By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, April 24, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
I was amused by the letter “Zoo logic” (April 22). “Zoo illogic” would have been a more apropos headline, as the writer second-guessed the zoo regarding the decisions about the African painted dogs. He then attempted to link that decision to an elephant killing its keeper a decade ago.
I was troubled by the writer linking of these two seemingly divergent, random events, but his letter reminded me of management's lack of logic in removing these animals.
While one can bemoan the tragic events that led to the death of a child, one can hardly blame the painted dogs for doing what wild animals do instinctively.
Sending these animals to another zoo seems silly to me. In doing so, does the zoo shift the blame to the animals? Should the dogs have behaved more responsibly?
Does this act somehow exonerate zoo management? What about the other natural predators there — are they one tragic accident away from banishment?
These are just some troubling questions regarding how institutions seek to protect themselves from legal exposure and responsibility in this age of litigation.
Dennis R. Jones
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.
- Medicaid’s future
- Slots & property taxes
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Putin’s actions I
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Math in common?