The public at last knows the results of an investigation into the death of a teenager mauled by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo. Officials did a good job of communicating the tragedy. More on that later. But shame on the zoo or the city or whoever held back the report for three years after a Freedom of Information request.
To refresh your memory: "A female Siberian tiger killed in a hail of police gunfire after fatally mauling a man at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Day 2007 likely was provoked into leaping and clawing out of its enclosure, a federal investigator said in documents obtained by The Associated Press.
"The tiger named Tatiana killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. and injured his friends, brothers Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal, leaving claw marks etched in the asphalt and claw fragments in the bushes outside its pen. Claw marks were also discovered near the top of the enclosure wall, which was lower than federal safety standards dictate, showing that the big cat was able to get enough leverage to pull itself out." (
http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/San_Francisco)
The Associated Press reported shortly after that toxicology reports showed the men had alcohol and marijuana in their systems. (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xvZ-JdND0Y&feature=related)
On Saturday, AP said the report, which it obtained through a Freedom of Information request filed more than three years ago, provided evidence the men were teasing the tiger before she was able to scale the wall and attack. The first draft report came right out and said that, but it was stricken in the final report because it was called "irrelevant from an Animal Welfare Act enforcement standpoint," according to David Sacks, a spokesman for APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which oversees the nation's zoos).
That information is relevant to the zoo and the city, which has been sued by the families of the victims.
"'After a kill, I find it interesting the tiger would leave a kill to go after something else unless there were a compelling reason,' wrote (Laurie) Gage (a tiger expert who investigated the scene for APHIS.) 'The tiger passed exhibits with warthogs which it ignored as it followed (the blood trail?) of the two brothers to the Terrace Cafe outside the dining area." (
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-12-tiger-attack-documents_N.htm)
AP goes on to say that Gage and inspector Michael Smith investigated the enclosure and zoo premises on Dec. 27, 2007. "In more than 65 years no other tiger had escaped from that enclosure. San Francisco Zoo officials now say the enclosure should have been safer."
So what else did the zoo say? In a release December 31 of that year, “'Our hearts go out to the family of Carlos Sousa Jr. and the surviving individuals and their families,'” (San Francisco Zoo Director Manuel A.) Mollinedo said. 'As a Zoo and as conservators of animal life, we also mourn the loss of Tatiana, who was a beloved member of our Zoo family.'" (
http://www.sfzoo.org/openrosters/docdownload.aspx?ID=32463)
When your crisis has victims, always express sympathy to the families. The quote goes on to express sorrow at the death of their tiger, which is a nice touch for those across the country who felt more sorry for the tiger than for the strung-out victims who likely teased the tiger.
Another message that should always follow crises like this is to tell what steps you are taking to prevent a recurrence. The release said, “'We are working with the City of San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department, which has promised to build as expeditiously as possible a new safety enclosure to protect the public as well as the tigers,' said Mollinedo. “'We will work with the City to create a secure and proper enclosure.'”
The release takes into account another key crisis communications element: the investigation. "Police and other investigations into what may have caused the 350-pound cat to escape are ongoing.... Mollinedo said the Zoo has asked the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) to assemble a group of prominent zoo directors to visit and consult with San Francisco Zoo management on safety issues. This panel is being assembled and should visit at the early part of next week."
My only criticism is that the release should have gone out sooner. Six days is too long. Reporters, in the Bay area at least, want this information yesterday. But I can imagine the rush to deal with all the details and hire an architect to design the new enclosure so the zoo could reopen as soon as possible. It opened January 3, 2008.
This story brings back memories of the train derailment at the Louisville Zoo in June 2009. I know that zoo doesn't have a crisis communications plan. Nevertheless, it was able to get out a release the same day as the accident, which sent 22 people to hospitals for treatment. (
http://www.louisvillezoo.org/news/press/MR/2009/MR%2009-06-01_train.htm) Unfortunately, in the haste to issue the release, it contained a couple errors that never were corrected online. I don't know if the San Francisco Zoo has a crisis communications plan, but the author of the news release knew all the right things to say.
Any public venue -- zoos, museums, science centers, restaurant chains -- need to have a crisis communications plan. Many such organizations have disaster plans and practice so they know how to respond physically. But few that I've encountered have thought about, "What are we going to say to ensure our guests (and our financial backers!) renew their faith in us?"