US soldier kills Baghdad tiger

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-21 10:28am

The animal's fear in or out of the cage would be the same. It's called getting food. Besides how would you know if they fear us in the first place?~Jason

An animal in a cage is generally prone to higher stress than an animal in the wild, although this can change according to level of care.

Most animals fear humans because they sometimes react unpredictably. Humans make a great deal of noise, flail about, and can otherwise make themselves appear much larger if necessary. It’s simple fear of the unknown. Refer yourself to any of the articles above; all deal with animals’ general perversion to humans.

Kast you fucking idiot, an animal in a cage that's mauled someone dumb enough to stick bits of themseleves into that cage and one that's mauled someone wandering the countryside are totally fucking different. You cannot even begin to compare them!

The consequences of the mauling are not “totally fucking different” however. In both situations, the animal begins to see humans as something closer to prey. An animal cannot differentiate conceptually between kinds of provocation – and, as I’ve mentioned tirelessly, attacks are the fault of humans 99% of the time, in or out of the cage.

A good friend of mine works as a keeper, and animals fear of humans does not enter into the equasion of how he works....even with the large cats he is perfectly comfortable working with them.

First of all, you cannot prove this. It’s appeal to unverifiable authority. Second of all, his personal opinion of the job itself is a whole bunch of useless crap.

Nope....one is in a CAGE, where in order to be in any danger from its desire for food you have to be so fucking STUPID as to stick bits of yourself in the cage....the other is in an open area and then its fear of humans comes into play, in that it'd be best for everyone if it didnt wander up to people.......
You cannot use what should be done in one set of circumstances to show what should be done in the other....

An animal in a cage is prone to higher stress if not properly managed and paired.

Let’s move a way from discussion of whether or not it was a “good move” for the soldier in question to feed the tiger himself, all right? You people harp over this as if it’s the actual focus of our argument – and that’s just too bad; it’s not.

Nobody's given a counterargument as to why the consequences of an attack would be different, moreover. If nobody can get past trying to prove to me that which I already believe - that it was stupid to stick a hand in the cage in the first place -, I'll be accepting my concession.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-21 10:33am

Please, see the last line...this is all about a caged animal....

That's technically no different from a wild animal psychologically save for higher rates of stress in less well-managed habitats.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-21 10:37am

Here. I'll break it down for everyone.

If an animal attacks a human being in the wild, it's 99% likely that it was the human being's own fault.

If an animal attacks a human being in the wild, it is usually tracked and shot if within the capability of local law or environmental enforcement.

If an animal can be returned to the wilderness with a strong chance that it will not directly encounter humans later on, it sometimes is (depending on the severity of the attack).

If an animal has commited a severe or repeated attack, it is put down because high stress and a breakdown of the psychological barriers that place humans in an "unknown" and therefore potentially dangerous category are demolished in the animal's mind.

An animal in a cage is different only because he has grown used to a scheduele (in certain cases), and because he lives (generally) under more stress (especially outside Westernized nations). In most cases, the human "aspect" is played down anyway.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-09-21 10:48am

Back at the situation at hand.
Here's what it looks like to me.

1. They were partying.
2. There wasn't a mention of anyone being drunk meaning senses couldn't or were partially impaired.
3. The soldier's pal shot dead the tiger
5. He should have realize, the tiger can't leave the cage and do no more harm if not in range.

Conclusion imo, the soldier who shot the tiger had a poor sense of judgement at a critical time. In other words it's his fault for being an idiot too.

Cyaround,
Jason

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-21 11:40am

He should have realize, the tiger can't leave the cage and do no more harm if not in range.

Somebody's got to put themselves in or near the cage in order to feed and sometimes treat the tiger.

How easy would it be to provoke "rage"? Part of what prevents him from assuming this "rage" on a normal basis is psychological barriers - which the original encounter would degrade significantly.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-09-21 11:48am

You can throw the meat in. If you're arm can go through the cage surely there's a wide enough entrance for it to be thrown it properly.~Jason

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-21 12:22pm

Axis Kast wrote:
He should have realize, the tiger can't leave the cage and do no more harm if not in range.
Somebody's got to put themselves in or near the cage in order to feed and sometimes treat the tiger.

How easy would it be to provoke "rage"? Part of what prevents him from assuming this "rage" on a normal basis is psychological barriers - which the original encounter would degrade significantly.

Kast you really are a complete fucking idiot arent you?
Most zoos have enclosures divided into two areas, inner and outer....one of these can be sealed off from the main enclosure while food is brought into it, the keepers then leave this area and open the connecting door to the other area....

Thus they are never in direct contact with the fucking thing, thats why it has a fucking cage you god damned fucking IDIOT.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-21 12:41pm

You can throw the meat in. If you're arm can go through the cage surely there's a wide enough entrance for it to be thrown it properly.~Jason

In every zoo worldwide, or just the nice ones you frequent? And if the animal gets sick ... ?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-21 12:45pm

Axis Kast wrote:
In every zoo worldwide, or just the nice ones you frequent? And if the animal gets sick ... ?

If it's sick, I don't think it'll be in the mood to attack anyone. Or you just hit it with a tranq gun. I always see that on documentaries about animal care. You treat it while it's sedated.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-21 12:48pm

If it's sick, I don't think it'll be in the mood to attack anyone.

You can't say that with absolute certainty.

Or you just hit it with a tranq gun. I always see that on documentaries about animal care. You treat it while it's sedated.

At some point, physical contact with the tiger would be necessary. And what if tranquelizers were not on hand? Or the animal couldn't accept them for fear of decreased blood flow? The fact of the matter is, they hire people at zoos to come into contact with the animals once in a while.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-21 02:50pm

Yes, and those people know what the fuck they are doing unlike you, you stupid fuck.

There's more than one way to restrain or subdue a creature, though the most common is to use tranq's when an animal is in need of treatment. What the fuck are you on anyway with that "and what if tranquelizers were not on hand?" bullshit?

You are possibly the dumbest motherfucker since darkstar....actually...nix that, you are even more of a stupid fuck than him.

Keepers are TRAINED to deal with the animals it is thier job. Using tranq's seprate feeding areas and other techniques they are at minimal risk from even the most agressive of animals.

Next you'll decide its dangerous for explosive experts to be around explosives eh?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-09-21 03:55pm

Axis Kast wrote: And what if tranquelizers were not on hand?

I'd just like to single this bit out; Kast, what zoo in the world would not have tranquilizers on hand at aany time?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-09-21 04:03pm

Andrew J. wrote:
Axis Kast wrote: And what if tranquelizers were not on hand?
I'd just like to single this bit out; Kast, what zoo in the world would not have tranquilizers on hand at aany time?

A zoo in a city which was just occupied by an opposing army, having had much of its infrastrucure damaged. A zoo which is understaffed, a zoo which cannot afford tranquilizers.
A stupid zoo. A Zoo which should not be in operation. A zoo on another planet. In an alternate dimension. A religious fundie zoo where the staff believes tranquilizers are inhumane.

Those types of zoo!

Okay, The last few were jokes, but seriously, the zoo could be severly understaffed and perhaps underfunded. Of course, that is pure speculation and I'm certainly not taking sides on THIS issue.

Okay, yes I am. The soldiers were dumb. and the U.S. government needs to pay for the procurement of another bengal tiger, and hand the soldiers an Article 15, at least.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-21 04:36pm

A zoo in a city which was just occupied by an opposing army, having had much of its infrastrucure damaged. A zoo which is understaffed, a zoo which cannot afford tranquilizers.

Precisely.

Yes, and those people know what the fuck they are doing unlike you, you stupid fuck.

There's more than one way to restrain or subdue a creature, though the most common is to use tranq's when an animal is in need of treatment. What the fuck are you on anyway with that "and what if tranquelizers were not on hand?" bullshit?

Do they? We don't even know if there are trained persons doing anything more than tossing the animals some food every other day or so at this point.

Yes, tranquilizing an animal is common practice. But division of the habitat might not be as universal a practice - especially in countries without the money to spend on elaborate zoo facilities.

Iraq's been cut off from the world for months. There's strong reason to assume chronic shortages of necessary supplies.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-21 05:00pm

I have not heard of a single zoo that did not have sperate feeding areas for large carnivores. I'd be intrested if you could find one...

As for Baghdad Zoo in particular, it definetly had the neccesary equpiment and competent keepers on staff, paid for by donations from various animal welfare groups since the end of the war.

Embracer Of Darkness · Post by **Embracer Of Darkness** » 2003-09-21 05:47pm

It is not the fault of the animal, the soldier was a fucking retard and I wish he'd lost his whole arm for being so stupid.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-09-21 06:07pm

Maybe if the soldier had put his arm in a meat grinder, the other soldier would have shot it? After all, it's necessary to send a clear message to all the dangerous carnivores (and dangerous food processing appliance) that they must not stand in the way of freedom.

Actually, this tiger was part of the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-21 07:08pm

A tiger harms my buddy. You're goddamn right I'd shoot it. It'd be the wrong thing to do, and I'd expect to be punished, but its what I'd do nonetheless.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-21 09:31pm

As for Baghdad Zoo in particular, it definetly had the neccesary equpiment and competent keepers on staff, paid for by donations from various animal welfare groups since the end of the war.

Can you provide a source for us confirming that this aid got through to the right people on the right timetables and in the right ammounts?

How about that human beings would never have had to come within direct contact of the animal whatsoever?

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2003-09-21 10:04pm

Axis Kast wrote:
As for Baghdad Zoo in particular, it definetly had the neccesary equpiment and competent keepers on staff, paid for by donations from various animal welfare groups since the end of the war.
Can you provide a source for us confirming that this aid got through to the right people on the right timetables and in the right ammounts?

Was it the WWF that sent veterinary aid? I remember there was an animal welfare group that said they were going to because invasion of Baghdad would be unnecessarily stressful to the exhibits.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-21 11:48pm

Bingo. You've just proven my point. "Unnecessarily stressful." Animals in that kind of condition are absolutely prone to adverse affects.

Do you have any links, by the way?

lance · Post by **lance** » 2003-09-21 11:54pm

Um, if the whole putting animal down thing was do to decreased fear of humans, wouldn't in the case of rare animals like say tigers, be better handled by reinstalling fear of humans into them? Does Kast have a link to where a zoo animal was put down for attacking humans? If he doesn't then I think wongs post overide his bullshit.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-22 02:17am

National Geographic April
here

From the Born Free website
here

And for a choice quote from them to show some of your bullshit scenario up

A total of $800 worth of much needed medicines was also delivered along with a tranquilizer gun which was used to move large and dangerous animals from other locations to the Baghdad zoo where they can at least receive regular care, food and water.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-09-22 02:55am

Kast, once more: Provide evidence for your fucking moronic idiot claim that caged animals in zoos must be killed as a consequence of them mauling a human stupid enough to stick their hand into the cage?

You obviously know a lot less of this subject than you do of the one that got you youir current offensive title, and we're not buying any of your bullshit red herrings. The only people I can think of who would have use for them and yourself is the Knights Who Say "Ni!", they'd probably hire you to chop down a tree or two with your paint-dipped fish.

Howedar at least is being honest in what he says, he doesn't try to make up some bullshit excuses.

Seriously, what the fuck does it take for you to concede an argument, Kast?

And you can shove your claims about Keevan's credibility up your voluminous ass, he's so far displayed an integrity and honesty that gives nobody here any reason to question the claim he made about his friend. You know, C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y, that thing which allows people to take other people's reasonable claims at face value, and which you utterly lack because of all the lies and bullshit you constantly spew.

You're again using the same tactics you used against me in those two threads in the HoS, the "Anything anyone says on the Internet can be assumed to be a lie by default because we can't verify it" and that you're just not going to take the chance that people might actually be telling you the truth. Not really surprising, as the only way you know to debate anything is to spout bullshit, splutter, wave your hands in an attempt to distract people and outright lie, just like Darkstar did, and you assume everyone else is just like you. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority are not like you. Just fuck off, SDnet would be a much better place if you left and never came back. You know, I really felt sad for you back when that previous debate wound to an end, you were so pathetic, but you insist on being such a fucking stupid moron at every turn that there's none of that sympathy left anymore. You never learn, and you're never going to really amount to anything other than a shit-brained fuckwit with no friends and no chance of ever making any. And given that you're the sort of asshole you are, I at least won't have any compunctions about kicking you while you're down, not anymore, you deserve it.

I cannot ban people from here, which is a very fortunate thing for you, because if I did get that happy power for just one minute, you would be permanently gone from this place, Kast. You contribute nothing of worth. Like Sir Nitram said, if the Internet had a bullshit filter, your posts would all disappear.

Edi

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-22 11:34pm

Um, if the whole putting animal down thing was do to decreased fear of humans, wouldn't in the case of rare animals like say tigers, be better handled by reinstalling fear of humans into them?

How, exactly, would you "reinstall fear"? Psychological or physical torture of the animal?

Does Kast have a link to where a zoo animal was put down for attacking humans? If he doesn't then I think wongs post overide his bullshit.

http://www.upali.ch/zoo_born_en.html

In 1982, Ota was killed at the age of 16 at Basel Zoo due to aggressive behaviour.

Madura was put down at Circus KNIE in 1984 at the age of 19 due to vicious behaviour. During a rehearsal, she attacked one of her regular animal trainers and injured him fatally. For years, Madura had had the reputation of being a "bad" elephant, although she had always been a good and reliable circus elephant. Among other things, she had performed with tigers in the ring.

Komali had to be put down at Zurich Zoo in 1995 at the age of 11 because of vicious behaviour.

A total of $800 worth of much needed medicines was also delivered along with a tranquilizer gun which was used to move large and dangerous animals from other locations to the Baghdad zoo where they can at least receive regular care, food and water.

All right, so the zoo had at least minimal quantities of veterinary supplies. That does prove that there was little to no danger of being injured while treating sick animals. I want you to explain to me, however, why trainers or zoo personnel are injured by animals if human contact never occurs.