I think he meant on a per capita basis which I would bet money on that cows kill more people per capita than big cats in zoos. Should there be more rigorous management of ranches because of these highly dangerous cows? I also think you are missing the point that cats of all sizes have inherent conservation education value even if they are not part of a reintroduction program. Also there are animals that need to be rescued from the illegal trade or that were owned by idiots who thought it was a good idea to keep a lion as a pet. These animals have no genetic value to any SSP or other reintroduction program but they still need homes and professionals to care for them.
None of that does anything to disprove my point. Big cats are popular and bring in visitors, and as such most zoos keep them. Most zoos nowadays do not breed generic or genetically invaluable cats, choosing to take part in captive breeding programs for highly endangered subspecies instead (I think Europe is worse than the US for Lions, the AZA focuses solely on krugeri). As @Echobeast points out, generic animals are being phased-out, but they still need homes and need proper care/management until they all pass on. You're also ignoring the fact that, since big cats inherently inspire visitors more than small cats, there is a much higher availability of those species than most small felids- which may also often times be harder to breed. At the same time, your numbers show that Eurasian Lynx, the various wildcats, and Serval are all kept more than even the big show species like Cheetah, Jaguar, and Snow Leopard. This, to me, reflects more on how easily a species is bred rather than how interested zoos are in them. Ocelot, Fishing Cat, Sand Cat, Rusty-Spotted Cat, Asian Golden Cat, and the two oncilla species are all much harder to breed in captivity than big cats and the latter two populations are not viable long term unfortunately. Iberian Lynx also is a very, very managed population and is extremely difficult or even zoos within their range to acquire. Interest will play a role yes, but interest doesn't mean much if there's no availability. I know for a fact that there have been very serious attempts made by western zoos to acquire several of the species you listed for endangered small cats not represented in zoos but thus far none of come through for various reasons, none of which were lack of interest. You talk about generic animals as though they're worthless to the zoological and conservation community, but you realize that the European populations of Serval, Cougar, Caracal, Ocelot, Jungle Cat, and Bobcat are all mostly non-subspecies right? With the exception of the Ocelot (which has a subspecies population in US zoos), none of these species are endangered either so by your own points, should be phased out as worthless to conservation as well. I think the final point is that, again, big cats bring in visitors more than small cats will. Without them, many smaller zoos could not pull in the attendance they need to be able to work with smaller, lesser known taxa. Hamerton Zoo is an excellent example of this. Hamerton keeps white tigers in a non-breeding situation, but they do this because white tigers bring in visitors. The added attendance is what allows them to be able to work with rare species such as Malayan Tiger, Rusty-Spotted Cat, Northern Oncilla, Canada Lynx, Jaguarundi, Greater Grison, Corsac Fox, Javan Binturong, both Aardwolf, Red-Collared Lemur, and now all of the various Australian animals they've been bringing in. ~Thylo
The ethically disturbing aspect of these posts is that Dassie Rat is using this woman's horrific death to advance an unrelated agenda about dangerous animals, inventing details of the incident to push home the point. Debating the value of keeping big cats is one thing. Spinning tales over someone's dead body in order to do it is something else. One should know when to leave a topic alone for decency's sake.
Perhaps I've missed something, but I think you're unfairly conflating @Dassie rat's points with @Daktari JG's wholly inappropriate speculation. Much as I disagree with the former, their argument that incidents like this are reason not to keep large carnivores is obviously germane to incidents like this, however tragic. It is in no way an "unrelated agenda". And statements such as the below just come across as hypocritical: You can't argue that now is the time to rigorously question and review protocols, whilst asserting someone is "massively ignorant" for doing so. And you can't shout someone down for arguing that one keeper death is too many, using pretty inflammatory language, whilst claiming to act for "decency" in this tragedy.
I'm sorry, how is my speculation wholly inappropriate? My overall point is spot on. There is either a design or policy flaw that led to this tragedy. I speculated on only one thing- that only one lock separated the lion from the keeper. I have no doubts that will be the case. And that being the case then policy was inadequate to prevent such a tragedy. Now if it turns out that the lion picked two locks, or somehow was transported ala star trek, or that two locks were left unlocked well then I will admit I was wrong. But I wouldn't bet on any of that. Several posters have alluded to protocols will be examined (as they surely will) which will prove my point- something was substandard which allowed this to happen. Zookeepers are not lion tamers. Under no circumstances should they occupy the same space as an unanaesthetized lion. And if that happens there is some flaw. To be clear I have no problems with the keeping , breeding, displaying of dangerous wild animals, be they big cats, bears, lions , ungulates, elephants or poisonous snakes etc. But there must be proper design, training and protocols. I just don't understand how anyone can disagree with that.
I am unsure if "escaped" seems like an appropriate term, as it implies to me that the animal exited the larger enclosure, which is not the case. I think it would be sufficient to convey to lay man the point that a lion killed a keeper in a gruesome tragedy. I'm finding the media coverage of the incident in general leaves a significant amount to be desired, even compared to the recent rhinoceros incident, which involved some valid discussion of the safety measures at the exhibit. Regardless, it should go without saying that this incident is a tragedy, and very much the kind of incident that devastates any productive member of a zoological-minded community. The loss of human and animal life in horrific incidents like this should never be normalized in our society, and causes suffering for both human and animal alike. We frequently end up in conversations about fault, but putting away questions of circumstance for only a moment, the objective truths are all negative. What is also profoundly unfortunate is how these incidents often seem to reopen the wounds in animal-minded communities like this one, and expose the often well-hidden ideological divisions among us. I am seeing very similar cracks that were seen with Harambe and Tilikum. The central point of contention I am seeing is whether or not people feel it is appropriate to assume proper design, training and protocols were or were not followed. This is my perspective from the sidelines.
If I didn't think you could 100% prevent such tragedies with design, training and protocol I would be among the first to argue they shouldn't be kept.
Have you got any proof of this? I reckon relatively few keepers come into direct contact with tigers in zoos, while there should be warning signs if people are at risk of death from cows, although i suspect that 'cows' and 'bulls' have been confused in this discussion. If this were true, why are there so many conservation programmes for big cats and so few for small cats, which could be part of a reintroduction programme? Why are there no flat-headed cats, bay cats, Andean cats, black-footed cats or marbled cats in European zoos and how much work is being done to try and save these species from extinction? I agree with you about people who keep big cats as pets, but I remember the case of Marcus the giraffe being killed at Copenhagen Zoo. He was a high focus example of an animal killed at a zoo. Why should big cats with no genetic value to any SSP or other reintroduction programme be considered superior to giraffes and other species that are culled at zoos?
Here's another aspect to this discussion. The parks CEO shot the lion with three tranquilizer darts (which were ineffective) and then the deputies shot it...8 times. Why was a veterinarian not involved, and why did they have to kill the lion?
Maybe I should clarify because I do not see how my point was hypocritical at all. What I was trying to point out was that after every incident, not just this one or just involving big cats, facilities look at their policies and protocols to prevent similar incidents from happening again. This is a point towards the ever improving safety of the profession and industry. I still think that it is massively ignorant to write off big cats as too dangerous to keep because of the media explosion that happen every time an incident occurs (which is extremely rare and unusual in the field in modern times). Maybe one of these incidents happen every year or two in the US. Pretty good odds that any random cat keeper is going to be ok in the end. This is because of the massive increase in safety surrounding big cats. Look at other “dangerous” professions like police officers or firefighters. When they get hurt or killed on the job (I’d think it’s way more likely than a zookeeper), the media doesn’t question why they were there or say that it was a break in protocol. But they do with zookeepers and they blame them or their coworkers for their deaths. My point is that there are multiple people in this thread using this tragedy to push an illogical belief that big cats are too dangerous to keep in zoos and that zoos are in the wrong for keeping them instead of other species. Ever hear of the term “umbrella species”? It’s the concept that preserving the habitat of a large, charismatic animal preserves the smaller species that live in the same habitat. It’s a wildly successful conservation strategy that can ultimately protect an entire ecosystem. Using a couple of your examples, preserving African lions in South Africa also preserves black-footed cat populations that live there too. Creating a preserve for Andean bears can protect Andean cats in the wild. The charismatic species bring in the money for conservation but it’s not only the large carnivores that get protected. So should cows and bulls be worked with in protected contact? There are inherent risks in working with any animal. I don’t think there is a lot of info on the subject but I’d bet money that the numbers align my way. Plus, it was really just an example and isn’t ultimately relative to my point. That story an overblown reporters dream. I don’t think anyone here is saying that big cats are individually superior to any animal. @ThylacineAlive stated very well that there are plenty of examples of cats with no reproductive or reindrocuctive value having conservation value and a place in modern zoos. I’m sure there are plenty of examples of non carnivores in the exact same situation.
I’ve been reading this thread and I am frankly confused. From what I could gather though, you are saying that there is no purpose for housing big cats right? Lions and tigers are a risk to keepers who are not just passionate to care for these animals but want to give them the best possible life and offer educational opportunities to our young ones correct? In that case what’s the point of housing crocodiles, cassowaries, and Nile hippos? All of these animals have the potential to harm zookeepers and yet we still keeps them in zoos. The later two are vulnerable to extinction similar to lions and cheetahs. We keep these animals in captivity to help protect them from extinction and the people who care for them know the risk of caring for them and yet they still actively give them the best care. We shouldn’t be taking big cats out of zoos because of incidents like this unfortunate lion attack, we should be acknowledging the intern’s love for animals and how she most likely knew this was possible. She still cared to learn about the husbandry of big cats. I might be wrong since the points that are being made are still a bit confusing but nonetheless, saying that taking big cats out of captivity because they pose a risk to people is almost insulting to the woman who wanted to care for these large and beautiful animals. That’s what I think at least.
Not all zoos have an on staff vet and tranqs are largely ineffective against any animal with high adrenaline levels. I would argue that it was dumb of the CEO to even use tranqs in the first place. Once darted, animals do not drop immediately like in the movies. It can take several minutes. In that time, the animal can retaliate against the victim and make the situation worse. Same reason tranqs were not even considered in the Harambe incident at Cincinnati. Zoos everywhere have guest and employee safety as the number one concern. Animal safety is almost always second. They needed to get to the intern’s body. Can’t do that with an escaped, stressed lion in the way.
I accept this, but white tigers and white lions can attract visitors who find them more interesting than 'normal-coloured' big cats. Shouldn't zoos be doing more to interest visitors in animals they know nothing about? There have been several nature programmes that show unusual species and zoos should be doing more to conserve a greater variety of species than they do at present. This is a good thing, but once again relies on the optimistic idea that the human population is going to fall and that natural habitats are no longer going to be destroyed, but will expand. Neither scenario seems possible and captive big cats are very unlikely to be part of any reintroduction programme, so what is the point of having hundreds of individuals of some subspecies, when many critically endangered species have no captive breeding programme and could become extinct soon? This is probably true at present, but if zoos cooperated in breeding smaller species rather than larger species, the situation could be rectified. I was surprised about the number of ZTL zoos with Eurasian lynxes, wild cats and servals, but the number of zoos containing tigers and lions is far higher. How much work has been done to cooperate with zoos that keep small cats This is a positive comment. Do you know what the problems are? I suspect that some captive small cats are taken directly from the wild via dubious practices. Please note that I included all ZTL zoos containing cat species or subspecies. I did not mention whether their conservation status, nor did I question why ZTL included some species as generic,while they listed subspecies of others. Perhaps we need to be honest why many zoos keep a small number of the same species, while other species are rarely if ever kept. Why are there so many meerkats, while some other mongoose species are not kept? This is not a conservation issue, especially if a zoo has several meerkat enclosure, but decides to stop keeping other species. As regards big cats, if they are not part of a reintroduction programme,doesit really matter if they are generic or belong to pure subspecies? I doubt if the average zoovisitor would be bothered. Sorry, Thylo. This is an assumption on your part. I have been to zoos where people like looking for clownfish, due to the Nemo films. There has been an increased interest in narwhals, due to the unicorn connection. It is up to zoos to interest visitors in species that can be just as interesting as well known species. Some books and TV programmes for children show a range of interesting species and perhaps it is time for zoo to show some initiative. I wonder how many visitors would prefer to see some active corsac foxes,rather than a dozy big cat. If so, they should learn far more about animals.
Once again, Zooplantman, you have chosen to defame me. I have made no nasty, personal comments about any of the other Zoochatters on this site. Throughout, I have been unhappy about keepers who have been killed by animals and have questioned why they came into contact with the animals in the first place. I have met several dedicated zoo staff who have gone beyond their remits and often done unpaid overtime to look after animals. Several years, I went behind the scenes with one of the big cat keepers at London Zoo. The keeper showed how a tiger could be brought into an inside enclosure and could be inoculated through bars without the keeper being at risk from a tiger. Why are keepers allowed to be at risk of death because someone forget to secure a mechanism properly? I don't want more keepers to die in zoos. I want animals to be kept in good conditions, but dangerous animals should never come into contact with keepers.
Thanks Daktari DG. This is my point about the sad death of the keeper. She shouldn't have been in the same place as the lion.
Sorry, I am not saying that. I am saying that there are too many individual big cats, especially lions and tigers, in zoos and there are too few individuals of some species of endangered small cats. I know that many keepers are very passionate about dangerous animals, but they shouldn't come into direct contact with an unanaesthetized dangerous animal,whether it's a lion, tiger, crocodile, cassowary or Nile crocodile. I'd much prefer it if the intern were still alive and I wonder how her friends and relatives feel about your comment "she most likely knew this was possible". Somebody made a mistake and I'm pretty sure that relatives and friends would prefer the intern to still be alive and caring for animals.
The center was not AZA accredited but it was USDA licensed. For any USDA license, there must be an on call veterinarian of record. Already there are calls from Humane Society to increase regulations for places like this, which speaks to my point, there is some design and or policy flaws. And I don't see the need for killing the lion so quickly. It should be assumed that any lion can and will kill a person.
I haven't done any work on comparing how visitors react to corsac foxes or dozy big cats. I have spent time watching how different visitors react to zoo animals and there tends to be more interest in active animals rather than animals that are asleep.
