Poor guy just started off at the place 2 weeks before . The Lion got out of the confinement area while he was cleaning the area. Dude never had a chance
it was a woman who died
In 2004, the zoo assisted the U.S. Department of Agriculture by accepting 14 lions and tigers that were part of a larger confiscation of animals living in unacceptable conditions, the center's website states. It has more than 16,000 visitors each year.
Zoos do extremely important relief, education, and conservation work.
Holy shit she's from my state and near my age
I don't mean to be insensitive, but I never understood the killing of wild animals after they do what they are basically built to do.
Holy shit dude you almost died
We generally put down animals that have tasted human flesh for a reason. The animal is more likely to attack again, simply put. While there are no real statistics of this (we put them down after one attack after all) nor studies (we'd have to simply watch people get attacked/eaten), its a simple fact that the best predictor for future behavior in any animal is past behavior. The sheer fact that they've attacked somebody makes it more likely for them comparatively to every other member of their species to cause another attack. Think of it this way: who do you think is more likely to kill you, a murderer or someone who's never killed before?
If you want a legal reason, then most state laws require most animals to be put down if they attack people. There are often exceptions to these laws, however.
This is a bad analogy because humans have conscience and morality (you can choose to kill or not) but animals don't. We could easily emulate "bloodlust" in a study by measuring a big cat's ability/predilection to attack a bird or something after attacking one once.
The reason we put down animals that have mauled humans is to prevent public outcry and panic similar to your post but there's no real reason to it. Your post suggests that animals go batshit after mauling a human once but I've been bitten by my cat before and we're still amicable. I'm pretty sure she bit me because she felt uncomfortable, not because she bit me before.
I don't think a cat biting you is with the intent to actually kill and eat you. If you are going by "emulating the bloodlust" then I think theres already some other research (skinner box maybe?) that somewhat prove animal's action with the reward or stimulation they get, so I think it's fairly acceptable for "the animal might eat some people again" imo. The no real research problem is there's no research on actual human being eaten rather than the actual bloodlust thing.
No, his post certainly didn't suggest that. It's not about the animal gaining some sort of bloodlust, some taste for human flesh, it's strictly about probability, especially when it comes to animals that will be routinely exposed to society. Zoo animals, pets - you can't take the chance once they've done it.
There's absolutely no reason to take that chance, because, and I guess this is considered 'controversial' now: the risk of another human dying/being injured completely and utterly justifies sacrificing the life of an animal.
If said animal did go on to harm someone else in the future, then the blame would be put squarely on those responsible the first time it happened. It's just a messy situation and, precisely because animals lack 'conscience and morality', you can't really slap them in some sort of animal jail to rehabilitate them.
In an ideal world putting down these animals would be utterly unnecessary, we would have infinite resources and good-hearted people willing to fix every single violent case. But an ideal world, this is not, and we, as a society, have a fundamental value for human life, which, unfortunately, trumps all other forms of life.
I mean it didn't happen locally. What I'm wondering is if the internship was one of the trip ones around here or if she moved to NC
No need
Animals can choose to kill or not too, what does that have to do with morality? The vast majority of these large predators, from bears to sharks to big cats, leave people *alone*. Many large cats interact fine with humans in captivity, and the vast majority of them in the wild even near human settlements aren't man eaters too. Wanting to *eat* is a natural thing, but this was a well fed cat in a zoo that specifically decided to kill a human. Don't underestimate other animals, they're fully capable of making their own decisions even without the constraint of social interactions that we humans bind ourselves to.
And no, I did not say that "animals go batshit after mauling a human." Its about chance. Is the animal likely to attack someone ever again? Who knows. But what matters is that this animal has displayed the willingness to have that behavior and we can't afford to take any chances when it comes to a human life. And if we did, and it does happen, who's going to take the blame? If you were in charge of that original decision to let the lion live would you be able to say "its just natural that it kills people" to the parents of another dead intern?
Never turn your back and run from a big cat. Easier said than done though I guess.
who cares
your post did not imply that or make that clear in any way
it's in the article that it didn't happen where she was from
Yeah, it's gonna fuck you up either way, you might as well stand, face it, and flip it off with both hands. You're dead either way, but at least you get to go out in a blaze of defiance.
Let's not make it a gender issue now.
And fuck all the animals in them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
