Thanks, I'd googled but didn't find it. A large part of the reason that chimps like Choppers have taken so long to become part of a group is surely down more to the fact they were kept in twos all these years and didn't have the opportunity to be part of a larger group, than to the severity of the damage caused their early experiences. Monkey World have shown that damaged chimps, especially females, can become part of a group fairly quickly, although I think on the whole the ones who are more badly treated integrate better than the ones who have been treated with kindness as little humans. My consolation about loving those PG Tips adverts is that the chimps were not 'trained' in the ruthless, spirit-breaking way that is used with American chimps which are STILL bred for the entertainment industry.
I picked up a number of inacurracies in 'Molly's Zoo' - or perhaps it was the other one 'Chimps with Everything'. The front cover is really enough to indicate the standard of journalism inside. Its hardly a serious history or treatise of the Zoo.
I think Choppers may be one of the more extreme cases there. My own feeling is most of the pairs and trios in the old cages (Chimp Row/Green Mile) already shared some sort of clan kinship- after all they could all hear and see each other all the time over many years- even those not in neighbouring cages. I think they could have got most of those together quite easily as a result just by opening some dividing doors. The strange thing is when Green Mile closed, it appears the animals there were put into different houses- but the fact that was also mainly successful indicates it wasn't that hard to integrate them. MonkeyWorld( and other places in Europe) have proved its quite possible to form large groups out of small groups and singles of unfamiliar Chimpanzees with all but the very worst cases of desocialisation.
yes I tried googling it and came up with nothing (I had assumed, probably like yourself, that it was another news article). However it was worded exactly like what you would get in an electronic newsletter from a zoo, so I thought I'd check the website and see if it was on there because I figured it was a bit convenient if a newsletter had been sent out right in the middle of this very thread discussion!
Probably because the badly treated ones didn't form such close bonds with people as the well-treated spoiled ones, which therefore became the most humanised and subsequently hardest to re-integrate. America have a long and poor tradition regarding Apes and entertainment.
I appreciate that the P.G. commercials are now very much history, and I can understand why younger members have strong reservations about using young chimps for this purpose. It must be remembered, as I have stated several times on here in the past, that this was a different era, they started in the fifties and it is now over thirty years since Twycross chimps appeared in these commercials. By using these chimps it gave the zoo a very important source of revenue, without it, it is very doubtful if there would ever have been a Twycross Zoo, it also put Brooke Bond PG Tips from being the fourth best selling brand of tea in the U.K. to the best selling brand.I can also understand why this zoo in the present day does not want to shout it from the roof tops now, that their chimps made these adverts, although they do form a very important part of the history of this zoo. I was therefore surprised when the new C.E.O. made her recent statement regarding this, I could have understood if an animal rights group had recently castigated this, and quite rightly, the zoo replies by saying they did use chimps for this decades ago, although they would not do it now. It has been suggested that this statement has been made in a way of starting fundraising for a three million pound new chimp facility, a rather ironic figure!!, very well I sincerely hope they raise this amount to give the chimps better facilities, although part of me thinks we have heard all this talk before, personally by making this statement I do not think it has done the zoo any good at all, P.R., fundraising or otherwise.
Hi Tarzan I agree with you why bring it up now after all these years and I hope she has not damaged the zoos reputation by saying all she did about Miss Badham.
I would like members to imagine this scenario. It is the nineteen fifties, you own a small zoo consisting of about sixty animals housed in a couple of acres. Although quite successful in a small way, money is always tight. Along comes a tea company, inviting you to supply your young chimps for television advertising on the new channel I.T.V. The fees for doing this are good, so much so that allows you later to purchase larger premises and open a full size zoo. At this time attitudes were different, circuses played literally to thousands daily with their animal shows, even at London Zoo, the famous chimp's tea party was a highly popular attraction. Meanwhile your new zoo prospers during your thirty years of involvement with chimp television work, allowing it to become a registered charity, employing many people, a lot of whom work at the zoo all their working lives,your zoo becomes famous, giving pleasure to millions of visitors over the years. The question I ask is this, if you were in this situation right back to sixty years ago, would you have accepted Brook Bond's offer of television advertising work and enjoy the financial rewards that came with it, or would you have refused as you thought the animals were being exploited?. The financial rewards, incidentally, which would have been spent on your zoo, not put into your own pocket. Perhaps it was animal exploitation, but that was sixty years ago, was it any worse than what is currently going on at a well known zoo north of the border today, "Come and see our giant pandas with you priviliged panda pass, we think the female is pregnant and will have a baby soon, sorry she's not, we made a mistake"!
why is this thread still going on? I am pretty sure everyone on the forum knows that times were different then (doi!), and that the money made from the commercials are what allowed the zoo to prosper. There's really no big deal there. And as for the claptrap about "ruining the zoo's reputation" by discussing what happened there in the past? Doesn't everyone already know about Twycross and the PG Tips chimps? If anything it would help the zoo's reputation by showing that they don't do now what was acceptable then but isn't any longer. What would damage the zoo's reputation is if the CEO said "in honour of past practices, we are bringing back tea party chimps, huzzah!"
Well put. I think this thread owes its longevity (and certainly its creation) to Jane Doe having something of a bee in her bonnet that the current leadership at Twycross has dared to point out that things are done differently than they were in the past. Which should be true of every collection of any age! Times change.
After all is said and done: we already know the history and what was a time era. My advice: do not forget the history, live in the present and with a view to the future. How else can we be? I feel the subject matter has been discussed over and over again and people that disagree with one another will continue to disagree. Which is fine. I feel we should move on. Look at the present and see where this new "Chimpanzee" project may take the zoo. What I do applaud here is that the zoo is now looking to improve conditions and management for the present day primate collection. Much as I loved the ring of the Asian Carnivores precinct and its obvious falling into place with the Asian elephant area, the first and foremost objective for Twycross Zoo should be to set a coherent path for future development first! Where it will leads us … without sufficient funding … is anybody's guess for now! Surely, if the site was in a better financial position than today things would have moved far easier with a more focussed and user-friendly management. For what it is worth, it is nice to see some movement in terms of animal exhibits and improvements - as keenly observed by Al et al (sorry, no pun … ) -.
