Could they not have waited until autumn?

I did my bit for common sense and put in a reply.

What bugs me the most is that ignorant, stupid folks like that continue to brag about it and all. And were it to go wrong woefully ... they have a lawsuit and get compensation ... like the zoo and animals should have done this or not done that ...! :mad:

You would almost wish they would have fallen over in and face the consequences of entering a foreign territory ... ;)
 
I hate zoo visitors that do that kind of stuff aswell. And they then try and justify their actions by saying "I'm taking a photo", or "I'm a professional photographer".

:(

Hix
 
What's more annoying is there is comments on the photo's "we got busted soon after" therefore suggesting they knew it was wrong!!!
 
quote in response to jelle's comment on the photo: "This tree is a good 15 feet from the fence and he was shooting barely above the fence level. The only thing that COULD go wrong (even if he jumped toward the fence with all his might) would be he falls into 3 feet of snow. As far as I know, no one has ever been killed falling 6 feet into 3 feet of snow."

There is no way that tree is fifteen feet away from the fence, you can see in the third photo that unless 'Davey' is 45 feet tall then the tree is probably less than two feet from the fence!

Pretty much all the comments from the photographer and his friends and other posters for these photos really annoy me!
 
If the zoo has signs up saying not to cross the barriers and then this stupid bloke got bitten, would he be able to hold a lawsuit against the zoo, as they warned him not to do it in the first place?
 
This is just moronic. If he was a that good of a photographer then the chain link would not be an issue for him. Think about how much this stresses the animals. They know where visitors are suppose to be and where they are not suppose to be. Also makes you wonder if they did this at a wolf exhibit where else in zoo did they dis this. I think the incident in San Francisco highlights what any animal is capable of if pushed hard enough by a zoo visitor crossing a barrier.
 
Just a thought, but couldn't the zoo bring charges against them?

They've broken one of the zoos rules (also breaking the terms and conditions of entry) and it could be said that they're endangering animal and human lives. Flickr will have their personal details as well should police need to identify them

I may be overthinking things though
 
an email could be sent to the zoo with links to the photos....
 
That's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen- made 10x worse by the arrogant guys who think of this all as a joke. I've managed to take pretty good shots of animals even with the chain link- it's called the ZOOM function, then you crop and edit the photo. Idiots.
 
This sort of stuff makes me incandescent with rage - at the very least the photos should be removed. I've also seen a youtube video of idiots crossing a barrier to pet a tiger (I reported it, not taken down I think). It all sets a bad example ('Jackass' culture has a lot to answer for IMO). People just don't think through the consequences of their actions; as said above some animals will go crazy if a stranger (or even a keeper) crosses a stand-off barrier unexpectedly and could injure themselves by running at the fence. If one of those guys fell & knocked themselves out it would only take a second to have a finger or hand bitten off if they fell against the wire; why do they think the barriers are there in the first place? Bad behaviour also leads to zoos having to spend more money on safety (to pander to the idiots) which could be spent making the animals' lives better. 'My' zoo had to close an exhibit for a spell last summer because of people worrying a tiger, denying him half his territory thereby.

The legal aspect is interesting - I'd like ideally the zoo to be able to hand out a 'terms & conditions' flyer to all visitors, if they break the rules they get fined. A council traffic officer can do this if you park your car in the zoo carpark inappropriately, after all, and I think the animals are more important? Also, I wonder what would be the legal position if a visitor injured an endangered animal?
 
As what all of you above have said, it is really annoying that people like this do this sort of stuff and are allowed to get away with it! i see people virtually everyday sitting over barriers etc to get a better look/picture of the animals, then you tell them politely to step away and they give you a look like u've pissed on their kids!!
its not only for their safety but also the animals. i just think some people dont seem to think how dangerous some animals are, perfect example is when a woman crossed the tiger barrier at Dublin zoo a few years back and got her arm mauled. when one of my colleages worked at edinburgh, a member of the public offered her a £60 back hander to go in with the chimps, clue yourselves up abit public!!
 
ashley-h said:
If the zoo has signs up saying not to cross the barriers and then this stupid bloke got bitten, would he be able to hold a lawsuit against the zoo, as they warned him not to do it in the first place?
Click to expand...

We've been doing some work on this at college about this sort of stuff happening in zoos and pet shops etc

Basically from what I gather, if there is a sign and they ignore it the zoo is not liable. But there has to be a sign!
 
HuxleyPig said:
We've been doing some work on this at college about this sort of stuff happening in zoos and pet shops etc

Basically from what I gather, if there is a sign and they ignore it the zoo is not liable. But there has to be a sign!
Click to expand...

That probably differs from country to country.
The question is, is the visitor liable to fines or arrest? Or only being escorted out of the zoo.
Personally, I believe a long stay in a psychiatric ward would be appropriate.
 
HuxleyPig said:
We've been doing some work on this at college about this sort of stuff happening in zoos and pet shops etc

Basically from what I gather, if there is a sign and they ignore it the zoo is not liable. But there has to be a sign!
Click to expand...

Unless of course you claim that the sign was too small, you couldn't read it, or that the sign wasn't threatening enough to be taken seriously (I seem to remember a lawsuit against one of those safari-zoos where a woman rolled down her window in the tiger or lion pen and was attacked...she sued on those grounds and apparently won :eek:)
 
I saw something similar at La Palmyre Zoo. An idiot was literally holding his camera through the mesh of the lion enclosure; obviously he didn't realise lions sleep with one eye open, and he only barely got away when the lioness got up and shot to the fence in what seemed like a millisecond, roaring and snarling like a bat out of hell.
 
Leptonyx said:
Unless of course you claim that the sign was too small, you couldn't read it, or that the sign wasn't threatening enough to be taken seriously (I seem to remember a lawsuit against one of those safari-zoos where a woman rolled down her window in the tiger or lion pen and was attacked...she sued on those grounds and apparently won :eek:)
Click to expand...
Pfft, some people are idiots. Maybe they should carry on behaving this way and then they'd get eaten, tragic :rolleyes:
 
Hmm, its all a bit warped. As long as the zoo has provided signs and barriers then whatever the visitor does against this is their own responsibility, in my opinion.

I always get annoyed when I go round Longleat and theres people with their windows open in the last sections. On my first time there, it was my 9th birthday and there was some guy cutting the grass in the second lion section. Hed reached the top and was going round this big log structure with a lion on it and stuck his hand out the window and teased it. And im assuming this was a keeper...
 
tobyBZG said:
When one of my colleages worked at edinburgh, a member of the public offered her a £60 back hander to go in with the chimps, clue yourselves up abit public!!
Click to expand...
That's pretty worrying. I'd have let her do it, then refuse to refund her £60 after she'd had her legs torn off :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top