Tiger Attack Could Be Fatal Blow For Zoo

San Fran Zoo, Already Under Fire, Could Lose Its License After Deadly Christmas Attack

(CBS/AP)  The deadly tiger escape at the San Francisco Zoo could prove to be a costly blow to an institution that has come under fire repeatedly in just the past few years over the deaths of two elephants and the mauling of a zookeeper.

The zoo could face heavy fines from regulators. It could be stripped of its exhibitor license. Its accreditation could be at risk. It could be hit with a huge lawsuit by the victims or their families. It could even face criminal charges, depending on what the investigation finds.

"All this legal action is likely to impact the financial viability of the zoo," said Rory Little, a professor at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. "Whether the zoo can stay open is a big question."

The zoo has been closed since Christmas Day, when the 350-pound Siberian tiger escaped from its enclosure and killed a teenager and severely mauled two other visitors. It is becoming increasingly clear the tiger climbed over a wall that at 12 feet 5 inches was about 4 feet below the recommended minimum for U.S. zoos.

Zoo officials said Friday they planned to reopen the facility on Jan. 3.

The zoo will be required to issue a report about the attacks to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' accreditation commission, which will then decide whether to take any action. The association has issued statements in support of the zoo this week, and CEO Jim Maddy said in a statement Friday the zoo is a member in good standing.

The AZA, which has 216 members, typically inspects and accredits zoos every five years, and on average one facility loses its accreditation each year for not meeting association standards, said spokesman Steve Feldman.

The organization didn't renew the San Francisco Zoo's accreditation in January 2005 after a three-day inspection found a number of operational and maintenance problems. The zoo eventually received full accreditation in March 2006 after the AZA found the problems had been corrected.

San Francisco Zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo said the AZA never noted any deficiencies with the wall around the tiger enclosure.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which is responsible for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, also could impose penalties, including fines, or suspend or revoke the zoo's exhibitor license if it is found that the zoo violated federal regulations on animal enclosures, said USDA spokesman Jim Rogers.

USDA inspectors were sent to the zoo to determine if an investigation is warranted, Rogers said.

"They're going to try to determine how the animal got out and whether that violated our regulations," Rogers said. "A facility must have a sufficient barrier between the viewing public and the animals."

Legal experts said lawsuits are also likely. Already, the zoo is facing a lawsuit by zookeeper Lori Komejan, who was attacked last year when she fed the same tiger involved in the deadly escape. The animal mauled her arm.

In October, Komejan sued the city of San Francisco, seeking compensation for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional distress. She accused the city, which owns the zoo property, of "housing the tigers with reckless disregard for the safety of animal handlers and members of the general public."

The California Division of Occupational Health and Safety issued a report that found the zoo at fault for Komejan's injuries. The report said zoo officials knew the big-cat exhibit posed a hazard because the animals could reach under the cage bars. The agency fined the zoo $18,000 and ordered safety improvements.

The zoo added customized steel mesh over the bars, built in a feeding chute and increased the distance between the public and the cats.

CBS News affiliate KPIX reporter Simon Perez reports that several San Francisco supervisors are worried about potential lawsuits against the city. A close look at the zoo's lease however, appears to let the city off the hook. Although the families of the victims could sue the city, the lease between the zoo and the city explicitly states that the zoo is ultimately liable for "any injury to or death of any person…in, on or about the Zoo premises."

Komejan's attorney, Michael Mandel, said he sees parallels between Komejan's case and the Christmas Day rampage, when the tiger killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. and mauled his friends Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23.

"In both cases, there were certainly insufficient safeguards to protect both employees and the public," Mandel said.

In the latest attack, Mandel said: "I find it hard to accept the fact that they weren't even aware that the wall didn't meet the standard set by the association. They're not even aware of their own deficiencies."

Three years ago, two elephants died at the zoo, prompting it to remove its remaining elephants to an animal sanctuary. Animal activists complained about conditions at the zoo, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed tough requirements that forced the zoo to extensively refurbish habitats for other animals.

Among the lawsuits that the zoo could face would be those filed by the victims and their families, even if investigators find that the Sousa and his friends had provoked the tiger or ignored warnings not to taunt the animals, Little said.

"Inevitably, there are going to be lawsuits filed," Little said. "Even if they provoked the tiger, a reasonable person would believe that the tiger could not escape. That's what you count on when you go to the zoo. You count on the idea that the animals cannot reach you."

It is also possible that the zoo could face criminal charges of negligent homicide if the investigation finds the zoo contributed to the death and injuries of the victims, he said.

The two surviving victims could also be charged with a crime if they are found to have caused or contributed to Sousa's death, even unintentionally, he said.

Meanwhile late Friday, police released a transcript of dispatch chatter from the night of the attack. The transcript reveals that zoo security briefly made officers wait to enter as zoo employees responded with tranquilizers.

It wasn't clear from the transcript how long police were kept out of the zoo.

Police have never indicated their response was hindered by any delays, and police Chief Heather Fong has praised the response of the officers for their quick action and collaborative work with the zoo staff.

According to the transcript, police were called to investigate a disturbance at 5:08 p.m. The document said at 5:17 p.m., a dispatcher noted zoo security was not letting officers in.

"Zoo personnel have the tiger in sight and are dealing with it," the transcript reads. "The (victim) is inside a cafe at the other side of the zoo."

The transcript does not indicate when the emergency responders were let in, but by 5:20 p.m. the medics had located one victim.

As more emergency responders raced to the scene and medics attended to the victim, at 5:25 p.m. a dispatch that was sent read that an officer had spotted the tiger.

At 5:27 p.m. the officers began firing at the animal.

[dreamwhiz1]

The punks got what they deserved.Taunting a wild zoo animal should carry a 3 month jail term,minimum. The real victim in all this is the tiger, one of the very few still living on this earth.It reacted to its perceived threat just the way its instincts told it to.Bury the dead punk deep.Put the other 2 in a cage and throw rocks at them for 3 months. And for gods sake, show no sympathy for the ignorant family.

[yeahsure69]

well it seems the wall is to low.

But I''m going to be blunt. Those animals are well fed. They are more comfortable in their recognized element which in this case was their pen in the zoo. They wouldn''t have decided just to leap that wall by themselves because they were bored. That animal was taunted simple as that. It was goaded into leaving what was it''s comfort zone to deal with a new threat that it considered as just that a threat. I garantee that animal considered its course of action and decided that leaping that way was the best way to deal with this new threat.

Was the zoo at fault ? No not at all. It was certified by the AZA who raised no flags over the walls height.

In the end that zoo will be shut down and what will happen to the animals ? So because of 3 morons who believed they were larger than life they have to suffer ?

the individuals that taunted a top predator even above a human being in its own habitat asked for what happened. You do not taunt an animal like that even when you think you are safe.

[rohink-2009]

The one youth that died and the other two that were injured would be alive today if they hadn''t taunted the tiger. I have a question for the zoo employee that got her arm mauled by the tiger. Why in the h*ll did you get close enough to it to get attacked?

[slim1h2o]

Depends on your definition of ''''justice''''! In Darwinism, that is the justice that ''''stupidity'''' deserves.

Posted by ToolMangler at 01:40 PM : Dec 30, 2007

As Forrest Gump would say....." Stupid is,,as stupid dpoes

[toolmangler-2009]

but no ways does justice call for DEATH for stupidity.
Posted by mcv57 at 12:14 AM : Dec 30, 2007



Depends on your definition of ''justice''! In Darwinism, that is the justice that ''stupidity'' deserves.

[bfranklin9]

Big deal. One less mexican. I''d settle for a 12 foot fence on the border.

[rushlimpdrug]

The responsible parties for all this mess are
1. The San Francisco Zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo and

2. The AZA

These two retards are the points of accountability the city relies on for properly operate the zoo.

"The city" transfers responsibilty to these two as a matter of maintining proper control of such an entity.

The only reason the city is being held accountable is for the money hungry lawyers and the "terrible loss" the family of the "victims" have incurred.

The zoo director, people at the AZA, Jack Hanna, and the fathers of the three should be caged in the zoo.
I''d pay good money to see that.

[Krazcarl]

Zoo''s should be baned period they have 0 use besides somewhere to take the faimly on your day off. I see 0 thrill in caged animals if you want to see caged animals go to the local prison....

[offtheback]

Posted by mcv57

no ways does justice call for DEATH for stupidity...

Perhpas not the criminal justice system, but fortunatly the much higher power, the laws of nature do.

So long cat food...

[offtheback]

Posted by Tigeress33

That has got to be the gayest comment I have ever read!!!!

Brilliant!!! What are you, 10 or so?

[sgtrds]

They were as*sholes who went to the zoo to find trouble and they found it teasing a wild animal. That makes them at the very least too genetically stupid to be allowed to live and at the worst cruel. Either way they got what they deserved. I''m glad the one is out of the gene pool and sorry the other two aren''t. Here''s hoping that at least they learned a lesson, even if it did have to come at the expense of an animal that was better and more valuable in the world then they.

[blackbug99]

A Moron teasing the cat should be a guard tasering the idiot case. Yes, tigers will be tigers, but this zoo didn''t provide the safety to the public to allow such tasering. In the end "idiot boys''" friend dies saving him. Two innocent lives were lost...The heros'' and the animal who wasn''t protected from its instinct. Four more feet of wall and we have a jerk with a big fine and a pissed off but alive natural treasure.

[mcv57]

SgtRDS,
You are a gaint as*s* hole.

[mcv57]

I have no sympathy at all for the punks or their families. None.

Posted by SgtRDS

You surely are an ***. It is clear that the San Francisco Zoo was in violation of safety code (wall was 12 feet; not 18 feet as outlined. Teenage dumb*As*ses yes, but no ways does justice call for DEATH for stupidity. Maybe, we should slap a 5 lb. steak on your head then have you test other zoo tiger security integrity around the country. You are an gaint ****ho*le.

[tigeress33-2009]

lambofgoth:

That has got to be the gayest comment I have ever read!!!!

[lambofgoth]

Just to build on what that kook UserVerified rambled, I think it''s Bush''s fault. I mean, this cat was clearly a fascist. Probably seeking to destroy Al-qaida. Probably was storing weapons of mass destruction in her den. I wonder if the ''pubs had some intelligence on this tiger. She probably worked for Bin Laden. Or worse... Hillary!
Yeah... that''s it. That''s My story and I am sticking to it.

[sgtrds]

Tigeress33

I agree. The tiger was just being a tiger. The trouble making punks were being punks. The real victims here are the tiger and the people who might have their zoo closed. I have no sympathy at all for the punks or their families. None.

[tigeress33-2009]

I still don''t understand what you all are talking about. The "cat" killed someone...humm? Let''s think about this rationally a "tiger" attacks its prey. If this story was told in some country in Africa you all would be saying well serves that guy right for being out there where tigers prey, I think all of you have forgotten that this is a wild animal and it%u2019s the price people pay to see them caged up. I mean how would you feel if you weren''t able to roam about freely. Be glad he didn''t attack more. Unprovoked attacks, is just plain BS. To hunt is in this animals DNA. Stop persecuting the tiger for doing what he does naturally.

[offtheback]

Posted by ilikecats1
Pretty sicko. Do they let you out often or did you escape?

I like cats too, in fact I am graced each day by the presence of 2 currently. I realize, however that they are animals and when we play slap or some such game I don''t cry when I bleed. Nor do I retaliate. It''s part of the game with a domestic animal. I have an IQ above tree moss and would never "play" with an animal that can and will kill me as part of the game. They don''t see the difference. GET IT?
I have grown up with domestic and wild animals, encountered bears in the woods and many other such, never been harmed. These s***bags did something that, by the rules of nature got them what is dictated by those rules. I could not have protected them, nor would I have. They made themselves cat food.
Again, good riddance cat food...
And yes I''m out quite often. Care to play?

[userverfied]

This is all the Libs fault. Animal rights activists refused to destroy the cat even though it has had this kind of known history for many years.