Wales Ape & Monkey Sanctuary WAMS and Bili the Bonobo

Monkey Haven is a lovely place and enjoyed my visit, but by the same token they get grants and a lot of sponsorship, in the same way that Monkey World does.
Also I don't believe they hold any apes which are expensive to keep (or didn't when I was last there).

The fact that a lot of Sanctuaries get grants and funding can be huge, but being in Wales this is not an option. Monkey Haven get huge sponsorship from Sainsbury's (in the way of food) and Kong (who provide them with many toys).
They also have sponsors of exhibits, which keeps their costs down.

Now I appreciate this can come down to advertising and local areas, but WAMS don't have these luxuries. The only hand outs are often from local visitors who buy food for them when they visit.

I think it can be quite unfair to judge one sanctuary alongside another when they are not on a level playing field so to speak.

 

The latter, ie Great Apes.

 

When I saw Graham Garven on the BBC Wales news report, the only impression I got of him was a recognition and empathy of Bili being a victim. When I was reading about WAMS yesterday and how they appear to clump all zoos together (private off show and public), but separate themselves from all but a small number of sanctuaries, I see arrogance and as Zia said, a superior attitude.
I kept trying to leave the subject alone, because of ShonenJakes "advice" in the Wuppertal thread, about being careful what we write. But Zia and Sand Cat have pretty much now expressed what I was hesitant to. Their cause is a not superior cause to that of zoos, or other sanctuaries and I to some extant wonder how much of this is about justifying their own place in this world. If they want a sanctuary and are having trouble supporting because of their location with grants/sponsorship/footfall, why can't they move? I know it's not an ideal suggestion, but it's not Chester Zoo size is it. (edit: Swansea is a half an hour away, yet WAMS only achieves a footfall of 10% of that city's population - maybe it shouldn't but that says something to me)
I actually have no sympathy for them and reading their facebook posts and those of their followers hasn't encouraged me to support their cause. The footfall you mention I can imagine is largely repeat visits from locals and I think if they can get by on their support, they should just look after what they have and make do, because the rest of the world is against them .... apart from the 300,000 petition signees worldwide, reacting to the videos and misleading plea from Petra (the petition creator, who has a thing or two against Wuppertal).

 

I've not really wanted to get embroiled in this thread, given it's probably one with entrenched positions/ideas that are unlikely to be changed through debate, but here's my few pennies worth:

• WAMS enclosures are, putting it kindly, sub-optimal;
• Whilst there may be worse in Europe I'm not aware of (m)any;
• This view is from photograph's I've seen (which may not tell a complete story);
• I'm sure primates have been rescued from being held in enclosures not considerably different from those at WAMS;
• If we're considering animal welfare, I don't accept that being a "sanctuary" gives you a pass on criticism of enclosures/husbandry issues just because the people running it try their very best and really care for & love their animals;
• People keeping excessive animals/cats in their homes don't get a pass because they love their animals so I don't think sanctuaries should either;
• All that said, as others have pointed out, it's arguable that it's "death or WAMS" for the animals held there. This creates a thorny issue on which I'm unsure where I stand, "is it better for animals to be kept in (very?) poor enclosures, by people who struggle to keep them well or euthanised?";
• Regardless of my conclusion to that poser I do think it's completely unreasonable for WAMS to wade in on the Bili matter given their inexperience of related issues and given their own situation which is a long way from being beyond criticism. They're in a glass house they should not being throwing stones (it just seems like a desperate lunge for publicity or ego-serving purposes).

In terms of comparing WAMS with the Welsh Mountain Zoo, I'd rather see Chimps at the latter than the former -better enclosure/facilities and more stable finances (regardless of the fact that some might consider them poor the they're still better than WAMS). Don't take this to be a glowing approval of the Welsh Mountain Zoo though (glad their Snow Leopard enclosures being dealt with) -their gibbon enclosure was for many years (not seen since more recent improvements) one of the worst enclosures in the UK (no better than WAMS).

 

And zoos (and pets) in general.

 

Petra is an individual, Petra Bente, not a misspelling of an organisation who incidentally have a checklist for sanctuaries, that is not adhered to by WAMS.

 

Just to jump in here because my name was mentioned, I wanted to clarify in case anybody gets the wrong impression, that I'm absolutely not against WAMS - far from it, I think they're kind people doing a good job - but I do wish they wouldn't 'attack' zoos as a whole. Likewise, zoos and their fans criticising WAMS for having poor enclosures seems a bit unfair to me - if only more zoos and sanctuaries were willing to take on these animals that are considered surplus, WAMS might not be so overstretched leaving more resources to better care for a smaller number of animals, and it might even not have to exist at all.

It does bug me how people act so superior though when, at risk of over-simplifying things big time, all these places keep animals in captivity and charge people to look at them - so essentially, they're all zoos!

My view on how animals in any zoo/sanctuary/whatever should be viewed is probably best summed up by the quote from chimp keeper Niall in the introduction sequence of The Secret Life of the Zoo on TV: to provide the very best for the animals in your care, give them everything you have, and a bit more.

 

Maybe if WAMS didn't get all precious at being referred to being "like any other zoo" by Wuppertal's director, people wouldn't seek out what supposedly differentiates them from other other collections that charge a fee for entry, offer adoptions for a fee, keeper for a day experiences for a fee.

 

Absolutely. Its a shame the whole thing seems to have turned into a big slanging match and opened up old zoo versus sanctuary debates, when it SHOULD be all about the welfare of the animals, not point scoring!

 

Is it not Govenrment grants / funding that is not available in Wales? Businesses such as you've mentioned would still be able to support them if they wished to wouldn't they? (genuine question - I'm not sure if I've misunderstood)

 

And this I believe is the crux of the matter - their attitude comes across as unprofessional / confrontational and they make it clear that they do not wish to cooperate with other collections when - whatever they say - they are not so disimilar to themselves.

 

All I can say is (having a bad posting day).

 

Yes they are not open to Governmental grants / funding which is not available in Wales, but is made available and given to a number of other UK based sanctuaries.
Business' could support them but don't. I asked about the local supermarket close to them, and the response was the Supermarket wanted to know what was in it for them and instead give surplus fruit and veg to homeless and food bank charities as they seem them more worthy than animals.
They have also openly said they struggle to get any commercial funding as the bigger companies all seem to support a more well known rescue centre / sanctuary which has more commercial highlight.
Just reading the sponsors and funding board at Monkey World is eye opening, at some of the support they have been given by some big companies. Clearly TV exposure and their name plastered all over the place is attractive, a lot more than say helping a smaller place which gets less than 2000 visitors a month.
In the height of the summer, Monkey World could get 2/3 times that in a day.

 

This is all down to management, vision and public perception I am afraid. Monkey World had humble beginnings too - they have not just spontaneously been awarded a load of commercial support or become a successful visitor attraction for no reason, they have worked for it over the last 30 years and made intelligent commercial decisions. I am sure WAMS have been working hard too but they don't seem to have had the same single minded vision and drive. It is all very well saying they can't stand by and see other animals in need - but that does mean they have used resources on housing wolf dogs / cattle / horses etc when they could have been used to improve the accomodation for the primates they already had. This in itself would have improved the visitor experience / made them a more enticing option for potential supporters. Instead, I get the impression they have a mish-mash of substandard enclosures and a bit of a chip on their shoulder.

Personally - I cannot support their anti-zoo rhetoric and badly veiled criticism of other sanctuaries. They choose to distance themselves from the wider community of captive collections and in some cases are openly antagonistic towards them. That is not an attitude I would want to associate my custom or my business (if I had one) with.

 

Bonobo 'expert' Jan Rigby "I don't think he looks relaxed at all, constantly on the move and watchful. At least he is not with whole group. But there is nothing calm or peaceful about the scene."

As @ShonenJake13 said in the other thread, if Bili learns to ignore the typical behaviour of an energetic baby, then things should improve for him. The whole group is not present, but he certainly looks better here and Jan is as usual spouting rubbish.

 

And I noticed yesterday, WAMS were predictably claiming credit for Bili's improving situation via facebook.

 

Why is this not an option in Wales?

(You appear to be saying government grants are available in England but not in Wales. Can you explain?)

 

And salaries, although not huge, amounting to over £110k between 8 staff last year. I thought they were all volunteers? I'm not clued up on finances, but the details are available on the companies house website. There is also a sum of over £100k under grants and donations.

 

Well my friend really hit a nerve today on facebook, leading to WAMS requesting a full facebook suspension of her account. There has been no malice in her questions about the libellous leaflet and no direct accusation of lying about the ape enclosure set up, but it seems easier for them to submit some sort of questionable ID report to facebook, than answer the questions.

However, the Great Ape Project did post this when asked on their facebook:

"There are three outdoor enclosures for the Wuppertal great apes: one for the gorillas, one for the orang utans, and a third one, attached a few years ago, is supposed to be used alternately by the bonobos and the chimps. Since the two aged chimps are very reluctant to go outside, after having been locked inside for decades, the outdoor area is used by the bonobos, exclusively. All of the Wuppertal apes are allowed to go outside about five percent of their lifetime, since it is too cold and too wet for them most of the year. 95 percent they sit on bare concrete floor, inside. Steffi"

Looks like they have edited their reply and deleted a follow up comment from my friend highlighting the contradiction.