Dumbass Trespasses after hours in Zoo, meets Guard Tiger.

[Solauren]

There's a reason the warning signs are there...

Calgary Zoo says man who entered zoo overnight injured by tiger

By The Canadian Press

CALGARY - The Calgary Zoo says a man who entered the facility without authorization has been injured by a tiger.

Officials say the man was one of two men who entered the zoo early Monday morning and climbed a safety fence near the tiger exhibit. A tiger attacked one of the men, causing significant injuries to his arms.

Security staff gave the man first aid until paramedics arrived and took him to hospital.

Calgary Police are investigating.

Zoo spokeswoman Laurie Herron declined comment other than to say a news conference about the incident is to be held at 10 am MT.

[Knife]

Did he hurt the tigers feelings?

[Darth Wong]

Clearly, the tigers were traumatized by the disappointing news that Canada has slipped to #4 in the world on the UN HDI rankings, hence their unusual aggressive behaviour.

[Pick]

I actually spoke to the owner of a private zoo about something related. He had guard dogs to make sure people didn't trespass onto zoo property after-hours (and the perimeter is very, very clearly marked). He said that every year, without fail, some asshat or another would try and sneak into the big cats area after dark. What the fuck.

[Themightytom]

Good thing it didn't happen the US, he'd probably win a lawsuit.

[Darth Yan]

surely no one would be that retarded.

[aerius]

surely no one would be that retarded.

You'd hope so, but you'd be wrong. I mean, who'd be dumb enough to stick his arm in an crocodile's mounth after beating it over the snout with a stick?

[tim31]

That dude's very lucky he still has an arm.

As for the OP I'd like to know what the 'significant injuries' are; like the above video, the cat would probably have tried to wrench the whole limb off if it got a decent grip.

Clearly, the tigers were traumatized by the disappointing news that Canada has slipped to #4 in the world on the UN HDI rankings, hence their unusual aggressive behaviour.

Heh heh... You're next, Norway

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

surely no one would be that retarded.

I believe that it was P.T. Barnum that said "Nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the inteligence of the American public."

[phred]

It only got one of them?

surely no one would be that retarded.

You severely overestimate the human ability to think. Unfortunately common sense is not a universal trait.

[MKSheppard]

So how stressed was the tiger?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Clearly, the tigers were traumatized by the disappointing news that Canada has slipped to #4 in the world on the UN HDI rankings, hence their unusual aggressive behaviour.

I don't give a fuck if it does seem like brown nosing, this is the most amusing thing I've read all day.

[Knife]

So how stressed was the tiger?

Man, I beat you by hours on that one, even beat Wong but he put more meat into it.

[Edi]

Clearly, the tigers were traumatized by the disappointing news that Canada has slipped to #4 in the world on the UN HDI rankings, hence their unusual aggressive behaviour.

I don't give a fuck if it does seem like brown nosing, this is the most amusing thing I've read all day.

It's even more amusing when you know the context and reference.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I'm tempted to say we let the animals have these Darwin Award seekers, but then they'd probably put the animals down.

Ah, the classic crocadillian bite and roll manuever, the idiot really is lucky to still have that arm.

Out of curiosity does anyone know if any kind of actions are ever taken against the animals in these incidents? I would seriously hope not, but there are probably always some idiots calling for them to be put down becuse it dared follow its instincts or attack a harrassing human.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm tempted to say we let the animals have these Darwin Award seekers, but then they'd probably put the animals down.

Ah, the classic crocadillian bite and roll manuever, the idiot really is lucky to still have that arm.

Out of curiosity does anyone know if any kind of actions are ever taken against the animals in these incidents? I would seriously hope not, but there are probably always some idiots calling for them to be put down becuse it dared follow its instincts or attack a harrassing human.

If they are in the wild... at least in western countries there tends to be a predator killing spree. That is Slowly changing.

In zoos, not generally. At least if the animal is not presently engaged in Hostilities. During the mauling they may need to kill it, but post mauling as far as I am aware retaliation against the animal is rare.

For profit parks and side shows like croc wrestling, no clue. I suppose it depends on how expensive the animal was.

[Solauren]

A.D's post brought something to mind;

When someone is attacked in the true wild, why is there a response?
I can understand a response in urban and populated rural areas, but not the true wild.

For example; if a Bear mauls someone in a national park, why do they go looking for it? Especailly if the human it attacked provoked it, or was outside restricted areas.

I can understand hunting down an animal that's attacking people in a city, or even in farm areas, but not in unaffected habitats.

Out there, we are the trespassers.

[The Spartan]

There's a line of thought that once a predator has tasted human blood that they develop a taste for it such that next time they won't avoid humans but actively seek to eat them.

I don't know how true that is in practice, but that's generally the reasoning I've heard.

[Edi]

There's a line of thought that once a predator has tasted human blood that they develop a taste for it such that next time they won't avoid humans but actively seek to eat them.

I don't know how true that is in practice, but that's generally the reasoning I've heard.

Not necessarily eat, but they find humans are no danger and will therefore be more dangerous since they may well choose killing as first option rather than avoidance.

Can't comment on how valid that reasoning is, since I don't have relevant expertise.

[The Spartan]

Yeah, but if a predator does kill a human are they likely to pass on eating them, even a bit? I mean, that's a easy meal, especially once they're dead.

The only time I know of where they didn't was a mother bear attacking a human to defend her cubs. The person survived by playing dead. On the other hand, cats and wolves, to my knowledge, don't care if you play dead. Then of course there's what's-his-face that filmed himself "defending" the bears and got himself and his girlfriend eaten. Though I'll admit that's something of a special case.

[Zixinus]

There's a line of thought that once a predator has tasted human blood that they develop a taste for it such that next time they won't avoid humans but actively seek to eat them.

I don't know how true that is in practice, but that's generally the reasoning I've heard.

Simple really: animals fear humans. Once an animal kills a human, they no longer fear it, ergo, they will be willing to attack other humans if they feel threatened by them (when otherwise they would rather avoid humans).

Likewise, if a predator attacks a human to feed itself and is successful, it now views humans as not only threats, but possible food source. Ergo, it will be willing to kill again if it is hungry and it feels brave enough to risk attacking a human.

To say that once they got a taste, they become addicted is an obvious exaggeration. But it is not quite false either.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah, but if a predator does kill a human are they likely to pass on eating them, even a bit? I mean, that's a easy meal, especially once they're dead.

The only time I know of where they didn't was a mother bear attacking a human to defend her cubs. The person survived by playing dead. On the other hand, cats and wolves, to my knowledge, don't care if you play dead. Then of course there's what's-his-face that filmed himself "defending" the bears and got himself and his girlfriend eaten. Though I'll admit that's something of a special case.

It is also really fucking hilarious. Someone that fucking crazy deserves to have their fitness relegated to the past tense. That guy would go up to bear cubs and pet them.

The general reasoning though, is invalid. The animals that are going to eat us ALREADY see us as prey. They just normally assess a human as not being an easy target. We travel in groups, tend to be alert, etc. They do a risk/benefit assessment when they are stalking us before they decide to kill. I have known guys who found themselves being stalked by Mountain Lions in AZ, and were not depredated because they spotted the animal and it gave up.

One that eats a human found that the risks were low. Any individual of that predator species makes that assessment if they see you walking around. EX. A person who gets eaten by a crocodile in Australia or Africa was probably being stalked by a couple (or the one that ate them was the only one large enough to consider them prey), the one that got them is just the one that got them first.

Bears are very seldom actually predator (Polar Bears excluded). They eat small animals and are more dangerous when they feel threatened by you. There are exceptions to this of course. Because the stakes are so high (impending starvation over the winter if fat reserves are insufficient) Alaskan brown bears will eat your ass. Especially if they are in a new place and thus hungry (because they dont know where the food feeding spots are yet). The bear that got the Crazy Guy was a newcomer (for all his faults he had all the local bears named, the one that ate him was new).

To say that once they got a taste, they become addicted is an obvious exaggeration. But it is not quite false either.

And you are just full of shit.

Predators fear their own prey because even a fucking elk hunted by wolves can cause injury.

[Simon_Jester]

So, Alyrium, do you contend that it is not true that predators which have killed a human in the past are more likely to do so in the future?

I don't presume to guess whether you think that idea is true or false, but I'd definitely like to know which you think it is.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

So, Alyrium, do you contend that it is not true that predators which have killed a human in the past are more likely to do so in the future?

I don't presume to guess whether you think that idea is true or false, but I'd definitely like to know which you think it is.

No need to guess. He gave you the answer in that last post:

The animals that are going to eat us ALREADY see us as prey. They just normally assess a human as not being an easy target. [. . .]

One that eats a human found that the risks were low.

IOW, yes, it's more likely to kill again because it found the risk to be low.

[The Spartan]

It is also really fucking hilarious. Someone that fucking crazy deserves to have their fitness relegated to the past tense. That guy would go up to bear cubs and pet them.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it hilarious, but I agree that the loss of his genes from the pool is a net positive for the rest of us.

*snip rest*

So it's not so much that they develop a taste as it is they lose fear of us? Same result, but by a different mechanism?