[FireWire]

From CNN:

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) -- Bears killed and devoured a monkey in front of horrified visitors at a Dutch zoo, officials and witnesses said.

Visitors reported that the grisly scene began as several bears chased the monkey, a macaque, onto a wooden structure at Beekse Bergen Safari Park.

They said a bear tried unsuccessfully to shake the monkey loose, ignoring attempts by keepers to distract it. The bear then climbed up and grabbed the monkey, mauling it to death and bringing it to its concrete den, where three bears ate it.

But!! Sloth bears looked so peaceful and gentle in the Jungle Book!!



Link to a picture of the incident
Another picture.
PDF containing several pictures, with a description (in Dutch language). [One potentially shocking image]

[ajprice]

I wonder if it tasted like chicken???

[cmeisenzahl]

I saw that last night, horrible! ;-(

[11011001]

Except that happens every day to millions upon millions of animals. It's not particularly horrible.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by 11011001

Except that happens every day to millions upon millions of animals. It's not particularly horrible.

Yeah, but monkeys are cute, so it's horrible!

[voodoo]

Bears one, monkeys zero! Way to go Bears!!!

Hey it's nature. The only thing that's slightly curious is how the monkey got to the bears. The rest is well.. natural.

V

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ajprice

I wonder if it tasted like chicken???

Probably tastes more like human.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by voodoo

The only thing that's slightly curious is how the monkey got to the bears. The rest is well.. natural.

It seems they were sharing the same spot, but there is usually no incident. It's curious as these sloths's diet typically consists of insects and fruits... Seems they wanted a little extra for dinner.

I'm still wondering why zoo don't keep guns (real or tranquilizer) around in case of emergency. We often see video of people getting trapped inside the cage or that are attacked through the fence because the wandered too close. I remember the one with the Chinese guy that is almost killed by a bunch of lions, yet nobody was shooting at them. As for the sloth bears, the guardians tried to distract them, but no shots were fired, why didn't they tranquilize them for a few hours?

[Monique]

Why would they put a carnivorous bear in the same cage than a monkey. Of course, the bear will eventually eat the monkey, dah.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Well that's nature and zoo planning for ya.

[olePigeon]

Now there's going to be a "Conservative Grass Roots" effort that'll go out and kill 200 sloth bears. For an encore, they'll go kill 100 great white sharks and 150 tiger sharks.

... and maybe one Polar Grizzly.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Now there's going to be a "Conservative Grass Roots" effort that'll go out and kill 200 sloth bears. For an encore, they'll go kill 100 great white sharks and 150 tiger sharks.

... and maybe one Polar Grizzly.

Don't forget illegal immigrants!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Now there's going to be a "Conservative Grass Roots" effort that'll go out and kill 200 sloth bears. For an encore, they'll go kill 100 great white sharks and 150 tiger sharks.

... and maybe one Polar Grizzly.

The sanctity of life is very important

[Rumor]

Too bad this monkey wasn't as quick as the one that was messing with the tigers. (I posted a link to the vid a little while ago.)

[Cody Dawg]

Where's the video?

Supposedly the guy that took the pictures has them up on the internet somewhere and there are a lot of them. I'd like to see them but he's in the Netherlands and I don't know how to Google for it.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Poor monkey but in nature even chimps eat each other from time to time.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by FireWire

It seems they were sharing the same spot, but there is usually no incident. It's curious as these sloths's diet typically consists of insects and fruits... Seems they wanted a little extra for dinner.

It's yet another case of people not knowing what they think they know.

I'm still wondering why zoo don't keep guns (real or tranquilizer) around in case of emergency. We often see video of people getting trapped inside the cage or that are attacked through the fence because the wandered too close. I remember the one with the Chinese guy that is almost killed by a bunch of lions, yet nobody was shooting at them. As for the sloth bears, the guardians tried to distract them, but no shots were fired, why didn't they tranquilize them for a few hours?

I personally applaud them for just letting this Sloth Bear be a Sloth Bear. Leave him alone and let him do his thing.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by FireWire

I'm still wondering why zoo don't keep guns (real or tranquilizer) around in case of emergency.

It does seem strange.

We often see video of people getting trapped inside the cage or that are attacked through the fence because the wandered too close. I remember the one with the Chinese guy that is almost killed by a bunch of lions, yet nobody was shooting at them.

For cases of people getting in the cage, what we really need is some kind of good deterrent for people who might try to enter the cage. Maybe we could put some sort of really fierce animal in the cage, and it would maul anyone who got in. That ought to keep people out, don't you think?

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah, even a water hose would have helped.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Millennium

It does seem strange.

For cases of people getting in the cage, what we really need is some kind of good deterrent. Maybe we could put some sort of really fierce animal in the cage, and it would maul anyone who tried to get in. That ought to keep people out, wouldn't you think?

No they should just put a sign that says "If you are stupid enough to climb in this cage your ass is on its own".

[MindFad]

We should execute the bears. Unbelievable!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

No they should just put a sign that says "If you are stupid enough to climb in this cage your ass is on its own".

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I personally applaud them for just letting this Sloth Bear be a Sloth Bear. Leave him alone and let him do his thing.

Yeah, take them out of their natural environment, throw them in a cage with other animals 24/7, induce untold stress on them, and then let the "Sloth Bear be a Sloth Bear". Sorry, its not as easy as that. I'm not making an argument whether or not this was natural. I'm just saying that animals in Zoo's are not going to act the same way as they would in the wild. Thats like throwing some random person in prison and then expecting them to act as if they weren't there.

[Rumor]

Pulled from Sloth-bears.com

Sloth Bears - Diet
The main food for Sloth Bears is termites, which are abundant and stable food source. They also eat other insects, bird eggs, honey, fruits and various kinds of vegetation. Sloth Bears have special adaptations for eating termites. They lack the inner part of upper incisors, this allows them to form a gap and suck the termites into their mouths.
The naked lips of Sloth Bears can protrude and the long tongue helps to lick the termites. Also Sloth Bears have little hair on the muzzle that protects them from termites' bites. These bears can close their nostrils such as to not let the termites into their noses. Sloth Bears dig into the hard tall pillars where the termites live and insert their muzzle to suck up the insects and their larvae. Sloth Bears also climb and shake trees to obtain fruits.

[Rumor]

Kind of odd that they'd eat a monkey. Maybe the monkey pissed them off?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Yeah, take them out of their natural environment, throw them in a cage with other animals 24/7, induce untold stress on them, and then let the "Sloth Bear be a Sloth Bear". Sorry, its not as easy as that. I'm not making an argument whether or not this was natural. I'm just saying that animals in Zoo's are not going to act the same way as they would in the wild. Thats like throwing some random person in prison and then expecting them to act as if they weren't there.

Oh, I'M certainly not going to disagree with you, I think zoos are appalling in general. I was just trying not to go there in this thread.

Buuuuut…if in this case we grant that the zoos aren't going to close down because I say so, what would you suggest they have done? Force the Sloth Bear to behave as WE think Sloth Bears are supposed to behave?

This may be due to the stress of "incarceration" as you say, but it may also be a case of us not knowing what the true diet of a Sloth Bear is supposed to be. (Or both. Or a myriad of other things)

I remember reading a story about a species of monkey that was in captivity years ago that was broadly considered to be almost purely frugivorous. After a while they started doing very poorly, because they were being fed fruit as WE would eat them; washed and pristine. No one suspected that the insects crawling all over the fruit in the wild were also an important part of their diet. (this is the case with nearly every single supposed "herbivore")

Now I don't pretend to know what they were feeding this particular Bear. But in the wild they are omnivorous and eat lots of fruits and veggies but their diets main constituent is termites. They are also known to eat eggs and carrion. Perhaps the "all knowing" animal "experts" who were in charge of this animals incarceration were simply not giving him the protein he needs in his diet.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It's yet another case of people not knowing what they think they know.

What's that gratuitious accusation against me? Did you do any research to support it? If you did, you'd have read the same thing Rumor and I did: they can eat meat, but it's pretty down in their list of typical food, something of a last resort.

And for the "let them be themselves" argument, it's the zoo's problem, if they want to lose one of their beasts (which they probably paid for) and offer their young visitors an unforgettable sight of live evisceration... A little dart and we're in business.

Cody: are you talking about the videos, or the pictures? If it's the latter, they can be found in the PDF I linked to in the OP.

[Monique]

Although zoos are a lot better than they used to be I have to agree they are terrible places that are run by people that loved to exploit animals and love money.

In Calgary which is fairly warm they wanted to bring in a polar bear; stupid, it is going to suffer tremendously due to the warm climate.

Wild animals should stay in the wild and those who can rehabilitated should be. And if you want to see wild animals, go to Africa, Asia, South America, the poles or look on the internet.

The only other situation that I find more appauling is using animals for research which is totally useless and is done by people with no morals, no humanity indeed very cruel people.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by FireWire

What's that gratuitious accusation against me?

Absolutely not. I was not referring to you at all. In fact I was in a way agreeing with what you said.

We don't always know what we think we know about a species. In fact we rarely do.

[FireWire]

Oops. In that case, ignore my comments. Sorry!

[smacintush]

I think that man's exploitation of nature is due to feeling feeling of disconnectedness with nature. We generally look at nature as something "out there" away from us that we don't really belong to. This is just pure BS.

What is the real difference between a house and a birds nest? Is a house less natural? It's not. Is a city really different than a community of mountain gorillas nesting together? Only in complexity. If you really thing about it there is really NOTHING that is NOT natural since every single thing on this earth is "of this universe". When we create something which we call "synthetic" this is not "unnatural". It is a creation of the natural intelligence of humans using the natural resources around him.

We destroy what we normally call natural with our way of life not because it is "unnatural", but because of this feeling we aren't a part of nature. We "overdo"it. We misuse our technology. Just THINK of the wonderful things we could do with our VAST technological skill if we actually, truly felt at one with the world.

OK. I'm done with my crazy ranting now. Carry on!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

Although zoos are a lot better than they used to be I have to agree they are terrible places that are run by people that loved to exploit animals and love money.

In Calgary which is fairly warm they wanted to bring in a polar bear; stupid, it is going to suffer tremendously due to the warm climate.

Wild animals should stay in the wild and those who can rehabilitated should be. And if you want to see wild animals, go to Africa, Asia, South America, the poles or look on the internet.

The only other situation that I find more appauling is using animals for research which is totally useless and is done by people with no morals, no humanity indeed very cruel people.

I agree for the most part. Although I do think that there are definitely times when animal testing IS useful, it is most definitely NOT ethical.

[RAILhead]

I like to yell at zoo animals and then flip them off when they finally look at me.

Oh, and the vast majority of zoo animals aren't stolen from the wild and thrown into cages like prisoners.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Monique

Although zoos are a lot better than they used to be I have to agree they are terrible places that are run by people that loved to exploit animals and love money.

Not the usual vibe I get from the STL zoo (mainly because it's a free zoo)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I like to yell at zoo animals and then flip them off when they finally look at me.

Oh, and the vast majority of zoo animals aren't stolen from the wild and thrown into cages like prisoners.

No, they are descended from animals that were stolen from the wild and thrown into cages. Also, there are still many animals being captured and put into zoos.

I hope you are not implying that it is somehow OK to keep animals incarcerated because they have been born in prison? Because that would be silly.

[RAILhead]

Well, speaking as a human being -- the species that rules the Earth -- I have no problem with having an elephant in a big enclosure, ready for me to pay $10 to look at, yell at, and flip off.

[natural1]

Bears are a huge threat to all of us. First monkeys, then humans. These bears -- these killing machines -- will devour the entire planet if we do not stop them now!

Seriously though, most bears are omnivourous, eating fruits and roots most of the time but taking carrion or prey when it is readily available. The bears percieved that monkey to be a tasty lil' package of protein - we really can't fault them for eating like we do (is that monkey all that different from that lamb chop you ate last week?)

[Rumor]

Did you know you can teach a gorilla how to flip the bird?

[FireWire]

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) -- Bears killed and devoured a monkey in front of horrified visitors at a Dutch zoo, officials and witnesses said.

Originally Posted by natural1

These bears -- these killing machines -- will devour the entire planet if we do not stop them now!

The funny thing is, while I was doing this mockup in Photoshop 5.5, Classic crashed and I had to do it again, so it wasn't as good

[ort888]

Dudes, it was in Amsterdam. The bears probably just had the munchies.

[JoshuaZ]

Two animals enter, one animal leave... this is the law of the THUNDER ZOO!

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I agree for the most part. Although I do think that there are definitely times when animal testing IS useful, it is most definitely NOT ethical.

Would you prefer that the entire stage of animal testing be skipped, and that scientists skip directly to human testing?

[Monique]

They can test drugs more efficiently on computer models than on animals. Also, we and the primates do not have the same physiology so we are going to react differently to drugs tested on animals. Don't you remember a drug thaliomide (sorry for the spelling) and it was test cruelly on animals, then given to pregnant women with disastrous effects. Could the cruel scientists predicts that people could become resistant to antibiotics treatments when they cruelly tested it on animals. Could they predict the side effects of powerful epileptic drugs when they cruelly tested them on animals.

You do not know the side effects, the effects of such and such a drug when it enters a human being; they can only guest that no harm will come to human beings; but each physiology reacts differently to drugs. That is why the testings on animals are not necessary but simply cruel, and computer models are more accurate.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

They can test drugs more efficiently on computer models than on animals.

To do this with any kind of accuracy or efficiency, you'd need parallelism on a scale that current quantum-computing researchers only theorize about. That's decades away, even at best.

Also, we and the primates do not have the same physiology so we are going to react differently to drugs tested on animals.

Sometimes, sometimes not. That's why both animal and human trials are performed. Oftentimes, we react similarly enough often enough that the testing is worthwhile.

Don't you remember a drug thaliomide (sorry for the spelling) and it was test cruelly on animals, then given to pregnant women with disastrous effects.

More human trials should have been performed on the drug first. Humanity has learned from that mistake.

Could the cruel scientists predicts that people could become resistant to antibiotics treatments when they cruelly tested it on animals.

People have not become resistant to antibiotics. The diseases have. This would have occurred whether or not animal testing was performed, because the problem is not with the antibiotics themselves, but how badly they've been overused. The result of this was predictable to anyone with a knowledge of basic biology: the overuse of antibiotics put evolutionary pressure on the diseases, and the diseases evolved to suit.

Could they predict the side effects of powerful epileptic drugs when they cruelly tested them on animals.

No, in fact, they couldn't have done so. I concede this point. However, I will also point out that many animals died during the testing. Had human trials been done, those animals would have been people. Is that really an improvement?

You do not know the side effects, the effects of such and such a drug when it enters a human being; they can only guest that no harm will come to human beings; but each physiology reacts differently to drugs.

You are correct that many minor physical side effects, as well as most mental side effects, cannot be predicted from animal trials; those must wait to be determined until human trials are done. You can, however, often predict the most severe side effects, such as -just to give one example- death.

Animal physiology is different from human physiology to varying degrees, depending on the animal in question. However, in most cases it is far more similar than it is different. That's another case of evolution in action: common ancestry tends to give rise to many similarities.

That is why the testings on animals are not necessary but simply cruel, and computer models are more accurate.

Computer models are decades away from being more accurate. It's not just a matter of compiling data on human physiology: the computers themselves are far from being powerful enough to do this.

[Oneota]

Originally Posted by FireWire

[ThinkInsane]

Good lord, Colbert is right. Bears are not only the number one threat to national security, they are the number one threat to the entire world.

I'm sure the poor monkey thought this was a bad idea from the word go: "You're going to put me in with what? Great idea, jackass. This is gonna suck for me..."

At least he died having the satisfaction of knowing his grisly demise will lead to a lifetime of therapy for the children that bore witness. That's how I'd wanna go.

[n8236]

I love mother nature and the food chain

[analogika]

I love zombie threads.

[cjrivera]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Don't forget illegal immigrants!

"Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them."

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Monique

They can test drugs more efficiently on computer models than on animals. Also, we and the primates do not have the same physiology so we are going to react differently to drugs tested on animals. Don't you remember a drug thaliomide (sorry for the spelling) and it was test cruelly on animals, then given to pregnant women with disastrous effects. Could the cruel scientists predicts that people could become resistant to antibiotics treatments when they cruelly tested it on animals. Could they predict the side effects of powerful epileptic drugs when they cruelly tested them on animals.

You do not know the side effects, the effects of such and such a drug when it enters a human being; they can only guest that no harm will come to human beings; but each physiology reacts differently to drugs. That is why the testings on animals are not necessary but simply cruel, and computer models are more accurate.

Monique, have you ever been anywhere NEAR a facility that does research on animals? Here in the States, in order to be licensed, such a facility needs an extensive and detailed program, documented to the nth degree, including veteranarians (ever met a vet that wasn't really, really PRO-animal?), and technicians to take very good care of the animals, regular and very comprehensive inspections by a number of agencies, and finally it has to provide ALL experimental data for review by competent agencies (including but not limited to peer reviewed journals and regulatory agencies). In short, it would be hard for "cruel" to come into play. I'm not saying that there isn't a single researcher that derives pleasure from hurting an experimental animal, but they don't dare let on about it or they lose their jobs and basically get blacklisted in the field.

While I agree with you that there is too much animal research, almost all of what's done today with pharmaceuticals and medical devices and techniques is done because it's the only way to test these things in a realistic modality. The animal chosen for a test is chosen because its physiology in the system being impacted by the test is very similar to humans. That means some tests are done on pigs, some on cows, some on goats, and some on primates. But these animals MUST be treated very well, or it will negatively impact the results of the research, so it's in the interest of the researchers (and whomever is funding that research) to do things as carefully, humanely and legitimately as possible. And the next time you come across an insulin-dependent relative, think about how animal testing has improved their life...because they'd be dead without the results of solid, scientifically based testing on animals, which is where insulin and it's actions came from.