Part of the Bay Area News Group

S.F. Zoo still at fault, even if teen drank, smoked pot, taunted tiger

By Gary Bogue
Wednesday, June 4th, 2008 at 7:20 am in tiger attack, Zoos.

The penalty for drinking booze, smoking pot, taunting (or having a criminal record) is not death.

I hate to revisit this terrible scene, but the City of San Francisco, and the public relations firm hired by the zoo to paint the kids as bad guys (yes, I know it wasn’t very hard), and now the San Francisco Medical Examiner … keep pointing fingers in all the wrong directions.

Since that terrible day when 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. was killed by an escaped tiger at San Francisco Zoo, and Sousa’s two friends were seriously mauled, the zoo has spent $1.7 million in safety renovations. (The wall surrounding the tiger enclosure was 4 feet lower than recommended industry standards.)

If the tiger cage had originally been secure, as zoo visitors should expect a tiger cage to be, the huge animal would not have been able to escape the cage and kill Sousa.

Zoo animals, most especially large predators, should not be able to escape from their cages … even if someone is trying to provoke them. /Gary

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

No Responses to “S.F. Zoo still at fault, even if teen drank, smoked pot, taunted tiger”

  1. Jason Whitmen Says:

    Nice site. There’s some good information on here. I’ll be checking back regularly.

  2. Karen Says:

    Zoos have a responsibility to manage the human critters outside the cage as well as the nonhuman critters inside the cage. They should expect that some people will try to provoke the animals and protect these people from themselves.

  3. bhf Says:

    Nothing is ever 100%. Shouldn’t we at least talk about shared responsibility? Zoo visitors have to behave too. I think that even though we are hearing a lot of talk about the actions of these visitors, it is important for us to understand how involved they were. I would also like to know if they had the ability to understand that they were in danger. Maybe their condition prevented them from making the right decision to flee properly and stay out of danger.

Leave a Reply