erseyLotte- For as long as Ya Kwanza was at Jersey I've been trying to find out why he didn't breed with more than just the one female. Even direct conversations with Jersey Keepers in the past when I've visited the Zoo haven't really provided the answer. So I resort to the question occassionally on here as well, just in case someone can, or is prepared to shed more light on what was for me, simply an interesting situation, now in the past. As for being 'stuck on the theory' about him possibly being infertile for some time, that's because I never get any further with finding out if its true or not. Its not really a theory, more a thought, but you have taken the trouble to go back through my posts about this as if providing evidence over a legal issue or some serious wrongdoing. Why shouldn't I make such speculative guesses? They still look relevant to me- I wouldn't change any of them now either. In the English Language saying 'I think' or 'believe' or 'I have heard' modifies a statement, so I use it as a way of implying how I came about the information and how sure or otherwise I am of the facts. I think its justifiable to say 'I'm not sure' if that's the case. I am not stating these things as fact, but as far as I know I am quite within my rights to phrase questions like these in order to invite answers. Quoting what myself or anyone else 'is party to' seems an odd and stuffy way to treat a simple question about a Gorilla on a zoo specialists' forum. Its hardly matter of national security, is it? It wasn't particularly aimed at you anyway- more at anybody who read the thread. I'm perfectly entitled to ask more questions and seek more details than what appears on some press or public pronouncement if I want to.
You also imply there is no possible parallel with the case I cited of the male Jitu at Blackpool. But other gorilla males with infertility problems in Zoos in the past have also been diagnosed with damaged, atrophied or otherwise nonfunctioning testicles, so Jitu was not an isolated example, simply a recent one. Hence the repeated queries(or speculation if you wish) about Ya Kwanza.
Despite the critisisms about it, I can't actually see any problem with speculation on a Forum like this. After all, many of the discussions and points raised are speculative and if it dealt only with known facts a lot of the subject matter would be missing and there might not be a Forum at all. Contacting zoos direct with questions like these often fails to provide the answers so its just another way of trying to establish facts if you happen(like me)to be interested. Contrary to what some Zoos seem to think, its not done, on my part at least, either maliciously or with intent to defame the animal or the zoo- I just like to know the facts. No ulterior motive. If that's a problem for some zoos and their staff, they could perhaps make more information freely available, which might reduce the levels of speculation which they may not be comfortable with. However, as this is an Internet discussion Forum, it will always invite a huge variety and quality of input -both accurate and innaccurate-no-one can prevent that.
In the case of the Tamarin post I removed it because I had made an unnecessary speculation which was obviously off the mark and had no relevance. I don't see this case as being similar. I'm simply asking 'Could he have been infertile in his later years at Jersey'? To which I still don't know the answer and probably never will. I don't see why such a perfectly innocent question or suggestion should arouse such censorship.
You also say 'I post authoratively as a Moderator' and should set an example. I don't see the role of Moderator as having any connection with anything else that I post independantly about, apart from Forum issues. If others do, then they probably shouldn't.
I also take exception to the 'flights of fancy' description you made about this. If we are going to be so precise about things, then your statement about Ya Kwanza 'enjoying' going to live in a bachelor group with four younger males could be equally fanciful. This method of grouping may be necessary and workable in captivity to house surplus males together, but isn't natural as it doesn't allow males, particularly silverbacks, the normal expression of their social instincts, so you could be creating a false or misleading impression there.
