Tragedy today at Pittsburgh Zoo

[Pitts]

Have at it, then.

Listen if you think 4 grown men that outweight these animals by probably 150lbs couldn't have hurt them and kept them off a kid I dunno what to tell you.

Lol...I'd like to see you try. The ignorance of some people amaze me. I've studied these dogs since I was a child. They would tear 4 humans to shreds in minutes.

Wait. Why have you studied these dogs since you were a child?

Lol....I was very much into animals when younger. Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom was my favorite show. I did a lot of reading on all animals. I still watch all the Discovery channels and Animal Planet shows! That is all. I at least know enough to say that 4 humans would be toys to these dogs, even if they were raised in a zoo.

EDIT: Let me add, that is not to say a person(s) would not jump in to save a child. I actually wondered if I would have done that. Animals do not often give me a scare like a lot of other people. With that said, I stand by my point that this child was gone in seconds and no amount of human interference would have saved him. There would have only been more injury and possible death.

[ExPatriatePen]

Have at it, then.

Listen if you think 4 grown men that outweight these animals by probably 150lbs couldn't have hurt them and kept them off a kid I dunno what to tell you.

Lol...I'd like to see you try. The ignorance of some people amaze me. I've studied these dogs since I was a child. They would tear 4 humans to shreds in minutes.

Wait. Why have you studied these dogs since you were a child?

Lol....I was very much into animals when younger. Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom was my favorite show. I did a lot of reading on all animals. I still watch all the Discovery channels and Animal Planet shows! That is all. I at least know enough to say that 4 humans would be toys to these dogs, even if they were raised in a zoo.

Yeah... these dogs have been pack hunters for thousands of years. It's not even as much about their individual strength as it is the quickness of the entire pack. A group of overweight adults wouldn't stand a chance. (unless they were 'carrying' - and theres the NRA 'plug of the day')

[Idoit40fans]

Something I havent seen mentioned, is that I'll bet when these dogs are fed, pieces of meat are tossed into their cage area. In their eyes that child was a piece of meat that was tossed in. They weren't "defending their turf" or "on the hunt"......they were eating a piece of meat thrown into their area.

Big dogs gotta eat

I hate your face.

[newarenanow]

I'm still waiting for the article where the mother was a physc patient and was on a supervised visit, because this article seems to state otherwise.

http://triblive.com/home/2897122-74/zoo ... z2BMliTUJH

[Sarcastic]

I'm still waiting for the article where the mother was a physc patient and was on a supervised visit, because this article seems to state otherwise.

http://triblive.com/home/2897122-74/zoo ... z2BMliTUJH

If anyone here watched their child get torn apart by dogs, they'd end up in the looney bin too. Nothing but sympathy for the mother from me, even if she is responsible. In fact, that's probably why it's so difficult. She knows she should have done better. It's a nightmare for that whole family and I can't imagine the guilt she will have to live with for the rest of her life.

[Idoit40fans]

Who said that she was a psych patient? Sounds idiotic.

[mac5155]

Godric did.

[Idoit40fans]

Makes sense.

[mac5155]

[llipgh2]

I'm still waiting for the article where the mother was a physc patient and was on a supervised visit, because this article seems to state otherwise.

http://triblive.com/home/2897122-74/zoo ... z2BMliTUJH

She is under psychiatric care now, for obvious reasons. She's probably on suicide watch as well.

Her co-worker (of six years) was interviewed on KDKA. She said the mom didn't show up for work Monday, and no one knew why. And then someone called her boss and told him what had happened. He then told all the employees.

The co-worker gave an account of just a regular average person. Both had children the same age, and talked about them to each other.

From all accounts, just the average family, until Sunday.

[Shyster]

That picture of the enclosure. I can only say that if there was no meshing on the middle part, and the bottom net was ineffective, then the whole thing is unsafe and needs to be re-designed. If you have, what is now believed, vicious animals, you better make sure no one gets in there.

Do we really need to do so? I may be wrong, but I believe the most important design goal of zoo enclosures for dangerous animals is to make sure the animals don’t get out, not that people don’t get in. Generally speaking, we assume that people won’t do something so stupid as to enter an enclosure filled with dangerous animals (or let their child stand on a railing over such an enclosure). How much more needs to be done to protect people from themselves? I mean, should we put a safety fence around the Grand Canyon so that people don’t fall in?

[Kraftster]

That picture of the enclosure. I can only say that if there was no meshing on the middle part, and the bottom net was ineffective, then the whole thing is unsafe and needs to be re-designed. If you have, what is now believed, vicious animals, you better make sure no one gets in there.

Do we really need to do so? I may be wrong, but I believe the most important design goal of zoo enclosures for dangerous animals is to make sure the animals don’t get out, not that people don’t get in. Generally speaking, we assume that people won’t do something so stupid as to enter an enclosure filled with dangerous animals (or let their child stand on a railing over such an enclosure). How much more needs to be done to protect people from themselves? I mean, should we put a safety fence around the Grand Canyon so that people don’t fall in?

Its times like this I realize how much Plaintiffs' attorney blood I have running through my body after just four years. / /

[Troy Loney]

I think I just heard an ambulance pass by.

[Idoit40fans]

That picture of the enclosure. I can only say that if there was no meshing on the middle part, and the bottom net was ineffective, then the whole thing is unsafe and needs to be re-designed. If you have, what is now believed, vicious animals, you better make sure no one gets in there.

Do we really need to do so? I may be wrong, but I believe the most important design goal of zoo enclosures for dangerous animals is to make sure the animals don’t get out, not that people don’t get in. Generally speaking, we assume that people won’t do something so stupid as to enter an enclosure filled with dangerous animals (or let their child stand on a railing over such an enclosure). How much more needs to be done to protect people from themselves? I mean, should we put a safety fence around the Grand Canyon so that people don’t fall in?

Its times like this I realize how much Plaintiffs' attorney blood I have running through my body after just four years. / /

I was on the verge of getting angry thinking about this reading your posts in this thread yesterday.

[bh]

That picture of the enclosure. I can only say that if there was no meshing on the middle part, and the bottom net was ineffective, then the whole thing is unsafe and needs to be re-designed. If you have, what is now believed, vicious animals, you better make sure no one gets in there.

Do we really need to do so? I may be wrong, but I believe the most important design goal of zoo enclosures for dangerous animals is to make sure the animals don’t get out, not that people don’t get in. Generally speaking, we assume that people won’t do something so stupid as to enter an enclosure filled with dangerous animals (or let their child stand on a railing over such an enclosure). How much more needs to be done to protect people from themselves? I mean, should we put a safety fence around the Grand Canyon so that people don’t fall in?

The enclosure was bad design. period. When you make anything for the public, you design for safety. I'm a materials engineer and I do failure analyses on small components that cause catostrophic failure in larger systems. I see how bad designs contribute to people dying every day. I still feel the mother was stupid as well, I'm not trying to absolve her form any blame, but I also can't see where safety was was a big concern in the design of that exhibit. It's a terrible unfortunate situation, but, it was easily preventable with a better design. You just can't argue that fact. If there were two layers of fencing, the boy would be alive right now.

The grand canyon wasn't designed by men. It is rediculous to compare it to something that was.

[newarenanow]

I'm still waiting for the article where the mother was a physc patient and was on a supervised visit, because this article seems to state otherwise.

http://triblive.com/home/2897122-74/zoo ... z2BMliTUJH

She is under psychiatric care now, for obvious reasons. She's probably on suicide watch as well.

Her co-worker (of six years) was interviewed on KDKA. She said the mom didn't show up for work Monday, and no one knew why. And then someone called her boss and told him what had happened. He then told all the employees.

The co-worker gave an account of just a regular average person. Both had children the same age, and talked about them to each other.

From all accounts, just the average family, until Sunday.

I agree. I've only read she was under evaluation after the incident. Godric was posting that she was a mental patient on a supervised leave with her family for a trip to the zoo. I have never read that or heard anything like that.

If this happened to my kid, I'd have to be under evaluation too.

[Sarcastic]

That picture of the enclosure. I can only say that if there was no meshing on the middle part, and the bottom net was ineffective, then the whole thing is unsafe and needs to be re-designed. If you have, what is now believed, vicious animals, you better make sure no one gets in there.

Do we really need to do so? I may be wrong, but I believe the most important design goal of zoo enclosures for dangerous animals is to make sure the animals don’t get out, not that people don’t get in. Generally speaking, we assume that people won’t do something so stupid as to enter an enclosure filled with dangerous animals (or let their child stand on a railing over such an enclosure). How much more needs to be done to protect people from themselves? I mean, should we put a safety fence around the Grand Canyon so that people don’t fall in?

I'll say we both agree there are too many stupid people. You're a bright guy, I can tell, even if we're on opposite sides sometimes. But look at the moron who jumped into a bear area a couple weeks back and had his legs bitten off or something. He got screwed up. Now they're suing him, lol. Man. But, yeah, I assume there are enough nuts out there, that you better have some good safety measures built-in in a zoo. A fence in GC or a better one in Niagara Falls would be fine with me.

[Idoit40fans]

There is no need for two layers of fencing.

[bh]

If anyone here watched their child get torn apart by dogs, they'd end up in the looney bin too. Nothing but sympathy for the mother from me, even if she is responsible. In fact, that's probably why it's so difficult. She knows she should have done better. It's a nightmare for that whole family and I can't imagine the guilt she will have to live with for the rest of her life.

:thumb:

[bh]

There is no need for two layers of fencing.

So you would sign off on that enclosure as being safe enough as is?

[Sarcastic]

There is no need for two layers of fencing.

I have a problem with the lack of mesh in the middle of the enclosure. A guy can get drunk and jump in to play with the dogs. OK. Fine if he gets eaten. But if workers jump in to rescue him, they may get eaten too. That's not fine.

[AlexPKeaton]

That picture of the enclosure. I can only say that if there was no meshing on the middle part, and the bottom net was ineffective, then the whole thing is unsafe and needs to be re-designed. If you have, what is now believed, vicious animals, you better make sure no one gets in there.

Do we really need to do so? I may be wrong, but I believe the most important design goal of zoo enclosures for dangerous animals is to make sure the animals don’t get out, not that people don’t get in. Generally speaking, we assume that people won’t do something so stupid as to enter an enclosure filled with dangerous animals (or let their child stand on a railing over such an enclosure). How much more needs to be done to protect people from themselves? I mean, should we put a safety fence around the Grand Canyon so that people don’t fall in?

The enclosure was bad design. period. When you make anything for the public, you design for safety. I'm a materials engineer and I do failure analyses on small components that cause catostrophic failure in larger systems. I see how bad designs contribute to people dying every day. I still feel the mother was stupid as well, I'm not trying to absolve her form any blame, but I also can't see where safety was was a big concern in the design of that exhibit. It's a terrible unfortunate situation, but, it was easily preventable with a better design. You just can't argue that fact. If there were two layers of fencing, the boy would be alive right now.

The grand canyon wasn't designed by men. It is rediculous to compare it to something that was.

I'm an engineer as well and I agree with you. You always design redundant levels of safety, especially when dealing with exhibits that are primarily for children and toddlers. I mean we would already be dead if we designed Nuclear Power plants with 1 layer of safety, even though they are run by highly trained and educated operators and not toddlers.

The zoo is going to get its pants sued off. I was reading in other article that these types of exhibits in other zoos have a 45 degree angle so that even if someone was leaning over the railing they would fall backward and not over. If other zoos have this feature, then a lawyer doesn't even have to work to win this.

[Idoit40fans]

There is no need for two layers of fencing.

So you would sign off on that enclosure as being safe enough as is?

Absolutely.

[Idoit40fans]

especially when dealing with exhibits that are primarily for children and toddlers. I mean we would already be dead if we designed Nuclear Power plants with 1 layer of safety

what?

[llipgh2]

The zoo is going to get its pants sued off. I was reading in other article that these types of exhibits in other zoos have a 45 degree angle so that even if someone was leaning over the railing they would fall backward and not over. If other zoos have this feature, then a lawyer doesn't even have to work to win this.

The Wild Dogs exhibit has the 45 degree angle railing. This was mentioned in the press conference. It tilts in so if parents do sit the child on the railing, the theory is they'll fall foward into the observation area instead of backward into the exhibit.

However, the mom STOOD the little boy on the railing. And probably held him forward to compensate for the slope.