StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Both soldiers should be disciplined for unprofessional behavior. I cant blame the other soldier for shooting the tiger, probably cause it had its mouth around his buddys hand. Still, does not excuse getting drunk and walking into a tiger cage.

As for putting down animals after attacking humans, it is not uncommon to let an animal live when it was the person who invaded the animals space.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Edi wrote:that did nothing wrong?

Huh? It attacked a person. Animals that attack people are put down. That's what you always do to them. The incident might have been avoidable and is hardly a great thing, sure, but once the animal has attacked and mauled a person, it's sleep-sleep time.

Jesus Marina, next time you are at a zoo, I dare you to play with the nerest tiger and see what it does. The animal is a tiger not a family pet, you cannot expect it to acct like one. There is also the intelligence factor of these soldiers, pair of fucking morons.

Jesus Marina, next time you are at a zoo, I dare you to play with the nerest tiger and see what it does. The animal is a tiger not a family pet, you cannot expect it to acct like one. There is also the intelligence factor of these soldiers, pair of fucking morons.

Marina is correct. As she admitted, the incident is extremely unfortunate. That does not however preclude normal animal control measures.

Animals that become too used to humans are a grave danger. Especially a tiger such as the one in this situation, probably freightened out of its mind by the events of the past several months and enjoying only sub-standard care.

Kast, you're an utter fucking moron too. If some burglar invades somebody's home and gets shot, do we put down the homeowner because he is a dnager to other people? If you stick your hand in a tiger cage, you deserve to have it bitten off, because these wild and [/i]feral[/i] animals never have gotten used to humans, that's the reason they are caged and there are warnings that they are dangerous.

Seriously, I've never seen a fuckwit as dense as you are, except Darkstar, but he at least limits his idiocy to fictional issues, whereas you don't.

Edi

Kast, you're an utter fucking moron too. If some burglar invades somebody's home and gets shot, do we put down the homeowner because he is a dnager to other people? If you stick your hand in a tiger cage, you deserve to have it bitten off, because these wild and [/i]feral[/i] animals never have gotten used to humans, that's the reason they are caged and there are warnings that they are dangerous.

Seriously, I've never seen a fuckwit as dense as you are, except Darkstar, but he at least limits his idiocy to fictional issues, whereas you don't.

A homeowner is a human being capable of rational thought. Would you presume to be able to say the same of a caged animal as well?

A wild animal that has bitten, attacked, or killed a human gains a level of desensitization that makes it more likely to strike at a later date, even assuming only limited provocation. It becomes less safe. Period.

Axis Kast wrote:

Jesus Marina, next time you are at a zoo, I dare you to play with the nerest tiger and see what it does. The animal is a tiger not a family pet, you cannot expect it to acct like one. There is also the intelligence factor of these soldiers, pair of fucking morons.

Marina is correct. As she admitted, the incident is extremely unfortunate. That does not however preclude normal animal control measures.

Actually, there have been many cases in which animals at zoos which kill people entering their cages are unpunished.

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/ ... eeper.html
http://www.bigcats.org/abc/attacks/vienna.html
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/ ... icago.html

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/1 ... 21027.html
(actually, they don't explicitly say whether anything would be done to the animals after this particular incident, but I thought I'd post it because it's fucking hilarious to see the sheer level of stupidity exhibited by the idiot in the first article).

Anyway, the point remains: if a human foolishly enters a predatory animal's space and dies as a result, the animal is usually left alone. The animals are usually put down when they are deemed a threat to the general population.

Exceptions to the rule, Mike.

Axis Kast wrote:Exceptions to the rule, Mike.

Do you have some source for this "rule" that zoo animals are always killed when they maul a human who foolishly invades his space?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/getaways/ ... ild20.html

Such contact can cause animals to lose their innate fear of humans. These desensitized animals -- including many National Park and campground bears -- are widely considered the most dangerous animals of all.

This article confirms the theory: animals that attack experience desensitization to humans.


http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservatio ... 39184.html

About an hour after the attack, wildlife officials harpooned the male alligator, known as Mo-Jo by garden employees, said John Duncan, an officer with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Authorities shot the alligator and slit its stomach open, finding Goodman's arm inside. The arm was taken to Shands Hospital at the University of Florida, but doctors could not reattach it, botanical garden spokeswoman Barbara Bennett said.

An alligator was harpooned after attacking a human being.


http://www.jessleephotos.com/ysnp/wolves.html[/quote]

Those animals that continue to pose a threat to themselves or to humans may be translocated to other areas of the park, or even removed from the park ecosystem.

If you read the full article, there was one coyote attack resulting in a human death, and “aggressive behavior” can range from approach to attack. It can be inferred that this animals that actually attack humans directly are put down.


http://www.yellowstoneparktraveler.com/ ... life.shtml

The coup de grace. Listings of the consequences of animal behavior that include proof: attacking animals are generally put down.

That's national parks. Mike said zoos.

Axis Kast wrote:

Kast, you're an utter fucking moron too. If some burglar invades somebody's home and gets shot, do we put down the homeowner because he is a dnager to other people? If you stick your hand in a tiger cage, you deserve to have it bitten off, because these wild and [/i]feral[/i] animals never have gotten used to humans, that's the reason they are caged and there are warnings that they are dangerous.

Seriously, I've never seen a fuckwit as dense as you are, except Darkstar, but he at least limits his idiocy to fictional issues, whereas you don't.

A homeowner is a human being capable of rational thought. Would you presume to be able to say the same of a caged animal as well?

A wild animal that has bitten, attacked, or killed a human gains a level of desensitization that makes it more likely to strike at a later date, even assuming only limited provocation. It becomes less safe. Period.

A homeowner as a {supposidly) rational Human being would not keep a tiger as a pet. Zoo animals are not concidered pets and, for the most part, are not domesticated animals band are treated as such.

A wild animal in a zoo, particuly endangered ones are not nomally put down after a attack on a human because they are too rare to just do away with. And on that note a wild animal in a zoo is managed by trained, proffetional keepers not drunk idiot soldiers with firearms, there isa difference.
That tiger acted on instinct, exactly as it should. The soldiers acted out of drunken stupidity.

That's national parks. Mike said zoos.

Comparing one to the other is benevolence on my part. Animals allowed to roam free in parks after attacks are afforded it because of space and environment - and even then many are killed. It is assumed, if they are released, that they will not come into direct contact with human beings again. The same cannot be said for animals kept in cages or confined habitats. You know this.

A homeowner as a {supposidly) rational Human being would not keep a tiger as a pet. Zoo animals are not concidered pets and, for the most part, are not domesticated animals band are treated as such.

A homeowner does not necessarily shoot anybody who comes toward his property. An animal is liable to do so regardless of the intent of the human being involved. Behavioral patterns differ severely. To compare the two is folly. But again, you know this.

A wild animal in a zoo, particuly endangered ones are not nomally put down after a attack on a human because they are too rare to just do away with. And on that note a wild animal in a zoo is managed by trained, proffetional keepers not drunk idiot soldiers with firearms, there isa difference.
That tiger acted on instinct, exactly as it should. The soldiers acted out of drunken stupidity.

Oh, I'll agree the tiger probably acted out of instinct. That doesn't mean its action won't have consequences however. The issue of desensitization remains. Even in open habitats, animals that attack humans who come too close - and all of the sources agree; it's virtually always the human's fault unless the animal is sick beforehand - are often put down. It's a matter of precluding a breakdown in psychological barriers.

Axis Kast wrote:

That's national parks. Mike said zoos.

Comparing one to the other is benevolence on my part. Animals allowed to roam free in parks after attacks are afforded it because of space and environment - and even then many are killed. It is assumed, if they are released, that they will not come into direct contact with human beings again. The same cannot be said for animals kept in cages or confined habitats. You know this.

You've still failed to provide examples of this animal-kill "rule" for zoos, and this handwaving is no substitute.

You've still failed to provide examples of this animal-kill "rule" for zoos, and this handwaving is no substitute.

No, there is no "rule". In that sense, my statement was misleading. What I should have said was: "This is usually the case, and the result of animal attacks against humans is agreed to be breakdown of psychological barriers, the result of which is heightened danger for human beings." That doesn't vindicate your argument however. That tiger - especially because of the environment in which it now lives - had to be put down.

Axis Kast wrote:
A homeowner does not necessarily shoot anybody who comes toward his property. An animal is liable to do so regardless of the intent of the human being involved. Behavioral patterns differ severely. To compare the two is folly. But again, you know this.

Right, which is why you dont put yout fucking arm in the cage of a tiger.

Oh, I'll agree the tiger probably acted out of instinct. That doesn't mean its action won't have consequences however. The issue of desensitization remains. Even in open habitats, animals that attack humans who come too close - and all of the sources agree; it's virtually always the human's fault unless the animal is sick beforehand - are often put down. It's a matter of precluding a breakdown in psychological barriers.

An animal in a zoo lives within a controlled environment therefor the issue you have in a natural state hardly applys to that of a zoo.

I'll deal with this in reverse order. You'll see why in a moment.

An animal in a zoo lives within a controlled environment therefor the issue you have in a natural state hardly applys to that of a zoo.

It's a genorosity to compare zoo animals - especially the Baghdad tiger - with those in a natural environment.

The articles all speak to the effects of stress upon aggressive behavior. Now, who among you is going to argue that the tiger in question was a typical example? That it wasn't under terrific stress, given what had to be substandard handling and constant noise? If stress is our qualifier for danger in the first place, this tiger registers at the high end of any chart.

Now that we've established similarities in animal behavior in zoos and natural habitats, let's look at difference in methodology of handling. In certain situations, a national park will "keep on" rather than "put down" an aggressive animal. This is largely accomplished via relocation, for the reasoning goes that most park animals never engage in direct contact with human begins. That's virtually impossible in a caged or artificial setting. Hence the stress - combined with the degredation of psychological barriers that lead animals to fear human begins - is much more a danger. The animal was a liability.

Right, which is why you dont put yout fucking arm in the cage of a tiger.

Irrelevant. In virtually all cases in which animals attack, the human being is at fault. That does not change the necessary consequences.

Axis Kast wrote:

Right, which is why you dont put yout fucking arm in the cage of a tiger.

Irrelevant. In virtually all cases in which animals attack, the human being is at fault. That does not change the necessary consequences.

It is relevant. You don't act like a dumbass and stick something where it doesn't belong and it is very awkward to say that ones own fault is another's demise. It's his fault for putting his arm in there, and that what's he gets. What you're saying here smells like the "It's not my fault" bullshit.~Jason

Axis Kast wrote:snip utter bullshit.
The animal was a liability.

Drunk soldier puts arm in tiger cage, tiger savages soldiers arm. Stress on Tiger is irrelivant because the soldier should never have put his arm in the cage. If as you say the tiger was under some kind of stress thats all the more reason not to go near the thing. In normall situations the tiger is probably controllably by properly trained staff, but the soldier is not properly trained to handle tigers.
Why do you not grasp this?

Right, which is why you dont put yout fucking arm in the cage of a tiger.

Irrelevant. In virtually all cases in which animals attack, the human being is at fault. That does not change the necessary consequences.

Ahh, nessary consequesnces. Given that it is safe to say that soldier is not trained to handle tigers in any circumstance, who the hell is he to judge what concequences are nessary, if any.
It is relivant because that soldier had food in his hand, was not trained to handle tigers and was drunk. A tiger when fed in an appropriate way would not attack as a trained zookeeper would know what to do.

Now kindly shut the fuck up, you patently dont know what you are talking about.

It is relevant. You don't act like a dumbass and stick something where it doesn't belong and it is very awkward to say that ones own fault is another's demise. It's his fault for putting his arm in there, and that what's he gets. What you're saying here smells like the "It's not my fault" bullshit.~Jason

Are you some kind of moron? How many times does it have to be made clear to you that the consequences are still negative where the tiger is concerned? The animal’s fear of human beings decreases, to its handler’s detriment. It’s that simple. Fault doesn’t enter into this equation.

Drunk soldier puts arm in tiger cage, tiger savages soldiers arm. Stress on Tiger is irrelivant because the soldier should never have put his arm in the cage. If as you say the tiger was under some kind of stress thats all the more reason not to go near the thing. In normall situations the tiger is probably controllably by properly trained staff, but the soldier is not properly trained to handle tigers.
Why do you not grasp this?

Stress on the tiger is absolutely relevant, you blithering idiot. If the tiger is stressed, the effects of the attack are much, much worse because the psychological consequences – i.e. of fear of human beings – are more progressive.

Jesus H. Christ. For the one hundredth time: I am not defending the soldier’s choice.

In “normal conditions”? You mean when bombs hadn’t been falling ‘round the clock for about a month? This thing cannot but be half out of its mind already – and then you go and argue that a confidence boost in its own aggression is acceptable.

Ahh, nessary consequesnces. Given that it is safe to say that soldier is not trained to handle tigers in any circumstance, who the hell is he to judge what concequences are nessary, if any.
It is relivant because that soldier had food in his hand, was not trained to handle tigers and was drunk. A tiger when fed in an appropriate way would not attack as a trained zookeeper would know what to do.

Now kindly shut the fuck up, you patently dont know what you are talking about.

The consequences are clear to anybody with half a fucking brain.

A tiger when fed in an appropriate way can indeed attack a zoo keeper. Especially if it has a history of having encountered human beings in that kind of situation before. You’re making remarkably stupid hypothesis.

Axis Kast wrote:Are you some kind of moron? How many times does it have to be made clear to you that the consequences are still negative where the tiger is concerned? The animal’s fear of human beings decreases, to its handler’s detriment. It’s that simple. Fault doesn’t enter into this equation.

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

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!

Jebus H. Frelling Crimbo, what in the fuck is wrong with that mess that passes for a brain for you?

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.

Keevan_Colton wrote: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!

Yes you can, they want food. In order to survive you must eat.

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.

Or the cats are perfectly fine with him you mean.

I think Axis percieves it as If you're afraid of something all the more reason to attack it. If that's how he is basing it on then all the more fucking reason not to put your arm in there because the idiot would and did gave the tiger a big chance of doing so. PERIOD.

Cyaround,
Jason

Soontir C'boath wrote:

Keevan_Colton wrote: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!

Yes you can, they want food. In order to survive you must eat.

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....

Keevan_Colton wrote: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....

May be best for everyone, but where did we get the conclusion that the one out in the open know well enough to know the consquences in the aftermath?

Soontir C'boath wrote:

Keevan_Colton wrote: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....

May be best for everyone, but where did we get the conclusion that the one out in the open know well enough to know the consquences in the aftermath?

Please, see the last line...this is all about a caged animal....