TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:So how many setting your grandchild or child on top of the railing of the pit housing the -name the dangerous animal- stories are we going to have to read about or see on video before this stupidity stops.

Answer. It will never stop, as Darwin always is there improving the breed.

Wouldn't Darwin postulate that this behavior would eventually stop as the child-on-rail-putters are eventually self-withdrawn from the gene pool?

AlaskanInTexas wrote:Wouldn't Darwin postulate that this behavior would eventually stop as the child-on-rail-putters are eventually self-withdrawn from the gene pool?

Unfortunately, natural selection at that level would require that they only have one offspring. Not very likely.

Someone else's child? I would cuss out the cat and shoot the parent.

Sorry, got that backwards. I would cuss out the parent and shoot the cat.

Ditto Jim Beaux: Disclaimer:

For those easily offended. The above post is a form of humor - something that is rapidly diminishing in our world. Please save all condescending & politically correct replies for the next PETA convention you attend.

I can see at a minimum throwing rocks or something at the cats to distract them from the kid and maybe keep them back. I don't know if that would work. Not sure if I would jump into the pit unarmed (assuming someone else's kid). Depends on the situation. At my fitness level, I would probably be half handicapped after jumping into a 15 foot deep pit.

If armed, I can see firing a couple shots to try to scare them away before firing on them. My concern would be for the aftermath. I can also see the zoo trying to bill me for the cats and getting charged with firing a weapon.

Does anyone know if the Houston Zoo is posted or not?

Not the cat's fault...

I think jaguars may also be an endangered species, so there's a whole 'nother hornet's nest if you start shooting them, beyond just the fact of discharging a firearm in a public place. I'm all in favor of saving a child's life regardless of what said child's parents may have done. But I would definitely look for non-firearm options first. The article said the zookeepers used fire extinguishers to keep the cats at bay. I wonder if one was right there at the exhibit, or if the zookeepers carry them on their little golf carts? If the former, that would be a good option to keep in mind. Definitely less legal trouble over discharging a fire extinguisher than discharging a firearm.

I don't think the law is an exact parallel given that a human life is not the same an an animal life, but as regards humans I believe that if you come to the defense of another person you are liable for what they knew about the situation. If someone provokes a fight and you come along later and shoot their opponent in an attempt to save an apparently innocent party's life, you're now in hot water for having shot someone in defense of a not-innocent party. I wonder if some element of that would come into play here? If the railing broke and the child fell in, the zoo is liable. If some idiot set their kid on top of the railing and the kid fell, the fault is pretty clearly not the zoo's. If someone shot a cat to defend a child, would it make a difference which of those two situations preceded the incident? Of course the child is innocent in any case, and I place a higher value on a child's life than an animal's. But it seems like if the safety features were faulty maybe shooting a cat is regrettable but unavoidable, whereas if zoo patrons were being stupid the shooting would have been avoidable and thus there's perhaps a higher level of liability for the shooter.

Just thinking out loud.

nyj wrote:Not the cat's fault...

Yes, by all means, don't go home and shoot or punish your cat. Keep any violence directed at the jaguars. However, feel free to direct violence against any Jaguars in the parking lot.

nyj wrote:Not the cat's fault...

They were doing what God intended them to do.

I'm happy the staff was able to stop the attack. I hope their quick action will spare the jaguars from sharing the fate of Teddy and Lucy at the Brooklyn Zoo.

If the kid was in danger, I would shoot the cat. In time critical situations, warning shots waste time.

Jim Beaux wrote:It depends. If it were a teenager I would let the cats have him.


Disclaimer:

For those easily offended. The above post is a form of humor - something that is rapidly diminishing in our world. Please save all condescending & politically correct replies for the next PETA convention you attend.

MotherBear wrote:I think jaguars may also be an endangered species, so there's a whole 'nother hornet's nest if you start shooting them [...]

To save some kid's life? I'm going to do what I have to do, and if that means I take my chances with the jury, then so be it.

Dave2 wrote:

MotherBear wrote:I think jaguars may also be an endangered species, so there's a whole 'nother hornet's nest if you start shooting them [...]

To save some kid's life? I'm going to do what I have to do, and if that means I take my chances with the jury, then so be it.

Like I said elsewhere in my post, I value a child's life over an animal's, endangered or not. But you're assuming the only way to make sure the kid survives is to shoot a jaguar. Obviously that's not the case: no one shot anything in this situation, or even did anything besides wait for help, and the kid is alive and recovering. I don't know what the outcome of a case would be, but I believe there's a possibility of significant jail time if things went wrong in this hypothetical. Would I save one kid some time in the hospital at the expense of my three kids having a mother around during their childhoods? I think that question is worth some significant thought. You're also assuming the only way to intervene is by shooting. What about a fire extinguisher like the zookeepers used? What about throwing rocks into the enclosure? What about any of the tactics you learn about encounters with big cats in the wild? If I have to use my gun, that's what it's there for. But it's not my go-to solution.

The jaguars, in my opinion, were probabIy using the child as a chew toy. Ive seen videos of jaguars hunting and killing large animals very quickly. Two jaguars could of ended the childs life in seconds. Throwing rocks or using a fire extinguisher would of taken too much time in my opinion. I believe shooting the jaguar would be the best way to get it from further injuring a child. I would of personally shot in this situation.

There have been quit a few posts about shooting the Jaguars. With one cat chewing on his heal & the other on his head as I read the article, shooting a squirming moving cat w/ physical contact to the child would be an extreemly difficult shot. Adrenaline pumping even more so to not hit the child.
Some folks are a lot more sure of their marksmanship than I am.

longtooth wrote:There have been quit a few posts about shooting the Jaguars. With one cat chewing on his heal & the other on his head as I read the article, shooting a squirming moving cat w/ physical contact to the child would be an extreemly difficult shot. Adrenaline pumping even more so to not hit the child.
Some folks are a lot more sure of their marksmanship than I am.