22-year-old woman killed by lion that escaped enclosure at animal center: Officials I'm sure this place was not accredited, inexcusable no matter how it turns out to have happened. My guess only one lock separated the lion from the keepers and that's just not exceptable.
I'm not familiar with the facility and certainly security in some places is better or worse than in others, but that doesn't take away from the fact that accidents can and will happen anywhere, whether it's due to faulty locks, human error or anything else. I wish accidents like this were unimaginable, but these things happen yet the animals still demand routine care the next day just like any other day. It takes extremely strong people willing to live and work with these risks. My thoughts are with the staff of the center and their relatives.
I'm going to disagree. Accidents are always going to happen. That is why you have to design and implement safety measures to prevent tragedies such as this. The fact that this happened, means that the facility wasn't up to standards. I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh, but its meant to be. Something like this reflects poorly on all zoos, the good and the bad.
This seems contradictory to me. Accidents do and will happen. They cannot be 100% designed away. That's why they are called "accidents" rather than "design flaws." I cannot speak to what happened to this unfortunate woman. Perhaps improved protocols or training or design might have prevented it. Perhaps not. We have so little info on the event.
An accident would be leaving one lock unlocked. A design flaw would be having one lock between a lion and a keeper.(or the public)
10 Horrifying Zoo Accidents - Listverse includes cases of keepers being killed by captive animals. It seems that some deaths are almost treated as collateral damage, as if keeping dangerous animals in zoos is more important than the chance of keepers being killed. It seems there are few cases of captive bred big cats and other dangerous animals being reintroduced into the wild and I wonder if it would be better to protect large, dangerous animals in the wild, rather than risking more lives of dedicated keepers.
I don't think keepers need someone to be concerned in their behalf. Most love the job and are happy to take the risk as long as its properly managed.
Pretty sure more people are killed in car crashes than by big cats in zoos. Are you concerned about the people driving cars too? Shouldn't they all be walking instead to save the potential anguish of friends and families of the car drivers who might die?
If they are genuine friends they'd respect the choices and risks the person chose to take. Family are a little different but ultimately you have to learn to accept that people you love might make choices you'd rather they didn't. I speak as a former keeper and I'd work with big cats tomorrow if I could.
I accept that many people want to work with big cats. I used to answer animal questions on another website and more people wanted to work with lions and tigers than other animals. I also worked in a health and safety department and analysed accidents. I accept that people like to see big cats in zoos, but a few times a year, keepers are killed by big cats. As few captive big cats have conservation value and many of the 'accidents' are down to 'human error', is it really worth the risk? The cost of a new big cat enclosure could be used to purchase land to save big cats and other species.
Whether money could be better spent from a conversational point of view has nothing to do with the risks of keeping dangerous animals in captivity. As you've worked in health and safety you'll be aware that risk assessments exist not to stop people doing things but to enabled them to do then at minimal risk.
As a long-time zoo employee who has had colleagues maimed and in one case killed in the line of work I am angered by this statement. I expect a number of us in this forum have been personally touched by a keeper death. You have no idea how profoundly such events affect the entire organization: colleagues, supervisors, curators, directors. Your statement is ignorant, insensitive and offensive.
What you have done here is pulled a random assumption about what happened out of thin air and are now treating it as fact. Unless I missed something while reading that article, it explicitly states that the cause of the accident is not currently known and there is nothing to suggest that there was only one lock separating the animal from the keepers. Saying that a few keepers are killed a year seems a bit misleading to me. According to this article, the handy little table shows that "only" 33 people were killed by big cats in zoos from 1990-2013 with an average death of 1.4 deaths per year. Obviously the average does not translate well into the real world, but the fact is there are many years where 0 deaths occur, and others were multiple occur. That's how accidents work. I do not understand what you mean when you say "few captive big cats have conservation value". Big cats are highly endangered, and while there are not many programs for releasing captive bred big cats back into the wild at the moment, assurance populations are always good to have. Additionally, ambassador animals kept in zoos are vital to zoo conservation programs and fundraising. The fact is people would be donating a lot less money to wild cat conservation if they didn't have captive animals to inspire them. As for Conservators Center in particular, a very quick look on their website tells me that most (perhaps all?) of their big cats are rescues from other facilities that were not caring for them properly. More people are killed by cows than big cats in zoos. Should we ban the farm industry specifically for that reason? ~Thylo
I said at the start that was my guess. I simply addressed the comments after that. But I am extremely confident that some design or policy flaw will be exposed. And yes I realize the press was told they don't know the cause, I'm equally confident they (the center) knew the cause very shortly after the incident.
I feel like almost any cause of death is statistically higher than being killed by a big cat at a zoo. Presumably everyone should just live their life cocooned in bubble-wrap to prevent any premature death.
As a keeper, I’m confident that I am safer and less likely to get hurt or killed on the job than I would if I were an electrician or plumber. The reason it seems dangerous is these incidents are massively reported by the media and it makes it seem like a common occurance that happens all the time. Protocols are improving all the time. When an incident like this happens, zoos review their protocols to make sure a similar event couldn’t happen there. Saying that big cats are too dangerous to keep is massively ignorant of the reality of the job and industry.
I realised that my comments about big cats would upset many Zoochatters, but I still feel that keepers should not come into contact with captive big cats and human error should not be able to lead to the death of keepers. Please note the words 'seems' and 'almost'. I remember how upset London Zoo staff were after Jim Robson died in the elephant enclosure. Soon after this, the elephants were moved to Whipsnade, where there is far more space for them. I am offended by Zooplantman's assumptions. I know several people who have been affected by various traumatic events. I made my original comments due to yet another death of a zoo keeper. I know several dedicated keepers and I don't want any of them to be put at risk of death in their jobs. I agree. The problem is the lack of proper management, such that a lapse of memory can lead to tragic circumstances. Zoos do not need to keep large, dangerous animals that are not part of a reintroduction programme. Several Zoochatters complain about many zoos having reduced the number of species, but this is often linked to the construction of large enclosures for large species, while small endangered species that could be part of a reintroduction programme are often ignored.
Based on ZTL, the number of zoos housing various forms of wild cats are as follows: Jungle cat (Felis chaus) 33: Caucasian jungle cat (chaus) 1; Palestine jungle cat (furax) 4; Egyptian jungle cat (nilotica) 1 Sand cat (F margarita): Arabian sand cat (harrisoni) 26 Wild cat (F silvestris): Gordon’s wild cat (gordoni) 9; Scottish wild cat (grampia) 23; African wild cat (libyca) 1; East African wild cat (ocreata) 1; Indian desert cat (ornata) 1; European wild cat (silvestris) 141; Palestine wild cat (tristrami) 2 Pallas’ cat (Otocolobus manul): Siberian Pallas’cat (manul) 37 Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis) 13 Eurasian lynx (L lynx) 125: Carpathian lynx (carpathicus) 44; Central Asian lynx (isabellinus) 7; Northern lynx (lynx) 207; Siberian lynx (wrangeli) 16 Iberian lynx (L pardinus) 4 Bobcat (L rufus) 23 Caracal (Caracal caracal) 51: Common caracal (caracal) 17; Turkmenian caracal (michaelis) 1; Schmitz’s caracal (schmitzi) 2 Serval (Leptailurus serval) 138 Cougar (Puma concolor) 101: Missouri cougar (missoulensis) 2; Chilean cougar (puma) 2 Jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouarundi) 29 Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus): South African cheetah (jubatus) 118; Sudan cheetah (soemmeringii) 17 Geoffroy’s cat (Leopardus geoffroyi) 31 Ocelot (L pardalis) 60 Oncilla (L tigrinus) 3: Southern oncilla (guttulus) 2 Margay (L wiedii): Central American margay (nicaraguae) 1; Yucatan margay (yucatanicus) 16 Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) 3: Indochinese leopard cat (bengalensis) 14; Tsushima leopard cat (euptilura) 19; Palawan leopard cat (heaneyi) 5 Rusty-spotted cat (P rubiginosa): Sri Lankan rusty-spotted cat (phillipsi) 16 Fishing cat (P viverrinus) 43 Asian golden cat (Catopuma temminckii): South-east Asian golden cat (temminckii) 6; Tibetan golden cat (tristis) 2 Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa): Indochinese clouded leopard (nebulosa) 42 Lion (Panthera leo) 245: Southwest African lion (bleyenberghi) 24; Southeast African lion (krugeri) 52; Barbary lion (leo) 29; Asiatic lion (persica) 44; Somali lion (somaliensis) 1; Kalahari lion (vernayi) 5 Jaguar (Panthera onca) 103: Amazon jaguar 1 Leopard (P pardus) 61: Caucasian leopard (ciscaucasica) 1; Indian leopard (fusca) 1; North Chinese leopard (japonensis) 27; Sri Lankan leopard (kotiya) 24; Javan leopard (melas) 4; Arabian leopard (nimr) 3; Amur leopard (orientalis) 54; African leopard (pardus) 5 ; North Persian leopard (saxicolor) 39; Central African leopard (shortridgei) 1 Tiger (P tigris) 168: Siberian tiger (altaica) 177; Malayan tiger (jacksoni) 9; Sumatran tiger (sumatrae) 53 Snow leopard (P uncia) 99 This gives a minimum number of individuals per species: Tiger 407; lion 400; Eurasian lynx 399; leopard 220; wild cat 178; serval 138; cheetah 135; cougar 105; jaguar 104; snow leopard 99; caracal 71; ocelot 60; fishing cat 43; clouded leopard 42; leopard cat 41; jungle cat 39; Pallas’ cat 37; Geoffroy’s cat 31; jaguarondi 29; sand cat 26; bobcat 23; margay 17; rusty-spotted cat 16; Canadian lynx 13; Asian golden cat 8; oncilla 5; Iberian lynx 4 There is a tendency for keeping big cats, rather than small cats. Can't visitors be inspired by small cats? What is the point of 'assurance populations' of mixed subspecies big cats, when ZTL lists no populations of small cats, even though various species were kept in the past? These include the African golden cat, Andean cat, bay cat, black-footed cat, Chinese mountain cat, flat-headed cat, kodkod, marbled cat and pampas cat. I have seen African golden, black-footed and pampas cats, but, like various other small cats, various zoos don't consider them worth keeping or saving, despite the fact that reintroduction programmes could be more easily achieved than with large cats. There are many more cows in the world than there are big cats in zoos. Using your logic, more people are killed at home than are killed at home, so does that mean that everyone should be homeless?
