I just forwarded this to a physics prof colleague who has this kind of toy. Not that I suspect him. After all, he's in Upstate NY. I think.

The behavior of the victims is basically irrelevant. A zoo must be designed on the assumption that some visitors will behave badly, even recklessly. It must provide maximum protection to both the human and non-human animals. Anything less is irresponsible on the part of the zoo. [edited 3 Jan 08]

Tigers: 3
Asshholes: zip

I suspect there is a need to reconsider the entire concept and purpose of zoos and aquaria with an intent of formulating a 2008 philosophy. Virtually all that constitutes the "zoo and aquarium" reason for being is not much more elaborate than a 19th Century Victorian construct of the world of nature to edify "civilized humans." This in turn was a bit of an improvement on P.T. Barnum and his calvacade of curiousities.
Wondering whether a wall was high enough to prevent the "curiousity"--the tiger--from retaliating against its tormenting visitors (supposedly being bipeds granted them more intelligence) is really beside the point. The quaestion is why is there a rare and threatened, or any species, kept in an enclosure in the first place. The questions should be related to species or genome preservation, scientific studies or real education, not keeping a tiger in an enclosure. All in all, we are a bit better than Roman game keepers of the first Century, but not by much.

"The quaestion is why is there a rare and threatened, or any species, kept in an enclosure in the first place."

Perhaps because they clearly aren't doing that well *outside* the enclosure in the first place? o_O

Just a thought. :P