Wales Ape & Monkey Sanctuary WAMS and Bili the Bonobo

Zooreviewsuk said:
It read like a dig to me personally.

I thought their update was fair. They may not be the best place to take the animal in question, but they are at least making themselves available. I dread to think what the anti zoo world will go like should the animal be attacked and killed at his current home, which is a concern to many. The anti's would have a field day if this happened, given the offers that have been made to the zoo, by a sanctuary.
Click to expand...
Bili appears to be integrating in his current setting. WAMS would not be able to accommodate him given their lack of other members of this extremely social species.
 
Sand Cat said:
Interesting article - I thought it seemed pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...
Zooreviewsuk said:
I thought their update was fair. They may not be the best place to take the animal in question, but they are at least making themselves available. I dread to think what the anti zoo world will go like should the animal be attacked and killed at his current home, which is a concern to many. The anti's would have a field day if this happened, given the offers that have been made to the zoo, by a sanctuary.
Click to expand...
Really? I read the piece and it is just self-serving PR. Especially when they write stuff like this: "At WAMS, he - like our other animals - would become part of our extended family, who live here in freedom and friendship, because we love them."
 
I very much doubt there is any danger for Bili at Wuppertal now. They are introducing him to others in the group on a more individual basis, and he already has the support of a companion, old male Mato. Remove the united power of the larger grouping and he's no longer the victim, and immediately in a stronger position. If he is able to gain enough allies among the others by this process, and so alter the dynamic permanently, then its possible they can reunite them altogether as a harmonious group given time. Remains to be seen.
 
Chlidonias said:
Really? I read the piece and it is just self-serving PR. Especially when they write stuff like this: "At WAMS, he - like our other animals - would become part of our extended family, who live here in freedom and friendship, because we love them."
Click to expand...
I’d totally agree with this analysis. The piece is nauseating piffle, which - without any subtlety at all - seeks to defame Wuppertal Zoo, while promoting the questionable expertise of the WAMS. Its anthropomorphic discussion of this Bonobo is toe-curlingly extreme; the irony of this dump of a “sanctuary” having the chutzpah to criticise Wuppertal is clear.

And as for the earlier discussion: animal lover? Not me. I’m fascinated by animals, I respect them, I abhor cruelty to them, I very much appreciate the opportunity to spend time with them. But, for me, the term “animal lover” suggests just this sort of rubbish, propagated by this tatty little “sanctuary”.
 
Chlidonias said:
Really? I read the piece and it is just self-serving PR. Especially when they write stuff like this: "At WAMS, he - like our other animals - would become part of our extended family, who live here in freedom and friendship, because we love them."
Click to expand...
Imagine the hogey bogey crap talk this really is and how scandalous to say the least.

Also a tad bit presumptuous and arrogant on the part of WAMS to even pretend that the EAZA/EEP would bow to this unprofessional and unscientific thought line on management and husbandry in a highly social primate species and say ... okay we will transfer a lone bonobo male to you.

At the best of times integration of a new member into an existing bonobo group will take months at the very least.

Suffice to say: highly unprofessional attitude and displaying an ignorance of basic captive husbandry and animal biology concepts that is beyond the pale. It really infuriates me that some newspapers without any adoo adopt this crap over and above well-thought out and good animal husbandry practice per se.
 
sooty mangabey said:
animal lover? Not me. I’m fascinated by animals, I respect them, I abhor cruelty to them, I very much appreciate the opportunity to spend time with them. But, for me, the term “animal lover” suggests just this sort of rubbish, propagated by this tatty little “sanctuary”.
Click to expand...

My sentiments also. I once heard it said UK is a nation of animal lovers, Germany one of animal keepers. There are fundamental differences between the two. The people who lead around overweight, under-exercised dogs are 'animal lovers' too...
 
There are many point in the WAMS 'news' article that I find unreasonable, but I wont dwell on them all here. I would like to ask about a couple though, as I think they relate to the zoo community in general.


"Some weeks ago, Wales Ape and Monkey Sanctuary was asked by various concerned animal welfare activists if we could, and would be prepared to, provide a home – a sanctuary – for Bili, after his distress and suffering was made public. No-one else has apparently responded to this plea for help, but as the GAP Sanctuary Europe we had, and have, a responsibility to respond to the call."

So, what is it about being GAP Europe gives them the power to turn up at a zoo without prior direct contact, with two vans for transporting animals the zoo does not wish to relinquish? WAMS hadn't actually contacted the zoo directly to arrange a meeting and by coincidence, timed their appearance with a 'large' protest from animal rights groups at the zoo. I hadn't heard of the Great Ape Project prior to the Bili story, but see that they are simply a "pressure group" seeking the release from captivity of all great apes world wide. Colin Goldner, who WAMS referred to as a "primate expert" on the radio is a psychologist and "writer" with a deep interest in great apes and was present with WAMS representatives at the unofficial meeting at the zoo.
As a sanctuary, WAMS can be praised for taking in the animals they have and saving them from a definite early death in many cases, albeit keeping them in captivity. But do they and GAP have the power and authority to weigh in to cases such as Bili's when they are obviously ignorant of, or against the practices of zoos?



"We, as a registered charity, have a moral obligation to offer help if we can to any captive primate in danger. It is written into our articles."

I have no idea what is involved in registering as a charity, so could someone enlighten me on what an "article" is? Do they give them authority to chase after any primate who are deemed threatened by a anti zoo groups across Europe?


Again, these are not digs, but questions that I feel relate to the interests of people who join a zoo enthusiasts forum, be they "animal lovers" or not.
 
littleRedPanda said:
But do they and GAP have the power and authority to weigh in to cases such as Bili's when they are obviously ignorant of, or against the practices of zoos?
Click to expand...
Simple answer - no, they do not have any power.

littleRedPanda said:
"We, as a registered charity, have a moral obligation to offer help if we can to any captive primate in danger. It is written into our articles."

I have no idea what is involved in registering as a charity, so could someone enlighten me on what an "article" is? Do they give them authority to chase after any primate who are deemed threatened by a anti zoo groups across Europe?
Click to expand...
I don't think they are referring here to charities in general, even animal-based charities. They are referring, I think, to their own set of "rules" (although I looked at their website and there doesn't seem to be any statements of such a nature). But, again, it does not give them any authority. Even if it was something written into the laws around animal charities that they had to accept animals, which would never be the case, that still wouldn't give them any power over other organisations.
 
@Chlidonias so it's just like a company charter really - "articles of incorporation" ? This is more of an American term I think.

A "mission statement" is what I'm familiar with, but couldn't remember the term.
 
Last edited:
littleRedPanda said:
@Chlidonias so it's just like a company charter really - "articles of incorporation" ? This is more of an American term I think.

A "mission statement" is what I'm familiar with, but couldn't remember the term.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a mission statement is what it would be called (I couldn't remember that either!); I think that is what they are referring to in the passage you quoted.
 
Chlidonias said:
Yeah, a mission statement is what it would be called (I couldn't remember that either!); I think that is what they are referring to in the passage you quoted.
Click to expand...
While I was trying to remember it, I had the Wonder Stuff song Mission Drive going through my head too, but it didn't click until I wiki'd "articles of incorporation" :D
 
littleRedPanda said:
@Chlidonias so it's just like a company charter really - "articles of incorporation" ? This is more of an American term I think.

A "mission statement" is what I'm familiar with, but couldn't remember the term.
Click to expand...

If you are a registered charity in the UK you have to have 'charitable aims', essentially mission statements as you say, that explain why you are a public good. In theory every action you take as a charity has to be in accordance with one or more of your aims. If not then you would potentially threaten your charitable status. These aims do not give you any external power whatsoever, as far as I know. I also don't really see why those aims would oblige a charity of limited means to undertake any particular action; to write them in such a way, if it were even possible to do so, would be an act of folly.
(It's been a few years since I was around this topic, so my grasp on the vocabulary might be a little rusty)
 
FunkyGibbon said:
If you are a registered charity in the UK you have to have 'charitable aims', essentially mission statements as you say, that explain why you are a public good. In theory every action you take as a charity has to be in accordance with one or more of your aims. If not then you would potentially threaten your charitable status. These aims do not give you any external power whatsoever, as far as I know. I also don't really see why those aims would oblige a charity of limited means to undertake any particular action; to write them in such a way, if it were even possible to do so, would be an act of folly.
(It's been a few years since I was around this topic, so my grasp on the vocabulary might be a little rusty)
Click to expand...

That is pretty much the situation (and I write as a current charity trustee). I would prefer "aims and objectives" to "mission statement" but perhaps that's just my age!

WAMS may well have things like "to campaign for the welfare of captive and/or abused primates / to maintain facilities to house captive and/or abused primates" written into their charitable aims. It means that their charitable income can be, and should only be, spent on such things. It does not oblige them to pursue any particular case and it certainly doesn't give them any powers or rights to interfere with the legitimate activities of others.
 
Thanks @FunkyGibbon @Chlidonias and @SHAVINGTONZOO for clearing that up. As much as animal rights campaigners annoy me and my friends for trotting out the same 'facts' it is nothing in comparison to what WAMS have come out with during this campaign. Thankfully, you have put our minds at rest about the 'power' they have inherited by joining GAP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top