why can't they just recapture it and put him back in cage? instead of firing gunshot they can give him tranquilizer too.
NO------If the escaped animal is allready in a locked building, another encloser or restrained, when the police arrive there is no need. ---A trankaliser can then be safely used by trained zoo staff.
YES---If the escaped animal could escape from tempory containment or is still free it should be shot immediatly to protect new potential victems & to safely treet / remove those allready injured.
I have used trankalisers in zoos & unlike in Dactaria & other movies (immediately) they take 5-10minutes on relaxed animals & may need 3times the dose on addrenalin charged animals. This would most likely cause/ provoke further attacks while drugs work.
No zoo wants valable ,loved animals shot but people safety is what is needed before animal rights.
As someone who has worked with lions, tigers and other big cats for over 7 years at a rescue I will try to give an informed response to your question. Tranquilizer darts fired from special guns are really only an option if an escaped animal is NOT posing an immediate threat to human life. I have witnessed animals being tranquilized by sub cu (under the skin but not directly in a vein) darts and have even calmed a young female lion til she finally fell asleep after being darted in a squeeze cage to keep her from injuring herself while the sedative took effect. In an ideal situation, darts take up to 15 minutes before a relatively calm animal is safe and asleep. An excited or frightened animal may take up to thirty minutes to surrender to the drugs' effects. The zoo workers would have had no authority to prevent the police from firing bullets at the tiger. Nor should they have. In the situation where this tiger was literally in the process of mauling a person, and having already killed another, unfortunately, there was no other decision to make other than shoot to kill. Obviously, I love big cats since I spent 7 years of my life volunteering to be able to work with them. Take a look at my icon. But, in this case, there was simply no other choice. Only in the movies do tranquilized animals fall safetly asleep immediately, in real life it takes too much time to prevent dangerous situations like what happened at the San Francisco Zoo from occurring.Source(s): worked with big cats, and tranquilizers at a rescue
Many posters are commenting that there should have been safety protocols in place and that the tiger should have been tranquilized via dart gun. I have worked in several zoos, and let me assure you, all AZA-accredited zoos (such as San Francisco) have rigorous safety protocols in place. Their policies on shooting to kill can best be summed up as follows: "Make every attempt to avoid termination of the animal. Shoot to kill only if there is an imminent threat to human life that cannot be resolved in any other way."
Based on the media coverage I have seen, it seems that this situation was handled in accordance with this policy. It is important to understand that tranquilization takes several (usually 5-10) minutes to take affect. (Because the tranquilizer can only be administered subcutaneously via dart, it does not take affect as quickly as when given intraveneously, such as when administered by a doctor prior to surgery.) It can take even longer during an animal attack, as the adrenaline rush can override the tranquilizer. Had the tiger merely escaped from her enclosure, the course of action would have been to shoot her with a tranquilizer gun, follow her until she collapses, relocate her to her holding area, and monitor her through her recovery.
In this particular case, she had not only escaped from her enclosure, but she had fatally attacked one person, and was in the process of attacking two others. Had she been shot with a tranquilizer gun, she would have probably continued the attack for several more minutes, likely leading to at least one more human death. Tragically, shooting to kill was the only way to prevent further loss of human life.
This event is truly tragic, and my thoughts are with the victims, their families, and the staff of the San Francisco Zoo.
Tranquilizers require veterinary care to get the proper dosage and to administer it effectively. Tranq guns are not as readily available as handguns. Tranquilizers are also slow-acting. If an animal is an immediate threat, it will do more damage before the tranquilizer can be prepared and administered and then given a chance to take effect.
Because they would rather kill the tiger before it hurts a human being.
As for the tranquilizer, I think that they want a permanent solution - once a tiger escpaes, its labelled as likely to escape again, so killing it makes sure it doesn't happen anymore with that tiger.
It is sad and wrong, I agree, but I don't know what to do about it.
The usual excuse is public safety. Which appears to be the case. If an escape animal kills a person it has pretty much signed its own death warrant. You also have to remember that it is the police that have to handle these kind of things. Generally in a situation with a large predator its shoot first.
They do NOT typically kill an animal that escapes...many animals escape and are captured and replaced where they belong. In this case, the tiger killed someone..so USUALLY zoos will destroy an animal that has killed or attacked a human. Once an animal realizes a human is food..the zoo euthanizes them. Rarely an animal who has attacked or killed will still be allowed to remain in a zoo.
The tiger had already killed one person and was on the top of another victim when the police arrived on the scene. Police are not trained to handle tigers, so they probable thought shooting was the best response.
I don't know, animals are just dumb beast and don't know any better when they kill a person, but why do they have to kill a dumb animal? Perhaps the tiger was too hard to capture running around in the streets. But they have tranquilizer darts that can put them to sleep. I guess any time an animal kills someone they kill the animal.
I notice too when a pit bull kills or really maims someone, they kill the dog, like they're using the same punishment they use on humans! And there just ignorant animals!
With many animals, once they've tasted human flesh, it's just not safe. It would put the public, and those working in the zoo, in danger as well.