• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

So about the chimp attack in Conn. It's getting creepy..

Relic

Relic

Cow are you?
Sep 12, 2006
6,198
85
Robbinsville, NJ
#1
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I'm not even sure what to think about this at this point...

I'm even more bothered by this as it's not the first high-profile attack. There was one a few years back where the victim survived but was horribly disfigured. The really gruesome thing is the methods of a chimp's attack - they go for the face, hands and genitalia according to the reports on the older story. They latch onto the face for example and pull until it's all gone ...UGH!!! According to some unsubstantiated stories I read about this, the female victim in this case pretty much lost her face in the attack. With that potential in mind, WHY the heck do people insist on keeping pets like this?? Chimps, tigers....what the heck is wrong with some people??
 
#3
It's common knowledge among professionals who deal with exotics that chimps become unmanageable and unpredictable after two years of age. I'm surprised that owning them is not more regulated in the states. Primates in general are far more dangerous than people suspect.

An ex of mine was a zookeeper, and she told me about a gibbon at her zoo that had almost ripped another keepers arm clean off. Gibbons are class 5 dangerous animals (in canada) which puts them in the same league as a tiger.

I guess what I'm saying is, how can a licence not be required to own such animals?
 
#6
Atoz said:
It's also creepy that the owner claims to have shared dinners, glasses of wine, and her bed nightly with the chimp. That bugs me more than anything.
Click to expand...

right! Also don't forget the part about bathing together!
That's just........I don't even want to think about it.
smiley.sick.png
 
#13
lousybassplayer said:
As I heard it there is such a law preventing buying one, but the chimp was grandfathered since they had owned it for so long. Maybe I misheard, since I am sick to death of Chimpgate
Click to expand...

Well, they had Blumenthal on the news last night playing up the righteous indignation card so I'm thinking things will become more strict if he has his way.

The owner changing her story about giving/not giving the dog a Xanax is disconcerting too.
 
#15
I wonder how many more Conneticut residents were killed that day by drunk drivers, firearms, workplace accidents etc. Why is a single chimp attack so newsworthy? Surely there can't be many people "at risk" of chimp attack? Maybe focusing on dangerous breeds of dogs, for example, would be a more productive use of taxpayer money.
 
#16
In what way is any of this scary? She was OWNING A CHIMP.

Sure they're cute; I love seeing monkeys in zoos. But they're naturally wild, and as has been mentioned, they are quite dextrous and strong. Would this be less scary if she had owned a tiger that suddenly turned on her? How about a bear?

People seem to forget that cute does not equal human-friendly. And for any animal, human-friendly now does not necessarily equal human-friendly later.
 
#17
Mark Latimour said:
I wonder how many more Connecticut residents were killed that day by drunk drivers, firearms, workplace accidents etc. Why is a single chimp attack so newsworthy? Surely there can't be many people "at risk" of chimp attack? Maybe focusing on dangerous breeds of dogs, for example, would be a more productive use of taxpayer money.
Click to expand...

Probably due to the 'confusion' about whether the owner was giving the chimp Xanax, coupled with the fact someone almost died due to the attack (it seems people that almost die, like, um, flight 1549 have much longer news-shelf-life than people who just die) is giving the story legs.

Drunk driving deaths are usually coalesced into a yearly statistic, as does workplace accidents. As far as firearms, there's usually 2-3 deaths per week discussed in the news.
 
#19
Maybe focusing on dangerous breeds of dogs, for example, would be a more productive use of taxpayer money.
Click to expand...

I was with you on the drunk driver part...
But the "Dangerous breeds of dogs" thing is largely a media creation, like this chimp incident (that is, they get a lot of publicity despite their relative rarity).
Consider the number of "dangerous dogs" (pit bulls, rotties, dobies, etc.) in CT, and the number of attacks, to the number of chimps... and to the number of drunk drivers and serious accidents...

For a balanced view on "dangerous dogs", check out the Bad Rap site (http://www.badrap.org ) particularly this page: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
#20
Pilgrim said:
Lots of people pretend - and maybe even believe - that animals won't hurt them. I think they keep ascribing human qualities to animals that have none of those qualities. Lots of people find it easy to deny reality and live in their own la-la land.
Click to expand...

I've taught my kids that a tiger will always be a tiger. Disney and the like warped us into the safe state that says if it's cute? it must love you...not at all a good line of thought. Respect for what they are and caution serves us better.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back