Who Would You Save?
By AnjaP
@Rollo1 (16679)
Boston, Massachusetts
April 17, 2016 7:19am CST
In the news recently is the tragic death of a woman who worked at a zoo and was mauled by a tiger that she cared for. That is not terribly unusual, wild animals sometimes act wild, no matter how accustomed they become to a human presence. And she was in the tiger's cage, after all.
But one line in the story that caught my attention. It was the part where they had shot the tiger with a tranquilizer, but they had to wait for it to take effect before they could rescue this woman from the tiger's cage. It took too long, apparently, and she died by the time she got to hospital.
I don't understand that. If a tiger is mauling a woman, why don't you kill the tiger? Why must the tiger be tranquilized while the woman dies?
Okay, I understand that this was an endangered Malayan tiger and she was just another human and we have billions of those, but still. My gut instinct would be to save her, not the tiger.
Who would you save?
*image from Pixabay free images
26 people like this
27 responses
@AbbyGreenhill (45494)
• United States
17 Apr 16
I would save the person for sure.
3 people like this
@DaddyEvil (137259)
• United States
18 Apr 16
Well, both are important, but the woman should have been saved if at all possible... The problem, as I see it, is that the zookeepers don't normally have a way to kill the animals. That would be against what they are trained to do, so shouldn't have any lethal weapons available.
I seriously doubt there was a way they could have saved both, under the circumstances.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
18 Apr 16
I would like to see humans who are more interested in saving other humans than they are in saving other creatures. I guess if you work with big cats and you've not the sense to have a high-powered rifle handy, you deserve what you get. Or, at least, you've tacitly agreed to die if your tigers turn out to be less cuddly than your naive idealism has considered them. Perhaps she took that chance willingly, but I see no indication in the report of the incident that anyone thought it strange that they just stood around and waited for the tiger to fall asleep... I think that's a clue that humankind is not really that interested in being here in the future. That and the obsession with AI. Skynet becomes aware... And the robots are definitely going to kill all the tigers.
1 person likes this
@DaddyEvil (137259)
• United States
19 Apr 16
@Rollo1 I am wondering why the zookeepers didn't attempt to distract the tiger or lure him back into his shelter and close the door on him.
The lions, tigers and mountain lions in the zoos here all have an enclosure/cave they could be moved into and a door closed cutting them off from access to the rest of their enclosure when a human needed access.
It makes much more sense than risking a person's life when feeding the big cats, in my opinion!
Do you really believe we will lose control of AIs once we achieve them? And you believe they will kill all protein beings on the planet?
@karjatwala (1120)
• Pune, India
18 Apr 16
The question to be asked her is what was the woman doing inside a tiger's cage? How did she enter and even if she was mentally imbalanced, there should have been someone along with her.
1 person likes this
@karjatwala (1120)
• Pune, India
18 Apr 16
@Rollo1 Oh OK. So that is the risk which she was used too. It is a difficult situation, but others should have provided immediate help so maybe both could have been saved. I strongly feel, a single person should not enter into cages of wild animals and there should be some sort of defensive weapon, one should carry, in case of any such attacks.
@ElizabethWallace (12074)
• United States
17 Apr 16
I would save the person, but would feel guilty for the rest of my life, since there are only 250 of these animals left in the wild. I don't think we should ever allow people to be in the same space as wild animals, without the animals being tranquilized so that this never happens.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
17 Apr 16
Sometimes these animals are in zoos because they are endangered, and there is an attempt to breed and preserve the species. I think the concept of having too much human interaction is a misguided one, too. They should only be near the animals when it is necessary or an emergency, and then it makes sense to render the animal unconscious to preserve the animal's wildness and the human's safety.
1 person likes this
@ElizabethWallace (12074)
• United States
17 Apr 16
@Rollo1 I agree. We have saved the California Condor by breeding them in captivity. Now they have released enough so that we have our native species in the wild again. Harder with big cats though.
@Poppylicious (11133)
•
17 Apr 16
I would have saved the tiger. The woman should never have been in the same area as the tiger. There are supposed to be guides and rules to be followed. I know that on the rare occasion it's happened over here investigations have revealed that the guidelines weren't followed. Regardless, it's terribly sad. :(
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
18 Apr 16
Her life's work was taking care of these animals, and still, even though it's a tiger, it's her fault ? I think anyone who climbs into cages with tigers is crazy, but some people love big cats and want to help them. I guess if they die for it, they did know the risks of live, wild animals. But I wouldn't tranquilize an animal attacking a human being, I would do what it takes to stop the attack.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
18 Apr 16
Peo ple now do not value human life. They have been told their whole lives that humans are bad, animals are pure and that it is better to save an endangered animal than a human, because it is all the fault of humans in the first place that animals are endangered. The world is quite mad.
1 person likes this
@Daljinder (23236)
• Bangalore, India
18 Apr 16
They could have injured the tiger to scare it. Fire might have worked too. Woman didn't have to die and tiger could have been saved too. Waiting for tranquilizer to take effect is just plain ridiculous.
1 person likes this
@JohnRoberts (109846)
• Los Angeles, California
17 Apr 16
I think they were following the right procedure. It just failed at the cost of a life. But to automatically shoot the tiger without trying to save both? I would choose the beautiful animal over someone who knew full well the risks.
2 people like this
@arthurchappell (44998)
• Preston, England
25 Apr 16
does seem unusual to not kill the attacking animal in such circumstances
@mom210 (9117)
• United States
25 Apr 16
She had business in the Tigers cage, she was not some crazy person jumping in. I might think differently had that been the case, but in this case they definitely should have saved her. I do not know how they can live with this decision. She might have been saved had they acted more quickly.
@just4him (317089)
• Green Bay, Wisconsin
26 Apr 16
People are so mixed up backwards about what is important. I would save the person not the animal that tried to kill the person. Only makes sense, but than I'd be using COMMON SENSE and most people don't possess that sense.
