A reader just told me he thinks the San Francisco Chronicle didn't run my tiger cartoon on 4/30/08, presumably because it was too close to home. The SF zoo was where the tiger attack happened, so I can't say I blame them.
Another reader mentioned in the comments that he doesn't believe zoos are good things but if you're going to have them, the animals should not be able to get out of their enclosures just because they are stimulated. He goes on to say the zoo officials failed both the public and the tiger in allowing this to happen. I agree wholeheartedly.
A third reader pointed out that many people believe that Roy (of Sigfried &...) had a stroke on stage and that the tiger was dragging him to safety, as she would her young. This jives with the facts of the story and animal experts tend to agree that if he had been "attacked," he would have been injured far worse. I said the tiger "ate" Roy for comic effect, but I didn't mean it. If the tiger had wanted to eat Roy, there would have been much less of Roy left to take to the hospital.
I don't believe in imprisoning any animal for the benefit of another, so zoos and circuses are at the top of my list of offenders. Along with Seaworld and the like. I believe captivity is as painful for virtually all other creatures as it is for humans, most acutely birds and mammals because of their level of intelligence. Personally, I'd rather be dead than spend my life in jail.
Sorry for the lack of humor, just wanted to clarify.