lives were lost and two were injured because, ultimately. the zoo was negligent. Criminally so.
The 16’4” standard applies to all tigers except, perhaps, Sumatran tigers (which are quite small and usually kept in roofed cages). And there’s no way it wouldn’t apply to a Siberian.
The fact that the tiger hadn’t tried to scale the wall before (that we know of) is irrelevant. See #118.”
I accept what you’re saying, it’s just hard to believe, after personally interacting with the staff there. Perhaps it was something the keepers knew was an issue, and the management ignored it, as the fix was too expensive, or the money was tied up for the future renovations, and because it had never happened before, it should be okay to wait. I’m trying to be fair, and accepting that what you’re saying could very well be true.
I’ve decided it’s best to wait and see what unfolds.
There was undoubtedly human action (or inaction) responsible for the tiger's escape and subsequent mayhem. It has yet to be determined if that human element was:
1. Inadequate design of the enclosure from the ground up.
2. Inadequate/faulty construction of an acceptable design.
3. Negligence/failure to observe in place safety procedures on the part of zoo employees.
4. Deliberate failure to observe in place safety procedures on the part of zoo employees.
5. Accidental or deliberate breech of zoo security measures by patrons.
Obviously the zoo pays out big time if it's of choices #1-4. Because the exhibit has been around a while, I think problems in either #1 or #2 would have arisen sooner, so while they certainly can't be ruled out, I'm inclined to think they're less likely than #3-5. Likewise my scenario #4 is kind of bone chilling and wild to think of, but if PETA releases mink and lab rats, why not big cats? While it's possible, I just don't consider it as likely as either #3 or #5, and if it's #5, things aren't going to be as painful for the zoo either in terms of civil settlement or the court of public opinion.
The youtube/jackass angle is certainly credible, but just as I don't want to make a martyr of kids who might have provoked this, I don't want to make miscreants out of kids who might have been entirely innocent.
I'm content to sit back for now and let the chips fall where they may, and hopefully a thorough and objective investigation will allow for just that. I think it's safe to assume the next of kin will be cashing in on this; whether or not it's justified remains to be seen, although I have to admit things don't look that great for the zoo at this point. As much as I'm generally not a fan of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in public venues, they may have spared the zoo considerable liability in this incident...perhaps the cell phones or other recording devices turned up may still do just that.
I’m also waiting. I think that 12’ thing has to mean something other than the viewing area wall. That just seems absurdly short. Even the back walls, which seem shorter, have some wire fencing.
How would you feel if you learned the kids planned the whole thing a couple of days in advance? I mean, what if the idea of going to this zoo after it closed and dangling your feet above the tiger was a stunt or dare that quite a few kids in the San Francisco/San Jose area were aware of, and these three guys discussed it on the phone two or three days earlier and decided to go on Christmas day and do it? Would you still award them millions?
Even if the zoo turns out to be completely at no fault IMO it won’t make a difference. You may get sympathetic jurors who agree the young men, excuse me boys now, should not have climbed the fence but boys will be boys and the city has a lot of money and, poor things look at them. They won’t do that again and besides the zoo should have known that kids get curious and if they had only built a top or........
Yep. Minority chilwin + a Than Franthithco jury = ka-ching!
Most dangerous word in a civil case: “Shoulda”.
IT WAS A JOKE ABOUT "LITTLE WILLY".
This was an instance of kharmic dissonance ~
Well, in the wild tigers (and other large cats, and little cats) track, stalk and jump at game animals many times without the luck of a kill.
After a dozen or two times, they may make a kill.
These pampered pussies of the plains get little opportunity to track, stalk and jump.
One day this cat decided to jump out of the pit (which she knew she could do from the first day she was placed in it) and get in a little practice.
Nothing more than that. No rage. No emotion. No one offended by "taunting by evil little boys" stuff either.
Just a tiger making her rounds!
They return to their cages for the free meals.
Amazingly in a city with a current high level consumption of LSD, cocaine and other hallucinogenic drugs this has never caused a stir ~
Seems to me like even if the guy was straddling the visitor’s wall and dangling his whole leg over to tease the tiger it would still have been quite a feat for it to jump out of the enclosure. Even if it jumped up and grabbed his foot or leg surely the tiger weighed more than he did and they would both fall back into the pen. I guess zoos should be like some other places and just have cameras pointed everywhere. Every single inch of the zoo should be on video because of liability for guests, employees, and critters.
Cameras a considerably cheaper than lawsuits.
If a zookeeper is careless enough to put their hands within grabbing distance of a tiger at meal time, the zoo probably isn't going to put that tiger down since its behavior isn't out of the norm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.