2-Year-Old Recovering After Zoo Attack

[legelegel]

NORMAN, Oklahoma -- A boy who was attacked by a lynx at Norman's Little River Zoo Tuesday is recovering after receiving lacerations to his face and head.

Two-year-old Ethan Billy's father said his son was at his side when the cat reached through its cage and clawed him.

"Right when he got up there it was a split second. The lynx had just grabbed him through the fence with both of his paws and just started attacking him just trying to bring him through the fence and trying to bite him," said Adam Billy, Ethan's father.

The attack left the boy with seven staples in the back of his head along with 15 stitches underneath his eye and on his neck.

Zoo keepers said they're taking a look at the cat's behavior.
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11236631

I wouldn't be as concerned about the cat's behavior as I would the cat's enclosure and the safety of the public. But they aren't going to blame the attack on themselves. The defense has already started.

www.littleriverzoo.com (http://www.littleriverzoo.com)

[AnniePokely]

15 stitches under his eye. So, this little boy is scarred for life b/c the cat had access to reach thru a fence.


They better be working on a darn good defense. They're going to need it.

[bleedorange]

15 stitches under his eye. So, this little boy is scarred for life b/c the cat had access to reach thru a fence.


They better be working on a darn good defense. They're going to need it.

Sounds like they should have already worked on da fence.

[legelegel]

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/5376/lynxattack1.jpg (http://img260.imageshack.us/i/lynxattack1.jpg/)

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6129/lynxattack2.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/i/lynxattack2.jpg/)


Video Update: http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&clipId=4167221&autostart=true

This report is indicating some blame on the parents. I don't get it. That chain link cage looks like a problem waiting for such an accident to happen. The cage is just plain slipshod.

"Sounded a lot worse than it turned out to be." "Not an attack, but playful act." :confused:

This little boy could have lost an eye. Sounds like someone's getting hoodwinked or paid off for this media updated report. What a milk toast report.



(http://img137.imageshack.us/i/lynxattack2.jpg/)

[FalseGod]

Well, a wild animal such as that can do some serious damage even being playful. They aren't wrong about that. I didn't hear the report laying any blame on the parents. It said the boy (as kids tend to do) wandered away from the tour and got too close to the animals cage. From what I could see in the background of the shot from the bird pond the cage was in a roped off area which the kid probably went right under.

[legelegel]

Well, a wild animal such as that can do some serious damage even being playful. They aren't wrong about that. I didn't hear the report laying any blame on the parents. It said the boy (as kids tend to do) wandered away from the tour and got too close to the animals cage. From what I could see in the background of the shot from the bird pond the cage was in a roped off area which the kid probably went right under.

Yes, the report did not actually lay blame on the parents, but it implied that they may not have been attentive with their three year old.

That rope is obviously a poor excuse for an outer barrier for that cage. Grossly negligence is the result of ongoing stupidity and you see it here.

This little animal wonderland better get their check book out.

[FalseGod]

I guess my definition of "indicating blame" and "implied blame" are not the same as what you consider it to be then.

By your logic we could also argue that the parents are grossly negligent by not keeping track of their child at all times, especially in a place filled with wild animals that could easily kill. They should be thankful the kid just had some cuts and is not dead.

I would say both sides could have both done things that could have prevented this.

[legelegel]

I guess my definition of "indicating blame" and "implied blame" are not the same as what you consider it to be then.

By your logic we could also argue that the parents are grossly negligent by not keeping track of their child at all times, especially in a place filled with wild animals that could easily kill. They should be thankful the kid just had some cuts and is not dead.

I would say both sides could have both done things that could have prevented this.

There may have been some negligence on the parents, but the animal park should have expected that some children might wonder off.

I don't think the animals in this park are the killing kind. If they are they should be better secured from a child's reach or an animal's reach. It's a petting type zoo I believe.

That's certainly true about the joint negligence, but the greater responsibility is not on the invitee unless he is put on notice just like we are when we go to a baseball game.

[Superaggie2]

Well it's a small zoo,and having been there once,actually kinda nice, but it's not a petting zoo,as they do have cougers,coyotes,bears,etc... Now they do have a guide take you thru,and have several hands on things like snakes,goats,etc.... It's not like the Tulsa or OKC zoo,but still ok for something different. That said,I wouldn't be letting my child wander off,next to a cage,etc...