Posted on 01/05/2008 4:26:41 AM PST by repinwi
I’m betting the Architectural DESIGN Firm is going to get sued on this. Of course, someone had to approve the plans.
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 9, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2007]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 9CFR3.78][Page 80-81]
TITLE 9--ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS
CHAPTER I--ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION
SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREPART 3_STANDARDS--Table of Contents
Subpart D_Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care,
Treatment, and Transportation of Nonhuman PrimatesSec. 3.78 0utdoor housing facilities.
(d) Perimeter fence. On and after February 15, 1994, an outdoor housing facility must be enclosed by a fence that is of sufficient height to keep unwanted species out. Fences less than 6 feet high must be approved by the Administrator. The fence must be constructed so that it protects nonhuman primates by restricting unauthorized humans, and animals the size of dogs, skunks, and raccoons from going through it or under it and having contact with the nonhuman primates. It must be of sufficient distance from the outside wall or fence of the primary enclosure to prevent physical contact between animals inside the enclosure and outside the perimeter fence. Such fences less than 3 feet in distance from the primary enclosure must be approved by the Administrator. A perimeter fence is not required if:
(1) The outside walls of the primary enclosure are made of a sturdy, durable material such as concrete, wood, plastic, metal, or glass, and are high enough and constructed in a manner that restricts contact with or entry by humans and animals that are outside the housing facility; or
(2) The housing facility is surrounded by a natural barrier that restricts the nonhuman primates to the housing facility and protects them from contact with unauthorized humans and animals that are outside the housing facility, and the Administrator gives written permission.
(e) Public barriers. Fixed public exhibits housing nonhuman primates, such as zoos, must have a barrier between the primary enclosure and the public at any time the public is present, in order to restrict physical contact between the public and the nonhuman primates.
Nonhuman primates used in trained animal acts or in uncaged public exhibits must be under the direct control and supervision of an experienced handler or trainer at all times when the public is present.
Trained nonhuman primates may be allowed physical contact with the public, but only if they are under the direct control and supervision of an experienced handler or trainer at all times during the contact.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0093)
Tilson agrees with several experts that if the enclosure had met height requirements the animal could not have jumped out on its own."I don't believe that it was just the taunting that made the animal -- the tiger -- so angry that it just decided to jump out," said Tilson. "I think that something else happened in between that aided the tiger in getting out."
Obviously so. See my post #202....
However, they are considered “RECOMMENDATIONS” and are not legally enforceable.
Agreed. But to get a license to house an animal, the government has requirements, not “standards.”
My understanding with federal requirements is that while there are always the minimum requirements, a state or other entity is free to INCREASE or make more stringent requirements, but not allowed to reduce or make less stringent requirements. For some reason, however, the federal requirements here appear to allow for a case-by-case exception to the 6 foot high perimeter fence requirement. Obviously, if a caged animal is 6 feet below ground level, a fence may not need the same height as a cage that is at ground level.
Komejan must be an idiot. She must have convinced her prospective employers at one time, that she had a brain and could handle the job. Which was being around, and handling tigers. Now after having screwed up big time, she's claiming she needed a keeper, to keep her from harming herself on the job she formerly claimed competence at.
If the zoo installed door latches that worked only infrequently on random basis, there'd be a rational basis for the suit. In this case there is none. The woman was simply careless and oblivious. The zoo paid for her med expenses, and that's all she should get.
In any event, according to Federal Regulations ANY enclosure "must" be constructed so that it protects nonhuman primates by restricting unauthorized humans, and animals the size of dogs, skunks, and raccoons from going through it or under it and having contact with the nonhuman primates.
Saying "must" is not saying it "recommends." Unauthorized humans are NOT to have contact with zoo animals and vice versa, of course.
Why are you referring to a fed reg that applies only to nonhuman primates and attempting to apply it to cat enclosures?
According to you. According to the zoo, there are ALWAYS two keepers with dangerous animals; one keeper is never alone with them.
We shall see what the judge/arbitrator decides.
But one thing remains obvious, the tiger got out of its cage, and it should not have.
TITLE 9—ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS
CHAPTER I—ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
"Subpart D_Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Nonhuman Primates"
Federal Laws Protect Zoo Animals, Not VisitorsAnd when you find a "more accurate" regulation, feel free to post it.When a Siberian tiger escaped from its enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Day, killing a teenager before being itself killed by police, many people incorrectly assumed that some federal law must oversee the safety of zoo visitors. In fact, federal regulations relating to zoos protect the animals from the animal watchers.
Enacted to enforce the federal Animal Welfare Act, regulations adopted in 1994 require only that outdoor exhibit facilities housing wild animals be enclosed by a fence of "sufficient height" to keep "unwanted species" -- including humans -- out.
"Fixed public exhibits housing nonhuman primates, such as zoos, must have a barrier between the primary enclosure and the public at any time the public is present, in order to restrict physical contact between the public and the nonhuman primates." (Title 9, Sec. 3.78 -- Code of Federal Regulations)The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service enforces the Animal Protection Act to ensure the safety of wild animals confined in zoos, circuses and marine mammal parks. The USDA regulates the care of all animals exhibited to the public or used in research or teaching.According to an AP report, a USDA inspector will determine if the tiger enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo was sufficient to prevent tiger-human interaction.
Under the USDA's realm of authority, if an insufficient enclosure contributed to the tiger's ability to interact with humans, which ultimately resulted in the death of the tiger, further enforcement action could be warranted.
Well said
There were lots of folks present. Only Komejan's brain is wired to her body and that brain is the one that processed the thoughts that caused her to decide to stick her hands down to grab a piece of meat in front of a tiger that could swipe at her. I'll also note, that a tiger doesn't have opposable thumbs, so the woman was really quite inept at what she was doing anyway. She'd have a case if she cliamed she had slightly more brain power than a rock, the zoo bosses should have noted that before she was hired, and they hired her anyway.
"We shall see what the judge/arbitrator decides."
CA has strict liability here. That means the folks in charge are always guilty no matter what. So, the judge/arbitrator is just a rubber stamp. It's been that way since '63, has spread over the country since the '60s and has got far worse. It's just part of the nanny state mindset, that's endemic and destroying the country.
Theres the court of law, and then there’s the Court of Karma. Irrelevance is one does necessarily constitute same in the other.
The reg doesn't apply. You made the post, so I replied to you.
"And when you find a "more accurate" regulation, feel free to post it."
LOL! So, any reg flies as long as it feels right? LOL!
If a zoo wants to keep the public safe, it will ensure that fences are high enough, or strong enough, or enmeshed enough, to do just that....regardless of the people among whom the wild animals are placed, in front of, or near.
I don’t know; is there some other regulations about which that you are aware that a zoo must protect the animals.
So far, I’ve only seen, from two different articles, written by two different reporters, the same kind of language: a fence must be erected that adequately protects the animals from human contact, and the bottom line is that regardless of height requirements as far as fences, the animals MUST not be allowed contact with NON-AUTHORIZED humans.
As I said, nanny state.
No, nanny state is telling a business owner what kind of clientele it is allowed to provide services or sell products, i.e., non-smokers only. It is taking away the right of the business owner to have the clientele THEY seek to have in their establishments.
Nanny state is requiring people to wear seatbelts and making them into criminals if they do not.
Nanny state is requiring people to obtain socialized medicine rather than allowing them to have private or even no insurance.
Ensuring that foods which are sold to the public do not have insects, urine, rodents, etc., by having oversight of these products is making sure that companies be concerned about sanitary conditions so that people don’t become sick because businesses are looking to make a profit and are willing to cut corners or be unconcerned about their food handlers personal hygiene or store cleanliness.
Ensuring that wild animals are not maiming and/or killing people by requiring that precautions are taken to protect non-authorized people, yes, even stupid people, from these wild animals is part and parcel of have a wild animal zoo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.