Return of the Booth Babes: The 2007 SHOT Show
This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.
Goodbye to Tatiana
People who don't like hunting claim that it is cruel. But hunting is no more cruel than nature itself, which imposes violent deaths on most of its creatures, predator and prey alike. If you would like to see real cruelty to animals, go to a zoo, where you may behold big bears, or elephants, or wolves, which are accustomed to roaming over scores or hundreds of square miles, confined to a few acres--or a few square feet--for all of their unnaturally long lives.
How these creatures keep from going mad is beyond me. Some of them--elephants in particular--probably do go mad, just as a person would serving a life sentence for a crime he did not commit. The more progressive zoos disguise their cages by turning them into "grottos," with trees and flowers and chirping birds, but a prison is still a prison, and the inmates are not fooled.
Tatiana, the 3-year-old Siberian tiger who killed one person and mauled two others at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Eve, is a prime example of what I'm talking about. It is possible that Tatiana was provoked, and decided that enough was enough, and that it was time for payback. So she acted like a tiger--a real one--and paid for it with her life. She is probably lucky. She will not have to spend the rest of her days being gaped at, wondering what she did to deserve this.
I've seen only one edifying sight in a zoo. It was at New York's Central Park zoo, many years ago, where I watched an old male orangutan sitting on a trapeze in his cage, peeing into a big metal cup. A crowd gathered, laughing and pointing, and when the orang was done, he smiled a smile of pure hatred and flung the contents of the cup at them.
There was the zoo experience in a nutshell.
Um, wow. Starting the year off on a happy note, huh Dave?
Posted by: Scrap5000 | January 02, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I don't take my kids to the zoo much anymore because of the very reasons you posted.
Many of the exhibits are small and dank and the animals either just lie there or pace back and forth. It would have to be a prison for them.
You add in a few teenagers (alledgedly) w/ slingshots pissing off the tiger and it's no surprise one of them got turned into cat chow.
That doesn't absolve the zoo of responsiblity or liability, but if I were sitting on a jury that was thinking of awarding money to the family of the young man, I doubt the judgement would be enough to buy a happy meal.
Jim
Posted by: jstreet | January 02, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Dave,
I got flame sprayed on the Field Notes blog a while back when I suggested that zoo's were useless and should be closed. Most of them are not much more than pitiful prisons for magnificent wildlife. I'm sure we'll hear from those fellas again.
Nobody loves hunting and fishing more than I do. I just spent my Christmas break from work goose hunting every day. Killed (did I say that?) more than a few, too! But I believe that zoo's are cruel places except for attempts to save endangered species.
Posted by: WA Mtnhunter | January 02, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Dave Petzal:
I would love to agree with you on this issue! The tragedy in San Fransico was horrible. I suspect that the incident was predicated by the mores of that city.
Alas, the facts. We control America. People who think like we do and have similar socio-economic lifestyles control Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Western Europe. In these areas nothing is hunted without regard to populations of hunted game and ecological balance. Also in these areas, hunting as a primary means for acquiring food, or profit, (gall bladders from bears) is virtually over. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the rest of the world. Many species, including the Siberian Tiger, are in danger of extinction. Frankly, I can think of no other way to save endangered species other than some type of habitat in the Western World. That habitat happens to be zoos. They can maintain the gene pool by breeding between facilities and subsidize their activities by charging admission. I know that its not perfect, but I can't think of anything better right now.
I can't get into an animal's head so I might be out on a limb, but I think that most animal's days are filled with 1) eating 2) not getting eaten. I watched buffalo on a plain. I watched cows on a farm. I watched large herbovores in a zoo. They pretty much all did the same thing. I think whitetails act in the same manner, when not being harassed by hunters or predators.
I would love to see all zoos create a micro-ecosystem for all of the creatures that they exhibit. It would detract from the viewing but give the viewer some semblance of that animal's habitat. Also, I don't think we have to exhibit native species that can be viewed in wild areas near the facility.
I totally agree that you don't get much, seeing an animal in a cage, but if we can provide some copy of that habitat, and preserve the species, I think its worthwhile.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | January 02, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I do not like zoos. I never have. I never will. However, I do think we need zoos for the same reasons YooperJack mentioned. It just dosn't do anything for me to see an animal caged up. Thats no fun. Why not go see them in the wild, if you really want to see them. It's just something about seeing a "wild animal" in a cage that bothers me. As far as the tiger goes, I'm suprised it dosn't happen more often.
Posted by: alabamahunter | January 02, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I think zoos are a somewhat necessary evil in the fight to preserve alot of these animals in the wild. In addition to the reasons stated above, zoos serve a very important educational role. They teach people who may never have the means or ability to leave the country about what is all out there in the world, and also lessons about habitat loss, overharvesting, etc. I would venture so far to guess that zoos do may do more for fundraising for the purposes of habitat preservation and endangered species preservation than any other single source.
Posted by: Bob | January 02, 2008 at 01:04 PM
Imparting human qualities on animals is arrogant. It also insults animals.
Many zoos are disgusting and reprehensible but many others are as humane as possible and provide for an experience the overwhelming majority wouldn’t have otherwise. No doubt, there are animal conservationist the world over that were first motivated by a simple visit to a zoo. And several species might have never recovered if not for zoos and the protected care they received.
Using a broad brush to paint all zoos as being inhumane is as stupid (and hypocritical) as using that same brush as painting all hunters as being inhumane. The same argument against zoos could be made for the trapping wild animals for their skins, raising chickens for your kids McNuggets, or food plots so you can ambush a deer.
The line for the self-righteous forms on the left.
Posted by: Steve C | January 02, 2008 at 01:31 PM
Using a broad brush to paint any issue is usually somewhat narrow. I guess it depends on how you define "humane" and what your personal values are. Your points are well taken, sir.
Posted by: WA Mtnhunter | January 02, 2008 at 01:37 PM
I reside near one of the better zoos in the nation. It is commonly refered to as Yellowstone National Park. The residents of this eco-system continue to interact much as they did years before paleface set foot within the confines of this area. Certainly exceptions exist such as the fairly recent re-introduction of the wolves and total protection of all species from mankind to some degree. The exceptions to the latter statement are when animal vs vehicle usually results in loss of life of the animal and sometimes the human occupants. At one time a local surgeon was the world's formost authority and practiioner of treating bison attacks. Due to education on the part of the Park Service most of these encounters rarely happen any more. Yep we do watch wolves kill calf elk, we see eagles pluck trout from the lake, and we sometimes are lucky enough to view a grizzley defend his recently found winter killed elk (bears do eat more than white pine bark nuts and moths). All in all a pretty good run operation considering that we are the intruders. Of course I still believe that the roads should be removed along with the electric power both being replaced with hiking or horse trails and campfires. Yellowstone may not be a perfect example of a natural zoo but it certainly approaches it as much as any place I have visited. Keep in mind however that once a game animal passes outside of the park into the National Forest or wilderness during a hunting season it does become legal to hunt. If you guys or gals ever get a chance to visit I suggest choosing September due to very cool weather, fewer tourists, and bugling elk.
Posted by: ishawooa | January 02, 2008 at 01:59 PM
I don't know why but I think I felt worse about Tatiana, the Siberian Tiger, than I felt for the poor lad. I know that's wrong, but its the feeling that I had. Most of us did something stupid at that age but we didn't pay for it with our lives. The aftermath of this incident will be massive paychecks for lawyers.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | January 02, 2008 at 02:57 PM
"the poor lad" was old enough to know better than to mess with something that can kill you. He and his friends are responsible for their own actions.
I'm sorry the young man is dead but you are correct in stating the lawyers will have a fat paycheck with this.
I'd like to see the lawyers wrestle another tiger for the paycheck. Winner take all. My money is on the tiger.
Jim
Posted by: jstreet | January 02, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Yooper
I agree with your every statement and like you said the attorneys will be on this like stipes...on a tiger. Part of our society as a whole revolves more about money than about right. Not a good state of affairs in numerous ways.
Posted by: ishawooa | January 02, 2008 at 03:11 PM
This was a captive born, and breed, tiger if I recollect the news reports? I am not taking sides on whether zoos are valid, or not, but I think the main thing to remember is these are wild animals and will attack when THEY feel it's necessary. Human thinking that gives animals feelings is pure crap.This tragic accident is a vivid reminder of this fact.
Posted by: Black Rifle Addict | January 02, 2008 at 03:57 PM
STEVE C.
ABSOLUTLEY PERFECT! EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD HAVE POSTED IF YOU HAD NOT SIR!
GREAT DAY.
Posted by: Tommy S. | January 02, 2008 at 04:02 PM
WAM,
I strongly disagreed with you weeks ago on the close the zoos bit for reasons stated above.
I also thought you were just being argumentative.
I think we both see there are reasons that back both sides now.
Peace?
Posted by: Tommy S. | January 02, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Nobody is mad at the tiger. They are mad at the zoo for putting her into a cage she could escape from.
I don't presume to think like a tiger. It is we who think lofty thoughts about freedom, self-determination, etc. I don't know that animals share our feelings on this; a generation ago bears would eat garbage from a dump, or handouts from tourists, rather than catch salmon from the local streams. This was deemed wrong because it was dangerous for human and bear alike. But it didn't seem that the bears themselves shared our bias towards roots and berries and away from garbage and snacks; we had to wean them from it. To this day you can't grow flowers in a lot of big city suburbs; the whitetail deer will eat them up. I can't get into a tiger's head, so I don't know how much they hate captivity. Circus animals usually seem contented; maybe we are driving animals crazy by isolating them in 'new' zoos rather than interacting with them as we did in some of the 'old' zoos.
Almost no one on earth would ever see a tiger, panda, polar bear or leopard if it was not for zoos. Very few would see an elephant or buffalo. Zoos show us in the flesh that there is a beautiful world out there that is worth seeing, and protecting.
I feel sorry for the tiger, but at the end of the day a kid got mauled to death. A horrible way to die, even if the kid was teasing the tiger (and the jury is out on that one, too, by the way; the story most repeated is he got the tiger off his friend, and it turned on him). Risk is inherent in hunting dangerous game, not in going to the zoo. If one of my kids had gone to the zoo and been torn to pieces by a tiger, I would have blamed somebody for it. And I would have settled for money only because nobody would let me draw and quarter the keepers.
Posted by: Mike Strehlow | January 02, 2008 at 04:26 PM
Tommy
Peace. I concede there are valid reasons for having zoo's or captive rearing facilities.
My post weeks ago was based on my opinion of the sometimes horrible conditions at zoo's. I am told that there are some "good" ones. It has been a while since I have set foot in one. The animals look sad, not well taken care of, and little jerks are always teasing one poor animal or another. The SF zoo has some liability in not protecting the tiger from human harassment and not containing the tiger properly, in my opinion. Hopefully there will be some reforms coming out of this sad event.
I just don't like the zoo's, period. I also don't like WWF wrestlin', soccer, and reality TV. Not that there is anything wrong with any of them, I just don't like it!
Posted by: WA Mtnhunter | January 02, 2008 at 04:47 PM
ISHAWOOA
Yellowstone NP is my favorite zoo, too!
Posted by: WA Mtnhunter | January 02, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Good then. It is a new year after all.
Good stuff.
Later.
Posted by: Tommy S. | January 02, 2008 at 04:55 PM
And as far as your last paragraph,
I totally agree.
As to the zoos...
I would surely rather see animals in the free outdoors, but some good does come from zoos.
Later.
Posted by: Tommy S. | January 02, 2008 at 04:58 PM
Dave,, you have an excellent sense of right and wrong, keep up the good work.
Posted by: Brian | January 02, 2008 at 05:02 PM
I can't wait to hear you weigh in on the new Model 70
Posted by: Brian | January 02, 2008 at 05:05 PM
I don't believe that animals have thoughts of freedom such as humans do. This is why I have no problem with zoos. I just don't like to visit them, just because I would rather see it in the wild, or just not see it at all. To each his own.
Posted by: alabamahunter | January 02, 2008 at 05:28 PM
I don't blame the tiger one bit for offing that kid. And it doesn't matter that this animal was 'captive bred'- it's still a tiger, and still programmed by Mother Nature to do the things that tigers do. And if it turns out that the boys WERE in fact teasing the cat, well, then what we have is probably the finest example of Darwinism ever noted.
Posted by: Blue Ox | January 02, 2008 at 06:53 PM
The two lads who slingshoted the tiger received everything they deserved. Plain and simple. Did they know better? Oh I'm sure they did. Did they care?? Oh hell no! It's all fun and games until the 600 pound cat you just pissed off shows you just how really mad it is. Obviously these fellas never read the jungle book otherwise they wouldn't have pissed off SheearKhan the way they did. Should the Zoo be held liable??Heck no. Should the tiger be destroyed? No way in heck. It was just defending itself. Should lil boys learn a lesson?? Oh yeah, don't mess with something that will easily kill you because even if its in a cage, If you piss em off bad enough they will find a way to get you. Its their NATURE.
Posted by: Walt Smith | January 02, 2008 at 07:02 PM