New Zealand Woman Mauled By Tiger

[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.

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?

This is very selective quoting! If posters read the whole of Catlore, as I have, they will get a more balanced view. Morris has some good points in 1987 some of which is still relevant today.

Animal language and psychology is fascinating academic stuff.

But let's be practical. "Pancake" is and will remain a wild animal as will all tigers in Thailand and elsewhere. They should be respected as wild creatures. Humans should not interface with them as if they are domestic cats. It is a parallel too far. Morris admits that. He compared tiger and domestic cat behaviour but never suggested they were completely comparable.

This circular discussion avoids the issue that business practices involving wild animals in this way should be banned and not supported by farang paying customers. But this is Thailand. Money in businesses overrules everything. And you are meant to feel sorry for the poor businessman who will lose revenue.

[Moonrakers]

I remember watching a documentary once about some rangers in the jungles of India (I think).

When entering the jungle they would always wear a mask on the back of the head, because apparently tigers only attack from behind. Maybe she managed to piss the tiger off, only for it to attack once her back was turned?

[Nienke]

This is very selective quoting! If posters read the whole of Catlore, as I have, they will get a more balanced view. Morris has some good points in 1987 some of which is still relevant today.

Not all that's in the book is relevant for this situation. Subjects such as 'why do cats become wool suckers?' or why do some cats hates man?' and many more are not relevant here.

Animal language and psychology is fascinating academic stuff.

Agree

But let's be practical. "Pancake" is and will remain a wild animal as will all tigers in Thailand and elsewhere. They should be respected as wild creatures. Humans should not interface with them as if they are domestic cats. It is a parallel too far. Morris admits that. He compared tiger and domestic cat behaviour but never suggested they were completely comparable.

Where did I state that cat and tiger behavior are completely comparable?

This circular discussion avoids the issue that business practices involving wild animals in this way should be banned and not supported by farang paying customers. But this is Thailand. Money in businesses overrules everything. And you are meant to feel sorry for the poor businessman who will lose revenue.

As you may or may not have noticed, I'm discussing and curious about the incident itself. About the behavior and the trigger to the attack.

You are continuously side-tracking. That's your good right, as is my good right not going into that whether I agree with you or not.

That I agree with you about certain aspects or not you can conclude of the fact that I've never been to any of the tiger establishments nor the Night safari in CM and do not feel the urge to go there ever. And for me that's the end of that part of the one-way discussion.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Nienke

[Nienke]

I remember watching a documentary once about some rangers in the jungles of India (I think).

When entering the jungle they would always wear a mask on the back of the head, because apparently tigers only attack from behind. Maybe she managed to piss the tiger off, only for it to attack once her back was turned?

That's very interesting! I remember reading or seeing on tele/youtube? that as well, long time ago.

However, there is also a clip on youtube of a tiger in India that attacked people on an elephant from the front.

[TAWP]

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.

Well, it sure is true for many animals, as for domesticated dogs and cats.

However smart dogs [and presumably some cats] are able to distinguish between angry [growling] teeth-showing and smiling, as my personal dog is. In fact he learned it quite fast and does it back too, i.e. laugh that is. Consisting of smiling to show teeth and wide mouth and happily twisting the whole back-end and gruffing like an almost human hohoho-laughter. (Especially done if he is caught doing something he shouldn't and sheepishly tries to say 'oh, you saw me, sorry, he-he, oops!')

But I digress...the point is that if one doesn't know the animals involved and the animal type and how they react to movement and positions...don't get close to them until you do.

[dinthailand]

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.

Well, it sure is true for many animals, as for domesticated dogs and cats.

However smart dogs [and presumably some cats] are able to distinguish between angry [growling] teeth-showing and smiling, as my personal dog is. In fact he learned it quite fast and does it back too, i.e. laugh that is. Consisting of smiling to show teeth and wide mouth and happily twisting the whole back-end and gruffing like an almost human hohoho-laughter. (Especially done if he is caught doing something he shouldn't and sheepishly tries to say 'oh, you saw me, sorry, he-he, oops!')

But I digress...the point is that if one doesn't know the animals involved and the animal type and how they react to movement and positions...don't get close to them until you do.

exactly. all this behavioural stuff from a domestic animal psychologist is totally irrelevant to wild animals as the poster probably well knows but face is coming into this now.

interesting that the poster will not be positive and condone this behaviour and the business practices behind it. and makes no point that wild animals should be respected. what the poster says is interesting as far as it goes but very selective quoting. thoughts are very narrow - classic blinkered thinking. hardly thesis material, too arrogant and impervious to doubt. would rate an a level but no more. in summary uninformative and no breadth of thought. too academic

[Sao Jiang Mai]

Of course New Zealand law or whatever is irrelevant, but it was from that country that the victim came and her expectations would have to be taken into consideration. I got no thrill from going to Tiger Kingdom, I went reluctantly with people who wanted to go and it was stupid to do so and I shal lof course boycott this place in the future. But bashing one tourist who is a victim is like bashing the thousands of others who go there, you can't call everyone ignorant and stupid, even though their, and my, actions may indicate it. People do stupid things. My point is that the place shouldn't be allowed to operate in the first place, the law should not allow it, the owners should not have any right to open the place and society as a whole should boycott it. There are thousands of ignorant people lining up to go and there will always be. So there is no point bashing the poor woman, I think whatever she got was beyond punishment for ignorance. The place should be shut down and the animals taken somewhere where they can live in a healthy habitat. And there is nothing wrong with compassion, for the woman or the tigers.

[Nienke]

My point is that the place shouldn't be allowed to operate in the first place, the law should not allow it, the owners should not have any right to open the place and society as a whole should boycott it. There are thousands of ignorant people lining up to go and there will always be. ... The place should be shut down and the animals taken somewhere where they can live in a healthy habitat.

Totally agree with you.

But as chances are small that that will happen, and I for one can't do anything about that, it is for me useless to go into the discussion of what should and shouldn't be done. Even when some posters really would like to have that discussion running.

there is no point bashing the poor woman, I think whatever she got was beyond punishment for ignorance

Absolutely! No one 'deserves' something like that. And everyone has done at least once in their lives something that later on made them think why on earth they could done such a stupid thing.

[ballpoint]

My point is that the place shouldn't be allowed to operate in the first place, the law should not allow it, the owners should not have any right to open the place and society as a whole should boycott it. There are thousands of ignorant people lining up to go and there will always be. ... The place should be shut down and the animals taken somewhere where they can live in a healthy habitat.

Totally agree with you.

But as chances are small that that will happen, and I for one can't do anything about that, it is for me useless to go into the discussion of what should and shouldn't be done. Even when some posters really would like to have that discussion running.

there is no point bashing the poor woman, I think whatever she got was beyond punishment for ignorance

Absolutely! No one 'deserves' something like that. And everyone has done at least once in their lives something that later on made them think why on earth they could done such a stupid thing.

So it was an accident? The woman accidently got into the cage and the tiger accidently bit her? There, now it's all sanitised. She didn't mean to pay money to get into a cage with a wild animal, and the tiger didn't mean to bite her leg. If you put yourself into a dangerous situation, and you are correct, everyone does it occasionally, and that situation reaches its logical outcome, how can you say you didn't deserve it? Why can't people take responsibility for their own foolish actions instead of trying to find someone or something else to blame? In this case it was even more deserved. Like it or not, anyone paying money to cause discomfort to an animal deserves it when that animal retaliates.

[blakegeee]

First off, I think its funny how the Thai News doesn't even report where it happened specifically, other than "in Chiang Mai". I guess they wouldn't want people to think that mauling tigers could be dangerous. That could be bad for Tiger Kingdom who surely paid the "news" lots to not mention the business name. Oddly enough, even these other reports don't refer to it as "Tiger Kingdom" as it is commonly known by.

As far as trashing the lady for being less intelligent than yourself, get off it! She is one on tens of thousands who do the same. When a professional operation (the "experts") tell you it is safe, most people will take their word for it. Are you going to research every potentially dangerous thing that you come across in a day to become the "expert" yourself? Don't be so arrogant.

Edited January 28, 2009 by blakegeee

[dinthailand]

First off, I think its funny how the Thai News doesn't even report when it happened, other than "in Chiang Mai". I guess they wouldn't want people to think that mauling tigers could be dangerous. That could be bad for Tiger Kingdom who surely paid the "news" lots to not mention the business name. Oddly enough, even these other reports don't refer to it as "Tiger Kingdom" as it is commonly known by.

As far as trashing the lady. She is one on tens of thousands who do the same. When a professional operation (the "experts") tell you it is safe, most people will take their word for it. Are you going to research every potentially dangerous thing that you come across in a day to become the "expert" yourself? Don't be so arrogant.

not a question of arrogance

this is thailand. be cautious

[Patsycat]

How's Pancake doing after this traumatic experience?

[egg6447]

Hope Ruth's doing well and hope the claims stuff is rubbish. It's a lovely park and had the chance to pat these Tigers myself, would hate to see that taken away.

toybits and Ger..akid, sorry but all a bit self righeous arn't we! What's to say Ruth fully understood the danger and would happily do it again as she felt better for the experience of being close to one of natures beasts. Your comment is simply narrow minded and boiler plate ra ra ra influential/corruption ra ra ar ar arra ra. Have you been to this park? Be a little more creative next time!

well ive read enough of this nonsence and u have enough for everyone else it seems. ask yourself if u would like the tigers life. i suspect the answer is no. its not in the tigers nature to fraternise with humans/subhumans. so what the tiger did is /in its nature. ie it cant help itself. she got less than she deserved, glad she's ok tho. but to molest someones space be it animal veg or whatever it is againts the law of nature. sorry mate u need some seriouse education if u think u have the right to invade someones space.

[Johpa]

The tiger looks the lady in the face, what does that mean in the tiger 'language'? I know in the dog language it means 'back off'. In other words, with dogs in their language it can be a clear warning.

And the winner of the Thai Visa cunning linguist of the month award, and a strong candidate for the yearly honors, goes to.......

[Miserere]

I went to the operation in Kanchanburi, we were all told DO NOT TOUCH TIGERS HEAD!!! also when having your photo taken don't look at the photographer, keep your eyes on Tigger at all times.

It was an amazing experience ( that will stay with me for the rest of my life and the photos draw gasps from my work colleagues) but I couldn't help thinking this is an accident waiting to happen....the keepers encouraged people to have their photos taken where the tiger has its paw around your head, one Yank went a whiter shade of pale when the tiger started to dig its claws into his face, he was barely playing the but the American clearly wasn't enjoying the attention.

I also nearly got eaten by a protective Mum who didn't appreciate me leaning over an enclosure taking snaps of her and her cubs, just as I withdrew she jumped what seemed like 6 feet up a side wall, I just saw a massive paw swipe the area where my head would have been, I actually have the photo somewhere taken 2 seconds before she leapt of her beautiful face judging how far away I was and how tasty I would be.

I was very stupid and very lucky.

Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid day sun, unfortunately so do Tigers.

[Nampeung]

God is no one remembering that this animal (wild) is in captivity and totally away from its natural habitat??? Do you think it likes humans snuggling up to it and stroking it??? The animal must have been tethered or drugged otherwise it would have killed that stupid woman. How fair is that to a wild cat? We have all seen how a domesticated small cat plays with a bird or a mouse. Yes? I say - what a foolish woman to get near the poor animal, serves her right and ban all practices of this sort in the future... as with elephant dancing, painting, whatever... dispicable and pathetic to anyone who supports this by paying to do it!!!

[Shazza]

Hi, I talked to Ruth the other day, she is doing well.

Her and her husband are not suing the park, they are merely ensuring that the park will indeed pay for her medical bills and expenses. They are, however, wanting the park to draw up and implement a decent safety plan. It is true that there was no first aid kit or person trained in first aid at the park.

Let's always remember that the media like to sell their stuff and we don't need to believe most of what is written.

The park said her long sleeved shirt poked Pancake's eye, she had on a short sleeved shirt. She did NOT touch Pancake's head, she was told not to.

If you're interested, check out the video report from Campbell Live in New Zealand - Campbell interviews Stu and all the facts are pretty much there.

If Pancake's teeth had gone in another two inches, I would have lost two friends in one week as I am a friend of David Crisp as well - it's been a strange week.

[Miserere]

Three pics

1 Shows Mum and cub

2 Mum wakes up and thinks who is that dumb farang with the camera? looks tasty.

3 Two seconds before she leaps up to eat me, look at those eyes!

[dinthailand]

The tiger looks the lady in the face, what does that mean in the tiger 'language'? I know in the dog language it means 'back off'. In other words, with dogs in their language it can be a clear warning.

And the winner of the Thai Visa cunning linguist of the month award, and a strong candidate for the yearly honors, goes to.......

Nienke!!

[bonobo]

Animals like tigers should be left alone and not harrassed by tourists such as Ruth. Operators of facilities such as this should be prosecuted and the practice banned. Unfortunately, there is too much money involved and a lot of influential people, and even monks use wild animals to raise money.

This practice is no different from taking tourists to Long-Neck Karen villages. Sad! Really Sad!

So you are comparing Long Neck-Karens with animals?  

THere is a huge difference between the two situations. The tigers are held captive and really get nothing from the interchange. The Karen, unless I am mistaken, do get finanacial compensation and have the ability to simply walk away should they so not wish to be bothered.

[toybits]

Well they are treated like Zoo Animals. Too bad they don't bite like Pancake. Then perhaps, they would be treated with more respect.

Oh don't get me wrong. The Long Neck Karen ARE compensated. Just like they feed Pancake. Oh Yes, the life of the Padaung people might be better here in Thailand under the "protection" of some businessman than if they were to remain in Burma. What is troubling is that the Padaung are nontheless being exploited - milked because they are so attractive to tourists - just like Pancake.

So you are comparing Long Neck-Karens with animals?

THere is a huge difference between the two situations. The tigers are held captive and really get nothing from the interchange. The Karen, unless I am mistaken, do get finanacial compensation and have the ability to simply walk away should they so not wish to be bothered.

[dinthailand]

Animals like tigers should be left alone and not harrassed by tourists such as Ruth. Operators of facilities such as this should be prosecuted and the practice banned. Unfortunately, there is too much money involved and a lot of influential people, and even monks use wild animals to raise money.

This practice is no different from taking tourists to Long-Neck Karen villages. Sad! Really Sad!

So you are comparing Long Neck-Karens with animals?

THere is a huge difference between the two situations. The tigers are held captive and really get nothing from the interchange. The Karen, unless I am mistaken, do get finanacial compensation and have the ability to simply walk away should they so not wish to be bothered.

some research shows they are NOT free to walk away

[dinthailand]

Well they are treated like Zoo Animals. Too bad they don't bite like Pancake. Then perhaps, they would be treated with more respect.

Oh don't get me wrong. The Long Neck Karen ARE compensated. Just like they feed Pancake. Oh Yes, the life of the Padaung people might be better here in Thailand under the "protection" of some businessman than if they were to remain in Burma. What is troubling is that the Padaung are nontheless being exploited - milked because they are so attractive to tourists - just like Pancake.

So you are comparing Long Neck-Karens with animals?

THere is a huge difference between the two situations. The tigers are held captive and really get nothing from the interchange. The Karen, unless I am mistaken, do get finanacial compensation and have the ability to simply walk away should they so not wish to be bothered.

exactly. a good post using facts instead of speculation. a nice change on tv mods please note

[bertlamar]

With regards to law, in NZ there have been death and injury as the result of operator error in jet boat rides, Barry Crump's kid camp, sailing stuff, etc etc.

Signing a waiver significantly reduces the ability to sue or seek compensation under the contract of services provided for the entry price; it is usually difficult there or most places to sign away issues of negligence.

America is a different case, but I would suspect such an operation in NZ would probably not be allowed to commence (although there are petting zoos and I have been bit by a sheep on one, so I guess it happens) however if so unlikely you could seek a legal remedy based on negligence; it is fairly obvious going into a cage with a wild tiger that there is a clear risk to get bit. however, in NZ most likely people would pay out anyhow to avoid the publicity, as should probably be the case here. Mind you people swim with dolphins and the like; that can't be exactly a recipe for success, one day someone is going to get attacked as the tours follow the packs of dolphins around then just dump the swimmers among them. I think there is a swimming with sharks one as well.

I frequently play a game with my cats; I stare at them, go down low, then at certain angles, she will always pounce or attempt to scratch or bite; he will wait until I turn then do the same.

Cats are not a pack animal with a strict heirachy like a dog, and they don't consider people to be at the top of the chain. People whether with a tiger or a house cat can see this.

Sorry to hear she got bit, 2 inches from an artery, let's face if most of the body you are 2 inches away from something important....sensational story, she got a bite, medical care isn't that much cash and she has a story to tell for the rest of her life.

[bonobo]

Well they are treated like Zoo Animals. Too bad they don't bite like Pancake. Then perhaps, they would be treated with more respect.

Oh don't get me wrong. The Long Neck Karen ARE compensated. Just like they feed Pancake. Oh Yes, the life of the Padaung people might be better here in Thailand under the "protection" of some businessman than if they were to remain in Burma. What is troubling is that the Padaung are nontheless being exploited - milked because they are so attractive to tourists - just like Pancake.

So you are comparing Long Neck-Karens with animals?

THere is a huge difference between the two situations. The tigers are held captive and really get nothing from the interchange. The Karen, unless I am mistaken, do get finanacial compensation and have the ability to simply walk away should they so not wish to be bothered.

exactly. a good post using facts instead of speculation. a nice change on tv mods please note

"Facts?" "Speculation?"  Just how are you making that determination?

I am sorry, but any comparison is just too farfetched to have any validity. 

Ethnic groups around the world take advantage in the interest people have in them and use that interest for their own advantage. Not all ethnic groups, of course.  Some simply want to be left alone. The Mosuo in China have become one of the biggest tourist attractiosn in that country, and they welcome the financial benefits from it. There are numerous Amerind "traditional villages" and cultural centers in the US, Mexico, and Canada where the people there welcome a way to make a living that does not depend on gambling.  I have seen various Arabic tribes in Jordan making themselves objects of interest in places like Petra. Even in Siem Reap, the cultural shows where dancers perform in traditional costumes is related to this. 

If there wasn't some truth to this, do you think women in Thailand would wear tribal costumes while trying to sell wooden frogs to tourists?  Or do you think there is some sort of vast slavery conspiracy which takes away all their regular clothes and makes them hit the streets like that?

As a midshipman at the US Navel Academy, I was a tourist attraction myself. And it was pretty much impossible to go anywhere on the weekends without having to pose for photos with someone's children or grandparents. But if I didn't want to deal with tourists, I just would not go to the areas in which the toursits were allowed to wander.

Most tourists who are going to pack up and hit Thailand's north are probably the type who love all things ethnic (yes, Dinthailand, this is my specualtion here) and respect ethnic diversity. This is hardly the same as treating them like "zoo animals."

Animals such as Pancake, on the other hand, are completely exploited.  They are snatched out of their natural habitat or born in captivity to be handled and kept as tourist fodder.  Without trying to anthropomorphize them, they are essentially slaves, with no choice on what they do. THey cannot walk away, they cannot go back into the jungle. I write this as a person who gave in and spent a day taking photos with them several years ago. I know I contributed to their exploitation. I have not been to see the Long-Neck Karens, but if I were there, I would feel no guilt by taking photos or trying to learn more about their culture.

I am not saying that this is the case with any posters here, but there tends to be a certain elitism professed when dealing with people who may not be as what others consider to be advanced, that they need to be somehow "protected."  I have a side buisness of selling Thai silk around the world, and when I tell people about OTOP, and how the silk has allowed people to buy things like motorcycles or televisions, I often get criticized for "letting" people "ruin" their culture, as if adults are not free to make their own decisions on who to spend their money. This implies to me that they think Thai villagers are simply not capable of making rational decisions and need to be protected by more "advanced' westerners. 

If the Padaung wish to make a few extra baht by posing for photos, well I think that is pretty much their decision. Pancake does not make anything for herself, and the decision to pose or not pose is not hers to make.

Edited January 29, 2009 by bonobo

[dinthailand]

Well they are treated like Zoo Animals. Too bad they don't bite like Pancake. Then perhaps, they would be treated with more respect.

Oh don't get me wrong. The Long Neck Karen ARE compensated. Just like they feed Pancake. Oh Yes, the life of the Padaung people might be better here in Thailand under the "protection" of some businessman than if they were to remain in Burma. What is troubling is that the Padaung are nontheless being exploited - milked because they are so attractive to tourists - just like Pancake.

So you are comparing Long Neck-Karens with animals?

THere is a huge difference between the two situations. The tigers are held captive and really get nothing from the interchange. The Karen, unless I am mistaken, do get finanacial compensation and have the ability to simply walk away should they so not wish to be bothered.

exactly. a good post using facts instead of speculation. a nice change on tv mods please note

"Facts?" "Speculation?" Just how are you making that determination?

have the ability to simply walk away not always, some are forced to be tourist attractions - hence the word speculation.

I am sorry, but any comparison is just too farfetched to have any validity.

Ethnic groups around the world take advantage in the interest people have in them and use that interest for their own advantage. Not all ethnic groups, of course. Some simply want to be left alone. The Mosuo in China have become one of the biggest tourist attractiosn in that country, and they welcome the financial benefits from it. There are numerous Amerind "traditional villages" and cultural centers in the US, Mexico, and Canada where the people there welcome a way to make a living that does not depend on gambling. I have seen various Arabic tribes in Jordan making themselves objects of interest in places like Petra. Even in Siem Reap, the cultural shows where dancers perform in traditional costumes is related to this.

If there wasn't some truth to this, do you think women in Thailand would wear tribal costumes while trying to sell wooden frogs to tourists? Or do you think there is some sort of vast slavery conspiracy which takes away all their regular clothes and makes them hit the streets like that?

As a midshipman at the US Navel Academy, I was a tourist attraction myself. And it was pretty much impossible to go anywhere on the weekends without having to pose for photos with someone's children or grandparents. But if I didn't want to deal with tourists, I just would not go to the areas in which the toursits were allowed to wander.

Most tourists who are going to pack up and hit Thailand's north are probably the type who love all things ethnic (yes, Dinthailand, this is my specualtion here) and respect ethnic diversity. This is hardly the same as treating them like "zoo animals."

Animals such as Pancake, on the other hand, are completely exploited. They are snatched out of their natural habitat or born in captivity to be handled and kept as tourist fodder. Without trying to anthropomorphize them, they are essentially slaves, with no choice on what they do. THey cannot walk away, they cannot go back into the jungle. I write this as a person who gave in and spent a day taking photos with them several years ago. I know I contributed to their exploitation. I have not been to see the Long-Neck Karens, but if I were there, I would feel no guilt by taking photos or trying to learn more about their culture.

I am not saying that this is the case with any posters here, but there tends to be a certain elitism professed when dealing with people who may not be as what others consider to be advanced, that they need to be somehow "protected." I have a side buisness of selling Thai silk around the world, and when I tell people about OTOP, and how the silk has allowed people to buy things like motorcycles or televisions, I often get criticized for "letting" people "ruin" their culture, as if adults are not free to make their own decisions on who to spend their money. This implies to me that they think Thai villagers are simply not capable of making rational decisions and need to be protected by more "advanced' westerners.

and obviously, being you, you are impervious to doubt

If the Padaung wish to make a few extra baht by posing for photos, well I think that is pretty much their decision. Pancake does not make anything for herself, and the decision to pose or not pose is not hers to make.

[mich]

Animals like tigers should be left alone and not harrassed by tourists such as Ruth. Operators of facilities such as this should be prosecuted and the practice banned. Unfortunately, there is too much money involved and a lot of influential people, and even monks use wild animals to raise money.

This practice is no different from taking tourists to Long-Neck Karen villages. Sad! Really Sad!

I fully agree, these are wild animals and not toys for tourists to play with. They are badly treated in these places, beaten and kept under sedation so arrogant people can make money out of of their misery.

Makes me sick

[yabaaaa]

She played with a tiger, got bitten and now wants to sue?

Sorry to hear she got bitten but she did decide to cuddle a Tiger, a predator. Awww, cute

all visitors to Tiger Kingdom sign a waiver before visiting the ewo enclodures where the cubs and tigers are. there is therefore no option to sue under thai law. the court officials would not be able to list it for hearing before a judge. this is why the owners said that no police report had been filed. the police would check the waiver form and close the case.

glad she was not badly hurt and is doing well

I see these "have your photo taken with the luvvly Tiger" things all over Thailand Anyone who gets in with a Tiger is an idiot, and any government that allows it........ but w e all knew that right?

[bonobo]

have the ability to simply walk away not always, some are forced to be tourist attractions - hence the word speculation.

So you are telling me that they are locked up like a tiger is? 

Being forced--is that "specualtion" on your part, or do you have proof. I am open to any proof you may be able to show.

Even the quote above shows theh situation is not the same. All tigers are held captive. 100%. The quote above says "some" are not able to walk away. Even if we accept that as the absolute truth (and I am not doing that), then the situation is different.

And I think it is fairly demeaning to compare people with animals in this manner.

I am not saying that this is the case with any posters here, but there tends to be a certain elitism professed when dealing with people who may not be as what others consider to be advanced, that they need to be somehow "protected." I have a side buisness of selling Thai silk around the world, and when I tell people about OTOP, and how the silk has allowed people to buy things like motorcycles or televisions, I often get criticized for "letting" people "ruin" their culture, as if adults are not free to make their own decisions on who to spend their money. This implies to me that they think Thai villagers are simply not capable of making rational decisions and need to be protected by more "advanced' westerners.

and obviously, being you, you are impervious to doubt

And you know who I am?  You know that I am impervious to doubt?  I am glad you know so much about me after reading a couple posts.

But I will tell you this about me.  Yes, I think it is the height of arrogance for any western person, a person who has all the trappings of the modern world, to think that they know better and that Thai villagers should not be able to have some of the same things. They wish to keep people locked in the "Noble Savage" mode to keep alive some of their own yearnings.  Sorry, but I do not buy it. That is pandering at its greatest. Just because someone is born in a village in Buriram does not mean that they cannot make a decision to buy a television or a motorcycle with the money they have earned.

[dinthailand]

have the ability to simply walk away not always, some are forced to be tourist attractions - hence the word speculation.

So you are telling me that they are locked up like a tiger is?

Being forced--is that "specualtion" on your part, or do you have proof. I am open to any proof you may be able to show.

Even the quote above shows theh situation is not the same. All tigers are held captive. 100%. The quote above says "some" are not able to walk away. Even if we accept that as the absolute truth (and I am not doing that), then the situation is different.

And I think it is fairly demeaning to compare people with animals in this manner.

I am not saying that this is the case with any posters here, but there tends to be a certain elitism professed when dealing with people who may not be as what others consider to be advanced, that they need to be somehow "protected." I have a side buisness of selling Thai silk around the world, and when I tell people about OTOP, and how the silk has allowed people to buy things like motorcycles or televisions, I often get criticized for "letting" people "ruin" their culture, as if adults are not free to make their own decisions on who to spend their money. This implies to me that they think Thai villagers are simply not capable of making rational decisions and need to be protected by more "advanced' westerners.

and obviously, being you, you are impervious to doubt

And you know who I am? You know that I am impervious to doubt? I am glad you know so much about me after reading a couple posts.

But I will tell you this about me. Yes, I think it is the height of arrogance for any western person, a person who has all the trappings of the modern world, to think that they know better and that Thai villagers should not be able to have some of the same things. They wish to keep people locked in the "Noble Savage" mode to keep alive some of their own yearnings. Sorry, but I do not buy it. That is pandering at its greatest. Just because someone is born in a village in Buriram does not mean that they cannot make a decision to buy a television or a motorcycle with the money they have earned.

I did not make any comments akin to those in your last paragraph and would never do so. Get off your high horse.

I certainly was not being demeaning

I said some were not free to leave and was from a UN report . No one says they are slaves in that sense but there is much economic slavery here. And I am on the side of those who have to endure it