New Zealand Woman Mauled By Tiger

[dinthailand]

your math is worse than mine, dinthailand. They came in 2007.

But never mind how long she's been here, would it have made a difference if she had been a regular tourist? or a kid? Don't you think the trainers bear some responsibility towards not only their charges but to their customers as well?

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

don't know where i got 12 years from - not from tv, i accept that. i have been reading other news feeds. apologies

i agree the management owe a responsibility but this is thailand and that is not an expectation that is very pertinent here. i wasn't surprised either at the point that the keeper ran away after hitting the tiger on the head - to fetch help. oh yes a typical thai response

i am not thai bashing just telling it as it is

[ballpoint]

I don't understand why the victim is being slagged off here. In New Zealand, if there was some kind of tourist operation, punters would feel 100% safe - or as safe as possible - as they would know that such an operation must take all security measures in hand and that they would do their best to ensure the safety of visitors. She must also have assumed this, after all it is a tourist attraction. Maybe she was ignorant about tigers, but then so am I, and I went into the cage a few months back (never again), which was stupid, but certainly not enough to get the entire 'serves her right' attitude from everyone. The Tiger Kingdom, by all accounts is extremely irresponsible, they should be investigated. But of course that won't happen. And a few months down the raod we will probably read another similar post. There will always be tourists who are ignorant, they don't deserve to be injured, it is up to the operator and law enforcement to make sure this doesn't happen again. Yeah, like that is going to happen.

A stupid ignorant local who also went into a cage a few months back.

Firstly, this type of operation would be illegal in NZ, and most of the west. Any zoo manager that allowed their wild animals to be drugged, or tamed, so that tourists could enter the cage for the purpose of stroking it, would be arrested under the cruelty to animals act. Yes, The Tiger Kingdom is totally irresponsible, but not for the reason you say.

Secondly, there is no way that such an operation can be made 100% safe. It's a tiger for crying out loud! Do you really think it's just a big stripey pussy cat that wants to sit on your lap? As many posters have said, even a soft little pussy cat will bite and scratch occasionally, why would a wild animal be any different? The only way it could be made totally safe would be to shoot the tiger, stuff it and then allow tourists to do what they liked with it. You say you believed it was safe to go into the cage when you visited? Why? Would you go for a swim in a crocadile infested river if someone told you it was safe?

Thirdly, why did you want to go into the cage anyway? Did it give you a thrill to be with a wild animal that was either sedated or under the supposed control of its trainer? This is a genuine question, as I cannot think of one reason that would get me in there. Apart from the obvious safety issue there is also the ethical one. Anybody supporting these operations by paying to pose with a caged wild animal deserves what they get.

the law in nz is irrelevant

and your point in bold lacks compassion. better to take positive action and boycott these "shows" than wish ill on someone

I agree, the law in NZ is irrelevant to this case, but it was relevant in my post replying to one which implied that had this situation been in NZ, where the woman came from, it would be a lot safer. My point was that it would never have been allowed to happen there.

My last sentence may lack compassion, but it is true none the less. Had the woman been attacked by an escaped tiger I would have nothing but sympathy for her. However, she paid money to sit in a cage with it. It would have been better if nothing had have happened to her, for her sake as well as the tigers, but she got bitten. She was sitting in a cage with her arm around a large set of teeth and claws, she got bitten. She deserved it in the same way that someone sticking their hand into a mincer deserves to get it minced. And certainly, after this incident, anyone bitten in the same circumstances in future, will have also deserved it.

[huggybear]

It just always amazes me how stupid people are regarding wild animals.

Where I grew up in Southern California, we would have seals come ashore on the beaches when they were ill, to dry out. The "rocket science" crowd out there would walk right up to them as though they were at Sea World, and try to pet the dam_n things.....every summer you read about people walking away a few fingers short.

Yesterday here in Phuket I'm riding my motorbike to an appointment, and well, we have these Elephant riding parks around, and sometimes the mahouts sort of let the elephants wander off a little to feed on the different types of vegetation. As I'm riding by I see a genius taking a picture and then he starts walking up to the thing, a giant bull elephant, yes, like he's going to pet it!

Now a seal will take a couple fingers, a giant bull elephant decides to swat you? Trample you? Lights out dum-dum.

Even if the wild animal is "people friendly" there are still instincts intact, that you know what, you better know you are rolling the dice before you get into a tiger's cage.

[DLock]

I don't like to see any animal out of its natural habitat. I feel truly sorry for the poor Elephants in Bangkok heat, pollution and traffic, and hope one day one does run amok so that laws hopefully change for the better.

It's also disturbing to see the Gibbons being used as photographer props in Phuket, as it is to see the large Iguanas and Sea Eagles that are used for a polaroid moment in Soi Bangla - often in plain sight of the BIB who are probably taking a nice % for the "service".

I visited Tiger Kingdom a few months with some overseas guests. They have 3 enclosures - babies, 3 months old and then 1 year old (or so) where Pancake was. Whilst it was amazing to be up close to the babies and the 3 month olds, it was daunting to be so close to the older Tigers. The keepers encourage you to lie down next to the Tiger...and while I did it, I wasn't comfortable at all.

When the babies or 3 monthers bit or chewed a shoe or clothing the trainers (of which each cage seemed to have plenty) flicked the Tiger on the nose. In the 1 year cage, I spoke to the trainer in Thai and asked when the best time to see the Tigers and he said early morning or late afternoon. He said they are very well fed and not drugged. He said that when they get too old and dangerous, they ship them to other zoos. It's true he used a small stick to "control" the animal and made it clear not to touch the head.

If the Santika pub owners can get away with 62 deaths, then I think Tiger Kingdom will be ok with a mauled tourist.

She should have known the risks having lived here 9 years. Hope she recovers quickly and can move on.

I doubt this will be the last time this happens unfortunately. Just hope a Tiger never turns on a child. Outcome could be different.

[dinthailand]

and your point about the keeper hitting the head seems to indicate what caused the attack.

Can not make a conclusion like that. Maybe the tiger was arroused already that much (after all the animal was taken away from another tiger earlier becaused it 'played' too much) that an attack was inevitable. And it is possible that the 'trainer' saw or felt that and tried to 'control' the tiger by hitting it.

but have you seen how thais treat their dogs

That's a generalization I feel uncomfortable with. Through my work I also know many Thai dog and cat owners who love their animal/s dearly and take good care of them. Not even to mention all those who are involved in real animal rescue work.

don't say holy cow, nienke. you know how some posters are; they'll now go off topic and ask what cows were doing in the enclosure. this is tv. keep it simple

have i misunderstood you? you control a wild animal by hitting it??? wild means aggressive. hitting it will surely invoke the instinct of attack. the tiger is not a dog.

on your other point i know i am generalising but would you accept that more than 50% of thais hit their dogs to train them. yes there are those that don't. i accept that. but in my experience they are in the minority.

Edited January 27, 2009 by dinthailand

[dinthailand]

I don't understand why the victim is being slagged off here. In New Zealand, if there was some kind of tourist operation, punters would feel 100% safe - or as safe as possible - as they would know that such an operation must take all security measures in hand and that they would do their best to ensure the safety of visitors. She must also have assumed this, after all it is a tourist attraction. Maybe she was ignorant about tigers, but then so am I, and I went into the cage a few months back (never again), which was stupid, but certainly not enough to get the entire 'serves her right' attitude from everyone. The Tiger Kingdom, by all accounts is extremely irresponsible, they should be investigated. But of course that won't happen. And a few months down the raod we will probably read another similar post. There will always be tourists who are ignorant, they don't deserve to be injured, it is up to the operator and law enforcement to make sure this doesn't happen again. Yeah, like that is going to happen.

A stupid ignorant local who also went into a cage a few months back.

Firstly, this type of operation would be illegal in NZ, and most of the west. Any zoo manager that allowed their wild animals to be drugged, or tamed, so that tourists could enter the cage for the purpose of stroking it, would be arrested under the cruelty to animals act. Yes, The Tiger Kingdom is totally irresponsible, but not for the reason you say.

Secondly, there is no way that such an operation can be made 100% safe. It's a tiger for crying out loud! Do you really think it's just a big stripey pussy cat that wants to sit on your lap? As many posters have said, even a soft little pussy cat will bite and scratch occasionally, why would a wild animal be any different? The only way it could be made totally safe would be to shoot the tiger, stuff it and then allow tourists to do what they liked with it. You say you believed it was safe to go into the cage when you visited? Why? Would you go for a swim in a crocadile infested river if someone told you it was safe?

Thirdly, why did you want to go into the cage anyway? Did it give you a thrill to be with a wild animal that was either sedated or under the supposed control of its trainer? This is a genuine question, as I cannot think of one reason that would get me in there. Apart from the obvious safety issue there is also the ethical one. Anybody supporting these operations by paying to pose with a caged wild animal deserves what they get.

the law in nz is irrelevant

and your point in bold lacks compassion. better to take positive action and boycott these "shows" than wish ill on someone

I agree, the law in NZ is irrelevant to this case, but it was relevant in my post replying to one which implied that had this situation been in NZ, where the woman came from, it would be a lot safer. My point was that it would never have been allowed to happen there.

My last sentence may lack compassion, but it is true none the less. Had the woman been attacked by an escaped tiger I would have nothing but sympathy for her. However, she paid money to sit in a cage with it. It would have been better if nothing had have happened to her, for her sake as well as the tigers, but she got bitten. She was sitting in a cage with her arm around a large set of teeth and claws, she got bitten. She deserved it in the same way that someone sticking their hand into a mincer deserves to get it minced. And certainly, after this incident, anyone bitten in the same circumstances in future, will have also deserved it.

then we must agree to differ.

however her injuries were caused, it is still a time for compassion not "she deserved it"

[dinthailand]

your math is worse than mine, dinthailand. They came in 2007.

But never mind how long she's been here, would it have made a difference if she had been a regular tourist? or a kid? Don't you think the trainers bear some responsibility towards not only their charges but to their customers as well?

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

don't know where i got 12 years from - not from tv, i accept that. i have been reading other news feeds. apologies

i agree the management owe a responsibility but this is thailand and that is not an expectation that is very pertinent here. i wasn't surprised either at the point that the keeper ran away after hitting the tiger on the head - to fetch help. oh yes a typical thai response

i am not thai bashing just telling it as it is

another poster has said 9 years! but it is not a contentious point. different sources are quouting different periods of residence

[CLASBYCLAN]

I do feel sorry for this lady, and her children, horific experience. Although 90% of people are stupid, and some people may know the risks but are prepared to take them for the photo opportunity, but I really can't believe that you would be surprised that a tiger may attack.

I'm really dissappointed to hear that the family may sue, they are here to do charity work and they want to make some money from this awful situation?

[Nienke]

and your point about the keeper hitting the head seems to indicate what caused the attack.

Can not make a conclusion like that. Maybe the tiger was arroused already that much (after all the animal was taken away from another tiger earlier becaused it 'played' too much) that an attack was inevitable. And it is possible that the 'trainer' saw or felt that and tried to 'control' the tiger by hitting it.

have i misunderstood you? you control a wild animal by hitting it??? wild means aggressive. hitting it will surely invoke the instinct of attack. the tiger is not a dog.

Yes, you misunderstood what I meant. When you read carefully you can see that I've put the word 'control' in between apotrophs (spelling?)

You said that the hitting caused the attack. I question that. I was referring to the trigger of the attack. Was that the hitting itself, meaning would the tiger have NOT attacked if the 'trainer' wouldn't have hit the animal? I doubt that.

From what I understood the tiger was already arroused "it was taken away from another tiger earlier because it 'played' too much". In stead of leaving the animal alone and let it become relaxed again, it got aroused even more by allowing more people in his cage who were even touching and petting him. Something that is extremely unnatural for such an animal, plus that it has no respect in any sense for the personal space of the animal.

I'm not a tiger expert at all. But when looking at the picture in this thread with the lady, my first impression was a tiger that wasn't in the best mood at the moment that picture was taken. And it might very well be that the attack was triggered by the lady (unknowingly and undeliberately, of course) being too close and half on top of him/her.

Yes, we are talking about a wild animal. But a dog when arroused can very well act in a similar way.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Nienke

[dinthailand]

I do feel sorry for this lady, and her children, horific experience. Although 90% of people are stupid, and some people may know the risks but are prepared to take them for the photo opportunity, but I really can't believe that you would be surprised that a tiger may attack.

I'm really dissappointed to hear that the family may sue, they are here to do charity work and they want to make some money from this awful situation?

she signed a waiver so she can not sue successfully in thailand under a thai law. this is not the west. please try to keep up with the posts. they have also said their only financial claim is for medical expenses to be paid, and the management have agreed to this.

whether they will pay of course is another matter

[Nienke]

I do feel sorry for this lady, and her children, horific experience. Although 90% of people are stupid, and some people may know the risks but are prepared to take them for the photo opportunity, but I really can't believe that you would be surprised that a tiger may attack.

I'm really dissappointed to hear that the family may sue, they are here to do charity work and they want to make some money from this awful situation?

Although, I also don't think it is very sensible to go in a cage or even come close to a wild animal, I do think that the Tiger Kingdom is strongly lacking in proper know-how on tiger behavior. They should be able to recognize the (stress and warning) signals the animals give, so that they can act in time. Understanding the language of the animals is of major importance for the safety of the visitors.

If this lack of know-how is the driving force for trying to sue them, I can understand the victim and her family.

Edit/ for trying to sue them Only for dinthailand.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Nienke

[dinthailand]

and your point about the keeper hitting the head seems to indicate what caused the attack.

Can not make a conclusion like that. Maybe the tiger was arroused already that much (after all the animal was taken away from another tiger earlier becaused it 'played' too much) that an attack was inevitable. And it is possible that the 'trainer' saw or felt that and tried to 'control' the tiger by hitting it.

have i misunderstood you? you control a wild animal by hitting it??? wild means aggressive. hitting it will surely invoke the instinct of attack. the tiger is not a dog.

Yes, you misunderstood what I meant. When you read carefully you can see that I've put the word 'control' in between apotrophs (spelling?)

You said that the hitting caused the attack. I question that. I was referring to the trigger of the attack. Was that the hitting itself, meaning would the tiger have NOT attacked if the 'trainer' wouldn't have hit the animal? I doubt that.

From what I understood the tiger was already arroused "it was taken away from another tiger earlier because it 'played' too much". In stead of leaving the animal alone and let it become relaxed again, it got aroused even more by allowing more people in his cage who were even touching and petting him. Something that is extremely unnatural for such an animal, plus that it has no respect in any sense for the personal space of the animal.

I'm not a tiger expert at all. But when looking at the picture in this thread with the lady, my first impression was a tiger that wasn't in the best mood at the moment that picture was taken. And it might very well be that the attack was triggered by the lady (unknowingly and undeliberately, of course) being too close and half on top of him/her.

Yes, we are talking about a wild animal. But a dog when arroused can very well act in a similar way.

i understand the difference between a cause and a trigger but it was not clear from your first post

and we don't really have enough reliable evidence for me to form a better opinion. we only have that one photo and my first impression was the same as yours . i would not put my reputation on it though in a court of law - not on the evidence of one photo and some speculation.

i hope this thread will produce an awareness of the dangers of wild animals and we see some boycotting of this practice.

i respect your knowledge of dogs and you admit you are no tiger expert but the comparison with dogs - which is relevant and interesting to me - may be lost on the average poster who then loses the important points about thinking of their own safety, respect for wildlife ( disrepected in this case), and condoning a bad business practice by supporting it.

[CLASBYCLAN]

I do feel sorry for this lady, and her children, horific experience. Although 90% of people are stupid, and some people may know the risks but are prepared to take them for the photo opportunity, but I really can't believe that you would be surprised that a tiger may attack.

I'm really dissappointed to hear that the family may sue, they are here to do charity work and they want to make some money from this awful situation?

she signed a waiver so she can not sue successfully in thailand under a thai law. this is not the west. please try to keep up with the posts. they have also said their only financial claim is for medical expenses to be paid, and the management have agreed to this.

whether they will pay of course is another matter

jeeze, ok! Actually I read the posts and some of the posted reports say that the tiger place says they will pay medical expenses, and in one of the reports, and account from the husband it says that the family are in discussion with a lawyer to sue. I no how it works , I live here, that was my point, it's ridiculous to sue here, as I have found from my own personal experience, but to sue for a wild animal attacking is crazy!

[brahmburgers]

when a person smiles at a wild animal, that person shows his/her teeth.

When a wild animal sees teeth, it might perceive aggression. It doesn't know what a smile is.

plus, simply a strange smelling perfume/cologne could set an animal off.

[countingcrows]

Just wanted to shine some light on the story. The original media report by the Herald was actually pulled from thier website as the story did not have all thefacts - if you read the updated story it now has an iterview with the the people involved and not the tiger kiongdom which after reading a number of articles on this event, seems to be covering their own <deleted>!!

here is the updated article

Husband tells of horror tiger attack on aid worker wife

A New Zealand aid worker has told of watching a tiger bite his wife in the leg and then attempt to drag her away.

The incident happened at a tiger enclosure in Thailand that allows people to pat tigers that have been domesticated and trained.

Stuart Corlett and his wife Ruth were at the Khumsu Chiang Mai Tiger Centre with their three children on Sunday when a female tiger called Pancake suddenly clamped down on Mrs Corlett's leg, just missing her femoral artery.

She had crouched beside the tiger, posing for a photograph, when the trainer told her to stand up.

"The tiger jumped up and bit her in the leg. It narrowly missed her femoral artery - the bite was two inches away. If it had severed that artery she would have had minutes to live," Mr Corlett said.

She is recovering at home from the ordeal. The family have lived in Thailand for nine years and work for a relief agency that helps refugees on Thailand's border.

Mr Corlett said reports that his wife had touched the tiger on the top of its head and that her sleeve caught the tiger's eye were wrong. "The trainer hit the tiger on the head with a stick just before the bite."

He added that photographs showed his wife wasn't even wearing a long-sleeved shirt so that couldn't have caught the tiger's eye.

A friend of the couple, Auckland teacher Daniel Charman, tried to pull the tigers jaws open but couldn't and the tiger attempted to drag Mrs Corlett away.

"He grabbed hold of [Mr Charman's] leg so it couldn't drag her away. The trainer whacked it on the nose then turned and left. They [staff] said he was going to warn others but in my opinion he was fearful for his own safety."

The tiger let go of Mrs Corlett's leg and she was left bleeding on the ground.

"Daniel picked her up and threw her over his shoulder and they got out of the enclosure."

Mr Corlett said staff at the centre were ill-equipped to deal with a medical emergency.

There was no first aid kit and they were told the only medical officer was on a day off.

She was eventually taken to hospital in the back of a staff member's Toyota Corolla suffering from shock and barely conscious. Her wound required 54 stitches.

Mr Corlett told the Herald last night he was told by a tour guide the tigers were probably sedated.

"My opinion is the tiger was coming out of a sedated state and was confused and probably grumpy."

The couple have spoken to their lawyer and hope to settle out of court. They want Mrs Corlett's medical expenses paid but would only settle if the tiger centre sets up a safety committee and has a clear policy manual.

[crocodilexp]

Maybe the tiger was arroused already that much (after all the animal was taken away from another tiger earlier becaused it 'played' too much) that an attack was inevitable. And it is possible that the 'trainer' saw or felt that and tried to 'control' the tiger by hitting it.

I'd agree with that point. It's reasonable to assume that the trainer knew a thing or two about tiger behavior, saw the attack coming and tried to intervene. The hit was probably punishment that the tiger was taught to fear when he was a cub -- trainer would certainly not be able to make much difference in terms of physical force. Unfortunately, it was not successful.

[mommysboy]

Is the tiger ok?

[countingcrows]

In regard to the waiver at Tiger Kingdom - There is a waiver, however only the buyer of the tickets signs it. Which to me seems like NOT enough, especially if a tour guide is buying the tickets on behalf of a group.

[sriracha john]

Just wanted to shine some light on the story. The original media report by the Herald was actually pulled from thier website as the story did not have all thefacts - if you read the updated story it now has an iterview with the the people involved and not the tiger kiongdom which after reading a number of articles on this event, seems to be covering their own <deleted>!!

here is the updated article

Husband tells of horror tiger attack on aid worker wife

A New Zealand aid worker has told of watching a tiger bite his wife in the leg and then attempt to drag her away.

Posted earlier as Post #39

Edited January 27, 2009 by sriracha john

[countingcrows]

sorry - so it was. My mistake

[wedders]

Saw a less serious attack back in 2007, at the Tiger Temple. Daft loud Aussie woman tourist showing off, treating an 8 month old big adolescent as if it were a pet dog or something. Staff warned her but she wouldn't listen, she was trying to impress onlookers with her 'skill' with animals. She was telling them how all it takes is to reveal no fear and to show the animal who's boss.

Having demonstrated her abilities she stood up and started to walk off. The tiger, unaware that the rough and tumble game was over, leapt up and bit her hard on the ass. Drew blood - plenty of it. Aussie was pretending to laugh it off once the trainers had persuaded the tiger to put her down, but you could see how stupid she felt afterwards. I bet she couldn't sit down for a week.

It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

[spongeman]

Pancake must have thought it was pancake tuesday.

The Husband wants to sue ? He has more chance of winning the world snooker championship than getting cash out of them.

Cats d'ont give a f*** about anybody but themselves. I had a persian that chased dogs.

GOOD GIRL YOURSELF, GET UP AND DO IT AGAIN!

[Merangue]

Not read the whole thread but i have been in the enclosure with the very same Tiger (Pancake) and the handlers made it abundantly clear not to approach the face or head of any tiger.

Not once but many times did they say to stay quiet and not to make any sudden moves and STAY CLEAR Of THE HEAD.

That photo shows she was doing exactly the opposite.

Not much sympathy really as she has obviously failed to do as told.

[spongeman]

And for her next trick..........

She will put her head inside the jaws of a sleeping crocodile.

[Nampeung]

I agree Merangue, she was stupid to lean on the tiger and touch its head. However I also have to add that I sincerely believe all tourists and visitors should boycott these parks as the situation is not natural...

[dinthailand]

In regard to the waiver at Tiger Kingdom - There is a waiver, however only the buyer of the tickets signs it. Which to me seems like NOT enough, especially if a tour guide is buying the tickets on behalf of a group.

Under Uk and american law I agree with you.

Under Thai law. No. Read the Civil and Criminal Code.. There are copies with English on one page and Thai on the other.

Thinking that she should be able to successfully sue will not change the Thai law. A lawyer may well take the case on and charge for doing so. In that case the police may file a report. But the court officials seeing the waiver, will not be able to list it for hearing before a judge.

Can't people understand that we live here under Thai law not the law as you want it to be. I actually disagree with the law but my view is not relevant. The law is the law. Please read it.

[dinthailand]

Saw a less serious attack back in 2007, at the Tiger Temple. Daft loud Aussie woman tourist showing off, treating an 8 month old big adolescent as if it were a pet dog or something. Staff warned her but she wouldn't listen, she was trying to impress onlookers with her 'skill' with animals. She was telling them how all it takes is to reveal no fear and to show the animal who's boss.

Having demonstrated her abilities she stood up and started to walk off. The tiger, unaware that the rough and tumble game was over, leapt up and bit her hard on the ass. Drew blood - plenty of it. Aussie was pretending to laugh it off once the trainers had persuaded the tiger to put her down, but you could see how stupid she felt afterwards. I bet she couldn't sit down for a week.

It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Yes this "skill" aspect may work with domestic animals . Many here are missing the point that we are dealing with wild animals . the herald article that pancake was domesticated and trained is naive and now shown to be false anyway. that is journaliism for you

[robee]

And for her next trick..........

She will put her head inside the jaws of a sleeping crocodile.

that's classic, ignorance is bliss in the animal world

[Shazza]

Hey all, I - as you can see - am a newbie here... friend of the above mauled woman...

Hey... friend of the murdered Brit that some people on these boards slammed at the beginning of the week - it's been a tough week for me!

Anyway, spoke to Ruth yesterday, she's doing ok - The Herald newspaper from New Zealand have written another article without the stuff that didn't happen - like long sleeved shirt, Ruth touching the head of the tiger etc....

The tiger did try to drag her off and she did grab hold of her friend's leg and he did try to open the mouth of the tiger - pretty freaky stuff!

Her and her hubby are not going to sue, they merely want medical expenses paid and a decent safety policy written and implemented - could include having a first aid kit a trained first aid person at the place - oh, that's a good idea.

Also, if you're interested, her husband was on Campbell Live the other night, great interview - brings things into perspective a little more.

[Nienke]

Saw a less serious attack back in 2007, at the Tiger Temple. Daft loud Aussie woman tourist showing off, treating an 8 month old big adolescent as if it were a pet dog or something. Staff warned her but she wouldn't listen, she was trying to impress onlookers with her 'skill' with animals. She was telling them how all it takes is to reveal no fear and to show the animal who's boss.

Having demonstrated her abilities she stood up and started to walk off. The tiger, unaware that the rough and tumble game was over, leapt up and bit her hard on the ass. Drew blood - plenty of it. Aussie was pretending to laugh it off once the trainers had persuaded the tiger to put her down, but you could see how stupid she felt afterwards. I bet she couldn't sit down for a week.

It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Ok, my obcessive compulsive behavior, I've read up in one of my cat behavior books.

The text in bold in the above quoted post caught my eye. Plus that there is mention of the lady in the tiger kingdom being attacked after she stood up. On the picture you can clearly see her sitting next to the tiger while looking him straight in the eyes.

In both cases the tigers attacked after the persons stood up and/or moved away from them.

Now the book (Catlore by Desmond Morris, 1987) says the following:

<quote> ... (Paul) Leyhausen {a great cat authority} proved the power of the direct stare by standing in front of a tiger's cage and hiding his eyes. He did this by bringing a camera up to his face, through which he could nevertheless still see the tiger's actions. The animal crouched ready for an attack and hten dashed accross the cage floor toward the spot where Leyhausen was standing. As it came near he quickly lowered the camera and directed a wide-eyed stare, straight at the big cat.. it skidded to a halt immediately and rapidly looked away, avoiding the man's stare. As soon as he covered his eyes with the camera again, another attack was launched. Again, he froze it with a quick stare and was able to repeat this process time and again. ... <unquote>

As people tend to look straight at objects of interest might it has been possible that as long as the victims were looking at the tigers, they unknowingly were keeping them on a distance? But as soon as they turned away their eyes, by standing up or moving away, the tiger gained confidence enough to attack?

And is it possible that the so-called trainer and the others responsible at the tiger establishments have no idea of this kind of (big) cat language?