Tiger victims "smoked cannabis and drunk vodka" [Archive]

View Full Version : Tiger victims "smoked cannabis and drunk vodka"

SEATFreak

18th January 2008, 13:30

MrJan

18th January 2008, 13:45

Don't know what the legal limit is in San Fran but over here that barely registers as drinking. You'd only have 3 shots to be at the limit. Don't think that getting high would make too much of a difference either, I just think these guys were d***heads.

Wouldn't say they got what they deserved but don't have a lot of sympathy either.

Magnus

18th January 2008, 14:31

One might always ponder what punishments are relevant in different cases. To be stupid often causes pain to yourself and others. Khese kids had to pay the highest price for that.
That is a price that is to high. No matter what and always!

Daniel

18th January 2008, 15:10

Garry Walker

18th January 2008, 15:34

Just found this news item on my BT Yahoo! homepage.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20080118/twl-drunk-tiger-victims-taunted-animal-b-3fd0ae9_1.html

The irresponsibility of these three kids (one of whom who was killed) to not only taunt such a dangerous wildcat at San Francisso zoo, not only do it whilst high on vodka (one twice over the legal limit for driving two below the legal limit for driving) and cannabis to boot but to lie about it; only coming out with it NOW defies belief.

What do you guys think? Do you have sympathy for the survivors for the loss of a mate and think their luck for having had a narrow escape, or does the fact they were high on vodka and cannabis change things. Do you think they would have got exactly what they would have deserved for being so reckless and stupid?

1) No compassion for one of those idiots who was killed at all. Zero. None whatsoever. He got what he deserved.
2) It is a shame his "buddies" escaped so lightly, they are obviously jerks and I have found that a persons attitude towards animals often shows a lot about who that person really is. They seemingly had zero respect for the animal, so it is a shame they got off so lightly.
3) Sad for the tiger. There are very few siberian tigers left in world and they are truly majestic animals, who we should protect as much as possible. It would be very sad if our childrens only opportunity to see a tiger would be through a video.
This tigers life outweighs, by far, the life of these 3 dickheads, at least to me. :(

Magnus

18th January 2008, 16:00

With that kind of respect regarding human lifes and regarding making judgements on others peoples right to live, based on what media reports it is no wonder that assaults again and again are committed by people who believe they are better than others.

No matter what, we must always respect each others right to live, and judge actions, not individuals. That is the only, ONLY, way, if we will ever be able to build a more peaceful world.
Fundamentalistic muslims kill people who they think are bad people, US troops do the same and utilitaristic states do it troughout the world: China, singapore, Thailand, US and so on.
I was once assualted and smashed to the ground by some Nazis nearby where I live. They thought I was a bad person and a jerk, because I did not respect their leader.

Where they right? My society do not believe that, and they where sentenced to jail. Are you right Garry Walker? I do not know. Are the US government doing the right thing? I honestly do not know, even though I doubt it.
Neither do you.

We should leave the judgement of the actions taken to the juridical system. regarding the value of another person we should not have any thoughts about it what so ever. Every (wo)man is equal, that is the basis of what we must build our society. If you believe in a higher power this is even more true; leave the judgement to that higher power, and ponder what good you might be able to do another human being today.

Garry Walker

18th January 2008, 17:27

With that kind of respect regarding human lifes and regarding making judgements on others peoples right to live, based on what media reports it is no wonder that assaults again and again are committed by people who believe they are better than others.
The police actually said they were high, drunk and taunting the poor big kitty. Not media. I will state again, to make myself clear, I have zero respect for people who in any form abuse animals, or overall, who abuse those weaker than themselves. Yes, the tiger indeed is weaker than us. We have guns, we are the thinking, supposedly intellectual creatures, but judging by those three cockroaches, it makes me wonder about humans at times.
I love animals. I have 3 kitties and 2 st.bernards. If anyone started taunting them or abusing them, that person would pay dearly.

No matter what, we must always respect each others right to live, and judge actions, not individuals. Did these 3 maggots respect the tigers rights?
and btw, I am judging these 3 cockroaches based on their actions. They deemed it appropriate to taunt and anger an animal in capitivity. They are cowards. They got what they deserved.

That is the only, ONLY, way, if we will ever be able to build a more peaceful world. What are you trying to say? I am confused. You seem to be defending the actions of these 3 cockroaches. Am I right in guessing you are quite left-winged in your political views?

Fundamentalistic muslims kill people who they think are bad people, US troops do the same and utilitaristic states do it troughout the world: China, singapore, Thailand, US and so on. Your comparison is crazy. How can you compare lunatics killing 3000 people by crashing 2 planes into towers with an animal protecting itself from humiliation and taunting by drunken, drug-addicted hooligans?

I was once assualted and smashed to the ground by some Nazis nearby where I live. They thought I was a bad person and a jerk, because I did not respect their leader. I was once assaulted by two idiots demanding money from me and it ended with a hospital visit, for them :rotflmao:

Where they right? My society do not believe that, and they where sentenced to jail. Are you right Garry Walker? I do not know. Are the US government doing the right thing? I honestly do not know, even though I doubt it.
Neither do you. There is no reason to bring your lefty propaganda into this thread and attack US again. It has nothing to do with this thread. Nothing.
I just told my views that these 3 idiots got what they deserved when they taunted that lovely big kitty.

We should leave the judgement of the actions taken to the juridical system. regarding the value of another person we should not have any thoughts about it what so ever. Every (wo)man is equal, that is the basis of what we must build our society. I believe only honest, hard working people are equal with eachother. Criminals and hooligans are worthless to me, I have zero respect for them and their lives dont matter to me. I certainly dont think a murderer is equal to me or anyone else who lives his/her life by respecting the law and contributing to the society.

SEATFreak

18th January 2008, 17:44

So it's OK for a celeb to do drugs and screw up their life you give them sympathy but when an ordinary person does it and kills themselves then they don't deserve it?

Once again and not for the first time my view is distorted totally out of meaning and context. It is so frustrating.

Though I am proud to admit any time I am respectful of life enough to give sympathy to whom I feel deserving, I clearly do not say anywhere anything of the kind that I feel it is OK for a celeb to do drugs and screw up their life. Where you dragged up that particular twist on my view from, which you then foisted upon me and claimed as mine, when I have never even said anything of the kind anywhere even on threads where we ARE talking about celebs and their problems, is anyones guess.

Worse of the two though is the latter. I did not say they did deserve it and nor did I say they didn't deserve it. All I did was simply ask whether they did or whether they didn't. If anything it was up to YOU to say if you thought they did or didn't deserve it. I prefer to ask for the most part and not share my view with anyone. Saves me from any blame. If their is someone to blame it won't be me. If it won't be me I will dissapoint a lot of people. Win-win for SEATFreak.

Daniel

18th January 2008, 17:57

Once again and not for the first time my view is distorted totally out of meaning and context. It is so frustrating.

Though I am proud to admit any time I am respectful of life enough to give sympathy to whom I feel deserving, I clearly do not say anywhere anything of the kind that I feel it is OK for a celeb to do drugs and screw up their life. Where you dragged up that particular twist on my view from, which you then foisted upon me and claimed as mine, when I have never even said anything of the kind anywhere even on threads where we ARE talking about celebs and their problems, is anyones guess.

Worse of the two though is the latter. I did not say they did deserve it and nor did I say they didn't deserve it. All I did was simply ask whether they did or whether they didn't. If anything it was up to YOU to say if you thought they did or didn't deserve it. I prefer to ask for the most part and not share my view with anyone. Saves me from any blame. If their is someone to blame it won't be me. If it won't be me I will dissapoint a lot of people. Win-win for SEATFreak.
So Britney Spears hasn't screwed up her life with drinking? Yet we're not allowed to criticise her?

Captain VXR

18th January 2008, 17:57

They got what was coming for them. I wouldn't even provoke a chihuahua

Magnus

18th January 2008, 19:35

The police actually said they were high, drunk and taunting the poor big kitty. Not media. I will state again, to make myself clear, I have zero respect for people who in any form abuse animals, or overall, who abuse those weaker than themselves. Yes, the tiger indeed is weaker than us. We have guns, we are the thinking, supposedly intellectual creatures, but judging by those three cockroaches, it makes me wonder about humans at times.
I love animals. I have 3 kitties and 2 st.bernards. If anyone started taunting them or abusing them, that person would pay dearly
It´s good to hear that you talked to the police yourself! Regarding the rest I quote myself: "With that kind of respect regarding human lifes and regarding making judgements on others peoples right to live, based on what media reports it is no wonder that assaults again and again are committed by people who believe they are better than others. "

Did these 3 maggots respect the tigers rights?
and btw, I am judging these 3 cockroaches based on their actions. They deemed it appropriate to taunt and anger an animal in capitivity. They are cowards. They got what they deserved.

I take it that you are not only a vegetarian, your are also left-wing, as opposed to myself :)

What are you trying to say? I am confused. You seem to be defending the actions of these 3 cockroaches. Am I right in guessing you are quite left-winged in your political views?
Yes, what was i trying to say? Hmm... lets look:
"judge actions, not individuals"
Seems that you missed something there Garry ;)

Your comparison is crazy. How can you compare lunatics killing 3000 people by crashing 2 planes into towers with an animal protecting itself from humiliation and taunting by drunken, drug-addicted hooligans?
How do you behave? How does the world around you look? Do you make someone better by bashing him or even hitting him, or do you create a bitter human being? Besides: regarding animals and theyre feelings I recommend some Mazlow-reading for you :)
9/11: the causes and consequences are things I do not completely understand, but I hope I will. You are right though that it made me sad that the US did not attac Iraq within the will of the UN.

I was once assaulted by two idiots demanding money from me and it ended with a hospital visit, for them
How nice, they are probably stronger and more descent people now who have had their selfesteam rebuilt and they do not feel useless anymore. Now that´s what I call a happy ending!

There is no reason to bring your lefty propaganda into this thread and attack US again. It has nothing to do with this thread. Nothing.
I just told my views that these 3 idiots got what they deserved when they taunted that lovely big kitty.
I am rightwing since I belive leftwingers tend to have a very dark vision on other humans. I debate quite a lot round these matters, and from time to time have my opinions about this printed in different swedish newspapers. My main remark is that the left misses peoples individuality, and our own responsibility of how the world looks like. I am also astonished by how left-wingers, who from time to time say that they are on the side of the needing, tend to bash others. I do not believe you are a right-winger, Garry walker, you are way to hard on other people for that.

I believe only honest, hard working people are equal with eachother. Criminals and hooligans are worthless to me, I have zero respect for them and their lives dont matter to me. I certainly dont think a murderer is equal to me or anyone else who lives his/her life by respecting the law and contributing to the society.
I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. I believe that it creates a tougher and harder world which in the end causes problems for you and me, not to talk about the costs, both economically and in terms of human suffering.
(PS I have two Golden retrievers and two kittens myself :) )

SEATFreak

18th January 2008, 20:03

So Britney Spears hasn't screwed up her life with drinking? Yet we're not allowed to criticise her?

Whatever. You have clearly decided to go off into your own little one man world.

MrJan

18th January 2008, 21:28

ON a tangent, if you had the option of being attacked by a small dog like a Jack Russell or a rottweiler which one would you choose? (if you're going to answer neither don't bother answering at all :p : ) I reckon the rotty would be easier to take down, as long as you could see it coming you could throw a quick punch and leg it whereas the russel would be far harder to hit due to it's compact nature. That said if I was defencless then the bigger dog is going to do the most damage.

(can you tell that this arguement has cropped up in the pub a few times ;) :D )

Incidentally this whole thing is hypothetical and the dog attacks first, while I'm not an animal lover I don't condone violence towards them.... except maybe cats :p : (joke)

SEATFreak

18th January 2008, 21:40

.....Anyway I please be allowed to get back to my thread after I have thanked Daniel for proving to me I ain't the only one to throw threads off-topic?

Thanks Daniel! :up: :beer:

I expected a debate but I did not expect one a fiery as the one between Magnus and Garry Walker. Thanks guys.

You two prove what can happen when theirs such an emotive grey area as criminals and their treatment. Two opossing extreme sides are able to easily clash. Theirs no common ground that they can agree on it seems.

Your respective views and ethics are clear. But I don't know if this will help or make matters worse but I want to attempt to find this common ground. I know every crime is different but won't it be better to preserve a criminal life because what everyone I think ultimately wants to see is the "J" word; Justice? What does flogging them do? Surely it doesn't make people feel that better...does it? I mean after the flogging they could be released with not a care in the world for what they have done. But a lengthy jail sentence meeted by a tougher judge in a tougher judicial system means they won't be greatly physically damaged but more effective prisons just might wake them up.

SEATFreak

18th January 2008, 21:45

MrJan

18th January 2008, 22:16

It doesn't, it's on a tangent because someone mentioned a chihuahua. Don't mean to hijack the thread but surely you've got to admit it's an interesting quandry. I've spent hours mulling that one over :D

SEATFreak

19th January 2008, 09:23

This particular quote though from Garry concerns me though.

The one quote that actually gives creedence to the views of Magnus

Yes, the tiger indeed is weaker than us. We have guns, we are the thinking, supposedly intellectual creatures.

When opposing a poacher with a 12-bore shotgun indeed wildcat's are, with or without their sandpaper like tongue, immense power, huge claws and razor sharp teeth, almost certainly weaker than us; the wildcat number that have been the victim of poaching testifies to that. But almost certainly not wilcats are weaker because we are the thinking and intellectual creatures. If anything they are our equals in that respect.

You don't have much of an interest in wildlife do you? Haven't seen documentaries like Big Cat Diary on the BBC or read litterature like National Geographic.

If they are, like many creatures, intellectually inferior to us how come they are able to raise and be parents to their children and hunt with amazing effectiveness if they are our intellectual inferiors? How come they are able to hunt down a bigger Wilderbeast and know exactly how to kill it swiftly and drag it back to where their raising the cubs?

You said later on in this post how can you compare "lunatics killing 3000 people by crashing 2 planes into towers with an animal protecting itself from humiliation and taunting by drunken, drug-addicted hooligans". Yes it was protecting something. But not just itself. It's turf. You would be happy to let a mob stone your house? Again this shows they our intellectual equals. They value their property.

We MUST get get out of our heads this notion this was a "poor animal" and that as wrong and as stupid as these kids were for doing what they did in the state they were in, they were in danger. I wouldn't say I have no sympathy because they would have got what they deserved. But I would say I have no sympathy because they were victim to their circumstance. They were attacked because they put themselves in the position to be attacked.

The tiger was not that "poor". Why don't you go to Longleat where they roam free and go up to one and stroke it if you reckon it is "poor" Garry. We MUST start seeeing creatures like wildcats as equals as an living and existing lifeform on our planet.

Roamy

19th January 2008, 15:39

Good job Tiger !!!!!

did the vodka have red bull in it??

If it were up to me I would not let a zoo keep a animal that was capable of living in the wild!!

Hazell B

19th January 2008, 16:28

Couple of points -

Firstly there isn't a massive shortage of Siberian tigers. In fact, there are thousands in captivity and hundreds are put down each year because they breed too fast as pets and zoo animals. Zoos may claim to be helping the wild situation, but they don't actually release their 'spare' tigers at all, just breed them to get visitors through the gates. Loins are in the same boat, sadly.

Secondly, somebody on here said only a few weeks ago that they wished people who did stupid things (and risked others while doing them) would just drop dead on the streets. While I don't agree with that so much, I do agree that if you get stoned and think you can handle it, it's your own fault when you get hurt. After all, they thought they were adults capable of taking on a tiger - hardly a shock that they got hurt. Playing chicken with a train would no doubt have been their next style of hillarious trick :rolleyes:

Thirdly I'd take on the Jack Russell. They're far more liable to respond to a loud "NO!!" and swift boot to the ribs than a Rotty. :p :

veeten

19th January 2008, 17:28

"Loins are in the same boat, sadly."

hmmmm... which kind? Pork loins, beef loins...

Your loins... ;) :p :

Eki

19th January 2008, 20:17

I feel sorry for the tiger who got killed. He was provoked and followed his instincts. What's wrong with that?

MrJan

19th January 2008, 20:30

My loins aren't in a boat and haven't been for some time.

ShiftingGears

20th January 2008, 06:52

SEATFreak

20th January 2008, 08:50

I feel sorry for the tiger who got killed. He was provoked and followed his instincts. What's wrong with that?

They are wild animals being held in captivity for others enjoyment, which I think is wrong.

A particular case I find disgusting is that they have polar bears in amusement parks on the Gold Coast. Deplorable.

I wholeheartedly agree with both points guys.

A tiger (or polar bear) in captivity. When does it excactly seem to cease to become a wild animal with instincts and become something humans can control and dictate to? Well, for me it doesn't cease to become the wild animal and become something humans control and dicatate to. It can't.

That for me is the definitive point. Whatever the stuid reckless kids did the tiger cannot be blamed for doing it to them. So rather than it being a debate over whether the kids deserved it or not is it not a debate whether the kids put themselves in the situation to be attacked.

maxu05

20th January 2008, 12:40

This incident is the same as a similar incident in the USA a few years back. A tamer got mauled by a tiger. The media said that the tiger went crazy. I quote legend comedian Chris Rock here " The tiger didn't go crazy, the tiger went tiger." The moment when the tiger went crazy was when he was riding a bicycle with a hitler helmet on.

Drew

20th January 2008, 21:04

Survival of the fittest, enough said.

taffy

21st January 2008, 18:27

1) No compassion for one of those idiots who was killed at all. Zero. None whatsoever. He got what he deserved.
2) It is a shame his "buddies" escaped so lightly, they are obviously jerks and I have found that a persons attitude towards animals often shows a lot about who that person really is. They seemingly had zero respect for the animal, so it is a shame they got off so lightly.
3) Sad for the tiger. There are very few siberian tigers left in world and they are truly majestic animals, who we should protect as much as possible. It would be very sad if our childrens only opportunity to see a tiger would be through a video.
This tigers life outweighs, by far, the life of these 3 dickheads, at least to me. :(

Could`nt agree more.. !!

millencolin

22nd January 2008, 11:44

airshifter

22nd January 2008, 12:13

i feel sympathy for these guys. Ok before you get on my case, sure they were doing the 'wrong thing' by smoking cheeba and drinking vodka... But the railing that was keeping the tiger in the enclosure was below the minimum height, a whole 1.2m shorter. and they would not be the first to taunt that tiger at the zoo i can guarentee that. have you ever been to a zoo? so many people taunt the animals to get a laugh.

And to everyone saying they deserved to die because of the substances they took... come on. if they deserve to die, then kill me too! in fact, kill millions of people all over the world.

They were victim of their own poor decisions and nothing else in my opinion. Drinking and illegal drugs or not, it was their actions that created the situation. This would be a good example for the millions of people who think that drinking and drugs don't affect their decision making abilities. Most of the time they do.

I will say that in this case, at least they were so stupid they went and taunted a tiger, rather than risking other peoples lives by driving.

Robinho

22nd January 2008, 12:44

Will they be missed by their friends and family? Yes.
Will they be missed from the Gene Pool? i'd say no.

veeten

22nd January 2008, 13:44

What you have, in this example, are members of what I call 'the Jackass Generation', namely those that watch that program and choose to take any situation as a opportunity to do similar stunts, all in the name of 'fun'. :rolleyes:

Even though there are disclaimers at the start of each program, these brilliant examples of 'human fodder' still take it upon themselves to emulate Steve-o and the gang. Why, is anyone's guess... :dozey: :rolleyes:

Eki

22nd January 2008, 19:15

have you ever been to a zoo? so many people taunt the animals to get a laugh.

True. And for that more people should get a lesson from the animals without any consequences to the animals. I can't imagine why people can't behave in zoos. When I go to a zoo, I consider as being a guest to the animals. And like in other places I visit, I don't taunt the hosts just to get a laugh.

Camelopard

23rd January 2008, 02:05

I remember a story of an Australian tourist who got mauled at an Alaskan zoo when she wanted a closeup of a polar bear.

Alledgedly she didn't have any travel insurance and her parents were forced to sell their house in Sydney to pay medical bills!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDD1439F932A05754C0A9629582 60

This story was used at the time as a good example as to why anyone that goes overseas should have travel insurance.

leopard

23rd January 2008, 03:57

People should be more careful playing with wild animal like tiger and its genus, A tamer or magician who get used to play with them aren't totally safe from danger playing with them.
Although they succeeded to tame the wild animal, quite possible that their natural killing instinct reappear once they feel uncomfortable with the environment.

If we want to have more fun taunting animal, don't do it to wildcat, jungle fowl might be safer choice. ;)

SEATFreak

23rd January 2008, 13:43

What you have, in this example, are members of what I call 'the Jackass Generation', namely those that watch that program and choose to take any situation as a opportunity to do similar stunts, all in the name of 'fun'. :rolleyes:

Interesting issue there. You look at one of the lads in the photo of the article I posted and you think they do belong to the "Jackass Generation". Typically it seems young adolecent males, usually into their late teens and early twenties who are heavy drinkers and clubbers who think leaping of or into stuff and setting light to farts is funny. But....where they? Were they copying something they saw perhaps on Jackass? Or was it purely drug and alcohol fueled their act? I don't think we will ever know unless someone asks them.

anthonyvop

23rd January 2008, 14:07

The police actually said they were high, drunk and taunting the poor big kitty. Not media. I will state again, to make myself clear, I have zero respect for people who in any form abuse animals, or overall, who abuse those weaker than themselves.
Taunting is abuse?
We are talking about Human Beings her.
The only criminal act I see here is the San Francisco Zoo not having their walls up to the standards set by the Zoo association.

SEATFreak

23rd January 2008, 16:50

Taunting is abuse?
We are talking about Human Beings her.

How do you mean when you say "we are taking about human beings here"?

I fully believe taunting IS abuse when we talk about humans. Theirs a saying "it ain't what you got, it is what you do with it that counts". Whilst their is a case for saying humans have a more developed brain than tigers it is what humans are capable of doing and saying that worries me. Especialy those with more wicked intentions toward other lifeforms.

The only criminal act I see here is the San Francisco Zoo not having their walls up to the standards set by the Zoo association.

"...while authorities believe the tiger leapt over a wall 4ft (1.2m) shorter than the recommended minimum".

anthonyvop

23rd January 2008, 19:37

Captain VXR

23rd January 2008, 21:45

Have any of you guys ever even been to a Zoo?
1/2 the people who go taint the animals.
So what? They are animals.
It isn't like you are going to hurt their self-esteem or make them feel bad.
They are just animals.

Jeez..No wonder we consider most euro-types such wussies!

Humans are a kind of animal so neh neh neh neh neh neh :p
All the zoos Ive been to (Bristol, Longleat, Poznan) dont fit your description
BTW we ain't wussies, were just not dumb or arrogant

millencolin

24th January 2008, 00:29

The only criminal act I see here is the San Francisco Zoo not having their walls up to the standards set by the Zoo association.

see i find it strange that everyone is on the boys case that they were drunk and high but i see that the real issue was that the barrier was below the legal height! yet the media and most people here are talking about why these kids shouldnt be stoned. Would the tiger jump over the barrier if the barrier was the legal height? could this catastrophy be avioded if the Zoo did what they were legally required and installed a regulation height barrier? thats the REAL issue.

anthonyvop

24th January 2008, 03:44

Humans are a kind of animal so neh neh neh neh neh neh :p
All the zoos Ive been to (Bristol, Longleat, Poznan) dont fit your description
BTW we ain't wussies, were just not dumb or arrogant

How do you taunt a Tiger anyway?

"Hey Tiger.....Your stripes are out of fashion!!!"

"Your Mother was an Ocelot!!!"

leopard

24th January 2008, 04:53

I don't think so, just pull out his mustache. :D

Captain VXR

24th January 2008, 17:44

How do you taunt a Tiger anyway?

"Hey Tiger.....Your stripes are out of fashion!!!"

"Your Mother was an Ocelot!!!"

Shouting, chucking stuff, banging on the walls/windows

jim mcglinchey

24th January 2008, 20:20

How do you taunt a Tiger anyway?

"Hey Tiger.....Your stripes are out of fashion!!!"

"Your Mother was an Ocelot!!!"

" Oi, stripeydick!"

Drew

24th January 2008, 22:26

How do you taunt a Tiger anyway?

"Hey Tiger.....Your stripes are out of fashion!!!"

"Your Mother was an Ocelot!!!"

"Lions, they're grrrrrreat!"

rah

24th January 2008, 22:53

Wow, young men do something stupid. Hasn't this been going on forever? Every generation is the same, its just that every new generation has new toys to do stupid stuff with. I know I did stupid stuff when I was their age.

Hazell B

25th January 2008, 20:38

How do you taunt a tiger?
You act like a predator. It's hardly rocket science :p :

Actually, it's been proven time and again that some human noises, actions and behavoir upsets most large predators, which is why they now build an area in each enclosure that allows the animal to escape if he or she wishes. Forcing them to stand out feeling vulnerable makes them far more likely to try and attack, either the humans bothering them or just random future humans. Some prey animals obviously feel the same way, but aren't so liable to attack of course.

An alternative a to 'spook bust' the animal, so he won't feel at all bothered by other species. It works well on most prey animals, such as horses, but I don't think zoos bother with animal behaviourists for that sort of thing.

As for the wall being too low - had the tiger done this before? No. So what caused it this time? Yep, they brought it on themselves after all :mark:

anthonyvop

25th January 2008, 21:26

As for the wall being too low - had the tiger done this before? No. So what caused it this time? Yep, they brought it on themselves after all :mark:
Nope.
By having a Zoo there is an implied contract between the Zoo and it's Patrons.
The Contract is that in exchange for an admission fee a patron can enter and observe without fear of an animal escaping and causing harm no matter the circumstances.

SOD

26th January 2008, 01:17

Hazell B

26th January 2008, 14:24

Nope.
By having a Zoo there is an implied contract between the Zoo and it's Patrons.
The Contract is that in exchange for an admission fee a patron can enter and observe without fear of an animal escaping and causing harm no matter the circumstances.

Utterly wrong, as it happens.

There are signs all over every zoo and animal attraction saying you enter at your own risk, though the codes of conduct for all public places state that 'reasonable' care should also be taken by the owners of course.

I'm not condoning the zoo's low walls (in fact I'm not condoning the zoo's existance one bit - I hate the places) but they were visited by assorted officials and deemed suitable to open, and had opened for years without problems. These people did something lacking gorm, not something normally seen as correct behaviour, so certainly put themselves and others in danger. Even if we agree to disagree, the proof that years of safe tiger watching happened and this incident was provoked by humans can't be argued with.

Daniel

26th January 2008, 14:35

in fact I'm not condoning the zoo's existance one bit - I hate the places

You know you have a good point there. There's something to be said about not having animals in Zoo's.

It's far more exciting to see animals in their natural habitat and it's much nicer for them. I've had the fortune of seeing Cheetah's, Elephants, Rhino's, Hippo's, Warthog's, Meerkats, Baboon's and so many other African animals in their natural habitat and I have to be honest seeing them in a Zoo doesn't do anything for me.

Perhaps if more people went for a holiday to Africa once in their life rather than going to Spain or Portugal every summer there would be no need for Zoo's and no need to confine all those lovely animals in stupidly small places which are either too warm or cold.

SEATFreak

26th January 2008, 16:13

You know you have a good point there. There's something to be said about not having animals in Zoo's.

It's far more exciting to see animals in their natural habitat and it's much nicer for them. I've had the fortune of seeing Cheetah's, Elephants, Rhino's, Hippo's, Warthog's, Meerkats, Baboon's and so many other African animals in their natural habitat and I have to be honest seeing them in a Zoo doesn't do anything for me.

Perhaps if more people went for a holiday to Africa once in their life rather than going to Spain or Portugal every summer there would be no need for Zoo's and no need to confine all those lovely animals in stupidly small places which are either too warm or cold.

Totally agree. Again.

Theirs no excuses for NOT visiting Africa which is infinitely better than a zoo if it is ONCE in their life.

But where do they go in the meantime? I have always believed, considering what is required of preparation before visiting Africa, it could only ever be a once-in-a-lietime experience. I have always believed it would take a bit of money (cost of airfare on top of the total cost of any fully appropriate equipment and clothing required) and a small series of innoculations.

The only other places are somewhere like Whipsnade and Longleat where the animals inhabit in a much larger and much more natural landscaped habitats.

Daniel

26th January 2008, 16:17

Totally agree. Again.

Theirs no excuses for NOT visiting Africa which is infinitely better than a zoo if it is ONCE in their life.

But where do they go in the meantime? I have always believed, considering what is required of preparation before visiting Africa, it could only ever be a once-in-a-lietime experience. I have always believed it would take a bit of money (cost of airfare on top of the total cost of any fully appropriate equipment and clothing required) and a small series of innoculations.

The only other places are somewhere like Whipsnade and Longleat where the animals inhabit in a much larger and much more natural landscaped habitats.
Holidaying in Africa isn't really that expensive. Yes it's not as cheap as flying to Europe.

Preparation? If you're going to an area where there is Malaria then take a tablet and you're fine :) There is no special clothing or equipment (well binoculars are good) you need to buy :)

Camelopard

26th January 2008, 20:37

Unfortunately if we (us humans) keep killing of wild life at the rate we are, zoos will be the only place to see a lot of wild animals..... Very few Gorillas left in east Africa. There will soon be no Polar Bears, deforestistation of South East Asia is destroying the habitat of Oranutangs amongst others.
Greed is responsible for the continuing decline of Rhinos, (powered rhino horn will give me a better sex life? give me a break!). Tiger paws used in traditional chinese medicine? How many untold numbers of species are being wiped out in the Amazon basin before we have even discovered them?

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money" Cree Indian Proverb

Hazell B

29th January 2008, 19:54

Okay, so visiting Africa to look at animals in their natural home is better, but do all animals come out during the day and sit there being watched? Most of them don't even live in Africa ;)

Much as I hate zoos, we're stuck with them, and their evil cousin the 'private collection' (which has beggar all safety laws in most countries and often 'loses' animals from it's half-cocked records). I just wish people wouldn't pay to go to zoos, so most would have to close their doors for good.

Garry Walker

31st January 2008, 10:09

I feel sorry for the tiger who got killed. He was provoked and followed his instincts. What's wrong with that? I agree 100%!

It´s good to hear that you talked to the police yourself! Regarding the rest I quote myself: "With that kind of respect regarding human lifes and regarding making judgements on others peoples right to live, based on what media reports it is no wonder that assaults again and again are committed by people who believe they are better than others. "
Didn`t the story include a quote from the police? Thats as good as it gets.

Yes, what was i trying to say? Hmm... lets look:
"judge actions, not individuals"
Seems that you missed something there Garry I judged their actions. They behaved like dickheads. One of them got the deserved punishment.

How do you behave? How does the world around you look? Do you make someone better by bashing him or even hitting him, or do you create a bitter human being? It depends, if I abuse someone innocent then yes, if I defend myself by hitting a thief, then I see nothing wrong with that.

How nice, they are probably stronger and more descent people now who have had their selfesteam rebuilt and they do not feel useless anymore. Now that´s what I call a happy ending!
They both had previous convictions for various criminal offences and have had the same since that time. I really couldnt give a flying **** about the self-esteem of such scum, their place is in the jail.
Maybe I just should have handed them the money and the watch, instead of defending myself.
And yes, it was happy ending, I was quite happy and smiling at the end :D

I do not believe you are a right-winger, Garry walker, you are way to hard on other people for that. Yes, of course, I am really a lefty for sure :rotflmao: . I dont consider myself hard on people, more a realist.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. I believe that it creates a tougher and harder world which in the end causes problems for you and me, not to talk about the costs, both economically and in terms of human suffering.
(PS I have two Golden retrievers and two kittens myself :) )

We will just have to disagree then.
Retrievers are great dogs, if I didnt have my St.bernards, then I would take Retrievers for sure.

I expected a debate but I did not expect one a fiery as the one between Magnus and Garry Walker. Thanks guys.

As the mods from F1 side surley can tell, I have a habit of engaging in fiery debates :D

This particular quote though from Garry concerns me though.

The one quote that actually gives creedence to the views of Magnus

When opposing a poacher with a 12-bore shotgun indeed wildcat's are, with or without their sandpaper like tongue, immense power, huge claws and razor sharp teeth, almost certainly weaker than us; the wildcat number that have been the victim of poaching testifies to that. But almost certainly not wilcats are weaker because we are the thinking and intellectual creatures. If anything they are our equals in that respect. If they are our equals intelligence wise, why have we created cities and are able to kill them. Remember, just because I dont think they are as intelligent as us, doesn`t mean I dont respect them. I do, I love animals and think humans must treat them the best we can and give them the room they need. The world would be a very poor place without magnificent animals like Lions and Tigers. Whereas, the would is not at least poorer without 3 hooligans.

You don't have much of an interest in wildlife do you? Haven't seen documentaries like Big Cat Diary on the BBC or read litterature like National Geographic.

If they are, like many creatures, intellectually inferior to us how come they are able to raise and be parents to their children and hunt with amazing effectiveness if they are our intellectual inferiors? How come they are able to hunt down a bigger Wilderbeast and know exactly how to kill it swiftly and drag it back to where their raising the cubs?
1) I often read literature on animals and watch shows on them. Getting back to your points, why did humans build the civilizations and not tigers? It is because we are able to learn more so than them, we are more intelligent. They do most things based on instinct and over generations, they develop and learn very little compared to humans. But it doesn`t make us better than them.

You said later on in this post how can you compare "lunatics killing 3000 people by crashing 2 planes into towers with an animal protecting itself from humiliation and taunting by drunken, drug-addicted hooligans". Yes it was protecting something. But not just itself. It's turf. You would be happy to let a mob stone your house? Again this shows they our intellectual equals. They value their property. No, it shows certain behavioural similarities. Not intellectual similarities.

But I would say I have no sympathy because they were victim to their circumstance. They were attacked because they put themselves in the position to be attacked.

The tiger was not that "poor". Why don't you go to Longleat where they roam free and go up to one and stroke it if you reckon it is "poor" Garry. We MUST start seeeing creatures like wildcats as equals as an living and existing lifeform on our planet.
I am not going to stroke a tiger because a tiger would kill me with one strike. They are easily stronger than humans with better senses, we can only dominate over them due to our intellectual superiority and when we have guns or have them locked up. That is why I regard those 3 dudes as cowards and think justice was served for one of them.
When the tiger is locked up in a cage and unable to really do whatever it wants, then he is poor.

Couple of points -

Firstly there isn't a massive shortage of Siberian tigers. In fact, there are thousands in captivity and hundreds are put down each year because they breed too fast as pets and zoo animals.

I have never heard of that putting down part, can you show a link or proof?

In any case, there is a massive shortage of Siberian tigers. There should be hundreds of thousands of those animals, not thousands.
I really dont think there is a greater and more magnificient animal in world than the siberian tiger.

They are just animals.

I would like to say that you are just a ****ing idiot, but Pino and other mods would jump on me then. Oops :D
just as i thought, you value the life of a tiger than that of a human.
Yes, I indeed value the life of a rare great tiger species much more than that of 3 drunken drug-addicted hooligans, which there are too many in the world.

Who are you anyway?

Hazell B

31st January 2008, 12:17

1) I often read literature on animals and watch shows on them.

I have never heard of that putting down part, can you show a link or proof?

In any case, there is a massive shortage of Siberian tigers. There should be hundreds of thousands of those animals, not thousands.

Er ... if you read 'often' about such things, you'd already know the stats ;)
Try looking for yourself, starting with Zoowatch, PETA, Libearty, Born Free (the most reliable site in my opinion) and so on. If your knowledge is limited to just watching shows about animal parks, you would know that even they've mentioned new babies each series, yet the babies aren't there the following year. Where do you think they go? ;)

Look, it's pretty simple really. There's too many captive big cats, and not enough habitat in the wild. The wild part can't change much, but the captive part can if we all stop allowing animal parks and zoos to make money. The hundreds of thousands that there should be makes no difference to the fact that there simply can't be that many ever again in our over-populated world. The damage is already done there I'm afraid. Instead we should be stopping captive breeding that simply plays to the 'ahh' factor when young cubs make families want to visit a zoo. As far as I'm aware, not one single UK zoo bred big cat has ever been released into the wild - so where are they?!

A northern UK Council at one point claimed to have a few dozen listed as in their area, owned by a certain circus family who shall remain nameless, but they all simply vanished when planning for their cages was deemed unsafe and improvements demanded. The film of them, taken by an animal charity's undercover branch, showed youngsters and adults, all now missing. The family's accounts don't show them being sold, so it's going to court at some point thanks to the charity's work and the tax man wondering about income. As it's not due in court, I won't name the council, family or charity, but will say I just happen to know a planning officer for the council and she's dubious about enough evidence ever being collected sadly. She did say the one animal shown as bought from a well known animal park only cost £2000 according to records, so if they're that cheap there must be over population - pet dogs don't cost much more for rare breeds!

Either way, I'm against animals who should be wild being held captive just to give humans a day out.

On the subject of how smart/stupid animals are against us, it's down to reasoning power and the ability to remember. The absolute best guide is the 'field test' which proves how well animals cope with a very simple problem.
Take one racehorse, one pony, one working sheepdog and a greyhound and put them in a field that's square. The gate is at the far end and food for all four is placed behind a fence, in plain sight, directly opposite the gate. The sheepdog's smart enough to almost instantly go around and use the gate, with the pony probably a few minutes behind. The greyhound takes a while and probably finds the gate and route by accident, while the racehorse starves to death. Big cats should fall between the pony and greyhound, chimps would try and work out a way over, then go the long way round, while even the most stupid human will beat everyone at working it out yet take a while to walk the distance.
Therefore, we have good reasoning and memory, tigers, etc. don't.

When I did my horse psychology exams a trainer mentioned tigers and so on going for a drink right next to zebras in the wild. She said they have a relaxed walk when heading to water rather than hunting, so the zebras won't be as wary. If big cats haven't worked that out as an aid to their hunting skills, it pretty much proves a serious lack of reasoning :laugh:

anthonyvop

31st January 2008, 12:17

Yes, I indeed value the life of a rare great tiger species much more than that of 3 drunken drug-addicted hooligans, which there are too many in the world.

Who are you anyway?

You are one sick pup. The fact that anyone would value the life of an animal over the life of a Human Being is beyond my comprehension.

I would gladly shoot every Tiger on the planet if it would save one Aids infected, Crack Addicted, Prostitute.

Hazell B

31st January 2008, 12:46

Anthony, were you feeling the same when Saddam was hung?

Whilst taunting a tiger shouldn't be a hanging offence, I don't see that having no sympathy with the dead in this case makes anyone evil.

anthonyvop

31st January 2008, 16:33

Magnus

31st January 2008, 17:54

Anthony, were you feeling the same when Saddam was hung?

Whilst taunting a tiger shouldn't be a hanging offence, I don't see that having no sympathy with the dead in this case makes anyone evil.

I believe it was a big mistake to hang Saddam, for different reasons.
1. It is never ok to kill another human being, for various reasons.
2. Dead fundamentalists and terrorists, not to say missing terrorists, are often stronger and more inspiring then living ones. Kill one terrorist and you create ten.

The question whether or not the drunken kids got what they deserved comes down to questions regarding evil, and if you can divide humans into good or bad.

Personally I do not belive there are good or bad people. Neither do i belive that there are good or bad forces in our world. If I had a religious point of view, which I wouldn´t mind at all, though I have not been convinced yet, I would have thought differently. I would have thought of some people as bad, and of other people as good, and I would have believed that bad people was better of locked up somewhere away from the good ones. I would have judged bad people as people who do not behave and look as I do. Furthermore I would have seen different problems that plague our world, and us humans, as maybe punishment from the nature or what ever greater power, which would lead to myself being both fatalistic and utilitaristic; it doesn´t matter what I do, but I have to think about myself.

I believe that the world is what we make it. To point your finger at someone and stating that he or she is bad doesn´t make anything better. But if I thought that crime-rates would decrease if I behaved like that, naturally I would. I would also argue that severe punishments for criminals is good.

But there is another problem for me. You see; I have broken the law. I am guilty of reckless and irresponsible driving aswell as speeding. This is behaviour that may risk the lives of both myself and others. I have also at times not declared all my incomes to my government, thus letting the collective down. It maybe that I am a bad person because of this steeling, which it actually is, and because of my implicit ignorance regarding other humans and their lifes. I have been stupid. So what to do with me? Lock me up for good? Give me some severe beating so that I learn my lesson?

Now maybe someone thinks that there is a difference between different crimes. But is there really? Througout the years that our societies have developed, certain behaviours have been found dangerous och damaging to the society in general. It may be that we in the social context that we live in regard certain behaviour as ok, even though it is illegal. Speeding is one example. In other social contexts it is ok to smoke a joint. It is also ok to steal a little from your boss, because "he has the money anyways, and I have so little", it is also ok to assault another person because you think that he deserves it. Which behaviours that are ok varies over time and with social structures, adding another element to the fine art of judging other people.

But where shall we draw the line? For whom shall it be ok to do some speeding once in a while? Who should we beat up and what behaviour would give us the reason? How much is it ok to speed? How hard shall we beat the person who we dislike?

Hug the next person you dislike.

Hazell B

31st January 2008, 20:01

Again, little to do with the subject, but good points all of them.

However, being stupid and paying the price via a tiger's teeth isn't in any way human law. I just have no sympathy for the victim. I wouldn't enforce the death penalty for his actions if he'd gotten away with it though.

I don't think anyone on here would.

Magnus

31st January 2008, 20:17

OT:
I saw now that I wrote "dangerous och damaging"
It´s very strange, I meant to write "and", but instead I for some odd reason used the swedish word "och". :s
Please tell me if this happens a lot ;)

Camelopard

31st January 2008, 22:00

Yes, I indeed value the life of a rare great tiger species much more than that of 3 drunken drug-addicted hooligans, which there are too many in the world.

Yep, I have to agree with you on that one.

Animals respond by instinct, humans supposedly can think and that makes us 'superior' to other life forms, therefore these three idiots should have thought about the possible consequences of their actions.

anthonyvop

31st January 2008, 23:51

Yep, I have to agree with you on that one.

Animals respond by instinct, humans supposedly can think and that makes us 'superior' to other life forms, therefore these three idiots should have thought about the possible consequences of their actions.

Hmmm...I wonder what you would say if it was your mother they came after?

anthonyvop

31st January 2008, 23:55

Anthony, were you feeling the same when Saddam was hung?

Whilst taunting a tiger shouldn't be a hanging offence, I don't see that having no sympathy with the dead in this case makes anyone evil.

I don't see how getting drunk and shouting at an animal merits getting mauled to death.

The Bigger question here is the morality(Or, better stated, the lack of) of placing the life of an animal on equal footing as that of a human being.

airshifter

1st February 2008, 00:27

I don't see how getting drunk and shouting at an animal merits getting mauled to death.

The Bigger question here is the morality(Or, better stated, the lack of) of placing the life of an animal on equal footing as that of a human being.

The issue to me is more one of poetic justice.

You seem irritated by other opinions, and strike out against them. It would appear you don't like the "taunting" even though it isn't intended as such. If you are protecting your opinion, why is it the tiger couldn't protect what was either perceived as a theat or nuisance?

As stated by Hazell, and even understood by my 8 year old, is that animal behavior is often controlled by instincts. Had the kids watched more Discovery Channel instead of sneaking out to get high, they might be alive today.

Camelopard

1st February 2008, 01:25

Hmmm...I wonder what you would say if it was your mother they came after?

So are you accusing my mother of being a "drunken drug-affected hooligan"?

How would you feel if it was Fidel Castro that they went after? :rolleyes:

Camelopard

1st February 2008, 01:33

I believe it was a big mistake to hang Saddam, for different reasons.....

Since the illegal invasion of Iraq, over 1 million Iraqis have been killed or died:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080130/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestconflicttoll_080130213209

I guess some could say "mission accomplished"............... :rolleyes:

Mind you the suicide rate in the US forces has gone up dramatically as well.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/01/2151706.htm?section=justin

:rolleyes: "War is good for big business, I'm glad I have shares in Halliburton and Kellog, Root & Brown" :rolleyes:

Camelopard

1st February 2008, 01:50

I don't see how getting drunk and shouting at an animal merits getting mauled to death.

The Bigger question here is the morality(Or, better stated, the lack of) of placing the life of an animal on equal footing as that of a human being.

Sounds like rabid lefty talk to me........ :rolleyes: We, as thinking individuals should be prepared to think of and pay for the consequences of our actions.

If I smoke 30 cigarettes a day I should be prepared to accept the fact that there is a very good chance that I may get lung cancer, emphysema, thoat cancer or worse. Given all the advise there is about how bad smoking is, I should be fully aware of the consequences of my actions. Likewise if I'm pis*ed and under the influence of drugs and go up and start taunting or abusing a Policeman with a taser, I have to realise that I may get seriuously injured by my actions. If I choose to travel in a car without a seatbelt and go through the windscreen after an accident, I have to deal with the consequences of my actions.

:rolleyes: "War is good for big business, I'm glad I have shares in Halliburton and Kellog, Root & Brown" :rolleyes:

leopard

1st February 2008, 10:16

The important thing we have to make sure that we are ready with calculated risk from taunting wild animal, we can't ask them for any responsibility against the way they respond when they were angry.

What can Halliburton do if they don't have any new oil field ;)

ShiftingGears

1st February 2008, 12:02

You are one sick pup.
I would gladly shoot every Tiger on the planet if it would save one Aids infected, Crack Addicted, Prostitute.

Oh.

anthonyvop

1st February 2008, 12:58

Since the illegal invasion of Iraq, over 1 million Iraqis have been killed or died:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080130/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestconflicttoll_080130213209
Those numbers have been debunked time and again.

Daniel

1st February 2008, 13:00

Those numbers have been debunked time and again.
I'd tend to agree with you. Iraq wasn't carpet bombed or anything. You'd need to carpet bomb to kill that many people. I like the fact that they drew the numbers from a survey :mark: Yeah.... ummm I lost 10,000 people from my house due to the Americans invading :uhoh:

anthonyvop

1st February 2008, 13:02

Sounds like rabid lefty talk to me........ :rolleyes: We, as thinking individuals should be prepared to think of and pay for the consequences of our actions.

If I smoke 30 cigarettes a day I should be prepared to accept the fact that there is a very good chance that I may get lung cancer, emphysema, thoat cancer or worse. Given all the advise there is about how bad smoking is, I should be fully aware of the consequences of my actions. Likewise if I'm pis*ed and under the influence of drugs and go up and start taunting or abusing a Policeman with a taser, I have to realise that I may get seriuously injured by my actions. If I choose to travel in a car without a seatbelt and go through the windscreen after an accident, I have to deal with the consequences of my actions.

:rolleyes: "War is good for big business, I'm glad I have shares in Halliburton and Kellog, Root & Brown" :rolleyes:

Consequences, true but realistic consequences.
Using your logic no matter what the crime or action death is an acceptable punishment.
If a 2nd grade student skips school and gets run over by a drunk driver then they got what they deserved?
I say that the Head of the Zoo should be indicted for manslaughter. They knew that the walls didn't meet standards.

Hazell B

1st February 2008, 15:18

I don't see how getting drunk and shouting at an animal merits getting mauled to death.

Neither do I, as I CLEARLY said in my post :rolleyes:

I simply said I had no sympathy, yet WOULD NOT have sentenced anyone to death for the actions that went on.

I also don't think one single person here is saying anything like your last post claims, that whatever the crime death is an acceptable punishment. In fact, nobody's saying anything even slightly like that from the way I'm reading it!

If somebody's stupid enough to tackle a dangerous animal for no good reason, unprovoked, isn't it only to be expected that they'll come off worst from time to time? Isn't it fair to say that if you leave your child alone in an unlocked room in a strange country, you're allowing harm in exactly the same way? Or if you play with fireworks when the safety notes written on them say not to? Perhaps you think it's unpunishable to play chicken with trains, jump from planes with no 'cute or try surfing on a car's roof at 60mph?

C'mon, if you do stupid things and get hurt or worse, are you saying you should still gain sympathy from people who don't do stupid things like that?

I've spent the past 30 or so years handling horses (who kill about one person each week in this country) and only been injured when they've fallen or slipped up - because I'm not stupid enough to try going beyond my capabilities. If I jumped on the back of an unhandled three year old stallion and tried riding it whist wearing no safety gear, I sure as hell wouldn't deserve or expect anyone's sympathy when I got my skull bashed in :mark:

Magnus

1st February 2008, 17:51

Well Hazell B, if your view of what garry Walker said is the correct one, I rest my case.