The animal's fear in or out of the cage would be the same. It's called getting food. Besides how would you know if they fear us in the first place?~Jason
An animal in a cage is generally prone to higher stress than an animal in the wild, although this can change according to level of care.
Most animals fear humans because they sometimes react unpredictably. Humans make a great deal of noise, flail about, and can otherwise make themselves appear much larger if necessary. It’s simple fear of the unknown. Refer yourself to any of the articles above; all deal with animals’ general perversion to humans.
Kast you fucking idiot, an animal in a cage that's mauled someone dumb enough to stick bits of themseleves into that cage and one that's mauled someone wandering the countryside are totally fucking different. You cannot even begin to compare them!
The consequences of the mauling are not “totally fucking different” however. In both situations, the animal begins to see humans as something closer to prey. An animal cannot differentiate conceptually between kinds of provocation – and, as I’ve mentioned tirelessly, attacks are the fault of humans 99% of the time, in or out of the cage.
A good friend of mine works as a keeper, and animals fear of humans does not enter into the equasion of how he works....even with the large cats he is perfectly comfortable working with them.
First of all, you cannot prove this. It’s appeal to unverifiable authority. Second of all, his personal opinion of the job itself is a whole bunch of useless crap.
Nope....one is in a CAGE, where in order to be in any danger from its desire for food you have to be so fucking STUPID as to stick bits of yourself in the cage....the other is in an open area and then its fear of humans comes into play, in that it'd be best for everyone if it didnt wander up to people.......
You cannot use what should be done in one set of circumstances to show what should be done in the other....
An animal in a cage is prone to higher stress if not properly managed and paired.
Let’s move a way from discussion of whether or not it was a “good move” for the soldier in question to feed the tiger himself, all right? You people harp over this as if it’s the actual focus of our argument – and that’s just too bad; it’s not.
Nobody's given a counterargument as to why the consequences of an attack would be different, moreover. If nobody can get past trying to prove to me that which I already believe - that it was stupid to stick a hand in the cage in the first place -, I'll be accepting my concession.