Child mauled by tapir at Dublin Zoo!!! :(

The_Valeyard

Well at least all are recovering well.

But still though,

A mother and a newborn, isnt that biology 101? Even dogs and cats can be very protective of their young, not matter how friendly or well known you are.

Common sense, so rare it should be a super-power.

Yellow121

remsburgsgirl wrote: »

:pac:

Would 'time served' count in her sentencing?

1ZRed wrote: »

She lives in a zoo ffs

It's hardly the amazon for her

Take her freedom, she'll think twice about eating babies then.
Like she will be fed and she can have visitors come to see her but she can never leave.

**Vai**

Yellow121 wrote: »

Why is everyone excusing this tapir?
If I entered someone's house with a 2 year old in my arms and there was mother of a newborn in the house, then she attacks my baby and me for no reason, biting my babies belly and all. It would result in her heading to prison.
What I'm saying is, this tapir should be locked up for a good long time, that'll teach her.

Are you seriously comparing a tapir to us in regard to protecting offspring?

Shes already locked up, shes a zoo animal.

Neeson

Why is that animal still prancing around. Should be taken out with a chainsaw.

remsburgsgirl

**Vai** wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing a tapir to us in regard to protecting offspring?

Shes already locked up, shes a zoo animal.

I am assuming that Yellow121 is joking.........I am hoping that Yellow121 is joking! :rolleyes:

eire-kp

Hmmm some serious lack of common sense on the handlers part here or who ever gave the go ahead for this. Coming from a farming background I wouldn't let a two year old near a ewe and lamb never mind a tapir. Sure nothing would happen with most and but there's allways one that will turn and try to give you a good belt.
I'm not familiar with Tapirs a behavior would there be any warning signs? Would any Zoologists on here fill us in?
E.g. a Ewe stamping the ground with it's front hoof to tell you to keep your distance. Followed by a snort if you get closer then followed by a good attempt to dunt you...and they don't bite.

Yellow121

remsburgsgirl wrote: »

I am assuming that Yellow121 is joking.........I am hoping that Yellow121 is joking! :rolleyes:

At least someone gets me.

Culpepper

Yellow121 wrote: »

At least someone gets me.

As long as Ma Tapir doesn't

footstool

Does any1 remember the tiger attack on that girl bout 6yrs back or more in Dublin Zoo?
That poor animal was destroyed because a drunken ass 16yr girl taught it would be a good idea to climb over the protection fence and up to the back of the enclosure and stick her arm in to rub 1...and what happened, she got mauled!

People are idiots! I've said it before and say it again! Just because it is rared in a zoo from being a cub, piglet or what not, doesnt mean its going to let you cuddle it, or better still leave you in it's territory...

Rio is a very placid, gentle animal..met her a couple of times..but when a baby of hers is approached by strangers, what do you think she is really going to do? Its in her instinct to protect her baby, from anything that she feels might be a treat. Sure she is gentle to her zookeepers, course she is, she knows they wont harm her, or her baby, but strangers approaching...what do you think is going to happen?

If she is shyed away from the public, that just proves, Ireland is a joke in animal welfare..make that a further joke..

steddyeddy

footstool wrote: »

Does any1 remember the tiger attack on that girl bout 6yrs back or more in Dublin Zoo?
That poor animal was destroyed because a drunken ass 16yr girl taught it would be a good idea to climb over the protection fence and up to the back of the enclosure and stick her arm in to rub 1...and what happened, she got mauled!

People are idiots! I've said it before and say it again! Just because it is rared in a zoo from being a cub, piglet or what not, doesnt mean its going to let you cuddle it, or better still leave you in it's territory...

Rio is a very placid, gentle animal..met her a couple of times..but when a baby of hers is approached by strangers, what do you think she is really going to do? Its in her instinct to protect her baby, from anything that she feels might be a treat. Sure she is gentle to her zookeepers, course she is, she knows they wont harm her, or her baby, but strangers approaching...what do you think is going to happen?

If she is shyed away from the public, that just proves, Ireland is a joke in animal welfare..make that a further joke..

It is indeed. We ave a long way to go!

The_Valeyard

footstool wrote: »

Does any1 remember the tiger attack on that girl bout 6yrs back or more in Dublin Zoo?
That poor animal was destroyed because a drunken ass 16yr girl taught it would be a good idea to climb over the protection fence and up to the back of the enclosure and stick her arm in to rub 1...and what happened, she got mauled!

That animal was destroyed!!!!!

footstool

The_Valeyard wrote: »

That animal was destroyed!!!!!

Sadly yes...he had a taste for human blood, and it is believed that is a carnivore tastes blood they are thirsty for that sort of blood forever...to be honest I think that is a stupid theory as it has yet to be proven, till then animals will be destroyed till proven other wise..

General General

Child should sue parents.

This post was brought to you by my not reading most of the thread.

Judgement Day

And for some light relief on a similar theme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaw-savyK0s

The_Valeyard

footstool wrote: »

Sadly yes...he had a taste for human blood, and it is believed that is a carnivore tastes blood they are thirsty for that sort of blood forever...to be honest I think that is a stupid theory as it has yet to be proven, till then animals will be destroyed till proven other wise..

Should have destroyed that drunken sprog instead. Poor animal just did what an animal does.

fryup

they seem to have an attitude problem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77PInI87SBs

The_Valeyard

Hahahaha!!!


"Ah Jesus"

Bullseye1

No doubt FG will add this species to some restricted list and they will have to wear a muzzle in pubic etc etc.

ebbsy

Bullseye1 wrote: »

No doubt FG will add this species to some restricted list and they will have to wear a muzzle in pubic etc etc.

And you will need a F$$king licence to have one.

Mind you some people should need a licence to have children, judging by this story.

jack presley

"Dublin Zoo can assure the public that no harm or punishment will come to the tapir as a result of this incident."

At least they're showing some common sense now. Pity they didn't have any a few days ago.

Noreen1

vitani wrote: »

Maybe the keeper didn't have a choice. It wouldn't surprise me if management 'encouraged' them to keep supervised visits going.

Having said that, there's still no need to have a 2 year old in the enclosure though. It's older children who'd benefit more, and could be trusted to behave more respectfully. 2 year olds would be as excited by seeing cows and sheep.

You'd be surprised how many cows or sheep would attack, if they feel their young are in danger.
The most placid animal can seem like an entirely different species, if they don't trust a person who is in close proximity to their offspring - and they generally don't trust strangers.

remsburgsgirl wrote: »

Dublin Zoo deserve a slap on the wrist for this...I would have thought they'd have a bit more respect for their animals being new mama's...and would have thought they had a bit more cop on and knowledge not to have visits into a new mums enclosure...

And the mother of the two year old....don't get me started on her

Why?
We know nothing about the poor woman!
She may know nothing whatsoever about animal behaviour - so how can you hold her responsible?

The truth is, that animal behavioural basics, to those who have experience with animals, are a completely unknown area to someone who has no experience with animals.
As people become more urbanised, they understand less and less about animals, being limited to experience of whatever domesticated pets they may have interacted with - and some of those pets can also be very protective of their young, even with people they know, and trust.

In other words, any animal, no matter how docile, can be unpredictable when they have young offspring.
Not everyone understands this, nor should it be taken for granted that they understand it!

Rosy Posy

I agree with the above- the fault is entirely with the zoo not the parent, they are supposed to be the experts ffs. In today's litigious society you'd imagine that the zoo wouldn't let you in near a potentially dangerous animal.

remsburgsgirl

Noreen1 wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many cows or sheep would attack, if they feel their young are in danger.
The most placid animal can seem like an entirely different species, if they don't trust a person who is in close proximity to their offspring - and they generally don't trust strangers.



Why?
We know nothing about the poor woman!
She may know nothing whatsoever about animal behaviour - so how can you hold her responsible?

The truth is, that animal behavioural basics, to those who have experience with animals, are a completely unknown area to someone who has no experience with animals.
As people become more urbanised, they understand less and less about animals, being limited to experience of whatever domesticated pets they may have interacted with - and some of those pets can also be very protective of their young, even with people they know, and trust.

In other words, any animal, no matter how docile, can be unpredictable when they have young offspring.
Not everyone understands this, nor should it be taken for granted that they understand it!

Because she is meant to be the responsible adult in her child's life...some common cop on is all that is needed...sure, bring the child into the enclosure, but don't go putting the child down so that she is vulnerable to being hurt...even if you don't know animal behaviour...you know an animal can run you over easily, especially if you are the same height...and if you are oblivious to even the most basic of animal behaviour my opinion is you have no right bringing a 2 year old near said animal

Culpepper

remsburgsgirl wrote: »

Because she is meant to be the responsible adult in her child's life...some common cop on is all that is needed...sure, bring the child into the enclosure, but don't go putting the child down so that she is vulnerable to being hurt...even if you don't know animal behaviour...you know an animal can run you over easily, especially if you are the same height...and if you are oblivious to even the most basic of animal behaviour my opinion is you have no right bringing a 2 year old near said animal

from the Sun Independent today:

It is believed that the mother was holding the child while they petted the female tapir, Rio. The animal suddenly turned on the toddler, biting her in the stomach, drawing blood.

The animal gave birth to a calf last month, but sources said that it was thought the child's squeal of delight could have caused the animal to panic.

read more: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/tapir-attack-victims-on-visit-arranged-by-zoo-staff-29489370.html

It would happen so fast that the mother of the child would have no time to react to the initial attack. Neither would any of us for that matter.

But whether Dublin Zoo should allow that type of interaction with what is after all a wild animal is what needs to be revised now.

Yellow121

Has this tapir been locked up yet?

jack presley

Yellow121 wrote: »

Has this tapir been locked up yet?

Out on bail. Will probably commit more crimes before the trial as well.

Judgement Day

I should have thought that already being in the Zoo constituted being 'locked-up'.

Yellow121

jack presley wrote: »

Out on bail. Will probably commit more crimes before the trial as well.

Disgraceful justice system.

RustyNut

remsburgsgirl wrote: »

Because she is meant to be the responsible adult in her child's life...some common cop on is all that is needed...sure, bring the child into the enclosure, but don't go putting the child down so that she is vulnerable to being hurt...even if you don't know animal behaviour...you know an animal can run you over easily, especially if you are the same height...and if you are oblivious to even the most basic of animal behaviour my opinion is you have no right bringing a 2 year old near said animal

As a parent I think your opinion is just wrong. Kids should be exposed to as much as possible in order to produce well rounded adults.

The biggest risk that kid faced that day was the drive to the zoo, people are killed every day in cars should we condemn parents who bring their kids out for a drive because it might go wrong ?

An error of judgement on behalf of the zoo no doubt but I think the vast majority of parents would have jumped at the opportunity of a close encounter with an apparently placid animal while accompanied by an expert zoo keeper.

Sometimes everybody does what seems best and then siht just happens.

Culpepper

RustyNut wrote: »

As a parent I think your opinion is just wrong. Kids should be exposed to as much as possible in order to produce well rounded adults.

The biggest risk that kid faced that day was the drive to the zoo, people are killed every day in cars should we condemn parents who bring their kids out for a drive because it might go wrong ?

An error of judgement on behalf of the zoo no doubt but I think the vast majority of parents would have jumped at the opportunity of a close encounter with an apparently placid animal while accompanied by an expert zoo keeper.

Sometimes everybody does what seems best and then siht just happens.

spot on

Ziegfeldgirl27

This is why I say children and animals do not mix. I currently have a pet cat and dog, and when children visit here first thing I do is put my pets outside or lock them up.

If a two year old was squealing near me I would flip out too. Animals are not here for our entertainment, or to entertain children.

It absolutely baffles me when animals attack children, why people are surprised. If animals could talk I am sure they would say "please don't touch me" or "please leave me alone". But they can't, and the only way they can get their point across is by biting.

remsburgsgirl

RustyNut wrote: »

As a parent I think your opinion is just wrong. Kids should be exposed to as much as possible in order to produce well rounded adults.

The biggest risk that kid faced that day was the drive to the zoo, people are killed every day in cars should we condemn parents who bring their kids out for a drive because it might go wrong ?

An error of judgement on behalf of the zoo no doubt but I think the vast majority of parents would have jumped at the opportunity of a close encounter with an apparently placid animal while accompanied by an expert zoo keeper.

Sometimes everybody does what seems best and then siht just happens.

If you see my previous posts you would see I believe the main blame is very much with the zoo keeper.
Believe me , my children are not sheltered whatsoever...hopefully this parent has learnt a lesson, animals can behave in random ways at the worst possible moment, anyone who has no experience or cop on when it comes to animal behaviour should keep their kids at arms length from animals.

Whether the child was up in mothers arms or down she was still close enough to receive a bite, too close for any 2 year old, even my kids at that age, and they grew up on a farm with horses & other animals

vitani

Noreen1 wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many cows or sheep would attack, if they feel their young are in danger.
The most placid animal can seem like an entirely different species, if they don't trust a person who is in close proximity to their offspring - and they generally don't trust strangers.

My point was that there's little benefit in showing an exotic animal up close to a 2 year old, compared to the benefit that an older child would get out of it.

My own daughter is the same age and she gets excited whenever she sees a dog on the street. She wouldn't understand that seeing a tapir is supposed to mean more or be more special, and a supervised visit like that would essentially be wasted on her.

remsburgsgirl

vitani wrote: »

My point was that there's little benefit in showing an exotic animal up close to a 2 year old, compared to the benefit that an older child would get out of it.

My own daughter is the same age and she gets excited whenever she sees a dog on the street. She wouldn't understand that seeing a tapir is supposed to mean more or be more special, and a supervised visit like that would essentially be wasted on her.

That's very true, when my toddler was at the zoo she got more excited about the ducks in the pond than anything else...we spent most of the day looking at the ducks...and she see's ducks around farms weekly here :pac:

kowloon

Accidents happen, if there was widespread endangerment of children in the zoo this would happen all the time. That said, there's a reason there's a section in the zoo with safer animals. But even a goat or a chicken can harm a child, it happens. I wouldn't like to see the zoo so afraid of compensation claims that they put up guard towers around the Jungle Fowl.

Noreen1

remsburgsgirl wrote: »

Because she is meant to be the responsible adult in her child's life...some common cop on is all that is needed...sure, bring the child into the enclosure, but don't go putting the child down so that she is vulnerable to being hurt...even if you don't know animal behaviour...you know an animal can run you over easily, especially if you are the same height...and if you are oblivious to even the most basic of animal behaviour my opinion is you have no right bringing a 2 year old near said animal

Since she had the child in her arms, I presume she thought the little girl was at a safe height. Bear in mind that a tapir is around the same height as a pig!

Also, the media tends to portray animals in a very romantic light, with countless films about wild animals developing an attachment to humans etc.

There is no point in blaming the mother - she presumably thought her child was safe, and, in all fairness, was injured herself while protecting the child.

I'm personally of the opinion that children should not be exposed to unfamiliar animals who have recently given birth - but I'm experienced in handling animals, having been raised on a farm.
Those without experience of animals tend to believe the experts - and I don't think it's fair to blame them for their lack of knowledge.

God knows, it's not as if people who are experienced animal handlers don't occasionally get injured.
There's always a certain amount of risk around animals. That risk is magnified when they have young. That's the truth - and education is the key, not blame, or preventing children from having any access to animals.

I'd agree that bringing a 2 year old into an enclosure with an unfamiliar animal and her young was unwise - but I don't blame the mother.
I'm sure if she was aware of the risk, she wouldn't have taken it.

vitani wrote: »

My point was that there's little benefit in showing an exotic animal up close to a 2 year old, compared to the benefit that an older child would get out of it.

My own daughter is the same age and she gets excited whenever she sees a dog on the street. She wouldn't understand that seeing a tapir is supposed to mean more or be more special, and a supervised visit like that would essentially be wasted on her.

I'd agree that there is little benefit to a two year old.
The truth is, a two year old is unlikely to remember the experience for long enough to make it worthwhile.

There's also the fact that both very young children, and animals with young can both be unpredictable.
Personally, I wouldn't bring a two year old into an enclosure with any strange animal who had recently given birth.
I'm not willing to jump on the "Blame the parents!" bandwagon either, though!

Judgement Day

Do they still have the "Pets Corner" in the Zoo? If so, that's where 'close encounters' should take place. I should imagine that the Zoo's insurance company will now insist that the practice of 'close encounters' be discontinued.

vitani

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'd agree that there is little benefit to a two year old.
The truth is, a two year old is unlikely to remember the experience for long enough to make it worthwhile.

There's also the fact that both very young children, and animals with young can both be unpredictable.
Personally, I wouldn't bring a two year old into an enclosure with any strange animal who had recently given birth.
I'm not willing to jump on the "Blame the parents!" bandwagon either, though!

Oh, I'm not on a 'blame the parents' rant. I feel incredibly sorry for the mother. She'll probably never forget the terror of watching her child be attacked.

It's more just surprise or a kind of wonder that the zoo condones supervised visits with such young children. I'd have thought there'd be a lower age limit on some things, even just an unofficial one.

And I absolutely agree that it shouldn't have happened at all with an animal who'd recently given birth. New mothers in every species are known to be protective of their young. It's common sense to leave them alone.

ARCD

footstool wrote: »

Does any1 remember the tiger attack on that girl bout 6yrs back or more in Dublin Zoo?
That poor animal was destroyed because a drunken ass 16yr girl taught it would be a good idea to climb over the protection fence and up to the back of the enclosure and stick her arm in to rub 1...and what happened, she got mauled!

The_Valeyard wrote: »

That animal was destroyed!!!!!

footstool wrote: »

Sadly yes...he had a taste for human blood, and it is believed that is a carnivore tastes blood they are thirsty for that sort of blood forever...to be honest I think that is a stupid theory as it has yet to be proven, till then animals will be destroyed till proven other wise..

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Should have destroyed that drunken sprog instead. Poor animal just did what an animal does.

Just to clear this up, the tiger in question was NOT destroyed. Out of the 3 tigers present at the time of the incident (2006), the male "Turlough" moved to Longleat Safari Park in 2011, while the two females "Shilka" and "Zeya" both still reside in Dublin Zoo.

As for the Tapir incident, I hope all involved make a speedy recovery. Sounds like it was more of a freak accident than negligence but Dublin Zoo will need to look at their procedures. Just because nothing happened the first 1000 times, doesn't mean it wont happen on the 1001st. Likewise just because one incident occurred doesn't make it dangerous. I dont know the full story of what exactly happened so I'm not going to make any further judgements

Pretty Polly

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/staff-member-set-up-zoo-trip-that-ended-in-tapir-attack-29491483.html
It’s emerged that the pair were taking part in a special visit to the zoo which had been organised by a member of staff.

It’s understood that the employee was a zookeeper who knew the family personally.

The mother and daughter were escorted into an enclosure which contained four tapir.

The mother is believed to have been holding her child while she petted one of the animals.

But the female tapir suddenly turned on the child, biting her in the stomach.

BeerWolf

Lets divert back to that other thread with regards to the dolphin, and have it put down!

/rabble rabble rabble