Eyewitness: Big Cats Taunted
Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 3rd, 2008
The mystery remains as to what happened at the SF Zoo on Christmas Day, but slowly the full story perhaps is being revealed.
According to a new published report of Thursday, January 3, 2008, in the San Francisco Chronicle, at least one eyewitness has come forth to describe what happened before the tiger attack of Christmas Day.
Below are the witness quotations from that account. You can visit the hyperlink noted to read the complete article, if you wish. However, I am only sharing here what the witness says she saw. I have expunged all the rest, such as the logically biased spin from the brothers’ attorney or the rationalizations and opinion from officials, including the zoo director, publicity guru, and the law enforcement spokesperson.
The essence of what the witness says she saw can be judged without the hearsay and secondhand thoughts and opinions of others:
Two victims of a lethal Christmas Day tiger attack were harassing the big cats at the San Francisco Zoo shortly before a 350-pound feline escaped its enclosure and mauled them, a woman told The Chronicle on Wednesday [January 2, 2008].
The revelation comes as the zoo reopens Wednesday, nine days after a visitor was killed and two of his friends were injured by the Siberian tiger, later shot dead by police.
Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children that ill-fated Christmas afternoon, said she saw four young men at the big-cat grottos – and three of them were teasing the lions a short time before the tiger’s bloody rampage that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.
“The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them,” the San Francisco woman said. “They were trying to get that lion’s attention. … The lion was bristling, so I just said, ‘Come on, let’s get out of here’ because my kids were disturbed by it.”
She said Sousa – whom she later recognized from his photo in the newspaper – was not heckling. The Chronicle contacted Miller after learning that she and her family had seen the young men at the zoo Christmas Day.
Miller, who said she visits the zoo with her relatives every Christmas, said the young men stood out because she has seen mostly families there. Although authorities have said Sousa was accompanied only by San Jose brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, Miller said four young men were together when she came across them.
* * *
Miller called the behavior she witnessed by the victims “disturbing.”
Her family was looking at the lions when the young men stopped beside them at the big-cat grottos – five outdoor exhibits attached to the Lion House. The young men started roaring at the lions and acting “boisterous” to get their attention, said Miller, who added that she watched the four for five minutes or so a little after 4 p.m.
“It was why we left,” she said. “Their behavior was disturbing. They kept doing it.”
Sousa refrained from such tactics, Miller said.“He wasn’t roaring. He wasn’t taunting them,” she recalled. “He kept looking at me apologetically like, ‘I’m sorry, I know we are being stupid.’ ”
When a friend told Miller about the attacks – first reported to 911 dispatchers at 5:07 p.m. – she called police the day after Christmas to tell them what she had seen. She called back Wednesday because she was wondering why news accounts mentioned only three young men.
* * *
Zoo reopening todayWhat’s happening: The San Francisco Zoo reopens today for the first time since the fatal Christmas Day tiger attack.
What to expect: New signs (see below) that forbid animal harassment and loudspeakers that will alert visitors to the park’s closing time. The Lion House and big cat exhibit will be closed to the public, as will the Terrace Cafe. ~ by Patricia Yollin, Tanya Schevitz, Kevin Fagan, Chronicle Staff Writers; Jaxon Van Derbeken and Steve Rubenstein contributed to this report. “S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions,”This article appeared on page A – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
I sincerely hope that the whole truth does come out, and soon.
Whether the animals were taunted or not, which I agree is wrong and should never be done, isn’t the zoo partially liable since the wall of the enclosure was not at the recommended height? And from what I understand first ignored the reports of an animal running loose.
I just wish this didn’t have to be a fiasco.
I wish the boys could say “We’re idiots and taunted a dangerous animal. We got our friend killed. We’re sorry.”
And the zoo could say “We’re idiots and our wall wasn’t tall enough. We’re sorry.”
And they could all shake hands and mourn the tragedy as the accident it was.
As it stands, those boys will probably end up profiting from the situation instead of accepting responsibility for their actions.
This was an accident. No one intended for it to happen. Certainly, one can’t believe the Zoo *expected* a tiger to jump out. They didn’t intend for that to happen, no more than the boys intended their taunting to rile the tiger up so much.
It happened. If we’re going to keep huge dangerous animals in captivity, things like this are going to happen from time to time. It’s just the way it works.
The fact that Mark Geragos is involved makes me sick to be honest. This shouldn’t be a legal matter.
Needless to say, it will be up to the courts, judges, and juries to decide who is liable for what.
The straightforward eyewitness account was shared to give yet another side of the story.
The height of the wall is a fact.
Whether people were “ignored” or “screened” or “handled” or “dealt with” will be open to interpretations.
Rumors such as the one that these young men used slinghots on the tiger has been overturned by the police (as per NBC this am).
I’m sure this story is going to develop many ways of looking at all the sides involved before it is overtaken by the next animal attack account from a zoo.
Just got done watching the 9 AM news which reported that alcohol might have been a factor also. If alcohol was a factor than what I said earlier rings more true.
The real tragedy here, based on the facts that are gradually emerging in this case, is that it appears that the one boy smart enough not to participate and brave enough to try to protect his thug friends was abandoned by them to die. He lost his life because they were stupid. His only stupidity was having them as friends, something I’m sure more than a few of us can relate to.
I can only hope that the 2, possibly 3, boys who survived are wracked with guilt over the death of their friend, and that they feel unworthy of his sacrifice for them. I hope this not out of any sense of vengeance or justice, but out of the hope that somewhere within them lie decent human beings. Their behaviour to date certainly suggests otherwise.
Sad to confront, again, the painful reality that despite the altruistic motivations of sincere animal lovers, man’s basic, underlying standard, greed, overrides & warps & distorts the true picture…
And so, a young man with his whole life ahead of him is suddenly, terrifyingly, violently and needlessly gone…
And so, a beautiful, healthy, wildly innocent tiger, by whatever circumstance of human irresponsibility or deliberate malice, is allowed to escape its protective sanctuary and display, for a brief moment, its true animal nature, only to be torn to death needlessly by mindless projectiles…
And the spins continue; attorneys prance, as instigators, authorities, zookeepers, police and other “officials” arrange their alibis, while the paying public looks on in numb confusion, then turns away…
And the young man and the tiger are still dead.
The fact that the two boys who survived were reportedly unwilling to cooperate with the police following the tragic attack set off my BS detector right off the bat. This new eyewitness statement solidifies it. What’s truly tragic (in addition to the tiger being killed) is that the boy who paid the ultimate price for his friend’s ignorance was the only one who wasn’t taunting the tiger. 🙁
And the truth starts to emerge. As I figured, the stupidity of these boys caused this whole ordeal. Well, lets say a couple of the boys. What is sad, is that the one boy that was not teasing the tiger, is the one that was killed. Figures. And what is even worse, the 2 boys aren’t being very cooperative with the police. And they haven’t even contacted the family of the boy that was killed. That alone tells me these brothers are idiots! And what totally sucks, is that the tiger was killed for their stupid actions. Hope they remember that day at the zoo for the rest of their lives. About the only good thing to come out of this, is the new fence that will be installed to keep this from ever happening again. But as has been said, if people are to continue to have zoos, we shouldn’t be surprised when something like this happens. After all it only takes 1 or 2 idiots to instigate something like this. I feel for the family of the boy that died. Sounds like he died trying to help the stupid brothers. I almost feel like the brothers should be charged with manslaughter. I mean isn’t that what manslaughter is? When someones stupid actions cause the death of another.
Right from start I had strong feelings about these boys having wronged the big cat and the zoo. This tiger had many opportunities before to escape and massacre the crowd but didn’t. True it did attack a zoo worker who was reportedly handling food. One can expect wild tigers to react violently to anything that stands between itself and food.
Now, facts emerge from an eyewitness that these juvenile instigators were terrorizing the zoo animals callously. As a result a beautiful tiger, who tried to defend herself, was shot. And an innocent boy who tried to save his guilty friends died. And from all this the guilty brothers will stand to make handsome litigation profits.
Because of this we’ll lose our privileges to enjoy viewing our zoos in a natural open view. Open views, enjoyed since the 1940’s, will be replaced by peeping holes. In deference to the zoo animals I think this will be a good thing. Because people cannot be trusted to behave or not throw unwanted nuisance food, or worst, at the animals. And if you ask me which side of the fence lurks the most dangerous animal in the world – you get only one guess to get it right.
This situation is such a tragedy beyond the obvious of the young men, the tiger, and the zoo.
The families who have the tradition of going to the zoo for the holidays now have a very negative memory for the season.
I also wonder about the very young children who leave cookies and milk for Santa. Are they going to have thoughts that they are facing a horrible death if the family goes to the zoo?
What about the children that visited that day? Did they have nightmares?
I’m surprised all of this isn’t on security camera recordings.
I was thinking the same thing about a manslaughter charge for the two boys and even a possible wrongful death civil suit brought by the family of the dead boy. Unfortunately, I don’t think a civil suit will do much good against the family of the two boys. As I understand it, they were already up on charges in an unrelated case. From the circumstantial evidence I have available to me about these boys, they are up to no good. It sounds like they need serious life adjustments. Unfortunately, our prison system is not the place to get it. They will probably go to prison and come out even less motivated to get their lives on track.
On a different note, I am a little confused about the woman’s testimony that she saw them taunting a “lion.” Is the zoo set up so that the lions and tigers are all together? That doesn’t sound right. Perhaps she doesn’t know the difference (despite visiting the zoo at least once a year) and used the wrong term by mistake? (Honestly, I just went to Lion Country Safari. I saw several varieties of animals that basically look like deer, ranging from the size of a pony to the size of a Collie. I couldn’t begin to tell you the names of each kind of animal – gazelle, dik-dik, etc. They all look the same to me. However, I do know the difference between a lion and a tiger.)
Also, I had not heard about this incident before I went to Lion Country Safari. I now understand why they were SO diligent about making us keep our car windows up when we were outside the lion cages. I did feel like the fences were tall enough to keep them inside, but you just never never never know. (We did open our sunroof because by the second time we went through the males were up walking around and growling and we desperately wanted to hear them. But we’re not morons, we didn’t taunt them. I guess they could smell us, but none of us were bleeding and the lions were far more interested in the deer-like prey on the other side of the fences. Those lions never looked twice at our car. If they had, we would have closed the sunroof and driven away. Also, there were park employees sitting in two trucks inside the lion pen for the protection of both us and the lions. But I don’t know if I would have felt comfortable with the sunroof open if I had known about this incident at the time.)
I thought I had heard on some news program that the zoo did not have security cameras, but I might be wrong about that.
Either way the situation as a whole is horrible.
On a somewhat odd note, perhaps, I saw a headline about this last night, in general newsfeed, but when I selected it, I was taken to another story. Upon returning to the page I saw the link at, it was no longer there, and have not seen it since, except here. Curious.
I too was a bit confused about why kids taunting lions would excite a tiger.
There are, I believe, five grotto-type enclosures attatched to the Lion House, and at least one of the enclosures held lions.
Also, I think that the implication is that the young men were teasing the lions to the point that the lions were agitated and “bristling”, shortly before the tiger escape occurred, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the same young men may also have taunted and/or tortured the tigers.
My guess is that even if it’s proven that the young men were taunting or teasing the animals, probably the most they could be charged with in a criminal sense would be animal cruelty. Most animal cruelty charges are misdemeanors and they are very hard to prove.
In an article I saw on MSNBC this morning, a police officer confirmed that an empty vodka bottle had been found in the Dhaliwal brothers’ car, but stressed that it is not known whether that is of any significance as relates to the tiger incident. Toxicology tests on Sousa’s body were not yet complete (at least not at the time the article was written) .
I don’t know if toxicology tests were done on the Dhaliwal brothers; I hope they were. One of them is under drinking age, and so was Sousa. If it turns out that the Dhaliwals allowed underage people to drink in their vehicle, conceivably charges could result from that.
As far as the Dhaliwals’ being charged with wrongful death in a civil suit, well, if you can find a lawyer who’ll take the case, you can sue anyone for anything. That doesn’t mean you’ll win the case. In this incident, the fact that both brothers were also mauled would probably help them if a lawsuit is filed against them. The big loser will probably be the zoo itself.
Lawyers will be coming out of the woodwork for this incident, for all concerned, if only for the publicity. It’ll turn into a circus (no pun intended); that is already beginning. I feel so bad for Sousa and his family. And for the tigress Tatiana.
I suppose one ought to feel bad for the Dhaliwals too, but somehow I can’t.
Why are people still trying to blame the zoo. If the boys were walking by then the tiger jumped them then we can blame the zoo. That’s not what happened. The little darlings brought this upon themselves. They enticed the tiger and probably got the prey drive and adrenaline going and it is their fault.
Personal responsibility: Where ever did it go? It isnt always someone else’s fault.
No matter what the young men did or might have done, it is the responsibility of a zoo to ensure that their animals are secure. That means making sure that the animals cannot escape under their own power.
If an earthquake suddenly shattered the wall and the tiger escaped, or something of that nature, that would not be the zoo’s fault (assuming that their facilities met code). But under no circumstances should a pen be so inadequate that a tiger could leap out of it, unaided, even if it was teased.
Cats tend to chase movement, too. Zoos must allow for that when building enclosures. Suppose, instead of three (or possibly four) young men, it had been three or four active toddlers running about, that instigated the tiger’s escape? The bottom line is really the same. The zoo must take those things into account when building exhibits. The enclosures must be built to be secure. This one was not. Period.
I’m not excusing the taunting, if indeed there was taunting. People do need to take responsibility for their own behavior. But the zoo should have had enough personnel on hand to monitor the exhibits so that any taunting behavior could be stopped. Individuals guilty of such behavior should have been escorted out of the zoo by security, or if their behavior was extreme, even arrested.
That does not absolve the zoo from its own responsibility, to keep the animals secure in their exhibits.
So the question becomes, what will it take to keep animals secure in their exhibits? Since the 1940s the zoo has had not one tiger jump out in spite of the sub standard enclosure. Between then and now excited spectators and the big cats somehow got fairly along, until now. A family near the lion house witnessed the two brothers terrorizing the lions. Apparently the kids were on a war path to instigate the worst reaction from the animals with their vicious taunts. Then, on their way from the lions they stopped at the tiger’s enclosure and the rest is history.
Security officials at first ignored the boys because they appeared mentally unstable. Investigators later uncovered an empty bottle of vodka from their vehicle: Add one plus one together and you got a bunch of unruly, nasty kids bent on raising hell. Officials have no clue how the tiger managed to escape. But I do; with sufficient agitation a tiger is capable of performing “impossible” feats.
Many voices say the zoo should have done more to prevent this type of accident: The walls should have been higher and there should have been monitoring cameras. In response the zoo will be erecting 20ft walls with peeping windows and monitoring cameras. Will this be enough to keep the public safe from criminals bent on wreaking havoc? Perhaps for now, until the someone will find an easy way to defeat the system for cheap thrills.
As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth pounds of cure. The only fool proof way to secure zoo animals from criminals is to eliminate the zoo. Or at the very least keep the animals in totally restricted areas, out of direct view, surrounded by 60ft walls adorned with high tension electrical wires. The public will enjoy watching them through wall videos behind each of these restricted enclosures. What’s wrong with this picture?
The other, much simpler and saner solution, is to prosecute criminals for their criminal behaviors. There’s no doubt in my mind the brothers should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Tougher laws should be passed and enforced against harassing animals in any form or shape.
In conclusion, the so called “inadequate barricade” which separated man and beast for almost 70 years failed because of humans who were determined to break it.
kittenz: “Cats tend to chase movement, too. Zoos must allow for that when building enclosures. Suppose, instead of three (or possibly four) young men, it had been three or four active toddlers running about, that instigated the tiger’s escape?”
The zoo is not a play ground for children. Active toddlers should be under adult supervision who should prevent screaming and chasing around. It’s a great way to teach people and children early on how to behave around wild animals.
I suppose one ought to feel bad for the Dhaliwals too, but somehow I can’t.
I know exactly what you mean kittenz.
And you are right about the zoo being responsible in the end. No matter what the boys did. The animal shouldn’t have been able to escape her area.
I’ve been lurking on this site for a while now (Great site Loren) and this subject has finally enticed me into posting a comment.
When I was in college I used to work at a Zoo during my summers off. I was just a maintenance man basically, but everyone was trained on what to do in the case of a dangerous animal escaping. What irks me the most about this topic is that it seems like the Zoo was caught with their pants down or something. In the Zoo I worked at there were several “Teams” that were supposed to grab a tranq gun and a normal rifle. There were several of them in case one team couldn’t get to their guns. Basically the idea was that they’d try to tranquilize the animal first, but if it put any person in danger of being mauled or killed it was to be killed.
I was under the impression that this was fairly common practice or that it was at least similar to what other Zoos did. In any case none of the above was part of my job, I was to go hide in a building somewhere helping customers find a safe place if I could. My point being, it doesn’t seem like the Zoo handled this escape very well at all as it was the police who ended up dealing with the animal, where were the Zoo employees? Did they not have any plans for when a dangerous animal escaped?
I think Kittenz summed it up the best. Regardless of what the 3 or 4 guys were doing around the Tigers the Tiger should of never been able to escape in the first place. The Zoo had to of known the wall was too short, as they’ve been Accredited (SP?), meaning they’ve been inspected to get that status which as I understand it is so they can buy and trade more exotic animals. Being an older Zoo shouldn’t of given them the right to have laxer inspections. This isn’t like a docile deer enclosure (although deer can harm or even kill if the right conditions are met), this is an animal with a good probability of attacking someone to maul or kill, these walls should meet the minimum requirements.
Someone needs to get in trouble for this, in my opinion the Zoo needs to be fined, and the people doing the inspections letting walls like this get by should be fired. Likely the Zoo will be sued and there probably is a case there, however it’s also likely the Zoo will lose lots and lots of money by this suit if it happens, and unfortunately that’ll hurt the animals in the Zoo as well as there will be less money for new items in their enclosures, as well as probably no possibility for larger more secure enclosures. I could be wrong about animals being the real victims of the suit, as I’m not sure how much a Zoo like San Fransisco brings in each year and how much they have to spend already. I kind of went on a longer spiel then I thought I would, so in short, I feel what the 3 or 4 guys did was wrong, but they didn’t deserve being Mauled and Killed (especially if it turns out the one killed was just trying to help his friends), I feel Kittenz is dead on.
the simple fact is that no tigers attacked anyone at the zoo till these young men caused this. there were foot prints on the rail that matches one of the boys. some hinted these were bloody. regardless it means they initiated a response that caused a death.
think about this;
if what they did is considered a felony in California then by law they are guilty of first degree murder. if your committing a felony and as a result of that action some one dies then your responsible for that death even if you didn’t kill them your self.
like i said before what ever happend to personal responsibility?
treeclaw,
In no way am I excusing these young men for torturing the animals – if they were torturing animals. If they ARE guilty of torturing or teasing the big cats, they may even be partially responsible for their friend’s death. But are they legally responsible? That is a horse of another color.
It’s easy to point the finger at them and say they should be charged with manslaughter; they apparently, from their reported behavior both before and after the tiger incident, are not the type of persons for whom one readily feels sympathy. But are the brothers guilty of manslaughter? Are they even guilty of animal cruelty? There are some people who say they saw them teasing animals, but even the term “teasing” is open to interpretation. And where is the legal line at which teasing becomes criminal behavior?
First, charges would have to be filed, and if there isn’t any real evidence indicating criminal behavior, just an eyewitness account or two, it’s unlikely that any charges will be forthcoming. Eyewitnesses can be mistaken under the best of circumstances, and it was near dark and closing time at the zoo.
Next, what about manslaughter? Manslaughter is a very specific term. If the brothers had cut a lock and deliberately let the tiger out, or if they had thrown a board into the moat and the tiger climbed out on it, maybe that would lead to a manslaughter charge. I don’t know; I’m not a lawyer. But even if the brothers were teasing a tiger, that tiger leaped out of its cage without their help, and they probably would not face charges of manslaughter. You or I may feel that they would be morally responsible, but that does not automatically translate to legal liability. Charging a person with manslaughter is a serious business. A reasonable person would assume that the tigers could not leap out of their enclosure, precisely because none had escaped in 70 years. The brothers in that case could not be expected to think that their actions would lead to the tiger’s escape. The public has a reasonable expectation of safety when they visit a zoo.
Then too, the zoo had been told years ago that on at least one occasion a tiger had leaped up and got its paw over the top of the moat, on the visitors’ side. The zoo did nothing about it; they did not even acknowledge the complaint of the woman who witnessed it, even though it distressed her enough to cancel her membership to the zoo, and she filed her complaint in writing. Furthermore, from what a zoo employee told that woman when they, too, witnessed the incident, the tigers “did that all the time”. So the zoo knew, or should have known, that the tigers’ enclosure was potentially inadequate to contain them securely. Tatiana had seriously injured a keeper last year, and that, too, was partially a result of lax cage design (although the careless inattention of the injured person was a big contributing factor).
I love animals. Especially cats. I have spent my whole life with animals, and a large portion of my life working with them. I love zoos. But you cannot work around large, potentially dangerous animals for long without facing the fact that they can kill you. Even a dog can do an incredible amount of damage to a human being, and a tiger is magnitudes more powerful and deadly than any dog. Every AZA-accredited zoo must have plans in place for potential animal escapes, and those plans, like it or not, have to include provision for using deadly force – instantly – to protect human life when circumstances call for it. An escaped tiger that has already killed or mauled someone is such a circumstance. The zoo dropped the ball there too; the police had to come in and kill the tiger.
treeclaw, you said “The zoo is not a play ground for children. Active toddlers should be under adult supervision who should prevent screaming and chasing around. It’s a great way to teach people and children early on how to behave around wild animals.”
The zoo is indeed a playground for children! Zoos have playgrounds, statues for kids to climb on, and all kinds of activities where children are encouraged to run around shrieking and playing. Certainly parents should keep an eye on their children and supervise their behavior. And zoos are great places to teach kids how to behave around animals. Parents should indeed use the zoo’s educational resources to teach children how to respect animals. But kids are naturally excited to be around animals -they’re kids! The zoo must take childish exuberance into account when designing their facilities. No parent should have to feel that they are risking their children’s lives when they take them to the zoo, no matter how boisterous they are.
You are entitled to your opinion, treeclaw, and I respect that. You do seem like a true animal lover. I am too.
The bottom line, though, is that the tiger got out of its enclosure under its own power, and it killed one man and injured two others. It is not even known for sure that the brothers were teasing the tigers. I think they probably were, but people in San Francisco are just as entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as those of us in the rest of the country.
Whatever the brothers may be guilty of, the zoo failed its responsibility to ensure the public’s – and the tigers’ – safety.
You all are getting way too into this. They were kids. They taunted the animals. Kids do stupid stuff. I’ve done similar things, (and still do). There were no signs saying they shouldn’t. There were no workers saying not to. No other guest stepped in and told them to stop being rowdy, OR report it to an official. Albeit that it’s not their responsibility, but that lady was obviously watching the kids harass the cats for some time, and did nothing. All it comes down to is that the cat jumped out of its cage. Period. The cage was too short, therefore it is on the zoo’s head. Whether you want some righteous justice against the “stupid” kids or not, (I personally wish nothing ill onto them myself), it comes down to below-standard containment on the part of the zoo. The idea that they’ll need sixty-foot high fences, or elimination of the zoos to prevent this is ludicrous. However, a 12 foot wall will not suffice. 20 foot glass, and that nice little sign should do it, (along with more comprehensive studies of Tiger behavior).
Needless to say, there should be swift legal action against the zoo, if charges were pressed, but none for the kids. Period. Taunting or not, they did nothing, (legally), wrong. It’s a shame one of them had to die, but that’s the price you pay for hanging with stupid friends, and, on the flip-side, that’s the financial price the zoo should have to pay for sub-standard containment facilities.
I like the idea of the glass wall myself. A total wall height of 20 feet, with the top few feet of smooth glass, should be more than adequate to contain tigers, and the glass will help to prevent people teasing the cats or throwing things into the enclosure, climbing the wall, dangling children over the wall, or other such nonsense. Plus it will be another barrier against disease, which should also help to keep the tigers safe.
Quacker1 is absolutely right. Whether or not the animal was taunted is irrelevant. The issue here is that the tiger was able to escape, period. No matter how motivated the animal might be, it should be impossible for it to escape its enclosure. If you settle for anything less, then the zoo simply isn’t secure. Good gravy, if an animal escapes, it’s a danger to everyone, not just the folks who were doing the taunting.
I hope that when the lawsuits go to trial the folks selected to be on the jury recognize the culpable actions on the part of the victim and his accomplices. The factor of human stupidity has its swift, sure and sometimes tragic consequences.
This case should make everyone question whether zookeepers ever really know the true extent of the physical capabilities of the creatures in their custody. Previous posters commenting in this thread have pointed out that no tiger had ever escaped this particular enclosure in the 70-some years since it was built– that is, until now. All standards or specifications for safety are subject to change as soon as they are proven wrong.
The only 100% certain safety standard would be to completely abstain from confining wild animals in enclosures for visitation by the public. Are we willing to live in a risk-free world without zoos where the only way to visit nature is by video or Internet web-cam?
P.S. – After scores of decades keeping tigers in captivity, zoo experts surprised by this event demonstrate that they do not yet fully understand how to ensure the safety of both the tiger and human visitors. Presuming somebody somewhere captures a live specimen of an elusive cryptid, for sake of argument, consider a Bigfoot creature, this demonstrates that we cannot possibly know how to contain such an animal with no risk to its own health or safety nor to ourselves.
No tiger had ever escaped and killed anyone from an AZA-accredited zoo before this. But tigers have escaped from their enclosures and been recaptured, in many zoos. Nobody knows, for certain, just how high a tiger can leap. But it is widely accepted as fact that tigers can jump more than twelve vertical feet. Tigers also have immensely strong forequarters, and they are good climbers. The only thing that keeps adult tigers out of trees is their great weight.
The zoo had been made aware that the tigers could get their paws up over the top of that 12 1/2 foot wall. A zoo employee said that they did all the time. That was years before the tigress known as Tatiana was even born. In all those years, they never took the possibility of an escape seriously. The zoo’s complacency cost a young man and a young tigress their lives.