After reading the article on the San Diego Zoo about the tiger I was thinking about AK.I was talking with dh about the gorillas and how safe are we really?? Any opinions??

I thought it was the San Francisco Zoo, not San Diego. ??

I may have a misprint:geek:

I may have a misprint:geek:

san fran zoo....sorry

I am not worried one bit. While the recent zoo accident is tragic, it has been described as a total "fluke" of sorts. I am sure that any animal-related attraction, be it zoos or theme parks, are reviewing all sorts of procedures and attraction layouts to make sure that this does not happen in their back yard.

Rumor has it that the "young men" were antagonizing the critter, possibly entering the enclosure itself, and aiding the cat in escaping said enclosure.

If that's true, no sympathy.

Personally, I wouldn't irritate or P.O. the cat, and then help it get out so it could eat me. We may have another potential Darwin Award Winner here.

After reading the article on the San Diego Zoo about the tiger I was thinking about AK.I was talking with dh about the gorillas and how safe are we really?? Any opinions??

I can't believe this question is seriously being asked. Of course, after there being a major uproar on many Disney boards after that guy passed away on Everest, nothing should surprise me anymore.

5 words people:
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! (*eventually.*)

Just cope with it.

I know I'm not a mod or anything so what I care about doesn't matter, but every time I see a post like this or like the everest thing, it makes me just a little sick because you know somebody is going to see this thread and go off to another board with the "news that Disney is being unsafe with their Gorillas" (which are generally passive animals anyway) and the next thing you know there will be people guaranteeing that they wouldn't let their kids anywhere near those parks until they get a call from Jay Rasulo personally to assure their safety. The reality is: sometimes bad things happen. You live long enough, you'll see a lot of bad things happen. Odds are, they won't happen to you, so try not to lose sleep over it. :rolleyes:

I can't believe this question is seriously being asked. Of course, after there being a major uproar on many Disney boards after that guy passed away on Everest, nothing should surprise me anymore.

5 words people:
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! (*eventually.*)

Just cope with it.

I know I'm not a mod or anything so what I care about doesn't matter, but every time I see a post like this or like the everest thing, it makes me just a little sick because you know somebody is going to see this thread and go off to another board with the "news that Disney is being unsafe with their Gorillas" (which are generally passive animals anyway) and the next thing you know there will be people guaranteeing that they wouldn't let their kids anywhere near those parks until they get a call from Jay Rasulo personally to assure their safety. The reality is: sometimes bad things happen. You live long enough, you'll see a lot of bad things happen. Odds are, they won't happen to you, so try not to lose sleep over it. :rolleyes:

sorry to upset you soooo:rolleyes:

sorry to upset you soooo:rolleyes:

I guess when you have small children you don't need one more thing to think about......

Getting back on topic. It's true that people will naturally think that all zoos are unsafe because of what happened in San Francisco. On 9/11, all tall buildings were evacuated. And Disney World attractions do get shut down if there is an incident until an inspection is made. I'm sure the Animal Kingdom folks have done a thorough check to make sure something like this can never happens at Animal Kingdom. Even our Atlanta Zoo here had to issue a statement saying that all of its enclosures were safe.

No one can ever predict what an animal is going to do. That's why we are disappointed when the gorillas are napping and not playing. There is no way to say with 100% certainty that everyone at every zoo in every city in every country is going to be safe 100% of the time.

However, Disney World is the world leader in safety. It does things it's not required to do. It doesn't have to have their attractions inspected but it does.

Of all the places where you can see animals doing their natural activities, Disney World is going to be the safest one out there.

Right now, this tiger attack is on everyone's minds. In six months, people will forget about it. And Animal Kingdom will be the same today as it was three days ago and the same as it will be in six months. People are safe.

sorry to upset you soooo:rolleyes:

Dawz, you shouldn't even apologize. It was an honest question that I'm sure crossed a lot of minds. And now the zoo has admitted the enclosure wasn't really up to the recognized safety standards of height.

Now for the part that will probably get me flamed . . .

Tha enclosure wall was built in 1940 and this is the first time there's been an incident like this. Which means thousands if not millions have innocently walked by, observed, and been generally respectful of the animals inside. A tiger would not make such a spectacular leap and kill just because it was Tuesday and there was nothing on tv.

Evidence is starting to point to the teens having been screwing around and possibly taunting the tiger. What did they expect would happen? You tick off a tiger and its going to try to find a way to get you. This story wouldn't be half as sensational if it was "teen falls into tiger enclosure while fooling around and is killed." That's happened in the past and the overall consensus is usually "well it's really sad, but then again what do you expect?"

Well it's still kinda the same story. Only this time they didn't fall in, the tiger fell out.

As Chris Rock said after the Sigfried & Roy incident: "That tiger didn't go crazy; that tiger went tiger!"

I am not saying they deserved it, but I can't stand when people go to zoos and act like they no longer have to respect the animals because they're in cages. I've seen it many times here at the Brookfield Zoo. Tuanting and showing off because concrete and bars (and a healthy dose of ignorance) give a false sense of superiority. I will say I believe they deserved it no more or less than the tiger deserved to be killed.

Ok, I've got my asbestos underwear on, so flame away if you must . . . !

the only legitimate concern here is the habitat, as alluded to above. i can't believe any tiger exhibit built today would feature a moat as a barrier. it works great for lions and most other cats, but tigers (as you may be fortunate to see at the DAK exhibit and other newer tiger exhibits elsewhere) actually love water. as one zoo employee at the national zoo morbidly mentioned to the group i was with, if you fall into the moat with the lions, they may be able to save you - if you fall in with the tigers, forget it.

i'm not familiar with the SF zoo, but it's really quite evident at San Diego for example where there's an unhealthy combination of old style cage/habitats and the newer style (the tiger exhibit there is of a newer style i'd say) and you can see the difference. the newer style is not only more healthy for the animals, but provides a better experience for the visitor without compromising safety (in effect, is often more safe).

all that said, DAK is really about as new as it gets with their habitats, given the care and treatment of the animals and design of the habitats, you are just as safe from the animals as they are from you and each other.

the bottom line is, you are not interesting to most of these animals. most of them fear you except when they become domesticated (like the squirrels), usually by being fed. this is why bears that get fed by people are killed and why any lion that attacks a human in africa is immediately hunted and killed - because they don't want the wild animals to become accustomed to humans - they want them to keep their distance. they'll tend to only attack you when threatened or if they're not mentally stable or physically ill in some capacity (rabies don't hurt).

Now for the part that will probably get me flamed . . .

Actually, not so much. I'm reading in the Washington Post this morning that the wall was 12.5' high and it is supposed to be 16.4' according to the AZA to whom Disney is a major contributor and, for those who don't know, Disney was sure to hire away some of the best people from other zoos as well as getting the cooperation of the AZA before they acquired any animals for AK--once again, I do feel it's absolutely silly to worry about safety at a Disney park. If something's going to happen, some guest getting up in arms worrying about it will have no impact. (For clarification, if you actually see somebody [guest or CM] engaging in unsafe practices, do say something to somebody, but for the most part, Disney has a lot of rules in place to ensure safety and, with AK and the AZA, they helped write a lot of the new rules!)

As far as the other bit I'm reading, I worked at the National Zoo for a while (computers, not animals, but I did have to get some training about how to deal with certain animals because you'd be surprised where they put computers in some of those buildings) and it sure sounds like these guys were taunting the Tigers. I've seen a lot of this same sort of thing from other idiots (mostly non English speakers, but I don't want to generalize as there are millions of idiot Americans visiting zoos too) and they never care when anybody short of gun-carrying law enforcement tells them to stop. I know, because I've tried. I did the "Excuse me, my name is _________, I work here at the zoo and you need to stop. What you're doing is not allowed." And I got the old "oh, yeah, sure!" only to have them start again minutes later. I actually, once, hauled two guys to a security guard by their shirt collars because they wouldn't stop feeding Doritos to some of the monkeys. (I had a lot of my team for backup on that one, but they were sort of mystified as to why I was taking care of it--"you know other people just started feeding the monkeys as soon as we left!") I can't really go to Zoos like that any more because people make me so frustrated and angry with raging stupidity like that. They can sit through an entire presentation about conservation and recycling and then, five minutes later, throw a soda can into a panda enclosure! So, my new take on it is, bad things happen, but some people deserve bad things to happen to them!

Note: I should find out in the next month if the Smithsonian (the people who run the National Zoo) is getting funding for another computer project this year! I like the Museums better than the zoo. Nobody shows up to the museums because you can't taunt art and artifacts!

Another interesting tidbit...Since the wall was not up to current standards (12.5ft vs 16.4 ft) it would have helped if that 33 foot moat actually had water in it.

water doesn't stop tigers as i mentioned. i didn't know if there was water or not, but it's inconsequential. tigers often rely on water in hot weather to go swimming.

when the bronx zoo re-did their tiger exhibit, they gave the tigers a 10,000 gallon pool.

http://www.aza.org/AZAPublications/2004Proceedings/Documents/2004ConfProc1.pdf

the idea of the moat though is to provide a visible barrier that the animal won't want to cross. whether it's filled or not won't matter, if the animal can leap from the edge of the moat in its enclosure over the wall on the other side. being filled with water wouldn't discourage a tiger in the least, it'd actually be able to swim back to its exhibit if it missed the jump. if there was no water in it (which sounds much better than my assumption), at least the tiger would have incentive not to jump.

water doesn't stop tigers as i mentioned. i didn't know if there was water or not, but it's inconsequential. tigers often rely on water in hot weather to go swimming.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly, as I've not seen a picture of the enclosure in question, but I'm guessing that the previous poster is saying it would be harder for the tiger to get the height if they had a greater distance to jump across and it would be harder to jump straight up if the jump was out of water (nothing to push off of). I might be misunderstanding, though...

Another interesting tidbit...Since the wall was not up to current standards (12.5ft vs 16.4 ft) it would have helped if that 33 foot moat actually had water in it.


Point is that without water, the kitty apparently was able to clear the 12.4ft wall, especially if agitated or antagonized, as alleged, but not proven.

If there was water in the moat, the kitty would not be able to leap over the wall.

However, the tiger in the jungle cruise is able to leap over 25 feet, and weighs over 5,000 lbs.

However, the tiger in the jungle cruise is able to leap over 25 feet, and weighs over 5,000 lbs.

And, depending on which skipper you get, so does the hippo and the python and the rhino... :rolleyes:

Point is that without water, the kitty apparently was able to clear the 12.4ft wall, especially if agitated or antagonized, as alleged, but not proven.

If there was water in the moat, the kitty would not be able to leap over the wall.

However, the tiger in the jungle cruise is able to leap over 25 feet, and weighs over 5,000 lbs.

First, I am a SFZoo passholder, and have been for years. I love that zoo and have been really happy to watch it change from the concrete-and-bar type of zoo that I grew up with in DC to one that is more like animal habitats. We had been planning on visiting the zoo this coming weekend, and this whole thing just makes my heart sick.

The 'moat' is more like a deep ditch, not a swimming area, at least in winter. If there had been water, then the cat couldn't have jumped from it up/over the wall (at least I think so because it wouldn't have had a hard surface from which to launch). I'm not sure of the width of the moat, whether the tiger could have gotten a running start and cleared that, but it seems unlikely and not under investigation.

And perhaps I'm just another Disney sicko, but the JC line about tigers being able to jump 25 feet was EXACTLY the first thing I thought of when I heard about the wall limits. Given that, the tiger should have been able to jump right *over* those people.

But what do people expect a tiger on the loose to do? Exactly what it did. Do what tigers do. Chase/catch prey. And yes, some people are idiots when they come to the zoo and yell, wave, etc. at the animals.

Years ago, some idiot climbed into the polar bear cage at the National Zoo and duh, the bear killed him. Duh duh duh.

whether a moat has water in it or not has no effect on clearing the wall. it's the width of the moat and the height of the wall.

if it were a lion and the moat had water in it, the lion presumably wouldn't try to leap because it'd land in the water if it missed. a tiger doesn't have that issue, that was one of my points.

nor is frozen water a concern because you can just artificially heat the water so it never freezes.

all that said, the point for the moat here, especially if it's not filled with water is that the animal doesn't want to go down in the moat/ditch. and even if it did, it's got a further vertical leap that it would have to compensate for (if the wall is 15 feet and the moat is 20 feet deep, that means the animal has to jump 35 feet and vertically which means it'd have to grab onto the wall and pull itself over).

there's no question how it's done here, it has to jump from inside the enclosure, OVER the moat (which is why the width is important) and with a trajectory to get it over the wall. the only question was.. COULD it? that's why the moat is supposed to be a certain width and wall a certain height - so even if the animal wasn't discouraged by the presence of the moat, that it wouldn't be able to clear it and would go crashing down into the moat.

I think the issue is the height of the moat wall insofar as whether the tiger could jump UP (but I could be wrong) rather than OVER the moat span and over the wall. And if there were water in the moat, the tiger wouldn't be able to jump up.

So far, nobody has talked about the width of the moat, only the wall height, so that's why I think it's an UP thing rather than an OVER thing.

But 'could it'? Apparently so. :(

I think the issue is the height of the moat wall insofar as whether the tiger could jump UP (but I could be wrong) rather than OVER the moat span and over the wall. And if there were water in the moat, the tiger wouldn't be able to jump up.

So far, nobody has talked about the width of the moat, only the wall height, so that's why I think it's an UP thing rather than an OVER thing.

But 'could it'? Apparently so. :(

Yep. If the wall is only 12.4 ft from the "bottom" of the moat, I can see the tiger getting up there quite handily, especially if kitty is really PO'ed.

the moat actually has come into play in that the zoo director initially quoted it as being 20 feet across when it's actually 33 feet. so he overstated the wall height and understated the moat width.

as i'm reading more, the height does seem to be the culprit here, although evidently it's not enough for anyone to close the book on it. tigers don't have that great of a vertical leap, but at that height, it's possible that one on its hind legs could reach or hop enough to grab ahold of the top of the wall and climb over as i mentioned earlier.

it would have to be severely po'd to go through all that though. granted this one did have a history.

what scares me most of all out of all this is that the zoo director doesn't even know his own statistics. something like that should be on file somewhere. pulling random numbers out of the air couldn't have been the best decision.

what scares me most of all out of all this is that the zoo director doesn't even know his own statistics. something like that should be on file somewhere. pulling random numbers out of the air couldn't have been the best decision.

Yeah, I totally agree with that. The zoo director should NEVER have said anything until VERIFIED numbers were available. Otherwise, it looks utterly incompetent and that does not instill any confidence whatsoever in future safety.

Oh, be fair. You know it was Christmas, he probably got called in to this horrible news, had to find somebody with keys to let him into his office, found he couldn't get on his computer to check anything because their help desk was forcing updates and had him locked out, had to get in contact with any of his keepers who happened to answer the phone, and then made the "mistake" of trusting the numbers somebody gave to him... And that person probably believed they were true!

And if he said, "I'm sorry, it's Christmas, I can't get a hold of anybody to verify and give you the information you want." You know you would have said that's unprofessional and makes the zoo look bad too. :rolleyes: