Wales Ape & Monkey Sanctuary WAMS and Bili the Bonobo

littleRedPanda said:
I found this quite saddening from a A conversation with zoo biologist Andreas Haeser-Kalthoff

Would Bili have to endure the aggressions in nature?
Yes, says the biologist. Even in the wild with far-reaching escape possibility Bili would not leave his group. He would seek distance, which tries to allow the nursing team through the time-outs. Then he would come back and endure the beatings. Bonobos die without a group.
Click to expand...

The difference being perhaps, that in a wild group, a strange, motherless, handraised animal that hasn't grown up in the group would not be a member in the first place. Its very much a product of captive life.

I think in Bili's case 'fission-fusion' at Wuppertal is the most likely way of improving his situation but it might mean like Twycross that any success means they are left with two groups rather than a single one, and not the housing to cope with that.
 
Pertinax said:
The difference being perhaps, that in a wild group, a strange, motherless, handraised animal that hasn't grown up in the group would not be a member in the first place. Its very much a product of captive life.

I think in Bili's case 'fission-fusion' at Wuppertal is the most likely way of improving his situation but it might mean like Twycross that any success means they are left with two groups rather than a single one, and not the housing to cope with that.
Click to expand...

Some interesting discussion here. Its hard to be completely balanced and unbiased, but judging by the extent of the injuries that Bili has suffered and the fact that, as you say, his situation is not really comparable to an 'in the wild' scenario, I find it difficult to accept that he is better off staying where he is. It sounds like Bili has made at least one friend in the group at Wuppertal, and perhaps the ideal situation would be for them to form the basis of a small new group, with potential to add other animals (carefully chosen for their temprament) over time.

The Wales sanctuary have my admiration to helping animals when seemingly nobody else cares, and I applaud them for trying their best. I'm sure they know full well what needs improving but without money it is hard to do it - and at least by offering animals a home they have the chance to improve conditions in the future, something no longer possible if they're put down! Maybe they wouldn't be the best place to take Bili, but if no-one else will then it would probably be better than nothing. I wonder if Yorkshire Wildlife Park could be interested, given their great track record with rescue animals? It might be an opportunity to re-house some of the bonobos from Twycross as well, which clearly is needed.
 
Sand Cat said:
But judging by the extent of the injuries that Bili has suffered and the fact that, as you say, his situation is not really comparable to an 'in the wild' scenario, I find it difficult to accept that he is better off staying where he is. It sounds like Bili has made at least one friend in the group at Wuppertal, and perhaps the ideal situation would be for them to form the basis of a small new group, with potential to add other animals (carefully chosen for their temprament) over time.
Click to expand...

Apes frequently display what appear to be bad injuries during introductions, but they do heal very quickly and are more superflous, rather like cuts and scratches, than they may appear to us. Afaik Bili is currently with the old male 'Mato' whom I saw in the group at Frankfurt a long time ago, and is also the longest lived(?) male Bonobo anywhere and therefore probably very calm at his time of life. I think moving Bili yet again might just aggravate the situation, unless Wuppertal can get him into a harmonious smaller male/female group unit and then move them somewhere else.

I have some sympathy with the WAMS outlook, given they have past experiences of rescuing unwanted primates but I also think maybe they have misread the situation in this particular case. Nobody involved in this wants to 'put down' a Bonobo I am quite certain.
 
From the same reporter yesterday that originally "cited" the euthanasia option.
https://www.rga.de/rhein-wupper/debatte-bili-bonobos-sind-bisschen-hooligans-11768650.html

"When visiting our newspaper in the apes, Bili and Mato are alone in the room with a glass pane, through which the zoo visitors can watch them. Next door, the other bonobos will do gymnastics over logs and ropes. Arne Lawrenz explains that they separate the group more often: "It's the same in nature, where a single ape man would be on the fringes of the group and making friends."
The composition of the extra group change, so that a member of the group with Bili will not be ejected. It is not only with Mato, the oldest man in the group, positive contacts. Also one of the twin boys from the group had already played with Bili and the two would have gelaust. And if the females are hot, they would have nothing against closer contact. "Bonobos are a bit like hooligans," says Lawrenz, "strong in the group, but individually very nice".
 
Sand Cat said:
The Wales sanctuary have my admiration to helping animals when seemingly nobody else cares, and I applaud them for trying their best. I'm sure they know full well what needs improving but without money it is hard to do it - and at least by offering animals a home they have the chance to improve conditions in the future, something no longer possible if they're put down! Maybe they wouldn't be the best place to take Bili, but if no-one else will then it would probably be better than nothing. I wonder if Yorkshire Wildlife Park could be interested, given their great track record with rescue animals? It might be an opportunity to re-house some of the bonobos from Twycross as well, which clearly is needed.
Click to expand...

My main problem here with WAMS is that the zoo didn't ask WAMS to become involved and Wuppertal together with the EEP coordinator was already trying to solve the situation. WAMS just saw a business opportunity, even though they must have known they would never ever get this Bonobo and they must have known that they don't have the necessary experience and infrastructure anyway. But it has been great publicity for them.....
 
lintworm said:
My main problem here with WAMS is that the zoo didn't ask WAMS to become involved and Wuppertal together with the EEP coordinator was already trying to solve the situation. WAMS just saw a business opportunity, even though they must have known they would never ever get this Bonobo and they must have known that they don't have the necessary experience and infrastructure anyway. But it has been great publicity for them.....
Click to expand...

Yes, WAMS approached the whole issue in a very hostile fashion in relation to Wuppertal I think. While their supporters get enraged having believed everything they are told without question or thinking for themselves it seems...
 
They recently rescued some snow monkeys from Spain too. Surely, there are other options nearer to these case that they have gone to extraordinary lengths to involve themselves in And then they say they have no money?

I now see that the Petifor Trust subsequently paid for the 5 day trip for the snow monkeys.
 
Apparently, WAMS head "the eighth chapter" of the GAP. Meaning they join a long list of credible sanctuaries and which means they have a self proclaimed licence to "exert a much greater pressure on zoos and circuses, to give up primates from bad habitats."
Here's a list of those sanctuaries world wide.
Affiliated Sanctuaries

This really is my last post, as it's getting a bit comedic, but boring.
 
@LRP

I don't wish to sound off LRP but it appears you are "looking" for ways to think negatively about WAMS?

Whilst they may not house the best exhibits, why not go there, meet them and see how they have saved the lives of over 100 animals, from unwanted horses, ponies, meerkats, raccoons, Dogs and many many apes and primates.

All animals that without their help would be in far worse conditions or even dead.

Their hearts are huge, they make many self sacrifice's to see that animals aren't put down.

You are right that in many cases of animals they have taken in, that there are closer sanctuary's and so on WHO could have taken them, but without massive incentive (financial) they aren't interested and basically have the opinion if they are put to sleep, they are put to sleep. WAMS don't and wont operate in that way and everything they take on is pretty much on deaths door. They even rescued horses from the meat man, and also collected exotic monkeys which were due to be put down the next day.

The animals never asked for such crap lives and to be treated so poorly and viewed in people's eyes that it doesn't matter they would be PTS.

I applaud WAMS for their attitude to save what they can, at their own expense for the benefit of the animal. Pick about their exhibits all you want, but they have saved many many lives for no gain. Yet get a fraction of the support that certain so called sanctuary's get when they are in it for the money not for the animals, whilst with WAMS it's 100% about the animals.
 
I have already said I might go if I'm in the area again. I'm not writing them off completely ... they love animals the same as me and really that's all that matters.
 
littleRedPanda said:
Seems the Snow Monkeys were from a private collection in Guadarmar del Segura and were to be put down.
Click to expand...

This highlights my issue with WAMS. They seem to believe that primates shouldn't be kept in captivity because their psychological or physical needs can not be met and as a consequence they suffer. Using their own logic, when they took on the Japanese macaques they had saved them from euthanasia but replaced it with a life of suffering. That's just stupidity, it like saving bears in a bile farm that are due to be put down only to rehouse them in a bile farm. In either case if you believed the animals were suffering you would prefer euthanasia. The fact they don''t shows they don't even believe their own argument. That leaves me with only one conclusion, that the whole 'sanctuary' thing is more about their own need to validate their sad little lives in some way than any concern for suffering animals.
 
Ned said:
that the whole 'sanctuary' thing is more about their own need to validate their sad little lives in some way than any concern for suffering animals.
Click to expand...
A bit harsh, but that is probably true for some sanctuary owners (not that my life isn't particularly sad :D )
As for keeping them alive, a few years ago a friend and I got into a discussion with a vegan who on behalf of the vegan movement (in his opinion) declared that all captive animals are better off euthanized than behind any kind of barrier to freedom. But yeah, WAMS are very hypocritical
and have demonstrated many double standards through out this.
 
Yes, maybe I got a little excited towards the end but it's nothing less than I believe.
 
Zooreviewsuk said:
... Pick about their exhibits all you want, but they have saved many many lives for no gain. Yet get a fraction of the support that certain so called sanctuary's get when they are in it for the money not for the animals, whilst with WAMS it's 100% about the animals.
Click to expand...

I have not visited WAMS but what I find very frustrating is their attitude that not trying to make any kind of profit means they are somehow superior and working for some kind of higher cause. It is ridiculously naive and is a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Profit is good. It means you can provide improved enclosures / diet etc and potentially carry out more rescues. An improved visitor experience would also lead to increased support - but they prefer to knock other collections for having simple amenities like a cafe. You can be in it for both the animals AND the money... the two are not mutually exclusive.
 
littleRedPanda said:
From the same reporter yesterday that originally "cited" the euthanasia option.
https://www.rga.de/rhein-wupper/debatte-bili-bonobos-sind-bisschen-hooligans-11768650.html

"When visiting our newspaper in the apes, Bili and Mato are alone in the room with a glass pane, through which the zoo visitors can watch them. Next door, the other bonobos will do gymnastics over logs and ropes. Arne Lawrenz explains that they separate the group more often: "It's the same in nature, where a single ape man would be on the fringes of the group and making friends."
The composition of the extra group change, so that a member of the group with Bili will not be ejected. It is not only with Mato, the oldest man in the group, positive contacts. Also one of the twin boys from the group had already played with Bili and the two would have gelaust. And if the females are hot, they would have nothing against closer contact. "Bonobos are a bit like hooligans," says Lawrenz, "strong in the group, but individually very nice".
Click to expand...

This sounds a lot more encouraging! I would love to see Bili integrated in this group and be happy. I'd like to think that all parties would keep a close eye on the situation and then act accordingly in the best interests of this individual animal.

Its probably naive, but I wish zoos and sanctuaries would work together rather than against each other. They all keep captive animals, they all (well most of them) love and care for these animals, surely we are all on the same side here? It saddens me that sometimes conservation seems to be at the expense of individual animals' welfare. I keep mentioning Yorkshire Wildlife Park, but I love the fact they've rescued animals from poor conditions like the lions and bears, but also engage in breeding programmes for Amur leopards and tigers etc. That's brilliant to me and what I wish more places would aspire to do.
 
Zia said:
I have not visited WAMS but what I find very frustrating is their attitude that not trying to make any kind of profit means they are somehow superior and working for some kind of higher cause. It is ridiculously naive and is a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Profit is good. It means you can provide improved enclosures / diet etc and potentially carry out more rescues. An improved visitor experience would also lead to increased support - but they prefer to knock other collections for having simple amenities like a cafe. You can be in it for both the animals AND the money... the two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I think they would love to make some sort of profit but when you get only 20,000 visitors a year that's increasingly difficult and they do have some catering facilities there, in that you can get hot or cold drinks and they sell biscuits, cakes and crisps, but I would imagine if they had a full cafe the wastage would not make it cost effective.
 
It's worth noting that Monkey Haven on the Isle of Wight is also a sanctuary for surplus and/or rescue primates, and not only reaches a much higher standard of exhibit quality but also does provide some rather nice visitor amenities..... so it isn't an either/or situation where a sanctuary gets a free pass in these matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zia
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top