Even so, let wild animals be just that...wild. Male chimps fight in the wild but still coexist. I honestly see no real reason to castrate them unless it negatively affects the animal's health.
Monkey World Ape Rescue Centre New alpha for Paddy's former group!!!
- Thread starter DenApe
- Start date
Even so, let wild animals be just that...wild. Male chimps fight in the wild but still coexist. I honestly see no real reason to castrate them unless it negatively affects the animal's health.
'The snip' doesn't mean cutting off, it is the colloquially used term for vasectomy, a small surgical procedure to cut or seal the vas deferens to permanently prevent pregnancy, human or ape. Castration is complete removal of the testicles by any means, consequently changing the hormones of the animal.
I think Twycross's castrated males were indeed done in the distant past (eg Tommy) whereas more recently they had vasectomies (eg Danny). They have very few castrated males. Sadly a few of their entire males have also died, Ricky (surely a fine Western chimp - personal prejudice), Benji, Danny, Mongo
Last edited:
I think that is the case also- I do not think any males there have been castrated in recent times. According to the 2014 Studbook there are three 'neutered'/castrated males at Twycross- William, Peter and Jomar. I guess the other intact males have been vasectomised apart from Kibale who might father offspring if they decide to allow breeding again.
Do you know why some deceased chimps are in the studbook and others are not? eg Twycross's Ricky isn't but Edinburgh's Ricky is?
I always thought Gamba would have a go at being top man, he's always seemed very ambitious, but apparently although he is, he does daft annoying things and so doesn't get the support of the females.
No, I don't know. They should really all be in there but sometimes omissions happen I think.
Gamba is mischievous but he lacks the political skills to run a large group. One would think after years of watching Paddy he would have learned enough to be in charge, but seeing as he hasn't asserted dominance over the females means he has no ambition to take over. Which brings us back to the debate of castrating, if he still had his 'equipment' it may be a different story!
Gamba would easily have dominated the females if he was intact. He is known for being an intelligent and ambitious chimp, so it's not for lack of trying. Being castrated is a huge handicap for a male chimp. It's not a coincidence that Paco and Ben were hugely successful in the bachelor group, especially compared to their castrated counterparts who were introduced to the group at a similar time (eg. Seamus, Carli, Jimmy).
Indeed. Testosterone plays a big part in the ability of a male to take charge of a group and by castrating some and not all the park is essentially deciding which animals rule the groups, which I think is wrong to some extent as I believe the animals should establish their hierarchy themselves without human interference. It has become clear that the intact animals have had better success in establishing high ranks in the groups, as in the case of Paco and Ben. Ben, in particular, was an interesting case in that despite having been the youngest he still grew as big as the oldest male, and this undoubtedly raised his rank which farther exemplifies my point that hormones are important, castration affects the animal's social rank and should not be done. I think its unfair that some males are denied their 'equipment' while others enjoy the benefits of theirs.
I think that’s different because there isn’t the obvious physical change, and because the female hierarchy is not nearly as intense as the male one. Castration in this case is not about preventing breeding, but reducing male behaviour. In Australia, North America and African sanctuaries, it is not recommend. Vasectomies are undertaken as they don’t impact hormones in the same way. I think female contraception needs to be considered within the dynamics of chimp groups too- having infants can improve a female’s social standing, and having oestrus swellings can make a female more popular with her male groupmates. The use of the pill doesn’t prevent these swellings, but implants usually do. In a case like MW, where all females are contracepted, I can’t see it making an impact aside from the lack of births.
It certainly is, especially when you consider that in some wild populations, females have few close relationships outside of their family line. I strongly believe that it's better for chimpanzees in human care to be allowed to reproduce (in a managed way of course), but this isn't ideal when the facility exists predominantly as a rescue centre/sanctuary. Many sanctuaries don't believe in bringing more chimpanzees into captivity either... so it can come down to an animal rights (opposed to captivity) vs. animal welfare (improving quality of life in captivity). Obviously there are no 'right' answers because there is so much to be considered.
I believe they initially used the implants under the skin, and since they were pulled out during overzealous grooming the park implemented the use of inter-uterine contraceptive devices (IUCD) but these still were not that effective (actually made some of the females ill as in the case of poor Olympia) so they are now using human contraceptive pills which they administer under the disguise of a delicious fruit drink! Are they given to the females everyday?...because that would be a time-consuming task?
In terms of the females being on birth control that seems sensible in trying to save space and funding for more (although no new chimp has arrived since 2011) and in any case this does not affect the dynamics much. Some methods of contraception don't prevent the usual oestrus swelling but ensure that no conception happens. This means that the female's natural behaviour still shows and with it the normal dynamics between the sexes in a chimp group. But castrating the males means their behaviour is completely altered unlike the females who still have their hormone-induced behaviours. To sum up, if the females are on birth control then there is no need to castrate the males, which farther emphasizes the theory that the act of castrating the males is less about preventing pregnancies and more about altering male behaviour to essentially make them 'calm' and 'easy to manage', which I personally think is wrong as chimps should be allowed to behave as they would in the wild
It's not a 'theory'. Castration is used as a management tool at Monkey World to reduce male aggression; I have been told this by MW both via email enquiry and by a keeper in person. If it were about reproduction, all individuals would have been altered rather than the vast majority.
There's no doubt it does affect their natural behaviour, but they are not at a social disadvantage if no other females are reproducing either. If the most important relationships females have is with their offspring, it is obviously going to create a situation far removed from that.
I think people are being overly critical of the centre tbh. Firstly, before anything else, it's a rescue centre. A limited capacity means breeding chimps reduces their ability to take in more animals. It's already been seen with the marmosets (they've had to reject a lot and only accept the most dire cases).
Secondly, by castrating males you are reducing the chance of unwanted offspring which would most likely have to be hand-reared as the majority of the females at the park (who only got pregnant as their birth control failed) have rejected their babies at birth. The apes are also not known to be pure and, for nearly all of them, it is not known what subspecies they are. So the individuals at the park aren't really suitable for any breeding programmes.
Thirdly, the majority of the chimps are getting older so breeding, younger chimpanzees is not practical and could raise stress levels in the groups, they've stated that they don't mind breeding once every 10 years or so to help encourage natural behaviour, but having many young chimps around the place is not in the interest of aging chimps, many with psychological problems.
Lastly, reduced aggression from castration is almost a must as it helps the groups stay stable and prevents outcasts and leadership challenges (something which nearly toppled Bruce's leadership a few years back). With only four groups to chose from, any group dynamic shifts causes major upsets in multiple groups as primate have to be shifted all over the place. For example, should Paco have been moved into Paddy's group, this could result in less support for the alpha (Bruce) in that group and cause issues in that group. If Bruce was ousted then there would be two 'groupless' males. Also, Paco was previously ousted from Paddy's group and, should the group reject him again, I wouldn't want to be the person trying to break up that fight. That's why I believe allowing an older female in the group to take over is much more in the groups interest rather than forcing a younger male into an already well establish, 'stuck in their ways' group...
Secondly, by castrating males you are reducing the chance of unwanted offspring which would most likely have to be hand-reared as the majority of the females at the park (who only got pregnant as their birth control failed) have rejected their babies at birth. The apes are also not known to be pure and, for nearly all of them, it is not known what subspecies they are. So the individuals at the park aren't really suitable for any breeding programmes.
Thirdly, the majority of the chimps are getting older so breeding, younger chimpanzees is not practical and could raise stress levels in the groups, they've stated that they don't mind breeding once every 10 years or so to help encourage natural behaviour, but having many young chimps around the place is not in the interest of aging chimps, many with psychological problems.
Lastly, reduced aggression from castration is almost a must as it helps the groups stay stable and prevents outcasts and leadership challenges (something which nearly toppled Bruce's leadership a few years back). With only four groups to chose from, any group dynamic shifts causes major upsets in multiple groups as primate have to be shifted all over the place. For example, should Paco have been moved into Paddy's group, this could result in less support for the alpha (Bruce) in that group and cause issues in that group. If Bruce was ousted then there would be two 'groupless' males. Also, Paco was previously ousted from Paddy's group and, should the group reject him again, I wouldn't want to be the person trying to break up that fight. That's why I believe allowing an older female in the group to take over is much more in the groups interest rather than forcing a younger male into an already well establish, 'stuck in their ways' group...
I didn't think anyone was suggesting forcing anyone into Paddy's group. There is potential that a carefully planned introduction might be considered, but only if it appeared the group was unstable without a male on top- which doesn't appear to be the case.
Castration is not commonplace in most facilities caring for large numbers of chimps, and it is not necessary. If preventing breeding is the issue, vasectomies are used. I know of no other rescue centre that castrates chimpanzees (I'd be interested in hearing of any). Breeding is a separate issue.
I don't believe I am overly critical of the choice to castrate. It is not the 'done thing' in rescue centres or reputable zoos in most of the world, at least not in recent years. I can see the benefits (reduced aggression- and potentially reduced risk of heart problems that seem so common in intact males?), but I don't agree with the decision, nor does every member of staff at MW. I think it is also worth remembering that castration requires the use of anaesthesia, which is always risky, and many facilities -including Monkey World- have lost chimpanzees when anaesthised in situations that could have been avoided. My feelings on the matter certainly don't detract from my gratitude for their rescue work.
Castration is not commonplace in most facilities caring for large numbers of chimps, and it is not necessary. If preventing breeding is the issue, vasectomies are used. I know of no other rescue centre that castrates chimpanzees (I'd be interested in hearing of any). Breeding is a separate issue.
I don't believe I am overly critical of the choice to castrate. It is not the 'done thing' in rescue centres or reputable zoos in most of the world, at least not in recent years. I can see the benefits (reduced aggression- and potentially reduced risk of heart problems that seem so common in intact males?), but I don't agree with the decision, nor does every member of staff at MW. I think it is also worth remembering that castration requires the use of anaesthesia, which is always risky, and many facilities -including Monkey World- have lost chimpanzees when anaesthised in situations that could have been avoided. My feelings on the matter certainly don't detract from my gratitude for their rescue work.