Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town
newsweek.com
newsweek.com
I thought langoors were more friendly towards humans compared to macaques?
Edit: I'm surprised at the downvotes, isn't human-wildlife conflict in Indian forests well documented?
Also the deadliest North American wildlife is the deer almost entirely because they’re jumping in front of cars.
Actually, the deadliest North American wildlife is the mosquito.
Still in terms of total deaths from Mosquito born illness it’s likely lower than most assume.
I wouldn’t call Malaria etc wildlife, mosquito’s on their own are harmless.
Nonsense. There is a long list of predator species that will opportunistically feed on humans.
As you yourself point out, many other animals that can't eat a human will attack if they feel threatened or competition.
Be careful around all large animals.
Stray dogs in India are responsible for tens of thousands rabies deaths annually. Yet it's illegal to cull them.
The mosquitoes are being worked on.
It gets worse. A court recently ruled that Resident Welfare Associations are now legally obligated to feed and look after stray dogs in their neighborhoods.
This is going to be the humane way of ending this menace that will also be culturally acceptable.
Just so I'm clear: You think it's a good idea to foist the responsibility of feeding and looking after street dogs onto resident welfare associations? Many of which actually want them removed? Their member are being asked to pay up for the privilege of being harassed by dogs.
To quote none other than Mahatma Gandhi on the subject[0]:
> It is a sin, it should be a sin, to feed stray dogs, and we should save numerous dogs if we had legislation making every stray dog liable to be shot. Even if those who feed stray dogs consented to pay a penalty for their misdirected compassion we should be free from the curse of stray dogs. Humanity is a noble attribute of the soul. It is not exhausted with saving a few fish or a few dogs. Such saving may even be sinful. If I have a swarm of ants in my house, the man who proceeds to feed them will be guilty of a sin. For God has provided their grain for the ants, but the man who feeds them might destroy me and my family. The mahajan may feel itself safe and believe that it has saved their lives by dumping dogs near my field, but it will have committed the greater sin of putting my life in danger.
> Sterilize them and let them live their lives out.
Sterilization isn't going to come cheap. This will only end up diverting funds from municipal governments that are already perpetually short on funds.
> This is going to be the humane way of ending this menace that will also be culturally acceptable.
Except that it simply doesn't seem to be working. ABC measures have been going on in large cities for years but from what I can tell, the numbers just keep going up. There's a reason the rest of the civilized world culls strays. This is what India did too until Maneka Gandhi got her grubby paws on the AWBI. There isn't some deep seated cultural opposition to culling, it's the the result of morality pushed by privileged animal lovers. There are an estimated 6 million dog bites in the county each year. Most victims are children from poor families.
0: Section 448, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 36 https://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/gandhi-literature/mahat...
The best way to stop stray dog menace, just stop throwing food/organic waste on the streets.
Stray dogs quite literally survive on this, and I remember my childhood stray dogs used to be all pervasive during the days of corner garbage dumps here in Bangalore, now that we have garbage picking up waste from homes in most areas, they are almost non existent in those areas.
Take away their food, they go away.
I don't know to to respond to this. Garbage has nothing to do with it. There are now organized groups of people who literally drive around, feeding dogs in the streets: https://mylosrescue.com/feeding-initiatives/ In addition, the courts have imposed the obligation on RWAs to feed stray dogs if nobody else is doing so.
But they cause heavy and serious nuisance.
Where I live, these monkeys invade gradens, agricultural fields, house rooftops at least 4-5 times a month.
The locals drop anything they do, and chase away these monkeys.
When chased by an adult male human, these monkeys don't fight back and are easily frightened. They don't mess with adult males or groups of humans.
A kid or a lone woman is not safe, though. When faced by them, monkeys gesture retaliation, and that is enough frightening.
An adult male cannot physically take on a monkey. It is impossible. Still they don't attack.
They steal bananas, mangos, guavas- all kinds of fruits, any food item not indoors, and destroy flowers and plants.
Thus, for families depending on these as their source of income have to always remain vigilant to monkey invasions. Common methods include- stone being thrown directly at them intending full harm, pebbles thrown by slingshots, and firecrackers. Banging metal objects loudly also seems to help.
We have mango groves that we lend on a yearly basis. The people who lease them from us establish outposts during the mango season which are always manned by at least one man with ready reinforcement in case of monkey invasion.
For those families not depending financially on tree products are also harmed. They make growing flowering plants difficult. They steal food from outdoors, and not to mention the awfully smelling solid and liquid excretion they leave on your rooftops.
(All rooftops are flat in the plains region, and they are important in our lives.)
By the way, I lost one pomelo (Citrus maxima) to a bunch of monkeys this very afternoon.
And many of monkey i know here are too friendly but yea after they starts to live with humans they learn to hoodwink people because many thieves are known to use monkey to snatch valuables from tourist by providing bananas as incentives to them.
We are an animal and part of nature too.
> And they don't have enough wisdom to know who they should harm and who they shouldn't.
They seem pretty smart about it tbh. They know what they can get away with and go no further than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Monkeys_and_Bears_Bui...
Are you positive?
A chimpanzee: yes. A guerilla: indubitable. But a monkey?
They seem like medium-sized dogs, that can move around quicker and more freely. They'll bite out your flesh, and perhaps maim you to a semi-serious degree (including infection), but I cannot fathom a monkey seriously killing a grown adult male human being.
These are 20-40lb, very aggressive racoons. If you shock them with anything, they're most likely going to flee for fear of serious injury.
Oh boy never test this out. They will attack violently and will not spare you. If they have enough numbers or have the pack leader(usually the one with the biggest balls) close by then they will retaliate. I'm from south India and I have seen a lot of grown up men get roughed up by monkeys
I have no doubt it's not wise to fight a monkey, but I wouldn't expect it to actually win.
They also move a lot more...three-dimensionally than you might imagine, making it hard to predict where they're going.
Macaques have large teeth and strong jaw muscles (as do dogs); but unlike dogs (or say even piranhas), it doesn't look like monkeys rip and tear flesh like canids. Their mouths are a lot like human mouths: incisors in the front, two canines on either side, and a bunch of (pre)molars, indicative of omnivores. The two canines will definitely pierce the skin. The incisors, most likely as well; but the molars are absolutely useless here.
Whereas dogs (and more specifically sharks) have "saw-like" teeth, that combined with strong neck muscles (and a propensity to grab hold, and shake vigorously, as if they're literally sawing away flesh), make them a lot more lethal to most land mammals.
If we include monkey eating habits, I don't see any large mammals on the list (all the mammals they may eat are smaller than them); compare that to the canid family, that will hunt down mammals many times larger than them. I just don't see how the monkey is built to be able to kill a human being.
Granted, it's going to hurt a lot to get bitten by a monkey. But I just don't see how a 40lb mammal can do that much damage. If you can somehow restrain it by the neck, it's basically over for any mammal of that size without claws (or another means of escape) -- which monkeys don't seem to have.
Now, if we're talking a chimpanzee? I'm going to do everything in my power to get out of that situation. But a monkey? A large dog is more of a threat.
At that point, I believe it's apt to start elbow-dropping, curb-stomping, and punting monkeys.
If for some unknown reason, 5 monkeys ambushed me on a regular walk, I'm confident I could throw enough of a fuss that'd dissuade them from trying to steal my lunch.
Now 10 monkeys? I don't know. That's a lot of monkeys.
I don't think I'm ever going to encounter 10 monkeys, all set on turning me into tartare.
However, if I were to have my jimmies rustled by 10 monkeys at the same time, I would put it at 2:1 odds that I survive without life-threatening injuries.
On the other hand, if you backed five desperate monkeys into corner so that they think they are fighting for their lives, I think you'd fare much worse. I'd bet "punt attempts" sometimes end with the monkey clinging to your leg instead, chomping away at whatever they can reach (and even the molars can do some damage given the tremendous bite force).
Really? I would expect that the inevitable injuries aren't worth it, but I'd expect this to be the case on both sides, with the monkey ending up significantly worse off if the human were to actually consider it a fight-to-kill-or-be-killed, not a "make the nuisance go away".
What I don't understand though: If the monkeys are such a nuisance, why are they tolerated? Is there a religious taboo against hurting them? Legal protection? Strict limits on what kind of weapons people can have?
I would say that at least in north east india, monkeys didn't seem to be a huge problem. There are langurs everywhere, but they mostly stick to trees or the jungle, or sometimes the outskirts of towns. I think it's probably because they have plenty of places to eat there relative to the more urbanized parts of the country.
A religious granny wouldn't want to kill a monkey, but if her grandson is threatened? Hell yes.
And, yes, they are protected by wildlife conservation laws.
These monkeys are protected by wildlife conservation act.
Some weeks back, some guy poisoned a few pigeons that ate his crops that were being dried in the sun.
Last I heard that the police lodged a criminal case against him.
It was on the newspapers.
Natgeo already has a full season on Monkey thieves.
How "not ok" was the dog pup after that?
But it turns out ants and termites have been at it for probably over 100 million years: https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/why-ants-and-termite...
I found this article comparing how ants and humans wage war to be more insightful : https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-it-comes-...
I'm wondering, what does the article mean by the 3 enslaved at the end? I'm not sure what that would mean in the context of chimps
Thinking otherwise is a mere extension of the Noble Savage.
As the runner ran past Spencer and disappeared into the distance, the otters instead set their sights on Spencer and "went crazy".
"I didn't move quick enough and they just jumped me and they [were] on me and severely bit my ankle, made me buckle, and they jumped on my bottom and pushed me. And these things like... massive... [these] things [are] like dogs."
Spencer said that the otters even tried to bite his face, but their teeth sank into his finger instead when he raised his hands to defend himself.
https://mothership.sg/2021/12/otters-bite-man-botanic-garden... (Warning - graphic)
In fact, all carnivorous animals can be aggressive. They are not aggressive like how a lion or tiger is to humans. Their main diet consist of fish, invertebrate and shellfish.
Sea lions, on the other hand, are super pleasant and playful.
I have read different reports of what the OP mentioned. The official statement by the park is that he (as reported to them by himself) ran through the pack of otters because of poor visibility (early morning) and tried to get them to do something about the otters. That is quite different from what the OP claims.
So that strategy is only as good as your opponents will. And it turns out there’s a lot of men who are willing to throw away their life in the hope of the power, money and prestige of being the top boss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
how strong are these monkeys?
I mean I know monkeys are strong but can they really ambush a human, and push them over a ledge? can they kidnap a human, carry them upward and drop them over a ledge?
Considering the weight and power in a human leg, a swift kick would seriously harm and probably kill an average macaque. The issue is not strength here.
18kg is the average weight of a 5 year old kid [1]. It’s pretty routine for women in childcare roles to pick up kids for various reasons.
1. https://www.disabled-world.com/calculators-charts/height-wei...
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/28/7343
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2138714-chimps-are-not-...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2138714-chimps-are-not-...
Haftor can't really do this, but I'm pretty sure he can rip one of those monkeys in half if he catches it.
50lbs of dog is a bad opponent for a human, 2 of them and humans lose that fight fairly often. Some of the dogs in the video I saw were that size and larger; so if the monkeys can harass and herd them effectively then I'd expect them to be able to do it to a human as well.
A human prepared to fight and ready to start killing things is a completely different matter; but I don't think these critters have encountered that yet. They're probably about to.
Works for coyotes.
What the article describes is accurately described as culling, or killing for population control.
harvested lobsters with one claw have less commercial value so they are separated out. They are sold more cheaply and called "culls". A difficult entry level university course in an academic department like Chemical Engineering could be used to cull the class of students down to only those who are serious about pursuing the field; in such a case, the culls are not killed.
it's the nature of metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy that the word cull can take on extra meanings depending on the context.
I believe the right question is, how intelligent and distempered are these monkeys?
Intelligence > brawn
Strength is mostly immaterial once I (as a hypothetical monkey) understand that I can use my agility to rip your eyeballs from their sockets, which then effectively removes your ability to pose a threat to me.
I believe the opposite is true.
If I'm smart, I will use your strengths against you.
Strength is material once you understand that this hypothetical human can use some kind of weapon or just something long and blunt to bash your brains out.
The only thing you have on dogs is that you're smart enough to move to an advantaged position that the dog doesn't understand. Like run through a door and close it, get in a car and run the dog over, grab a gun and shoot the dog, those kinds of options. If you have no options, you're fucked.
I would say male adult monkeys in my village can (males are bigger and stronger), although they don’t. They are fast, agile and acrobatic. Except for well prepared adult humans, monkeys can throw everyone else off a ledge.
Reason so many monkeys exist in India is because they are sacred animals (to Hindus, 80% population). In our village, no one can kill them. The most one can do is throw a stone to scare them away.
The rig veda is probably what most people agree is one of the foundational texts of hinduism, but it dates to about 1500 BC.
However, the vedas probably absorbed a lot of earlier cultural tradition from the indus valley civilization, especially worship of Shiva-like deities. How much is however, debated.
just like mesopotamia, there was a lot of syncretism.
modernity tends to change culture (and especially homogenization that the interwebs promotes), and india is modernizing rapidly especially cities. culture can change very rapidly.
that being said, hanuman (rama's monkey companion) is a important diety in hinduism, and has been worshipped for many thousands of years in india and other parts of southeast asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman#Historical_development
That said, adult monkeys are pretty big (3.5-4 feet) and aren't all that light weight.
Anecdotally, a baby monkey fell into our neighbors house through bars on the roof and a group of almost 100 monkeys surrounded the house and took them all hostage till the baby was given back.
Which strikes me, because they really did “ask nicely”, not attacking humans and behaving in a measured way. Where I’m coming from is:
Is language necessary? Human crowds are most often fair (doing a revolution is quite fair, even if individual events are a bit… messy. But crowds stuff up sometimes, ie Jesus vs Romans). Might we (humans) act about as fairly if we didn’t have language at all to express our griefs? All that bullshit that goes on in courts, sometimes fair sometimes not; all the bullshit that goes on in companies about metoo: Does it “average out” the same as a crowd of angry monkeys, or are we effectively more efficient at delivering justice? Is our language a vehicle for reason, or is it just a vehicle of feelings and anger that happen to translate itself into words that seem rational?
The legitimacy of a cause depends on your value system, and who is to say what sort of value system the monkeys have. Perhaps their value system places "stick up for other monkeys" before other considerations like impartial assessment of guilt or blame.
If they attack from behind they can easily knock down an adult human. They use this tactic to attack motorcycle delivery drivers quite often and steal food. They would have no trouble nabbing a child.
With bigger humans, they don't need to throw them. It may be enough to drive them strategically by screaming and biting in a big enough group and with an unprepared enough victim.
One, or even two monkeys won't usually attack or even threaten an adult male. Although, a monkey will easily beat an adult male human.
They are like 2-3.5 ft, and weigh at least 20 kg.
They are also sneaky. You will be bitten and scratched badly, and will be fighting for life.
One monkey cannot lift a human.
I have lived in a monkey infested area for decades, and I have never even heard of someone dying by monkey attack.
They also come in packs. They totally avoid directly messing with humans. But if some reason is given, then they can attack.
I think they cannot lift a full grown human being. Or kidnap one.
I think these injuries are from people getting on the roofs by themselves to save dogs, and falling due to bad control, panic, being attacked, or all.
Are you sure? That's on the big side for a human.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/20150...
It's not like don't make eye contact if you ever see one. The monkeys are sitting on the ledge all the way up on both sides of the stairs up to the second or third floor as you walk up to your dorm room!
They also "adopted" a stray dog just to chase the monkeys away.
Animal control tries to do just that, control. If a written sign would be enough, those wolves would not have been culled (except maybe the ones which actually killed tje child).
Wolves normally don't do that. Not unless they have rabies. We should stop seeing the nature as if we were still in the XVII century.
The logical answer would be to direct the revenge against the real culprit, the rabies virus. Kill the rabid wolf and vaccinate other local wolves against rabies. Wolves learn quickly that must keep their distance with humans. Culling all the wolves in the area leads to more humans killed, by herbivores.
Otherwise you get into a cycle of revenge for revenge for revenge that wastes everybody's energy.
I.e. if we simply could abandon that at the flip of a switch, I'm not sure if we should, it's plausible that it would make all kinds of abuse less risky and thus more attractive, increasing the abuse happening in the world.
Unfortunately while this behavior is useful at conquering the world, it becomes counterproductive later on.
- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_falcon - [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast%27s_eagle - [2] exception here being the Ruru (an Owl)
Not being slaves to our animals instincts is kind of what makes humans human.
The incident I witnessed was described to me by a local as a war between two rival monkey gangs battling for food scraps. Things were getting dangerous, the monkeys would snarl at people just walking along the street, and sometimes lunge and attack people carrying any sort of food. I've seen people get scratched and bitten.
Is this what happened with early hominids and why there aren't other creatures that have evolved to the same level of intelligence as humans?
I think the concept that animal can be moral / immoral is already a philosophical subject. See the book "Can Animals Be Moral?" for reference.
And in order to say that these monkeys are evil, you must first prove that they can be moral.
I doubt it
"Law of the jungle" and all that
If evil is absolute, then an animal (or an entire species) can be seen as evil by nature. Another species may be seen as good or neutral by nature even if the animal itself has no sense of right or wrong.
It is indeed very philosophical and also up to your beliefs and values.
The end outcome was a ban on mink farms which is a pretty positive one for animal rights.
I also think the e culling of all those minks was horrible but it's not as black and white as that.
Is that not much more 'evil', to breed something specifically to kill it for its skin? If it's not, then why is it not allowed to be done by the same species to itself?
That depends on what value/s you place on the thing being bred for its coat. Pretty much all cultures around the world are different, subtly or dramatically, on such issues.
> If it's not, then why is it not allowed to be done by the same species to itself?
The answer to that is: because the humans judge that the minks (and their existence) are not equals in value to the humans, rather, they're considered property, to be disposed of as the owner sees fit. And obviously that aspect (as the owner sees fit) varies by location/culture.
Your question - then why is it not allowed to be done by the same species to itself? - starts from the incorrect premise that values are objective, such as whether a mink should or should not be considered property (your premise requires starting from the notion that minks have protected rights and are equal to humans generally). Instead, those values are in fact subjective and will vary depending on which culture you're dealing with.
As of yet I haven't actually been to Spain, but from traveling around Europe I did learn that eating vegan can (sometimes) be incredibly challenging. In a smaller coastal city in Italy I remember one night where the only food I could find to eat was a tomato salad (modified by removing all the non-vegan ingredients from a salad menu item).
But overwhelmingly through my travels I've been able to find more options.
There are many vegetarian and vegan restaurants, yes. But when I go out for dinner with my Spanish friends they wouldn't pick those places. They'd always go for traditional places.
Which means you end up with exactly the kind of thing you mention "Uhhh yeah we might have a salad for you" :D
I'm not strictly vegetarian so it's not so much a problem but I had a colleague who used to come with us for lunch who got fed up with that.
But as a tourist you'l be fine yeah.
I'm from the Netherlands myself and the supermarkets there have a huge range of vegetarian and vegan foods. Here it's usually a corner of one of the fridges.
But 'evil' is a human concept. I'm not saying some animals aren't capable of having a similar concept, but 'monkey evil' would not be rooted in the human evolution of societies, religious and philosophical traditions, etc.
Try this one out:
Are humans who kill monkeys for science "evil"? Not to (many) humans. But to monkeys?
In places like the Monkey Temple in Bali that's exactly how you keep them at bay. In our local zoo where you can interact with lemurs, they can be chased away with a small water spray.
The general belief here in India is if you are hurting a snake, might as well kill it, and then burn it, just to be sure.
I recall reading (the book escapes me), that just about all animals employ a Tit-for-Tat mechanism for dealing with other animals of the same species that cheat.
Revenge is a very useful social tool, especially against other species threatening their offspring.
An instinct is something you have no choice over, it's automatic.
Humans very clearly have a choice as to whether they pursue revenge or not. If someone wrongs me in a given way, I can choose how to respond, or to not respond at all; and I can spend as much time as I like (decades if I choose to) pondering on that. It's doubtful these monkeys function quite at that level.
It's unknown whether, for example, these monkeys have any choice in the matter. Their programming may be purely instinctual when it comes to a revenge response.
I think this is a common but entirely wrong model, and I'm not sure why people hold it.
Do you think humans have no instincts? I would argue exactly the opposite, humans, like all animals, are driven almost entirely by instinct, whether it's prosocial instincts causing you to have a moral code much like those around you, inspiring guilt and shame when you break it, or causing you to feel a need to talk to people and comment on Internet stories, reproductive instincts driving you to seek a mate, or survival instincts to ensure a regular food supply.
I think it works exactly the same way in all animals. They are equally capable of making choices, because choice is a preconscious thing, not something that occurs as a result of careful, reasoned intellect. Obviously, humans are capable of making more informed choices, but "reason" is mostly a post-hoc rationalization engine.
The snake came back looking for the nest and could not find it. It looked around with no luck. It went to the family water vase (because there was no piped water supply) and spit inside. The mother saw this and told the other to put the nest back.
The snake saw the nest, went immediately back to the vase, coiled it and flipped the water over over to empty it.
It had spit poison in the supply to hurt the family for revenge of its nest. And then sought to undo that act.
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but a matter such as this seems plagued by uncertainty and it seems rash to me to be making such presumptions.
I'm not sure what you mean. Did you forget a word?
The original post presumes that monkeys' experience of revenge is "just a survival instinct". I find it quite odd to make such a strong assumption about something as unknowable about conscious experience (perhaps wrongly if there is evidence to that effect I am not aware of).
Your reply pointed out that mammals have similar brain structures. To me, this would imply that humans and other mammals (particularly monkeys) should have more similar experiences of the world as a base assumption, rather than leading us to dismiss similar behaviours as survival instinct etc. Perhaps I missed your point?
I can see that this is quite hand-wavy topic, but hopefully this helps to clarify a little.
I'm sure the story has been "embellished" a bit though and there's probably tons of confounding factor but I've heard a lot of similar stories about camels and their famous penchant for revenge :).
That's when you start shooting these monkeys on sight. Cull their numbers a bit. I've been bitten by a monkey as a child and it sucked. I hope the village starts splitting their wigs. Do they have guns?
Who said anybody is surprised?
It's surprising because (a) we generally consider revenge to be a human emotion, so seeing it in animals is a bit surprising, (b) seeing a coordinated attack between two species that are kind of adjacent on the food chain isn't super common. Killing in the animal world is primarily done for hunting. The monkeys aren't eating the dogs, they're just killing them.
Sounds like they're in cahoots
Maybe this comment seems alarmist but I'm trying to help. Read it with an open mind and a grain of salt. Better be alarmist than sorry.
"We've seen that when an individual is attacked in some way, the likelihood of them attacking someone related to their aggressor is higher," Poindexter told Gizmodo. "Typically there's a preference for attacking a third-party associated with the original aggressor, as opposed to the actual aggressor...for the most part, these acts of 'revenge' take place shortly after the attack."
Poindexter also explained that groups of hyenas have been known to seek revenge on the aggressor's relatives instead of the actual aggressor.
This sounds really condescending, Please lets don't do this here. Everybody is free to have exactly the dog that they want. Period.
I can't see the need to invoke the dusty ghost of Freud all the time with those dumb clichés. In the real life, not all is always related with penises.
You're saying you would like to see a pack of monkeys attack your dog? Your post is either internet bravado or an injunction for someone to call and alert animal welfare about your conduct.
And yes, the dog could kill some macaques easily. Stray dogs are often malnourished and weak. A well feed dog of a respectable size in open field is a different situation.