rare animals killed in ohio after being released from a zoo(13 Posts)
i dont understand why they had to shoot all those tigers, lions, bears etc some of which were endangered species
what was wrong with a tranquilizer gun???
whats the difference in safety from an animal dead and shooting it to tranquilize it?
i dont understand. they shot dozens of rare and endangered animals dead without even trying anything else first.
It said on the news that it was because night was falling, and there were so many of them, the local population would be in danger.
I agree, though; first instinct is: why not tranquillise them? But then if one ate your dc, you wouldn't think that.
I would think it had something to do with the sheer numbers involved. I imagine recovering one tranquillised animal would be very labour intensive. If you are doing that several times over with other potentially lethal animals circling around you, I can see why it becomes unworkable.
Very sad though.
The news broadcast I saw said they had got trained keepers out there with tranquillisers and if any could be recaptured alive, they would be. But those trained keepers can't be everywhere, and if you knew a hungry lion had been seen near your house (and that there were more big cats about) you might just find your survival instinct would lead you to support elimination by any means. Certainly before your escapologist toddler ran off.
It also said the owner had let them out deliberately before committing suicide .
Totally agree with you OP.
I watched that on the news both and . And for that matter.
I don't understand why a tranquilliser gun couldn't have been used.
And why was it allowed that the owner of the 'private' zoo was allowed to keep so many wild animals in the first place?
He let them go before killing himself, the animals must have been utterly terrified.
Nightfall would make it very difficult for keepers to use tranquillisers to capture the animals. Most zoos wouldn't have any need for guns with night sights (according to my DS who is quite knowledgable on these things)
OP, you're upset about the killing of 30 of 48 animals, including lions, tigers, bears, wolves and cheetahs, possiibly hungry and most probably psychotic from enforced captivity after their owner killed himself and left them to sniff around suburban back gardens?
I don't find it at all unreasonable for the police to shoot them in the head rather than waiting for tranquiliser dart to take effect before they mauled someone.
That would be a blessing because they needed to be destroyed. These animals are endangered only by the vain loons who keep them as pets and mistreat them and the misguided people who think it's okay to keep such animals in a zoo.
What would you have done and where would you have put these poor creatures?
what would i have done?
i would have tried all other avenues before shooting them dead. there are enough good wildlife parks and safari parks that at least some could have been homed and used in conservation.
animals are routinely sent to other countries for conservation - why did this have to be any different?
why did they need to be destroyed - exactly?
if all other avenues had been explored then fine - if there was no other choice than to destroy them then fine but i dont believe that that was the case. some of those rare breeds could surely have been tranqued and sent to other decent zoos or wildlife parks globally.
No, I don't understand it either OP.
I think it was a knee jerk reaction and not thought through at all.
Because a dead lion or tiger is not going to be snacking on the local kindergartners waiting at the bus stop.
Have you ever tried to tranquilise a large animal? What do you do with it after it is down? What if you nick it and it takes off? How long do you think tranqs last?
I feel sorry for the animals, they should not have been there at all, it is stupid to allow private individuals to keep large predators.
However I understand why the authorities felt on a risk/benefit ratio it would be a lot better to shoot them.
Lions and tigers and bears in a residential area? No time to fuck around IMO.
Could I repeat that they have been using tranquillisers?
They took 6 animals alive (presumably using tranquillisers) 3 of these being big cats and one a bear, one wolf was found dead, one monkey is still missing and 48 animals were shot.
If you look at the news pages, you'll see the sadness, even amongst those who had to hunt the animals. You will also see some practical points from vets about what happens if an animal is only half-tranquillised - one account from a vet directly involved described hitting an animal accurately with a dart but instead of dropping it turned and charged, and she would have been dead had the animal not been shot.
There are also comments on the logistics of the number of trained marksman/veterinarian teams who stood a chance of carrying out that task. And praise for their bravery, as it's one think to go out to tranq one animal - quite another when there many in the area, and they could be hunting you as you work.
And comments on the dangers of these animals circulating in packs in a residential area. That they can break through fences and ordinary household strength glass. It is amazing that no people were killed/eated.
I hope this will lead to the state looking at its laws about the keeping of dangerous exotic animals.
Yes, an extremely sad situation. The Beeb is reporting that trying to tranquilise such large animals at night could be extremely risky for all those involved. The selfish and cruel act was to be keeping the animals in the first place, and then to release them to their deaths.
I'm just glad no humans were hurt as well. Sympathies to the zoo-owner's family.
It can't only be me that's thinking of that line from the Wizard of Oz.... "lions and tigers and bears.. oh my!"
Join the discussion
Please login first.