Government plans to shake up private keeping of monkeys

Jarne said:
And that difference is, in terms of welfare at least? You got two groups of social species that are not truly domesticated, and both are known to do well under circumstances that a decent keeper can provide. Yes a group of marmosets requires more knowledge about their diet and illnesses and you need to be able to give them vertical space and a heated indoor area. But what many zoos provide can definitively be provided by a well willing private keeper, even though it is more expensive then let's say a decent rabbit pen. The only true difference I see is that it's socially accepted to keep rabbits in horrible circumstances whilst it isn't for marmosets.
Click to expand...

With all due respect @Jarne and @Jurek7 neither of you have a clue of what you are talking about.

The husbandry of keeping Callitrichids well maintained in captivity is something that even good zoos struggle with to this day and it is an ever evolving science. If you would like me to direct you to literature on this issue then just ask and I will and you will be able to see the extent of the problem.

The same cannot be said about rabbits unless you are talking about species such as the volcano rabbit or the Amami rabbit.

Yes, there are wealthy private keepers who can afford to spend enormous sums on enclosures, veterinary care and ensuring that the primates they keep are given an adequate diet but how many of those are there out there truly ?

I would suggest that these are a minority and that the vast amount of primates kept as pets within the UK and the USA are not actually given the quality of care that these animals demand and as I've said can only experience in the setting of good zoos / sanctuaries / captive breeding centres.
 
I generally feel automatically uneasy about nanny-state-ism, which is already alarmingly common in Britain. One more self-appointed group of people trying get leverage over other people because they claim to solve other people's problems.

What would be practical consequences for monkeys if such a law passes? Would the owners be able to fill new rules - and if not, what? How many monkeys would be confiscated? Would many monkeys be forced not to breed? How many would land in shelters in substandard conditions? Where the shelters would get funds for caring of taken over monkeys? Would any monkeys be euthanized - directly, or covertly? How many shelters have sufficient experience with monkeys - something which is assumed to happen magically and automatically?

Monkey World is rather an exception than a typical place where confiscated animals land. I have in general very dim view on shelters or 'sanctuaries' holding confiscated animals. Many do not have good conditions, stable funding nor are prepared to receive many animals. Some shelters would welcome a reason to get more funds and a reason of existence. But this is not necessary a reason to take away monkeys from private people to them.
 
Jurek7 said:
What would be practical consequences for monkeys if such a law passes? Would the owners be able to fill new rules - and if not, what? How many monkeys would be confiscated? Would many monkeys be forced not to breed? How many would land in shelters in substandard conditions? Where the shelters would get funds for caring of taken over monkeys? Would any monkeys be euthanized - directly, or covertly? How many shelters have sufficient experience with monkeys - something which is assumed to happen magically and automatically?
Click to expand...

The same might be said of the practical consequences of private ownership of primates don't you think ?

How many monkeys are kept in substandard conditions in terms of husbandry ?

How many owners have sufficient resources to provide adequate care for these animals ?

How many owners have sufficient experience with monkeys and their husbandry ?

Jurek7 said:
Monkey World is rather an exception than a typical place where confiscated animals land. I have in general very dim view on shelters or 'sanctuaries' holding confiscated animals. Many do not have good conditions, stable funding nor are prepared to receive many animals. Some shelters would welcome a reason to get more funds and a reason of existence. But this is not necessary a reason to take away monkeys from private people to them.
Click to expand...

I agree that Monkey World is an exception and I am really quite cynical of sanctuaries too, believe me.

However, this is not about sanctuaries this is about legislation that reflects sound reasoning that primates do not do well being kept as "pets" and therefore shouldn't be.
 
Unlike Brazil, pet monkeys in Britain are not caught or imported, but bred in human care for generations.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
The husbandry of keeping Callitrichids well maintained in captivity is something that even good zoos struggle with to this day and it is an ever evolving science. If you would like me to direct you to literature on this issue then just ask and I will and you will be able to see the extent of the problem.

The same cannot be said about rabbits unless you are talking about species such as the volcano rabbit or the Amami rabbit.

Yes, there are wealthy private keepers who can afford to spend enormous sums on enclosures, veterinary care and ensuring that the primates they keep are given an adequate diet but how many of those are there out there truly ?
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that every species of Callitrichid is so difficult to keep as you make it seem, especially with the hundreds of parks in Europe alone keeping common marmosets. And I doubt even more that these easier species require these massive sums of money that practically no one can spend on them, seen as how popular of a display they are in both large and especially in small zoological parks. There are plenty of birds, reptiles and fish that are extremely difficult to keep and yet are still maintained in a decent number of private collections. Simply saying that because it's a private keeper that's not part of an elaborate private breeding center, he/she can not provide the requirements to these animals is very presumptuous. Control is needed for sure, but the same is needed for other wild pets like rabbits and rodents, fish and herps. In the end it are all (semi-)wild animals kept as "pets", each with different requirements but still requirements that need to and in most cases can be met by private keepers with the right intentions. Straight up banning them will get rid of those people with good intentions, but will not completely deter people with money to import smuggled wild-caught individuals and keep them in bad circumstances.
 
Jarne said:
I highly doubt that every species of Callitrichid is so difficult to keep as you make it seem, especially with the hundreds of parks in Europe alone keeping common marmosets. And I doubt even more that these easier species require these massive sums of money that practically no one can spend on them, seen as how popular of a display they are in both large and especially in small zoological parks. There are plenty of birds, reptiles and fish that are extremely difficult to keep and yet are still maintained in a decent number of private collections. Simply saying that because it's a private keeper that's not part of an elaborate private breeding center, he/she can not provide the requirements to these animals is very presumptuous. Control is needed for sure, but the same is needed for other wild pets like rabbits and rodents, fish and herps. In the end it are all (semi-)wild animals kept as "pets", each with different requirements but still requirements that need to and in most cases can be met by private keepers with the right intentions. Straight up banning them will get rid of those people with good intentions, but will not completely deter people with money to import smuggled wild-caught individuals and keep them in bad circumstances.
Click to expand...

It varies from species to species but even the common marmoset is really a very complex animal in terms of its husbandry requirements and therefore "owners" often get this drastically wrong.

If you want to read some papers on the husbandry of Callitrichids that highlight this to you then PM me and I'll send you some pertinent reading material that will change your mind. These animals are simply not suitable for being kept as pets.

I take it you are so concerned about these plans as you feel threatened that such bans could eventually extend to your own aquarist / fish keeping hobby, right ?

Well... As I've already stated from the beginning of this thread I'm not actually denying that private hobbyists have helped immensely in the conservation of many threatened freshwater fish species (I know that this is the case with a good many species). I am also similarly aware that hobbyists keeping other taxa have helped avert species extinctions.

However, this is absolutely not the case with primates and never has been so you are also being presumptuous in your assertion that private ownership can contribute to the conservation of Callitrichids.

It is not a position that you can argue with any authority on or very convincingly either so I would stop equating your aquarist hobby with private ownership of primates as it is in no way comparable.
 
Last edited:
Jurek7 said:
I generally feel automatically uneasy about nanny-state-ism, which is already alarmingly common in Britain. One more self-appointed group of people trying get leverage over other people because they claim to solve other people's problems.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course @Jurek7, the banning of primates as pets heralds the rise of a nighmarish totalitarian Soviet style system in the UK.

Come on... That is ridiculous, I get that you are a libertarian and fine but try and recognise this as a rather sensible piece of legislation for the benefit of the welfare of these animals and not as a personal attack.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
I take it you are so concerned about these plans as you feel threatened that such bans could eventually extend to your own aquarist / fish keeping hobby, right ?
Click to expand...
Not really actually. Whilst this is a very remote potential danger of it, the popularity of fish as pets and the social acceptance of it makes such a ban very unlikely. Where with monkeys there is talk about banning, with fish politicians don't even dare to enforce legislations for fish welfare like minimum tank sizes for fish like goldfish. So yeah, I don't really fear that such a slippery slope would become reality anytime soon. It's more a principle of letting people keep what they want as long as welfare is taken care off that I believe in.
 
Jarne said:
Not really actually. Whilst this is a very remote potential danger of it, the popularity of fish as pets and the social acceptance of it makes such a ban very unlikely. Where with monkeys there is talk about banning, with fish politicians don't even dare to enforce legislations for fish welfare like minimum tank sizes for fish like goldfish. So yeah, I don't really fear that such a slippery slope would become reality anytime soon. It's more a principle of letting people keep what they want as long as welfare is taken care off that I believe in.
Click to expand...

Statistically what is the evidence that welfare is taken care of ?

Would this potential new law even be considered for being passed as legislation if there was responsible pet ownership of primates in the UK ?
 
Jarne said:
Not really actually. Whilst this is a very remote potential danger of it, the popularity of fish as pets and the social acceptance of it makes such a ban very unlikely. Where with monkeys there is talk about banning, with fish politicians don't even dare to enforce legislations for fish welfare like minimum tank sizes for fish like goldfish. So yeah, I don't really fear that such a slippery slope would become reality anytime soon. It's more a principle of letting people keep what they want as long as welfare is taken care off that I believe in.
Click to expand...
Or at least in most places, and the few that do enforce welfare regulations kinda make a mockery of it like where in germany any fish should be kept in at least 60 L regardless of species.
 
Jarne said:
Or at least in most places, and the few that do enforce welfare regulations kinda make a mockery of it like where in germany any fish should be kept in at least 60 L regardless of species.
Click to expand...

I get that it is better to regulate the trade of most species rather than enforcing draconian bans in a lot of senses. I realise that this helps reduce illegally trafficked animals flooding the market, the spread of pathogens to native biodiversity etc.

However, with primates (just as with many other mammals) I do not think these animals can ever really be decently kept as "pets" and this is borne out by the literature that we have available.

I think this new potential change in legislation in the UK simply reflects the fact that pet ownership of primates statistically leads to an awful lot of welfare issues.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Statistically what is the evidence that welfare is taken care of ?

Would this potential new law even be considered for being passed as legislation if there was responsible pet ownership of primates in the UK ?
Click to expand...
For most pet owners, very low without a doubt. But both a ban and a minimal welfare standard act upon irresponsible keepers. A ban just targets responsible keepers as well. And yes, legilslators have ignored responsible keepers of species in the past in other countries, I don't see any reason for them to act differently in the UK. If in the end no one is willing or able to follow these minimal welfare standards, you still have the same outcome as a ban is that no legal keepers are left keeping primates in bad welfare. For the exact same reason, I'm not a fan of banning species from being displayed in zoos but rather on setting welfare standards.

Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
However, this is absolutely not the case with primates and never has been so you are also being presumptuous in your assertion that private ownership can contribute to the conservation of Callitrichids.
Click to expand...
With the right collaborations with zoos and the right people being involved, much is possible (though this is not you average monkey owner or would it even be your average responsible owner I admit).
 
Jarne said:
For most pet owners, very low without a doubt. But both a ban and a minimal welfare standard act upon irresponsible keepers. A ban just targets responsible keepers as well. And yes, legilslators have ignored responsible keepers of species in the past in other countries, I don't see any reason for them to act differently in the UK. If in the end no one is willing or able to follow these minimal welfare standards, you still have the same outcome as a ban is that no legal keepers are left keeping primates in bad welfare. For the exact same reason, I'm not a fan of banning species from being displayed in zoos but rather on setting welfare standards.
Click to expand...

I am not an animal rights activist and this is an animal welfare and British / European legislative issue and has nothing to do with conservation.

I am simply speaking from the perspective of a conservationist involved in the conservation of callitrichids and who naturally has empathy and concern for these animals in captive environments (including the species that now pose a threat to our focal species as invasives).

I do not think that primates make good pets at all and statistically this is born out by a lot of inadequate husbandry for these animals. In my opinion they shouldn't be kept anywhere outside of a zoo or similar facility.

Jarne said:
With the right collaborations with zoos and the right people being involved, much is possible (though this is not you average monkey owner or would it even be your average responsible owner I admit).
Click to expand...

Pet owners of Callitrichids have made no significant contributions either historically or in the present to the conservation of these primates and I very much doubt that they ever will make any.

Neotropical species that I imagine are common primates in the European pet trade like common marmosets, Bolivian squirrel monkeys and brown capuchins are not of conservation concern anyway (which is not at all to say that they are any less worthy of legislation for welfare reasons).

I wouldn't want the "right people" holding threatened species like Goeldi's monkeys, lion tamarins etc. I would rather want the right institutions to be taking this role (i.e. decent zoos).
 
Last edited:
Can I just point out that the proposal suggests a licensing system which would allow specialist private primate keepers to continue to keep primates if they meet stringent requirements.

So talk of a "ban" is misleading.

My personal take is that nobody should be keeping primates unless they meet such stringent welfare requirements and - in the case of threatened taxa - they co-operate in captive breeding programmes (which may, of course, be non-breeding where appropriate).

I know a little about primates (particularly Callitrichidae) in a captive context, but I'll let others opine whether similar provisions would be appropriate for fish . . or rabbits.
 
While I ´m not against a licensing system for captive monkeys, I think my opinion will depend on exact requirements and implementation of the new rules. It can prove to be too stric and deter even responsible keepers, or it can be too lax and don´t have any meaningful impact.

In my country, we have a licencing system that is I think too lax. We have 2 lists of wild animals - species who require "specialized care" and a list of "dangerous" animals. A keeper must first build an animal enclosure, ask for a licence (which specifies what species and how many of them can be kept there) and only with a licence can he buy such animals. The govermental vet service issues licences valid for 3 years, with in-house controls every 12 months. Controls inspect the enclosure itself, food, vet care, storage rooms, security measures, health of animals itself. However it´s rare for somebody to loose its licence unless animals are starving to death or enclosure is highly unsafe from escape. Species requiring special care licence in Czechia - casuars, eagles, cranes, larger eggrets, crocodiles, eagle owls, Primates, Carnivora, elephants, all ungulates.
 
gentle lemur said:
It is worth remembering that most primate species are covered by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, so that private individuals must have aa licence to keep them. Currently only marmosets, tamarins, douroucoulis, titis, squirrel monkeys and a handful of rare lemurs are exempt.
Click to expand...

At the time we kept a wholly private collection before Hamerton opened in 1990, we kept and bred C.jacchus, penicillata, geoffroyi, argentata argentata, argentata melanura + S.labiatus, midas, imperator, fuscicollis weddelli and oedipus, along with 3 spp, of lemurs, bush-babies and tree-shrews. All 3 spp of the lemurs, and ALL monkeys were listed on the DWA. The only exemptions were specifically the genera Callithrix and Saguinus; leaving the ambiguity that Goeldi's Monkeys, Lion Tamarins and Pygmy Marmosets (had they been available) would have all needed DWA licences.
At some point the others you list have been de-listed; presumably at the same time that many carnivores came off too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top