Posted on 01/05/2008 4:26:41 AM PST by repinwi
Soon after their 17-year-old friend was mauled to death by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo, the two brothers who survived the attack made a quick pact not to cooperate with the police as they rode in an ambulance to the hospital, sources told The Chronicle.
"Don't tell them what we did," paramedics heard 23-year-old Kulbir Dhaliwal tell his brother, Paul, 19.
Sources also say that the younger brother was intoxicated at the time of the incident, having used marijuana and consumed enough liquor to have a blood-alcohol level above the .08 limit for adult drivers. The older brother also had been drinking and using marijuana around the time a 350-pound Siberian tiger escaped and killed Carlos Sousa Jr., the sources said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“The trainer was inattentive and standing too close to the cage after the 2 p.m. feeding.”
After lurking in on this particular disagreement, I can see where both sides are partially right.
The trainer was inattentive - but also seemingly distracted by the zoo visitors.
She probably “thought” she was far enough away, but clearly she wasn’t.
The tiger was aggresseive enough to seize upon the opportunity.
I'm not greatly comforted to know that a Federal employee, such as yourself, thinks that routine waterbording of peons citizens is a good idea
The tiger getting out is the zoo’s fault. The tiger should not be able to get out under any circumstanes.
Or are you arguing that it is okay that the tiger get out under some circumstances?
Desi. (From the Indian subcontinent)
We must remember we are taking wild animals out of their natural environment and placing them in cages......they are doing what comes naturally. The zoo has to be responsible for setting up the scenario that allowed this. Both any taunting of the animal in their care and the enclosure that failed to hold the animal to protect viewers. No one seems to place the blame where it belongs.
Yes, you are right, absolutes are no argument.
I believe that the zoo has a responsibilty to protect it’s guests. If it cannot do that then it must either shut it’s doors or face the consequences.
Something prompted our tiger to leap over the exhibit," said Manuel Mollinedo, executive director of the zoo, in response to questions during a 13-minute press conference attended by at least 40 media representatives on Wednesday.
At the news conference, Zoological Society Chairman Nick Podell lavishly praised the beleaguered Mollinedo, who took over at the zoo in February 2004 and was earning $314,038 a year plus $15,702 in benefits and a $9,548 expense account, according to zoo tax documents filed in November. The society operates the zoo, although the land and animals are owned by the city.
Pretty good gig, huh?
Didn't this guy pick up the idea somewhere that the confinements are supposed to be built to keep the tigers INSIDE?
Anyway, waterboarding is not torture ~ but it's effective according to all accounts.
So who is going to be on the hook here? The society or the city....both?
Being too close during feeding time is quite different than claiming that the trainer put her arms into the cage during feeding time, which was not the case.
If you watch the two news videos (one is ~2 1/2 min., the other ~ 8 1/2 min.), taken shortly after that attack occurred, Bob Jenkins, the director and zoo official interviewed, was unsure as to what provoked the tiger to attack, and was even unwilling to call it an attack...saying at the time it could have been a tiger wanting to play or an attack in anger. What I don’t recall the zoo official mentioning, however, was the timing of the attack with the feeding time.
Feeding procedure: caretaker never goes inside the cage when feeding; there is a trap door for serving animal food and this time. According to the news reporter in the first video, the tiger reached around the trap door to attack the trainer.
OTOH, that does not comport with other stories by eyewitnesses who said the trainer was standing there talking to people (not feeding) the animal at the time of the attack.
One eyewitnesses’ account indicates (to me at least) she was facing the cage (her back was to the father and his daughter), which would comport with the fact that the tiger was able to grab both the keeper’s arms.
http://cbs5.com/national/tiger.trainer.mauled.2.278585.html
It’s definitely a plum job, and like everything else in SF, politically awarded.
They actually had a good director in SF about 30 years ago (the one who did the primate houses) but they fired him, of course.
I don’t know whose crony Mollinedo was, but he had to be somebody’s or he wouldn’t have gotten the job.
Exactly right.
“The zoo has to be responsible for setting up the scenario that allowed this. Both any taunting of the animal in their care and the enclosure that failed to hold the animal to protect viewers. No one seems to place the blame where it belongs.”
absolutely...I’m sure there are obnoxious teens at every zoo who try to tease the animals.
We visited Ross Park and saw the tigers in Aug.
I’m trying to remember if there was any way a stupid/drunk teen could manage to climb up and sit on a wall.
Maybe I’m wrong - but I don’t think they could do it there.
One poster was making a distinction between an unprovoked tiger attack vs. someone jumping into the tiger pit.
While this kid didn’t jump into the pit...it does appear he managed to sit on the fence and dangle his legs in.
Again - as far as zoo liability is concerned...should it have been possible for this kid to manage that?
No - especially adding in - no staff monitoring the exhibit, and no cameras used to help monitor.
I believe that the zoo has a responsibilty to protect it’s guests. If it cannot do that then it must either shut it’s doors or face the consequences.
No argument there. But culpability in what HAS happened is being discussed here. I’ll bet that ALL zoo’s are reviewing their standards as a result of this episode.
The more you post articles about that situation, the more I’m wondering...why was the tiger in a cage where it could reach her legs out at all in the first place?
Everyone should expect a tiger to test the limits, and if it can swipe outside of its cage -that’s exactly what it will do.
Obviously this tiger was not confined behind an adequate barrier at the time.
I think one way to "test" would be to overbuild the walls. But that is a quandary for zoos I suppose because the visitors pay money to see the animals and have to get close enough to do so.
Really the older I get the more I doubt the whole idea of zoos. It is asking for trouble to put unpredictable people and what are still truly wild animals so close together. And if we like these creatures so much they should not be confined like that. This zoo seems like a very nice place but that pen with its stupid cement moat and stuff is no place for a tiger. I don’t know much about anything but I get the drift that tigers need to live where the space is measured in miles, not feet. We manipulate so much in our world but the creatures don't understand it. They are still stuck being animals as inconvenient as that is for us.
-don’t you enter a building and view the animals through glass walls? that always scared me....what if the glass was weakening.......anyway I don’t think they could there either, but it’s been years since I have been there.
A state investigation faulted the zoo after the attack. They made changes thereafter. I don’t know precisely what changes they made.
Talk about wild assumptions.
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.