Why Tigers Attack

think the fault lies on both human error, and may be (I said) may be the young men who might taunted the tiger. The zoo officials kept saying that some official came to check the safety of the habitat 3 years ago. Well 3 years ago, Tatiana was only a cub of 1 year old. She was now older and stronger and could leap much farther. When I look at the picture of the habitat, with the "moat" of 30 feet separating visitor and the tiger, and the wall just above 12feet, I myself would be reluctant to stand there, knowing that the siberian tiger could leap farther and higher ! Poor Tatiana, she was a beautiful and rare tiger ! We ,human suppose to watch over her and protect her from extinction, not to kill her because of our stupidity and carelessness !

Heck, my cat can jump 6 feet straight up, so I'm pretty sure a tiger 20x his size could easily jump 12 feet. That's why it's supposed to be a MOAT, not a ditch. Tatiana could not jump 33 feet across and 12 feet up, nor could she jump 12 feet up while swimming. If the moat was full of water, Tatiana would have been just swimming around under the spot the boys were most likely standing instead of crouching and leaping. I can just imagine the surprise those poor boys felt when a 300lb. tiger suddenly appeared in front of them after leaping up from the bottom of the moat where they most likely could not see her until it was too late. I would not put the blame entirely on the zoo if taunting was involved, though. Just because you think a zoo enclosure is going to keep the animal away from you does not excuse or give you the right to malicious behavior like taunting, just as the schoolyard bully does not have the right to act maliciously because they are the biggest or strongest out there. Opportunity to behave badly does not justify bad behavior. Of course, as in the case of Roy Horn, it could have just been an unusual but innocent action that prompted the attack. Hopefully, the brothers will be willing and able to set the record straight on the events leading up to the tragedy, both human and animal. And finally, those who are commenting about the shoddy journalism job should refer again to the articles. The journalists were quoting the fence heights as given by the zoo officials, not making them up as they went. Don't blame the press for reporting information given to them by the source. It's not like they were in the enclosure with a yardstick and couldn't figure out how to use it.

Why is it so much hard for some ppl to understand that taunting does not count for an animal to come out of its enclosure though it might try mighty hard to jump off from the enclosure.
Let me give you a scenario
Now we all know tigers are fed properly, what it he sees a guy eating big hamburger near its enclosure and it feels little hungry and lets just imagine that it manages to jumps out.
Would you blame the guy eating hamburger or would you blame tiger by violating its natural instincts for the meat.
neither.
so who would be responsible for this situation...you guys are intelligent enough to answer this question.
Ok now when you, i or anybody goes to Zoo how often did we ever came across any sign post reading "Taunting is Prohibited".
Lets just hypothetically say Yes.
What does it mean then?
Does this mean that if you taunt the animal it would get angry and will make a face at you, hurt your feelings by sticking its tongue out or making weird funny noises to irritate you.
No of course not.
Or does it mean that taunting can REALLY HURT the psyche of the animal and it will go into deep depression and somebody has to give him anti-depressant pills to elevate out of it.
No
Or did we ever came across any sign reading "Make no noise and it wont attack you"
Never.
So what exactly would "Taunting is Prohibited" sign post mean. Think about it radically and let me know.
I am an animal lover but i cannot control anyone from not being passionate about it.
Some ppl go to zoo and probably get some kick taunting big cats. Now if i stop someone from doing that what would i say to rationalize my talk.
i would say "the hell would you stop doing that. you are putting ever ones life in danger over here"
Now if he asks me how...you guys tell what should be the best logical answer.
Dont tell me its not ethical and yaada yaada yaada.
And if you still think the old way "taunting is what happened blah blah blah" my advice to you would be refrain yourself from going to the Zoo because that will make it a dangerous place in the world next to Iraq.

I don't know if "deserved" is the right word, but certainly "caused" is applicable if they taunted the tiger. It is like driving while intoxicated--you may not "deserve" to die as a result, but you certainly are the cause of your own death.

If the attack was deserved on the basis of human stupidity, 99% of the people who have posted comments here would be in very bad shape.

The zoo director should think about the comments he makes. How could he say that he was amazed that the tiger could leap over a wall 12.5 feet high when the industry standard is 16 feet? I saw a film of a tiger leaping to attack a mahout riding on the neck of an Indian elephant...and that animal is about 12 feet high...the tiger easily made the jump. Easily.

when you go to the zoo you take your kids they are going to pick with the animals to get there attention might call out to them snap fingers at the animals ot something that doesnt mean they should get attacked if the animals are attacking fot teasing they need to close all zoos down because anything can be classified as tauting. So if its not safe at the zoo because who knows what a child would do only playing trying to get the lazy animals that just lay around attention ther doesnt need to be one because we dont want our children dying at and excibit they go for excitment not to be mauled to death i would do everything to shut that zoo down sue the safety inspectors and the zoo they will pay..even though it wpouldnt take back the tragedy......

I am saddened but not shocked by the comments I have read here. First I am saddened by the killing of the tiger, I also believe it has no moral blame for it's actions. Tigers kill. It is how they survive. Was this one provoked, I do not know but either way once it was out it was a danger to anyone who crossed it's path. I would rather it be captured unharmed, but I understand the police destroying it. When the tiger headed towards them they had every right to protect themselves from an animal that was clearly a threat to them.

As for the people who are so down on the zoo for having the tiger in the first place, I respect your right to what you believe, but I am ashamed that you felt the need to show the rest of the world how simple minded you are by posting such nonsence here for all to read. Zoos are some animals last refuge in a world where habitat is being destroyed every day. The tiger we all hate to see destroyed is just one animal that is being kept from extinction by the work of zoos around the world. If you are so against the work the zoos do to protect and educate what have you done to help preserve not just the tiger but any wildlife.
I also do not hold the zoo to blame for the tiger's escape. It may be found in time that they are to blame but until the means of the tigers escape is found I will reserve judgement and give them the benifit of the doubt. No one wanted the tiger to escape, no one wanted anyone hurt. It happened, how we do not know but to blame the staff without knowing how it happened is premature.

To kill the tiger for behaving naturally is wrong. We removed this beautiful creature from it's enviornment and for our pleasure. There was an alternative....tranquilize and then rehabilitate and release in the wild would have been the just and humane thing to do. Shame on the zoo and the police for shamelessly killing this beautiful creature. Zoos can be a wonderful thing but the SF zoo should be shut down and the anilmals placed elsewhere.