Decisions Made During Animal Attacks

[blospz]

With the whole tragedy of the Pittsburgh Zoo, I was thinking about zoo officials/zookeepers. I know in some situations, it is police officers that make the decision to shoot an animal to save a human's life. But what if you were a zookeeper and you had to make that decision? Do you think it would be hard since you probably have a personal relationship with that animal? Do zookeepers ever have to be put in that situation or does someone higher usually step in since they may have more of a detachment?

 

[azcheetah2]

I think only certain staff members at zoos have the training and access to weapons in case that sort of situation arises. I could be wrong, though. But personally, yes, I would have a VERY hard time making that sort of decision. Like you said, many keepers have a relationship of some type with that animal and it would be incredibly difficult to have to make that choice.

 

[Parrotsandrew]

I think a human life should always be put before that of an animal.

 

[Jarkari]

Most major zoos would have a number of shooters onsite.

Sally Padey, owner of Mogo.zoo had to make a decision very quickly to shoot a lioness she had hand raised after it left its enclosure. there is always attachment.but.human life does come first.

 

[soozthecat]

In the UK most large zoos have certain members of staff that are trained to be on 'gun-duty' and they take turns. Ive never met a keeper that would hesitate to shoot their animals. Obviously it is heart-wrenching but vital at times.

 

[Not_a_Nautilus]

I'm not exactly an expert on zoo security, but shouldn't there always be an alternative? Like anaesthetic darts: the ones they used on the wild dogs apparently didn't work on one of them, but I would have thought the next step would be a more powerful anaesthetic, not a bullet. Or even physical restraint: wouldn't work on a rampaging rhinoceros, but a group of zookeepers should be able to drag a single anaesthetised wild dog away from a child.

Meh, I understand why a zoo has to always be seen to put a guest's life over the animals', how awful it would look to the general public if they didn't. But part of me wishes they wouldn't.

human life does come first.

I think a human life should always be put before that of an animal.

By what intrinsic "value" can one life be put before another, though?

That human lives are more valuable because we are more intelligent than any other animal seems to be the most common argument, but by this same logic the life of a human with less intelligence than others (a baby, say, or someone with severe mental disability) is also less "valuable" than that of a "normal" human. Chimpanzees are supposed to be as intelligent as two-year-olds, so is a chimpanzee's life more valuable than a one-year-old's but less valuable than a three-year-old's?

 

[condor]

... shouldn't there always be an alternative? Like anaesthetic darts

Impossible if you have to react fast and stop an ongoing attack.
1) Either you give a normal dose and it takes minutes before the animal sleeps.
2) You give a lot more than the normal dose and the animal dies from the anaesthetic agent. Even then it would typically take a few minutes.

Additionally, anaesthetic arrows have to be delivered accurately, e.g. into a big muzzle. Not a realistic shot if you have an animal that runs around frantically, as would be expected during an attack

An anaesthetic agent that can be delivered in darts and makes the subject fall asleep in an instant (less than 30 seconds -- a very long time if you're being attacked) simply doesn't exist.

If the attack is over, it is another discussion and anaesthetic darts may be an option.

By what intrinsic "value" can one life be put before another, though?

That's a philosophical question. I'm fairly sure most people, myself included, certainly would save a human over an animal if they had to choose. I would hate killing the animal, but I certainly would do it if that was the only way to save the person. I suspect even the most extreme PETA members would too (most of them, anyway). They might claim otherwise on chat forums (where it's easy to claim whatever), but if truly put in a situation where a human was killed in front of their eyes I suspect virtually everybody would save the human over the animal.

 

[Not_a_Nautilus]

Impossible if you have to react fast and stop an ongoing attack.
1) Either you give a normal dose and it takes minutes before the animal sleeps.
2) You give a lot more than the normal dose and the animal dies from the anaesthetic agent. Even then it would typically take a few minutes.

Additionally, anaesthetic arrows have to be delivered accurately, e.g. into a big muzzle. Not a realistic shot if you have an animal that runs around frantically, as would be expected during an attack

An anaesthetic agent that can be delivered in darts and makes the subject fall asleep in an instant (less than 30 seconds -- a very long time if you're being attacked) simply doesn't exist.

If the attack is over, it is another discussion and anaesthetic darts may be an option.

Well, I think the whole time element varies depending on whether a person has entered an enclosure or an animal has escaped from one. In the former, the people who are most likely to enter zoo enclosures are children and drunk people, the design of zoo enclosures often means they will have fallen in from some kind of height, and will usually be in an enclosed space with a group of animals, so their ability to escape is impaired. In these cases, there's a good chance the keepers will arrive too late to make a difference no matter whether they use bullets or anaesthetics, as happened with the wild dogs.

In the latter, what with there being much more time and space for people to run away, it seems more likely that you'd be able to spare the few minutes for the darts to take effect. And the risk of the animal dying under heavy anaesthetic is better than the certainty if you shoot them, right?

Not that I have any numbers for all this, but they seem like reasonable enough assumptions.

That's a philosophical question.

Yes, one you still could have made some attempt to answer...?

I'm fairly sure most people, myself included, would certainly save a human over an animal if I had to choose. I would hate killing the animal, but I certainly would do it if that was the only way to save the person. I suspect even the most extreme PETA members would too (most of them, anyway). They might claim otherwise on chat forums (where it's easy to claim whatever), but if truly put in a situation where a human was killed in front of their eyes I suspect virtually everybody would save the human over the animal.

True, but in that kind of situation any person's actions will be based more on instinct and primal emotion than any kind of reasoning, so I don't see how that's a valid argument.

When you're full of adrenaline and have a limited amount of time, you're not going to sit down and ponder the moral issue that's at stake, you're going to act. And when you're programmed by evolution to empathise more with others of your own species than with other animals, there's only one way you're going to act.

 

[BeardsleyZooFan]

Here's another attack that happened recently.
Death of Mauled Grizzly Bear Trainer Could Be an Accident - ABC News
Thoughts?

 

[condor]

Yes, one you still could have made some attempt to answer...?

I deal with real life facts, not theoretical "what if". Some might argue that I'm damaged from my line of work, which is strongly orientated towards logical thinking and results . The fact is: you, me, anyone, can ask all the philosophical questions in the world, but if virtually everybody responds in a specific way if actually put in a situation (e.g., have to choose between a human and animal life), the alternative philosophical theories are irrelevant to the real world. If you dislike that answer, the only I can and will give, I hope someone else will respond to your question.

True, but in that kind of situation any person's actions will be based more on instinct and primal emotion than any kind of reasoning, so I don't see how that's a valid argument.

See above.

 

[Zooplantman]

By what intrinsic "value" can one life be put before another, though?

Here are some "answers" for you to ponder then:
ethics - Would Kant choose to sacrifice one life to save another? - Philosophy Beta - Stack Exchange
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people - Debatepedia
Giving priority to good people | Practical Ethics

And now back to zoos

 

[Zooplantman]

Not that I have any numbers for all this, but they seem like reasonable enough assumptions.

No, they don't really. Broad generalizations skewed towards the answer you are most comfortable with.

As to the fate of those who enter exhibits, consider these real life cases:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/us/new-york-tiger-pit/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/17/us/gorilla-at-an-illinois-zoo-rescues-a-3-year-old-boy.html

Or this case of an escaped animal:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127927&page=1#.UJqtzobp4s4

The scenario is often a large and dangerous animal suddenly appears near or even among a group of people: children, infants, school groups, elderly. It will be some minutes before any staff can arrive, suitably armed with both tranquilizer guns, an assortment of tranqs, actual rifles, etc. Zoo staff that are not trained for this (concession employees, maintenance workers, etc.) are also trying to get away and, with luck, assisting the visitors. It is chaos.

 

[nanoboy]

Hmmm... I guess that for me it would depend on the situation. If I had to choose between a human stranger and my pets, I would definitely save my pets, because I see them as members of my family.

If some tool goes poaching in the forest and a tiger or lion or elephant attacks him, there is absolutely no way I would assist the poacher by even contemplating killing the animal.

If an idiot decides to jump into the enclosure of an animal at the zoo, and the wild horse kicks the crap out of him or the tiger mauls him, I would never consider killing the animal to save the idiot.

If an animal escapes from its enclosure and threatens innocent zoo visitors.... well.... the zoo visitors have priority. I would want every possible non-lethal method to be attempted if possible before resorting to a kill-shot.

If we went out hiking in the bush, and a dingo attacked my family, I wouldn't think twice about killing it if necessary to save my family.

So, in summary, I don't have a hard and fast rule saying that a human life should always be put ahead of an animal's: it depends on the situation, and who the human is.

 

[nanoboy]

By what intrinsic "value" can one life be put before another, though?

That human lives are more valuable because we are more intelligent than any other animal seems to be the most common argument, but by this same logic the life of a human with less intelligence than others (a baby, say, or someone with severe mental disability) is also less "valuable" than that of a "normal" human. Chimpanzees are supposed to be as intelligent as two-year-olds, so is a chimpanzee's life more valuable than a one-year-old's but less valuable than a three-year-old's?

I am reminded of a scene from the movie iRobot:

Detective Del Spooner: Human beings have dreams. Even dogs have dreams, but not you, you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a... canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?

Sonny (the robot): Can *you*?

Humans have created iPhones, Airbus A380's, and developed vaccines, but what have YOU (and I mean all readers of this thread) done? The vast majority of us have not made a "dent in the universe", to quote Steve Jobs. Most of us, I think, are no more intelligent than a trained chimp just going through the motions of life. Indeed, to judge a race as being "intelligent" based on the accomplishments of a few, I think, is flawed.

 

[Hix]

I've been offline this week otherwiase I would have contributed to this thread much sooner.

Any decent zoo will ALWAYS put human life before that of an animal, and so will the staff trained for emergencies. Anasthesia would be nice but, as has been mentioned, it's not immediate. In fact, in most zoos you'll probably find the vet is the only one allowed to use anasthetics and it may take several minutes for the vet to arrive on the scene with his equipment. Then he has to select the drug, estimate the weight of the animal, select the appropriate dose. And because the drug is administered via a syringe, there is always the chance it will fall out before delivering the full dose. And it will take several minutes to have any effect.

If an animal escaped after hours when the zoo is empty of visitors, then anasthesia would certainly be considered if the safety of staff can be reasonably assured. But when human lives are at stake, a dangerous animal will always be shot.



Hix

 

[Javan Rhino]

I've been offline this week otherwiase I would have contributed to this thread much sooner.

Any decent zoo will ALWAYS put human life before that of an animal, and so will the staff trained for emergencies. Anasthesia would be nice but, as has been mentioned, it's not immediate. In fact, in most zoos you'll probably find the vet is the only one allowed to use anasthetics and it may take several minutes for the vet to arrive on the scene with his equipment. Then he has to select the drug, estimate the weight of the animal, select the appropriate dose. And because the drug is administered via a syringe, there is always the chance it will fall out before delivering the full dose. And it will take several minutes to have any effect.

If an animal escaped after hours when the zoo is empty of visitors, then anasthesia would certainly be considered if the safety of staff can be reasonably assured. But when human lives are at stake, a dangerous animal will always be shot.



Hix

Ironic when you consider that one of the major problems in a lot of species' populations is that the world is overpopulated with Homo sapien. To kill a highly endangered animal for the sake of a human life seems odd from a conservation viewpoint [though I can see why they would do it, if I were in the place I would want the animal shot in order to save my child, so please don't get me wrong] - but it does seem entirely contradictory that zoos need to kill an individual of an endangered species to save the life of a problem one [I know one or two won't make a difference in most cases, but in some zoo populations it could be detrimental to kill the individual animal if they are scarce enough as it it].

 

[Hix]

Remember also that many endangered zoo animals are never going to be used for re-introduction. But as you say, it doesn't look good. Mind you, there is nothing good about a situation where you are forced to kill an animal to save someone. Even if the someone is a complete and utter idiot.



Hix

 

[Javan Rhino]

Remember also that many endangered zoo animals are never going to be used for re-introduction. But as you say, it doesn't look good. Mind you, there is nothing good about a situation where you are forced to kill an animal to save someone. Even if the someone is a complete and utter idiot.



Hix

Exactly. The keepers do not enjoy having the kill the animal obviously, it must be a terrible situation. It is a good point they will not be used for reintroduction, but you're still taking an individual away from the studbook, imagine the problems this would cause with establishing species where there are barely enough individuals as it is.

 

[Shorts]

imagine the problems this would cause with establishing species where there are barely enough individuals as it is.

That's nothing compared with the problem a zoo would have if a bereaved relative thought the keepers failed in doing everything humanely possible to prevent their love one dying (by hesitating or failing to stop an animal quick enough by trying to use an anaesthetic rather than killing it). The potential legal action and being found guilty* would destroy most zoo's financially -the publicity's bad enough, but a lawsuit (especially in the US) would potentially finish the zoo. Basically it's one animal, through it's death, potentially saving many animals (those remaining in the zoo which would carry on) if you want to put a nice spin on it.

You can debate the rights, wrongs and knock-on effects on the studbook all day long but in reality the keeper is always going to unhesitatingly kill the animal -it's what they're trained to do in the situation.

*I doubt any court would put an endangered species above a human life in this type of situation.

 

[Javan Rhino]

That's nothing compared with the problem a zoo would have if a bereaved relative thought the keepers failed in doing everything humanely possible to prevent their love one dying (by hesitating or failing to stop an animal quick enough by trying to use an anaesthetic rather than killing it). The potential legal action and being found guilty* would destroy most zoo's financially -the publicity's bad enough, but a lawsuit (especially in the US) would potentially finish the zoo. Basically it's one animal, through it's death, potentially saving many animals (those remaining in the zoo which would carry on) if you want to put a nice spin on it.

You can debate the rights, wrongs and knock-on effects on the studbook all day long but in reality the keeper is always going to unhesitatingly kill the animal -it's what they're trained to do in the situation.

*I doubt any court would put an endangered species above a human life in this type of situation.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that zoos do need to do it for this very reason. I was just pointing out that these things can have repercussions no matter which decision is taken. If nothing is done and the animal survives but the person doesn't, then the zoo is at stake for the death of that guest. However, if the person is saved and the animal killed, it could mark the end of a critical breeding programme in some instances.