Replies

Even with the info in the article, it seems like the actual dimensions of the wall/moat are still in dispute. The point I was trying to make to you, okie, on yesterday's thread was that even with legislated standards and minimum requirements for the enclosure, such standards normally account for "reasonable" safety measures, and can not take into account unreasonable behavior. At the extreme, one could argue that even a steel shackle around the tiger's leg chaining it to a bolt set in concrete was inadequate because somebody *might* take a jack hammer to the concrete or an acetylene torch to the chain. I remember many years ago, an inner city youth somehow swiped a Gaboon Viper from the D.C. zoo, snuck it out of the park in a trash bag slung over his shoulder, and made it all the way back to his ghetto on a bus before it ultimately bit though the bag and ended up killing him. Perhaps closing the zoo (and all other zoos) is the only certain way to prevent these things altogether. Like any other aspect of freedom there are risks...and some people insist on taking unreasonable risks.

I do think it curious, as pointed out by ByDesign, and as I alluded to in one of my responses yesterday, that no tigers have previously escaped from this enclosure (although it's possible they have, but reports have been quashed by zoo authorities). It seems likely to me that something was different about the situation and circumstances on Christmas that allowed the situation to rapidly devolve into the nightmare it became.

Could the concrete in the tiger's paws be an indicator that the concrete was eroding or otherwise degraded? For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in Clint Eastwood's Escape From Alcatraz where they discover how the salt air of San Francisco bay had broken down the mortar in their cells...could something similar have taken place at the zoo?

I'm still not convinced that the victims were without fault and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Certainly it looks like the zoo will be paying up

From:

http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/2224820/

The director of the zoo where a teenager was killed by an escaped tiger acknowledged Thursday that the wall around the animal's pen was just 12 1/2 feet high - well below the height recommended by the accrediting agency for the nation's zoos.

San Francisco Zoo Director Manuel A. Mollinedo also admitted that it is becoming increasingly clear the 300-pound Siberian tiger leaped or climbed out of its open-air enclosure, perhaps by grabbing onto a ledge.

"She had to have jumped," he said. "How she was able to jump that high is amazing to me." Mollinedo said investigators have ruled out the theory the tiger escaped through a door behind the exhibit.

According to the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, the walls around a tiger exhibit should be at least 16.4 feet high. But Mollinedo said the nearly 70-year-old wall was 12 feet, 5 inches, with what he described as a "moat" 33 feet across.

See post #111, which seems to end the dispute about the wall's heighth.

And understand that I agree with you a about "reasonable safety measures" cannot take into account "unreasonable behavior" on the part of the attending or viewing humans.

But they must take into account "unreasonable behavior" on the part of the animal.

There is a Belmont link on one of these threads, wherein the chief guy at the AZA (who set the standards) states that an adult tiger, stretched out, can measure 12' toe-to-toe. And that said tiger is then capable of elevating his waist 5-to-8'.

For such an animal, with powerful claws, a 12'5" containment wall would be a high hurdle -- but one they could readily clear with some effort.

Just because the tiger had never escaped before is no proof that she couldn't escape...if she tried.

Zoo animals are not permanent. They move around from zoo-to-zoo, for various reasons (breeding, inventory, enclosure renovation, etc.). All of the Siberian tigers in the U.S. today, like Tatiana, were bred at the Cincinnati Zoo, e.g.

Consequently, it may not have previously occurred to her to try to scale the 12' wall -- because she had initially encountered 16' enclosures and found them unsurmountable. So far as we know, to a cat, a wall is a wall.

I'd agree something caused her to go up the wall -- and we have no idea what that was. But it is apparent the SF Zoo knew they had a catastrophe waiting to happen...and did nothing about it.

“I do think it curious, as pointed out by ByDesign, and as I alluded to in one of my responses yesterday, that no tigers have previously escaped from this enclosure (although it’s possible they have, but reports have been quashed by zoo authorities). It seems likely to me that something was different about the situation and circumstances on Christmas that allowed the situation to rapidly devolve into the nightmare it became.

Could the concrete in the tiger’s paws be an indicator that the concrete was eroding or otherwise degraded? For some reason I’m reminded of the scene in Clint Eastwood’s Escape From Alcatraz where they discover how the salt air of San Francisco bay had broken down the mortar in their cells...could something similar have taken place at the zoo?”

A VERY good point. Maybe it was the first time the tiger tried the wall, and it crumbled enough to give her purchase. But that still leads to why the tiger tried, and from my experiences, the tigers simply do not try. Most of the time they ignore what’s happening at the railing...it’s reasonable to think that the kids provided the means for the zoo to discover a flaw with the concrete,with tragic results.

I also keep in mind, tigers are ferociously territorial, and will fight to the death any other tiger or predator that enters it’s territory. THAT could be the trigger to the tiger trying the wall, or using a limb as a ladder along with teh concrete - they said concrete residue was found in the *back* paws, not the front, which,if accurate, could be telling.

I think the autopsy of the boys,a nd a thorough investigation of the wounds of the other two, along with the body of the tiger, and a close inspection of the grotto for foreign debris...and possibly interviewing friends, or looking at their computers and phones for evidence of trying other “stunts”, could go a long way. My gut feeling is the kids brough their own doom upon them, but I’m trying to be fair and allow that the zoo could be partially at fault as well, or unaware of the danger because they’d never had this happen. You’d think theyd’ have had idiots lean into the enclosure, or try to climb in, before - or witnessed behavior from the tiger in question that she was attempting to scale the wall.

“I’m still not convinced that the victims were without fault and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

I’m with you 1000%. I think the only reason that tiger went over the wall, and hunched over it’s next kill before being shot, was because it had a reason to: anger.

If the zoo takes some blame, so be it, if they deserve it - and steps taken immediately to keep it from happening again. But I don’t want to martyr these kids if they caused it to happen, especially if they were doing it for 30 seconds of video.

Scenario:

Xmas day.

New video camera, or cell phone, or gadget with camera/video.

YouTube clips are the new coolest thing, getting clips with millions of hits. Go browse YouTube, you’ll see plenty of video of kids breaking the law and posting it. Dangling in a tiger pit could make a kid famous for a bit, no doubt. It’s all about one-upmanship with that crowd.

“Hey, lets go to the zoo, and screw around, and tape it!”

I could see that being the reason, very, very easily.

If it had been these three kids playing chicken with a subway train, or on a freeway, would as much attention be paid to the safety equipment of the train, or how “safe” freeways are for kids to play chicken?

Agh. Enough. I spoke my piece, now I’ll wait for any more info to be released. My love of those tigers, and the zoo, is conflicting with all the other issues. It’s too wierd a story right now.