I would expect most animals that still exist to at the very least not be a major threat to humans - because if they are, they tend to cease to exist.
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.
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.