Why wasn't Tatiana tranquilized?

funnysam2006

I agree she was just being a tiger and doing what was natural to her. The zoo should have taken precautions as well as she should have been tranquilized.

Of course she had killed humans but then how many tigers have humans killed till date and do we hang all humans who kill tigers ?

The logic that human life is more precious than anything else isnt helping the animals as well as the humans, we seem to be going towards self-destruction at a pretty fast pace.

We need to respect nature and its beauty , we seem to be obsessed with multiplying our own at the cost of everyone else.

The Patriot

I do not think that the police have tranquilliser guns.

More importantly, even if they did, when they arrived, there was a clear and present threat to human life, that had to be ended quickly. If they had called for tranquilliser guns, more people, including them, could have died while they waited for them to arrive.

Because no life on this planet is more precious than humans', Tantiana wasnt killed by zoo staff but by copers. Means the staff which should ve performed their duty were too scared to come out, and had locked themselves in. Tatiana had to be shot due to poor security or cctv operations of zoo and poorly trained staff.

old fuzz

Amazing. . .

This "cat" lunged at the officers!!!! The trank is not an instant stop. I'm not sure what weapons the cops had when they went in to look for the animal, but a shotgun, a pistol, or the .223 rifle that department usually carries are pretty inadequate weapons when dealing with a full grown Tiger.

The same cat mauled one other person about six months ago. Now it has mauled two others and killed one. Geeze, lady, at what point do you start valuing a human life??

That some other person made an error that resulted in the cat getting out is irrelevant. The cat is now out of the bag, and that has to be dealt with immediately.

The man that was killed died a terrible, painful death. He leaves a family that loved him and needed him. And you are more concerned about a damned cat. Shame on you!

mentisthemagnificent

In the time it would have taken to go to an office, or store room, to get a tranquilizer, she may have killed another dozen people. A tranquilizer is a one projectile item, which may miss. A shotgun fires many projectiles, some of which are apt to hit. The Tiger deserved to die. The SF Zoo does not deserve to exist. It failed to properly house/control its' animals. The cat was not killed to 'punish' it. It was killed to prevent it from killing anymore people.

Rommel

i could'nt agree with you more. what a sickening waste. how on earth was that tiger allowed to escape? the obvious question is, why are we keeping them in zoo's in the first place. that poor guy has lost he's life, and so has the poor tiger. its about time we outlawed the practice of keeping wild animals locked up. its barbaric. and should be banned.

mafiaboss_nz

I am afraid you have to accept the tranquilizers take too much time, i have spoken with my father who is a farm vet and had to tranquilized large animals like sheep, cows and horses and it can take 10-15 minutes to kick in.

If this cat was on a victim they had to shoot him, how would you feel if it mauled a member of your family only to find out that the "police had tranquilized it and were waiting for it to kick in".

Use some common sense.

s and d e

i agree, she was only doing what comes naturally. however, once she killed someone-they had to put her down. it wasn't her fault, but unfortunately she had to pay the price. that's what happens when we cage animals that should be free. it's such a 2 headed coin. i understand the need to try and preserve animal species, but i hate seeing them in cages. but i think most public zoos treat their animals very well and i'm sure it hurt them to have to put that cat down.

Chanel

i think you're a bit off your rocker, lady.
not only had the tiger killed one man, but had mauled two others.
at the time the police (not animal control) found the tiger, it was laying next to one of the mauled people.
once it saw the police it lunged at them.
what'd you want them to do, sing it a lullaby?

bolillo_loco

Imagine if everybody packed a gun. The tiger may have injured the first person, but that would have been it. The tiger would have died in a hail of gunfire from packinâ€™ visitors. Instead, guns are badâ€¦ Only the police and military should have themâ€¦

Iâ€™ve often wished that I could be around a bunch of myopic anti gunners when theyâ€™re under attack. Some woman anti gunner getting gang raped, a mother anti gunner watching in horror as a dog mauls her baby to death, a bunch of anti gun college students being shot to death by a crazed gunman, and as I draw my .45 out to subdue the attackers, I quickly realize that the victims of the crimes all believe in gun control; therefore, I holster my side arm, and I continue on my way knowing that I kept the anti gunners best wishes in mind. Gee, I feel better now. Can we all get a big group hug? â€œIf it only saves one childâ€™s lifeâ€¦ Yea, never mind the 100 others that are dying due to not being able to see the forest through the tree.

Joe

It's asking too much of our police officers to expect them to permit themselves to be chewed on by a tiger until someone arrives with a tranquilizer gun.

i_am_jean_s

I agree with you. She was doing what comes naturally.
Perhaps the other predators should be rehoused elsewhere, as I believe this isn't the first incident. (At least until the security of the predator enclosures is reviewed, and passed as safe.)
A park near us had tigers donated, but they couldn't take them until they raised something like Â£70,000 for the secure enclosure. Tigers can jump a fair distance.

dels replies

it was an animal for goodness sake...killing humans... Nobody likes seeing lovely animals harmed, but in this case there was no option. Cops dont carry tranquilisers as a norm. How many more might have died if they had waited for them?

The zoo should close. It has a duty of care to visitors and to the animals. Zoos claim to be able to save endangered animals, but this clearly doesn't help. Tigers are rare and precious. If the zoo can't keep them safely, and help their numbers increase, then they should not keep them.

JedEyeRight

I agree, should have used their Tazers and hand cuffs.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: