Zoo logic ridiculous
Published: Thursday, Jan. 3, 2013, 9:01 p.m.
In response to the letter “In tragedy's wake I” (Dec. 8 and TribLIVE.com) by Samantha Routh, who thinks the African painted dogs should be moved from the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium to another one: Don't be ridiculous.
In the first place, lions and tigers and bears, oh my — and other wild carnivores, too — are displayed at our zoo. They view us as prey, as nature intends. We view them as dangerous, which is why they are kept in barricaded areas. Viewers are expected to understand that basic concept and not place themselves or others in danger by violating these barriers intended to separate and protect both species.
Shall we move all carnivores to another zoo? That doesn't even make sense. If they were too dangerous for our zoo, why would another zoo want them? How could we justify passing them on?
I once saw a group of kids, with supervising (?) adults present, throwing stones at the bears. I hunted for a zoo employee to report this and found one long after the party had moved on. Perhaps there should be emergency telephones throughout the zoo. I don't know if that would have been helpful in this case, but it would have helped the bears.
If Ms. Routh put her children on the wall, she is lucky this didn't happen to her, and I can't imagine why she would think others have done the same.
So I caution all: Zoos have dangerous animals. Stay well behind barriers. If you don't understand this, stay home.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More overreach
- Unconstitutional funding
- Christians must vote
- Legacy: All lose
- Roenigk stands for safety
- Delinquents often the working poor
- Prevailing wage misunderstood
- Praise undeserved
- Not another prison
- Mayors & guns
- Promises not kept