10 ms·

Good call sending the Gorilla away (though it didn't end well for the Gorilla), because there is no controlling a 200-pound angry wild animal when its upset: ht

Good call sending the Gorilla away (though it didn't end well for the Gorilla), because there is no controlling a 200-pound angry wild animal when its upset: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_(chimpanzee) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_(chimpanzee) And Bears, too: > Even though it may appear that the bear attacked for no reason, there was a reason. "You can train them and use as many safety precautions as you can, but you're still taking a chance. It's still a wild animal" Indeed. https://archive.is/BsriF https://archive.is/BsriF

Ensorceled 6y ago
Domesticated dogs attack and maim on a regular basis and kill someone pretty much weekly in North America[1]. It's bizarre that we would expect non-domesticated, larger, more dangerous animals to be not be, well, dangerous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_t...
- ofrzeta 6y ago
  It's interesting that the vast majority of them are pit bulls. That might suggest that neither domesticated dogs nor wild animals are as likely to attack as are animals specifically bred to attack.
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    I wince when I read about pit bull owners proclaiming how their dog is harmless and 'one of the family'. They've clearly not watched the videos I have. And I don't accept that when a pit bull it's the 'fault of the owner'. There's something inherent in them that causes their brain to switch into attack mode for any reason. And once they do attack it's very difficult to get them to stop.
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      So you watched some videos, and now you know much better how the animal behaves than those who have lived with it for its entire life?
      - secondcoming 6y ago
        I know an unnecessary risk when I see one. Those breeds are banned in some countries for good reason.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        Do you though? People with a lot more information than you have disagree strongly with you.
        brandall10 6y ago
        I know I had two rather fearless pug dogs for 15 years, and the only scary incidents we had during their lives were with pits and mixes. There was one dog park in particular where there was a higher than normal concentration of them that I had to stop going to altogether due to the number of scary incidents. One in particular where I had to physically step in and was bit, fortunately the damage was minor. As a consequence of this, I became accustomed to immediately assessing the aggressiveness of the dogs by eye gazing upon approach, and found the vast majority gentle and sweet. So I get the frustration of their owners, esp ones who take them in as rescues as the local shelters are flooded with them. 9/10 of these animals will probably go through life showing no aggression and live life as wonderful family pets. But all these excuses about how it’s the owners fault in how they raised them, that there is no official breed, etc, etc... is bs hand waving. These dogs can be dangerous like that pet chimp who ripped that woman’s hands and face off. There is something instinctual in them, and the physical ability, to do real harm. As to other breeds that can be worrisome, generally bred for protection, such as dobies, rotts, and German Shepard’s, I never sensed the fear that one of those would instantly end the life of my dogs within seconds. Pits and mixes - easily a “holy shit that was close” encounter in the triple digits, probably once a month on average throughout their lifetimes. Far too many situations where an owner had trouble controlling their dog and they got dangerously close.
    - etempleton 6y ago
      Nuture over nature in my opinion. Dogs are like people in that childhood trauma never really goes away. If a dog was mistreated at any point in their life. Even before you owned the dog years ago, it could manifest in aggression. We had a dog growing up, medium sized poodle mix, that we had adopted at one year and were told had been abused by the husband. Not typically an aggressive dog. However certain unfamiliar men, not all men, but some skinny, white men it seemed were liable to be met with aggression and family guarding behavior. Every dog I have raised since puppyhood, including a 115 pound mixed breed and a 100 pound husky have had zero aggression issues. That is not to say one can be careless. There is always the chance, and you have to have the space and be able to handle any dog you own.
  - cinntaile 6y ago
    Another factor is probably the owners themselves, but there are likely more than just these two. We don't have enough info to disentangle possible partial causes and how much each cause contributes.
  - zrail 6y ago
    > Below are lists of fatal dog attacks in the United States reported by the news media, published in scholarly papers, or mentioned through other sources. In the lists below, the breed is assigned by the sources. It's because you're looking at a biased slice of data. There's no national database of fatal dog attacks and people are scared of pit bulls so the media reports on them more.
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      > people are scared of pit bulls so the media reports on them more. How do you know this?
    - bondarchuk 6y ago
      And also because pitbulls were created to fight other dogs, and descend from bulldogs, which were created to fight to the death against bulls.
    - etempleton 6y ago
      It is also because Pit Bull is not a breed and so anytime a dog bites and a dog has an unclear breed, but looks vaguely like a terrier it is easier to write down that the attack was by a Pit Bull. It is also likely that owners who desire a dog that was bred for fighting want their dog to be aggressive and so train them to be.
    - criddell 6y ago
      Some data does exist: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305270428_Characteristics_of_1616_Consecutive_Dog_Bite_Injuries_at_a_Single_Institution https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305270428_Character... > Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed and over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds.
  - bregma 6y ago
    Blaming the violence on the race of dog tells us more about the reporter than the news story.
    - wolfhumble 6y ago
      Without knowing anything about the owner and the dog, I would rather meet an unleashed Golden Retriever than unleashed Pitbull. Am I wrong thinking like that?
      - ramblerman 6y ago
        Of course not, and this age-old argument in defence of pit-bulls comes up again and again, with the same point being missed. Pitbulls could be the sweetest breed in the world, the point is that "when" they attack, it ends up much much worse than your super aggressive chihuaha. And in some cases 1 to 1 a man can not win the fight. There a few breeds like that (e.g. mastiffs) but pitbulls are one of the most popularly owned dogs in this category.
        etempleton 6y ago
        I will agree with this. I don’t think Pit Bull types are inherently more likely to bite. I just think that they cause a lot more damage when they do bite. Most minor bites are probably unreported. House cats bite and claw all the time and no one reports it because the damage is minor.
        InitialLastName 6y ago
        > House cats bite and claw all the time and no one reports it because the damage is minor. Just jumping in here to say that if your house cat bites you and draws blood you should absolutely go to a doctor ASAP because cat mouths are nasty and cat bites often get very seriously infected (like, "lose your hand" infected) very quickly.
        aceofspades19 6y ago
- glitchc 6y ago
  Artificial selection over generations has left pit bulls a mentally unstable breed.
- 1e-9 6y ago
  32 of the fatality descriptions identify a breed. 26 of them list "pit bull." So, 81% of fatality descriptions that identify a breed list "pit bull." That's a much higher rate of pit bull involvement than I had heard of in the past.
  - Ensorceled 6y ago
    I think it's a few things: pit bulls are a very large and strong breed, aggressive people prefer large, powerful dogs, aggressive people don't train/socialize their dogs to be nice to other people.
chmod775 6y ago
I agree. Though you could make a similar argument for domesticated animals like dogs. Especially larger dogs. Or humans! There are a lot of things that can be dangerous to humans, especially children, when they fly off the handle. There is always a risk. Most animals function emotionally like humans, but have no good way of communicating emotions like frustration and anger except through aggression. But locking up animals in cages - those who easily have the capacity to understand what you are doing to them - is cruel and immoral. So you either have to live with them or leave them be in their natural habitat. You wouldn't lock up a human either for having the capacity to harm someone else. So if you end up with an orphaned gorilla in your care, morally you are between a rock and a hard place.
- krageon 6y ago
  This is exactly it. The argumentation "it is still a wild animal" is fundamentally lazy and seeks to banish a random class of organism to a space where it is okay to be needlessly cruel because understanding how it works is too hard.
  - ptsneves 6y ago
    I cordially disagree. I counter argue that anthropomorphizing of animals is fundamentally flawed. What understanding are you talking about? That with understanding the wild animal will not kill and maim randomly? As per other comments it seems evidence is against this reasoning. Highly experienced trainers who understand very well their animals end up dead. I think it is quite a high grounded statement to call professional zoo-keepers and related professionals lazy. The only understanding i can see is that having wild animals as pets should be banned as they normally are in most jurisdictions.
    - naringas 6y ago
      > I counter argue that anthropomorphizing of animals is fundamentally flawed. and I further retort that humans are animals, and that classifying humans into "something other than animals" is fundamentally flawed. Why are so many humans wont on forgetting that we're an animals too? > The only understanding i can see is that having wild animals as pets should be banned as they normally are in most jurisdictions. I suppose owning humans as pets is already banned in all jurisdictions, so I think we agree on this.
malloryerik 6y ago
I'm not sure it's fair to call a gorilla a "wild animal" when they've been so socialized that they live in a human home, use the light switch and the bathroom, go on walks with the local kids and have deep familial relationships with humans, the only other animals they know. That's not to claim that I have any idea how dangerous or not the situation might have been but "wild" really sounds like the wrong word here. Human culture was all the poor fellow knew, despite not being human.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  further, if one has the opportunity to talk to people working in a forensic psychology unit, they might discover the presence of the "wild animal" in the human and that all of us are still a lot closer to that wild animal than we like to admit.
  - silicon2401 6y ago
    I wish there was more literature about this, both academic and fictional. I've always found it amusing how far people go to believe that we're detached from the wild animal in us. From conception to some young age I'd say we barely differ from animals (hence why some animals are compared to humans at various, usually single-digit, ages). Then even once we're grown, there are many situations where I think, surely this is what a regular animal experiences too: looking for something and absentmindedly searching, having fun running around with friends, identifying a dangerous situation and either taking action to defend loved ones or flee, etc.
    - gnramires 6y ago
      I recommend Jane Goodall's memoirs (In the Shadow of Man, The Chimpanzees of Gombe, and more), I think they provide a fairly balanced view on our relationship with our near ancestors (what Chimpanzees can and cannot do).
      - jbay808 6y ago
        Minor point: Chimpanzees are our relatives, not our ancestors.
sbmthakur 6y ago
Reminded me of a story from Bangladesh where a person took in a tiger cub as "pet" after killing its mother. Years later the tiger, now considerably grown, escaped from captivity and killed the owner(the same person). So the warning applies for Tigers too.
- glitchc 6y ago
  It sounds like justice to me :)
Taylor_OD 6y ago
Exactly. My first thought was of stupid things I did when I was angry as a teenager. Then I thought of a Gorilla having a similar burst of anger.
wendyshu 6y ago
Fascinating to hear about Travis. Allegedly he could drive a car! But there's speculation that the Xanax he was given that day might have been the cause of the attack. I also wonder if he was getting a proper diet.
watertom 6y ago
Wild is applied because animals behave in way we don't understand and it's much easier to chalk it up to the fact that they act without thought or reason, which we know is not true. Animals think and reason, just because we don't understand their process doesn't mean they don't have a process. Conversely unless we completely explain all of 'civilized' societies rules to these animals and secure agreement that they will follow all these rules, their is little chance they will behave within those guidelines. I spent time with outlaw motorcycle clubs, and I would consider many of those groups the same as a gorilla or bear, the only difference would be that the bikers usually know the laws of society, but they reject hem.
dTal 6y ago
Would you have the same reaction towards a mentally retarded orphan growing into a very strong man? Lenny, from Of Mice And Men? My immediate reaction is horror at the unspeakable cruelty of selling a person - a participant in society - into caged slavery in the circus. Imagine the feeling of confusion and betrayal he must have felt. Imagine the trauma from suddenly having personhood privileges withdrawn. I don't see any justification for that. The article rather lightly glosses over the gory details of that shameful episode.
- ewmiller 6y ago
  I think you can acknowledge the evils of the circus during that time and still also acknowledge that a gorilla is far stronger than most adult men, and more difficult to reason with should it get angry or violent.
  - bredren 6y ago
    This worry over the potential for harm was the justification used in the killing of Harambe.
- camjohnson26 6y ago
  Humans have been exhibited in this way too in exhibits praised by the scientific community. The practice only died out after the horrors of the holocaust made scientific racism unfashionable. The low point may have been the New York zoo displaying a black man in a cage with monkeys in the early 1900s. The black clergymen who protested were shut down by the city’s mayor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo
29athrowaway 6y ago
A chimpanzee is already hard to control. I cannot imagine having a gorilla around. An angry chimpanzee can completely disfigure you in an instant. A gorilla is even more powerful than that. People underestimate how strong apes are. https://youtu.be/_9L7MugvoIE https://youtu.be/_9L7MugvoIE
- udp 6y ago
  Two very different apes, however. Chimpanzees hunt and kill monkeys. Gorillas are mostly vegetarian.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    Interesting fact, thank you. I wasn't familiar with this.
    - type0 6y ago
      Watch some nature documentaries, wild researchers can often go and sit in close proximity with the gorillas, if humans are calm so are them. You wouldn't dare to do this with chimpanzees.
      - 29athrowaway 6y ago
        Yeah... chimpanzees can be very violent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

Ensorceled 6y ago

Domesticated dogs attack and maim on a regular basis and kill someone pretty much weekly in North America[1]. It's bizarre that we would expect non-domesticated, larger, more dangerous animals to be not be, well, dangerous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_t...

ofrzeta 6y ago
It's interesting that the vast majority of them are pit bulls. That might suggest that neither domesticated dogs nor wild animals are as likely to attack as are animals specifically bred to attack.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  I wince when I read about pit bull owners proclaiming how their dog is harmless and 'one of the family'. They've clearly not watched the videos I have. And I don't accept that when a pit bull it's the 'fault of the owner'. There's something inherent in them that causes their brain to switch into attack mode for any reason. And once they do attack it's very difficult to get them to stop.
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    So you watched some videos, and now you know much better how the animal behaves than those who have lived with it for its entire life?
    - secondcoming 6y ago
      I know an unnecessary risk when I see one. Those breeds are banned in some countries for good reason.
      - user-the-name 6y ago
        Do you though? People with a lot more information than you have disagree strongly with you.
        brandall10 6y ago
        I know I had two rather fearless pug dogs for 15 years, and the only scary incidents we had during their lives were with pits and mixes. There was one dog park in particular where there was a higher than normal concentration of them that I had to stop going to altogether due to the number of scary incidents. One in particular where I had to physically step in and was bit, fortunately the damage was minor. As a consequence of this, I became accustomed to immediately assessing the aggressiveness of the dogs by eye gazing upon approach, and found the vast majority gentle and sweet. So I get the frustration of their owners, esp ones who take them in as rescues as the local shelters are flooded with them. 9/10 of these animals will probably go through life showing no aggression and live life as wonderful family pets. But all these excuses about how it’s the owners fault in how they raised them, that there is no official breed, etc, etc... is bs hand waving. These dogs can be dangerous like that pet chimp who ripped that woman’s hands and face off. There is something instinctual in them, and the physical ability, to do real harm. As to other breeds that can be worrisome, generally bred for protection, such as dobies, rotts, and German Shepard’s, I never sensed the fear that one of those would instantly end the life of my dogs within seconds. Pits and mixes - easily a “holy shit that was close” encounter in the triple digits, probably once a month on average throughout their lifetimes. Far too many situations where an owner had trouble controlling their dog and they got dangerously close.
  - etempleton 6y ago
    Nuture over nature in my opinion. Dogs are like people in that childhood trauma never really goes away. If a dog was mistreated at any point in their life. Even before you owned the dog years ago, it could manifest in aggression. We had a dog growing up, medium sized poodle mix, that we had adopted at one year and were told had been abused by the husband. Not typically an aggressive dog. However certain unfamiliar men, not all men, but some skinny, white men it seemed were liable to be met with aggression and family guarding behavior. Every dog I have raised since puppyhood, including a 115 pound mixed breed and a 100 pound husky have had zero aggression issues. That is not to say one can be careless. There is always the chance, and you have to have the space and be able to handle any dog you own.
- cinntaile 6y ago
  Another factor is probably the owners themselves, but there are likely more than just these two. We don't have enough info to disentangle possible partial causes and how much each cause contributes.
- zrail 6y ago
  > Below are lists of fatal dog attacks in the United States reported by the news media, published in scholarly papers, or mentioned through other sources. In the lists below, the breed is assigned by the sources. It's because you're looking at a biased slice of data. There's no national database of fatal dog attacks and people are scared of pit bulls so the media reports on them more.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    > people are scared of pit bulls so the media reports on them more. How do you know this?
  - bondarchuk 6y ago
    And also because pitbulls were created to fight other dogs, and descend from bulldogs, which were created to fight to the death against bulls.
  - etempleton 6y ago
    It is also because Pit Bull is not a breed and so anytime a dog bites and a dog has an unclear breed, but looks vaguely like a terrier it is easier to write down that the attack was by a Pit Bull. It is also likely that owners who desire a dog that was bred for fighting want their dog to be aggressive and so train them to be.
  - criddell 6y ago
    Some data does exist: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305270428_Characteristics_of_1616_Consecutive_Dog_Bite_Injuries_at_a_Single_Institution https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305270428_Character... > Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed and over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds.
- bregma 6y ago
  Blaming the violence on the race of dog tells us more about the reporter than the news story.
  - wolfhumble 6y ago
    Without knowing anything about the owner and the dog, I would rather meet an unleashed Golden Retriever than unleashed Pitbull. Am I wrong thinking like that?
    - ramblerman 6y ago
      Of course not, and this age-old argument in defence of pit-bulls comes up again and again, with the same point being missed. Pitbulls could be the sweetest breed in the world, the point is that "when" they attack, it ends up much much worse than your super aggressive chihuaha. And in some cases 1 to 1 a man can not win the fight. There a few breeds like that (e.g. mastiffs) but pitbulls are one of the most popularly owned dogs in this category.
      - etempleton 6y ago
        I will agree with this. I don’t think Pit Bull types are inherently more likely to bite. I just think that they cause a lot more damage when they do bite. Most minor bites are probably unreported. House cats bite and claw all the time and no one reports it because the damage is minor.
        InitialLastName 6y ago
        > House cats bite and claw all the time and no one reports it because the damage is minor. Just jumping in here to say that if your house cat bites you and draws blood you should absolutely go to a doctor ASAP because cat mouths are nasty and cat bites often get very seriously infected (like, "lose your hand" infected) very quickly.
        aceofspades19 6y ago
glitchc 6y ago
Artificial selection over generations has left pit bulls a mentally unstable breed.
1e-9 6y ago
32 of the fatality descriptions identify a breed. 26 of them list "pit bull." So, 81% of fatality descriptions that identify a breed list "pit bull." That's a much higher rate of pit bull involvement than I had heard of in the past.
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  I think it's a few things: pit bulls are a very large and strong breed, aggressive people prefer large, powerful dogs, aggressive people don't train/socialize their dogs to be nice to other people.

chmod775 6y ago

I agree. Though you could make a similar argument for domesticated animals like dogs. Especially larger dogs. Or humans! There are a lot of things that can be dangerous to humans, especially children, when they fly off the handle. There is always a risk. Most animals function emotionally like humans, but have no good way of communicating emotions like frustration and anger except through aggression. But locking up animals in cages - those who easily have the capacity to understand what you are doing to them - is cruel and immoral. So you either have to live with them or leave them be in their natural habitat. You wouldn't lock up a human either for having the capacity to harm someone else. So if you end up with an orphaned gorilla in your care, morally you are between a rock and a hard place.

krageon 6y ago
This is exactly it. The argumentation "it is still a wild animal" is fundamentally lazy and seeks to banish a random class of organism to a space where it is okay to be needlessly cruel because understanding how it works is too hard.
- ptsneves 6y ago
  I cordially disagree. I counter argue that anthropomorphizing of animals is fundamentally flawed. What understanding are you talking about? That with understanding the wild animal will not kill and maim randomly? As per other comments it seems evidence is against this reasoning. Highly experienced trainers who understand very well their animals end up dead. I think it is quite a high grounded statement to call professional zoo-keepers and related professionals lazy. The only understanding i can see is that having wild animals as pets should be banned as they normally are in most jurisdictions.
  - naringas 6y ago
    > I counter argue that anthropomorphizing of animals is fundamentally flawed. and I further retort that humans are animals, and that classifying humans into "something other than animals" is fundamentally flawed. Why are so many humans wont on forgetting that we're an animals too? > The only understanding i can see is that having wild animals as pets should be banned as they normally are in most jurisdictions. I suppose owning humans as pets is already banned in all jurisdictions, so I think we agree on this.

malloryerik 6y ago

I'm not sure it's fair to call a gorilla a "wild animal" when they've been so socialized that they live in a human home, use the light switch and the bathroom, go on walks with the local kids and have deep familial relationships with humans, the only other animals they know. That's not to claim that I have any idea how dangerous or not the situation might have been but "wild" really sounds like the wrong word here. Human culture was all the poor fellow knew, despite not being human.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
further, if one has the opportunity to talk to people working in a forensic psychology unit, they might discover the presence of the "wild animal" in the human and that all of us are still a lot closer to that wild animal than we like to admit.
- silicon2401 6y ago
  I wish there was more literature about this, both academic and fictional. I've always found it amusing how far people go to believe that we're detached from the wild animal in us. From conception to some young age I'd say we barely differ from animals (hence why some animals are compared to humans at various, usually single-digit, ages). Then even once we're grown, there are many situations where I think, surely this is what a regular animal experiences too: looking for something and absentmindedly searching, having fun running around with friends, identifying a dangerous situation and either taking action to defend loved ones or flee, etc.
  - gnramires 6y ago
    I recommend Jane Goodall's memoirs (In the Shadow of Man, The Chimpanzees of Gombe, and more), I think they provide a fairly balanced view on our relationship with our near ancestors (what Chimpanzees can and cannot do).
    - jbay808 6y ago
      Minor point: Chimpanzees are our relatives, not our ancestors.

sbmthakur 6y ago

Reminded me of a story from Bangladesh where a person took in a tiger cub as "pet" after killing its mother. Years later the tiger, now considerably grown, escaped from captivity and killed the owner(the same person). So the warning applies for Tigers too.

glitchc 6y ago
It sounds like justice to me :)

Taylor_OD 6y ago

Exactly. My first thought was of stupid things I did when I was angry as a teenager. Then I thought of a Gorilla having a similar burst of anger.

wendyshu 6y ago

Fascinating to hear about Travis. Allegedly he could drive a car! But there's speculation that the Xanax he was given that day might have been the cause of the attack. I also wonder if he was getting a proper diet.

watertom 6y ago

Wild is applied because animals behave in way we don't understand and it's much easier to chalk it up to the fact that they act without thought or reason, which we know is not true. Animals think and reason, just because we don't understand their process doesn't mean they don't have a process. Conversely unless we completely explain all of 'civilized' societies rules to these animals and secure agreement that they will follow all these rules, their is little chance they will behave within those guidelines. I spent time with outlaw motorcycle clubs, and I would consider many of those groups the same as a gorilla or bear, the only difference would be that the bikers usually know the laws of society, but they reject hem.

dTal 6y ago

Would you have the same reaction towards a mentally retarded orphan growing into a very strong man? Lenny, from Of Mice And Men? My immediate reaction is horror at the unspeakable cruelty of selling a person - a participant in society - into caged slavery in the circus. Imagine the feeling of confusion and betrayal he must have felt. Imagine the trauma from suddenly having personhood privileges withdrawn. I don't see any justification for that. The article rather lightly glosses over the gory details of that shameful episode.

ewmiller 6y ago
I think you can acknowledge the evils of the circus during that time and still also acknowledge that a gorilla is far stronger than most adult men, and more difficult to reason with should it get angry or violent.
- bredren 6y ago
  This worry over the potential for harm was the justification used in the killing of Harambe.
camjohnson26 6y ago
Humans have been exhibited in this way too in exhibits praised by the scientific community. The practice only died out after the horrors of the holocaust made scientific racism unfashionable. The low point may have been the New York zoo displaying a black man in a cage with monkeys in the early 1900s. The black clergymen who protested were shut down by the city’s mayor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo

29athrowaway 6y ago

A chimpanzee is already hard to control. I cannot imagine having a gorilla around. An angry chimpanzee can completely disfigure you in an instant. A gorilla is even more powerful than that. People underestimate how strong apes are. https://youtu.be/_9L7MugvoIE https://youtu.be/_9L7MugvoIE

udp 6y ago
Two very different apes, however. Chimpanzees hunt and kill monkeys. Gorillas are mostly vegetarian.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  Interesting fact, thank you. I wasn't familiar with this.
  - type0 6y ago
    Watch some nature documentaries, wild researchers can often go and sit in close proximity with the gorillas, if humans are calm so are them. You wouldn't dare to do this with chimpanzees.
    - 29athrowaway 6y ago
      Yeah... chimpanzees can be very violent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War