So, I’ve been following the story about Tatiana on The news has been reporting that the investigators are trying to get evidence that the tiger was taunted. As far as I can tell, they haven’t found any yet, but they’ve been going back and forth for a few weeks now. The latest and greatest prompted me to go into a tirade.
“Personal property seized from the victims of a tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo may contain evidence that they taunted the animal, provoking it to escape its pen, the city attorney’s office argued in court documents.


Tatiana, a 350-pound Siberian tiger, killed one young man and injured two others before being killed.
City officials believe that cell phones, clothing and the car belonging to the three victims could offer proof that they were intoxicated and threw objects into the tiger enclosure shortly before the maulings, according to documents filed Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court.”
I really doubt something on the cell phone can prove that the kids were taunting the tiger.
“‘In particular, a large bottle of alcohol was observed inside the car along with apparent evidence of drug use,’ the documents said.Proof that the victims provoked the tiger could be used to defend the city in any legal action against the zoo, the city attorney’s office argued.

The documents do not elaborate on the alleged evidence of drug use or what items in the car may be linked to objects found in the tiger’s pen.”

The fact remains, the enclosure was 4 feet too low. The zoo had problems with that same tiger in the past when it chewed the zoo employee’s arm. They knew it was an especially vicious tiger. Even if the kids did taunt the tiger, the zoo should have had a safer enclosure. This is just like the time Clint yelled at the bear at the zoo – minus bear escape & maul. So, in Clint’s case, if the enclosure was 4 feet too low, and suddenly the bear escaped and was mauling him, it’s Clint’s fault? No, the bear would have been vicious, and the zoo should have made sure to have proper enclosures. If someone’s dog was vicious and their fence wasn’t properly installed, and some poor kid walking by happened to tease the barking dog, and the dog escapes and mauls the kid, the owners would be liable. Dogs have been threatened and actually put to sleep for that kind of behavior. So, the zoo needs to own up to its mistake (I do think it is taking new measures to ensure safety — after the fact. They should have considered it in 2006 when she mauled the zookeeper.)

All this taunting b.s. is just so that the zoo can cover it’s ass if the families decide to sue. It’s really ridiculous. The families have a right to sue, but it’d be too bad if they did because zoos usually are awesome and don’t have much money to go on.

I guess it boils down to the zoo should have a disclaimer: WARNING: WILD ANIMALS MAY BE VICIOUS. ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK. Oh wait, they do, don’t they?

Another interesting link details all the other wild animal attacks there’ve been in recent years: