Chimp attacks woman ,whose fault is it ,hers or the authorities ?

I believe that the authorities should not allow people to take in "wild" animals as pets. If the woman would have never been allowed to bring a chimp into her home to be treated as a pet, then the attack would have never happened.

i heard a little about this on the news last night but didn't get all the details. personally i think a wild animal needs to be in his own habitat. no matter what they are still wild animals & are not meant to be pets. i can't think of his last name. it's the 2 guys that had the big show in vegas that had the white tigers & one of then nearly got killed by one. sigfrid & roy, i think is their names. .

I do believe that chimpanzees and other apes can relate to humans and learn to communicate. They are highly intelligent and, in many ways, sufficiently close in behaviour to understand many human activities and to relate in a real way to a human family. It would be wrong to think of a chimpanzee as a pet, though, since their social behaviour is less 'learned' than ours is. I note that this was a male chimpanzee who would be likely to be protective of his 'owner'. It's hard to judge the case based on the news report but even though the attack may not have been intentionally provoked (and doubtless was not), if the visitor made a remark or movement that the chimp interpreted as hostile, then it is quite possible that he would leap to his mistress's defence. Chimps are very strong animals, even though they are not as large as us, and can do considerable damage. Humans can often behave threateningly in play, so to speak. We do it much more often than we realise and our friends generally understand us not to be really threatening. This kind of behaviour can be confusing to a normal adult ape, though they accept and understand it in juveniles. They do not tend to see us, though, as the very complicated and sophisticated juvenile apes that many people have theorised that we really are. It's very likely that Travis had been a perfectly safe and amenable animal in the past, especially in his owner's perception. I don't know what the laws on keeping animals are in CT. In many States and in Britain one would need a special license to keep any other animal than the usual domestic and farm animals. Many researchers have kept chimpanzees as part of a human household but it's generally recognised that when they become adult, they are more suitably kept in a zoo or in the wild. It must have been a very frightening experience for both the visitor and the owner. I suppose that, legally, the owner would be held responsible for the attack just as if it had been an unprovoked attack by a dog. It is possible that it could be said that the owner was careless but, on the other hand, if she had always found Travis to be gentle and tractable it might be impossible to predict that he would suddenly have become violent for no apparent reason.

No animal attacks unless troubled. There must have been a reason for the chimp to attack. Charla Nash can defend herself, but can the chimp??? I rest my case.

She shouldn't have a wild animal as a house pet but she also didn't know that the chimp would go bananas. The thing that shock me the most about this story was that everyone was more worried about the chimp dying than they were about a human life what is this crazy world coming to i know people tend to love their pets like theis family members but the fact is their not their animals.I don't mean to offend any one but i would have shot the hell out of that crazy chimp.

HI there ,,,, I feel the lady who is the owner of the chimp is responsible for the situation.It is her responsibility to keep the chimp away from outsiders or guests ,because any wild animal is always wild ,no matter what amount of training be given to them.To an extent ,the authorities are also to be blamed ,but it is the animal owners responsibily, to make sure that animal is kept in a safe and away place when any guest comes over. Cheers!!!

that a easy answer. The woman should never have had the chimp as a pet. I live in the country but you dont see me catching bears, scunks, snakes, and stuff. they have their space and we have ours. You ca take the monkey out of the jungle but you cant take the jungle out of the monkey.

I am finding the responses to this discussion very interesting --I will just leave it at that as I will probably be the most unpopular person if I give my thoughts on them. As for my opinion, it is the fault of the chimp's owner. While local law authorities should have acted accordingly with the law(s) in that area regarding keeping a chimp as a pet, they didn't. Yes, local law authorities need to be reminded (and reprimanded) for not upholding the law(s) about keeping a wild animal as a pet, but they are not responsible for the pet itself. Hopefully, the law enforcement authorities have learned a lesson (albeit the hard way) and will make sure to follow the law accordingly from here on out. But, they shouldn't be held responsible for the attack. The owner of the chimp should be help 100% responsible. I know that many people truly believe that chimps can be trained to be civil and almost like a human, but at the core, they are animals --no more, no less. Animals cannot reason and think logically like we (humans) do. And --I know that some will argue that humans are classified as animals --o.k. I do remember human beings classified in the animal category (I think I learned that in high school biology). But there is a difference between animals (as I think of them) and myself --a human. Furthermore, the owner was breaking the law just by having the chimp as a pet --even if law enforcement didn't enforce that law --she was still breaking a law. That, in itself, is enough for me to deem her as 100% responsible. I do feel for both of the women, but (I am sorry of this offends), I have no sympathy for the the chimp. Chimps are not human, I personally do not find them cute, and I would not want one anywhere near me. What should happen to the owner of the chimp --I don't know. I do know that a dear pet of hers has committed a horrible act and she had to watch. That in itself makes me feel sympathy for her. Additionally, she will most likely have to give up the pet (or she may have already done that). It wouldn't surprise me if they ordered the animal to be killed. That again punishes the owner --emotionally, the worst kind of punishment. Plus, her good friend is fighting to recuperate --yet even more emotional punishment for the chimp's owner. If it were up to me, I wouldn't file criminal charges. The woman has suffered enough just having to watch the attack and then live with the memories and ocnsequences. She should, however, be financially responsible for the medical bills of her friend.

I think it is stupid to have such an animal in your posession, what could have happen if it had been a baby or small child that had been attacked? It seems people don't care about anything but their own desires and care little about what happens to others around them. Is this still part of the "ME generation"?

Hi ronnyb! I think it is the fault of both parties. The authorities for allowing her to keep a chimp as a pet and the woman for thinking that she can keep a chimp. I really don't think that we can keep wild animals as pets and that they can live in our homes. These animals deserved to be in their right habitat and it is unfair that we keep them for our pleasure or entertainment. Besides even if we trained them, we can't really possibly know what's going on inside their heads. We may have clues on what they feel at the moment but I don't think we can know what they may do next. My husband had exotic/wild pets before but I am just glad now that he is settling for pet dogs now. Just my personal thoughts. Take care and have a great day! lovelots..faith

Wild animals should not be kept at home especially if they are not keep safe. They should be place under controlled area inside a home if they can not afford to loose such wild animals. So same accidents will be avoided.

It's well known that adult chimps are unpredictable and uncontrollable, and often dangerous so I'd say the fault lies with both the local authorities for allowing it, and the 'owner' for being ignorant enough to allow it the freedom to be in a position to attack. As much as I love animals, I'd never keep a wild animal as a pet. In zoos and animal parks the keepers are taught to be wary around chimpanzees and don't interact with them after a certain age. I don't believe that there's such a thing as an 'unprovoked' attack. I believe that the animal reacts to something, but because of our ignorance of animal behaviour and senses we don't understand what causes it.

In my opinion it is the owner of the chimp.After all the chimp is a wild animal and should be given the due respect,people try to humanise these animals,she saw this woman as a threat moving in on her terriotory,threatening her and the people already in her gang so as to speak.She is simply acting in the way her instinct tells her to and the chimp should not be blamed for being wild,also the woman knew the chimp was there,if she did not know there was a chance a wild animal would be wondering round then it is not her fault,everyone responsible for this chimp and mix with it freely should take responsibilty.In england we would Not be allowed to keep an animal in conditions like these ,they would have to have a full cage with plenty of playing space outside,and even then you would need planning permission.In answer to your final question about wild animals coexisting with humans then no is the simple answer,as they are unpredictable and treated like little babies only the wild animal does not know the extradonary rules these people live by.xxxxxxxx

I feel it is the fault of authorities because chip is an animal and it can not behave properly it is the authorities who have to take care that the animal is not given a chance to attack. If at all they can not control it then they should not bring it to the place where people live they should keep it in the forest itself and protect it such that no hunters hunt for it.

How could the authorities know she had one. If they knew they have some accountability and the woman does as well. If she wasn't sure of the law she could've researched and if she knowingly broke the law she needs to take responsibility. And even were it legal, just like a dog, it is her own so she is responsible for all medical bills of her frined. I think it depends on the situation, I think if someone is trained as a profession to work with these animals its fine. They are not domesticated as dogs are, dogs have been domesticated for generations.

I dont see why would authorites be blamed as far as I know it is not against the law to keep animals (except protected animasl). What if it was a dog we would not have been having this discussion right now. I would say there needs to be better laws that guide the owners what to do but she was a responcible pet owner for 14 years it just went wrong somewhere as animals often act the way they are suposed to do as animals not pets.

Many people like to keep exotic pets like snakes, monitor lizards, chimps, alligators,etc just to show off to other people. One must remember that these are wild animals and however domesticated they may become even after intensive training they will still behave like wild animals and follow their natural instincts. the person who kept the chimp should be penalized for keeping a wild animal and should be either jailed or made to compensate for the injuries suffered by her friend. Animals are best seen in their natural habitat, the forest which is where they really belong or in nature rserves but not in zoos and homes of people.The authorities may have not been aware that the woman was keeping a chimp as a pet or if they knew about it then the injured woman`s relatives should take them to court and they should be made to pay for their carelessness.

I really think that the woman was at fault for owning the chimp. The chimp was probably acting in it's natural state and this time someone other then an offending chimp got hurt. I'm not even sure how this woman came to own the animal, our newscast didn't relate it on tonight's news, only that she owned him. These are wild animals though. Even Jane Goodall had more respect for their wild nature, then this woman obviously had. It's sad though because the animal is the one that will end up being punished.

Sorry for the typo error, it should have been " I feel sorry for the woman's family that Got attacked by the chimpanzee".

I think this was just an unfortunate situation. Humans sometimes make the mistake of thinking that we can domestic certain animals that are intended to be kept in the wild. My heart goes out to the woman that god attacked and killed by the animal. No one. My prayers go out her family. Perhaps it could have been avoided if the owner of the animal had better restraints upon it. No I do not think that certain types of animals can ever peacefully co- exist with humans. When all is said and done, a dog will always be a dog and a chimpanzee will always be a chimpanzee with an animal's nature and instinct. Human beings have the capacity to reason but unfortunately animals can only go by instinct.