6 ms·

It seems the caretaker confuses himself here. Allowing animals to sort things out by themselves, but removing leader unnaturally? Sounds like there was a lack o

by funkyy 11y ago

It seems the caretaker confuses himself here. Allowing animals to sort things out by themselves, but removing leader unnaturally? Sounds like there was a lack of deeper thought in here and human emotions (saving animal from pain) took over logic.

icebraining 11y ago
Killing the animal earlier is not really unnatural - animals die suddenly all the time. There's a difference between "natural" and "what would have happened otherwise".
- funkyy 11y ago
  That's right, unless animals felt safe since they are in Zoo and their behavior is different than out in dangerous nature...
dogma1138 11y ago
Primates have quite different behaviors in captivity even if Baboons would fight like this in the wild captivity can seriously aggravate this as without natural selection there might not be a clear hierarchy within the tribe so the order of succession could be very different and without a clear heir due to the fact that they tribe does not have to worry about food or predators. In any case there is nothing wrong of removing an animal from the group if it's life is at risk it's already does not follow the natural order. Removing specimens due to violence or otherwise adverse group interactions is very common in many cases they will relocate them to another pack in another zoo and try it again there.
dghughes 11y ago
But a zoo isn't a natural environment anyway all the animals are in a fairly confined area it's not like they could run a kilometer away to escape.
Florin_Andrei 11y ago
> removing leader unnaturally Not sure what that means. The matriarch was essentially kidnapped and killed by a large predator, for all practical purposes. That's quite natural, actually.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
at-fates-hands 11y ago
Not only that, but by taking out the Alpha, they not only created a power vacuum, they also put her family members on the chopping block. In lot of animal troupes, if an alpha is displaced (male or female), the new alpha and its heirs will attempt to kill the other alpha's family to extinguish the bloodline and allow their own bloodlines to be dominant - which is exactly what happened. I'm puzzled they were so surprised this is what happened.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Patriarch, not alpha; there is no such thing as an alpha.
  - cowardlydragon 11y ago
    If you say the word "alpha" in the context of social group dominance, and EVERYONE knows what you mean... Then the word means something, despite your political correctness.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      It's not political correctness, it's actual correctness. Nor did I say the word didn't mean anything, I said there's no such thing as an Alpha. If they use the word alpha when discussing social dominance, they're wrong, just as they'd be wrong if they used the word aether when talking about the higgs field. The alpha theory implies the dominant one is the strongest one, that's simply not how these social hierarchies work, it's usually the eldest one or the father/mother of a group; to use the term alpha is simply wrong in any context.
      - keeperofdakeys 11y ago
        I don't know what alpha theory you are talking about, but as far as the accepted definition of alpha goes[1], it's "Denoting the dominant[2] animal or human in a particular group". So as far as I can see, the word was being used in the correct context, implying the correct accepted definition. So it seems a bit strange that you first claim that not only is the wrong term being used, but that the term does not actually exist (or is accepted). I'm curious what you think, so would you like to expand on why you disagree? [1] "Denoting the dominant animal or human in a particular group", http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/alpha#alpha__8 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/alpha#a... [2] "Having power and influence over others", http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dominant#dominant__2 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dominan....
InvisibleCities 11y ago
Sounds like a page torn straight from the CIA's Middle East playbook.

by funkyy 11y ago

icebraining 11y ago

Killing the animal earlier is not really unnatural - animals die suddenly all the time. There's a difference between "natural" and "what would have happened otherwise".

funkyy 11y ago
That's right, unless animals felt safe since they are in Zoo and their behavior is different than out in dangerous nature...

dogma1138 11y ago

Primates have quite different behaviors in captivity even if Baboons would fight like this in the wild captivity can seriously aggravate this as without natural selection there might not be a clear hierarchy within the tribe so the order of succession could be very different and without a clear heir due to the fact that they tribe does not have to worry about food or predators. In any case there is nothing wrong of removing an animal from the group if it's life is at risk it's already does not follow the natural order. Removing specimens due to violence or otherwise adverse group interactions is very common in many cases they will relocate them to another pack in another zoo and try it again there.

dghughes 11y ago

But a zoo isn't a natural environment anyway all the animals are in a fairly confined area it's not like they could run a kilometer away to escape.

Florin_Andrei 11y ago

> removing leader unnaturally Not sure what that means. The matriarch was essentially kidnapped and killed by a large predator, for all practical purposes. That's quite natural, actually.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

at-fates-hands 11y ago

Not only that, but by taking out the Alpha, they not only created a power vacuum, they also put her family members on the chopping block. In lot of animal troupes, if an alpha is displaced (male or female), the new alpha and its heirs will attempt to kill the other alpha's family to extinguish the bloodline and allow their own bloodlines to be dominant - which is exactly what happened. I'm puzzled they were so surprised this is what happened.

gnaritas 11y ago
Patriarch, not alpha; there is no such thing as an alpha.
- cowardlydragon 11y ago
  If you say the word "alpha" in the context of social group dominance, and EVERYONE knows what you mean... Then the word means something, despite your political correctness.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    It's not political correctness, it's actual correctness. Nor did I say the word didn't mean anything, I said there's no such thing as an Alpha. If they use the word alpha when discussing social dominance, they're wrong, just as they'd be wrong if they used the word aether when talking about the higgs field. The alpha theory implies the dominant one is the strongest one, that's simply not how these social hierarchies work, it's usually the eldest one or the father/mother of a group; to use the term alpha is simply wrong in any context.
    - keeperofdakeys 11y ago
      I don't know what alpha theory you are talking about, but as far as the accepted definition of alpha goes[1], it's "Denoting the dominant[2] animal or human in a particular group". So as far as I can see, the word was being used in the correct context, implying the correct accepted definition. So it seems a bit strange that you first claim that not only is the wrong term being used, but that the term does not actually exist (or is accepted). I'm curious what you think, so would you like to expand on why you disagree? [1] "Denoting the dominant animal or human in a particular group", http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/alpha#alpha__8 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/alpha#a... [2] "Having power and influence over others", http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dominant#dominant__2 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dominan....

InvisibleCities 11y ago

Sounds like a page torn straight from the CIA's Middle East playbook.