Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/609762
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 2 DECEMBER 2015 10 Opinion Y ou can say what you like about the incident with the tiger and the three year-old toddler. But if you ask me, it's all the fault of comic books. Like 'Calvin and Hobbes', for instance. How utterly irresponsible, to depict a small child enjoying a friendly, safe relationship with an adult tiger like that. And no, it doesn't matter a bit that Hobbes is actually a soft-toy tiger (the Americans call it 'stuffed', but that sounds kind of rude to me); and only comes to life in Calvin's over- fertile imagination. It's the subliminal message that counts here. Instead of warning little children to stay away from tigers – because, let's face it, any child could suddenly come face to face with a live tiger, at any given moment, around any corner, anywhere in the world… – this comic book actually encourages them to regard such beasts as tame and friendly. Small wonder, then, that a small child would want to see a live tiger at close quarters for the first time… and his natural reaction would be to treat it as a plaything. It's precisely what those irresponsible comic books have subconsciously brainwashed small children to do all along… Naturally, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a live tiger should never, EVER have been permitted anywhere near that child in the first place. Not just precisely where it happened to be at the time: i.e., outside its cage, in a zoo full of people, held on a leash by two men of debatable animal-handling experience (and whose number, in any case, would be insufficient to control even a large dog). It should never have been anywhere near Hal Farrug. 'Montekristo Estates' is an illegal development which has no permit to house any animals of any kind whatsoever. Still less rare and exotic animals protected by international law (among them, the tiger)… some of which are obviously dangerous in inexperienced hands. For this reason alone, you can't blame the tiger either. It wasn't the tiger's choice to be allowed out and within paw-swipe distance of children. And it is perfectly possible that its intentions were indeed (as the zoo management was keen to stress) entirely benign. A friendly pat from a playful adult tiger would be enough to land a healthy, strong adult in ITU… even with all its claws retracted. With as much as one claw unsheathed, it could easily be fatal to anyone (as it very nearly was for that toddler). There is, of course, the small question of whether a playful, friendly tiger would unsheathe its claws at all. Judging by Sheer Khan in The Jungle Book, it tends to be a sign of impending aggression in tigers. But I'll admit I have no training, qualifications or experience of any kind in actually handling big cats myself (which is more than the Montekristo Estate has so far done about its own staff )… My only direct experience of the cat family is limited to Maggie here… and she's 'accidentally' stuck a few claws into me in her time. (Especially when I accidentally forget to feed her on time…) Haven't you now, Maggie? In any case, I'm perfectly willing to accept the explanation that it was all a ghastly accident. Fact remains, it is entirely irrelevant. Even if the tiger's intention was to deliberately and maliciously dismember the boy and gobble him up… well, it's a tiger, for crying out loud. Hilaire Belloc once wrote an entire epic poem about the mutual incompatibility of big cats and little children from a purely health and safety perspective. It's called "Jim: [the little boy] who ran away from his nurse, and was eaten by a lion." There. Not much to add to that, really. Even back in the 19th century, it was generally understood that 'lions', 'tigers', 'leopards' and so on are best treated in much the same way as 'drugs', 'guns' and 'heavy industrial toilet detergents': i.e, kept safely away out of reach of little children. This is a universally acknowledged truth among all cultures everywhere (except maybe when it comes to guns in the USA)… and as such, doesn't require a degree in zoology to comprehend. Degrees in zoology do help, though, if you happen to really be an animal handler dealing with a large tiger. In most countries in the world, a BSc (preferably in zoology, but other animal-related subjects are also considered) is in fact the basic minimum prerequisite to qualify for the job. Most zoos also require their handlers to have had at least three years' experience – sometimes five or more – in the sector before even applying. But then again, in most countries in the world, zoos are also expected to be covered by valid permits issued by the authorities: in our case, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority. Among the areas usually covered by such permits are trivialities such as a licence to keep live animals in captivity; monitoring of housing and other conditions for the animals; assurances of proper training for staff; health and safety precautions for the public (and animals), etc. etc. In a nutshell, everything that was missing was the tiger incident scenario. And that's before getting to all the other, less obvious requirements. Zoos are also possible sources of infectious outbreaks. They do not just house animals; they also import them… with all the risk of accidentally importing parasites that carry a wide variety of potentially lethal diseases. Animal handlers and zoo personnel in general should be vaccinated against rabies, bubonic plague, typhus, etc. Regular veterinary assessment is required in part for this reason (aside from ensuring the health of the animals themselves). Does any of this apply to Montekristo Estates? My guess is as good as anyone's; its management has ignored all press questions Then there are rules and regulations governing the interaction of display animals with the public. I have yet to hear of a single zoo, anywhere in the world, that would conceivably allow a tiger (no less) out of its enclosure during opening hours, when the place is milling with people. That this would be done because the tiger 'was feeling unwell' only confirms why experience and training is generally considered important… at least, in countries where zoos are actually regulated. The first rule of any activity involving wild animals is: you don't talk about any activity involving wild animals… No, hang on, that's not right: the first rule is, any animal that's injured, sick or (where applicable) rejected by its community, is to be handled with the utmost care. That is when they are likely to be at their most dangerous… Which is why, of course, I pin the blame entirely on Calvin and Hobbes. There is patently no point in blaming anyone else. Not, mind you, that this has prevented others from trying. Heck, I've even seen efforts to pin the blame on the child's parents for allowing it to get too close to a live tiger. Which makes a lot of sense, when you think about it. After all, a responsible parent in the 21st century is expected to know all there is to be known about protecting their children from random attacks by large, wild predators. No excuses now: it's not as though there's around 7,000 years of civilisation separating us from the time when that was, in fact, the official 'rule number one' of practical parenthood…. But again, I blame Calvin and Hobbes for that, too. Back in the day when fending off wild animals was a daily part of human existence, no one would have seen the funny side to a cave-painting of a little boy befriending a sabre-toothed tiger. They would, quite rightly, have been horrified. The equivalent today would be a comic book series about 'Calvin and Heroin'. The entire concept is just… WRONG. Besides: the only viable alternative to blaming an otherwise delightful work of comic genius such as Calvin and Hobbes, is to blame the parties who are actually responsible for this utterly awful state of affairs. And where the heck do you even begin? You can't point fingers at the Polidano Group (as owners and administrators of Montekristo) for not having a valid licence… without also blaming the competent authorities for permitting this 'zoo' to operate illegally all these years. And you can't blame the competent authorities for permitting this, either, when all their efforts to shut the place down have always come to nought. Unlike other, lesser illegalities (for all other planning illegalities in this country are, by definition, 'lesser': this is "Malta's largest illegality", remember?)… Montekristo Estates has somehow survived successive waves of enforcement notices. This may or may not have something to do with the fact that MEPA's Board is in part composed of representatives of two political parties, both of which have studiously ignored the issue of the illegality of this zoo for years. It may or may not be in part because the Polidano group employs well over 1,000 people, and could conceivably precipitate a national emergency if crossed in any way. Whatever the reason, there are clearly pressures on MEPA from above (and below, and both sides, etc) to turn a blind eye towards Polidano's excesses. Last July, MEPA was even forced to backtrack when it denied the place a licence to host a trade fair. Within two days, the Appeals Board overturned the decision, with no explanation given. The fair itself was later inaugurated by the President of the Republic, and attended by Malta's great and the good in full regalia. I could stop there, really, because already you can see how this unbroken chain of utter irresponsibility goes all the way to the very top, and then trickles down again until we are all caked in its ooze. The sad truth is as inescapable in this case, as it was with the Paqpaqli Ghall-Istrina accident some weeks ago. The entire country, at all levels, is directly responsible: for having tolerated an intolerable situation for so long. But then again: why blame ourselves, when we can always make others responsible for our own glaring shortcomings? Blame it on 'Calvin and Hobbes', I say. Ban all comic books, before more innocent children get hurt…. Blame it on Calvin and Hobbes Raphael Vassallo 10 Opinion