So, by now you probably heard that the moat and the wall at the San Francisco Zoo’s Tiger Grotto was substandard.

How can that happen? Easy, same way the Lion House was a safety hazard–the place is old.

One of the jokes that used to be made at one private zoo and animal acting facility I worked for was that if you distracted the inspector enough, you could get away with most anything.

Sometimes they didn’t really know the standards, either. Unless you measured you wouldn’t know.

Reminds me of those lions who had to be locked up when the dirt flowed down to one end of the enclosure–just enough motivation and they would have got out.

Tatiana had the motivation and did.

So, I am guessing it really was a lucky leap–and can’t wait to hear the statements from the two hospitalized victims.

SF Zoo Tiger Grotto Wall Fails to Meet Stated Recommendations

I enjoyed reading the NY Times article on the San Francisco tiger attack this morning but I also posted a theory for my readers about the taunted tiger and a lucky leap. Waiting on Critter CSI for the verdict…

Which brings me to the question, who will be liable if that is the case? Would teasing a member of an endangered species to the point of retaliation that results in the death of the tiger (and the alleged instigator) put the liablity outside of the zoo and city of San Francisco?