An employee at a zoo in the US state of Oklahoma who came close to losing her arm after she stuck it in a tiger enclosure has been reprimanded by her boss.
Seems a bit harsh...until you read the full story:
Joe Schreibvogel, owner of the Garold Wayne Interactive Zoological Park in Wynnewood, Oklahoma told the Mail Online that the employee, who has not been named, was 'at fault' when she was attacked after placing her left arm inside the 400lb tiger's cage on Saturday morning.
“She pulled her own arm out. The tiger didn't maul her. The tiger was in his cage, and she violated his space by sticking her arm into his space,” said Mr Schreibvogel, before adding that the park has a strict rule against introducing any body part into a wild animal enclosure.
And the risk of losing body parts is why those rules exist.
He said the tiger, a 14-year old mixed breed (sic) that he had rescued, would not be put down because “it was not the tiger's fault” .
There was “no other way of avoiding this [incident] other than handcuffing my employees' hands behind their backs... I can't babysit them,” he added.
And no amount of training and warning will ever prevent your employees taking it into their heads to ignore that and do something stupid (and then often
expecting you to compensate them for their stupidity).
This is not the first time that the zoo and it's eccentric owner, who has been known to wear sparkly clothing while posing with the wild cats, have been mired in controversy.
It’s considered ‘controversial’ now that a boss might be annoyed that an employee has disregarded vital health and safety instructions and been injured as a result?
5 comments:
"He said the tiger ...... would not be put down "
..............whilst privately wishing the stupid employee could be.
"An employee who splashed with acid for venturing into Tower Hamlets wearing a mini-skirt has been reprimanded by her BBC boss"
Zoo's, really in this day and age what is the point of them? They no longer serve to educate the public. Hundreds, if not thousands of animal documentaries do that function better than any zoo. Do I need to see a tiger in a completely artificial concrete environment to have an understanding of what a tiger is? Zoos, I hate them!
".............whilst privately wishing the stupid employee could be."
:D
""An employee who splashed with acid for venturing into Tower Hamlets wearing a mini-skirt has been reprimanded by her BBC boss""
Wha..?
"Do I need to see a tiger in a completely artificial concrete environment to have an understanding of what a tiger is? "
Yes. Because film can't show you the reality of the thing until you've seen it move, up close.
And without zoos, we'll lose some of these species forever.
"An employee who splashed with acid for venturing into Tower Hamlets wearing a mini-skirt has been reprimanded by her BBC boss"
Well yes, if you are equating Muslims with animals, as incapable of acting under free will. We cage animals, euthanize them if they are too sick, or pose a danger to humans. Is that what you are suggesting we do to Muslims too?
Post a Comment