ON CHRISTMAS DAY 1997, a tiger escaped from its enclosure at the San Francisco zoo, killing one young man and mauling two others. It was a national story, but particularly in my home town. This column originally appeared in January 2008, in the San Francisco City Star.
ABOUT the INCIDENT at the ZOO
There is no joy in writing this column. You’d have to have ice water in your veins not to feel overwhelmed by the magnitude of this event. A young man will never experience the joys and sorrows that only the spectrum of a full life can bring. His family is forever in unspeakable pain. The other young men, thankfully, are out of the hospital. There is another victim: An innocent animal.
* * *
So how do we come to grips with this? Let’s look at the zoo first. Was the moat long and deep enough? No. Was the wall high enough? Obviously not. How did we find out? The same way we always find out: Something Happened. An analogy: My grandfather was in real estate. He was very nervous about dealing with property in the inner Marina. Why? He had lived through the 1906 quake and knew the land was filled to create space for the 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition. Many thought him to be an over-reacting alarmist. He died in 1954, taking that reputation with him. Thirty-five years later, Something Happened. How did we respond? We rebuilt, hopefully stronger and safer. Did we get it right? We’ll know when Something Happens. Will there be changes at the Zoo? You can take that one to the bank. Will they suffice? Again, we’ll know if Something Happens.
* * *
And what about the tiger? It is guilty of being itself; no more and no less. It is a predator. My gentle housecat Oly, when she sees a fly, goes into a crouch, creeps slowly towards it, and pounces. It isn’t food, it isn’t sport; it’s instinct. Given this, how would it feel if, instead of already-dead meat, potential living and moving prey was separated from you by only waterless moat and a wall? The animal involved had already attacked its’ handler, badly mauling her. Should it have been euthanized then? Tough call. Should it have been released in the wild to fend for itself? If I took Oly to the Marin Headlands and let her go, she wouldn’t survive 24 hours. This dilemma will never change as long as we have animals in captivity that are bound to occasionally act out their natural instincts.
* * *
Finally, what role do we play in this? Where I grew up, there were deer, squirrels, fox, skunks, even the occasional bobcat. We intuitively knew to stay away from them, and, unless startled, they treated us with the same deference. Is the answer to close the Zoos? Absolutely not. Zoos are a terrific place to acquaint us (especially our kids) with the fascinating array of species with which we co-habit this planet. With regard to our zoo, this is the twenty-second incident to occur in the last sixty years. One other involved a civilian; someone who had climbed over the fence, fallen into the moat, and was mauled. All of the other events involved animal handlers or simple escapes. There have been no human deaths. To me, this speaks well of our Zoos’ safety record. I would not care to meet a wild camel by being dropped defenseless into the Sahara. No doubt the camel feels the same way, but so far we haven’t come up with a better idea for our species to accomplish this, which to my way of thinking makes the Zoo a relevant and important place. But here’s one thing we don’t share with animals: They don’t assess blame and endlessly litigate, they take care of their situation and move on with their lives as best they can. In this sense, perhaps we could take a page from their playbook.
* * *
If this column seems a bit short, it’s because today there simply isn’t room for any Schnide Remarks.
No comments:
Post a Comment