Zoo's should always be held responsible for animal actions, even if the person has been taunting the animal. Zoo's must assume some taunting will go on, regardless how many signs you put up saying 'don't disturb the animals'. With this assumption, they need to build an appropriate home for the animals that will keep them safe from humans, and humans safe from them.

No, the zoo shouldn't be held responsible and neither should the animal. Any dummy that taunts a 250 pound wild animal of any kind is just asking to get someone hurt or killed. Stupid is as stupid does.

No, I don't think that the zoo should be held responsible. If the signs read "don't disturb the animals" that means don't disturb the animals. It's a shame that the animal had to be shot & killed. I believe the correct action would have been to tranquilize the animal. Sorry to be disrespectful of the person killed, but if they were taunting the tiger, they got what they asked for. It's a wild animal for God's sake! What do people expect a tiger to do? Come up to them & start rubbing on their leg like a house cat? I feel bad for the tiger, not the person. The repercussions for the friends that survived the attack that may have been taunting the tiger, they should be the ones held responsible.

NAT Geo should be ashamed of even airing such a dispicable piece of garbage!

to noname: why should the channel be ashamed? What do you think this show is about? Isn't that what national geographic does- present important issues about animals and human's habitats?

Animals that should be in the wild are always unpredictable. But, I do believe that its not the zoos fault. It is kind of un-comforting that the tiger was able to get out, but the people that were taunting her were in the wrong. The zoo needs to make sure that everything is up to regulation and if it was, then one way or another she would have gotten out if she wanted to if she was that mad to try to get out in the first place.

According to records, both Denver Zoo and SF Zoo, Tatiana was taught several commands - which were recorded in her medical records. So, why was she destroyed? The head keeper who was not familiar with her or the big cats, not familiar with Tatiana's background, not even familiar with the SF Zoo Lion House routine, gave the instruction where to shoot Tatiana dead. I just don't understand how this keeper was given the authority to end this cat's life when he never worked with these animals. Why did Tatiana follow her tormentors when there were other zoo visitors and zoo animal babies who were within her grasp? Anyone with common sense knows the answer to that.

Why don't zoos just start using a collar that can release a tranquilizer into the animal remotely if something ever goes wrong?

Me again-I agree that zoos are not the best place for certain animals. But not all things done in zoos are bad. The person on this blog who suggested that Tatiana be released back into the wild would have been giving her a death sentence. Once in a zoo, it is not an easy task to ever have to dend for themselves again. I am not sure it would be possible to survive after being fed by humans and not be socialized in a natural setting. They should have tranquilzed her, but in the heat of the moment, seeing several people bleeding as she was attacking them, I understand the reaction of the police-I thought it was the police who shot her-but I may be wrong-and who is to say how she would have been after that? I totally agree that the event was precipitated by the young men, probably immature, bully types, who probably had no regard for animals and it makes me wonder why they would be in a zoo to begin with, other than to taunt and abuse; but again, nobody deserves to die for this, animal or human. I am glad the others were honest enought to fess up to their deeds at least.

We can't get rid of the zoos, they serve a great purpose. They study the animals so we can help preserve all of the species. The breeding progams at the zoos are in some cases the last hurrah for endangered species which we humans have destroyed. The tiger should have never been shot! The teenagers faced the consequences of making bad choices which I sure wasn't the first time. The zoos have all the precautions in place to protect the public but they can't always account for stupid human behavior like the woman who was attacked by the polar bear because she jumped TWO fences to take a picture!

As Nick has mentioned above, the "victims" were under the influence of alcohol. An open and empty container of vodka was found on the front seat of their car. If you choose to drunkenly taunt a 300 lbs animal then you have to accept the consequences associated with that decision. ALSO, Tatiana could never have been tranquilized and then released into the wild. She was BORN in captivity, as she was part of a breading program which is trying to save tigers from extinction. I deffinitaly do not think she should have been killed... she should have been tranquilized and then rehebilitated. Those young men got what was coming for them, as well as lied to the boy's dad about his where abouts.

I believe the boys were not at fault...there are defintely signs all over the zoos that says crap like "do not taunt...etc", but come one now... lets be real...can a 1,2,3 year old understand the signs? I work at a Zoo...and I see SO many little kids daycare and elementary age "taunting" the animals...would it be their fault? besides you can walk pass a tigers cage and the tiger would consider that taunting just because your warm blooded and it would like to eat you if it could...and also the wall for the tiger was shorter than reommended, the zoo knew that.

Max: Zoo officials DID NOT kill the tiger. The police did.