Why are gorillas more popular zoo animals than chimps (or are they)?

Vulpes said:
we turn away when we see the undesirable traits reflected in the Chimpanzee.
Click to expand...

As we all try to avoid to concentrate too much on the variety of undesirable traits in humans, why couldn't we do likewise where chimpanzees are concerned.
Some male Chimpanzees have been known with little to no aggressivness, f.i. Gregoire, saved by Jane Goodall. Or the chimp living with Karl Amman, the photographer. Males have adopted orphans and have been observed with other traits of gentleness towards members of their group. Not to speak of altruistic behaviour displayed by female Chimpanzees.
And what about the huge differences in their personalities, how could they be dismissed as a whole group when there exist such opposite characters like the alpha males Freud and Frodo in Gombe?
Fair enough to prefer gorillas from a personal point of view, but this is certainly no representative opinion, otherwise nobody would be interested in saving chimps in the wild, from misuse and create sanctuaries for them all over the world.
 
Well to speak to our base cultural bias we do see Orangutans as slower less aggressive tree dwellers and we don't see them as much of a threat. Gorillas are fiercely territorial and didn't compete with ancient hominids for space because the territory didn't overlap. We see them with mystery.

We are most scared of Chimpanzees because they remind us most of us. They are smart, some are aggressive etc. They are like dark mirrors to our souls in some ways and in others seem almost like a competitor we can't understand and humans always fear ignorance.
 
I think that comparisons between chimps and humans are too deep for the average zoo visitor. Perceptions are already formed before the guest steps up to the exhibit, and unfortunately, chimps are portrayed as large, uninhibited monkeys. A gorilla, however, is more often portrayed as a calming presence.

Therefore, I think that gorillas are more popular because of factors outside the zoo, and I don't think that the average zoo guest is thinking about man's (especially) close relationship with chimps (in fact, I more often hear comments about the similarities between humans and the great apes at gorilla exhibits).
 
I agree about the perceived aggressiveness of chimps being unattractive. At 'my' zoo, I rarely watch the Hamadryas baboons although they are very active. It appears that they are being aggressive, but when I have stopped to look it's largely just noise and communication. So I'm probably misjudging them.

I recently visited Monkey World and walked past their chimps to get to the orangutans, my favourite ape and the sole purpose of my visit.

Gorillas and orangutans are kept in the same house at 'my' zoo and there is always a bigger crowd at the gorilla window than at the orangutan one. Last week, I was watching 3 of the orangutans in the showden when a couple walked past, glanced in, commented that there were none in there and went to the gorilla side. The original orangutans were the ones from London that were moved out during their reorganisation because they were not considered popular enough.

I have to admit that I've grown very fond of the gorillas since I got to know them, so gorillas now rank second in my list of preferences, then bonobos and lastly chimps.
 
I think the average person is less averse to chimps than zoo-nerds, kids love them because of the rowdiness and bodily functions on display. Maybe another reason people don't like them is that historically they were infantilised, portrayed as cute, teaparty taking animals, lots of babies and few boring not-so-cute adults and discovering that they grow up and behave in a less cute manner was an unpleasant surprise.

Watching a group of chimps' relationships with babies can be uplifting, the way they compete for the baby/toddler's attention, play endlessly with it, protect it, let it steal their best food, everyone wants a turn at carrying it round... I wouldn't go dropping a baby into a chimp enclosure but no one thought gorillas would behave the way they did until the "Jambo moment" and without Jambo some of the younger males might not have been so kind.
 
Gigit said:
I agree about the perceived aggressiveness of chimps being unattractive. At 'my' zoo, I rarely watch the Hamadryas baboons although they are very active. It appears that they are being aggressive, but when I have stopped to look it's largely just noise and communication. So I'm probably misjudging them.

I recently visited Monkey World and walked past their chimps to get to the orangutans, my favourite ape and the sole purpose of my visit.

Gorillas and orangutans are kept in the same house at 'my' zoo and there is always a bigger crowd at the gorilla window than at the orangutan one. Last week, I was watching 3 of the orangutans in the showden when a couple walked past, glanced in, commented that there were none in there and went to the gorilla side. The original orangutans were the ones from London that were moved out during their reorganisation because they were not considered popular enough.

I have to admit that I've grown very fond of the gorillas since I got to know them, so gorillas now rank second in my list of preferences, then bonobos and lastly chimps.
Click to expand...

I think the orangs went from London in 1991 because it was deemed easier to rehome the orangs as they didn't have to move them as a group, whereas that would have been needed for the chimps. Slightly ironically, London had a big chimp swap with Dudley only 4 years later. I would be interested in Pertinax's thoughts if I suggested that actually for London to have moved the gorilla group somewhere else in 1991 might have been better for the five individual apes in question

I'm afraid I tend to agree with dassierat - marketing drives many zoos' species planning to a greater extent than really should be the case. There is a serious need for zoos to try to move chimps into subspecifically pure groups, but very few are committed to doing so.
 
IanRRobinson said:
I would be interested in Pertinax's thoughts if I suggested that actually for London to have moved the gorilla group somewhere else in 1991 might have been better for the five individual apes in question

I'm afraid I tend to agree with dassierat - marketing drives many zoos' species planning to a greater extent than really should be the case.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly so...;) That probably still applies today really, but the reason they are still there is answered by the 2nd bit of quote.
 
OrangePerson said:
I wouldn't go dropping a baby into a chimp enclosure but no one thought gorillas would behave the way they did until the "Jambo moment" and without Jambo some of the younger males might not have been so kind.
Click to expand...

If you look at the video carefully you will see how cautious 'Jambo' is- when the boy starts to regain consciousness and moves and starts crying, Jambo looks agitated and starts to move away. I think the Gorillas may have been quite relieved to be called back into the House!

The reaction of the young blackback male 'Hobbit' was a very different matter. He was not living in the group and was (I think) accidentally let out into the enclosure during the confusion of getting the others in. In the full length version you see him charging about on the hillocks in the enclosure in a very excited state, while the very brave keeper drops down into the enclosure and 'faces him off' while holding a big stick, to allow the first-aiders to retreive the boy. Each of Hobbit's display runs brings him on a course that is nearer to them. If he had reached the boy he would probably have grabbed him and dragged/run with him several yards, and maybe bitten him badly too- certainly making his injuries worse.

I think Jambo didn't react like that because a. he was a calm mature male b. his main concern was protecting his group from the alien presence. c. the boy was still and alone.

I would not like to think what would have happened if the enclosure had contained male Chimpanzees instead.
 
Yes I think they had to let hobbit out as there was no room inside for him when they brought the rest of the group in. Very brave keepers indeed, but its very endearing how big and strong he was but all his charges were just bluff.
 
Vulpes said:
Yes they had to let hobbit out as there was no room inside for him when they brought the rest of the group in. Very brave keepers indeed, but its very endearing how big and strong he was but all his charges were just bluff.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why they had to let Hobbit out or if it was accidental- there are two indoor areas in the house as well as several offshow dens which connect with the outside too, but I don't just know what was going on that day in the general mayhem.

I wouldn't have trusted Hobbit:(- he looked very aggressive in the video- I think he was plucking up the courage to make an attack as he was coming nearer on each run past he did. Certainly bluffing but not sure for how long it would have carried on like that.
 
Are we forgetting the fact that Chimpanzees are more likely to chuck feces at visitors, while gorillas are content with smearing their waste all over their habitat?
 
The Vegan said:
Are we forgetting the fact that Chimpanzees are more likely to chuck feces at visitors, while gorillas are content with smearing their waste all over their habitat?
Click to expand...

Part of the reason I love chimps so much is because they can be right so-&-sos!
 
The Vegan said:
Are we forgetting the fact that Chimpanzees are more likely to chuck feces at visitors, while gorillas are content with smearing their waste all over their habitat?
Click to expand...

I suspect that gorillas are probably less time-consuming than other great apes. Orangs may not be quite as wilfully destructive as chimps, but they regard any part of an enclosure as an opportunity for testing it to a point where destruction has been achieved!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top