I read what the keeper said, Flower. I don't recall reading any statements from the vet regarding "pre-escape" paw/claw inspection, but I'm fallible! IIRC, the zoo's press release about this was worded in a way that left open the possibility that not all the wear on the claws occured during the escape. I know I came away from the article thinking how finely crafted the wording was! I do agree that bleeding paws would be noticed when the animal was checked out, I do not know how much attention a keeper could be expected to give the bottom of the tiger's paws during feeding. The bottom of the paws wouldn't be visible at all! So bruising could have escaped attention. I also think the keeper would not notice gradual wear on the claws---the extreme wear and splintering seen after the escape was obvious, of course. But would gradual wear have been as obvious?
Although I concur that the three (or four?) young men were acting the fool, I do not necessarily believe that a wild animal needs an excuse to try to escape, and once escaped I KNOW it doesn't need an excuse to attack! I think no matter what these idiots did, she should not have been able to get out of her enclosure. That's the bottom line for me.
Endangered species animals are given complete check ups on a regular basis. Usually every couple of months for females (to check reproductive problems) and once every 6 months for the males. They are tranqualized and brought into the clinic area. Weighed, measured, teeth checked for dental problems, ears checked, eyes, skin, coat, claws, pads, even their anal glands and reproductive area swabs are taken.
With how heavy Tatiana was it is completely possible that a one time climb could and IMO probably did result in the injuries to her claws and paw pads. Remember these are the largest of all cats in the world and they do not like to climb. Plus the moat was not made of dirt...it looks to be made of cement.
So whatever set her off had to be extreme for her to climb, basically, a cement wall. She was either protecting herself, her mate, or her territory. It sounds to me like the guys were by the outside of the moat area which to a tiger who instinctively needs miles of territory could have felt threatend. Who knows for sure if these guys threw anything at her or not or urinated near the moat on the grass? To Tatiana all of that area was her territory...the guys were wrong. They crossed a fence that they knew was there to keep them out, harassed Tatiana to the point she felt threatened (animal behavior 101) and needed to protect herself.
Now the zoo is being blamed because of the height of the wall? This beautiful tiger had been in there for several years without incident and now it's because of the wall? Not the a-holes who were harassing her?
The a-holes break the law and it's ok because it's the zoo's fault? Hello? They admitted to having POT (illegal substance) and DRINKING before even entering the zoo (open container in the car is also illegal as is drinking and driving) but it's the zoo's fault for not having a high enough wall, a wall that was apparentyl high enough for many, many years before?
No excuses for these guys. Simple logic says you don't aggravate an assault and then call foul when you are attacked.
Or how about becareful what you ask for?
Animals do not have the same reasoning skills as people do, so it's not fair to blame the tiger for simply acting on her instincts and protecting herself and her area.