Make That Four Cents

So, I've had my two cents on Tatiana the Tiger and the whole debacle. However, I feel the need to add a few more thoughts.

There may be articles out there that I have missed, but what about the agency that accredited the zoo? If the tiger compound was so lacking, how does this agency come in to do their checks and miss this issue year after year?

Though this may be a bad example, I liken this to hiring someone to come out and check the safety of my deck. I am given the certification and assurance that all is tip-top and in order. I have a party. The deck collapses and people are injured/killed. And they want to sue my ass off. There is an investigation, and come to find out that the deck was nowhere near the safety standard. The wood was rotten or the deck was nailed to the brick rather than bolted, whatever. I had done the responsible thing and had the damned thing checked out. Wouldn't there be a case against the company who obviously had not done their inspection jobs properly?

The SF Zoo has had their inspections. It has complied with everything this organization has asked of them. If they Zoo is found negligent, then in my opinion, the AZA agency is equally culpable. Don't put a stamp of approval on something that isn't up to standards. It leads to a false sense of security for all parties involved.