Special Report: Primarily Primates’ Original Care Crew Mourns Gigi’s Death
Stephen Rene Tello and the Refuge’s Traditional Caregivers Concerned About Other Animals at Risk
Gigi had been used in space research at Holloman Air Force Base, and was one of a group known through the international media as the U.S. Air Force chimpanzees.
Gigi was one of the elders. Subjected to severe research testing, Gigi had metal plates in her head where scientists placed electrodes during decompression studies.
When the Air Force divested itself of the apes in 1999, Gigi was welcomed at Primarily Primates. With a 28-year record of care, Primarily Primates is the country’s pioneering private refuge for primates. It would be Gigi’s home for seven years.
Gigi’s personality was forceful, yet she coped with her circumstances by being a relative loner. Gigi ate well, but was always lean.
This October, a group of the sanctuary’s detractors took over the sanctuary premises through a receivership that the state’s Attorney General agreed to facilitate. On 6 December 2006, an update on the receiver’s website (superimposed over the site belonging traditionally to Primarily Primates) said that Gigi had died from a long illness.
Said Stephen Rene Tello, a rehabilitator with the sanctuary’s traditional personnel, “At first, I was not shocked in regard to her passing, although Gigi hadn’t been ill prior to the October takeover. Over the next five to ten years I expect to see a lot of the air force chimpanzees pass on, as we purposefully offered refuge to older apes who had been exploited for decades in various studies, so many of the Air Force’s subjects are forty or older.”
But Tello was shocked to learn of December invoice from the cremation company recording Gigi’s weight at only 67 pounds.
The vocal detractors who now control the sanctuary’s website describe the attention given Gigi in the “last six weeks of her life” as “top-notch” — perhaps to suggest that Gigi’s earlier care at the refuge had been inappropriate.
“In fact,” explains Tello, “She lived in a nice group of chimpanzees. They were compatible, with not much in-house fighting.”
Continued Tello, “It is terribly disturbing to those of us who cared for Gigi for years to discover that she’d declined so rapidly and so grotesquely only 52 days after we were locked out.”
Given Gigi’s body’s weight as last recorded, and comparing that to her previous state and to comparable chimpanzees’ records, Tello stated, “Her face would have been drawn and sunken. Skin would be hanging from her bones. In seven and a half weeks, this ape literally wasted away.”
Further problems are also evident. After a cold snap in San Antonio set in, it occurred to the receivership personnel that they’d have to use the heaters. They’ve reportedly just replaced a boiler heat system for the Air Force chimpanzees, although $1,500 was invested into it last year. The system’s gas level, lines, and valves needed special maintenance for which the receiver was unprepared. The traditional caregivers note that the receiver is inexperienced with many of the normal workings of the refuge.
Additionally, Tello said, the inexperienced, temporary staffers are not accustomed to the refuge so some of them now report coming down sick. This was not an issue when the regular staff was there. Volunteers are great, but, for the same reason, an open-door policy allowing strangers in who “just come on by to help” is an unsafe practice.
“If they are exposing the chimpanzees to illnesses,” said Tello, “They are further risking the lives of the older or more vulnerable animals.”
Tello stressed that the chimpanzees and other sensitive animals require surroundings free from the stress and danger of illness posed by the tours, investigators, flashbulbs, dietary changes, and other various disturbances that have been constant since the receiver was installed in October.
The receivership has now had seven weeks to make its mark on the refuge. Have they improved it?
“They have improved the welfare of many lawyers,” said Tello, referring to yet another package of legal submissions from the refuge’s detractors this week, meant to further dismantle the refuge.
Known injuries and deaths of nonhuman primates at PPI since the receiver was installed:
- In early December 2006, the chimpanzee Gigi died.
- Also during the first week of December, a member of PPI’s traditional staff who is still on the premises reported the death of a squirrel monkey.
- Just after seven chimpanzees were sent out of the refuge in November 2006, a white-handed gibbon died. The gibbon had never been ill prior to the receivership, but became severely ill and began to appear emaciated after it began.
- Uriah, a chimpanzee, sustained a severely torn lip and large bite wound on his head after people assisting the receiver threw fruit into an enclosure — having been told by the traditional care staff not to do so until precautions were taken.
- Jordan, a ring-tailed lemur who is a former pet, was allowed to enter a group of lemurs in which he was severely injured, and, lying flat on the ground covered in lacerations, received no medical care for two days.
- On or about 10 November 2006, a spider monkey died. After the receiver took over, the monkey, Nicole, was provided with a blanket and hid under it for days. By the time she was discovered she was so sick and emaciated that emergency euthanasia was applied.
- Scoot, a howler monkey, is currently ill and losing weight, a condition that could have been precipitated by stress. Sometimes days pass before the temporary staff changes hay, and this monkey has been observed by one of the traditional caregivers seeking food in waste-coated hay.
- A cotton-top tamarin was stolen, but later returned. Chiquita, the marmoset who was living with Gizmo, is missing this week, and could only have been removed by a keyholder. Only one of the two is gone, evidence of deliberate selection and removal.
Certain other rescued primates who may be at special risk:
- Two spider monkeys, Magic and Noel, were in critical health when the receiver took over. Noel suffers from an illness much like Parkinson’s disease, and the traditional staff is concerned about their current status.
- The deceased gibbon (see above section) lived with a group. What about the safety of the other gibbons? Why did this gibbon waste away and what was the cause? Where is the necropsy report?
- Where are Gigi’s necropsy reports? When will official reports be submitted to the court and the Attorney General, who is responsible for this receivership? Was this contagious? What of protecting the other chimpanzees?
- A macaque was slated for essential surgery to remove a facial tumor, but has been moved out. The traditional staff is concerned about the monkey’s current status.
- Howler monkeys are so sensitive to disruption that the mere sound of a car horn can suppress their appetites for days. The traditional staff is concerned about the surviving howler monkeys.
- A deaf baboon has been moved out. The baboon will be vulnerable in group situations; the traditional staff is concerned about the baboon’s current status.
- Several chimpanzees who arrived in San Antonio earlier this year have been moved, purportedly on a temporary basis, to Chimp Haven of Louisiana, which is touted as a glorious sanctuary, but which is funded by — and by law serves as a holding area for — the National Institutes of Health. One of the chimpanzees in this situation, named Darrell, poses potential safety risks. In 2004, this individual severely injured another, who subsequently died from resultant infections. A (human) student assisting in treating a wounded chimpanzee in this same series of events was injured so badly that multiple surgeries were required. Chimp Haven is sending out rosy reports about the chimpanzees, and particularly in light of this glossy reporting, the traditional staff of PPI has concerns for the safety of humans, Darrell, and other apes.
- The receiver is attempting to remove a chimpanzee named Oliver, using trouble over a water pipe as justification. New pipe could be run around the cage without moving Oliver, requiring only temporary water shut-off for a short period when joining the new pipe. Moreover, Oliver’s current enclosure connects with other living space, and new construction was nearing completion when the receivership was imposed. Thus, there is no excuse for the attempt to remove Oliver. This individual is elderly; sedation would be dangerous and possibly fatal. The traditional staff is extremely concerned about Oliver’s future given his physical vulnerability and also the likelihood that this individual could be re-exploited for media purposes.
- Hank and Maggie, baboons who were formerly pets, were very close and lived together at Primarily Primates. Hank does not like to be gawked at. When unfamiliar people appeared at the refuge, Hank would nudge Maggie into a little sleeping house within their enclosure. Maggie would customarily stay there until the people would leave. When people left, if one watched from a distance, one could see Hank beckoning Maggie back out. This endearing scene was repeated many times over the years; Hank was devoted to Maggie. After Primarily Primates was taken over in October, the receiver claimed that their caring interactions constituted abusive conduct that could only be remedied by moving these baboons. So they were sent away. The traditional caregivers have imagined the stress that these two individuals have endured, during a move and handling and a new situation in which everyone would be unfamiliar to them.
- Some veterinary bills, as well as bills for a lab-work company and a cremation company, have been reportedly left in arrears after September 2006. This means all animals at the refuge are at risk. It appears that most of the money being raised by the people in the physical position to care for the refuge’s residents is going to law firms.
Conclusion
The large number of deceased and distressed animals at Primarily Primates (PPI) since 13 October 2006 speaks volumes about the receivership that was imposed on the sanctuary on that date.
The winter is setting in now, and there are a number of vulnerable primates and other animals at Primarily Primates. What will it take for people to defend this sanctuary from the people who are dismantling it and sending its residents away — or to the crematorium in droves?
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid false commentary about individuals or groups. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
37 Comments
On December 8, 2006, Jessica wrote:
I am extremley concerned about the welfare of these poor animals. From what I have heard, before the receivers took over these animals were doing well and were happy. Once the receivers gained control, many of the animals have showed signs of sickness and stress, which could only be due to the lack of care and attention from the receivership. Something needs to be done immediatly, before all of these beautiful animals suffer the same fate. I do not believe that many people in the U.S. and world are aware of this situation; if we could somehow bring more attention (maybe more media attention?) to this matter hopefully the receivers would realize just how harmful their actions are.
On December 8, 2006, Teresa Adele Bettino wrote:
It is heartbreaking to read what has transpired. It is clear and simple. Return these animals to those who care for them. Boundaries have been over-stepped.
On December 8, 2006, Donna Stevens wrote:
My God what are we doing to these precious creatures? WHY isn’t something being done to protect them from man? I’m sick…….
On December 8, 2006, katie wrote:
i really wanna help save the animals!
On December 9, 2006, Lori Kidd wrote:
This story becomes more disturbing as it progresses. I believe there are usually more than two sides to every story and with that in mind I’ve repeatedly invited Peta to comment on their involvement and the accusations against them. To date I have had no response.
I’m not sure what is really happening but one thing is clear; the best interest of the animals is not being represented. Once again their worlds are being turned upside down. Haven’t they suffered enough? This is someone’s power trip and the animals will pay the price for it in the end.
On December 9, 2006, Lisa wrote:
Does anyone know when the court will make a decision? Is it possible that the animals who are able to survive the displacement will ever be returned to their homes to Primarily Primates? Could someone explain how this court procedure will work and the time-line involved? Do courts ever impose “gag-orders”…can courts deny the public the right to information in a case such as this?
Also, what can other animal advocates do?….donate money? write letters? How can we help make sure that these innocent animals do not return to research labs?
On December 9, 2006, Stephen Rene Tello wrote:
Addendum:
Friends, in addition to learning about the tragic death of Gigi, it has been truly sad to discover that the traditional caregivers of PPI were not told of Gigi’s death the day she died. They are not allowed anywhere near the chimpanzees, where their in-depth knowledge and personal experience might have saved Gigi’s life. After hearing about Gigi’s passing, one of the traditional carestaff expressed sorrow to me, and said, “Stephen, I know Gigi. If I could have seen her, I would have known something was wrong and that she needed major medical attention.” But members of our traditional carestaff face being “written up” by the receiver and staff if they venture anywhere near the chimpanzees.
So Gigi’s longtime caregivers learned of this death only after her emaciated body was carted off in the back of a vehicle of the receiver’s staff. Upon arriving at the crematorium and questioned about the deceased ape, the driver replied, “I don’t know anything; I am just the hearse driver.”
On December 9, 2006, JanetCoppola wrote:
Please can’t anything be done to remove this receivership.
I am heartsick upon learning of their suffering.
On December 10, 2006, Janet wrote:
I find this entire thing from beginning to present extremely disturbing to say the least !!
I have noticed in these updates that the issue of WHAT CAN THE PUBLIC DO TO VOICE THIER CONCERNS ? is not being addressed. Why ? There is power in numbers.
Also, why is the HSUS still not involved ?
What is being done in the courts to reverse what has
happened so that the sanctuary can get their sanctuary back ?
[Blog editors’ note: The HSUS has never, to our knowledge, come out in this case and supported the future of this sanctuary. The HSUS did, however, support the CHIMP Act which was signed into law in 2000 and which gave rise to the system of cost-savings for the NIH — which Chimp Haven agreed to run. Friends of Animals and the GRASP project were vocal about asking animal-protection groups such as HSUS to support true sanctuaries (such as Primarily Primates) back during the CHIMP Act debates, and instead HSUS very actively promoted the CHIMP Act (and, by extension, Chimp Haven), which will make it very difficult in the future for nonhuman apes to get out of the NIH’s clutches.
What can people do? Support the work of people who want to build the refuge up, not tear it down. Please follow the media accounts and ask that the traditional sanctuary’s position get a fair hearing. A special thanks to Susan Davis for following up to ensure fairer, more accurate, and more serious media coverage of this story.]
On December 10, 2006, Donna wrote:
It’s obvious she is writing up certain staff to set the stage to fire them. She’s just documenting cause for firing them to make it all seem legit. It’s just lame and so predictable. More dirty, dirty tricks to coverup her actions. I hope the staff is seeking counsel. Employees have rights, and making up lame rules just to get rid of someone is not legal. If she was truly doing right by these animals, she wouldn’t need to be hiding their condition and resorting to these games to get rid of whistleblowers. It’s disgusting.
On December 10, 2006, Krista Perry wrote:
[Under the receivership] HSUS volunteers have delivered hay to PPI.
More disturbing is the report of significant financial support for construction of enclosure connectors coming from New England Anti-Vivisection Society, through its Project Release & Restitution.
I have no opinion, at this point, about whether or not the connectors are an improvement that will actually make maintaining and enhancing the enclosures easier and safer for humans and non-humans alike.
I have e-mailed NEAVS and asked (1) How an organization whose mission is to end the use of animals for experimentation can support a receiver who has already shipped chimps to Chimp Haven and (2) If NEAVS has ever provided financial support to PPI before it was placed in receivership. Whatever their response, I will ask them to make an equal contribution in support of the traditional administration of the sanctuary.
Please consider joining me demanding that NEAVS explain their reasoning for supporting the receiver.
Project R & R can be contacted by e-mail at: releasechimps@neavs.org .
The project web address is: www.releasechimps.org
On December 10, 2006, Joanne wrote:
I have been a supporter of Primarily Primates for more than 15 years. I WAS also a supporter of PETA for many years.
As soon as I learned of the Gestapo-like takeover of Primarily Primates I called and spoke [to a PETA] staffer. She had no comment, comeback, nor explanation for what they had done.
That, in and of itself speaks volumes.
I have always understood that there are politics in every walk in life. It would seem that PETA only wants to make headlines without regard to the welfare of the animals they supposedly care so much about.
Why are we not seeing this story in major newspapers and magazines? Why not use a PETA-styled ad campaign to enlist the help of a well known model, singer, star (nude perhaps?) to advertise what PETA has done and is doing to the residents of Primarily Primates?
On December 10, 2006, nancy baumgartner wrote:
i couldn’t finish reading this with out crying my eyes out. i thinks its horrible, inhumane.
On December 10, 2006, bb norton wrote:
To all concerned, please write to the Attorney General. Please write to your Texas state representatives and the Governor and ask for help. Please write to the news media demanding fair coverage because I think the AG needs to be accountable and investigated for allowing conflicts of interest to be so rampant in this case. If we don’t keep the pressure up for answers it will be swept under the rug. Why is the AG stalling the trial dates? PPI has stated they want to go to trial and it was slated for January — the AG already got that postponed, February, March, July, 2008? This isn’t a factory — these are live animals. This was conducted with such careless consideration for the animals and disregard for the right to be innocent until proven guilty.
There were so many other options for an investigation if the AG had valid concerns about PPI. Why didn’t the AG come in and make unannounced inspections with impartial experts to judge the care of the animals? Why are PETA staff and attorneys conducting the investigation instead of the AG’s office — ask Frost bank about that one! These are valid questions to which I would like answers.
If they had to go this route, in the entire state of Texas, the AG could not find an impartial, QUALIFIED primate specialist to act as receiver who was not so intricately involved with PETA staff and attorneys? Why didn’t the AG just seize the office and financial records instead of putting these animals in such a tenuous situation by disrupting every aspect of their daily care and routine? Even someone properly qualified would need to be briefed on daily operations and make a gradual transition — none of that happened and Watt just jumped in and began her crusade to trash PPI.
On December 10, 2006, Ken Martin wrote:
Dave wrote on another post, “It doesn’t matter who made the allegations or who is running PPI right now.”
It certainly does matter! PETA’s allegations are usually self-serving and they have poor history when it comes to the truth. Just look at the current criminal case in North Carolina accusing a PETA trainer and trainee of killing healthy cats and dogs and tossing them in dumpsters after taking them from a shelter — under the pretense of finding them homes.
Since these allegation were brought forth by PETA and everyone involved with the allegations seems to be PETA connected, is it wise to have PETA so involved in the investigation? Lee Theisen-Watt’s attorney holds a PETA “Activist Award”? Could the connected interests be any more obvious?
PETA routinely places undercover operators to “gather evidence”. PPI has reported trouble with breakins at night and undercover activists undermining the sanctuary for years. Finding animal abuse cases whether real or fabricated is a source of income for PETA. These undercover employees have clear motives for “finding” evidence. The AG and Lee Watt have given PETA free rein in all aspects of PPI’s records and the animals. I can think of no other legal case where the accused is stripped of everything and total power is just handed over to the party making the accusations (Theisen-Watt on behalf of PETA) before a trial.
How was Theisen-Watt selected? Why was not an impartial receiver put in place? How was her salary as receiver decided and who is paying her? Theisen-Watt is making a bundle off this - $50 an hour. If this case drags this out for a year, and this person were to stay that full time, she will have banked well into six-figures - that is absurd both for her lack of credentials and based on PPI’s annual budget. Ken
On December 10, 2006, Cathy Popp wrote:
PETA has put their human interests before that of the animals they profess to protect. Where is the protection at PPI? Unfortunately it is the animals that are paying a terrible price as a result of PETA’s self-serving efforts to get even with the sanctuary. Why is it that the legal system is unable to see something that is so obvious? Every official that has allowed this travesty to occur should be held accountable. Quite frankly there is nothing ethical about the way that animals are being treated at PPI, thanks to PETA’s actions.
On December 11, 2006, msnelson wrote:
do what we can to help.
On December 11, 2006, dave wrote:
i agree 100% with kens posting, PETA has a history of sleezy actions and linked to criminal investigations through out its time. PPI to my knowledge has no history of investigations of animal abuse until PETA stuck there nose into there affairs.what gets me is why a neutral party was not appointed recivership of these animals while a investigation is going on.its on PETA as the plaintif to prove there alligations, not PPI.
Why the receivership before a court decision has been made? NICE LEGAL SYSTEM THEY GOT DOWN THERE.
next they will try to come in our houses and tell us how to take care of our pets.
On December 12, 2006, Michael Baker wrote:
Well i hope all of them are ok, it makes me angry how people treat animals in bad ways. Their living things too. I hope you guys keep up the good work to protect wildlife and being kind to animals. Thanks
On December 12, 2006, Dr. Valerie Kirk wrote:
[Dr. Valerie Kirk expresses concern for Oliver’s life. We find this message urgent, and will distribute it to primate interest lists. - Blog eds.]
I examined Oliver July 26, 2006 to evaluate a fluid shift seen in his right eye by the [traditional] care staff at PPI. He was examined cage-side, without sedation. I described what I saw during the exam to a veterinary ophthalmologist, who suggested it could be age-related changes in the vitreous humor. In a patient of advanced age as Oliver is (he’ll be 50 next year), the vitreous, which is normally jelly-like in consistency, becomes less dense and take on a more liquid consistency. When the eye moves, the vitreous has more freedom to move due to the momentum created by eye movement, because it has become less viscous (thinner). Unless Oliver were in pain, as evidenced by blinking, keeping his eye closed or rubbing his eye, using eye drops to treat the condition would, in the opthalmologist’s opinion, not be worth the risk to the care staff. Oliver’s left cornea is totally pigmented, causing him to be blind in that eye. To determine why Oliver is blind in the right eye would require a thorough examination of the eye, which is not possible cage-side without sedation.
I did not want to sedate Oliver because he has a history of liver disease from an undetermined cause. Dr. Michele Martino had examined Oliver during his bout with liver disease and had followed his progress with lab work. When she saw the lab work indicated his condition was improving, she did not request Oliver be sedated further to follow the disease to its resolution. She warned Wally Swett that if Oliver were sedated any more, that he might succumb to the sedation. Therefore, we took a “leave well enough alone” attitude toward Oliver.
In September, Oliver had what appeared to have been a possible small stroke. He didn’t appear to have suffered any residual deficits or problems from it.
I am very concerned about Oliver, as I have heard that he may be sedated for transport to another facility for permanent relocation or [this could occur] for examination, evaluation and possible treatment of his right eye.
As always when evaluating a patient for treatment, the risk/benefit ratio needs to be considered. We do not know the status of the retina or whether restoration of sight is even possible. We won’t know without thoroughly examining the eye, which requires sedation and later anesthesia is treatment is attempted.
What if the treatment were a success but the patient died? If Oliver dies because we wanted to give him the benefit of sight, or of a new home perceived as being for his betterment, what have we done? Oliver is very well adjusted to his blindness and has done very well at PPI.
Dr. Valerie Kirk
On December 12, 2006, Alex wrote:
I always believe in following the “money trail” so checked land values in the area where the Primarily Primates Sanctuary is located just in case the “resident nuisances” (nonhuman and human) are chased off! I believe the sanctuary owns about 70 acres of land (with a
couple of houses).
I found the following land values and note that the area is of interest to developers. I wonder if there is a plan to sell the land. It could bring in a few million dollars. If it gets sold, who will reap the profits? The A-G? Or others associated with the current activities?
There are two properties for sale near PPI
1. MLS 557509, 25389 Boerne Stage Rd (1.7 miles from PPI) 23 Acres Land with 2300 square foot ranch style home $1,345,000
2. A new development of estate homes on lots of 10 acres or more. (1 mile from PPI) MLS 573466 and others. Lot size 10 - 12 acres. Prices for lots (land only) $300,000 to $799,000
I hope my concern is unwarranted.
On December 13, 2006, Brenda wrote:
After reading the stuff above, these testimonies from back in 2004? from the former sanctuary employees that PETA bases this whole case on baffles me. Did they go report this stuff to the local Humane Society, SPCA or law enforcment who have authority to act on laws concerning animal abuse? Sounds like they all went to PETA instead of seeking immediate action from local officials. If I saw a person getting abused I wouldn’t go to the Red Cross and invite them out for a tour! A disgruntled employee who wants revenge or to stir up bad publicity for being fired would go the PETA route since that is what they are known for. A PETA scammer would also go this way it seems. This whole mess is just totally unbelievable. I feel bad for the animals.
On December 14, 2006, Robert S. wrote:
Sadly, this story has a lot of parallels to Iraq. Both were invaded based on faulty evidence and misstatements of fact. The misuse of funds appears to be the AG’s missing weapons of mass destruction. Both have poor leadership resulting in more harm than good. The costs of the damage are out of control. Both have no exit plan. The AG and PETA may want to check on their approval ratings.
On December 14, 2006, Susan Davis wrote:
Most disturbing in all of this is the silence from other animal rights/protection groups. Are they not concerned about these animals? I have to date, not received any replies at all from the Houston SPCA, the HSUS, or the Attorney General’s Office. There is an incredible disregard for donor rights as well as the well being of all the animals at PPI. I wonder if Dr. Kirk’s concerns about Oliver have been addressed? Does anyone know?
On December 15, 2006, Lisa wrote:
Someone needs to contact a reputable journalist on the national level and get this out to the general public. Interview the Jane Goodall staff members who visited. Interview the veterinarians who know about the type of care these animals received. Expose what has happened to the seized animals. Ask the questions that could reveal what truly happened in this takeover and let the public decide if this sort of seizure should be acceptable in the United States. Animal advocates who don’t live in Texas may have no idea that this has happened. I’m sure that some are still confused about the facts. The media, when responsible, can be a great check and balance when there is an injustice.
On December 15, 2006, Stephen Rene Tello wrote:
ADDENDUM: Urgent News. On top of the fact that Lee Theisen-Watt sent out 7 of Primarily Primates’ chimpanzees to CHIMP HAVEN, I have just learned the following information. Please write to Greg Abbott, the Attorney General of Texas and ask that the 7 chimpanzees released by the the temporary receiver Lee Theisen-Watt be returned to Primarily Primates.
The Honorable Greg Abbott
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney
PO Box 12548
Austin TX 78711
(512) 463-2100
The Shreveport Times
Chimp Haven Directors Sued — Group Claims Mismanagement
December 13, 2006
By Janelle Rucker
A group of donors and supporters of Chimp Haven Inc., in Keithville have filed suit accusing the institution’s directors of mismanaging the facility.
Virginia K. Shehee, Mary Jansen, Tim and Sarah Goeders, Linda Koebner and others have asked the court for an injunction against the directors of the nonprofit residence for chimpanzees formerly used for research.
Director and President Linda Brent and director and Chairman of the Board Tom Butler are directly named in the suit.
The plaintiffs believe the defendants “have mismanaged the Chimp Haven Project in Caddo Parish in violation of that corporation’s purpose, to the detriment of the animals residing at Chimp Haven and to the detriment of fundraising and additional grant opportunities on which Chimp Haven must rely on to survive,” according to the suit filed recently.
“Chimp Haven was very shocked to read the allegations considering the great success the sanctuary has enjoyed over the past year,” Chimp Haven spokesman Rick DelaHaya read from a prepared statement as Chimp Haven officials have been advised not to answer any specific questions about the lawsuit.
The suit cites instances in which the plaintiffs accuse the directors of making poor decisions about personnel and maintaining the chimps in social groups at the facility. One such instance plaintiffs claim lead to the death of a chimp named Woodruff, who was placed in a group with three other aggressive male chimpanzees and later found dead from “a heart attack bought on by a combination of an attack upon him from other chimpanzee in his group. …”
“I can assure the community the chimpanzees are doing exceptionally well. They are being cared for by the most experienced staff and the organization is solid and growing,” DelaHaya said. “We are confident that when all the facts are presented in the case, all the allegations will be proved false and we can continue the business of taking care of the chimpanzees, which is our No. 1 priority.”
The plaintiffs also accuse the directors of alienating donors, volunteers and researchers.
The suit lists how the defendants “improperly and illegally” suspended New Yorker Koebner from the board of directors as one such incident of alienating supporters. Also cited was a promise never fulfilled to Shehee that she would become a trustee “in exchange for her assistance and donations.”
To remedy the situation, the group is asking for injuctions, including a court judgment declaring the facility is being seriously and persistently mismanaged, the removal and replacement of Brent and Butler from their positions, restoration of Koebner to the board, and an independent, third-party review of the conditions of the facility and it’s accounts and records.
Now that the suit has been filed, the defendants have to respond, said Julie Blewer, with Davidson, Jones and Summers, who are handling the case for the plaintiffs.
DelaHaya acknowledges they have received a copy of the suit and said the organizations, legal counsel is in the process of reviewing it. Blewer expects an answer from the defendants in the next few weeks but declined to comment further, instead, referring questions to plaintiff Tim Goeders.
Calls to Goeders were not returned.
Chimp Haven remains closed for the winter but will reopen in March or April, DelaHaya said. He doesn’t expect the lawsuit to delay the sanctuary’s opening to the public next season.
The parties:
Plaintiffs: Virginia K. Shehee, of Caddo Parish; Sharon Wright, of Caddo Parish; Mary Jansen, of Caddo Parish; Tim Goeders, of Caddo Parish; Sarah Goeders, of Caddo Parish; Jan Landon, of Caddo Parish; Frank Landon, of Caddo Parish; Cathie Neukum, of New York; Linda Koebner, of New York.
Defendants: Linda Brent, Director and President of Chimp Haven, Inc., of Caddo Parish; Tom Butler, Director and Chairman of the Board, of Texas.
On December 17, 2006, Friends of Animals wrote:
Underscoring the point made by Stephen Rene Tello that the receiver ought to have better prepared regarding equipment:
It turns out that the heaters which the receiver accepted from a corporate donation are propane heaters for home, garden and restaurant patio use — not appropriate for sanctuaries. As they involve a flame, they also present a fire hazard.
On December 20, 2006, [Name withheld] wrote:
I have first-hand experiences with the receiver and her staff. These are the most unprofessional group of people I have ever had to work with. All these allegations that are coming to light about the receiver and the so-called animal care they are providing are true and worse in many more cases. I try to stay neutral since I still work here but that becomes harder with each passing day.
So many of the volunteers that come in to help wind up leaving with a very different opinion about the receiver Lee Theisen-Watt and her right-hand man in all these crimes John Fischer. The most recent volunteer (who became a staff member) left. This person told me directly that Theisen-Watt and Fischer are not as knowledgeable as they would like everyone to believe they are. I’ve heard this same statement over and over again from so many different people who come out here.
The cages these animals are forced to live in are filthy and most of the enrichment that they provide is unsafe. Most of the receiver’s staff is connected to PETA.
On December 20, 2006, Kat wrote:
I thought they were using the propane heaters outside? There’s a photo of one on their website….
Also, a former staff member told me they used to use kerosene heaters for the primates. Isn’t that worse than propane? It makes awful fumes….
FoA comments:
In the past, PPI only relied on kerosene heaters for temporary heat — the “fumes” from a properly operated kerosene heater are not considered a danger to humans or chimpanzees. PPI has a modern heating system that was well-maintained and in use until the takeover by the receiver.
While the receiver reports that the heating system is broken, it’s more likely she does not know how to operate it. Stephen Tello has offered his assistance in getting the heating system turned on.
The apparent problem with the recently donated heaters to PPI is that they are shown as being put to use “outside” — outside the enclosures and sleeping-quarters of the animals. Because of the design, size and use limitations of this type of heater, the animals will receive little or no benefit from them.
On December 20, 2006, Grazier wrote:
That’s interesting, because every time I go there I see numerous people all working together very well. Is the receiver an expert on everything? Of course not. But she is clearly working for the benefit of the sanctuary and not some nefarious PeTA stooge as she is portrayed here.
BTW, what “knowledge” did Wally Swett have before he started taking on chimps and monkeys and Patagonian Cavies and lions and….??
[Blog editors’ notes: 1. The whole case against the refuge, resulting in this temporary receivership, was brought by PeTA; and it is public knowledge that the receiver and PeTA attorneys are working together closely. 2. Wally Swett didn’t pretend to know more than others, treat them as nonpersons, and ruin their lives’ work.]
On December 21, 2006, [Name withheld] wrote:
More interesting news. Wednesday & Thursday (today) they (Theisen-Watt, Lynn-the HR personnel who is a PETA supporter and so is her mother who is out here also & Fisher) are evaluating certain employees. One male animal caretaker was fired yesterday. His girlfriend is one of the many volunteers who openly made her feelings toward Theisen-Watt & Fisher known. So not a big surprise that he was fired. They told him the reason he was fired is because he was taking too long in caring for the animals. Since when did animal care have a time limit?
I do believe since I am not a supporter of PETA or Theisen-Watt I am next.
Right now they have recently hired Fisher’s wife & some of her friends. I bet they’d support whatever cause they are told to.
For anybody to say they have a pretty good idea what goes on out here just from what they see out in the open does not paint a good picture from what goes on behind closed doors. When I was hired I was told by Theisen-Watt and Fisher to stay away from 3 particular care staff employees because they were trouble. Just so everyone knows these 3 employees were part of the orginal animal care staff. This does not create the “everyone let’s pull it together for the animals” attitude. Does it?
One more fact before I go back to work; Theisen-Watt’s attorney does hold a PETA Activist Award. Can the connections be any more clear?
On December 22, 2006, Taylor wrote:
Thanks for the update on the court case. I wonder why the Attorney General is so eager to settle. Will FOA help the sanctuary once the case is over? I read a letter saying there was going to be a merger of PPI and FOA.
FoA comments:
FoA is helping PPI right now by helping with its legal defense. Once the court case is resolved, a merger with FoA will give PPI the financial resources to recover from the damage done by the still ongoing onslaught of Peta and the AG.
On January 7, 2007, Kat wrote:
[Name withheld) wrote: “When I was hired I was told by Theisen-Watt and Fisher to stay away from 3 particular care staff employees because they were trouble. Just so everyone knows these 3 employees were part of the orginal animal care staff.”
Is there any kind of legal fund for former animal care staff? If there is, who’s covered under it - i.e. can it serve for former volunteers too?
[Blog editors’ note: The former caregivers and bookkeeper were either fired or driven off by the current regime, directed by PeTA and supported by their apologists at the Attorney General’s office. A defense fund for Primarily Primates has been established by Friends of Animals. FoA is paying PPI’s legal expenses. Contributions to defend Primarily Primates and to defeat the efforts to undermine and destroy the primate sanctuary can be sent to: Friends of Animals, 777 Post Road, Darien, CT 06820.]
On January 8, 2007, Jerry wrote:
As receiver, Theisen-Watt opened the doors of the facility to PETA staff and attorneys and they immediately began to dismantle the sanctuary and wage a vicious publicity attack. She took down PPI’s original website, attempting to erase all traces of the postive accomplishments of the sanctuary, and has intead used it attack the very organization it was designed to promote. She has used PPI’s website to wage personal attacks against the founder and former director and other individuals opposing her. She has been 100% negative against the facility in her unending inflammatory statements to the media. Is this within the duties of a court-appointed receiver? The [jury] trial has yet to begin.
Is this case about investigating or persecuting? Accusations are not proof and guilt depends upon evidence and due process of law. Day by day our rights are whittled away with big money influencing elections and our legal system.
Sworn testimony was given in court by sanctuary staff that Theisen-Watt staged unflattering, dirty cages for the media to make the facility look bad. She admitted in court that she lied about her educational credentials. Is credibility and integrity not desirable in a court appointed receivership?
PETA has had a long-standing feud with PPI. Theisen-Watt gave PETA staff and attorneys complete access to unsecured evidence. Exactly who is investigating these charges, the Attorney General or PETA? Should not evidence be secured from tampering by interested parties in the case? It has already been demonstrated — by sworn court testimony, not media propaganda - that faking evidence and lying to the court are within her arsenal.
What evidence has been produced supporting the claims of PETA, Theisen-Watt and the Texas Attorney General that hundreds of thousands of dollars were misappropriated by Primarily Primates? To make these statements over and over to the media with clear intent to damage the PPI, is persecution not investigation. PPI has stated they can account for every dollar and nothing has been proven otherwise.
The media is driven by unpleasant and disturbing information. It sells. PETA owes much of its success to playing to the public. PETA attorney Leanna Stormont made a statement to the news crews on the day of the raid that dogs belong with families. PETA “euthanizes” healthy cats and dogs by the thousands because it is cheaper than trying to place them in homes. Just a fine example of the blatant hypocrisy for the sake of public appearance that PETA thrives on.
Information thrust into the media, whether fact or fiction, can not be retrieved from the minds of the public once it has been dispersed. I would hope that the Texas Attorney General would be far more respectful of the legal system and the rights of the citizens of Texas and not support tabloid propaganda to win cases. I would hope that the Texas Attorney General would conduct investigations in a manner above reproach. Apparently that is not the case.
That any citizen or organization of this country can be convicted by media propaganda before a trial has even begun is a travesty. In this case reputations have been destroyed by a campaign of hearsay and innuendos from a joint effort of a court-appointed receivership, [the] activist group PETA and the Texas Attorney General. This is cause for alarm. I urge anyone interested in protecting your rights to contact your state representatives. The events and conduct in this case by the Texas Attorney General need to be addressed and investigated. …activists and special interest groups should not be given the power to assume control of assets before a trial.
The receiver in this case was clearly biased against the sanctuary. Her intent is clear. Her statements to the media and her intricate relationships with PETA have resulted in an abuse of power.
One day it could be your property that someone with money and power wants.
On January 8, 2007, PAPA wrote:
Now that just shows you that everyone has an opinion and that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Bottom line…. The animals are MUCH better off now than they were. And thats all thats important.
On January 8, 2007, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:
When deciding where they’re “better off” ask if you would want to be in a holding area where the National Institutes of Health calls the shots — the same entity that uses chimpanzees in scientific experiments and testing. Does anyone really have the audacity to speak for chimpanzees in a way that indicates they are “better off” in that situation?
Chimp Haven serves according to the government’s convenience under a ten-year contract. Even its board was formed under the direction of legal requirements suitable to the federal system created under the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance, and Protection (CHIMP) Act — a law passed as a cost-saving measure for the federal government. That law effectively subsidizes research on nonhuman apes by getting private funds to cover 25% of the yearly upkeep and housing of the apes held outside labs — but who can, as a matter of law, be recalled into research at any time.
A recent article in the Boston Globe notes how the staff of Wyoming Senator Michael B. Enzi ensured that Congress will continue to leave open the possibility that the chimpanzees at Chimp Haven might be used for scientific purposes, as “researchers might want to call back the retired chimpanzees to laboratories for homeland-security reasons.”
In the event of a bioterrorism attack, the Globe explains, “the chimps might be needed to test how to protect humans from toxic agents.” Indeed, that is what the co-founders of Chimp Haven understood might be asked of them when they signed up to do this, and why no true sanctuaries agreed to take this contract.
In 2001, Sumner D. Matthes of the American Sanctuary Association wrote to Dr. Raymond R. O’Neill of the NIH’s National Center for Research Resources: “As our ASA Policy Statement specifies that our sanctuaries accept responsibility for the ‘lifetime’ care and welfare of the animals, the provisions of Public Law 106-551 [the Chimp Act], as relates to the possible NIH removal of chimpanzees from the sanctuary system, are unacceptable to ASA.”
Just as the American Sanctuary Association knows, the receiver knows the mission and the legal requirements relevant to Chimp Haven’s mission. The receiver also knows Chimp Haven’s mission is in serious conflict with another mission — that of PPI. And that is the mission that this receiver pledged to protect.
Lee Hall
Legal Director
On February 4, 2007, ChimpGirl wrote:
[Blog editors’ note: We at Friends of Animals welcome statements of opinion. Guests who write to our blog are responsible for verifying any and all facts which their posts may include. We are unable to research and verify all claims, or to respond to queries regarding claims made by visitors to this site. Thank you.]
Chimp Haven Facts
I decided to do some fact checking before making up my mind about the Chimp Haven/PPI/OSU/FOA debate. I visited Chimp Haven, read their website and tried to get the financial information from them that most non profits are happy to provide to their donors. This is what I found:
Of the 200 acres Chimp Haven boosts about, less than 10 acres make up the two forested habitats. Only 38 chimps, including the new baby, live in these small pine forests. Simple math tells me that at least 50 chimps are living in cages and fenced in play yards viewing life through bars every day.
There is no human contact with the chimps (other than visual), allowed at Chimp Haven unless an animal is injured and needs medical attention. I find this disturbing in many ways. Most lab chimps receive some type of human enrichment every day; the OSU chimps were raised with full physical contact with humans. To take this type of attention away from them must do emotional and mental harm. Especially babies like, Harper and Emma. I can’t imagine how an animal care taker must feel seeing them reaching out for the simplest touch and knowing they could loose their jobs if they show some compassion. I find it a strange policy for a sanctuary.
All seven of the OSU chimps live in a completely enclosed cage approximately 100 × 100. Past OSU animal care staff may visit but can not touch the chimps they know so well. The OSU controversy is interesting as well. OSU claims that they asked Linda Brent, president and dictator of Chimp Haven to accept the nine chimpanzees in early 2006. She said no, blaming the NIH. Two of the OSU chimps have died since. Now Brent wants us to believe that Chimp Haven “rescued” the OSU chimps from PPI. The truth can be found on PETA’s website. PETA offered to pay all expenses and lifetime care to Chimp Haven if they would accept the seven remaining chimps. This money exchange “rescue” puts Chimp Haven in violation of their NIH grant, space that was bought and paid for by the NIH for lab chimps was given to the OSU chimps.
Further thanks to Brent, whose only work experience is with an animal laboratory, Chimp Haven finds itself involved in no less than three lawsuits!
1. Chimp Haven donors lawsuit - alleging very serious mismanagement leading to multiple animal deaths and financial mismanagement. Tax payers dollars, PETA dollars, private donations, the facility is still incomplete and they need loans??
2. PPI/PETA custody lawsuit — was it legal to accept funds from PETA to remove animals that were not owned by PETA? Was it legal to remove them at all?
3. Former employee lawsuit — and there are lots of former employees for this facility that has been housing chimps for less than two years.
There may be even more lawsuits, these are the few I discovered very easily through the local paper. The Shreveport, Louisiana Times has reported on Chimp Haven many times in the past.
From personal observation, the animal care staff at Chimp Haven is doing a good job. When I asked (on several occasions, in person, telephone and email), how much money was spent on administration versus direct animal care I received vague answers. No real numbers or percentages that most non profits will publish for donors. Why the secrecy? So I checked out Chimp Haven’s tax records and found that the top level employees are making high five and low six figure salaries. I was shocked — this is a non profit isn’t it?
My conclusion, check out everything before making decisions on who you support. It’s simple, takes little time and it’s important. Ask questions, visit the facility, a simple Google search can produce tons of information. Weigh the good and the bad. As for me, my money will go to the REAL sanctuaries.
Good luck to all of the chimps in the world. I hope someday people will realize that you belong in the wild and should not be used for medical or entertainment reasons. Until then God Bless You.