Considering that it's a relevant fact that doesn't support your claim that the pit depth was the cause of the problem, that's understandable.
"And the zoo was fined $18,000, after state investigations showed it did not maintain safe enough conditions in which to keep the tiger, leading to hazardous conditions for their employee and trainer, whose arm was well chewed by it."
There goes competence, ability and responsibility, the foundational requirements for freedom, right out the window. Now replace the broken glass with bars, so it can never return to stand in the way of the new nanny.
"your personal opinions"
I haven't given any personal opinions.
"You're a joke spunkets."
LOL, of course!
Um, no. Considering the fact that the tiger got out of the cage...what's irrelevant is your posts concerning the cage's history. You see, your ridiculousness in posting about the cage's history is no different than using as a defense a killer's lack of previous murders to get off the murder for which he is guilty. You'd be laughed out of court for that defense, as much as I am laughing at you now.
The tiger got out and should not have IF it were truly in a cage that could contain it. Had the cage been able to contain the tiger, the boys would likely be alive and all would be prosecuted for their criminal trespass and/or other misdeeds.
You have done nothing but post your personal opinions concerning what you think is "nanny state", the history of the cages as an excusable defense (contrary to state findings), and the lovely names you have called the woman. Or, were there all in the court cases and you are merely quoting from court documents, not actually stating your personal opinions?
But of course I laugh at you; you're a joke.