Of course, you define "stress" as "hearing loud noises 3 months ago".Axis Kast wrote:Another strawman.
My argument is that the effect of an attack on humans by any animal is made worse when that animal is under significant levels of stress.
No, it's a question of whether they feel the animal is a continued threat, because the animals they normally deal with (ie- bears) are not normally inclined to enter human-inhabited areas. It has nothing to do with tigers in cages, dumb-fuck.That argument is bourne out by officials at Yellowstone National Park, whose staff regularly factor stress into the question of whether or not an aggressive animal should be put down.
By the way, let's review: you claim that the tiger will have lost some of its natural inhibition against biting humans if it heard loud noises 3 months ago. This obviously means that you think tigers have said inhibition, WHICH THEY DON'T. So yes, you think tigers aren't that dangerous until they're "stressed". Fucking moron ...