Replies

Not to argue the issue regarding inadequacy, but the fact that the tiger got out has no bearing on whether the enclosure was substandard or not.

I'm not sure I follow you. The guidelines are there for the purpose of designing safe pens that the animal cannot escape from. You can conceivably construct a safe pen with lower walls than the recommended height, which is why it's a guideline rather than a rule, but if the animal can escape then it's not standard. The SF zoo had built a moat, which probably would have made the pen okay, if it were filled, but it was not. Moats aren't built to be dry holes.

The San Francisco Zoo’s tiger ‘grotto’ was built in the 1940’s. This was at a time when most zoos were keeping their big cats in barred cages. This exhibit was nearly two decades ahead of its time when it was built, and was undoubtedly quite a sensation. One of the unique features of this exhibit was the use of a ‘dry moat’– a feature that eliminated the need for any kind of a visible barrier between the animals and the general public. The moat is 33 feet across– farther then even the most athletic tiger could ever jump. The tigers could go down into the moat– probably planned as a safety feature if one did try to jump– and get back out again via a set of ‘tiger stairs’. The front wall of the moat, the wall everyone is concerned about, is 12.5 feet high.

Conventional wisdom says that a lion can jump 12 feet straight up. Seeing that lions and tigers are nearly identical internally, it follows that a tiger can do this as well. Knowing this, the height of the wall was set just a little higher than the big cats could jump. And, this wall worked as the designers intended for nearly 70 years. Few zoo exhibits anywhere have been in existence for 70 years, so this is a pretty good safety record. Also consider this wall has been inspected over and over, and approved by certifying agencies for many years.

http://www.bloggernews.net/112818

My point is that adequacy is judged by the results, whereas being substandard is judged according to comparison to a given standard or guideline. If the guideline/standard are inadequate, then a standard pen would be inadequate.

Consider that if a substandard ruler is only 11 inches long, it would still be adequate for measuring ten inch lengths, although it would be inadequate for measuring foot-long lengths.

This pen was clearly inadequate, barring discovery of some mitigating condition that compromised the barrior due to circumstances beyond the zoo’s control.

I’m just not certain it was substandard, given that the guidelines may have been met when the pen was originally constructed.

I’m just differentiating the ideas of conformance to standards and ability to properly perform the task. (Can you tell I work in regulatory compliance for the aerospace industry??? ;-)