weathericon

The Stamford Times


marketplacetwitter
Sports blog: Stamford Sports Scene

UPDATE: Chimp attack prompts national outcry



By CHASE WRIGHT

Times Staff Writer

and HAROLD COBIN

Times Correspondent


STAMFORD -- A Stamford police officer shot and killed a pet chimpanzee Monday after the animal brutally attacked a friend of its owner.

Police were called to the owner's home at 241 Rock Rimmon Road at 3:44 p.m. on a report that the 200-pound chimpanzee, named Travis, was attacking 55-year-old Charla Nash of Stamford.

As of Wednesday, Nash was still in critical condition at Stamford Hospital, having sustained life-threatening injuries to her face and hands and a tremendous loss of blood, said Stamford Police Capt. Richard Conklin.

Nash had been asked by Travis' owner, 70-year-old Sandra Herold, to come to her home to help coax Travis back into the house after he escaped by using a key to unlock the front door.

Travis then turned on Nash, bolting after her and brutally beating her in the driveway of Herold's home. Stamford police arrived shortly after the attack and were forced to kill Travis when he cornered one officer inside his police cruiser.

Police played back the horrific dispatch communication for more than a dozen members of the media who gathered at Stamford Police headquarters Tuesday evening. The audio included a wildly distraught Herold, who took refuge inside her car and pleaded for police to respond to the scene as her pet ape punched and bit the face of Nash as she lay motionless in the driveway.

"Please, you have to shoot this chimp!" Herold screamed to the dispatch unit on the other line. "He's killing my friend -- he ripped her apart!"

Communication from officers on the scene was equally gruesome. After reaching Nash in the driveway, one officer responded to dispatch, "We got to get this guy out of here, he's got no face!"

The attack on Nash was so brutal, officers couldn't decipher the gender of the victim.

The attack lasted about 12 minutes and police officers responded within five minutes of Herold's 911 call, said Conklin. Units armed with Tazers also reported to the scene, said Conklin, but weren't utilized due to the close proximity required of the weapon.

Conklin said police are continuing to investigate the incident and have not ruled out filing charges. He said police are still investigating what could have caused the chimp to suddenly go berserk, but said the department is basing its investigation on three theories -- the anti-anxiety drug Xanax given to Travis by the owner prior to the attack, reactions to any medication given to the primate for his alleged Lyme Disease and Nash's new haircut, which Travis saw for the first time Monday and could have made the Stamford resident appear to be a stranger to the chimpanzee.

The chimp's body has been split and transported to two separate locations, said Conklin. As mandated under state law, Travis' head is being tested for rabies at a lab in Connecticut. It will then be reunited with his body, which has been taken to the University of Connecticut for the autopsy, where toxicology tests will likely determine what medications Travis was taking, said Conklin.

Local animal advocates say the reason behind the attack is one based on nature over nurture.

The president of the international animal advocacy group Friends of Animals, Pricilla Feral, said when chimps reach their teen years they become increasingly rambunctious and unpredictable with their behavior.

"Keeping an animal like that as a pet and force-training it goes against all of its natural instincts," she said. "For an attack like this to happen should be expected."

Beardsley Zoo Director Gregg Dancho added that while chimps appear cute and cuddly in their early years, their natural aggressive attitudes make them unsuitable to be kept as pets. He said raising a chimp like a child, as Herold did with Travis, could make them confused in their later years, adding to their aggression.

Monday's attack has drawn national attention, as state and local officials consider passing new legislation and amending existing statues over exotic pet ownership laws.

Connecticut allows primates as pets with a state permit. The rule, passed into law in 2004, grandfathered animals who were already in the state on Oct. 1, 2003, but only for smaller species that weigh up to 50 pounds at maturity.

Talking with the state Department of Environmental Protection, Conklin said he learned the DEP overlooked this legislation and allowed the Herold's to keep Travis even though he weighed more than three-times the legal limit. According to the statute, the issuance of such permits is left up to the discretion of the commissioner.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said a state statute was passed last year in regard to the possession of potentially dangerous animals and penalties for noncompliance with the law. Primates are not on that list, but a separate statute allows any Connecticut municipality to impose its own regulations to prohibit the keeping of wild or domestic animals.

"As a matter of state law, Stamford would have the authority to take action," said Blumenthal.

Blumenthal added that his office will be requesting the legislature review the new statute and update the list of dangerous animals to include primates. He is also looking for the legislature to amend the 2004 statute, making it more specific.

"The (2004) statute gives the DEP discretion to issue regulations, but in this case it didn't do so," said Blumenthal. "That lack of regulation allowed these Stamford homeowners to keep this animal as a pet."

The attack in Stamford has even caught the attention of legislators on the other side of the country. U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) announced Tuesday they are renewing calls for the passage of the Captive Primate Safety Act, which would prohibit interstate commerce in primates for the pet trade, making it illegal for individuals to buy or transport a pet primate across state lines.

"Given the patchwork of state and local laws, and the interstate nature of the primate pet trade, a federal response is urgently needed," said Michael Markarian, executive vice president of the HSUS. "Primates are wild animals who can attack and spread disease, and they don't belong in our bedrooms and basements."

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in The Stamford Times community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines. Basically, be civil, smart, on-topic and free from profanity. Don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read! And remember: We may miss some, so we need your help to police these comments. Please identify the comment, the story and why you think it's objectionable.
Read the commenting guidelines

Add a new comment

In this situation there are many victims. The owner and her friend have gone through a terrible tragedy. I don''t believe the owner would have put her friend in danger knowingly. This animal was a family pet, and family pets, even dogs and cats, have been known to cause great harm. I don''t know this woman or her situation. I do know that animals can and do attack, whether they have been raised in captivity or have grown up in the wild.

I agree that in light of the case, things should be done to try to prevent this sort of occurrence. The problem is attacks can and do happen, regardless of anything we do to try and prevent "accidents". Please try to remember that people are hurting over the loss of a family pet who was loved and the potential loss of a human friend. These are hard enough without trying to place too much blame and hatred on the situation.

Peace and prayers to all concerned.

Posted by: TMP | Feb 19, 2009
reply


I couldn''t agree with you more. This is such a tragedy for everyone. Placing blame and pointing fingers will not change the outcome, but just cause more pain and suffering.
My heart is truly broken for the victim, for the horrendous trauma she has endured, for the owner, as her heart is certainly broken losing a precious member of her family (whether acceptable or not in the eyes of society), as well as the chimp, whom had no choice in his upbringing and surroundings and was an innocent victim himself.
We should be careful not to pass judgement, but offer our prayers in such a time of need.
May God be with the many victims suffering from this ordeal.

Posted by: sb | Feb 19, 2009
reply


I live less than half a mile from this residence. I had no idea there was an ape living this close to my home! I would have never moved there had I known. I have 2 small children and I am completely ill when I think about how close this wild animal was to my home and my kids. The sad part is that it''s not the animal''s fault! It is the owner''s for keeping him captive. I really hope she moves as I do NOT want someone so irresponsible living anywhere near me and my family.
I am floored that Stamford allowed her to keep this animal even though it was 4x the legal weight limit, and after he escaped in 2003 downtown they STILL let her keep it!
I strongly advocate very strict legislation to restrict exotic animals as residential pets!!

Posted by: anonymous | Feb 18, 2009
reply


You have two animals and don''t even know it.

Posted by: anonymous | Feb 19, 2009
reply


You''re implying that the two children of the posters are wild animals?? Do you really want to present yourself as that insipid and stupid? We''re talking species-level here: homosapiens = cognizant, self-reflective thought, regardless of age. Figure it out, OSTENTATIOUS, BROAD ENCOMPASSING AND WOEFEULLY UNINFORMED RESPONSE... and enjoy

Posted by: Chimps are wild animals | Feb 21, 2009
reply


Some simple guidelines:

A. Leave wild animals in the wild. They have no need to be our "pets", "friends", etc.

B. Neuter/Spay domestic companion animals (dogs, cats, rabbits). Overpopulation of these creatures results in many of them being euthanized (killed), even when they are young and healthy.

Posted by: Leave Them in Peace | Feb 19, 2009
reply


No wild life as pets~! Period..
If it hadn''t have been this ladies friend it could have been a child outside playing.
It''s time to end any and all . No concessions.
I understand the owners love their pets. And they will grieve. But what loss is greater?
Time to round them all up and put them in zoo''s.
And that is sad for the animal also..
No winners here..But at least stop the huge loosers like this poor woman now mutilated for life.
It should never happen again.

Posted by: Mary | Feb 18, 2009
reply


Animals who could live free if we''d let them should not be in a zoo. Nor is it safe to have such animals in a zoo; recall Tatiana, the Siberian tiger, who rose up against humans who unfairly kept that tragic being in captivity?

As for animals who cannot go back to their original habitat because they were unjustly taken from their parents and forced to live in a house, these beings should be cared for by experts familiar with their needs and capacities -- in sanctuaries.

No state ought have allowed Travis to be kept in a home. Primates should absolutely not be kept as pets.

How sad and outrageous, the way Travis, and the parents of Travis were used. A law is one thing, but we''ve seen interstate laws pass before regarding "captive wild animals" and they have been narrow and contained loopholes. In 2003, George W. Bush signed the Captive Wildlife Safety Act into law. It was touted by some of the wealthy animal-protection groups at the time, but it was much too narrow to prevent what happened to Travis and to Charla Nash.

We do need a change deeper than what legal prohibitions can reach. People''s whole worldview needs to change. We need to feel mortified that we could ever have done such a thing. We need to wake up to what''s right and wrong. What''s right for a chimpanzee is to grow up with other chimpanzees, be nurtured and nursed for five years by a mother. What''s wrong is to think we can substitute for their nature and their social interactions, and to take them out of their own territory. There should be no chimpanzees, no primates at all in Connecticut other than the human kind. And animals who can live free in this world ought to have our full backing to do so.

Lee Hall
Legal director for Friends of Animals - Connecticut
Board, Primarily Primates - Texas

Posted by: Lee Hall, Friends of Animals & Primarily Primates | Feb 18, 2009
reply


Lee Hall - Please tell us how we can lobby for strict laws about this. I would definitely take the time to pursue this.

Posted by: anonymous | Feb 18, 2009
reply


All primates who are raised in unnatural environments - whether they are from the exotic pet trade, entertainment industry, or research facilities - deserve the utmost respect and should be retired into non-profit, accredited sanctuaries where they can be rehabilitated and socialized and given some hint of peace, naturalistic habitat, and dignity before they die. While our government lets these industries exist, we need more federal funding set aside for the retirement of all primates into sanctuaries.

Posted by: Amy Kerwin | Feb 18, 2009
reply


Federal funding for release chimpanzees from laboratories so that they can be out of public display, and offered
decent care is a fine idea, yet our economy is harrowing
and private sanctuaries now need the help that well-heeled
national animal advocacy groups can extend.

Priscilla Feral
President, Friends of Animals
www.friendsofanimals.org
President, Primarily Primates
www.primarilyprimates.org

Posted by: Priscilla Feral | Feb 19, 2009
reply


We really have no idea what the chimp really weighed. AP says 175 lb then 200 lb within 3 inches of each other on their website. The situation is horrible, no doubt, but would it be different if he really weighed 80 lb? ...130 lb? ...265 lb? Does it matter to THIS story? If it''s about the weight law, then 51 lb is illegal too. Also, how many dog attacks have there been THIS YEAR ALONE? This is likely the first chimp attack most people have ever heard of. I''m really not defending the story, just trying to bring a little reality. Put it this way... if you had the choice of petting a strange pitbull or petting a strange chimp, which would it be?

Posted by: anon | Feb 18, 2009
reply


Charla Nash''s condition and the extent of her injuries were discussed on Goodmorning America today. She has:

*Lost BOTH EYES
*Lost part of her JAW
*Multiple and severe soft tissue facial injuries (nose, lips, etc)
*Lost BOTH HANDS

While dog attacks can be deadly and disfiguring, I have yet to hear of a dog attack of THIS magnitude. Frankly? I would rather pet a strange pitbull than any chimpanzee. Pitbulls are domesticated, chiimps ar enot.



Posted by: horrified | Feb 19, 2009
reply


Adult male chimpanzees are capable of havoc and should never be kept as pets. However, banning private ownership of all primates on the basis of one attack is like banning ownership of all dogs because of pit bulls. Has anyone ever heard of an attack by a female chimpanzee?

The reason male chimpanzees are more dangerous is because their psychology resembles another dangerous primate - male human beings.



Posted by: Durlin | Feb 19, 2009
reply


Yes, we''ve heard of attacks by female chimpanzees. We manage a primate sanctuary in San Antonio. It''s Primarily Primates www.primarilyprimates.org 60 percent of the monkeys and chimpanzees who arrive were former pets and all suffer from that confinement, isolation and lack of decent care. Female chimpanzees can and do fight with each other, and they will bite humans if given the opportunity and inclination. It''s different in nature where they avoid humans. One doesn''t go inside the living area of any chimpanzee in captivity. Same is true for monkeys and other apes.

Posted by: Priscilla Feral | Feb 19, 2009
reply


That is the most ridiculous thing I''ve heard. Any chimp is capable of such behavior, male or female. Would you put your child in a room with a female chimp? I doubt it. And to compare the male chimp with the psychology of man? What are you on?

Posted by: LAZ | Feb 19, 2009
reply


What is wrong with banning private ownership of all primates? What legitimate reason could any person have for keeping a wild animal as a pet? What exactly would be the problem with banning private ownership of wild animals? It''s not just about "this attack." It''s not even just about safety. It''s a moral issue as well. Wild animals cannot possibly be taken care of adequately in a human home. You can''t "domesticate" a wild animal- even if they are born and raised in captivity. It takes hundreds of years to domesticate a species. Think of wolves vs dogs. There are no poodles or siamese cats roaming about in the wild. A wild animal may remain docile or "tame" for years, but the truth is a wild animal is always a wild animal so it should never be a surprise when they actually act wild. that is why they should never be "pets." it''s ridiculous to say otherwise.

Posted by: AC | Feb 19, 2009
reply


Actually, achimp is a chimp...male/female does NOT matter. An adult female chimp can and will inflict as much damage as a male. Chimps are wild animals...not pets.

Posted by: Keep Wild animals wild | Feb 25, 2009
reply


Why is there all this talk of a STATE LAW? It should be a FEDERAL LAW for crying out loud! So it would be illegal to keep a chimp or a tiger or elephant in CT, but anything goes in TX?! People are so backwards about this. A wild animal is a wild animal- period. It should not be a pet in ANY state- period. What is the justification for states that allow these types of pets? I don''t understand.

Posted by: AC | Feb 19, 2009
reply


Has anyone ever really thought about what they say before they say it? As for keeping "wild" animals wild, where do you think dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, pet birds, and any other animal originally came from? Hello?!!They were wild generations ago too! There is no animal that is completely and unconditionally safe because it is of a certain species. I have been attacked by two dogs in my life. I knew both of the dogs since they were a few weeks old. One was my best friend''s dog in high school, the other was my Dad''s dog that lost a grip after my Dad passed away. That doesn''t make me hate dogs or say that because of them nobody should have dogs.
Animals considered "domestic" pets attack more often than "wild" pets. It just isn''t always newsworthy. Don''t get me wrong, I think this subject needs to be approached in a more responsible manner. There is no black and white in this matter. I have had the great joy of having exotic animals for pets. But that was when I lived far enough away from the general population that they were not a threat to anyone but me. The problem is that even though people should have the right to have whatever pet they want, they should not have the right to endanger others'' lives and safety by doing so. When I decided to have children I, it was after I no longer had my exotic pets. In my case it was big cats that I had adopted because they had severe health issues as youngsters and I worked for a veterinarian so I provided the care they needed for their rather short lives. But there was no way they I would have them around children even though they were very loving animals their entire lives.
Anyway, what I''m trying to say is that no animal is safe (wild or domesticated) in all circumstances. But if people would stop arguing about their own personal belief of what''s right or wrong, there could be a solution to this. Maybe set aside a place for people who want to live with such animals to do so as long as they are not endangering others. Work out the details and try a comprimise. The animals are already out there and can not be turned back to the wild so humans need to get things worked out. For the sake of every species involved.

Posted by: Jody | Feb 19, 2009
reply


I can''t stand this comparison to dog and cat attacks. These attacks while sad, are rarely fatal or this brutal. And almost EVERYONE has a dog or a cat.. or both.

For the number of dogs and cats that are kept as pets.. the percentage of domestic chimp attacks is pretty HIGH.. imagine everyone that you know that has a dog or a cat had a chimp instead.. These are completly dangerous wild animals and they attack humans viciously.. how in the WORLD is one allowed to just have one roaming loose
You all who think this is some fluke.. remember MOE and the other chimp in 2005?.. look that story up.. see a familiar outcome? Those chimps weren''t on xannax.. This has nothing to do with xannax.. this was, sadly, inevitable if someone can have a wild beast running free in their house..

Posted by: anonymous | Feb 19, 2009
reply


As this poster points out: dogs and cats are DOMESTICATED and have been for numerous centuries (that''s 100 years in case you''re also too idiotic to gage what that means.)

In short: chimps = really bad idea and not reliably domesticated

dogs and cats = domesticated for numerous decades, centuries and unless you attempt to bring in a panther, mountain lion, wolf, etc., everyone is going to be behind your attempt to build (as per hundreds of years of human civilization) an understanding of a relationship between video/music/digital media and a ''mainstream''

Posted by: anonymous | Feb 21, 2009
reply


The reason people compare these attacks is because animals are animals. In the case of the more normal pets and livestock they just have more generations that have been bred in captivity. But that doesn''t tell how many were prone to attacking when humans were first domesticating those species. But the ones with those tendencies have been culled out over centuries of selective breeding.All of them (including humans) can be dangerous. It is just a matter of how much it takes to push each species to the point of breaking. All species will lash out in fear or self defense but a few are prone to being overly protective of their territory or what they consider their "family". The issue here is more about keeping these more aggressive animals in an environment where they are not able to attack people who do not ask to be put in harm''s way. Any time you put any animal like that in a normal community it is just asking for trouble sooner or later. But to ban the ownership of all primates would put alot of helpless, captive bred animals in a bad situation. It is not their faults. They did not ask for the life they were brought into. And what about the Capuchin monkeys that are trained and used to help paralized humans live more normal everyday lives? Should they be banned too? Should all the good they do be forgotten because of the horrible event surrounding a chimp? Primates form very strong attachments to their human family members. They greive the loss of these humans and suffer from depression when they are seperated from them.


Posted by: Jody | Feb 19, 2009
reply


Friends of Animals disagrees, Jody, with your idea that humans have the moral right to own primates and other wild animals as pets. Whether or not a capuchin monkey is dangerous to humans, the interests and freedoms of these animals requires that they be let alone. Spider monkeys are arboreal primates who live in Central America. Fixing a cage for them on someone''s residential property may entertain the so-called pet-owner, but it''s not in the interest of a spider monkey who belongs in nature. A respect for these animals and a preservationist approach to their habitat is a principle worth advancing.

If primates are removed from Connecticut''s households, they''ll find a place in one of the primate sanctuaries that works to get these animals off public display, out of our hands and into proper care and surroundings with members of their own species.

Priscilla Feral
President, Friends of Animals
President, Primarily Primates
www.primarilyprimates.org
www.friendsofanimals.org

Posted by: Priscilla Feral | Feb 21, 2009
reply