If only that Tiger would have......
jumped back in to its pen after taking its revenge, maybe washed off in the moat first.
0
-
And then repeated the deed again in a week...Undetected. 0 -
Why do you think so? I'm confused. 0 -
He could have got off with a good lawyer[}:)] 0 -
We could have scheduled a press conference at the S.F. Zoo for Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, then...wham!
This forum could adopt the tiger afterwards, and keep it in catnip and Kitty Chow for the rest of its life.0 -
quote:Originally posted by cartod
maybe washed off in the moat first.
no water in the moat....0 -
quote:Originally posted by River Rat
We could have scheduled a press conference at the S.F. Zoo for Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, then...wham!
This forum could adopt the tiger afterwards, and keep it in catnip and Kitty Chow for the rest of its life.
Hell they could have invited Hillery and Obama and Edwards0 -
quote:Originally posted by 46270
quote:Originally posted by River Rat
We could have scheduled a press conference at the S.F. Zoo for Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, then...wham!
This forum could adopt the tiger afterwards, and keep it in catnip and Kitty Chow for the rest of its life.
Hell they could have invited Hillery and Obama and Edwards
Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty! Here Kitty!0 -
quote:Originally posted by cartod
jumped back in to its pen after taking its revenge, maybe washed off in the moat first.
The tiger should have claimed "race rage" made him do it because he heard a story about a tiger ancestor who was made into a rug about a hundred years ago.0 -
has anyonw worked in a zoo? why dont they keep dart guns around, I know it would not help those in the belly, but they did not have to destroy such I fine animal. some will say he is dangerous, but lets not he was a animal, a animal that even in a zoo is still a wild animal.
so why destroy a animal, that only has to be darted!0 -
quote:Originally posted by 46270
quote:Originally posted by River Rat
We could have scheduled a press conference at the S.F. Zoo for Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, then...wham!
This forum could adopt the tiger afterwards, and keep it in catnip and Kitty Chow for the rest of its life.
Hell they could have invited Hillery and Obama and Edwards
No self respecting tiger would ever put a biting on those freaks. He'd never get the taste out of his mouth. [xx(]0 -
If the tiger only ate Pelosi and Frankenstein... I mean Fienstein. Then again I suppose the Tiger new better than to try to digest something as undigestable as them.
I wonder if it's a good time to see if California will go with CCW? After all the Animals are revolting.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 46270
has anyonw worked in a zoo? why dont they keep dart guns around, I know it would not help those in the belly, but they did not have to destroy such I fine animal. some will say he is dangerous, but lets not he was a animal, a animal that even in a zoo is still a wild animal.
so why destroy a animal, that only has to be darted!
I haven't worked in a zoo but I have worked with animal control officers and I can tell you that the whole tranquilizer dart gun scenario you see on TV is over-rated and over-simplified. First, there is no "one dart fits all" either by dosage or chemical makeup. Too much tranquilizer is just another form of overdose and too little (or even just right) can mean you've got a very pissed off wild animal mad at you-know-who.
Contrary to what we see in the movies and on TV, tranquilizer darts often have a long lag time between injection and full effect,and this lag time depends on dosage, animal size, and the state of an animal (in the case of this tiger, it was obviously already very agitated). Even when the dosage is right, animals may take many minutes to succumb. During this time, the animal could escape or injure/kill more people.
In summary: tranquilizer guns require expertise on chemical choice and dosage, are short range, and much less accurate than a firearm especially when the shooter is untrained.
As strange as it may sound, I can understand why you would say not to kill the animal just because it had killed. I remember about 20 years ago a couple of teenagers decided to jump the fence and swim in the Polar Moat at the Chicago Zoo (if I remember correctly). A bear grabbed one of the kids and killed him, partially devoured him. They killed the bear. I said why? He was a bear doing what bears do and he never left his enclosure. That's why he was in a cage, because he's a wild animal. In fact, leave the zoo open at night so more dumbasses can jump the fence and swim in the polar bear moat.
However, in the case of the tiger though she was already out, already killed and seriously wounded and had to be taken down as quickly and effectively as possible without endangering the responders.0 -
it just seems they would have a device, like a net gun, something is better than killing something as great as a tiger.
as much as I can pray for the one it killed, I get angry over killing one of the animals in the zoo. I bet the tiger was plenty pissed off, if a tazzer works on humans, would it work on a big cat?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute Originally posted by 46270
As strange as it may sound, I can understand why you would say not to kill the animal just because it had killed. I remember about 20 years ago a couple of teenagers decided to jump the fence and swim in the Polar Moat at the Chicago Zoo (if I remember correctly). A bear grabbed one of the kids and killed him, partially devoured him. They killed the bear. I said why? He was a bear doing what bears do and he never left his enclosure. That's why he was in a cage, because he's a wild animal. In fact, leave the zoo open at night so more dumbasses can jump the fence and swim in the polar bear moat.
really! what do they expect? you walk behind a horse, you're going to get kicked. you swim next to a crocodile, you might get eaten.
they didn't know the circumstances, all they saw was a dead body with a tiger next to it, but I don't think they killed it cuz it killed someone, I think they did it cuz they didn't want to take a chance on someone getting mauled.
at least I hope that was the case, otherwise yes indeedy that would have been for all the wrong reasons.0 -
Wonder if they had to ask a stupidvisor, I mean supervisor for permission to open fire? 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments