Of course you didn’t. And witnesses will confirm that you were politely observing the animals at the San Francisco Zoo while thoughtfully considering their majesty– but more on that later. Finally, the parents of mauling victim Carlos Sousa received the phone call they pleaded for:
One of two young men who survived the Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo that killed their 17-year-old friend told the teen’s mother that they had not taunted the big cat, the mother said today.
“He said, ‘We didn’t do nothing. We were just normal kids at the zoo,’ ” Marilza Sousa said after talking with her son’s friend Paul Dhaliwal, 19, of San Jose.
“That’s what happened, just dancing, talking, laughing like normal kids,” said Sousa, whose son Carlos Sousa Jr. was killed by the Siberian tiger. “I believe him.”
…The brothers have so far refused to speak publicly about the incident. Sousa said Paul Dhaliwal had told her he has remained silent because he is still tormented by the incident, not because his attorney has told him not to talk. [sfgate]
Both brothers attended Sousa’s funeral, which is what their friend’s grieving parents hoped for.
But there’s still more to this story and it contradicts the recounting of events provided by the Dhaliwal brothers. A witness came forward, to describe what the boys were doing that day at the zoo:
Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children that ill-fated Christmas afternoon, said she saw four young men at the big-cat grottos – and three of them were teasing the lions a short time before the tiger’s bloody rampage that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.
“The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them,” the San Francisco woman said. “They were trying to get that lion’s attention. … The lion was bristling, so I just said, ‘Come on, let’s get out of here’ because my kids were disturbed by it.”
…Her family was looking at the lions when the young men stopped beside them at the big-cat grottos – five outdoor exhibits attached to the Lion House. The young men started roaring at the lions and acting “boisterous” to get their attention, said Miller, who added that she watched the four for five minutes or so a little after 4 p.m. “It was why we left,” she said. “Their behavior was disturbing. They kept doing it.”
Sousa refrained from such tactics, Miller said. “He wasn’t roaring. He wasn’t taunting them,” she recalled. “He kept looking at me apologetically like, ‘I’m sorry, I know we are being stupid.’ “ [sfgate]
Experts on big cats continue to agree with what Jack Hanna said; I quoted Hanna in my last post as being skeptical about the boys’ innocence.
“First and foremost, people need to be educated. We need to respect them accordingly,” said Jonathan Kraft, who runs Keepers of the Wild in Arizona, which has more than 20 tigers. In the San Francisco escape, “I would bet my reputation that the animal was taunted.” [CBS5]
More sketchiness (and the reason why many continue to doubt the brothers Dhaliwal):
Sources told The Chronicle that paramedics taking the Dhaliwal brothers to the zoo by ambulance had overheard Kulbir Dhaliwal tell his brother, “Don’t tell them what we did.”
The sources also said Paul Dhaliwal was intoxicated at the time of the incident, having used marijuana and consumed enough liquor to have a blood-alcohol level above the 0.08 legal limit for driving. The older brother also had been drinking and using marijuana around the time the tiger escaped, the sources said.
Police say they spotted an empty vodka bottle inside the car the group took to the zoo that day, but investigators cannot legally search the vehicle without the Dhaliwals’ permission.
A person who picked up the phone today at the Dhaliwals’ home hung up without answering questions. [SFGate]
The Dhaliwals’ have retained the services of Mark Geragos, the man who represented luminaries like Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder, and murderers like Scott Peterson. Geragos is obviously fighting tooth-and-claw to get the car back, unsearched. As of yesterday, he’s losing:
In anticipation of a lawsuit over the fatal tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo, the City Attorney’s Office obtained a temporary court order Tuesday to secure the cell phone records and car of the two brothers mauled in the attack.
While zoo officials have stopped short of accusing Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal of taunting Tatiana the tiger, they have repeatedly said something must have provoked it to jump from its enclosure. Police have confirmed that an empty bottle of vodka could be seen on the front seat of the car, and city attorney investigators have expressed interest in images captured on the brothers’ cell phones. [Examiner]
I’d love to know what their cameraphones may have captured, wouldn’t you? Isn’t that the point of all this Jackass-inspired-stupidity? To document it recklessly and later upload it to Facebook?
The order comes on the day the brothers were scheduled to pick up their property from police, said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who referred to the emergency hearing as a “race against the clock.†The brothers’ lawyer, Mark Geragos, refused to comment Monday on whether the brothers would give the permission needed to give police access to their property. He also rejected claims that the two have been uncooperative.
Referring to correspondence between Geragos and himself, Herrera accused Geragos of “just stalling until his clients could get to the Police Department to claim their cell phones and car. [Examiner]
As for the New York Post’s screeching headline about the “slingshot theory”:
In the ongoing chaos that is the aftermath of the fatal tiger mauling at the San Francisco Zoo, the plot has thickened, or thinned I guess, depending. ABC7’s intrepid rabblerouser Dan Noyes has seemingly debunked the mighty New York Post report, based on an unnamed source, that brothers Amritpal Dhaliwal and Kulbir Dhaliwal were taunting 350-pound Tatiana the Siberian tiger using slingshots prior to her escape and fatal mauling of their companion, 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.
“Today, we received official word from the San Francisco Police Department. Sgt. Steve Manina told us he checked with inspectors working the case and “there were no slingshots on the kids, in the zoo or ambulances that night.†No slingshots.” [SFWeekly]
Developing…we’ll try and keep you posted.
That makes it ok to tease it? “Interesting” argument.
I still can’t believe people are so angry at these guys for ‘taunting’ a tiger. Why is it so bad to stand on the public side, the “zoo-allowed” side of the enclosure, and roar or bare your teeth or whatever? What’s so cruel about that? I just don’t share the indignation about that that some of you do. And yes I have done stuff like that when I was much younger. Probably well into my teens.
I’ve thought of something – actually, you guys probably haven’t heard of Bokito. Bokito was a large male gorilla in the Rotterdam zoo who was visited daily by a crazy old lady who liked to make faces at him. One day Bokito went nuts and jumped over the moat, bit the lady more than 100 times, dragged her around for a while and then ran into a cafe, scaring dozens of people. He is still alive and well in Rotterdam Zoo, but bottom line is most people consider that the lady provoked the gorilla, because smiling and looking straight into a primate’s eyes is discouraged by most biologists.
96 · Jangali Janwar said
Father Guido Sarducci of the Handsome Boy Modeling School would say that it’s the latter.
I wasn’t at all implying it was OK to tease it. The tiger was in a cage. She was in an environment she may not have been happy with in the first place. Or for all you know she was one happy fat cat, fed and kept well.
There are multiple ways to look at it. How many people did she pass and skip and specifically go for these boys? How many people really were around? Where are these “other” witnesses who talk about from earlier in the day? Where are the witnesses to what happened during the attack? Where there any since the zoo was closed at that point? What happened during the day with the tiger, maybe something happened that no one knows about? I mean after all it’s a wild animal. Why are we expecting it to behave predictably?
I just find the whole “you teased a tiger in a cage and you got someone killed” argument so hard to swallow. It seems like such a silly argument.
I don’t think there was anything reckless about teasing a cat frankly. As cruel and inhumane it might sound to someone at best it’s stupidity. It’s a caged animal. It’s not supposed to get out period. I’m having a hard time with how much responsibility of the death of this boy is being put on these other guys who were idiots I agree but this much punishment is too much.
They were a bunch of stupid teenagers. Yeah one was 23 but age is no guarantee of not acting like a moron. I still find it totally unnecessary that they be blamed for the death of their friend. It was a very unfortunate situation for which they should be slapped if at all they caused it and to prove that so many other variables are necessary. The zoo mos def takes the majority of the blame.
most people consider that the lady provoked the gorilla, because smiling and looking straight into a primate’s eyes is discouraged by most biologists
The general public won’t know this I’m assuming.
Maybe Zoos should put up clearer warnings that animals should not be taunted even by 5 year olds as this seems to be something a lot of people feel is an issue though i’ve never seen it the few times i’ve been to a zoo.
Maybe I can “anthropomorphize” so it becomes clearer to you. Would it be a problem if I stood by your desk at work and did the same to you, or if I did the same to a year-old kid?
Or maybe you feel animals are just here for us to mock, irritate, or whatever (why not kick them while we’re at it, unless you think that emotional abuse in general is acceptable, unlike physical abuse, which I don’t think you do).
Also, I find the “5 and 7 year olds do it” defense that some are throwing out ridiculous. Many of these wet their beds/poop their pants/can’t recite the alphabet. I assume we won’t think that a similar level of mental facility is completely normal in a 20 year old.
102 · Amitabh said
One of the issues I have is that to pick on something which can’t fight back is pathetic to begin with. Aren’t we’re so brave and bold, taunting something…in a cage. None of us would pull this shit if there weren’t moats, walls and glass between us and a predator who could kill us in seconds. If some of you say that’s the whole point of having zoos, I have no problems putting myself out there and saying that’s deplorable. Which is it? Are zoos educational and inspiring? Or are they venues for us to indulge in our lowest, most selfish instincts? Some seem to be leaning towards the latter, and I’ve yet to read an explanation here or anywhere as to why it is okay for us to be mean to captive animals; I have read many words which indicate that behavior which is cruel isn’t understood to be such and that is worrisome.
Amitabh-ji, I think it’s cruel because while some consider baring teeth or growling fun, animals are quite understandably perceiving it as a threat and are getting stressed out. Would any of us like it if someone constantly tried to startle us, all day, every day, for their amusement? What if someone pointed a gun at you but said it was a joke? Your heart rate would spike and your body would prepare to act a certain way almost instantly– because you perceived someone’s “fun” as a direct threat to you.
It’s kind of like trolling, right? No one would taunt someone in real life they way they do from behind the wall and moat of the anonymous internet. That’s not honorable and neither is harassing an animal, though both petty, disappointing acts are committed merely because people can.
More about what Meena mentioned regarding Bokito the Gorilla, which I found interesting:
I guess my friend was right.
On a ligher note, from the same wiki page:
Dude, that’s so much better than w00t! 🙂
That conclusion doesn’t follow from what I said. I’m not promoting or encouraging that kind of behavior. Nor do I believe in emotional abuse. I certainly see no reason to deliberately be mean to an animal, in fact the more kindness the better, and when I go to zoos, I just appreciate their beauty and grandeur. But well do I remember acting like these kids when I was a kid. I understand their behavior. I certainly wouldn’t have forgiven them slingshots or anything like that. Anyway I can see your’s and ANNA’s point about stressing them out. Maybe I’m not as much of an animal rights kind of a guy as you are. But I’m definitely not PRO-meanness to animals.
This happens in real life all the time. Someone says something and someone takes the high road or not. So if you mocked me, roared at me, made a general fool of yourself I could kill you? And I’d be justfied? Because that doesn’t make any sense. We are talking about a bunch of stupid behavior that I have commonly witnessed at a zoo by a bunch of idiots who don’t seem very educated or aware for that matter of their actions as being anything dangerous.
But a tiger can’t take ‘the high road’, no? I’m not saying that Sousa deserved to die – but I’m also saying that teasing and taunting animals in zoos is far from harmless.
Is it in your nature to respond to provocation with that sort of physical defense mechanism? Just asking so I can be warned. Or, if I can make the best sense that I can from your comment, you are in the blame assignment game between Tatiana and the Dhaliwals, you must have a pretty low opinion of their mental capacity. But I guess that’s the kind of defense Geragos is capable of coming up with.
I wish I was as comfortable with all the acts that I did when I was a kid or in my teens. And taunting/roaring/teeth-baring is as mean as slingshots, independent of the fact that one leaves physical evidence and the other doesn’t. It seems a little more fundamental than animal rights to me.
A general argument about most of the Dhaliwal-bashing happening here:
The role of the Dhaliwals, i.e. that of teasing the tiger, can at best be described immature and at worst be described mean. It still does not make them criminals and it is very unfortunate to see them being treated that way – like suspects in a murder.
They are guilty of being immature – that is not a crime. Letting a wild animal that you own jump out of your ill-constructed enclosure and kill someone – now that is a crime.
If a case needs to be made about animal cruelty, let it please not be with the lives of these young men who have nothing at fault save for being a little dumb.
I meant to put a smiley after “I wish I was as comfortable with all the acts that I did when I was a kid or in my teens.” It reads more sardonically than I intended.
I don’t know that anyone is saying that. 🙁 AFAIK, it’s not an irrational wish for retribution via human blood, it’s more like frustration with people who are selfish or irresponsible, whose choices harm others.
And yes, the zoo is at fault for many things, most notably jeopardizing the lives of both animals and visitors despite constant warnings and pleas for change, to prevent something like this from happening. I guess I don’t mention them as much as others do because to me, it’s obvious the zoo fucked up. There’s no need for an investigation in to bloody shoes or camera phones or empty vodka bottles. The wall was meager, the conditions were deplorable and it was only a matter of time before tragedy struck.
perhaps vigilance was the wrong word. or maybe it wasn’t – e.g. that woman who took her kids away when she saw these teenagers taunting the tiger – that’s what i’m talking about. it’s being smart enough to avoid (or lessen one’s chances of being in) a potentially bad situation when you see it. and my other point was not just about vigilance – but about avoiding the creation of a potentially bad situation. i’m aware enough of animal’s behaviours and trigger points to know not to do what these kids did. i’m not afraid when i go to zoos, but i don’t think there’s anything wrong in being alert and knowing that there’s certain behaviour that is best avoided. beyond that, yes, we are all some risk, which is fine by me (esp. since i don’t really go to zoos).
like i said, right or wrong doesn’t matter when you’re dead. sometimes it is entirely possible to avoid these situations, even if you shouldn’t have to. it’s called self-preservation, and i’m rather territorial about mine.
They are guilty of being stupid which is worse than a crime.
What if the Dhaliwal brothers were black? Would we be as compassionate towards two drunk brothers who were hostile to the police and EMTs who saved them? When we learn that they refused to talk about what actually happened, would we still think they’re innocent until proven otherwise?
As mean as? I’m sure most tigers would disgree.
I would.
I don’t know why we keep speaking of the Dhaliwals like they were drunk drivers who killed some passer-by and took off. All they did was tease an animal in an enclosure … I agree that it is ethically/spiritually/morally wrong to tease an animal, but it does not justify the way we are treating them like criminals here on this thread.
They are victims of this tragedy as well – they almost got killed, they saw their good friend being mauled to death, and they are being treated as suspects with all their possessions confiscated by the cops.
There is more ‘humanizing’ of the tiger going on than the ‘humanizing’ of the Dhaliwals on this thread.
Bilkul.
I completely agree with Randomizer, and can’t believe how those boys are being crucified here.
I rarely comment, but just can’t believe what I’m reading. Maybe it’s b/c I grew up with boys, and know that teenage stupidity can last well into their early 20s, but what these boys did, assuming it was just baring their teeth and roaring OUTSIDE the enclosure, is well within the boundaries of ‘boys being boys’, as stupid as it is. It does not warrant ANYTHING punishable, even a fine, unless there was a sign posted that says do not agitate animals or you will be fined. Even if there was, it is still ENTIRELY the zoo’s fault that this boy died. Please stop placing so much blame on these two kids for their perceived role in their friend’s death. I feel sorry for Sousa and his family, AND the Dhaliwal boys that this happened, as well as for all the criticism they’re getting in the media.
For the record, I’m a vegetarian, don’t wear/use animal products and have not been to a zoo since I was forced as a child. But even then, I remember witnessing similar antics from kids in my class. If you lock up a wild and dangerous animal for public view, you have to remember that a large percentage of the male population is prone to these asinine displays of bravado.
On the alcohol/marijuana charges – I don’t care. If they weren’t driving, it’s still well within the behavior of kids their age.
Huh? You seem to believe this on the principle that emotional abuse is not as serious as physical abuse. If there is some other logical guiding principle for your conviction, I’d like to understand that.
I’m saying that slingshots are worse than being roared at.
Just at animals? Or does that logic apply when people are targets too? Would you apply the same value judgments about having a gun pointed at you vs. a slingshot used to hit you? (Of course, when you are appropriately restrained so that you are not allowed to actually act on your impulses).
Here is a video of lions attacking water buffaloes. You will not believe what happens at about 4:30. My jaw dropped. (Not gory.) (Pardesi or otherwise.)
Maybe repetition will help.
I think what some people are saying (please correct me, if I am misinterpreting) is that an equivalent level of grief and emotion be felt for the Dhaliwal’s mauling and the loss of their friend as displayed in the emotion felt over the loss of the tiger and the anger at the Dhaliwals for allegedly aggravating the animal. Whether one views their act as simply immature, or acceptable for their age, or just plain stupid (warranting a chappal), a little sympathy is warranted for the fact that they were hurt and they have to live with the label that they are accused of causing their friend’s death. I think its possible to recognize that the act of roaring at an animal is not something we would like to see happen but at the same time say it doesn’t condone their mauling or discount the zoo’s blame. Which, I think all of you have been saying to differing degrees.
Yes!! With emphasis that (3) doesn’t, of course, undermine (1) (which point you make by saying “period” in (1)).
If only the reactions and emphasis on this thread wasn’t in the reverse order, we wouldn’t even be having a debate. That the Dhaliwals are also victims of this tragedy seems to be the remotest of after-thoughts … and I do not mean specifically of you, but of most of the commentary so far.
Anyone, I’d say.
131 · Randomizer said
See: this comment.
Folks, if you happen to be in NYC tonight spend some of that hard earned money in memory of Tatiana and buy some tix of the Lion King. We hardly knew you.
102 · Amitabh said
I think we’re arguing different points here.
Amitabh is arguing that legally you are in the clear if you make noises/faces/taunt/etc at animals. Others are arguing that even though taunting animals in zoos may be legal, and quite present on a daily basis, it doesn’t respect the animals. And possibly more importantly (on a do-you-want-to-survive note), it violates the rules of common sense.
Yes. You are legally A-okay if you go to a zoo and make noises or taunt the animals. You will not be thrown in jail. You won’t be fined. However, doing so is an action not performed under best judgment and, quite frankly, isn’t a good indication of common sense. People should try to know the consequences of actions. Taunt the animal and the animal will most likely be angered. You are also legally permitted to smoke cigarettes, but don’t be surprised if you come down with lung cancer. Eat McDonald’s, get fat. A leads to Be. Know the consequences of your actions.
If you make faces, bare teeth, or in any way aggravate/ show signs of aggression toward an animal, the animal– which doesn’t have rules or codes of conduct or even a blog to discuss these issues– will more than likely be aggravated. And the animal will then do what it can to attack/show dominance.
I just hope this situation, terrible as it is, will serve as a wake-up call to people. Use common sense and have a healthy respect of the animals (and don’t act like the 5-year old child), and odds are you’ll be fine.
I think the zoo should be responsible for containing its animals, but to automatically assume zoos are 100% secure gives way too much credit to the zoo and way too little respect to the animal, especially if enraged. I’m not saying the kids deserved to die, but I’m also not surprised an animal attacked when it was provoked. Animals are not Disney cartoons. Keeping a lion behind bars in a zoo does not turn it into Simba.
If you swing a baseball bat at a beehive, don’t be surprised when bees come out.
This is actually an interesting aspect of natural human reactions, that was mentioned in passing in a Times article on the emerging field of experimental philosophy.
The article begins with this example of inconsistent thinking that seems natural to humans: If a corporate chairman takes an action that is profitable to the company but happens to benefit the environment, we believe that the environmental benefit was not intentional, but a side effect. However, if he takes an action that is profitable but harms the environment, we believe that the harm was intentional.
This example is sort of similar (but different in that the consequences are not anticipated): Our judgment of the actions of the Dhaliwals is definitely colored by the consequences of their behavior. We are judging their actions more harshly than somebody else’s where the tiger did not inflict the harm. And I agree that most people will say that they bear some moral responsibility for Sousa’s death, although that’s probably not justified in a rigorous sense.
why do ppl go to the zoo? to make faces at the chimps and roar at the lions..it nothing new. They pay the $10 so they can do that and not get eaten..
74 · fallen jhumki said
I know what you mean. That’s why I’m so sure that they didnt mean to do anything, but they were too stoned and drunk to actually realize what level it had progressed to.
I wonder if the media reporting and indeed the discussion on this thread would have been different if the tiger was called Taslima and the kids who teased her were Mike and John.
No, it wouldn’t be. Don’t you know that the “progressives” here would blindly take the side of Taslima because they’re scared (of) pussies?
That cracked me up:D
So apparently, the guy on the right of the photo is Amritpal (Paul), and the dude all the way to the left and sort of in the back (with the goatee) is Kulbir.
If these kids are behaving in a stupid and cruel manner to the tiger, that deserves a lot of scorn and maybe a ticket if the zoo has one for harassing animals. But there is no way they deserve to get killed or mauled by a tiger! As many people say, unfortunate as it is, a lot of people become a little jangli themselves when they go to the zoo, specially young ones. And a zoo should take that into account. Nobody stopped the guys when they were harassing the tiger and nobody stopped the tiger till it killed one person and mauled others. So the zoo failed to protect both the animal and humans! And they deserve to pay for it. I mean not having a tall enough wall for a tiger, you gotta be kidding me!
Another thing to consider and maybe the lawyers on the board can elaborate on that-is if the zoo is owned by city then the city will be forking the settlement money, the police and the DA office are also the part of the same machinery. So it does seem to be in the cities interest to portray the dead one as the angel, the living ones as the devils and shift the blame towards them. This will reduce the amount of parties to pay money to will also make the settlement amount small as the blame is shared with others.
Transcript of Kulbir Dhaliwal’s 911 call. Note that the “call cut off” is when Dhaliwal is again attacked by the tiger.
A lot of SF Chronicle comments have really excoriated Dhaliwal for demanding “send more paramedics, send a helicopter.” I’ve gotta say that out of all the things the brothers probably deserve to be reamed for, making outrageous and irrational demands when your sibling is about to be mauled by a tiger really is not one of them in my view.
There are also reports that zoo officials did not believe the Dhaliwals’ original claims that a tiger had escaped, and that the Terrace Cafe workers refused to let them take shelter inside. Which is again shifting the brunt of my anger to the zoo officials – I don’t care HOW obnoxious the brothers might have been acting, the zoo just dropped the ball in so many ways.
There’s also apparently a search warrant for the Dhaliwals’ cell phones and car, so I guess in time we’ll also have more idea what the Dhaliwals may or may not have been guilty of.
SHOW SOME UNDERSTANDING! He was making those demands BECAUSE HE WAS PANICKING ABOUT BEING MAULED AND HIS BROTHER AND FRIEND BEING MAULED. Do you think YOU’D be cool and rational if you made a 911 call under those circumstances?
But the cafe worker (and the operator) thought the guy was on drugs– which he was (and drunk, too). It’s easy for us to say, now, with hindsight, from the safety of our desks “I don’t care how obnoxious the guys were”, but the zoo/cafe was closed and someone agitated was banging on the door. Is it unreasonable for the employee within to have freaked out, been scared for their safety and not opened the door? I want to know whether the cafe employee knew that there was a killer tiger out, or if he/she thought this was just someone playing a prank/a violent crazed individual? If they knew the tiger was loose, then not helping these men was heartless.
Someone else raised this in a forum elsewhere, but unfortunately, zoos get prank calls like this often. The kids who have cried “wolf” over the years thinking it was funny have no idea that their pranks had a part in killing a tiger and a teen. Also, now I’m reading that despite the wall being too low, it passed inspection annually AND that the recommended height for the wall is a guideline, not a rule. So who inspects zoos? And why wasn’t this enclosure documented as dangerous and then shut down? If the asshole zoo director refused to do anything about an inspection which came back declaring that the tiger exhibit was unsafe, why didn’t the inspectors take it to the public, or why don’t their reviews have more teeth? If you inspect a wild animal exhibit and find it dangerous, you should shut it down immediately, whether an ex-park and recs guy wants you to or not.
This is a no-win situation and a mess on so many levels. And before anyone sends me further hate mail: yes, I admit that I care about animals a little too much and yes, I do believe the Zoo fucked up royally.
145 · Amitabh said
Not at all, which is why I agree with Mary that bitching about that aspect of this incident is stupid and unreasonable. I’ve never made a calm 911 call in my life, I don’t know someone who has.
“I admit that I care about animals a little too much.”
NO such thing about caring too much. You either care or you don’t. There’s an old Punjabi saying my granny used to say, “If you get hurt, even your pet will sehd a tear. But, a man is nothing if he can’t feel the pain of others.”
Anna, do NOT apologize for the detractors about your concern for the welfare of the animals.
I apologise, Mary, I misread your comment…I thought you were criticizing him for the 911 call, but you weren’t. My bad.
in the end, despite the allegedly moronic behaviour of the guys, the zoo is responsible. however, zoos are changing in nature. you are going to have fewer caged animals and more animals in more natural settings and bigger settings. going to a zoo is not a right but a privilege to be able to see something you may not normally have access too. you have a certain responsibility to behave in a certain manner. the zoo cannot plan for every stupidity. animals do have rights in this world and don’t exist solely for the pleasure of human beings. i’m not sure who sees grown guys taunting and making faces at animals as normal behaviour. unless you are 10 years or younger, and even children seem to be more responsible than grown men in these situations, you have no excuse for behaving like that in a zoo or any other setting in which you are being allowed to view animals in their habitats, whether natural or artificial.
once in africa, we were viewing hippos in a river. no zoo, no cages. there also happened to be several crocodiles asleep on the riverbank. one german guy, in his thirties, bored i suppose that the crocodiles were just minding their own business, decided to throw rocks at them and shout at them to get them to do something so he could be entertained and take photos. one crocodile stirred and lurched towards the tourists. there was panic and the guides had to shoot a gun to scare the crocodile. is that fair? is that the action of any sane, mature adult? i have no doubt that man would have done the same thing in a zoo. if the crocodile had attacked him or any other innocent tourist, it would be news and the africans would bear the blame for being inefficient or not doing enough to protect tourists, including one with no idea of how to behave. why do such people even go on these trips?