Decisions Made During Animal Attacks

[Zooplantman]

@Javan Rhino

I applaud you for recognizing the uncomfortable reality between two undesirable outcomes. People like clean easy answers and you are looking at the messy one no one likes to look at. But I agree with you. It is messy

 

[FWC]

I wish I could add something more enriching to this thred ,however nanoboy pretty much said it all for me.

 

[zooboy28]

I am interested to know how zoos define a dangerous animal - or which species they would shoot if they escaped and which they would use non-lethal methods to recapture.

Wellington Zoo (bizzarely) issued a press release last year with the headline: "Zoo names first animals to be shot". There is a thread about it here: http://www.zoochat.com/17/zoo-names-first-animals-shot-212976/ It names big cats, wild dogs, sun bears (basically all the zoos large carnivores) and chimpanzees as the five most dangerous species, which would be shot first (specifically in the event of a major natural disaster, but they would also presumably be shot if they escaped during visiting hours).

In contrast, a number of adult chimpanzees escaped into a busy German zoo earlier this year, but these were rounded up non-lethally.

I would imagine that any large carnivore (cat, dog, bear, hyena), chimpanzee (but perhaps not gorilla or orang?), baboon, elephant, hippo, rhino and possibly aggressive male antelopes would be shot if it escaped, as would large crocodiles and cassowaries, but almost all other species could be recaptured without being shot (unless they posed a biosecurity risk and could not be recaptured at all)?

Would it be fair to say that for certain species (great apes, possibly bears and elephants) and depending on the situation, that individual temperament might change the zoo's response after an escape? For example, the German chimps, but also a number of other great apes and elephants, including Orangs at Auckland Zoo have been safely returned to their enclosures post-escape. Yet I can imagine situations where this would not be possible. Thoughts?

 

[Chlidonias]

Wellington Zoo (bizzarely) issued a press release last year with the headline: "Zoo names first animals to be shot". There is a thread about it here: http://www.zoochat.com/17/zoo-names-first-animals-shot-212976/ It names big cats, wild dogs, sun bears (basically all the zoos large carnivores) and chimpanzees as the five most dangerous species, which would be shot first (specifically in the event of a major natural disaster, but they would also presumably be shot if they escaped during visiting hours).

I think that wasn't so much the zoo putting out a release -- especially not with that title -- but rather the press smelling a story when (as the reporter phrased it) "Neighbours of the zoo in Newtown met with zoo management after the Christchurch earthquake to discuss an emergency plan". Oddly enough that original version of the article which I posted was edited by the Stuff website into a much longer article just afterwards.
Full article as follows:

Paul Horton has looked after Wellington Zoo's big animals for nine years, but if it came to the crunch he'd shoot them dead in a second.

Mr Horton is in charge of the zoo's carnivores, and is one of a team of sharpshooters trained to deal with animal emergencies.

The zoo must follow Agriculture and Forestry Ministry rules that list animals that must be killed immediately if human safety is threatened. Chimpanzees, baboons, lions, tigers, African wild dogs and Malayan sun bears are all in the firing line.

Zoo chief executive Karen Fifield said the chimps had been identified as most dangerous because of their immense strength combined with their inquisitive and adventurous nature.

Ms Fifield briefed residents about the zoo's emergency response procedures at an informal meeting in April after one neighbour raised concerns following the Christchurch earthquake.

In an emergency, staff will shoot to kill – a standard policy in many zoos as maiming or tranquillising is seen as unethical and often ineffective.

At least one trained sharpshooter is on hand at the zoo at all times, including Mr Horton, who lives on site.

Mr Horton said it would be tough to shoot the animals he works with every day, but if it came to the crunch he would have no hesitation – even his favourites, the baboons. "Absolutely. Male baboons are on the shoot-to-kill list because they're pretty fast, and they've got big teeth."

General operations manager Mauritz Basson said he chose shooters based on their "strong demeanour".

"It's one thing to shoot a paper target, but it's different when you are looking in the eye an animal that you look after day to day. So you have to pick people with strong demeanour who are going to listen to their brain over their heart. It's like slaughtering the pet lamb for Christmas."

Mr Basson said no dangerous animals had escaped during his 10 years at the zoo, but there were two red panda escapes before his arrival. Both were recovered safely, but not before several reports of "strange looking cats" were made to local authorities.

The zoo's most famous animal escape was in 1967 when tigers Napoleon and Josephine roamed the streets of Newtown one night.

More than 100 people, including police, zoo staff and a touring circus troupe, helped search for the animals, which were both shot and killed.

Mr Basson said even less ferocious animals like the giraffes were potential killers, and could be shot dead if human safety was in question.

"If a giraffe managed to get out on a Sunday afternoon with hundreds of people around, it could just as easily kill by running into people or trampling them.

"You don't want a string of dead or mauled people behind a giraffe, so in that case you would shoot it."

 

[Hix]

I am interested to know how zoos define a dangerous animal - or which species they would shoot if they escaped and which they would use non-lethal methods to recapture.

Wellington Zoo (bizzarely) issued a press release last year with the headline: "Zoo names first animals to be shot". There is a thread about it here: http://www.zoochat.com/17/zoo-names-first-animals-shot-212976/ It names big cats, wild dogs, sun bears (basically all the zoos large carnivores) and chimpanzees as the five most dangerous species, which would be shot first (specifically in the event of a major natural disaster, but they would also presumably be shot if they escaped during visiting hours).

In contrast, a number of adult chimpanzees escaped into a busy German zoo earlier this year, but these were rounded up non-lethally.

I would imagine that any large carnivore (cat, dog, bear, hyena), chimpanzee (but perhaps not gorilla or orang?), baboon, elephant, hippo, rhino and possibly aggressive male antelopes would be shot if it escaped, as would large crocodiles and cassowaries, but almost all other species could be recaptured without being shot (unless they posed a biosecurity risk and could not be recaptured at all)?

Would it be fair to say that for certain species (great apes, possibly bears and elephants) and depending on the situation, that individual temperament might change the zoo's response after an escape? For example, the German chimps, but also a number of other great apes and elephants, including Orangs at Auckland Zoo have been safely returned to their enclosures post-escape. Yet I can imagine situations where this would not be possible. Thoughts?

Zoos would look at a number of factors when considering which species would get shot, and which could be rounded up with non-lethal means. Two of those factors would be - if the animal attacked a person, what is the likelyhood the attack would be fatal? What is the temperament of the animal (i.e. would it be likely to attack on sight, or would it hide from people, is it aggressive or pugnacious, or timid and indifferent?).

In some cases a tame dangerous animal that escapes might not be shot if it could be safely and quickly coaxed into an enclosure. But many tame animals panic if a familiar face is not around and may attack in fright. Each situation is different.

That would be some of the rationale behind deciding what gets shot and what doesn't.



Hix

 

[Rookeyper]

I would agree with Hix. Animals react very differently when removed from their comfort zone, i.e. their normal enclosure. Animals are listed as dangerous, potentially dangerous, or least concern. (Obviously, most any animal can hurt a human.) Most zoos do not shoot immediately unless there is a danger of a human being injured or killed. No zoo wants to shoot one of their animals but they recoginize their responsibility to the visitors, staff, and neighbors. Members of the shooting teams here are chosen from applicants that say they are willing to participate. they are then evaluated by a professional firearms instructor, not only for their shooting proficiency but also for their attitude and demeanor. We conduct practice drills to make sure that the shooters respond with their "weapons" to the correct spot and react in the appropriate manner. After drills there is a debriefing time to discuss what went right and what went wrong. This helps to refine responses to emergencies.

 

[Zooish]

Established zoos would certainly have their own safety protocols when it comes to dangerous animals in potentially life-threatening situations. I'll highlight the experience from Singapore Zoo, which has dealt with 2 big cat escapes with 2 very different circumstances and outcomes.

In the 90s, the Night Safari had an adult male Malayan tiger escape from its den during operating hours (between 7pm and midnight) due to keeper negligence. The tiger had wandered towards the boundary of the park with only a low fence slowing its advancement. It however did not pose an immediate threat to visitors. Surrounding the park is dense rainforest. The decision made then was to shoot the tiger instead of darting it as park officials could not risk the tiger escaping further into the forests and become difficult to track down, especially in the darkness. The tiger was gunned down with a shot to the head.

In 2005, an adult female jaguar escaped from its enclosure at the Singapore Zoo on a busy Sunday afternoon during a keeper feeding demonstration. While the jaguar took refuge in a public planter area next to the exhibit, visitors were evacuated into nearby buildings. Even though the jaguar could pose an immediate threat to people, the decision was made to dart the animal instead of shoot it as the keepers were confident that the cat could be contained within the area. The jaguar remained in the planter area and was successfully darted and recaptured with 30 minutes.

So while protocols exist, the action taken ultimately depends on each situation. Usually only the most senior staff would be assigned as shooters, as they have the experience and professionalism to take the correct action.

 

[zooboy28]

Right, I get what you guys (Hix, Parrotsandrew and Zooish) are saying, that all makes sense. I have read that animals that escape generally want to get back into their enclosure, as that is what they know and where they feel safest. When four members of Auckland Zoo's wolf pack escaped in 1964, three were "quickly retrieved", while the fourth escaped the zoo altogether. The keepers left a gate open and late that night (7 hours later) the wolf returned to the zoo, although it had been hit by a car and had to be put down.

If the zoo was shut, or visitors were otherwise safe following an escape, would a zoo leave an enclosure open in the hope of enticing an animal back into it? Probably more applicable for apes and large (and calmer) ungulates than carnivores, but this might be preferable than tranquilising a hippo, for example, which would be a very difficult thing to get right.