there! i used capital letters. satisfied? well, dont get comfy, because im too lazy to continue with that. :P

now then, this topic seems to be a bit touchy from what ive heard elsewhere, but id honestly like to know what you debaters here at MTS think about the topic of wild animal attacks. (and i havnt seen a thread on it, so far, so i hope this isnt a repeat of something thats already been asked before.)

for the time being, im going to say that dogs, house cats, and other such heavily domesticated animals do not "count" in these instances of violent animal attacks against humans.


my questions to you are:
* in an explicit situation wherein someone makes a conscious decision to bypass security measures to get "up close" to a wild animal, and it results in an attack, whom should be punished? the animal, or the human? and should the animal be put down?

* in a second explicit situation wherein the wild animal is the one to bypass security measures and runs loose among humans, resulting in an attack, which should be punished? (lets say in this situation that the animal got out on its own, and it was not due to any sloppiness on the keepers' part.)

* are people who work closely with wild animals "asking for it" when a misunderstanding occurs and an attack is the result? (zoo keepers, animal trainers, performers, etc.)

* if the animal is in its natural environment, not a zoo or reserve or other sort of enclosure, is it "fair" to shoot the animal in self defense OR revenge in the event of an attack? (lets say, youre out on a jeep tour, and a lion lunges; not in your own personal backyard.)

* do you personally think that people are too desensitized to wild animal encounters, or, that theyre too sensitive?

* in general, what is your opinion on people who intentionally provoke wild animals in hope of a dangerous reaction?

* what is your opinion on the human involvement with species that are particularly renown for their violent tendencies?

* do you think you might consider (ideally, theoretically) an in-depth class be introduced into elementary/middle/high schools about wild animals someone might be likely to encounter? how do you think such classes might positively/negatively impact our behavior/view toward/of wild animals?


please keep in mind that these are honest questions and should not be interpreted as sarcastic, jokey, or particularly biased.

1. Obviously the idiot who jumped the fence to get up close to the elephants.

2. The keepers should have covered any possible way for the animal to escape. Better yet, they shouldn't have caged a wild animal in the first place.

3. Most people who work in zoos don't know squat about animals, let alone wild animals. They aren't ''asking for it'' but they knew the risks when they took the job.

4. People shouldn't be there in the 1st place. Animals are becoming increasingly aggressive towards humans and with good reason. But if one really really had to go in the wild (research or something) and a wild pickachu... I mean lion appeared they should have tranquilizers.

5. I'm afraid I don't understand this question, sorry mate.

6.



7. Humans should learn to mind their own god damn business.

8. Where I'm from, the schools already have alot of completely useless classes. If these were gone then yeah I'd like a class about animals.

Hope this helped.

* in an explicit situation wherein someone makes a conscious decision to bypass security measures to get "up close" to a wild animal, and it results in an attack, whom should be punished? the animal, or the human? and should the animal be put down?


Security measures include signs, and they are there for fair warning to those with eyes that the animal is wild. The animal resides in an area that is intended serve as its home, however temporary, and the animal likely has a built in sense to protect its territory. The person doing the intruding is at fault unless they are blind or can't read, and in that case responsibility falls to the person's caretaker.

* in a second explicit situation wherein the wild animal is the one to bypass security measures and runs loose among humans, resulting in an attack, which should be punished? (lets say in this situation that the animal got out on its own, and it was not due to any sloppiness on the keepers' part.)

I'm not prepared to answer this. A wild animal does not use a pen and paper to premeditate a rampage. If it gets loose, then security has failed to do its job and it falls on those that run the establishment to compensate for injury and damages. Here is the problem: Hal the Hyena gets loose and runs around, and person A gets a boo boo on their knee when they bump into a trash can. That person now wants to sue for trillions of dollars and emotional trauma. I say "don't run a zoo if you can't handle it."

* are people who work closely with wild animals "asking for it" when a misunderstanding occurs and an attack is the result? (zoo keepers, animal trainers, performers, etc.)

Search "crocodile hunter" "crikey" and you will get your answer. They have chosen their profession and occupational hazards.

* if the animal is in its natural environment, not a zoo or reserve or other sort of enclosure, is it "fair" to shoot the animal in self defense OR revenge in the event of an attack? (lets say, youre out on a jeep tour, and a lion lunges; not in your own personal backyard.)

Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's go someplace where we are likely to provoke local creatures with the smell of food. Hopefully, a cougar will find us and we can shoot it because it attacked us. Then I'll have something to show others as proof that I'm a man.

Hey, that koala scratched my arm! Now I'll have a scar to impress women with, I just need to make up a believable story that demonstrates my bravery and cunning.

* do you personally think that people are too desensitized to wild animal encounters, or, that theyre too sensitive?


It's not fair to lock the idea that people are either too sensitive or not sensitive enough. It's clear that animals are disposed to have a case of the Mondays. You can't expect a hyena to behave like someone who understands human rules of conduct.

* in general, what is your opinion on people who intentionally provoke wild animals in hope of a dangerous reaction?

Don't these people already have a show called Jackass?

* what is your opinion on the human involvement with species that are particularly renown for their violent tendencies?

Simple question, broad answer. They may be conducting a study. They might be animal lovers. Some might REALLY love animals. Some are there for the hides and tusks. I'm dodging the question. Anyone who deals with a violent prone beast should know the risks, and if they don't know what they are doing then it's best they keep out of it.

* do you think you might consider (ideally, theoretically) an in-depth class be introduced into elementary/middle/high schools about wild animals someone might be likely to encounter? how do you think such classes might positively/negatively impact our behavior/view toward/of wild animals?

I'd be for it, but I'm not picking up a sign and marching to Washington. I'm more interested in watching Libya and Bahrain, atm to be honest. Parties of animal enthusiasts should join up with others so that they can move to start a bill if they know someone with ties to Congress. Then a bill can be researched, go through the house and the senate. Maybe pork barrel it. Raise awareness and I'll vote for it. I assumed that schools in rural areas already taught about animal encounters, at least unofficially. But your intent is to make it official.

Actually, I posted a similar thread last summer. Here it is for reference:
http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=408408
Sorry, the original link no longer works, nothing last forever.

thank you.

* in an explicit situation wherein someone makes a conscious decision to bypass security measures to get "up close" to a wild animal, and it results in an attack, whom should be punished? the animal, or the human? and should the animal be put down? Clearly the person is at fault. Security measures are there for a reason - and if people are going to bypass those measures then it's on their own head.

* in a second explicit situation wherein the wild animal is the one to bypass security measures and runs loose among humans, resulting in an attack, which should be punished? (lets say in this situation that the animal got out on its own, and it was not due to any sloppiness on the keepers' part.) This is a more difficult one, but if anyone at fault, it's those responsible for the security measures and enclosure design. If an animal is able to escape through means other than human error, then clearly the enclosure is inadequate.

* are people who work closely with wild animals "asking for it" when a misunderstanding occurs and an attack is the result? (zoo keepers, animal trainers, performers, etc.) Not 'asking for it, but they should be well aware of the risks that they are taking. Wild animals - even trained ones - are wild animals, and will behave instinctively if threatened.

* if the animal is in its natural environment, not a zoo or reserve or other sort of enclosure, is it "fair" to shoot the animal in self defense OR revenge in the event of an attack? (lets say, youre out on a jeep tour, and a lion lunges; not in your own personal backyard.) This I think depends on the situation a little. If it is a matter of life and death then there is no other option, however it's certainly unfair if the attack is the result of the animal being disturbed and provoked. Revenge killing - no, definitely not fair, although again depends on the situation a little. Sometimes there will be a 'rogue' animal that shows unnatural levels of aggression and causes problems - unprovoked attacks, etc. While it's not a nice solution, I think it's acceptable to destroy the animal in those cases.

* do you personally think that people are too desensitized to wild animal encounters, or, that theyre too sensitive? Not quite sure what you're getting at - do you mean that people are somewhat blasé about wild animals? If so - then I'd say yes - a lot of people seem to have little respect for the dangers that many wild animals pose.


* in general, what is your opinion on people who intentionally provoke wild animals in hope of a dangerous reaction? *cough* Steve Irwin *cough* They deserve what ever they get.

*what is your opinion on the human involvement with species that are particularly renown for their violent tendencies? Depends on the situation. Might be for a study, might be for conservation purposes. If their doing it for a genuine reason, they have the experience to work with the species and know the risks they are taking. If they don't understand the risk or are inexperienced, they shouldn't be there.

* do you think you might consider (ideally, theoretically) an in-depth class be introduced into elementary/middle/high schools about wild animals someone might be likely to encounter? how do you think such classes might positively/negatively impact our behavior/view toward/of wild animals? Theoretically I would, but I'm not sure how it would get off the ground. At the school I went to - semi rural - we had wildlife carers and reptile handlers visit to educate us on the various local species - perhaps that would be a better move? It was definitely a positive experience for us. It gave us the opportunity to learn how to safely approach and handle possums, wombats, roos, some of the big parrots - which is important round here because a lot of them get hit by cars and need first aid before wildlife rescue can get to them. Even a possum or wombat can give a nasty bite, a big cocky or galah can almost take your finger off, and a kick from a frightened/injured roo can kill you

You are welcome.
I noticed that you made a post on my thread, this topic must be close to your heart.

somewhat. im mostly basing it off of the reactions ive seen displayed in the news, how most people see it a certain way.

wanted to know what everyone's thoughts here are, if it was Simba rather than Fluffy.

Have you got an example of such a news item?

I'm generally in agreement with others here - every human knows that animals can be dangerous; even if you've never been taught that, we instinctively feel fear when we see teeth and claws. I can feel a certain sympathy for cases where someone just doesn't realise that an animal is particularly dangerous - komodo dragons, for example, look like lazy bastards who couldn't give less of a crap about the fact that you're there, and I was surprised to learn that they can actually be very vicious in some situations. But even then, if you don't know for sure you should assume that you are at risk, and therefore act sensibly; you can't hold an animal responsible for defending itself against a perceived threat, or for trying to sustain itself on some tasty primate lunch.
That applies to domestic animals as well as tame ones - if you've ever been on the receiving end of a frightened horse's hooves, you'll know that even good-natured animals should be treated with respect, if you value your ribcage.

* in an explicit situation wherein someone makes a conscious decision to bypass security measures to get "up close" to a wild animal, and it results in an attack, whom should be punished? the animal, or the human? and should the animal be put down?

The person who bypassed the security measures is responsible, not the animal. The animal doesn't know any better, but the person does.

* in a second explicit situation wherein the wild animal is the one to bypass security measures and runs loose among humans, resulting in an attack, which should be punished? (lets say in this situation that the animal got out on its own, and it was not due to any sloppiness on the keepers' part.)

Neither the animal nor the person/people it attacks are truly responsible, but, if all reasonable measures of keeping the animal secure fail, other steps need to be taken. The ideal would be to give the animal to someone else who could better take care of the animal, though an animal that has proven itself an escape artist in the past may still be a danger. Otherwise, the only solution is to put the animal down. Animals that are raised around people are used to people and not afraid of them. Releasing the animal in the wild would only give it free roam to possibly come back to terrorize humans again. Therefore, if it can't be contained and it shows violent behavior, even violent playful behavior, it must be put down.

* are people who work closely with wild animals "asking for it" when a misunderstanding occurs and an attack is the result? (zoo keepers, animal trainers, performers, etc.)

They should be aware that there is the possibility of personal harm. If they are taking all precautions and the animal still manages to harm them, it is a situation much like the question directly above this one. If they get complacent and lax in their precautions, it is their own fault if something happens.

* if the animal is in its natural environment, not a zoo or reserve or other sort of enclosure, is it "fair" to shoot the animal in self defense OR revenge in the event of an attack? (lets say, youre out on a jeep tour, and a lion lunges; not in your own personal backyard.)

Yes, in self-defense, no in revenge. But I don't think that most cases of putting an animal down after an attack are revenge, anyway. Generally that is proactive self-defense. Now, again, if you are being an idiot about interacting with animals, you are responsible for the harm done. If you are forced to shoot an animal in self-defense because you were screwing around and provoking it, you are deserving of some form of punishment. Nothing so extreme as sentencing for murder, but a reasonable fine or short jail sentence.

* do you personally think that people are too desensitized to wild animal encounters, or, that theyre too sensitive?

I think some people are one way, others are another, and some are more balanced. I personally am desensitized because I've grown up with animals in the house and had little exposure to more dangerous wild animals, outside of watching Animal Planet and Discovery Channel, which often make wild animals or, at least, wild mammals, seem fairly tame. I find myself sometimes thinking that wild animals would act in a manner similar to house cats, which, of course, I know is wrong. House cats rely on humans for care and feeding, wild animals are more likely to use you as food or see you as a threat. So I know that I would have to think clearly and be more cautious than I am inclined to be, should I ever interact up close with wild animals.

Other people live in fear of animals. These are the people who won't swim in the ocean for fear of jellyfish and sharks, who are deathly afraid of encountering bears in the woods, and who don't even want to go near domestic animals. Animal attacks are extremely unlikely, but many of these people don't understand statistics.

I think that a good portion of people out there have a more balanced view. They realize that animals can be dangerous, but don't fear personal harm from a random animal attack. They aren't worried by calm-looking house pets, but they aren't going to approach a wild animal.

* in general, what is your opinion on people who intentionally provoke wild animals in hope of a dangerous reaction?

They're idiots. Idiots who will probably get themselves killed. And, as I mentioned above, if they provoke animals, only to kill them in "self-defense", they are deserving of punishment.

* what is your opinion on the human involvement with species that are particularly renown for their violent tendencies?

I don't think there's a problem with studying those species. In fact, I think it is preferable to study those species. An understanding of various toxins and other defense mechanisms can lead to better treatment should a person be injured by that animal. Further, the biochemical processes in animals very different from ourselves can be studied to give us a better knowledge of how life flourishes. New species that we encounter can be compared to our knowledge of species we have previously studied. Treatments can be derived from novel metabolic and immune processes in animals we discover.

* do you think you might consider (ideally, theoretically) an in-depth class be introduced into elementary/middle/high schools about wild animals someone might be likely to encounter? how do you think such classes might positively/negatively impact our behavior/view toward/of wild animals?

There are other subjects that I think are more important. Before introducing a class on wild animals, I would introduce classes on economics, logic, and personal accounting, probably among other things. Further, I don't think much more is really necessary for the average person than "don't touch" and "stay away" when it comes to wild animals. Also, not all learning takes place in the classroom. For those who want more in-depth information, there are television shows, books, and the internet out there that give it. I used to love watching Animal Planet when I was a kid. I picked up a lot of little tidbits about what animals are poisonous, what animals are aggressive, and so forth. Those things are potentially useful, but it is generally best to simply keep in mind that many wild animals are territorial and dangerous. I think those things can be conveyed in a basic biology class.

here are a few news examples (primarily zoo attacks):

from what i can gather, this woman went past the safety barrier to get a closer photo of a polar bear.

another zoo instance, wherein a tiger gets out and attacks 2 people. a bit more on the same story, but may be relevant to your response.

another tiger attack. this did not make it into the news, as far as i can tell, but it might be worth noting that the people are riding an elephant and the tiger is freely roaming about.

**WARNING: GRAPHIC.** this video depicts a suburban(?) area, where a doe and her faun have wandered in among human housing. a cat antagonizes the deer by applying its scent to the faun, and a dog is in the wrong place at the wrong time (and is brutally stomped by the deer; do NOT watch this if you cannot stand this idea.)
you can also hear a woman (presumably the owner of the dog) yelling at the deer.

this one is by national geographic, tells about a wolf attack.

aaand yet another one (sorry for the spam, trying to give people a vast take on wild animal attacks), this time concerning possible hybrids in populated areas.

i could probably rustle up a shark or snake attack piece, but at the moment i need to be somewhere, so this will have to do.