The ZOO of Northwest Florida plans to separate mother and baby orangutan

Orangutan Outreach just alerted us to an awful situation unfolding at The ZOO of Northwest Florida. A whistleblower went to PETA to expose the zoo director's intent to take a young 3 year old orangutan from her mother, Sara (who is featured on the zoo's homepage, next a fundraising graphic!) and sell her to a private organization. (BTW, the website is an example of the worst hypocrisy -- using orangutan pictures to touch hearts and raise money, while ignoring the needs of the animal herself.)

The ZOO of Northwest Florida is NOT an accredited member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and is not following husbandry and animal management recommendations from the AZA's Species Survival Plan (SSP) for orangutans. Unlike this zoo, the 51 AZA institutions that participate in the SSP are committed to the long term well-being of the individual animals in their care. I know zoo keepers at other zoos who are heartsick over what is happening to Sara and her baby, Indah. Responsible members of the North American zoo community have tried to work on a solution, but to no avail. The well-being of these two individual orangutans is evidently not important to Danyelle Lantz, the executive director of this "zoo."

After you read PETA's news release and letter, below, you might want to send a letter to the [email protected], to let them know what you think about their zoo director's inhumane actions. I can't imagine that the community wants to be known by animal lovers around the world as the town without a heart.

Whistleblower Tips Off Group About Heartless Plan

For Immediate Release:
December 16, 1008

Contact:
Lisa Wathne 757-622-7382

Gulf Breeze, Fla. -- After being contacted by a concerned whistleblower, PETA fired off a letter today to the executive director of The ZOO of Northwest Florida imploring her to cancel plans to remove a 3-year-old orangutan named Indah from her mother Sara, allegedly so that the youngster can be sold to a facility in Connecticut. Orangutans and their offspring share intensely close bonds and will typically stay together for eight years.

"Forcibly removing Indah from Sara will cause immeasurable grief and leave both animals emotionally scarred," says PETA captive exotic animal specialist Lisa Wathne. "No animal-care professional would condone such a reprehensible act." ​

PETA's letter to the zoo follows.

December 16, 2008

Danyelle Lantz, Executive Director
The ZOO--Northwest Florida

URGENT

Dear Ms. Lantz,

PETA is an international nonprofit organization, with more than 2 million members and supporters dedicated to the protection of animals. It has come to our attention that The ZOO intends to remove 3-year-old baby orangutan Indah from the nurturing care of her mother, Sara, in order to sell the baby to a private enterprise in Connecticut. The ZOO must immediately cancel this heartless and immensely cruel plan. Separating this baby from her mother will inflict a great deal of trauma on both Indah and Sara and surely will leave the 3-year-old with lifelong emotional scars.

As executive director of a zoo, your top priority must be the well-being of individual animals. Young orangutans stay with their mothers longer than any other great apes do. Infants nurse for four to five years, stay in their mothers' nests for approximately seven to eight years, and remain with their mothers until the next baby is born. Orangutans usually do not leave their mothers until they are 8 to 10 years old; 3 years of age is outrageously young for a baby orangutan to be separated from his or her mother.

As with all great apes, orangutans are exemplary mothers�surely, you have witnessed this in your observations of Sara and Indah�and they do not willingly give up their babies. There is no doubt that forcibly tearing Indah away from Sara will cause immeasurable grief and subsequent depression in both animals and will deprive Indah of the maternal care needed for normal physical and mental development.

May we please tell our members that this ill-conceived plan has been scrapped and that Indah will remain with her mother until she reaches an age when the two would naturally part?

Sincerely,

Lisa Wathne
Captive Exotic Animal Specialist​

 

I would just like to note that for the most part, ONLY AZA accredited zoos/aquariums can participate in SSPs. There are some exceptions. But in the case of orangutans, there are several in private hands and outside AZA/SSP jurisdiction.

Do you have any information about where the Gulf Breeze Zoo is selling this young orang to?

 

A zoo employee at another zoo told me that Indah was being sold to a private individual, and another person said that Indah was going to Connecticut. Someplace -- I can't find the email -- someone mentioned that it was a horse breeding facility, but that could be the anger speaking!

I understand that non-AZA zoos don't participate in the SSP, but they could at least abide by accepted animal management practices.

As I understand it, the male was loaned by an AZA zoo, and they have now recalled that male.

 

I found some more information about this private individual...it seems that this individual has loaned the debt ridden zoo ($4 million to be exact) $100,000 to stay open for at least the winter. Even though this article does not mention an orangutan, it sounds like the zoo is desperate for money and survival.

Mystery donation keeps zoo open for winter | pnj.com | Pensacola News Journal

 

If the zoo bred the animal and is a private organisation that has aqurred the animal legally, it is no ones position to tell them who they can and cannot send the animal too.
People who tend to winge about this kind of thing are "cute a fluffy people" who really have no idea about animal managment.

Maybe its not the best situation for this young orang to be removed from its mother, but if its independent (no longer suckling) then the zoo can move it along if they like dietary wise it can survive, and most likely will!!

Its like saying you are allowed to breed Macaws at home but you have to keep that animal until it is 2ish years old because thats how long it would stay with its parents in the wild, well we all know people generally sell them younger and they survive.

Wether these people are selling it for cash, in exchange, or anything other is none of PETA's business, aslong as all parties that the animal is going to be held by are appropriatly permitted/licensed by a Government authourity (Government being the operative word) it is no private individual or groups business!

Has anyone else noticed a rise in "cute and fluffy" members

 

Allthough i do notice the rise in cute and fluffy members, i also think there's a line. Where you draw that line is personal, and allthough i willingly admit that my line might not be that close to animal wellfare, this case is pushing it, even for me.

In my personal opinion there's a difference between breeding and trading farm animals, deer and other hoofstock and the real mammalian exotics. Why i don't feel the same for most birds, fish or reptiles i can't explain. You are absolutely right that this "zoo" has the right to sell the animal, it doesn't feel like an appropriate thing to do. People that care for any kind of animal (let alone an intelligent exotic) should feel at least a little responsible for it, and this doesn't feel very responsible at all...

It's not that i would be shouting at the gate about this, it's the law and if i don't like it i should try and pursuade the government to chance it. But this just "feels" bad.

Maybe i'm gone soft lately...

 

I dont think you have gone soft all i wanted to point out was that a Private organisation with privatley owned animals isnt going to be governed by a PETA type organisation, they are governed by the Government!

I do agree that this may not be the best thing for the Young orang, but as i dont work with the animal or know anything about either organisation i cannot comment on that.

 

Many thanks, okapikpr, for learning more about this zoo. If it is $4 million in debt, it is all the more reason to transfer mother AND daughter to an AZA zoo or to Patti Ragan's fabulous Center for Great Apes.

I can't imagine why some people think that abiding by sound animal husbandry practices, as developed by AZA and other good zoo organizations around the world, is "soft." Thank goodness we (or at least most of society) are not living with the zoo mentality of the 1950s anymore.

 

While, as I understand it, separating a baby orang from its mother at this age is too soon....and while this zoo has had a history of questionable management and fights with the AZA (losing accreditation in 2006) ...I cannot find a single story about this except in PETA.

I do not have confidence in this zoo, and yet I am hesitant to become a pawn of PETA.

So do we know it to be true?


p.s. - The Zoo is in a tough position. They are small and poorly funded. They have sustained terrible damage from hurricanes, which they cannot afford to swiftly repair. So do they simply close or do they try whatever they can to survive? Not an easy question. Their survival cannot come at the expense of their animals, and yet I am glad I'm not the one trying to keep this place afloat.

 

So the idea of your post was to mention that public/PETA outcry won't effect this "zoo" at all? I think they must be sensitive to at least some criticism?

 

Sorry, Ben, I'd need to see pictures
But I'm still recovering from the Keepers Bare-All Calendar story

 

For what it is worth -being one of the soft, cute and fluffy new members at this website - I would still like to say that I wholeheartedly support the views of dawnaforsythe. The written testimony from Lisa Wathne makes me horribly sad.

Remember slavery - and how parents and their children often were seperated in exactly the same way?

Disgusting!

 

Zooplantman, I first learned of this from someone who works at an AZA zoo. That person informed me that AZA top officials got involved to put pressure on the zoo to keep the orangutans together, but to no avail. It is widely suspected that someone who knew about the sale went to PETA as a last resort, when no one else could do anything.

I'd hate to see a travesty happen just because a lot of zoo people don't like PETA. I'd prefer to see the right thing happen, as an example of how zoo people can join together to find a solution that works for the zoo and for the individual animals involved.

 

question answered

 

Thanks Dawn, that is helpful.

 

PETA has done some good in the past and has worked with zoos, for example the Polar Bears rescued from Puerto Rico a few years back.

 

I'm kinda sick of non-AZA zoos acquiring rare species and doing whatever they want with them because they don't abide by AZA rules.

 

This was AZA accredited and then lost it when they couldn't regain their footing after the Hurricanes that hit them. That's how they came by orangs in the first place.

 

Just felt I had to put my two cents in on this topic. Obviously I don't know exactly what the story is, having only learned what I read in the press etc. but just want to say that it is NOT cute and fluffy type people who object to this situation. Orangutans are highly evolved animals with extremely complex emotional lives. It is highly unlikely that a 3 year old would be weaned from it's mother, but even if it was it is equivalent to animal abuse to separate an infant that young from its mother. The bond between orang mothers and their babies is second only to that of humans, and to separate them at that age does permanent damage to both mother, and especially the baby.
I work with Orangutans myself, and I hear this also goes for wild orang orphans who never really recover from the trauma of losing their mums.

 

I am not sure how GulfBreeze got to acquire orang utans. Okapikpr is right to suggest that they are no longer a member of AZA, having been thrown out in 2006 for infringing on quite a few AZA basic criteria and guidelines. He is also right to opine that within the current framework GulfBreeze is free to do with the orang utans in its care whatever it wants.

Where I agree with some of the critics is that it is perhaps a travesty of justice that endangered species can be traded for financial gain and thereby working against the spirit of international laws on wildlife trade (incl. CITES). These laws have been put in place to combat wildlife trade and trade in rare and endangered species. The only passable exception being their non-harmful consumptive use (wildlife ranching).


Where I disagree with the great ape fluffies ... (lol ) is that no trade for financial gain should not just exempt great apes, eles et al, but also pertains to all other rare and endangered wildlife be they mammal, avian, reptilian, amphibian, ichtyian or invertebrate in nature.

Besides do not put Homo sapiens on a pedestal ... as it is unbecoming and not justified (for quite a no. of different reasons to do with our environment and ecosystems Earth).