TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Tiger attacks Roy of Siegfried and Roy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tiger attacks Roy of Siegfried and Roy

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
Roy of 'Siegfried & Roy' critical after mauling
Saturday, October 4, 2003 Posted: 7:20 AM EDT (1120 GMT)
(CNN) -- A nine-year-old white tiger attacked Roy Horn of 'Siegfried & Roy' during a Friday night performance on the Las Vegas strip -- the tiger's first time on stage, and the trainer's 59th birthday.

Horn was listed as critical Saturday, according to the University Medical Center for emergency surgery's recorded message service, updated at 2:30 a.m. (5:30 a.m. ET).

The tiger lunged at Horn's neck about half-way through the show, and dragged him off stage, audience members said. "He looked like a rag doll in his mouth," said Kirk Baser, from Pennsylvania.

Emergency officials arrived at the MGM Mirage Hotel-Casino around 8:20 p.m. (11:20 p.m. ET), and treated Horn for massive blood loss before he was rushed to University Medical Center for emergency surgery.

Horn was talking at the time emergency workers arrived, but had trouble breathing, Clark County Fire spokesman Bob Leinbach said.

Horn, the darker-haired member of 'Siegfried & Roy', was born in Nordenham, Germany on October 3, 1944. Combining magic with tiger stunts, the flamboyant duo has performed on the Las Vegas strip for nearly 30 years.

The tiger that attacked Horn is currently in quarantine and no one else was injured in the attack, according to MGM Mirage spokesman Alan Feldman.

Audience members were shocked to realize the attack was not part of an illusion or magic trick.

Amy Sherman, who was sitting in the front row with her mother about 10 yards away from the stage, said the attack happened right after Horn introduced the tiger, saying it was the animal's first performance.

"Right after that, the tiger kind of turned its head and bit him on the arm," Sherman said. "Roy started taking a microphone and started whapping the tiger on the head."

The tiger, who was on a short leash, then dragged Horn to the ground and they struggled before the tiger dragged him behind a curtain by his neck, she said. Trainers on stage rushed to aid Horn, trying to subdue the tiger.

"We just heard all this commotion behind the curtain and you could hear Roy scream," Sherman said. "Everyone at our table was kind of looking at each other, like 'Oh my God,'" she said.

After about a minute, which Sherman's mother said seemed like forever, Siegfried appeared on stage.

"You could tell he was really shook up, and he just said, 'I'm sorry but the show is over, and you know, the show has been canceled'" Joyce Edenholl said.

"Everyone there I think , thought it was part of the act, because no one really freaked out," Kirk Baser said. "When it grabbed him and dragged him off the stage, I thought maybe it was like some magic trick where they switch a rag doll or something."

A group of Australians said they witnessed the attack from the front row of the crowded theater, and also thought it was just part of the show.

"A lady ran past me, freaking out and it was then I sort of, in the back of my mind, thought now this isn't part of the show," said David Strudwick. "And then you look at the staff and they had a bit of horror in their eyes and ... it was like, wait a second, it may not be a part of the show."

For some reason, I am not surprised by this. Tigers are not for playing with.
post #2 of 44
Tigers are my favorite animal, but you'd NEVER get me to play with one... i'm really saddened that this happened though. i feel really bad for the audience once they realized what had really happened.... EWWWWIE and what will become of the tiger??
post #3 of 44
Oh how sad, and although I agree that tigers are not to be messed with, I have the utmost respect for how these two men keep their tigers and care for them.

I hope that Roy will pull through this!
post #4 of 44
I just read about this. So sad and scary Imagine being in the audience and witnessing this.
post #5 of 44
It is sad, but you have to remember that tigers can hardly be considered "domesticated animals", and something like that can happen at any time. I have mixed feelings about this. The current German government is planning on banning the use of "exotic animals" in circuses. Yes, I do think the animals are being exploited, and are under a lot of stress in transit and on the circus grounds, but -- if I were a tiger, elephant, chimp or whatever, I think I might prefer the more stressful, but interesting and envigorating circus life to vegetating in a zoo, where total boredom appears to reign. Now we can get into a discussion about zoos! Are they a necessary evil, seeing as they can preserve species in danger of extinction and educate the public about the need for animal protection, or are they cruel prisons that no wild animal should be subjected to?
post #6 of 44
Raggiemom, hopefully the tiger will only be retired from performing. From everything I've heard about Seigfried & Roy, I can't imagine them destroying him.

Lately from the news it sounds like Roy is in 'serious but stable' condition, so hopefully he will be OK.

Jcat, when you bring up zoos, it made me think of an article I read on CNN.com yesterday about how the big carnivores that cover many miles each day in the wild have the hardest time in zoos. Here is the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science...eut/index.html

I am so torn in how I feel about zoos - obviously a wild animal is not as happy in a zoo as in the wild. However, zoos draw a lot of people, and they then have an opportunity to really inform people about the horrible situations many wild animals are in, and maybe help to encourage people to get involved in the efforts to preserve habitat, etc. And they can be used to help preserve species that are going extinct (California condors, for example). But ethically is it right to preserve them when their habitat is gone, and they can maybe never be wild again?
post #7 of 44
Siegfried and Roy are well aware of the risks of working with these big cats and it was bound to happen, sooner or later. EVERY performer, who has ever worked with big cats, has been injured, at some time or another. It is an occupational hazard, that they accept.

I am quite sure that their cats are very well treated. After all, they are a huge investment and those cats are their bread-and-butter. The tiger may well have been having an off night and, that was his way of throwing a tantrum.

S & R have been very instrumental in preserving white tigers and perpetuating them. White tigers would never last, in the wild - they would be prized trophies. I know that they work closely, with zoos and circuses and are responsible breeders.

I just wish that tickets for their shows weren't so darned expensive! Even when I worked for MGM/Mirage, I couldn't get a discount.
post #8 of 44
How sad. I hope he pulls through.

I remember reading somewhere that large cats in shows such as Siegfried and Roy's are actually in better emotional and mental health than big cats in the zoo (as long as they are treated humanely). The interaction they have with the trainers and the other cats helps relieve the boredom that many zoo cats face. The tricks they perform (not debating whether it's humane or not) actually keep them in a better mental form and keep them responsive to and interactive with their environment.
post #9 of 44
Roy has been doing this for 30 years and this is the frist time he has been hurt.The tiger will not be put down,and you cannot blame the animal,after all it is a wild animal.I hope roy pull's through.!
post #10 of 44
Quote:
Originally posted by katl8e
S & R have been very instrumental in preserving white tigers and perpetuating them. White tigers would never last, in the wild - they would be prized trophies. I know that they work closely, with zoos and circuses and are responsible breeders.
There was a special program about S & R and it showed how and where the White Tigers were allowed to go in the mansion. With all of that space that S & R have the White Tigers are treated way better than Royalty. I agree with katl8e about the preservation and the perpetuating of them.

I do hope and pray that Roy will be just fine and get back home to his Big Cats and continue working! I'm sure he has angels watching him.
post #11 of 44
Susan - that article was quite interesting.
post #12 of 44
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/0...ked/index.html

How sad....now the Mirage has told the staff and crew of the show to "look for other career options". They are pretty much saying they are pulling the plug on the show.
post #13 of 44
I doubt that the tiger will be destroyed. They have been raised as the pair's children, even to sleeping in the same bed with them under the sheets. I saw a TV special on them a few years ago, and it showed a tiger sleeping late, in the huge bed, under the covers. It finally got up and went for a swim.
The comment about it being the tiger's first time onstage was apparently a joke. I heard on the news late last night that this tiger had been performing for several years. Even though S&R treat their animals better than most people treat their children, they are still tigers, and therefore unpredictable. I am sure that they are well aware of the risks, and have been fortunate that they have never before had serious injuries. I am praying that all concerned will be ok, and even though the show has been cancelled indefinitely, I hear that they will be continuing their conservation efforts.
post #14 of 44
I've worked with tigers for some time and I will say they are VERY dangerous animals. A small tiger (400 or so lbs.) can simply have a bad day or be in a bad mood and attack. Generally they will give warning signs, but these animals are so fast and quick there is not much time to react.

As for the article, it indicates a "home range" for a grizzly bear of 0.2 square miles (0.5 sq. km). In reality it's up to 400 sq. miles, so I'm not so sure about their data. Added to that, tigers in captivity actually have a very low infant mortality rate in properly run facilities - again bringing their data and conclusions into question. This is one of the issues which has created a problem in the US with exotic animals - particularly tigers. They are easy to breed and have a high survival rate, providing a source of quick money for some breeders will no scruples. I know our two tigers (both rescues) have roughly 2400 square feet each and seem quite content and happy. (They do get lots of interaction and "play time" with people - but from OUTSIDE the cages.) Our wolves, also very active animals, are quite happy (and demonstrate it constantly), and they are currently in a 2100 square foot enclosure. Once again, the articles conclusions (and data) I find to be highly questionable.

White tigers have a very rare (and recessive) gene. There are actually four strains of the white gene and each are manifested quite differently. The rare wild white tigers were often considered sacred. These animals were just as capable of sustaining themselves as the "normal" colored animals. Until the British occupation of India they had no threats. After these occupations they were considered prized trophies, but local populations often tried to sabatoged the hunts (though not always successfully.) The white genes are only in the lines from specific areas and do not occur in all sub-species of tiger. The current ones in captivity were bred solely for their commercial value, and there is no consideration for preservation. All white tigers currently in captivity are from lines that have been seriously inbred in order to produce white offspring. Because of this inbreeding, all have a high risk of congenital diseases (back, leg, hip problems, certain cancers, etc.) and most have neurotic tendancies which create an unpredictability in their behavior.

Our female tiger (Tigra) is from a white tiger line, though she did not exhibit the trait. She has hip and back leg problems. She was originally "trained" to work in movies and commercials, but had some behavior issues (among other problems) and so was retired. She is more dangerous, at 400 lbs, than our 600 lb male because of her unpredictability.

As for the show being cancelled, I'm absolutely not surprised. I'd guess the insurance company basically told the place to cancel the show or lose their policy. I would expect they may have a bit of an issue scheduling shows in the future.

Tigra:


Willie:


George
post #15 of 44
I saw an interview yesterday morning with a friend and collegue of S & R. He said that the tiger wouldn't obey Roy's commands so Roy hit the tiger in the face with a microphone. The tiger curled his lips more and took off after Roy.

The tiger is in Quarantine until a decission can be made.
post #16 of 44
Quote:
As for the article, it indicates a "home range" for a grizzly bear of 0.2 square miles (0.5 sq. km). In reality it's up to 400 sq. miles, so I'm not so sure about their data. Added to that, tigers in captivity actually have a very low infant mortality rate in properly run facilities - again bringing their data and conclusions into question. This is one of the issues which has created a problem in the US with exotic animals - particularly tigers. They are easy to breed and have a high survival rate, providing a source of quick money for some breeders will no scruples. I know our two tigers (both rescues) have roughly 2400 square feet each and seem quite content and happy. (They do get lots of interaction and "play time" with people - but from OUTSIDE the cages.) Our wolves, also very active animals, are quite happy (and demonstrate it constantly), and they are currently in a 2100 square foot enclosure. Once again, the articles conclusions (and data) I find to be highly questionable.
George, thanks for sharing your expertise!! I don't know what you do for a living with tigers, but I think I'm jealous...

Warning, I'm going of on a rant for a minute. I am so sick of not being able to trust anything I read! It seems that you have to do a full literature review and perhaps run some tests of your own before you can believe anything that's written about anything - politics, law, science, nature, health. And then you have to completely research the sources to find out their own personal philosophies to try to uncover any biases they may have. It would be nice if the 'facts' quoted in a scientific article (for example, the 'home range' numbers) reflected scientifically accepted numbers. (End of rant for now, but I might just start a new thread!)

The thing I had liked about that article is that it gave me some hope that the people in charge of wild animals in captivity are trying to make them as comfortable as possible. I think it is better - I have horrible memories from my childhood of of zoos with miserable animals in stark cages. The zoos I have been to recently seem to at least be trying to give the animals something closer to their natural habitat, as well as companionship if they are animals that want it. Not saying they are perfect, but I think better than they were.
post #17 of 44
The article I heard on the news said that the tiger grabbed Roy's arm first, only then did he try to defend himself with the microphone. If they beat animals that did not obey, I doubt they would have gone 30 years without serious injury. There was also an unconfirmed story that some of the reason for the discontiuation of the show was a pact between the 2 men that if 1 becam incapacitated, that the other would not continue the show without him.
On the brighter side, a hospital spokesman said though still critical, he was able to communicate a little with hand gestures.
post #18 of 44
Quote:
I don't know what you do for a living with tigers, but I think I'm jealous...
I do a lot of work with a local sanctuary (volunteer). (I've also been asked to join the board, I'm the "curator" for canids, a supporter and sponsor, design and build all the canid enclosures, help in the design and building of cat enslosures, build houses for all the critters, care for the animals, manage restraint and transport when needed, etc., etc.) For a living I program computers.

By the way, tigers are very different in captivity than they are in the wild. One very marked difference: in captivity they seem to be happier in a small social settings (pairs or very small groups) where in the wild they're extremely solitary.

Quote:
I am so sick of not being able to trust anything I read!
I know the feeling. The press is not held accountable in any way for their publications. Journalistic integrity seems to have long ago passed into extinction and the rush to be "first" with the story seems to outweigh anything else. In some areas the political leanings of a particular paper or other media come through in a way that so obvious it's laughable.

George
post #19 of 44
On the news this morning they said that the tiger would not be put down. Sigfried made a statement saying that the tiger was just being a tiger.
post #20 of 44
Quote:
On the news this morning they said that the tiger would not be put down.
That's good to hear. I wouldn't expect them to use this tiger in any more shows (if there are any more with tigers!) I know there are plenty of places that would be happy to take in a white one - they're quite a revenue draw (that's why there are the breeding programs I mentioned before.)

George
post #21 of 44
I'm sure that once Roy fully recovers that the show will be back on!

Just think possitive!
post #22 of 44
There a hearing schedule today, at the US Dept. of Agriculture, to explore banning live animal acts.

PETA is scheduled to testify. For once, they are coming down, for people's rights. The claim is that these acts endanger the public. Some people are worried about what might have happened, if the tiger had jumped into the audience.

Last night's news said that 14 people have been killed by performing animals, over the past several years - mostly handlers. Elephants seem to be more likely to go off, than big cats, though. Most of the incidents have involved them.

There used to be a stripper, in Phoenix, who used a tiger in her act. She had to discontinue it, after the tiger attacked a patron.
post #23 of 44
Any ban by the USDA will be challenged, and I expect would lose based on past history. The Federal Govt. doesn't have the Constitutional authority to set local bans. This is the basis of all previous overturns of similar efforts by the USDA. Their authority to set standards or regulate ownership of "exotic" animals only extends to North American animals which are either migratory or are covered in the Endangered Species Act. Their authority over domestic animals only applies if the animals are maintained for food production or interstate trade. Otherwise only local laws apply.

George
post #24 of 44
Last year, I had my picture taken, at the Pima County Fair, with a tiger cub on my lap. One also had the option of a lion cub, bear cub or small alligator. This year, State Fish & Wildlife shut that exhibitor down. AZ law prohibits allowing the public to come into physical contact with exotics. In addition, one of the tiger cubs was too young and ill to be out and handled that way. The people who run the operation have a tiger rescue facility and take in other exotics, too. These are usually "pets" that people can no longer handle or animals confiscated from traveling shows or roadside "zoos".

WHY would anyone think that they could keep a full-grown tiger in a Harlem apartment?
post #25 of 44
First thing I thought about when I read the story, was how dangerous this kind of act is for the audience! The handlers may choose to work with wild animals while aware of the dangers, but I think that viewers assume that watching the show is safe.
post #26 of 44
Cindy, some people seem to think that an animal like a tiger will automatically become tame because it was raised in a home and handled by humans. They just don't stop to think about how dangerous the animal will become once it's an adult.
post #27 of 44
How many times do we see, "I was just petting my kitty cat and it bit/clawed me!" or "My kitty heard a loud noise/saw a strange cat/smelled a strange smell and all of a sudden became aggressive!" And these are just our little puddycats, but they can be scary when they all-of-a-sudden have a change in behaviour. Now make that cat 500 pounds.

The more I learn about ferals and how easily a domesticated housecat will revert back to it's wild nature, the more I think that we can't really "tame" these kitties that we love so much any more than you can a lion or tiger. The difference is that through "selective breeding" - meaning the more sociable cats over hundreds of years have flourished under the care of humans - and the sheer size difference, we are able to deal with the occasional wild streak from the little cats we keep in our homes.

Just a theory from someone who has been working on feral care banners all night.
post #28 of 44
I had this little cat that I took in when she was found in a trash can at about 4 weeks old. She was very attached to me and always slept in the crook of my arm. When I took her in to be spayed she was visibly upset. I reached over to pet her and she lashed out and got the back of my hand pretty badly. On another occasion I bought a new alarm clock. When it went off in the morning she shot straight up in the air and came down with claws flailing everywhere. I ended up with quite a few deep gashes on my arm and chest. Within a few seconds I had picked her up and she was cuddled up to me for security. This was a sweet little girl that lived to be 18 (she passed away in April of 1997.) In those 18 years these were the only two incidents where she scratched me. While they were both a bit uncomfortable at the time, they were no big deal. If she had been a tiger either of these could have been very serious.

We were filling one of Tigra's water tubs a while back (Tigra is a 400 lb tiger. Tigers like to play in water so they each have large metal tubs they can climb into.) The tub is next to the enclosure wall and we had a piece of pipe running through the fence and to the tub (no one is allowed in the cage with her!) She was lying on the ground about 10 feet away just watching the whole thing and appeared very calm. Apparently something about the whole thing struck a nerve and she charged the tub and smacked it with her front paw. Even though I've been around her a long time she still startled me with her speed. When she hit the tub there was a loud "boom", and it was very apparent how strong she is. If she had done that to a person she would have at best broken some bones, and likely worse.

Siegfried was on TV last night talking about the whole incident. He stated Roy has slipped and fell and he thought the tiger was actually trying to carry Roy to safety rather than attacking him. He also stated that before he passed out Roy said, "Don't let anything happen to the tiger."

George
post #29 of 44
I read that, after the attack, Roy had a stroke. The paper says that he's able to communicate and move his hands and feet, though.

From what I'm reading, I would doubt that he'll perform again.
post #30 of 44
wow Ive just come across this thread and was amazed. Those tiger pictures are stunning. Why do people want to go to see 'tame' tigers perform anyway! Seems odd to me. What a great guy you are George - keep up the good work!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Tiger attacks Roy of Siegfried and Roy