I first learned about the relationship between tigers and monkeys, but it came from the saying that there are no tigers in the mountains, and the monkeys are kings.
He said that when he visited the Monkey Mountain in a zoo in Thailand, there was a statue of a tiger in a divided area, which was made of cardboard, and the tour guide at the time told them that the area was being repaired, so in order to prevent the monkeys from being hurt by mistake, so a paper tiger was placed over there to serve as a warning.
I asked my friend, is this thing really effective? My friend was also skeptical, he said that the tour guide did not explain its effectiveness, it seems that this thing should be placed there, since it is placed there, it must have a corresponding effect, if it is useless, I believe that no staff is bored to put such a thing over there,
If the monkey finds out that the paper tiger is not a real tiger and throws a stone at the time, the tiger is knocked down, and the monkeys will laugh just like the audience.
I said, as a zoo,
It's also a kind of "spectacle".
Whether the monkeys are really afraid of paper tigers or not, I really don't know.
After all, real tigers and paper tigers are completely two species, and paper tigers cannot be compared with real tigers in any way except for "looking" like real tigers.
Neither of these two is the same thing, how can it be compared?
So I think that it is impossible for a monkey to be afraid of a paper tiger, and a monkey is so smart, how can it be known that a paper tiger is a fake?
However, the reason why I am skeptical about this issue is because I suspect another problem,
That is, what the paper tiger represents, the monkey is afraid of.
In this bare monkey mountain, it is impossible for a paper tiger to appear out of thin air, which I don't think the monkeys will not know, this thing is placed in front of them, in their "territory",
With what I know about monkeys, they will tentatively understand what this paper tiger is, and when the first monkey tries it, the other monkeys will understand.
The paper tiger was easily pushed, and the monkey entered the maintenance area "guarded" by the paper tiger, which ushered in two results,
First, something in the maintenance area will harm the monkeys, after all, if this area is harmless, then naturally there is no need for paper tigers.
Second, it was discovered by the zoo management that there were monkeys destroying paper tigers,
Then the monkey will inevitably be punished to set an example.
The first result, in my opinion, is unlikely, because if there is a place where repairs are at risk to the lives of the monkeys, then it may be better to close the Monkey Mountain.
After all, from a loss perspective, the loss of the monkey is the loss of the zoo.
The so-called "monkey life is expensive" is not the development of the monkey group, but the zoo does not want to make a mistake in this matter.
Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that, in the eyes of the park management, this is enough to make the monkeys aware of the danger, because they know very well that paper tigers do not pose danger.
It's a reminder of danger.
I don't know if the monkeys living in the zoo have enough vigilance and awe to make them realize that the paper tigers are actually protecting them, or that this kind of protection is not only acceptable to the monkeys.
It can also be accepted by tourists.
After all, if something really goes wrong, the life and death of the monkey,
I'm afraid it will become the "fun" of tourists to record short videos.
So, based on this superficial and irresponsible judgment, I prefer the second outcome.
As a second result, the role of the paper tiger is not to play the role of a real tiger, but to serve as a warning.
This warning is symbolic, and when this symbolic thing appears, whether it is a paper tiger or a paper monkey, as long as this thing exists, this is a forbidden place for monkeys.
Crossing the forbidden ground, it is not the "paper tiger" that is punished, but the person behind the paper tiger.
Monkeys are very intelligent primates, and they will understand the meaning of this thing through observation and trial and error.
As long as this thing exists, then the existence of "it" may be even more terrifying than a real tiger.
However, "it" is more rational than the real tiger, because as long as you don't provoke "it", all this will be fine.
This potential discipline will not change the habits of the monkeys, nor will it change the overall "ecological development" of the Monkey Mountain area, but in that small forbidden area, the monkeys will look at the existence of this thing with a very sober attitude.
After all, the price of not being sober,
The monkeys are well aware.
My friend said that when they were about to leave Monkey Mountain, one of the passengers in the group noticed that at the corner of Monkey Mountain, there was a monkey shivering.
He asked the tour guide if the monkey was sick, and the tour guide said that it wouldn't, the sick monkey would not be released.
That's because what's shivering over there?
The tour guide looked at it and said that he might be afraid of the fake tiger.
After saying this, everyone laughed, friends said, everyone laughed very happily, no one questioned whether the tour guide's guess was right, and no one went to analyze whether the monkey was afraid of the fake tiger.
Because everyone is here to travel, travel, is to be happy, see fun, just take a picture, hear interesting words, others laugh, themselves laugh, this kind of laughter will be contagious, everyone is happy, travel is interesting.
I said yes, this is the meaning of tourism, if everyone questions what the fake tiger means, it will undoubtedly make everyone fall into excessive thinking, and may even bring into the role of the monkey, when judging the meaning of the fake tiger, become a "monkey who raises the bar",
Then the result is not fun, because if the tourist is red-faced because of this,
It's the monkey who laughs.