Now, I’m fairly Peter Singer, 12 Monkeys animal-rightsish. You could, with some success, round most of my morals up into Bad Things Shouldn’t Happen To Children Or Animals. I hate zoos.
So it is that I don’t usually react well to stories about “monstrous” sharks, tigers, etc. “attacking” people. If, say, some French guys came, kidnapped you, took you back to France and locked you up, I’m pretty sure that you’d try to escape. If you went camping, I’m pretty sure that you’d build a fire. It’s called being a human. When sharks “attack”, they’re just being sharks. If we’re going to share their water, we need to accept that.
So it comes to the story about the tiger escaping from a zoo in San Francisco. I’ve ignored it up until this, in today’s Huffington Post:
“Human involvement”? You mean, say, taking a tiger out of tiger-world and putting the tiger in the middle of San Francisco? Yeah – I’m pretty sure human involvement goes a bloody long way towards explaining the tragic death of an innocent teenager. He belonged in the city. A tiger doesn’t.