Hohenheim (post: 1394810) wrote:The same people who have pet chimpanzees. The result is equally gruesome.
Police Shoot Chimp after Rampage wounds U.S woman:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51G4BZ20090217
CrimsonRyu17 wrote:This is a fairly old story and I would not put the owner of the python and the owner of the chimp on the same level. I've read up on this and she thought of the chimp as her son and was equal to a human being. The owners of the python obviously did not think the same thing.
rocklobster (post: 1394794) wrote:I just read this in Reader's Digest. Someone had a pet python and a baby. As you may expect when they left the baby unattended, the python killed their baby. They've been charged with involuntary manslaughter.
But of course, we know the real question: What idiot would have a pet python in the first place?
Hohenheim (post: 1394816) wrote:I suppose so. Its just that chimps have quite a fearsome strength. Even if the chimp was well-treated, you wouldn't know when something might happen to set him off.
CrimsonRyu17 wrote:I agree, chimps and big cats as pets are a pretty terrible idea. Not only do they have several different triggers for "attacking" but they're fairly aggressive and territorial in the wild in the first place. Even to display the wrong body language towards them and they'll put you in your place. Heck, even turning your back on them is something you should NEVER do as big cats see this as a chance to strike. It's in their instinct and that's how they are.
Herein lies the difference between snakes and chimps. Snakes are independent creatures and have a very simple mindset. They don't care about being at the top of the pecking order nor are they territorial. When they're hungry, they'll kill and eat. Otherwise, they'll lazy about in the sun and maybe get a drink of water until their food digests which takes a very long time. They don't kill for any other reason. They don't even play where potential unintended harm can be done. Some snakes don't want you to touch them and will defend themselves while some snakes will let you do whatever you want to them as long as their belly is full. Heck they'll even curl around you if you're warm. They have no triggers, just the areas "I'm defending myself" or "I'm hungry so I'll eat" where they could harm/kill anything.
This is why I'm not going to defend the parents at all although I suppose I can pity them and feel sorry for the child. It's terrible what happened but as explained in my previous post, this should have NEVER happened if they were responsible owners. Even if they made a simple mistake, you have no room for mistakes if you have a small child and a hungry python in the same house. Then of course there's the evidence of drugs at the house and the owner never had a license to own a python in the first place. All I'm saying is: don't put the blame on the snakes that are kept as pets but the unlicensed and irresponsible owners.
Pascal wrote:snakes have been eating helpless things for God only knows how long, they're well adapted at waiting for the right moment when the parents are away to take advantage of a quick "snack". And I doubt those that have survived till the present species would be willing to display aggressive behavior around a full grown healthy adult, hence giving the impression that said pet was "tame".
Most of what you said is not true.
First, the snake was a python. Pythons do not eat "helpless" things. Let me put it this way. In Florida, pythons have actually started to appear in the wild (because of people who let their pets go), and they attack alligators. ALLIGATORS. Try and tell me an alligator is helpless. Pythons attack whatever they want, because they're strong enough to kill larger animals.
Second, full-grown adults have been attacked by pet pythons before, so it has nothing to do with "waiting until parents are away." Pythons aren't exactly "intelligent," not to the extent of "Oh the big ones are gone, I'll go after a little one." Pythons will go after anything they think they can swallow if they're hungry. The python would have even gone after a parent if it had the chance.
Quit attributing maliciousness and cunning to the snake. It has nothing to do with "pretending" to be tame. It ate because it was hungry, that's all there is to it. It could easily have gone after the adults, because again, pythons will attack alligators, which are pretty big. Also from the article it seems the kid was a 2-year-old. Not exactly a baby.
The snake's temperament depends on the species. Some pythons are very docile; others are a bit more aggressive. One of the articles says the python was a Burmese python. Burmese, from what I have read, are usually pretty docile, though they do tend to overeat and will eat anything readily available if they can. However, not all pythons are like that. Many only eat about once a month, and don't eat "snacks."
CrimsonRyu17 (post: 1394945) wrote:Just to clear it up, the child was not swallowed and eaten by the snake but strangled to death. The headlines would have specified that if that were the case I assure you.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests