Unusual adoption

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:43 pm

I got this in an email:

After a mother chimpanzee who lived in a zoo died, one of the zoo’s employees took the baby chimp home to care for it. It never crossed his mind that his dog, who had recently given birth, would adopt the chimp and raise it with her pups

continued...

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:45 pm

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:49 pm

Beautiful.... Just beautiful

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:51 pm

It might be interesting to see how many variant stories those photos have been posted with. A search of "female chimpanzee for some reason abandoned her baby" would be a good start.

I like the parquet flooring.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:59 pm

I can't get it back earlier than January in Chimpanzee Adopted By a Mastiff | English Russia - back then the employee was "her", not "him". And the mother hadn't died. I think that's the Internet source.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:01 pm

I was going to put in a disclaimer that the chimp was really a robot, the dog was stuffed and the zoo didn't really exist just in case spot showed up.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:09 pm

SnoozeAgain;1396117 wrote: I was going to put in a disclaimer that the chimp was really a robot, the dog was stuffed and the zoo didn't really exist just in case spot showed up.

Don't worry about Spot.

Some people get their kicks looking at 'nice' pictures with a 'nice' storyline, Spot gets his kicks dissecting children's favourite soft toys and analysing the stuffing, and ridiculing the child's attachment to tatty old cloth rags, "It doesn't make sense" he was heard saying "it is only old linen"

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:18 pm

SnoozeAgain;1396117 wrote: I was going to put in a disclaimer that the chimp was really a robot, the dog was stuffed and the zoo didn't really exist just in case spot showed up.

I was interested, I often am at how stories change as they're spread around. I reckon my link is where the pictures first appeared on the Internet, I can't take them any further back and there are lots of sites picking them up on 10th January.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:21 pm

And in the interest of removing doubt, I don't for a moment believe the zoo association, Russian zoo or any other zoo. That's some moneyed oligarch private owner, and the chimp never went within a mile of a zoo much less started out in one.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:23 pm

spot;1396122 wrote: And in the interest of removing doubt, I don't for a moment believe the zoo association, Russian zoo or any other zoo. That's some private owner, and the chimp never went within a mile of a zoo much less started out in one.

Oh......just look at the pictures and say Ahh.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:25 pm

Bruv;1396123 wrote: Oh......just look at the pictures and say Ahh.

You don't actually recognize that what happened is entirely against the chimp's interest?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:01 pm

spot;1396124 wrote: You don't actually recognize that what happened is entirely against the chimp's interest?

Oh......just look at the pictures and say Ahh.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:11 pm

Ahhhhhhhhhh

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:21 pm

It's amazing that spot always knows the back stories. Or how someone should have reacted in a given situation. Or that someone's face wasn't really chewed off and that they'll appear at the press conference in a tuxedo and top hat.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:20 am

SnoozeAgain;1396136 wrote: It's amazing that spot always knows the back stories. Or how someone should have reacted in a given situation. Or that someone's face wasn't really chewed off and that they'll appear at the press conference in a tuxedo and top hat.
Can you really reed "Two years ago, in one of the Russian zoos, a female chimpanzee for some reson repudiated her baby" and not instantly recognize a cast-iron Urban Legend? True stories name the zoo and the keeper, Urban Legends are invented constructs intended to get so much attention and "ahh" as to be spread across the web by witless dupes who like the pretty pictures, verbal or graphic.

Here we are, this is what I had in mind...Animal Welfare Information Center

National Agricultural Library

U.S. Department of Agriculture

A. Social Grouping

1. The Social Nature of Primates

USDA regulations state that, “The environment enhancement plan must include specific provisions to address the

social needs of nonhuman primates of species known to exist in social groups in nature.” [U. S. Department of

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 1998:9 CFR §3.81(a)].

Social interactions are considered to be one of the most important factors influencing the psychological well-being of

most nonhuman primates. (NRC/ILAR Report 1998:13)

Nearly all primates have some tendency to seek the company of their own kind at times other than mating

(McGrew 1981, Rowe 1996, Pereira et. al. 1989b, Fleagle 1998). Even within those few species known as “solitary”-

-orangutans and most nocturnal prosimians--individuals of certain age or sex classes can still be found in social

associations at certain times (Bearder 1987, Rodman and Mitani 1987, Rowe 1996, Van Schaik and Van Hoof

1996). Despite their solitariness in the wild, adult orangutans have been kept in compatible social groups in

captivity (Maple 1979a, Perkins 1992), such as at the Singapore Zoo (Poole 1987), where allogrooming and social

play among adult females was much higher than one would predict from behavior observed in the wild (but see

also Markham 1990). The remarkable sociality of the primate order in general is the most relevant characteristic for

their humane housing. This social tendency may be redirected toward animals of other species, including humans

(Collazo 1989, Hediger 1964, Mason and Kenney 1974).

http://www.uta.edu/ra/oric/animal/forms ... 20Huma.pdf

That reference to Collazo 1989 is to an article titled "Collazo, V. E. (1989). Male rhesus monkey’s unusual behavior: interspecies adoption". It gives a hint of why those pictures should be disturbing rather than ahhhh. I find them sick-making.

In a sentence - It's bad for the chimp. And I don't often bold anything for emphasis.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:45 am

I find them sick-making.

I would expect nothing less from you.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:47 am

SnoozeAgain;1396152 wrote: I would expect nothing less from you.
Let me rephrase it then - I, along with any other humane person who'd put the interests of the chimp above those of comedy, find them sick-making.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:14 am

spot;1396153 wrote: .............I, along with any other humane person who'd put the interests of the chimp above those of comedy, find them sick-making.

OK Hands up who is humane enough to find these inconsequential pretty pictures "sick-making"

Form a queue behind Spot.................anybody else.......come on don't be shy.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:18 am

As much as reading the words initially made me think ahhh bless, my thought processes then kicked in. Looking at the pictures that dog doesn't look overly happy in many of the photos. She almost looks like a dog saying 'ok I'm going to do as you tell me (the owner) but I'm not happy about it'. I should think a young chimp could be quite aggressive too, not in a manic fighting way but in the same way a toddler is rough slapping and pulling people/animals around. I wouldn't allow a toddler to be with a dog unsupervised for fear of how the toddler could hurt the dog. I don't think such a set up, if true, is at all fair on the dog nor the chimp.

About one photo still makes you think aaahh though, the one where the dog is asleep. :wah:

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:20 am

Bruv;1396156 wrote: OK Hands up who is humane enough to find these inconsequential pretty pictures "sick-making"

Form a queue behind Spot.................anybody else.......come on don't be shy.

not sick making, but they make me hope to god it's not a true story

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:37 am

Betty Boop;1396157 wrote: As much as reading the words initially made me think ahhh bless, my thought processes then kicked in.Good for you, BB. Thinking gets trumped by feelings more often than not as this (and other) threads demonstrate.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:41 am

I am pretty sure both pup and chimp can be vicious buggers, a nursing bitch can give some pained looks as her wearisome pups behave like pups, suspect the same for any nursing mother.......even human.

Not an ideal arrangement, but whatever the story the pictures remain cute, and I am no animal lover.

The images may be just a setup purely for the ahh factor........anything can be too over analysed, it's not like this is a widespread way of rearing chimps is it ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:43 am

Ahso!;1396163 wrote: Thinking gets trumped by feelings more often than not as this (and other) threads demonstrate.

A little more 'feeling' and a lot less 'thinking' ......might.....make the world a better place.....I THINK.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:57 am

Bruv;1396164 wrote: it's not like this is a widespread way of rearing chimps is it ?I bet it would be in Essex if it were legal here. The entire notion oozes new-money criminal ostentation and one-up housewives who skipped their GCSEs. Those photos are pure Big Brother territory, and I don't mean Orwell.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:07 am

Bruv;1396165 wrote: A little more 'feeling' and a lot less 'thinking' ......might.....make the world a better place.....I THINK.So you'd prefer the mammalian brain over the human brain?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:12 am

Ahso!;1396167 wrote: So you'd prefer the mammalian brain over the human brain?

I'd be happier if the reptilian model had won the intelligence stakes, I like the sit-quiet-and-wait bit before the feeding frenzy.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:16 am

spot;1396166 wrote: I bet it would be in Essex if it were legal here. The entire notion oozes new-money criminal ostentation and one-up housewives who skipped their GCSEs. Those photos are pure Big Brother territory, and I don't mean Orwell.

I shall disregard all that due to the 'if'.......if my aunt had testes she would be my uncle.....comes to mind

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:18 am

spot;1396168 wrote: I'd be happier if the reptilian model had won the intelligence stakes, I like the sit-quiet-and-wait bit before the feeding frenzy.

'IF' again.......one should learn to deal with what 'is' rather than what 'if'

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:19 am

Ahso!;1396167 wrote: So you'd prefer the mammalian brain over the human brain?

Since when has the human brain been other than a mammalian brain ?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:30 am

Bruv;1396175 wrote: Since when has the human brain been other than a mammalian brain ?THE BRAIN FROM TOP TO BOTTOM

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:17 am

Ahso!;1396177 wrote: THE BRAIN FROM TOP TO BOTTOM

These three parts of the brain do not operate independently of one another. They have established numerous interconnections through which they influence one another.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:30 am

Bruv;1396185 wrote: These three parts of the brain do not operate independently of one another. They have established numerous interconnections through which they influence one another.That's right. The point I'm making in response to your "Since when has the human brain been other than a mammalian brain ?" is that humans possess more brain matter than mammals and can deliberate where other species cannot.

Let's not forget what you originally said: Bruv;1396165 wrote: A little more 'feeling' and a lot less 'thinking' ......might.....make the world a better place.....I THINK.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:14 am

Bruv;1396173 wrote: I shall disregard all that due to the 'if'.......if my aunt had testes she would be my uncle.....comes to mindIt's a logical structure which readily translates to "it's not like this is a widespread way of rearing chimps because the law in this land forbids such behaviour, otherwise it would be a widespread way of rearing chimps at least in Essex where new-money criminal ostentation and one-up housewives who skipped their GCSEs are rife". Except using "if" is a lot briefer.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:16 am

Ahso!;1396186 wrote: Let's not forget what you originally said:

I know what I originally said and I meant what I said, and you have confirmed that man has a complex mind, better not to over complicate things, and just 'feel' sometimes.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:22 am

spot;1396198 wrote: It's a logical structure which readily translates to "it's not like this is a widespread way of rearing chimps because the law in this land forbids such behaviour, otherwise it would be a widespread way of rearing chimps at least in Essex where new-money criminal ostentation and one-up housewives who skipped their GCSEs are rife". Except using "if" is a lot briefer.

You haven't got a very high opinion of your fellow man have you ?

Or is it just Americans and the GCSE skipping Essex nouveau rich chavs ?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:24 am

I have to admit that after the chimp bit the face off of his owner here in the states, I'm not a chimp lover and never have been a mastiff lover. So I couldn't do the ahh thingy. I mostly did the WTF thingy.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:37 am

Bruv;1396205 wrote: You haven't got a very high opinion of your fellow man have you ?You've not actually watched Big Brother, have you. I did. I even asked questions. My word it shows what's underneath if you're daft enough to turn the stones over.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:58 am

spot;1396207 wrote: You've not actually watched Big Brother, have you. I did. I even asked questions. My word it shows what's underneath if you're daft enough to turn the stones over.

Are you talking about 'Big Brother' the channel 5 TV show ?

And I thought you were being serious.................

Or as an after thought...... the Orwellian world ?

One is a sensationalist TV show the other a work of fiction.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:09 am

Bruv;1396210 wrote: Are you talking about 'Big Brother' the channel 5 TV show ?

And I thought you were being serious.................

Or as an after thought...... the Orwellian world ?

One is a sensationalist TV show the other a work of fiction.

The only reason I didn't repeat myself was that I'd already said... "Those photos are pure Big Brother territory, and I don't mean Orwell". And of course I'm being serious, all you need do is treat my comments on that basis and we might manage to hold a coherent discussion for once.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:40 am

spot;1396212 wrote: The only reason I didn't repeat myself was that I'd already said... "Those photos are pure Big Brother territory, and I don't mean Orwell". And of course I'm being serious, all you need do is treat my comments on that basis and we might manage to hold a coherent discussion for once.

I get to a point and have to reassess what the hell is actually being talked about.

Someone somewhere, possibly in Russia, took some photos of a young chimp with a dog with new born pups.

A few words were included that gave no deep facts about the photos.

The words may or may not be verifiable, the chimpanzee may or may not still be living as part of the dog 'family'.

No species has been endangered by this isolated event, no countries were invaded or lives lost.

The photos might have been arranged just for the 'feel good factor' they bring to some viewers, who really knows ?

There is not an epidemic of dog reared chimps, or is there likely to be.

Essex homes are virtually chimp free, in fact most homes are chimp free.

I see a series of cute photos, nothing earth shatteringly worrying, nothing to slander the population of Essex or the participants of a TV show who have nothing at all to do with the photo shoot.

I wouldn't entertain a dog or a chimpanzee in my home, let alone a dog with a litter and a chimp baby.......but I don't think this will bring down western civilisation or has any great need to be debated in depth......but that's just me.

These cutsey pictures has taken up far too much of my life

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:49 am

I blame Snooze.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:53 am

spot;1396228 wrote: I blame Snooze.

Finally, a little logic thrown into the thread.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:57 am

spot;1396228 wrote: I blame Snooze.
And Archduke Ferdinand for the first world war ?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:20 pm

Bruv;1396231 wrote: And Archduke Ferdinand for the first world war ?

You seem to imply that Serbia declared war on the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That's not the way I remember it though the suggestion fits in with modern US notions. The actions of a few die-hard nationalists are not the acts of a State. The First World War started when the Emperor Franz Joseph declared war, in the name of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, on Serbia. The parallel with US relations toward Afghanistan in 2001 is uncanny and even the end result is comparable.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:45 pm

Bruv;1396156 wrote: OK Hands up who is humane enough to find these inconsequential pretty pictures "sick-making"

Form a queue behind Spot.................anybody else.......come on don't be shy.

Look at the picture of the monkey with its arse in the air competing with a puppy for dog food and tell me that it is natural or good for the chimp.

Wrong diet, wrong behaviour, just wrong.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:47 pm

Bruv;1396204 wrote: I know what I originally said and I meant what I said, and you have confirmed that man has a complex mind, better not to over complicate things, and just 'feel' sometimes.Oy!

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:36 pm

Bryn Mawr;1396243 wrote: Look at the picture of the monkey with its arse in the air competing with a puppy for dog food and tell me that it is natural or good for the chimp.

Wrong diet, wrong behaviour, just wrong.

Did you notice it didn't have a plate of its own?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:38 pm

flopstock;1396253 wrote: Did you notice it didn't have a plate of its own?

Very much so - and a meat diet for a chimp is not good.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:45 pm

Oh for god's sake. The puppies each had their own plate, therefore the chimp would have had it's own plate of food as well. You're assuming the chimp is eating when it looks like it's just seeing what the dogs are doing. It doesn't even have it's GD face in a bowl.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:59 pm

spot;1396239 wrote: You seem to imply that Serbia declared war on the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That's not the way I remember it though the suggestion fits in with modern US notions. The actions of a few die-hard nationalists are not the acts of a State. The First World War started when the Emperor Franz Joseph declared war, in the name of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, on Serbia. The parallel with US relations toward Afghanistan in 2001 is uncanny and even the end result is comparable.

You are winding me up aren't you....

Aren't you ?