When an Amur tiger recently killed a man at Yorkshire Wildlife Park in northern England, the park announced that the tiger would not be killed.

Days later, a 71-year-old fisherman was killed by an alligator in Florida in the US. This time, the animal was captured and killed.

Two fatal attacks, but two very different responses. The distinction is not simply between a tiger in captivity and an alligator in the wild. It is about whether killing an animal can prevent further harm.

Sometimes removing a dangerous animal is necessary to protect human life. More surprisingly, it can also protect other wildlife, by preventing people retaliating against animals who weren’t involved in the original attack.

A tiger attacking someone who enters its enclosure is behaving like a tiger, and killing it would achieve nothing. Removing an animal posing an ongoing threat is different. But in Yorkshire, the tiger remains behind barriers designed to keep people safe. The fatal encounter needs investigating, but the problem was that a person got in, not that a tiger got out. Killing the tiger would not address any potential failures in enclosure security.

When killing is justified

The Florida alligator presents a different problem. There is........

© The Conversation