Tiger escapes cage at S.F. zoo

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Tigers 3 - Humans 1


In Dallas, Texas on the same day that a tiger had attacked people in a Zoo in San Francisco
the body of a tiger was found alond the freeway, it had been shot 5 times, once through the heart.

. . it had also been declawed, perhaps someone's pet.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,314
8,640
136
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Muse
You can believe what you want. The zoo officials and the police, etc. are playing this pretty close to the vest. I find it hard to believe that the tiger would attack these guys under the circumstances without considerable provocation. The facts, the whole story such as it will be known is not likely to emerge soon.

That's your opinion though and it's not based on facts. This tiger has had a history of aggressive behavior and officials have stated it would not of taken much to set it off. So really in the end it's your opinion against the facts laid out about the tiger's past behavior toward zoo staff and the fact that there were no witnesses, along with a shorter then stated wall and zoo exhibit dimensions.

Like I said, you can believe what you want. However, the fact is that informed individuals (experts in these animals' behavior) say unequivocally that this animal must have been provoked. My opinion is most certainly based on the facts. You are blowing smoke out your hat.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,314
8,640
136
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm not defending the zoo in the slightest. If you read my earlier post, I said:
NONE of this however explains how the "tyger" got out of his cage...regardless of the alleged taunting, there should have been NO way the animal should have been able to exact its revenge on the taunter. Now if the person had fallen in, then he'd have been fair game...and dinner.


My point about him being defensive is that in EVERY SINGLE post, he tries to deflect any of the blame from the suspects...I mean victims. If they are not guilty of anything, WHY are they clamming up to the cops? As was mentioned earlier, if I was attacked by a tiger at the zoo (and survived) I'd want to know what happened and give the investigating officers any help they requested...unless somehow I was the cause of the attack, THEN, I'd only be talking to my lawyer...

Yeah, they're guilty as sin, obviously. Judging from the articles in today's S.F. Chronicle, experts in this area indicate that there are tiger exhibits with no better escape proofing all over the world, scores and scores of them and none of them have experienced an animal escape such as this one did. They maintain that this animal was provoked in a major fashion. I would not trust anyone who thinks otherwise, it's clear prevarication.

If I were on the jury, based on what I know now, I wouldn't give these guys more than 10 bucks.
 
Oct 18, 2003
12,590
0
0
ivanandreevich.deviantart.com
I don't think he deserved to die, even if he was provoking the tiger. But I think it would be interesting to know whether he really was or not. Maybe the tiger was working on its vertical at night when no one was watching so that one day it could escape heh.

But just think for a second of a hypothetic scenario. The tiger lives behind bars for its whole life. Then someone starts throwing stones and jeering it. It jumps over the fence attacks the monkeys doing it (in the wild monkeys are known to harrass tigers). Then it's shot. Ta-da what kind of a life is that?
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: IvanAndreevich
I don't think he deserved to die, even if he was provoking the tiger. But I think it would be interesting to know whether he really was or not.

in some of the news articles, it was suggested that the kid who died was possibly trying to distract the tiger away from one of the two brothers and was then attacked by the tiger. so maybe the two guys who survived were the ones who taunted the tiger. which would explain why they wouldn't be so willing to talk to the police about it. basically they would be responsible for the death of their friend.
 
Oct 18, 2003
12,590
0
0
ivanandreevich.deviantart.com
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: IvanAndreevich
I don't think he deserved to die, even if he was provoking the tiger. But I think it would be interesting to know whether he really was or not.

in some of the news articles, it was suggested that the kid who died was possibly trying to distract the tiger away from one of the two brothers and was then attacked by the tiger. so maybe the two guys who survived were the ones who taunted the tiger. which would explain why they wouldn't be so willing to talk to the police about it. basically they would be responsible for the death of their friend.

I think the insufficient fence height was _responsible_. A tiger can get angry for no real good reason - maybe it has a toothache. So the option for killing people should not be on the table for the tiger based on how it feels.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: IvanAndreevich
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: IvanAndreevich
I don't think he deserved to die, even if he was provoking the tiger. But I think it would be interesting to know whether he really was or not.

in some of the news articles, it was suggested that the kid who died was possibly trying to distract the tiger away from one of the two brothers and was then attacked by the tiger. so maybe the two guys who survived were the ones who taunted the tiger. which would explain why they wouldn't be so willing to talk to the police about it. basically they would be responsible for the death of their friend.

I think the insufficient fence height was _responsible_. A tiger can get angry for no real good reason - maybe it has a toothache. So the option for killing people should not be on the table for the tiger based on how it feels.

fair enough. responsible is too strong a word.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,040
12,367
136
To me, if they were taunting the tiger, this is no different than kids throwing rocks at a chained dog then being surprised when the dog breaks the chain and bites them...
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
To me, if they were taunting the tiger, this is no different than kids throwing rocks at a chained dog then being surprised when the dog breaks the chain and bites them...

So define the taunting that occurred in this case if any? What constitutes taunting to a tiger? Please elaborate and explain to us what would set a tiger off in your opinion.



As I stated before we cannot make a judgment until the full facts have been laid out by officials. For all we know taunting might of been one guy just whistling at the tiger or staring at it. Really no one knows what happened and what if any sort of "taunting" occurred if it was major, average or a minor form of taunting or even deliberate or not.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm not defending the zoo in the slightest. If you read my earlier post, I said:
NONE of this however explains how the "tyger" got out of his cage...regardless of the alleged taunting, there should have been NO way the animal should have been able to exact its revenge on the taunter. Now if the person had fallen in, then he'd have been fair game...and dinner.


My point about him being defensive is that in EVERY SINGLE post, he tries to deflect any of the blame from the suspects...I mean victims. If they are not guilty of anything, WHY are they clamming up to the cops? As was mentioned earlier, if I was attacked by a tiger at the zoo (and survived) I'd want to know what happened and give the investigating officers any help they requested...unless somehow I was the cause of the attack, THEN, I'd only be talking to my lawyer...

Yeah, they're guilty as sin, obviously. Judging from the articles in today's S.F. Chronicle, experts in this area indicate that there are tiger exhibits with no better escape proofing all over the world, scores and scores of them and none of them have experienced an animal escape such as this one did. They maintain that this animal was provoked in a major fashion. I would not trust anyone who thinks otherwise, it's clear prevarication.

If I were on the jury, based on what I know now, I wouldn't give these guys more than 10 bucks.

This is not a logical argument. Just because none have escaped despite flawed security measures does not mean none will ever do so in the future. You argue amounts to "Because it didn't happen in the past this means it won't happen in the future.". So unless you and these so called experts have magical crystal balls that can predict the future or the behavior of every known captive tiger or wild animal across America I wouldn't take much stalk in this opinion. I am sure Siegfried & Roy would disagree in being able to predict a tiger's behavior.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,040
12,367
136
Here's the latest on this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...e_us/tiger_escapes_122

Transcripts show chaos after zoo attack By JORDAN ROBERTSON, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 39 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - Police radio transcripts from the night of a deadly tiger attack revealed a chaotic scene at the San Francisco Zoo as zookeepers struggled to sedate the animal and medics refused to enter until they knew they would be safe.

Zoo employees also initially questioned whether early reports of the Dec. 25 attack were coming from a mentally unstable person, according to an 18-page log of communications from police dispatchers to officers and emergency responders at the scene.

Police spokesman Sgt. Neville Gittens declined to comment beyond the transcript released late Friday. Authorities have never indicated their response was hindered by any delays, and Police Chief Heather Fong has praised officers for their quick action and collaborative work with the zoo staff.

Zoo officials on Saturday did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

The attacks killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. and seriously hurt two of his friends. Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, were released from the hospital Saturday.

The first report of an attack ? a male bleeding from the head ? came in at 5:08 p.m.

According to the logs, zoo personnel initially told police that two men reporting the escaped tiger might be mentally disturbed and making something up, though one was bleeding from the back of the head.

But by 5:10 p.m., zoo employees reported that a tiger was loose. By 5:13 p.m., the zoo was being evacuated and locked down as fire department responders arrived at a zoo entrance. No one was allowed to go inside the zoo.

For several minutes, the medics refused to enter the zoo until it had been secured. Meanwhile, zoo keepers were trying to round up what they initially believed to be multiple tigers on the loose and hit them with tranquilizers.

"Zoo personnel have the tiger in sight and are dealing with it," reads a 5:17 p.m. note on the transcript.

The transcript does not indicate when police or emergency responders entered, but by 5:20 p.m. medics had located one victim with a large puncture hole to his neck. The tiger was still loose.

As medics attended to the victim, an officer spotted the tiger sitting down before it fled and began attacking another victim, according to the logs.

At 5:27 p.m., less than 20 minutes after the initial reports were made, the officers began firing, killing the 350-pound Siberian tiger.

It was unclear whether letting police and medics into the zoo sooner would have altered the outcome of the attacks or subjected emergency responders to greater danger with a tiger on the loose.

Police said Friday that they had completed their investigation on zoo grounds and that investigators "found absolutely no evidence of an intentional release."

It has become increasingly clear that the tiger climbed over the wall of its enclosure, which at just under 12 1/2 high was about 4 feet below the recommended minimum for U.S. zoos.

Zoo officials said the zoo, which has been closed since the attacks, would reopen Jan. 3.

The zoo could face heavy fines from regulators and lose its license. It also could be hit with a huge lawsuit by the victims or their families.


As for what kind of taunting went on IF ANY, we may never know for sure. I doubt the victims will ever tell the truth if doing so will put them in a bad light or shift part of the blame to them.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Here's the latest on this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...e_us/tiger_escapes_122

Transcripts show chaos after zoo attack By JORDAN ROBERTSON, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 39 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - Police radio transcripts from the night of a deadly tiger attack revealed a chaotic scene at the San Francisco Zoo as zookeepers struggled to sedate the animal and medics refused to enter until they knew they would be safe.

Zoo employees also initially questioned whether early reports of the Dec. 25 attack were coming from a mentally unstable person, according to an 18-page log of communications from police dispatchers to officers and emergency responders at the scene.

Police spokesman Sgt. Neville Gittens declined to comment beyond the transcript released late Friday. Authorities have never indicated their response was hindered by any delays, and Police Chief Heather Fong has praised officers for their quick action and collaborative work with the zoo staff.

Zoo officials on Saturday did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

The attacks killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. and seriously hurt two of his friends. Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, were released from the hospital Saturday.

The first report of an attack ? a male bleeding from the head ? came in at 5:08 p.m.

According to the logs, zoo personnel initially told police that two men reporting the escaped tiger might be mentally disturbed and making something up, though one was bleeding from the back of the head.

But by 5:10 p.m., zoo employees reported that a tiger was loose. By 5:13 p.m., the zoo was being evacuated and locked down as fire department responders arrived at a zoo entrance. No one was allowed to go inside the zoo.

For several minutes, the medics refused to enter the zoo until it had been secured. Meanwhile, zoo keepers were trying to round up what they initially believed to be multiple tigers on the loose and hit them with tranquilizers.

"Zoo personnel have the tiger in sight and are dealing with it," reads a 5:17 p.m. note on the transcript.

The transcript does not indicate when police or emergency responders entered, but by 5:20 p.m. medics had located one victim with a large puncture hole to his neck. The tiger was still loose.

As medics attended to the victim, an officer spotted the tiger sitting down before it fled and began attacking another victim, according to the logs.

At 5:27 p.m., less than 20 minutes after the initial reports were made, the officers began firing, killing the 350-pound Siberian tiger.

It was unclear whether letting police and medics into the zoo sooner would have altered the outcome of the attacks or subjected emergency responders to greater danger with a tiger on the loose.

Police said Friday that they had completed their investigation on zoo grounds and that investigators "found absolutely no evidence of an intentional release."

It has become increasingly clear that the tiger climbed over the wall of its enclosure, which at just under 12 1/2 high was about 4 feet below the recommended minimum for U.S. zoos.

Zoo officials said the zoo, which has been closed since the attacks, would reopen Jan. 3.

The zoo could face heavy fines from regulators and lose its license. It also could be hit with a huge lawsuit by the victims or their families.

So basically this whole premise that there was any verifiable taunting cannot be proven factually. The so called witness noted in Muse's Herald Sun link probably was not credible enough to use in the investigation and /or to justify the initial claim.

We also now know that the creature climbed out un-aided because of the short height of the wall itself. A 12ft wall would not stop a determined man let alone a determined tiger.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: ericlp
Once again... I'm for the tiger... Screw the victims. If I had a zoo, I'd make every fool sign a weaver if anything should go wrong. Hey, These are 600 lbs predators I'm sure we look really tasty to them.....

So, yes I am for the tiger he is just doing his job. He is a wild animal that was on the hunt... Now these idiots want to sue for millions because they took a risk by going to the zoo.... Booo Hoooo! :) Ya know what this is gonna do? Raise the cost of admission??? You bet it will! I swear this country is just one sue happy Cluster F*ck... Isn't it amazing that this tiger has been in the zoo for many many years with no problems... Until NOW.... You know the idiots were screwing around with the animals and I bet they won't be fucking with any more tigers again....

This tiger has been as the SF zoo for only 2 years and has a history of problems. It attacked a keeper last year and nearly killed her, for which the zoo was found liable and fined by Cal/OSHA. It was recommended that the tiger be destroyed at that time, but the zoo refused to do so. Text

I suggest you STFU. You have no clue what you're talking about.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106

Don't come crying to me about it fool.... Over 500 attacks a year.. Deal with it...

NEWSWEEK: There have been some reports that the victim was taunting the tiger by dangling his legs over the exhibit wall. Is this something that could provoke a tiger to attack?
Scott Lope: These animals are wild. They are completely unpredictable. You don't know what might make them angry. You know that you can provoke an animal, especially a tiger. They are on the top of the food chain, so it doesn't take much to provoke them. You might say they have a bit of a shorter fuse than a deer, which would simply run away.

So taunting could have been a factor in this case?
I think it definitely increases the chance of attack. If this is an animal that is used to spectators on the other side of the barricade and someone has crossed or has their leg dangling over, that could be a problem. They could be provoked by anything out of the ordinary, whether or not it's somebody deliberately provoking them.


What is it about taunting that could provoke a tiger? Is it that they feel threatened, see prey, or is it something else?
It's more that they notice anything out of the ordinary. In the wild, they look for an animal that may be limping or one of the prey animals that might be acting differently. They notice everything. They are intelligent enough to know when people are safely behind a fence and would absolutely notice something dangling over a wall.

Do you think there's anything to do with territoriality at play here? Was the tiger trying to protect its space?
I don't think it's territoriality. They are solitary animals, so they don't really have much of a sense of territoriality. Canines travel in a big pack, but with cats, especially tigers, it's a little different. Tigers ? wouldn't even live with mates unless they are actually mating.

What about a dominance relationship?
Some may come from a background where they were forced do things, like an entertainment background. That's when humans are trying to establish dominance. [Tatiana came from a zoo background. She lived in the Denver Zoo before moving to the San Francisco Zoo last December.] But the bottom line is they are so unpredictable. Even the ones that tolerate me most that I work with, all bets are off.

Your organization has tracked 530 attacks by big cats since 1990. That seems like a pretty high number. Why so many?
These attacks seem to increase each year. It's shocking to the average person. But there are no federal laws that regulate tigers or big cats. The most obvious problem is that they eat things the size of people. These are killing machines; they are predators, and almost everything about them is designed to hunt and kill. It's incredibly difficult to house and safely cage a 600-pound tiger.


You often work with mature tigers. Do you ever get scared?
Absolutely. We have over a dozen, and it's a risk to work with them. Just being complacent around them could get you killed. Every day you have to be on your toes, no matter how docile they seem.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,314
8,640
136
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm not defending the zoo in the slightest. If you read my earlier post, I said:
NONE of this however explains how the "tyger" got out of his cage...regardless of the alleged taunting, there should have been NO way the animal should have been able to exact its revenge on the taunter. Now if the person had fallen in, then he'd have been fair game...and dinner.


My point about him being defensive is that in EVERY SINGLE post, he tries to deflect any of the blame from the suspects...I mean victims. If they are not guilty of anything, WHY are they clamming up to the cops? As was mentioned earlier, if I was attacked by a tiger at the zoo (and survived) I'd want to know what happened and give the investigating officers any help they requested...unless somehow I was the cause of the attack, THEN, I'd only be talking to my lawyer...

Yeah, they're guilty as sin, obviously. Judging from the articles in today's S.F. Chronicle, experts in this area indicate that there are tiger exhibits with no better escape proofing all over the world, scores and scores of them and none of them have experienced an animal escape such as this one did. They maintain that this animal was provoked in a major fashion. I would not trust anyone who thinks otherwise, it's clear prevarication.

If I were on the jury, based on what I know now, I wouldn't give these guys more than 10 bucks.

This is not a logical argument.
I did not come here to argue. I didn't say the tiger couldn't escape the facility or that thousands of other tigers couldn't. I just echoed the prevalent expert view that the animal was provoked.

 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm not defending the zoo in the slightest. If you read my earlier post, I said:
NONE of this however explains how the "tyger" got out of his cage...regardless of the alleged taunting, there should have been NO way the animal should have been able to exact its revenge on the taunter. Now if the person had fallen in, then he'd have been fair game...and dinner.


My point about him being defensive is that in EVERY SINGLE post, he tries to deflect any of the blame from the suspects...I mean victims. If they are not guilty of anything, WHY are they clamming up to the cops? As was mentioned earlier, if I was attacked by a tiger at the zoo (and survived) I'd want to know what happened and give the investigating officers any help they requested...unless somehow I was the cause of the attack, THEN, I'd only be talking to my lawyer...

Yeah, they're guilty as sin, obviously. Judging from the articles in today's S.F. Chronicle, experts in this area indicate that there are tiger exhibits with no better escape proofing all over the world, scores and scores of them and none of them have experienced an animal escape such as this one did. They maintain that this animal was provoked in a major fashion. I would not trust anyone who thinks otherwise, it's clear prevarication.

If I were on the jury, based on what I know now, I wouldn't give these guys more than 10 bucks.

This is not a logical argument.
I did not come here to argue. I didn't say the tiger couldn't escape the facility or that thousands of other tigers couldn't. I just echoed the prevalent expert view that the animal was provoked.

Right because no tiger has ever attacked a human unless the human was taunting them. Oh wait that very tiger attacked people before who where not taunting it.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,314
8,640
136
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm not defending the zoo in the slightest. If you read my earlier post, I said:
NONE of this however explains how the "tyger" got out of his cage...regardless of the alleged taunting, there should have been NO way the animal should have been able to exact its revenge on the taunter. Now if the person had fallen in, then he'd have been fair game...and dinner.


My point about him being defensive is that in EVERY SINGLE post, he tries to deflect any of the blame from the suspects...I mean victims. If they are not guilty of anything, WHY are they clamming up to the cops? As was mentioned earlier, if I was attacked by a tiger at the zoo (and survived) I'd want to know what happened and give the investigating officers any help they requested...unless somehow I was the cause of the attack, THEN, I'd only be talking to my lawyer...

Yeah, they're guilty as sin, obviously. Judging from the articles in today's S.F. Chronicle, experts in this area indicate that there are tiger exhibits with no better escape proofing all over the world, scores and scores of them and none of them have experienced an animal escape such as this one did. They maintain that this animal was provoked in a major fashion. I would not trust anyone who thinks otherwise, it's clear prevarication.

If I were on the jury, based on what I know now, I wouldn't give these guys more than 10 bucks.

This is not a logical argument.
I did not come here to argue. I didn't say the tiger couldn't escape the facility or that thousands of other tigers couldn't. I just echoed the prevalent expert view that the animal was provoked.

Right because no tiger has ever attacked a human unless the human was taunting them. Oh wait that very tiger attacked people before who where not taunting it.
I didn't say either. IMO they provoked this tiger. You can believe what you damn well please. If I was on the jury, no more than 10 bucks.

 

crt1530

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2001
3,194
0
0
The boy deserves a Darwin Award.

The zoo deserves a huge fine for having a substandard wall.

I would feel conflicted if I was sitting on a civil jury. The zoo is obviously liable for not meeting the standards mandated for enclosing such an animal. That being said, I don't think this fuckwit's family deserves a dime.

The only possible positive result that could come out of this situation is if there was video evidence of the other boys taunting the tiger so they could be charged with a crime.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,040
12,367
136
Originally posted by: crt1530
The boy deserves a Darwin Award.

The zoo deserves a huge fine for having a substandard wall.

I would feel conflicted if I was sitting on a civil jury. The zoo is obviously liable for not meeting the standards mandated for enclosing such an animal. That being said, I don't think this fuckwit's family deserves a dime.

The only possible positive result that could come out of this situation is if there was video evidence of the other boys taunting the tiger so they could be charged with a crime.

I think the only part of your post I can disagree with is this part:

The zoo is obviously liable for not meeting the standards mandated for enclosing such an animal.

There are recommendations, but AFAIK, no MANDATES. (even though there probably SHOULD be)
It's too bad there isn't any video evidence to clear this up one way or another.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I say let them file the law suit. People are more important than dumb animals. If you are making money and a profit by running a zoo, then you have a legal obligation to protect people. I say get an injunction against the zoo and force them to close till all their safety practices have been analyzed and approved or disapproved.
 

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
Reported on the news this morning that the two guys had slingshots on them, if that?s true and they were going through the zoo using them to shot animals they deserved more than what happened to them.
 

crt1530

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2001
3,194
0
0
Originally posted by: rpanic
Reported on the news this morning that the two guys had slingshots on them, if that?s true and they were going through the zoo using them to shot animals they deserved more than what happened to them.

It would make me happy if there was a legal precedent to charge those morons with some sort of manslaughter.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: rpanic
Reported on the news this morning that the two guys had slingshots on them, if that?s true and they were going through the zoo using them to shot animals they deserved more than what happened to them.

What??? Seriously, WTF!!! How stupid can people get?!?
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,058
5,398
136
It's a total shame that an a member of an extremely endangered species died because of this. If the slingshot issue is true, I truly hope any appropriate charges are filed and followed through. And yes, they should have had a higher wall, my only question is, how many species (and of what kind) used this habitat prior to the tiger.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
You people are nuts. The tiger got out.

Let's switch the paradigm here for a moment in an attempt to bring back some rationality. Let's suppose that instead of at a zoo, this occurred at a Ringling Bros. circus. The tiger escaped under the big top.
Now... does that change anything?