Monkey World Ape Rescue Centre Falling out of love with Monkey World

[monkeyarmy]

They are waiting so they can "rescue" them to have their own "pet"

How bloody dare you! I have rehomed marmosets and a squirrel monkey to sanctuaries across the country with my social enterprise footing the vets bill, transportation and other costs. I normally take insults on the chin here but that was too far. I know the zoos you people adore have no integrity but i do and I will not have it questioned on here with people who think they know it all but know very little.

As for the RSPCA in some areas are excellent and in other areas worse than useless. We'll have to agree to disagree but if you were right there wouldn't be any need for sanctuaries or rescue centres and they certainly wouldn't be waiting lists.

 

[dean]

How bloody dare you! I have rehomed marmosets and a squirrel monkey to sanctuaries across the country with my social enterprise footing the vets bill, transportation and other costs. I normally take insults on the chin here but that was too far. I know the zoos you people adore have no integrity but i do and I will not have it questioned on here with people who think they know it all but know very little.(/QUOTE]

The problem some of us may have and I peronaly do have,is this Vail of secrecy over your enterprise, you don't tell us much about anything but are happy to knock all and sundry, who don't follow your dream.
If you are a registered charity or run a proper re homing service why not tell us? let us know what you do and how it is run. some members on here who work in zoos may be able to re home species for you, except you appear to only approve of sanctuaries not zoo's. I have books on keeping marmosets in captivity but never have as the cost of looking after them was always out of my reach until now, though I doubt I could pop to the pet shop and got one for the same price as a hamster

In an earlier post I mentioned keeping marmosets etc out doors I meant with access to a proper heated indoor enclosure of course, but sunlight is vital for them to manufacture vitamin D and stave of rickets or limb paralyses as I'm sure you will know.

 

[Reggie Kray]

Just a few thoughts about the suggestion that Monkey World prefer to take in "high profile" animals to gain as much publicity for themselves and their park out of it. I am sure the intention in the first place was to rescue the animal/animals concerned, any publicity gained out of it is just a bonus which will help them continue their work. The same could be said of Yorkshire Wildlife Park, they rehomed a large group of lions living in squalid conditions, they did receive excellent publicity for this which was the springboard to their park growing into the excellent place it is today, and still expanding. It was the same when they offered to take in Justin the giraffe from Copenhagen, some cynics claimed they only did this for their own publicity purposes, untrue, the intention was to give Justin a good home rather than be slaughtered and fed to lions. I appreciate that Monkey World may have refused to take in the chimps from Penscynor in the late nineties, however as much as I am sure they would like to, it is a literal impossibility to take in every animal in need of a new home. I have not visited the establishment in Wales where these chimps were sent so I cannot comment on the standard of accommodation, although I understand that the people who run it built the enclosures themselves with limited finances to enable them to save the chimps from the bullet, also if some people wish to call this place "a dump", perhaps they could perhaps do something positive instead such as perhaps thinking of ways to fund raise to enhance the living condition of the primates concerned, that's my thoughts anyway for what they are worth.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

I know the zoos you people adore have no integrity but i do and I will not have it questioned on here with people who think they know it all but know very little.

A matter which comes under the heading of "ethics, morality and research" which you mentioned would be the next part of your "Do zoos have a place in modern society?" thread - but which nearly two months later you are yet to write a single paragraph about, as noted by myself and a number of other individuals. I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on the matter of ethics, morality and research in zoological collections - and I daresay I am not the only one.

If you want to be taken seriously and treated with respect, and to engage in actual discussion, I suggest you have the courage of your convictions to actually post your reasoned opinion and evidence on the matter, rather than avoiding doing so for fear people will present counterpoints and evidence against your claims.... as you seem to have done as far as the aforementioned thread goes.

Instead, you seem to be hopping from topic to topic, starting vitriolic discussions and then ceasing to comment if people start discussing the matter in a civil and detailed manner rather than getting riled up as I suspect you hope they will. For instance, after people started discussing the issue of orcas and other cetaceans in a civil manner on both sides in your Seaworld thread, you stopped commenting.

And of course, claiming that "zoos have no integrity" and that we "know very little" is *exactly* the kind of ad hominem attack which you complain you are recieving.

So to summarise - if you *are* interested in a reasoned debate about the issue of zoos, continue to present your evidence in the thread you started for that purpose; whether it is accurate or not to think so, the fact you avoid participating in any discussion once discussion replaces vitriol gives the strong impression the latter is all you are interested in.

 

[mazfc]

I wondered when you'd pop up with the same anger. Monkey world wasn't founded to rehome chimps from British 'collections' who had bred irresponsibly or just didn't want the animals any more. Its a rescue sent not a dumping ground

Doesn't this negate your argument as you ARE wanting them to be a 'dumping ground' for marmosets no matter whether they have the facilities to care for them or not.

 

[mazfc]

Yes Trudi was rescued because Mary Chipperfield was filmed on several occasions beating and abusing trudi. So she was rescued because she was abused by a disgusting pathetic excuse for a human being not just because she was in a zoo

Trudi was in a circus not a zoo.

Jestah, Buxom, Bixa, Jess and Arfur were from Windsor when it closed

 

[mazfc]

In a general reply to the thread. I have been and still am a long term visitor and supporter of monkeyworld. I can see where you are coming from getting frustrated about not getting what you hoped for from Monkeyworld, a place you have always viewed reverently as an organisation to aspire to.

However, living in a brutal economic world the majority of sanctuaries cannot simply take every animal that needs help. They have a duty of care to the animals that they already have and I imagine these aren't cheap to care for.

Monkeyworld is not perfect by any means. I too have heard tales of them turning away animals who can't bring in a donation, and am in 2 minds about it. But why should owners or labs who have kept animals or zoos who are getting rid of animals not contribute to their long term care by donating housing etc?

They have taken in an awful of small monkeys in the last couple of years many of which have generated no publicity at all.

I'm not sure about the capuchin in Spain, maybe they are not legally able to intervene or maybe it would be better dealt with by Spanish rescues? Monkeyworld is not the only rescue in Europe, just the best publicised.

 

[Zooplantman]

Instead, you seem to be hopping from topic to topic, starting vitriolic discussions and then ceasing to comment if people start discussing the matter in a civil and detailed manner rather than getting riled up as I suspect you hope they will.

Pretty much the definition of an internet troll

 

[Reggie Kray]

In a general reply to the thread. I have been and still am a long term visitor and supporter of monkeyworld. I can see where you are coming from getting frustrated about not getting what you hoped for from Monkeyworld, a place you have always viewed reverently as an organisation to aspire to.

However, living in a brutal economic world the majority of sanctuaries cannot simply take every animal that needs help. They have a duty of care to the animals that they already have and I imagine these aren't cheap to care for.

Monkeyworld is not perfect by any means. I too have heard tales of them turning away animals who can't bring in a donation, and am in 2 minds about it. But why should owners or labs who have kept animals or zoos who are getting rid of animals not contribute to their long term care by donating housing etc?

They have taken in an awful of small monkeys in the last couple of years many of which have generated no publicity at all.

I'm not sure about the capuchin in Spain, maybe they are not legally able to intervene or maybe it would be better dealt with by Spanish rescues? Monkeyworld is not the only rescue in Europe, just the best publicised.

I think you will find that the chimps that came from Windsor also came with a generous dowry, as was the case of all the animals that were rehomed from Windsor. Trudy the chimp, although owned by the late Mrs. Mary Cawley and also housed at her premises in Hampshire, never did actually perform in a circus ring, just for the record.

 

[monkeyarmy]

Or here's a theory I have much better things to do with my time than sit and write in depth discussion on ethics when the responses will be so predictable. Very few people on this site give a damn about ethics or animal welfare, those pesky concerns get in the way of making list of animals they've seen and how many 'collections' they've been to, the higher the number the bigger their ego grows and the more they think they know about the animals. When in fact they just lap up anything the zoo tells them i.e. if we weren't here xyz wouldn't have happened, the animals love performing, no don't worry about that abnormal behaviour.

The fact people use the term collections is abhorrent, like it is some sort of perverse version of collecting stamps. These are living creatures not inanimate objects. How many of you ever bother going to see these creatures in their natural environment? Think how much you'd safe if you stopped buying massive lenses to take pictures of captive animals, you could go see the animals in their natural habitats. But no doubt many of you will be interested in that as you'd actually have to work to spot them and there's no neat little sign explaining all about the animal.

I was forming my response to the SeaWorld thread but gave up when some ***** said SeaWorld is good because its improved the reputation of wild orca, why the hell would an orca care what it's reputation is?! Why should an animal be trapped in a tiny pool just so humans can say o their not so bad after all. You can't reason with that kind of stupid.

As for why I don't tell you guys more about my SE is because I really don't want it associated with zoo chat or the majority of zoo chatters, I cant imagine the majority here could understand about an organisation that puts animals as its main priority rather than hus

 

[garyjp]

I have been severly tempted in getting invovled in this debate but keep telling myself - NO - but I can hold off no longer. Monkey Army you must be a fool as far as I can see, we keep hearing about your business but we dont actually know what it is.If you have a business you should promote it and if it has anything to do with rescuing rehoming primates you numpty here is a good place to find homes - there are Zoo owners, keepers ,sanctuary owners and all sorts on here a bit of humility will get you a very long way on this site.Now you want to start a debate that stirs up a hornets nest - fine I like that too but picking on Monkey World and trying to dig up some kind of dirt on them well its as useful as the other lot that keep banging on about twycross and South Lakes.
So I challenge you tell us what you do? What would help? what you are looking for?Play nice you might be surprised

 

[Reggie Kray]

Or here's a theory I have much better things to do with my time than sit and write in depth discussion on ethics when the responses will be so predictable. Very few people on this site give a damn about ethics or animal welfare, those pesky concerns get in the way of making list of animals they've seen and how many 'collections' they've been to, the higher the number the bigger their ego grows and the more they think they know about the animals. When in fact they just lap up anything the zoo tells them i.e. if we weren't here xyz wouldn't have happened, the animals love performing, no don't worry about that abnormal behaviour.

The fact people use the term collections is abhorrent, like it is some sort of perverse version of collecting stamps. These are living creatures not inanimate objects. How many of you ever bother going to see these creatures in their natural environment? Think how much you'd safe if you stopped buying massive lenses to take pictures of captive animals, you could go see the animals in their natural habitats. But no doubt many of you will be interested in that as you'd actually have to work to spot them and there's no neat little sign explaining all about the animal.

I was forming my response to the SeaWorld thread but gave up when some ***** said SeaWorld is good because its improved the reputation of wild orca, why the hell would an orca care what it's reputation is?! Why should an animal be trapped in a tiny pool just so humans can say o their not so bad after all. You can't reason with that kind of stupid.

As for why I don't tell you guys more about my SE is because I really don't want it associated with zoo chat or the majority of zoo chatters, I cant imagine the majority here could understand about an organisation that puts animals as its main priority rather than hus

I agree with you to a certain extent Monkey Army regarding your comment that some members are more interested in forming great lists of zoos they have visited not only here but also abroad, this has also been noted by myself, there are however a few members on here who do genuinely put the welfare of the animals first I am pleased to say, they are real animal people and not just glorified train spotters, eg Pertinax and Community Zoo, plus a few others, interesting also that these members have a wealth of experience and knowledge regarding the subject. It also is true that to some on here if you do not agree with a certain clique on here then ridicule and bullying sets in, which in my opinion is not the correct way to conduct a sensible discussion group. Also, some members on here may not agree with what you post on here , but one thing cannot be denied you are doing very well in holding your own despite all the odds, nice to see young people with a bit of spirit who are interested in the welfare of animals, Respect!

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Or here's a theory I have much better things to do with my time than sit and write in depth discussion on ethics when the responses will be so predictable.

And yet you have all the time in the world to write long rants full of ad hominem attacks and assumptions about the moral fibre and intelligence of the members of this site........

the zoos you people adore have no integrity but i do and I will not have it questioned on here with people who think they know it all but know very little.

Very few people on this site give a damn about ethics or animal welfare

the higher the number the bigger their ego grows and the more they think they know about the animals. When in fact they just lap up anything the zoo tells them

but gave up when some ***** said SeaWorld is good because its improved the reputation of wild orca.......You can't reason with that kind of stupid.

I cant imagine the majority here could understand about an organisation that puts animals as its main priority

And as for your assumption that no one here has any interest in viewing wildlife in-situ, per the following quote:

How many of you ever bother going to see these creatures in their natural environment? Think how much you'd safe if you stopped buying massive lenses to take pictures of captive animals, you could go see the animals in their natural habitats. But no doubt many of you will be interested in that as you'd actually have to work to spot them and there's no neat little sign explaining all about the animal.

If you took more than the most cursory look around the site you would find multiple threads regarding people listing the wildlife they have seen over the course of a given year, for instance:

http://www.zoochat.com/65/2015-big-year-396741/

Along with people providing detailed trip reports about extensive journeys around the world in order to both visit zoological collections *and* view the wildlife of far-flung places in their natural habitats, for instance:

http://www.zoochat.com/19/chlidonias-goes-asia-part-3-2013-a-328982/

http://www.zoochat.com/2255/hix-does-tanzania-sure-kilimanjaro-rises-384568/

And, of course, whole galleries devoted to wildlife photography, for instance:

Australia - Wildlife Gallery

United Kingdom - Wildlife Gallery

United States - Wildlife Gallery

China - Wildlife Gallery

In short, if you are determined to think the worst of us, dismiss anything we say and have no desire to discuss any of the matters raised, and do not want to risk being associated with us....... why *are* you here? Like you say, you have better things to do with your time..........and so do we.

Until now I've run on the assumption you were here to genuinely engage with people holding a different outlook to yourself - but I think the above reply rather demonstrates you are merely here to cause trouble and feel superior to people you disdain.

 

[jbnbsn99]

All right ladies and gentlemen, it's time to close this thread as it has started off negative and continued on the path to the dark side its entire journey.