I like Zoo's.
Last December, around Christmas, I went to the
San Francisco Zoo with my dad.
That was the first time I encountered Tatiana.
She was magnificent. The following day,
Tatiana chewed on her feeders arm.
The feeder was wounded and hospitalized.
There was an investigation. And the feeding system was
redesigned so as to make it less likely for a tiger to have
access to an arm to chew.
Apparently, Tatiana got loose yesterday, mauled two
people and killed another person.
She was killed.
As you may know, Tatiana was a big ass-d tiger.
This one cuts close to the bone. Tigers are animals. They eat flesh.
The flip side to that is that they are known to leave humans alone,
provided they are not provoked.
They are also tremendously endangered so Zoo's actually,
some would argue, provide a safe haven for them.
Ironically, last year, I was concerned that they would
put her to sleep for biting her feeder. She ended up
being "put to sleep" a year later, yesterday.
Other people have been harmed as well.
=======
=======
Should Tatiana been removed from the Zoo
December of '06 when the first incident happened?
This reminds me of a Micheal Vick question.
Did you all notice how Deer/Bear/Duck hunting is
totally acceptable but dog fighting isn't?
Is it a question of class?
========
========
3 comments:
You asked, Did you all notice how Deer/Bear/Duck hunting is
totally acceptable but dog fighting isn't?
.
Here's my take where our society is now: hunting animals is acceptable but fighting them isn't. I'm only trying to describe, not defend, it because I don't believe in hunting or fighting animals for sport.
.
I've never hunted but the hunters I know talk of "clean" kills, ones that do not cause their prey (victims?) to suffer. In this country:
* Hunting game birds is OK but cock fighting is not.
* Hunting bears is OK, as you noted, but bear baiting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_baiting) is not.
* Hunting elk is OK, but bull fighting is not. (We've industrialized our bull hunting in the packing plants).
.
Hunting at least is grounded in acquiring food and usually is done without making sport of fear, violence, or suffering. This seems to determine acceptablility more than who does the hunting/fighting: society doesn't distinguish acceptability among the hunters.
errrrrrrrrrr.
Hunting vs. fighting.
Thats a reasonable distinction.
BUT.
How do we know that the animals being clipped are ACTUALLY BEING EATEN.
And is that a contingent part of the hunting being legally permissible?
Today (in the civilized would anyway) all people should be hunting in the supper markets.
I used to hunt and I lost my stomach for it when I saw GUN toting morons hit a pheasant and then take sidearm to it at close range (it was a pheasant!) .
Too many individuals use it as a way to blow of steam and I did not want to be in the woods with these individuals.
It is a shame that we killed her for what she was not what we tried to make her. Who really are the animals?
Post a Comment