Kiwis keep lions loose?
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!
I'm starting to think NZ just doesn't understand lions, fences or something. Are we all talking about the same cat?
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.
...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.
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.
Bad fences, worse vowels. Nice tea ladies, and good grass. Difficult place names. Easy adventuring. Mostly harmless.