4 ms·

Kiwis keep lions loose?

beachy 3y ago
No, though as a country we're still heavily skewed towards the"adventure" end of the adventure tourism scale, and you can only sue operators for the most egregious violations. (Not that visiting a wildlife park should be considered adventure tourism). For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Whakaari_/_White_Island_eruption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Whakaari_/_White_Island...
albedoa 3y ago
The story is confusing to Americans because the concept that is depicted as shockingly different to us as a population is actually not. The lion attraction down the street from me also features a ditch as a barrier between humans and lions. Vince would have been just as surprised if he had encountered it here first!
- beachy 3y ago
  In this case there was no ditch, merely a poorly maintained and hardly lion-resistant fence but interesting point!
  - albedoa 3y ago
    I see now that the "this story" you were referring to was the Tokyo Disneyland one, but now I am confused about why you answered in the negative and without explanation to the obvious followup question about your lions. Are they free to move between that fence or not?
    - beachy 3y ago
      Aha. Poor writing for sure on my part. Specifically (from Vince's account) there was no ditch or anything separating the lion from the visitors - just a chain link fence, alongside a hedge. Looking through the hedge, Vince and his wife could see a ragged hole in the fence, not a big opening but the result of some unrepaired damage, and in theory big enough for the lion to jump through, though perhaps it would have to leap up in the air a bit to achieve it. The fence was certainly there to constrain the lions, but in the true "she'll be right" kiwi modus operandi, the maintenance crew had either not seen the hole, not repaired it, or perhaps decided to leave it due to the presence of the hedge, which acted also as a partial barrier. Here, suing people is not really a thing for physical accidents, as we have an organisation called the accident compensation Commission (ACC) which acts as a state run insurer in case of accidents to NZ -ers or even visitors. So you don't need to worry if someone slips and breaks their leg on your poorly maintained pathway, because ACC will step in and make the victim whole (in theory of course - this is a government department after all), shielding you from legal liability. That's except in some other circumstances, such as health and safety violations, which these days (the events I am writing about were many years ago) would most likely ensnare the reckless wildlife park operators, in the same way the various tourism operators involved in the recent white island eruption tragedy are currently before the courts for (alleged) h&s violations. What I was trying to convey was that assuming a situation must be safe, because otherwise someone would get sued, is not a wise strategy here. Sorry for the confusion! Should have been clearer.
      - dalbasal 3y ago
        Idk... maybe NZ just has shoddy fencing culture. Bad fences, worse vowels. Nice tea ladies, and good grass. Difficult place names. Easy adventuring. Mostly harmless.
- dalbasal 3y ago
  I'm not understanding the cultural nuance. Can the lions leave? I'm starting to think NZ just doesn't understand lions, fences or something. Are we all talking about the same cat?
  - hnick 3y ago
    I think the point is the train of thought "There's a hole in the fence, so the lion could get us, but that can't be right or they would've been sued, or the fear of being sued would make them notice and fix it. So we must still be safe." A rejection of reality based on a different worldview. It brought to mind the story about the two economists who see $100 on the ground. One wants to pick it up, but the other tells him not to waste his time, because if it were real someone would have picked it up already.
    - dalbasal 3y ago
      I'm with you on economists. ...not following all the way to lions. The list of reasons for a lion's fence to be high & strong enough to hold a lion, presumably, has more than just "lawyers" on it. Kiwis are strange though, who knows. Maybe reduced liability reflects in large carnivore caging more directly than in places with cultural aversions to getting eaten.

No, though as a country we're still heavily skewed towards the"adventure" end of the adventure tourism scale, and you can only sue operators for the most egregious violations. (Not that visiting a wildlife park should be considered adventure tourism). For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Whakaari_/_White_Island_eruption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Whakaari_/_White_Island...

albedoa 3y ago

The story is confusing to Americans because the concept that is depicted as shockingly different to us as a population is actually not. The lion attraction down the street from me also features a ditch as a barrier between humans and lions. Vince would have been just as surprised if he had encountered it here first!

beachy 3y ago
In this case there was no ditch, merely a poorly maintained and hardly lion-resistant fence but interesting point!
- albedoa 3y ago
  I see now that the "this story" you were referring to was the Tokyo Disneyland one, but now I am confused about why you answered in the negative and without explanation to the obvious followup question about your lions. Are they free to move between that fence or not?
  - beachy 3y ago
    Aha. Poor writing for sure on my part. Specifically (from Vince's account) there was no ditch or anything separating the lion from the visitors - just a chain link fence, alongside a hedge. Looking through the hedge, Vince and his wife could see a ragged hole in the fence, not a big opening but the result of some unrepaired damage, and in theory big enough for the lion to jump through, though perhaps it would have to leap up in the air a bit to achieve it. The fence was certainly there to constrain the lions, but in the true "she'll be right" kiwi modus operandi, the maintenance crew had either not seen the hole, not repaired it, or perhaps decided to leave it due to the presence of the hedge, which acted also as a partial barrier. Here, suing people is not really a thing for physical accidents, as we have an organisation called the accident compensation Commission (ACC) which acts as a state run insurer in case of accidents to NZ -ers or even visitors. So you don't need to worry if someone slips and breaks their leg on your poorly maintained pathway, because ACC will step in and make the victim whole (in theory of course - this is a government department after all), shielding you from legal liability. That's except in some other circumstances, such as health and safety violations, which these days (the events I am writing about were many years ago) would most likely ensnare the reckless wildlife park operators, in the same way the various tourism operators involved in the recent white island eruption tragedy are currently before the courts for (alleged) h&s violations. What I was trying to convey was that assuming a situation must be safe, because otherwise someone would get sued, is not a wise strategy here. Sorry for the confusion! Should have been clearer.
    - dalbasal 3y ago
      Idk... maybe NZ just has shoddy fencing culture. Bad fences, worse vowels. Nice tea ladies, and good grass. Difficult place names. Easy adventuring. Mostly harmless.
dalbasal 3y ago
I'm not understanding the cultural nuance. Can the lions leave? I'm starting to think NZ just doesn't understand lions, fences or something. Are we all talking about the same cat?
- hnick 3y ago
  I think the point is the train of thought "There's a hole in the fence, so the lion could get us, but that can't be right or they would've been sued, or the fear of being sued would make them notice and fix it. So we must still be safe." A rejection of reality based on a different worldview. It brought to mind the story about the two economists who see $100 on the ground. One wants to pick it up, but the other tells him not to waste his time, because if it were real someone would have picked it up already.
  - dalbasal 3y ago
    I'm with you on economists. ...not following all the way to lions. The list of reasons for a lion's fence to be high & strong enough to hold a lion, presumably, has more than just "lawyers" on it. Kiwis are strange though, who knows. Maybe reduced liability reflects in large carnivore caging more directly than in places with cultural aversions to getting eaten.