I'm With You, Jack Hanna...

Many will think me "cold" and "uncaring", but in the matter of the Siberian Tiger attacking three men at the San Diego Zoo on Christmas Day of 2007, I'm beginning to suspect that the tiger got the short end of the stick.

I thought something was rotten in Denmark from the very beginning, when I first heard of Tatiana's "escape" from her habitat at the Zoo and attacks upon two brothers, ages 19 and 23, plus a friend of theirs who was only 16 years old and resultantly succumbed to the injuries the tiger inflicted upon him when he diverted her attention from his two older friends in an effort to save their lives. The young man lost his own life, as did Tatiana the tiger when police were forced to shoot her... but the 19- and 23-year old men both survived.

Granted, Tatiana had severely bitten a novice zoo keeper approximately one year ago, but that incident resulted only after the zoo keeper dropped something into the tiger's cage and reached under the bottom cage lip in a attempt to retrieve it... at feeding time, no less. The Zoo accepted a measure of responsibility for the injuries that the handler sustained, in that the lower bottom edge of the cage needed to be reinforced/renovated so that no one COULD get their arm or hand underneath it. Mind you, the cage had been contained within another secured area on the Zoo grounds to which the public was not permitted access, so only zoo staff were "at risk" by the way the cage had formerly been constructed... and then only if they reached under the cage's bottom reinforcement, which they are trained never to do. The tiger, especially given that it was feeding time, did not bite the zoo keeper as an "attack" on a "human"; instead, the tiger quite understandably assumed the hand and portion of arm the zoo keeper slid into its cage was part of its dinner. In other words, the circumstances of this particular incident were due entirely to human error and not the fault of the cat or at all indicative that Tatiana was any more "vicious" than any other zoo-bred tiger would be expected to be.

Fast forwarding to this incident...

Bearing in mind that the tiger habitat in this case has been inspected and passed numerous times by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies), that Tatiana and other tigers have lived peacefully in the habitat for several years without incident, despite the passage of thousands, if not millions, of visitors through the zoo, and that this incident occurred only minutes before to minutes after the zoo closed... on Christmas Day, I was anxious to hear what animal behaviorists had to say before jumping on the "That Zoo should be sued and oh, what a life-altering, traumatic tragedy for the two surviving ' boys' ! " bandwagon.

Sure enough, from the very beginning, world renown animal behaviorist and zoological expert Jack Hanna, in interviews commencing less than 24 hours after the incident, expressed his condolences and sympathy for the families of the deceased teen and the two injured young adults, but also respectfully stated that he had reservations about what eventually may be found to have really happened that tragic Christmas night. He and I share some of the same misgivings, inclusive of but not limited to the following:

1. The father of the deceased teen, who is separated from the boy's mother, received a call from the mother a just and hour or two earlier that afternoon, because the boy was overdue for Christmas Dinner with she and other family members. The father immediately became concerned, as this was not his son's nature, and called one of the two young adult males (who themselves happen to be brothers and were both buddies with whom the boy consistently spent a great deal of time), explained to them that he was worried, and asked if they'd seen his 16-year old son. They advised him they had not seen him all day. The father also reports that he called one of the young men again, after, hearing news reports about the tiger attack at the zoo, was once again told by one of the young men that he knew nothing of the boy's whereabouts... and was then promptly hung up upon.

2. The two surviving men are reported to have been aggressive, verbally abusive, and combative toward everyone involved in their rescue, including police who were forced to shoot the tiger to death to save one or both of them, the emergency paramedics who treated them on scene and transported them, AND the doctors and medical staff in the Emergency Room and Intensive Care Unit where they were initially and are still being cared for. One might be tempted to write their behavior off to trauma and the nature of their injuries... except that they refused to even disclose their identities, and, over 48 hours later and now in stable condition, are still refusing to speak to anyone about what happened that night, despite being aware that their 16-year old friend died trying to protect them. Initially, they told authorities they didn't even know the 16-year old AND that they had both been attacked by the tiger at the Terrace-type Zoo Cafe where they were eventually found by police, a full football-field-length away from the tiger habitat. Evidence at the scene and later supplied by the 16-year-old's family proved both of these assertions by both surviving men to be be bold-faced lies.

3. BOTH surviving men, at the time of this particular incident, were out on bail for multiple charges inclusive of public intoxication, disturbing the peace and presenting a danger to themselves/others, and attempting to flee/resist lawful arrest by police officers.

4. Neither surviving young man has given any kind of reason for why they were in the Zoo after closing time on Christmas Day. There have been reports of someone as yet unnamed having been "taunting" the animal prior to the attack, though the reports are apparently not substantiated as of yet.

5. A footprint has been found on the top railing portion of a safety fence that surrounded the tigers' habitat... in a place where NO footprint logically belongs. As of yet, forensic studies of the print and comparison to the footwear of the three males involved in the attack are pending.

While I regard this a terrible tragedy all the way around, and understand that the police felt they had no choice but to fatally shoot the tiger, I'll also say this: if evidence later shows that either of the surviving young men taunted/abused these cats in ANY way, I hold THEM far more responsible for the death of their friend and of this beautiful animal, as well as for their own injuries, than I ever will the Zoo. Even if the tiger DID manage to hurtle both the moat and a 12.5 foot high security wall to escape the habitat, which I STILL hold serious reservations about... if either of the two surviving young men were taunting/abusing the animal, they brought it on themselves. And given that they've displayed such callousness toward the family of the teenager who may very well be responsible for saving BOTH their lives, I'm inclined to believe that the tiger was far less responsible for the boy's death than the two survivors may very well be.

I heard a lawyer on television last night commenting that no matter WHAT the young men might have done to the animal, the Zoo is responsible for the death and injuries because the tiger did manage to escape its habitat. The attorney went so far as to indicate that his own young children bang on enclosure walls when they go to the zoo because "they want to see the animals move or do something". I submit to that lawyer that if he teaches his children no more respect for animals and wildlife than that, NO walls will EVER be high enough to completely protect those children should they take such folly to such extremes when they, themselves, become teens and young adults.

This tiger had lived in this habitat for years as thousands upon thousands of spectators passed through and were treated to looking upon its majesty. Never before had it made an attempt to escape, let alone "attack" for the sheer sake of "attacking". Yet suddenly, on Christmas, after or very near closing time, these two young men, neither of whom have ever before demonstrated any particular love for or interest in animals/wildlife, are involved up to their eyeballs in an "attack" they at first tried to claim began somewhere it did not... and that resulted in the death of a 16-year old friend they denied even knowing.

I've no doubt that in the inevitable lawsuits to follow, the Zoo will be named as primary defendant in the case. But if the hands of these young men prove to be as dirty as I suspect them to be... it is they who should pay the price. God knows their friend and Tatiana surely have.