I know this may sound disengenuous but it is something I have pondered since the chimp in CT. attacked that women. I was trying to understand the "owner's" relationship with the chimp and what went wrong. In reviewing the video clips from your show a camera man said one of the orangutans attacked his assistant. He thought one of the reasons was that there were female staff around and from what I got the orangutan attacked because of this. To my point then. Is there danger to the female staff members from the older orangutans during their menstral cycle? Did the chimp in CT regard his female "owner" not as a mother, but a mate he was being territorial over? Especially in light of the fact as far as the chimp was concerned they slept in the same nest together? Again, I this is an honest effort to understand primate behavior. Were the police remiss in their duty by not taking action after the first incident with the chimp escaping, going on a rampage, then a second incident where it bit a person after getting permission to pet him? I guess part of what is driving my inquiry is that I was a cop for 8 years.
Welcome tig0013. I'm an old nurse, but my knowledge of animal behaviour didn't come from the classroom. I grew up on a ranch with a wide variety of animals. A woman's menstral cycle does affect some animals - easiest example is the crotch-sniffing dog.
I would imagine with animals so genetically close to us, a male orangutan would certainly be aware of a female, orang or human. Since the camera man was aware of this possibility, they must take precautions. The male may have just been displaying dominate behaviour.
But I really didn't answer your real question. I think the responsibility lies with animal control, & the laws in effect in this area. Evidentally, it is legal there to have a pet chimp (bad on them). Chimps are much more primitive in their alpha behaviour than orangutans, often fighting to the death of their adversary (learned that on Chimp Eden), & I believe it should not be legal to keep them as pets. Again, it should rely on animal control laws - did the laws tie the hands of the police?
Thank you for your reply to my remarks. I am gratified that they were taken serriously as I entended them to be. I can tell you that there are laws on the books that would have allowed the police to take the appropriate action if they were so inclinded. Most states have the same laws just under different wording. For example, some states have distrubing the peace, others call it disorderly conduct. The same applies to animal laws. The owner could have been charged with having a dangerous animal because of the bite. Or distubing the peace becasue she is responsible for her animals behavior. During my research of this incident I came across articles that in some villages chimps are taking infants for food. Not becasue they have to, but becasue monkeys are a favorite treat for chimps and apparently an infant will substitute nicely. This is instintive, so I sutter to think what would happen should a mature "pet" chimp escapes and comes across an infant when he or she is gone long enough to be hungry. I suspect the reason nothing was done with this chimp before is that it was a celebrity and the mayor may have made a statement to that effect. If that was the case politics may well have played a role in the decessions that were made regarding the chimps behavior. If thats what happened then shame on them.
