They do have tranquilizer guns and they did respond (I’m thinking like Homer Simpson and running around in cricles going “woo woo woo woo!”) but in the “chaos” with thinngs happeneing quickly, the police found the tiger first.
(What would a person-Taser do to a tiger? Drop it? Further piss it off? Just wondering.)
Just say “No”…it’s all Nancy & Ronny’s fault.
I saw that right off. Maybe the water wouldn’t bother the tiger, but it sure as hell would make it harder to jump. Or get a running start.
Moat? Umm, no.
Tigers are excellent swimmers. With a wide enough empty moat there would be no concern about tigers getting across, but fill it with water and they could swim right across to the other side. Considering the wall was so damn short filling the moat with water might have meant the tiger would have escaped months ago. Unless of course the moat was filled with sharks that have lasers attached to their heads. That might be enough to stop a tiger.
I think we’ve already established that the zoo keepers were in their 1/4 million dollar anti-tiger bunker. Okay, that’s probably a little harsh. They probably just thought that the best place to look for an escaped tiger was no where near the tiger pen but over near the penguins, 'cause they’re so cute and obviously that’s the first place a tiger would go.
Didn’t the Discovery channel do a special on what would happen if you pitted a tiger against a shark with a laser attached to its head?
That is my thought.
Any truth to the rumor that the tiger’s family is suing the police for the fatal shooting, saying the tiger was simply reaching for a cellphone?
Because it was chowing down on someone who may not have been dead already? I have to confess that I haven’t been following the details of this case, but according to what I have picked up the tiger was chowing down on some hapless individual in a cafeteria area. The cops showed up with shotguns, and then responded in time-honoured style when it started COMING RIGHT AT THEM in a South Park stylee. I fail to see how the cops can be faulted for not taking a 20 minute time out to obtain some tranquilizer guns which they didn’t know how to use and which would have taken several minutes to take effect (assuming they had managed to hit the beast at all). Whenever I’ve seen tranq darts used on large predators the operator has always been somewhere safe (on a helicopter, on the other side of some bars) or backed up by one or more large rifles. They often miss, the darts sometimes bounce off or fail to inject properly, and the animal usually takes a while to go down. With a large wild animal on the loose and mauling people, darts are very much second on the list of desireable things to be armed with.
Lets put it this way - if you were lying there with a tiger chewing one of your limbs off, would you want someone showing up with a dart gun in 20 minutes or right now with a firearm? Much as I love tigers, I’d be wanting it dead ASAP.
What if they had FRICKIN laser beams attached to their heads? 
Maybe they should have released the dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths.
Or the robotic Richard Simmons.
I’m sure asking is a really bad mistake, but what is this “robotic Richard Simmons” you refer to?
Robotic Richard Simmons is a South Park reference.
Meanwhile, finding a bloody footprint on the railing of the grotto does suggest maybe one of the victims had been in the exhibit, so it’s possible our humanitarian was indeed enticed.
Latest update - the young men were not exactly law-abiding upstanding citizens. Not that this really changes the issue that the moat wall was short enough that a determined tiger could readily get its front paws onto the top edge and crawl out. (Apparently, twelve feet up is not an unheard-of reach for tigers.) Concrete bits in the tiger’s rear paws supports the idea that she just climbed right on out.
Over on the SFGate discussions, some mention has been made that the zoo might have a strong defense in the form of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the doctrine of unclean hands. Apparently, there’s case law upholding that the men may have committed a felony if it’s found that they harrassed or otherwise incited the tiger. It’s then generally tough for people to sue anyone else for injuries they suffered when committing a felony.
And by South Park you mean The Simpsons.
I get why the enticement angle could show they “got what they deserved” if you will, but I don’t see why no one is mentioning that if the tiger could get out “if enticed”, that means he could get out, period, which is a problem- he shouldn’t be able to get out even if someone dangled raw chickens in front of him. IWO as long as you don’t fuck with him, you’re ok 
Unless they put a plank across the moat, the zoos at fault, period.
I just put this on my boyfriend’s company’s forum. The details may not be COMPLETELY accurate I was just going on what I remember from the radio thing this morning. But it does sum up my feelings on the matter.
Tiger Rant
Because it’s my birthday, I decided to take a cab to work. On the local radio there was a discussion about the Christmas Day Tiger Massacre. The DJ was going over the story and some recent developments. For starters, the Wildlife Protection Agency (WPA) recommends AT LEAST a 16 foot high wall for large cats. The one at the San Francisco zoo was 12.5 feet. Note that large female tigers are on average 8 feet long already.
They had a soundbyte from the zoo director saying “well we have annual inspections and no one ever noted the deficiency” This is like me saying “I have friends over all the time and they never noticed I keep bodily remains in my freezer” As someone who works in ethics and compliance, I’m so sick of the attitude that it’s up to someone else to force you to do the right thing for other living creatures. Maybe I’ll just keep killing people until someone makes me stop.
What really is grinding my gears though is this probe into the character of the victims. Some genius decided to go interview the neighbors of the victims (two were brothers and the deceased was a friend I believe) Of course! Let’s ask the neighbors! Not only where they not at the zoo at the time of the attack, know anything about tiger attacks, and likely have only passing judgements of the victims, so they are the perfect interviewees! Apparantly the victims were “troublemakers” and “only cared about their own pleasure”
whoa whoa whoa hold the phone. You mean to tell me that a group of 17 year old boys are capable of causing trouble?! This cannot possibly true. I was 17 once and the boys I knew certain didn’t enjoy pleasure. In fact, they hated pleasure! Trouble and pleasure were the two things I thought 17 year old boys hated the most!
Since the interview with the neighbors was so obviously a slam dunk, they decided to check into any possible criminal record. Bingo! Apparantly one or all of them has a history of public drunkness and disorderly conduct. Again, I have never in my life considered this kind of behavior is possible in teenage boys. Clearly they were just genetic mistakes, bad seeds, bad eggs. They were lucky all that happened to them was a tiger attack! They MUST have done something awful to make the tiger do that. I mean tigers are known for being the most friendly, sweet, reasonable, and cuddly of the large undomesticated carnivious predators. I mean Sigfried and Roy have used tigers in their show for years and nothing bad ever happened…
OH WAIT IT TOTALLY DID!
My point here (and I do have one) is that this is the San Francisco Zoo’s problem. Dragging the reputation of the victims through the mud is tacky and disrespectful. Those poor distraught parents having to listen to the news shrugging outrage because the boys may or may not have been taunting the tiger. Can you imagine if a family member died and you have to listen to the whole country be like “well he shouldn’t have been doing that…”
It’s a zoo. We’ve all been to the zoo. I’m not too keen on incarcerating animals for spectacle, but that’s a rant for another day. Personally I think we should capture some marina girls and study their behavior. We would provide them with mystic tan, strapless dresses that cost $350 for 2 yards of spandex blend fabric and 2 straight lines of machine stitching. We’d feed them sashimi and apple martinis and pump top 40 rap music into their cages. During mating season we provide them suited lawyers, advertising exec, and investment bankers. I’ve digressed…
The zoo is where people bring their children. It’s light years more education than taking them to play lasar tag (do people still do that or am I officially old?) and anywhere you take children it’s not unreasonable to expect a certain degree of safety. Boys will be boys. Kids will be kids. People will be people. Tigers will be tigers. I don’t care if Adolf Hitler was getting a piggy back ride from Satan and dangling a gazelle carcass over the tiger pit. THERE SHOULD BE NO WAY THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. And one could argue that if the boys were provoking the tiger by dangling their legs, this could have been a preventable accident. We don’t even know if they were doing that. Personally I think a better argument is had the San Francisco Zoo provided the recommended height wall between visitors and the EXTREMELY LARGE PREDATORY ANIMALS this really wouldn’t have happened.
One would still be alive, two wouldn’t be maimed and the tiger, who was only acting on her own tigerness would still be alive for hundreds to enjoy and learn from and possibly perpetuate the rare and beautiful species.
Dammit! I knew I should have Googled before I posted. Here’s a clip of the Robotic Richard Simmons moment on The Simpsons.
It’s from the episode called “Burns’ Heir.”
There! Redeemed.
Hear, hear,** Lobster**!