?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Why did the tiger have to die? - One person's lack of compassion does not equal another's comfort.
One person's lack of comprehension does not equal another's consent.
fixx
fixx
Why did the tiger have to die?
This article tells of a tiger who killed a teen model at a photo shoot. I can understand when domestic dogs go wild and kill people because they are expected to be domesticated, not the norm for tigers, and dogs are not endangered, tigers usually are.

http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2005/08/19/203833.html
6 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky
Comments
tovahs From: tovahs Date: August 19th, 2005 07:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
Tigers and most Large cats (Lions) are killed if they taste human blood. The reason is that they will revert back to the wild (Ferral).
browneyedgirl65 From: browneyedgirl65 Date: August 19th, 2005 07:46 pm (UTC) (Link)
At the risk of being pedantic, feral refers to a normally domesticated animal that has reverted to wildness, including single animals as examples (eg, feral dogs, pigs) or even an entire species (the dingos). Tigers can not be feral because they have never been domesticated.

Almost any animal that kills a person is put down. The exception may be for some types of accidents involving larger nonpredatory animals such as horses. But dogs, wildlife, etc, that kill people are almost always put down.

The "taste for blood" theory is almost certainly a crock, but we really know very little about animals...
browneyedgirl65 From: browneyedgirl65 Date: August 19th, 2005 07:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
I don't know why LJ doesn't let you edit your own comments. Anyway, I meant to add that individual wild animals being raised by humans (eg, people who raise tigers, lions, wolves, etc) are not "domesticated". The individual animal in question may be tamed, but is not domestic and if it escapes or otherwise goes back in the wild, it isn't considered feral either. Domestication involves a process of breeding and adapting the animal in question to human uses, changing the animals' instincts and temperaments in the process.
neko_no_kioku From: neko_no_kioku Date: August 19th, 2005 09:20 pm (UTC) (Link)
*grrrrrr* Cases like this really piss me off. I even get mad when animals like dogs are immediately killed without taking the time to determine why the animal attacked, but then I study animal behavior so maybe I'm more concerned then most.

browneyedgirl65, you're right, that "taste for human blood" idea is bullshit for most animals. While it is true that there are some known maneaters out there, the idea that a "tamed wild animal" (I'm sorry, that is just a huge oxymoron) that has attacked a human has to be killed because it can never be trusted again is ridiculous. It should never have been trusted in the first place! Domestication is a very gradual process that takes place over hundreds if not thousands of years. You can't breed tigers and other wild cats over a few generations and expect them to be pets just because they don't show any violent tendencies for awhile. You never know when their predatory instincts will take over and what will trigger them.

And the article fails to mention what the conditions of this so-called sanctuary were and how often this tiger had to be subjected to human contact. Who knows, it may have simply decided it had enough. Shame on those people for punishing it when they placed it in that position.

Sorry for the rant, but like I said, this is something I feel very strongly about.
browneyedgirl65 From: browneyedgirl65 Date: August 19th, 2005 10:23 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, that's actually easily explained...liability (especially for dogs). Don't think I'm not sympathetic to your position, but I've worked in dog rescue for years, and due to legal liability concerns, animals injuring, let alone killing people (especially children) pretty much have to be put down. I have to admit, there are so many dogs who never show adverse reactions in the same set of circumstances, that as a rescue worker with limited resources, it makes sense to me to concentrate on these dogs instead. (Note that this itself is a subject of much contention and fury among rescue workers -- many rescue workers will still try to rehome an animal that's bitten; but as for myself we experienced a few too many cases where there was a second bite, that we developed our current policy.)

In a way, the more intimately an animal is connected with human lives, the more likely it will be put down for even less drastic "infractions" ... a dog will be much more readily trusted than a tiger, regardless. But killing a person seems to be crossing a line for most people. In a way it's a very interesting and/or telling aspect of human behavior...

Anyhow, I agree it's completely senseless. But not unexpected nor unexplainable in context, if that makes sense.
From: childthief_liar Date: August 25th, 2005 08:42 am (UTC) (Link)
The stupid bitch should have eaten something instead of weighing 10lbs, then her ass wouldn't have gotten eaten by a tiger.
6 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky