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

The Great Primate Handshake currently use the older XO model to explore ways in which educational materials can be distrubuted to schools and students using XO laptops across Africa. We have experienced the advantages of using XO laptops in the field, as well as the disadvantages, so it was with delight to see that some of the existing limitations have now been overcome.

The improvements:

The Hand Crank - The once trailed, but deemed unsuccessful, “Hand Crank” was designed to allow students to crank up their laptop, producing enough power for a typical lesson. Although in principle the device should have worked, it was found to have been to clumsy and inefficient, resulting in several hours of cranking for perhaps an hours use of the laptop. With the change from AMD processors, to Marvell processors, the laptop now uses 2 – 3 watts of power instead of 4. This dramatic power reduction, combined with an improved crank, should result in a 2 hour crank achieving 7 hours worth of use. A very necessary requirement for children using the laptop in areas devoid of power.

The Cost – Thanks both to the lowering cost of hardware since the XO’s initial release, coupled with the change of processor, the XO laptop should now be available for $165 (£106). This is still not the initial “$100 Laptop” (the original laptop’s desired cost) but is an improvement on the path to a sub-$100 machine. As a comparison, the original XO laptop was closer to $250 when launched if purchased by individuals or organisations.

For more information view the BBC’s coverage here

White rhinos in Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Kenya.

In May 2010, a British conservation charity, Save The Rhino, hit the headlines after accepting donations from Safari Club International, a company that organises trophy hunting expeditions.   In its defence, Save The Rhino said it has to look at all the different ways of raising money for the conservation of rhinos, and when you consider the fact that it has received £32,000 from Safari Club International to date, an amount which it would have struggled to receive from any other source, it is possible to sympathise with their position.

Despite the poor conservation status of both the black and white rhino in South Africa and Namibia (black rhinos are critically endangered and white rhinos are near threatened), laws passed in 2004 allow hunters to pay £170,000 each to kill up to 10 black rhinos per year and allow the hunting of white rhinos in South Africa at a cost of £12,000 each.

One could argue that, with the animals  already threatened by poachers, it would be better to ban hunting and concentrate on eco-tourism to fund rhino conservation, but it seems that simply watching rhinos is not as big a draw as it should be, and it certainly doesn’t come with as high a price tag as hunting.   Is it okay, therefore, to compromise by sacrificing a few rhinos for the greater good of the species?  If the future success of rhinos can be safeguarded by allowing a few individuals to be killed and re-investing the money into measures to prevent poaching and habitat destruction, can the deaths of those individuals be said to have been worth it?

A brief look at the websites of hunting organisations such as www.africahunting.com shows that the hunting community believes strongly that trophy hunting being used to fund conservation is right.   Its view is:  “It is quite clear that the hunting industry has benefited wildlife conservation in (South Africa) in a huge way. It drives the entire game ranching industry. The conversion of millions of hectares of stock farms to game farms also stimulated the proliferation of eco-tourism ventures. This has injected huge sums of money into the rural areas, which have been in the economic doldrums for the previous fifty years. The development of the hunting industry was – in many cases – the saviour of inhabitants of the rural areas, and should remain that for years to come.”

The League Against Cruel Sports, however, puts it this way: “Since 1996, customers of UK and European travel companies have slaughtered over 9000 bears, more than 2500 highly endangered leopards and nearly 4000 African elephants.”

Clearly, the two views above are at extreme ends of the argument, and are heavily biased because of the source from which they’ve been obtained, but both definitely have a point.  The fortunes of people and wildlife cannot be separated, and anything that boosts the economic wellbeing of people living in or near endangered habitats can definitely have an impact on issues facing wildlife, not least poaching and bushmeat.  However, when you look at the stark figures presented by the League Against Cruel Sport, it’s a chilling reminder of how quickly humans can decimate populations of other species, and of how badly wrong this situation could go if controls on it are lessened or permits fall into the wrong hands.

What do you think?  Can the killing of an individual animal be justified by the “greater good”?  Do you believe that trophy hunting helps communities and conservation efforts?  Should conservation charities accept funding from hunting organisations, or should they remain completely separate?  We look forward to hearing your views.

In recent years, technological advances have revolutionised the way that most of us go about our daily lives, our work, the way we share information and even the way we think about things.  Some of these advances have had a direct impact on conservation, whether by saving time and manpower or by allowing research into species and habitats to be less invasive.  For example, the internet is helping to monitor rates of deforestation around the world, as the launch of Google Earth Engine and  combines existing technologies with enhanced computing power to enable quicker, easier analysis of patterns of deforestation.  On a more direct level, technological advances in the treatment of wood have provided an alternative to the destruction of rainforests to supply the trade in hardwood.  A Norwegian company called Kebony has developed a process by which softwoods can be treated in an environmentally sound manner to bring them to the same level of durability as hardwoods, thus reducing the need for logging operations.

On the other hand, our thirst for bigger, better, faster technology is causing environmental destruction on a huge scale in some areas of the world.  A well known example of this is the problem of coltan in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  We are all playing a part in this by purchasing mobile phones, laptops and all the other things we feel we can’t live without, and even those of us that care deeply about the situation in DRC can’t honestly say that we would give up on the technology we’re now so used to.

Perhaps the problems in DRC just feel too far away and too hard to stomach for us to really worry about, but closer to home, psychologists have found that technology which attempts to “replace” interactions with nature could, in the long term, be harmful to us and to nature itself.

Even something as simple as performing a Google search creates carbon emissions; how many of us turn to anything other than internet search engines when we need information these days?  Of course, the production of books and newspapers also has an environmental impact, but research to assess just which is worse is ongoing.

So, what do you think?  Can you think of an example of technology having a positive impact on a conservation issue, however large or small?  Do you think the benefits of faster information-sharing and the ease of inspiring others to change outweigh the negative effects of technological advances?  Would YOU give up your mobile phone or laptop if you thought it would make a difference?  The Great Primate Handshake looks forward to being challenged and stimulated by your input.

Browsing the environment pages of The Guardian’s website one day, I came across two articles that caught my eye.  One was about Daniel Suelo, who has lived in a cave for a decade, ostensibly without spending any money and the other about Mark Boyle, an ordinary man who tried something that is extraordinary to us in our consumerist society: living without money for a year.  Wanting to bridge the void that modern life has created between our actions and their consequences, he gave up on cash to enable himself to see through the entire process of everything his life entailed, from eating to electricity, and everything in between.  Now, having founded the Freeconomy Community and continuing to inspire others through his pieces for the Guardian’s Green Living blog, Mark’s ideas for reducing one’s impact on the environment range from washing less and using fewer cosmetic products to foraging for wild apples to make cider, rather than spending money in the pub.  Some of these ideas are, with a little bit of effort, achievable for the majority of people, and seem tempting in a fun, novelty way, but it’s the effort that is the sticking point; how many of us actually want to make any effort to help the environment?  Are local council recycling schemes and the wide availability of energy-saving light bulbs a handy sticking plaster for our consciences, allowing us to think of ourselves as “green”, when really we’re doing the bare minimum?  Clearly, we can’t go back in time and undo the advances of human civilisation, just as we can’t reverse the damage we’ve already done to the planet, and it would also be impossible now for everyone to live the way that Mark does, as the world’s population is just too large, but surely we could all do a bit more to help?  What is it that’s stopping us?  Is it that the obvious environmental destruction all happens far away from our safe, comfortable Western homes?  Are we going to have to wait for a crisis before we pull our heads out from the sand in which they’re currently buried?   There is a plethora of websites that promote sustainable living on both a small and large scale, with notable examples being http://www.1010global.org/uk and http://www.worldwatch.org/, but is the message getting through?

We want to know what you think of people like Mark and Daniel, and whether any of Mark’s ideas have inspired you.  We’d also like to hear your opinion on what it will take for people to really, truly start changing their lifestyles for the benefit of the planet, and your honest assessment of what would have to happen for you, personally, to change yours.

 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?