I think the point of the “moat” was simply to have a higher (yet, not high enough) wall separating the tigers from the visitors. Not sure if water would have made that much of a difference; tigers enjoy water, unlike their feline cousins.

You’re right that we might never know what happened here, though it seems the two survivors could probably shed some light on it (I very much doubt that they were far away from the enclosure, with no one else around, when the tiger out of the blue decided to go for a killing spree).

Regarding theme parks, some information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusement_park_accidents

Not sure what the chances are to get injured/killed in zoos vs. amusement parks. I’d argue both are probably amazingly safe if you play by the rules.

Quotes:

From 1987 to 2000, there were an estimated 4.5 amusement ride-related deaths per year.

There were 3 deaths in 2003, 2 deaths in 2002, and 3 deaths in 2001.

I know this issue of taunting the zoo animals is a big deal and I don’t wish to minimize it, but when dealing with kids who either deliberately taunt animals or small children who inadvertently do, there is no excuse that zoo management can come up with to relieve themselves of the obligation to provide a safe exhibit. In other words, zoo designers should be building enclosures and safeguards with the assumptions that some visitors will taunt the animals.

Your comment about the enclosure being built in the 1940′s is a good one. My read on the issue is that this big cat was in the prime of it’s physical condition, perhaps accomplished a 1 in a million climb, and apparently, was very aggressive. There has been lots of coverage of the moat, but the overhead pictures I saw indicated the moat had no water in it so I’m not sure how useful that safety feature was. Also, this particular tiger lived in the SF Zoo for a little more than a year, having come from the Denver zoo.

How did it happen, well absent of security camera video we’ll never know for sure. It did happen and the zoo is ultimately responsible for the death, taunting or not. The only reason I wrote about this in the first place was because of the poor response by the zoo management, which is clearly getting more attention as a result of the tragedy.

Clearly, the bottom line is that zoo enclosures need to prevent escapes under any circumstances.

That said, there are a few things that strike me as odd about this whole story:

- the victims were 17-23 years old. I have been to the SF zoo many times and have seen groups of youngsters in that age range taunt the gorillas on pretty much every occasion (there are very clear signs all around the gorilla area asking visitors to be quiet). Something tells me that it’s not a coincidence that the victims weren’t two 70-year-old retirees with their 2-year-old grandchild in a stroller.

- as widely reported, the surviving victims refused to cooperate with the police. Why?

- while the wall indeed seems surprisingly low (having seen our neighborhood cats scale our 7 ft backyard fence), it was apparently built in the 1940s and had until 12/25/07 kept the tigers in check. I don’t know how long this particular enclosure has been used for tigers in particular, but based on aerial shots and my own recollection it’s been a long time. So what exactly caused the tiger to decide on Christmas 2007 at 5pm to scale the wall?

- the Oakland Zoo yesterday announced that it found its tiger enclosure to have walls/fences not much higher than those in SF, and they are now going to retrofit for $60,000+. It wouldn’t surprise me if the same was true for other zoos as well.

Yesterday’s Chronicle article about the management of the SF Zoo certainly makes me question my desire to renew my membership next year (independent of the tiger incident).

One last thought: theme parks like Disney or Great America have accidental deaths every so often. They get significantly less news (blog?) coverage. I guess someone falling off a rollercoaster or drowning in a kiddie pool is not as dramatic of a story as an actual tiger escape…

“Animals being taunted was always an issue,” an ex-employee said. “But you should be able to walk down there slathered in raw meat and not have them get out.”

While the lack of official statement on the matter compels me to agree with you about whether or not the person jumped over the fence, there are 2 facts that suggest this is unlikely. First and foremost, there was a 12.5 foot high wall from the fence down into the moat, meaning to jump over the fence would also mean the victim jumped down 12 feet into a moat… but the victim wasn’t found in the tiger enclosure at all.

Secondly, the tiger was killed outside of the enclosure, meaning it did get out and the police have stated that it appears there was no human assistance involved. So despite assurances to the contrary, the tiger did apparently scale the wall to get out of the enclosure.

As I think about this whole mess I am struck first by the unnecessary tragedy of it, but also by, and this is what made me write about it today, the really poor response by zoo officials. They seem to have suspended reality in their assessment of what actions they should be taking to restore the public confidence.

Enclosures can only protect humans from their own stupidity so much while still allowing us to see and hear the animals.

We have no idea whether the person killed hopped over the first fence, but will be interested in finding out.

I recently saw video of a woman who hopped over not one, but two barrier fences because she wanted to pet a lion through the last fence. Predictably, the lion attacked her and broke her femur in addition to doing some damage to her thigh where he bit her.

We can only do so much to save people from their own stupidity.