StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-24 08:51pm 

I have to admit the whole psychological condition for a wild animal made me chuckle.

I agree.....

The Tiger was clearly having anger problems due to its past relationship with its father.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 01:52am 

Man I so much wanted to be one of those Lions, I mean they were so bad ass, kings of the jungle and all. All I get is that damn William Blake poem, WTF are they going to try to set me on fire or something....

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 04:36am 

Axis, your mouth has the same use as your mothers cunt.
Why do you not understand the simplest thing? no putee arm near tiger, tiger no attack da arm, you savvy ?







A tiger when hadled by a trained keeper who knows the animal, is a safe, albeit potenially dangerous, thing..those soldiers were drunk twits who tawt dey saw a puddy tat. It is for these reasons that stress on the tiger is irrelivant..the soldiers were morons of the highest calibre.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 12:59pm 

SIMPLE the situation is a PUSH

the soldiers are at fault for gross incompetance and negalgence, getting drunk and trying to feed a wild animal. Thus they are at fault.

The animal attacked a human thus it had to be killed. That is the policy the world over. Read killing an elephant by George Orwell. The rules haven't changed even when the animal's reaction is the result of blatant abuse.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 02:16pm 

Please post proof of this worldwide policy.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 02:33pm 

I've seen many cases of people getting kicked/headbutted from trying to approach goats, mules, cows etc incorrectly. I haven't heard any single case where some law or policy dictates that these creatures must be put to death. Falling in a shark tank and being attacked by the sharks doesn't warrant the death of the sharks (who have two basic instincts: swim and bite) even if the sharks have unsolved issues with their parents.
Guard dogs attack people too. They attack trespassers. I have seen no rule that says that a guard dog attacking a trespasser must be put to death.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 05:08pm 

I believe he is correct. There was an incident at Lagoon (an amusement park in Utah) where one the animal tenders was feeding or petting a Leopard and was attacked. They put the leopard down because it attacked a human.

I think the policy is stupid, but whatever. I mean it's a wild animal, how does it attacking a human make it any more of an unpredictable creature?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 05:47pm 

Zoo 1 decides that they're going to kill every animal that "crosses the line". Zoo 2 decides that the animal is important and inherently aggresive, therefore killing it for doing what everyone knows he is going to do is stupid. It's the Zoo's call whether they put an animal down or not, for X reason. To assert the first one is right, therefore it's global policy to kill caged, dangerous, predatory animals that attack people who don't obey the rules, is quite stupid.

The Zoo might decide to release it into the wild, kill it, sell it to another, better equipped zoo, etc. There's no such thing as a worldwide ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards animals.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 05:49pm 

The soldier didn't own the zoo, nor the tiger. He wasn't the mayor of the town, the Iraqi president, or whoever is in the right of making such a decision. Therefore, what he did was a criminal act.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 09:35pm 

Not a single one of you has footed proof to the effect that the so-called “most wild” animals are never in a position to harm zoo staff.

Why does psychology matter? Edi made the argument for me. An assault on humans destroys the, “If it’s not prey, don’t touch” outlook. An animal that kills or attacks a human becomes much more likely to do so again if it gets the chance. If you want proof that certain animals can display different kinds of behavior on an individual basis, look no further than elephants; many have been “put down” as a result of aggressive tendencies.

Nobody’s arguing that animals at zoos are “made docile.” We know that’s not the case. Nobody is arguing, Edi, that the tiger wouldn’t respond the same way to a similar incident – merely that it can’t be allowed to even once.

Get it through your heads: nobody is arguing that the soldier didn’t make a mistake. It must be recognized that the animal had to be put down however. If the soldier didn’t do it, somebody else should have.

The comparison to national parks displays clearly that animals that attack humans are put down on a regular basis – even in a location where they can be set free in areas where it is unlikely they will encounter humans a second time.

Put simply, a vast majority of these arguments are knee-jerk bullshit that still haven't backed off from trying to argue the soldier's responsibility.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 10:20pm 

That's because it's utterly irrelevant, unless you expect me to believe that those soldiers were zoo staff. We're talking about the animal's ability to harm visitors, which is basically nonexistent when visitors obey the safety margins.



Ah yes, and this animal had a history such aggressive tendencies that the soldier who killed it took into account before he plugged it?



So if some jack-ass runs around sticking his hands into every zoo cage he finds, every animal that attacks him should be shot dead? That's patently absurd, yet somehow unexpected.



No Kast, you're arguing that human stupidity when dealing with large, ferocious predators is irrelevant when said predators attack people due to their own idiocy. Well it's not. I don't know what premise you base this on, but it isn't a premise involving anything even remotely resembling conventional crime-and-punishment practices.



That's because they're not caged up, dumb-ass. An animal attacking a human and doing damage from behind iron bars requires human stupidity. An animal attacking a human in the wild does not. In the former case, the human has only himself to blame for being such a fucking idiot. In the latter, the animal is culpable. Get it yet?



And you casually wave your hand and dismiss the soldier's responsibility as a fundamental assumption of your argument, an assumption which you have failed to justify, even after repeated challenges. So go ahead and keep telling yourself that we're just knee-jerking, if it makes you feel any better. We'll just stand back and watch you make a complete fool of yourself.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 10:40pm 

Last time I checked a cage also seperates zoo staff from the animal. When zoo staff need to clean the cage, they move the animal to a different holding area....this was already covered above...I see you choose to ignore it.



Are you serious? A wild predators psychology goes something like "if it moves it may taste good"

I want some sources of elephants being put down due to aggressive tendancies. (which doesn't include Dumbo going on a rampage through downtown)



It wasn't allowed to!!! Christ man that is the purpose of a cage.



We aren't arguing the somebody made a mistake....that is fucking obvious. What we are arguing is the stupidity of putting an animal down, by someone who was not AUTHORIZED to do so, because it attacked someone who broke a rule that is apart of any zoo in the world.



How come you can't see the difference between an animal that in contained within a cage and one which is not?



The ONLY situation which I can agree with the soldier shooting the Tiger is IF the Tiger still had a hold of the other soldier. If that is the case then that soldier should not be punished (unless he was drunk and in possession of a firearm) However, the soldier that violated the rules of the zoo should be stripped of rank, and have his pay docked. Maybe he'll wake the fuck up!

As Durandal pointed out simply shooting in the air would have been better but it was a high stress situation.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 10:59pm 

Well, now I get it! Axis Kast thinks that these soldiers were working at the zoo! No, little buddy, they were just there partying, getting drunk and sticking their arms in cages. If they had been employed by the zoo and got hurt when doing properly their job, then the zoo could have taken the decision of putting the animal down.

Hope that clears things up for ya, kid. What a relief, it was just a big misunderstanding.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 11:04pm 

Besides, you already proved in this thread that tigers aren't normally dangerous. Or carnivorous or have sharp claws and teeth and stuff, nor predatory instincts. I mean, if animals had the means to hurt people, then people wouldn't put them in cages.

I got your back buddy.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 11:13pm 

You're wrong. The cage is just a psychological deterrent, to make the tiger afraid and obedient to his human masters. The animal knows that if he steps out of line, he's going to get a head full of lead, but the cage is there to reinforce the feeling of impotence and inferiority.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-25 11:28pm 

Seems to me that Kast knows nothing of predators in general.

Why should a predator be put down again? Because it becomes "desensitized" to killing humans? As if they didnt have a problem with it before...

HUmans as I have already said, are hideously easy prey. And an opportunistic predator like a tiger will take hmans as part of their natural diet(hence the reason that people in India wear sets of fake eyes on the backs of their heads)

hese tigers were recieving IIRC substandard care, they were stressed, and probbly hungry. A human(especially one acting stupidly) would be logical pey for a wild tiger.

THe point is Kast, an animal that does what is natural to it should not be put down. You ust understand that, even though we are the dominant animals on the food chain, we are not outside it, and are still easy prey for any animal that atches us without our technologicl shield against them.

A DOMESTIC animal that attacks a human becomes a danger, a wild animal that attacks a human was a danger in the first place, does this mean we should kill all non-domesticated animals????

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-26 02:10am 

And yet people disobey those rules. Animals are occasionally placed in a position from which they do harm. Practicality dictates: precautions must be taken. This is, of course, aside from the zoo staff itself – which you must still prove is somehow immune to animal aggression.



I’m arguing validity of theory, not validity of circumstance. In this case, one attack would be more than sufficient evidence. That tiger could not but be near the breaking point.



False dilemma. Aggressive animals are shot even by institutions whose purpose it is to preserve them: witness policy at National Parks. You also dismiss rather important factors related to analysis of animal psychology – particularly environmental stress.



Yes, it is. “Conventional crime-and-punishment practices” are not applicable to what cannot reason. It isn’t my fault you can’t understand that an animal does not know whether human actions are intended or unintended, but gains the same reinforcement as a result of the attack in either case.



Culpability of human or animal is irrelevant. The same problems result no matter what the situation.

Animals at National Parks are often “put down” rather than being released into the wild after attacks on human beings; this despite a much greater range of movement and the distinctly minimal chance of a second contact.



What the soldier “deserved” is not a fundamental part of this argument. It is now up to you to substantiate how aggression differs in psychological impact on the animal whether it is the human’s fault or not.



You have offered no proof that zoo staff never deal with active wild animals at one point or another.



Your assessment of a predator’s psychology is so simplistic it’s laughable.

Sources? Go find them yourself. Read the thread. It’s not my responsibility to repost what’s already there.



That kind of behavior cannot be tolerated at any juncture. Period.



This is about principle, not whether it was right or wrong for the individual solider to make that decision.



Because even in National Parks, where animals are unlikely to be able to attack humans a second time in most circumstances, they are still shot for aggression.



Tell that to the people at National Parks who kill animals for that reason.



Certain behaviors by wild animals in enclosed settings cannot be tolerated. Hell, according to Yellowstone National Park, certain behaviors by wild animals in open settings cannot be tolerated, either.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-26 04:08am 

Purhaps one should check out the story by Orwell I mentioned it is clearly the policy in India at the time. It is still since I recall witnessing a rogue elephant being shot in India on the news in my life time. It's still the policy in Austrailia, Vietnam and Africa. When an animal does perminate injury to a human it is a threat to the larger speices and has to be killed. Sorry it's been that way for a LONG, LONG YEAR.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-26 04:10am 

Purhaps one should check out the story by Orwell I mentioned it is clearly the policy in India at the time. It is still since I recall witnessing a rogue elephant being shot in India on the news in my life time. It's still the policy in Austrailia, Vietnam and Africa. When an animal does perminate injury to a human it is a threat to the larger speices and has to be killed. Sorry it's been that way for a LONG, LONG YEAR.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-26 08:43am 

Yeah, the cases such as that involved an elephant running about in the open trampling on people....not caged animals.....

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-26 11:42pm 

That is because those animals are supposed to come into direct contact with humans on a regular basis. And even then, they do not put animals down often. They relocate them.

In a zoo, those animals only rarely make human contact. They may be used to a humans presence, but like any wild animal, they will still regard them as a possible food source.

Such animals are a danger to people in the first place, and in the case of wild animals, only tolerate human presence in their territory, and are only made all the more dangerous, by human feeding(they associate humans with food directly.... now instead of viewing them as a possible food source, they view them as a primary food source, and dont distinguish between a sandwitch and your hand)

This behavior is expected and it is a rsk the people take when they eneter a place like yellowstone, and they generally do not put animals down, to my knowledge, for oing what comes naturally to them.

At a zoo, those animals are not hand fed, nor are they even imprinted. They exist in a more or less natural state. And as such, are just as liable to harm you as a wild animal, and should not be put down if they do so.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-27 04:11pm 

Go back and read the actual source posts. The animals at the zoo were never specified to have escaped at any time.



Why was the soldier's hand in the cage in the first place? It couldn't have been to give him food, could it have? No. I don't remember reading that.

Yellowstone can and will kill certain animals - even though there's less reason to do so because those animals are very unlikely to gain another chance at approaching humans.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-27 04:38pm 

And *gasp* zoo keepers do not usually hand feed the animals in most zoos.
I know that Yellowstone can and does put animals down, but they dont USUALLY do it. It isnt their standrd procedure when they have a problem animal.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-27 05:21pm 

Let me see. The soldier gave the tiger food. The tiger accepted that food, and ate it. Why was the tiger shot again?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-09-27 05:31pm 

Alyrium. Putting down "problem" animals in Yellowstone National Park is usually determined by stress levels and aggression both. In the case of the Baghdad tiger, the aggression might seem to have been limited and unavoidable, but the stress to which the animal was already subjected would no doubt have given the psychological reinforcement of the attack an expotential increase in strength. Given an animal already so out of norms, the response to the attack must have been imposed death.

Now, Slartibartfast asks the questio of why the tiger was shot. He was shot because the soldier in question was drunk, angry, and terrified. Why he should have been shot anyway is another question entirely.