An MP is calling for a ban on keeping primates as pets after seeing the condition of rescued animals.

South East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray is set to introduce a Ten Minute Rule motion in the Commons on 18 January calling for a ban.

Mrs Murray said she visited the Wild Futures Monkey Sanctuary, near Looe, before she was elected in 2010 and was shocked to see the former pets.

The government brought in a code of practice for primate keepers in 2010.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the animals were also covered by Animal Welfare Act and some species were licensed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act (DWAA).

However, Conservative MP Mrs Murray said she was backing the RSPCA and other animal groups who say primates’ needs are too complex for them to be pets and that the regulation is not working.

She praised the work of the sanctuary, which is now in her consistency.

“Some of the primates there had been pets and had come from various places in Europe. Many had been given unsuitable diets and led them to develop things like diabetes,” she said.

After visiting the sanctuary, the MP said she had “adopted” a Barbary macaque which had previously appeared in a circus.

Mrs Murray added it was charities and trusts who had to “pick up the burden” after primates were not cared for properly.

She said if her moves for a bill did not progress further, she would still push for law changes under the Animal Welfare Act to give primates greater protection.

In celebration of their 50th Anniversary, the World Wide Fund for Nature has released a short film that they hope might inspire a new generation to care about conservation. Written by Stephen Poliakoff and directed by the BAFTA winning Charles Sturridge, the seven minute film – Astonish Me – stars Bill Nighy and Gemma Arterton and is set in London’s Natural History Museum. Following a school boy around as he gets locked in after hours, we find a mysterious looking Nighy in a darkened basement room. The boy then gets taken on a multimedia tour of new species only just discovered using still images and mobile phone videos to add intrigue. A bit Night at the Museum perhaps, but is it what conservation needs in order to capture the imagination of kids – or adults for that matter – who might otherwise not care? WWF describe it as “a magical tale of adventure and discovery”. Cheesy? Undoubtedly. Will it work? It’s got to be worth a shot.

Showing in Odean cinemas, or watch it here.

Harvard / Duke studies published today indicate that PASA rehab strategies help orphaned apes to recover psychologically from bushmeat traumas and could be a reason that success rates are so high in PASA reintroductions. To read, visit: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017147

The Great Primate Handshake visits and supports a number of PASA sanctuaries. Learn more about their work on our YouTube channel here.

Abstracts from the PLoS article:

Facilities across Africa care for apes orphaned by the trade for “bushmeat.” These facilities, called sanctuaries, provide housing for apes such as bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) who have been illegally taken from the wild and sold as pets. Although these circumstances are undoubtedly stressful for the apes, most individuals arrive at the sanctuaries as infants and are subsequently provided with rich physical and social environments that can facilitate the expression of species-typical behaviors.

We tested whether bonobo and chimpanzee orphans living in sanctuaries show any behavioral, physiological, or cognitive abnormalities relative to other individuals in captivity as a result of the early-life stress they experience. Orphans showed lower levels of aberrant behaviors, similar levels of average cortisol, and highly similar performances on a broad battery of cognitive tests in comparisons with individuals of the same species who were either living at a zoo or were reared by their mothers at the sanctuaries.

Taken together, these results support the rehabilitation strategy used by sanctuaries in the Pan-African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) and suggest that the orphans we examined did not show long-term signs of stress as a result of their capture. Our findings also show that sanctuary apes are as psychologically healthy as apes in other captive settings and thus represent a valuable resource for non-invasive research.

Sir Richard Branson is to import lemurs to the Caribbean, where they will live wild in the forest on his islands.

Of intense debate at the moment is Sir Richard Branson’s plans to introduce lemurs (native to Madagascar) to a Caribbean island. Sparking a number of  twitter conversations across the primate community (both supporting and dismissing the plans), we thought we would open up a debate and post any updates we encounter to monitor the eventual outcome and to explore the debates and questions raised.

Updates 02/05/11

The following articles suggest that plans are set to continue as normal.

Source: http://www.greenantilles.com

Branson says island may save lemurs and in this follow-up/response, Sir Richard’s possible folly.

And from Reuters, Richard Branson gets flak for lemur relocation plan.

The BBC’s coverage continues below:

Sir Richard Branson is to import lemurs to the Caribbean, where they will live wild in the forest on his islands. The project has alarmed conservation scientists, who point out that many previous species introductions have proved disastrous to native wildlife. But Sir Richard’s team maintains that both the lemurs, which will come from zoos, and native animals will be fine.

Introducing species found on one continent into another for conservation purposes is virtually unprecedented. Lemurs are found only on the African island of Madagascar and many species are threatened, largely because of deforestation. The threat has grown worse since the toppling of President Marc Ravalomanana’s government two years ago, which allowed illegal logging to flourish.

“We’ve been helping to try and preserve lemurs, and sadly in Madagascar because of the government being overthrown the space for lemurs is getting less and less,” Sir Richard told BBC News from his Caribbean property.

“Here on Moskito Island we’ve got a beautiful rainforest – we brought in experts from South Africa, and they say it would be an absolutely perfect place where lemurs can be protected and breed.”

Ring-tailed and red ruffed lemurs are two of the species in the plan. Both are on the Red List of Threatened Species. Moskito (also spelled Mosquito) Island is one of two that Sir Richard owns in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Several luxury houses, including one for the boss of the Virgin business empire himself, are being built on it.

His other island is Necker, home to an eco-tourism resort where a stay is priced at around $2,000 (£1,200) per day. The plan has aroused a lot if interest locally, with the bulletin boards of BVI news websites buzzing with comments for and against, and politicians locking horns.

And it concerned conservation scientists contacted by BBC News.

“Maybe [Sir Richard] has got some people to say it is alright – but what else lives on the island, and how might they be affected?” asked Simon Stuart, chair of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC).

Continue reading the article on the BBC’s website here

 Another approach is conserving an umbrella species; one that requires a large range and therefore protecting that, shields a large area where other animals live. Many feel it is vital for conservationists to promote these types of conservation as they are the most beneficial to an entire ecosystem.

 Conserving a flagship species can often be very expensive, which in impoverished areas can be a big problem. The actual identification of an animal whose existence benefits other organisms can also be difficult to determine. Any actions which are taken concerning an ecosystem are going to have an affect.

 The choice of these flagship species can often be an animal which strikes an emotional chord with the general public. It is much easier to raise money through charity by using a mammal such as the gorilla as its poster animal. This may explain why much of the world’s amphibians are in danger of extinction. Would, an emotionless approach prove fairer and less biased to a species that gather little emotional sentiment?

Primates were chosen above others as test subjects for space exploration, as their close genetics and morphological similarities made them a perfect choice. The first primate in space was a Rhesus monkey called Albert II. This links closely to modern day usage of animal within scientific and cosmetic research. It is openly accepted by a large numbers of people that usage within cosmetics is totally wrong. A recent poll claimed that only 10% of Briton’s who took part thought animal testing for cosmetics was acceptable.

[http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/changing-british-attitudes-animal-testing.html].

The testing performed within scientific and medical research is less clean cut. Could it be justified if the drugs tested on animals could save millions of human lives? Cancer or HIV treatments are known to be tested on animals and if this practice could lead to real development of the drugs and possible cures, is it ok? Or should all medical testing only be performed upon fellow humans? An article published in the British newspaper the telegraph in 2009, stated that MP’s in the UK were putting forward plans to investigate human alternatives to animal testing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4339504/Human-alternatives-to-animal-testing-should-be-investigated-MPs-say.html.

It puts forward the question, what give Humans the right to use animals in situations which cause immense suffering and possible death. Can the progression of medicine justify this practice?

 http://www.captiveanimals.org/zoos/southport.htm

 Another issue which has caused major controversy is the location of many of these places. Should animals which aren’t native to a country or even a continent, be found in sanctuaries and zoos? Although there are major differences between zoo’s and sanctuaries, the most obvious one being a sanctuary is home for animal where may have no where else to go.  

 Arguments for include a lack of finance or safe environment, due to situations such as deforestation, bush meat or war, within their native countries.

Many people who advocate the presence of these animals within non-native countries, say it is important for the long-term survival of these species, especially ones that are currently endangered.

 Arguments against this issue include claims it is important that the animal’s stay within the home range. It is  believed there is no hope for conservation of these species if the people who they share the land with, don’t come into contact with them. The issue remains that sometimes it is just impossible for this to occur. Improvements in infrastructure, political stability or attitudes may see the chance of the animals returning to these areas significantly increased.

Whether an animal can truly live naturally without being in its habitat is also an issue that is important to this topic. How can an Elephant or Tiger really live happily within captivity? Such animals are thousands of miles from natural habitats, and the areas they find themselves in, bare little or no resemblance to where they should be found. In the case of zoos, could it be classed as cruelty to put an organisms like such in a habitat it doesn’t understand and probably finds uncomfortable to live in. Large animals like the Elephants mentioned are the organisms which suffer the most from living in such establishments. These animals naturally migrate and have large home ranges, so to put them in an enclosure is unnatural. It could be said that animals bred in captivity will lack some of these natural instincts and therefore be more suited to this limited lifestyle? Sanctuaries could be classed as a different matter as most the animal housed in these collections, have no where else to go.  

Animals especially from Africa and Asia do not have the security or the financial backing to prosper in their natural habitats. Whilst this continues the amounts of animals being found in zoos and sanctuaries will stay constant. This then points to the importance of improving the countries in which they animal should be found.

The Primate Handshake will be awarded £5000 towards its primate conservation expeditions and projects across Africa. With such a fantastic award fund, both Directors are thankful to the Handshake’s supporters and are looking forward to the new possibilities ahead thanks to the boost in funds.

—

It is with great delight to annouce that the Primate Handshake’s two Directors (Alasdair Davies & Laurence Hall) have been nominated to receive a Digtal Hero award 2010, sponsored by Talk Talk and the Daily Mirror. This exciting award is presented to outstanding individuals, working within UK community groups or charities, who are using the power of digital technology to implement bright ideas which bring about positive social change.

Vote for Alasdair and Laurence now

Having led the last three year’s Great Primate Handshake Expeditions to South Africa, Kenya and Uganda, both Alasdair and Laurence are delighted to have been nominated. By directing and producing numerous short digital videos together with expedition volunteers and African local communities, and by hosting live internet link-ups with remote communities in Kenya and school children in Wales, their nomination supports the Great Primate Handshake’s commitment to conservation and it’s mission in utilizing digital media to raise awareness of primate conservation activites.

The winning nominated heros from 12 regions across the UK will receive a £5,000 grant to assit their work, with the overall winManer winning an amazing £10,000 grant!

You can vote for the Alasdair and Laurence to win a Digital Hero award here.

Your vote will ensure that the Great Primate Handshake does even more to raise awareness of threatened and endangered primates by sharing digital media skills with local communities.

More information about the Digital Hero award 2010 can be found here.

 Most of the world biodiversity hotspots are found within the third world. Poverty is usually rife in these areas and this breeds corruption. This is also a major problem populations have to face. The extreme poverty encourages people to take the rules into their own hands and sometimes these misguided people find themselves in positions of power.

 In countries with dictatorships such as Zimbabwe and Somalia, conservation efforts and animal rights issues are totally neglected. During times of war in central Africa, when corruption was everywhere, Gorillas were slaughtered in massive numbers. Civil war in Rwanda and the Congo encouraged the bush meat trade and logging, which in turn decimated Gorilla populations throughout these lands. In countries with more stable political situations, there tends to be much healthier conservation and animal right policies. In countries with non existent governments, law and order is usually in tatters. This lack of policing means that an anything goes attitude develops and sometime this leads to destruction of habitats and persecution of certain species.

The most successful conservation efforts are performed in countries with stable governments who act for the good of the people and land. Although post election violence marred the recent political history of Kenya, their mostly health political situation over the last 30 years has resulted in a competent conservation attitude. Especially when compared to other African countries. South Africa is the role model for most of Africa when it comes to conservation. Much of the country’s revenue is produced through this industry. Has the stable situation since the end of apartheid has encouraged this growth?

At first glance, eco-tourism initiatives that allow people to get close to endangered species seem like a brilliant way of dealing with several of conservation’s significant problems; raising awareness and increasing people’s passion for conservation, boosting local economies, and bringing money in to help pay to conserve not only the species in question, but others in the same ecosystem. Bwindi, Uganda is one area which has particularly benefited from a gorilla tourism program, with the need for trackers and rangers creating employment, and a market for gift shops and cultural experiences enabling local communities to gain from tourist presence.

However, recent research is beginning to reveal that there are actually some serious detrimental effects on the animals involved in some of eco-tourism’s most successful projects. In May 2010, The Guardian reported that researchers in the Central African Republic had found that gorillas undergo dangerous levels of stress when exposed to tourists at close quarters.

Observing a group of gorillas as tourists, scientists and local trackers got close to them, the researchers noticed that the gorillas’ feeding behaviour changed as more humans joined the group; they were less able to focus on the task at hand, instead being disturbed by the human activity and spending time watching them. The silverback male in the group also issued some warning barks when he felt that people were getting too close to him and his group – a very clear sign that he was uncomfortable with this intrusion.

As well as the pyschological effects of eco-tourism on gorillas, the potential for disease transmission is a serious concern for conservationists. Take the mountain gorilla as an example: there are only around 720 left in the world, and something as seemingly harmless as a common cold, transmitted by a tourist sneezing near a group, could easily wipe out an entire family or more. Currently, humans must only remain seven metres away from the gorillas they’re watching, but it is now being proposed that this is increased to 18 metres, though this would be hard to maintain and enforce in dense rainforest.

It is not only gorillas that are at risk from eco-tourism. It was announced in May this year that India is to ban tiger tourism in an attempt to save its estimated 800 remaining Bengal tigers from exctinction in the wild. It is thought that the constant stream of tourists through India’s relatively small reserves scares away tigers’ prey, prevents them from following their usual migratory routes, and destroys the habitat in which they would normally hunt, as lodges and hotels appear in huge numbers to cater for the tourist market. Another concern is that the focus on tigers distracts from the desperate situation of much of India’s other wildlife, which is left to languish as tourists, hellbent on getting that impressive tiger photo, drive right past it. On the other hand , some argue that an obvious tourist presence acts as a deterrent to poachers and that individual tourists or tour guides have sometimes acted as a valuable warning system, noticing corruption within reserve systems, or blowing the whistle on signs of poaching. In addition to this, tiger tourism gives forest habitats an economic value to local populations; take this away and the replacement could be something incredibly destructive, like logging or agriculture.

Forgetting about individual species for a moment, it is believed by some that the entire wildlife tourism industry is actually doing more harm than good. Rosaleen Duffy, an expert in international politics and wildlife conservation management, has, over 15 years of research, found that tourist “paradise” resorts are often made by destroying natural features, and that local residents are forced to give up age-old ways of life in order to gain employment through tourism.

What do you think? Would you feel comfortable going on a gorilla or tiger safari, knowing that the effects of this may not be entirely positive? Do you feel that the benefits still outweigh the costs? As tourists, do we have a responsibility to unofficially regulate the industry by asking difficult questions and demanding the highest level of integrity from tour operators, or is it all someone else’s responsibility? We look forward to hearing your views on this delicate issue.