Bear Attack in Churchill. Manitoba, Canada
- Thread starter clown boy
- Start date
jtrzerocool
Active Member
rylan- are you talking about the one in san francisco? i saw on the news that the zoo says that the tiger may have been provoked...
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by jtrzerocool
rylan- are you talking about the one in san francisco? i saw on the news that the zoo says that the tiger may have been provoked...
ya.
The 2 surving boys (men) are now lawyered up. People at the zoo were investigating some large rocks and pine cones. I hate to ponder it, but did they deserve it if the facts show they were pelting it?
rylan- are you talking about the one in san francisco? i saw on the news that the zoo says that the tiger may have been provoked...
ya.
The 2 surving boys (men) are now lawyered up. People at the zoo were investigating some large rocks and pine cones. I hate to ponder it, but did they deserve it if the facts show they were pelting it?
darthtang aw
Active Member
Before I saw the pictures I thinking to my self how you would stop a polar bear attack and amazed you blamed the people watching....now I see what you mean, and I truly saddened no one came to this poor individuals aid. It has shown how people of today are no longer willing to extend a helping hand to someone in desperate need.
coral keeper
Active Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
That was a joke....
...right?
I think so LOL.
That was a joke....
...right?
I think so LOL.
ice4ice
Active Member
Originally Posted by jtrzerocool
rylan- are you talking about the one in san francisco? i saw on the news that the zoo says that the tiger may have been provoked...
The final investigation also concluded that the tiger exhibit wall was too low.
So the zoo is also in the wrong - not just the people that provoked the tiger.
rylan- are you talking about the one in san francisco? i saw on the news that the zoo says that the tiger may have been provoked...
The final investigation also concluded that the tiger exhibit wall was too low.
So the zoo is also in the wrong - not just the people that provoked the tiger.
itom37
Member
I gotta figure the kids were wrong for provoking it, of course, but the zoo clearly has to expect that sort of stuff from visitors and needs to make the enclosure INESCAPABLE. They're tigers, of course, and they kill people all the time. It's a sticky case I guess, and I hate it, but I think the zoo is gonna bite it in the end.
*What I know about this case: Some kids may or may not have provoked a tiger that subsequently escaped on Christmas day and killed/injured some people. So take that opinion with the knowledge that I know nothing about the case
*What I know about this case: Some kids may or may not have provoked a tiger that subsequently escaped on Christmas day and killed/injured some people. So take that opinion with the knowledge that I know nothing about the case
nyyankeees
Member
Aww that polar bear thing was cute. On the tiger attack issue, if it's proven that they did provoke the tiger well.. you play, you pay! If not , then I guess it was just a very unfortunate incident for both sides. What I've been wondering since this first hit the news however is, why did the tiger have to be killed? Don't people own tranquilizer guns anymore? Yes, the tiger attacked and some will say a vicious animal like that needs to be killed but DUH, it IS a in a tiger's natural make-up to attack, it's a wild animal for pete's sake!! Just because one lives in a zoo and is indirectly exposed to thousands of people daily doesn't mean it's going to act like the family dog. Should a tiger be murdered for doing what nature intended of it?? It's somewhat along the same lines of people wanting sharks killed because they attack people. Just my thoughts...
jerthunter
Active Member
So where is the mama bear? Aren't they supposed to be super protective of their offspring?
But it is a cute picture.
But it is a cute picture.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
That was a joke....
...right?
yes...a poor one I admit.
That was a joke....
...right?
yes...a poor one I admit.
sigmachris
Active Member
Originally Posted by NYyankeees
What I've been wondering since this first hit the news however is, why did the tiger have to be killed? Don't people own tranquilizer guns anymore?
The tiger was shot becasue 4 police officers came upon the tiger which was sitting next to an injured man. They attempted to flash their car's high beams to distract the tiger, but the tiger didn't run away it started running at the officers. Poor tiger yes, but there was no time to wait for a tranquilizer.
Also this same tiger ripped the skin off the arm of a zoo keeper who was feeding her in late 2006, so this wasn't the tiger's first human injury.
Third, the moat surrounding the tiger enclosure was dry at the time of the escape, but it hasn't been determined if that aided in the escape. Also the wall was 4 feet lower than the recommend height of 16.5'.
Even if the men were harrassing the tiger, the zoo / city will be liable for a huge exposure. All in all this was a horrible accident.
What I've been wondering since this first hit the news however is, why did the tiger have to be killed? Don't people own tranquilizer guns anymore?
The tiger was shot becasue 4 police officers came upon the tiger which was sitting next to an injured man. They attempted to flash their car's high beams to distract the tiger, but the tiger didn't run away it started running at the officers. Poor tiger yes, but there was no time to wait for a tranquilizer.
Also this same tiger ripped the skin off the arm of a zoo keeper who was feeding her in late 2006, so this wasn't the tiger's first human injury.
Third, the moat surrounding the tiger enclosure was dry at the time of the escape, but it hasn't been determined if that aided in the escape. Also the wall was 4 feet lower than the recommend height of 16.5'.
Even if the men were harrassing the tiger, the zoo / city will be liable for a huge exposure. All in all this was a horrible accident.
pontius
Active Member
I agree with those saying the zoo will be responsible. if they were provoking the tiger, they were wrong, and they should be charged with something that led to the one boy's death. but at the same time, the fence was 3 feet lower than the recommended MINIMUM of 16 feet. I know next to nothing about tigers, but I DO know that they are some of the best jumpers in the animal kingdom. I also believe they grow about 13 feet long. it would seem to be common sense that a 10 foot long animal can get over a 13 foot tall fence. hell, I'm 6 feet and I'm pretty sure I could get over a 6 foot wall without too much trouble.
1journeyman
Active Member
The zoo is also responsible for not having a team prepared to respond to an escaped tiger.
That said, if the idiots were using slingshots to shoot the tiger I'd say Darwin's theory is in play...
That said, if the idiots were using slingshots to shoot the tiger I'd say Darwin's theory is in play...
crimzy
Active Member
Man oh man are some of the people here naive. Let's try to think for ourselves for a change. The ZOO claimed that there were suspicious rocks and pinecones. Does it surprise anybody that an entity facing a multi million dollar litigation may want to publicly raise a doubt as to whether the victim was truly innocent? Funny that someone just has to put the idea of doubt in your minds and then you are convinced that the boy deserved to die (some of you anyway). This is why propoganda is such a powerful tool... because a lot of people aren't that bright.
On to the lesser issue... the zoo has an obligation to construct an exhibit that is secure regardless of the particular tiger's motivation. I don't care what was done to the tiger, if it got out then the zoo did something wrong. Period.
On to the lesser issue... the zoo has an obligation to construct an exhibit that is secure regardless of the particular tiger's motivation. I don't care what was done to the tiger, if it got out then the zoo did something wrong. Period.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
Man oh man are some of the people here naive. Let's try to think for ourselves for a change. The ZOO claimed that there were suspicious rocks and pinecones. Does it surprise anybody that an entity facing a multi million dollar litigation may want to publicly raise a doubt as to whether the victim was truly innocent? Funny that someone just has to put the idea of doubt in your minds and then you are convinced that the boy deserved to die (some of you anyway). This is why propoganda is such a powerful tool... because a lot of people aren't that bright.
On to the lesser issue... the zoo has an obligation to construct an exhibit that is secure regardless of the particular tiger's motivation. I don't care what was done to the tiger, if it got out then the zoo did something wrong. Period.
I agree with you; however, I think those boys are atleast 60% responsible. They say that this is one incident out of billions of park visits where an animal excaped and killed a visitor.
Man oh man are some of the people here naive. Let's try to think for ourselves for a change. The ZOO claimed that there were suspicious rocks and pinecones. Does it surprise anybody that an entity facing a multi million dollar litigation may want to publicly raise a doubt as to whether the victim was truly innocent? Funny that someone just has to put the idea of doubt in your minds and then you are convinced that the boy deserved to die (some of you anyway). This is why propoganda is such a powerful tool... because a lot of people aren't that bright.
On to the lesser issue... the zoo has an obligation to construct an exhibit that is secure regardless of the particular tiger's motivation. I don't care what was done to the tiger, if it got out then the zoo did something wrong. Period.
I agree with you; however, I think those boys are atleast 60% responsible. They say that this is one incident out of billions of park visits where an animal excaped and killed a visitor.