Good News from Primarily Primates
What’s new at Primarily Primates? A lot of good things.
Today, everywhere you look there’s new construction and renovation. Workers, donors, and supporters have been busy since early May on projects from basic cleaning and lock repair to very exciting ideas for a comprehensive psychological stimulation package for the apes.
Nearing completion are new living spaces for seven chimpanzees formerly used in a lab at Ohio State University, supported with funding from the school. Shade trees are being planted in their area and also around the gibbons’ space, which is being expanded in both length and height. Additional shading is being built in the areas where former Air Force chimpanzees reside. The capuchin monkeys, guenons, macaques, the baboons, and the lemur groups too, will get a new, grass-based living space. Squirrel monkeys and lemurs will get new sleeping areas!
It was late April when the Texas Attorney General settled litigation over Primarily Primates, North America’s pioneering primate refuge. The site was managed under a receivership from last October to May of this year, based on a number of charges on which the refuge sought and obtained acquittals. The Attorney General, with agreement of the probate judge in Austin, believed that the best interest of the state of Texas, of the refuge, and of the animals who live there would be advanced by enabling Primarily Primates to move ahead with a restructured board. Priscilla Feral, appointed president, will help direct future policy and administration of the sanctuary. Stephen Tello, who has worked with the animals since 1986, was named as the sanctuary’s new executive director.
The first priorities for Priscilla and Stephen are to assure the health and safety of the animals and workers, and to move forward on construction tasks interrupted by earlier litigation. Caregivers who know the animals, plus new hires and Dr. Valerie Kirk, Primarily Primates’ staff veterinarian, were in place within the first week of May. Within a few weeks, all the living spaces were clean and the animals were enjoying the warmth and fresh air of summer. The goal is to ensure that the sanctuary is consistently tidy, well-run, communicative, and a place advocates can be proud to support.
Before the receivership, the sanctuary relied on about 18,000 donors to generate the funds needed to run a large sanctuary. Under control of the receivership, the sanctuary’s website was unfortunately used to disparage the refuge — alas, exactly the wrong way to keep public support for a charity. The site is now run by the professional staff at Friends of Animals, and is updated with new and exciting information and videos showing all the work in progress.
New septic systems are being installed for more efficient waste water treatment, new pressure washing systems are being put into place, and a walk-in refrigerator will keep produce cool and fresh for primates, birds, foxes, and other refuge animals. Soon a major effort will begin that will expand exercise and recreational equipment for the apes and monkeys.
All in all, the refuge has more than thirty projects now underway and planned through the years ahead. A sleeping area is being designed for the leopard, as well as new housing for Errol the African lion. The mountain lions will have new areas to dine and to sleep.
The refuge will relocate and redesign marmoset and tamarin housing, and build new spaces for the kinkajous — nocturnal mammals of South America who love fruits.
Since its founding 29 years ago, Primarily Primates has provided thousands of animals with an alternative from institutionalized lives and deaths. The refuge enters its thirtieth anniversary year revitalized and ready for its greatest challenge: becoming a model and revitalizing the sanctuary movement itself. We can’t do it alone. By investing in Primarily Primates, you can make it happen.
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.
9 Comments
On July 18, 2007, Anita Mackey wrote:
Primarily Primates and Friends of Animals - a winning combination!! I heartily support you both.
It was very gratifying to finally learn the truth about what was happening at the sanctuary.
Anita
New York City
On July 20, 2007, Dustin wrote:
Yes! The news of progress is, indeed, exciting! I have no doubt: Primarily Primates will become a “model,” thus “revitalizing the sanctuary movement.”
On July 30, 2007, Stephen Tello, Primarily Primates wrote:
Dear Anita, Dustin, et al.,
The Eagle Scouts are here volunteering to build new emu pen. They will be done shortly and the new emu pen will be much larger with a higher fence around most of the area… larger shelter too. We are going to mulch their pen to keep weeds down and smelling nicer. Sincerely, Stephen
On August 5, 2007, Susan wrote:
Would Friends Of Animals please comment on and clarify the
Commentary article by Lori Gruen which appears in the Sunday, August 5,2007 Hartford Courant? The article states Friends of Animals is attempting to recover animals rescued from the Texas
Primarily Primates facility- animals already placed in sanctuaries where thet are well-cared-for, happy, and thriving. Why would Friends of Animals wish to move the already-rescued animals and put them back in Texas ? Lori Gruen states you are more concerned about reclaiming “your property” (the animals now in other sanctuaries) than you are with the fact that are now in excellent care. Which is the primary concern? Please do not speak in terms of property, but rather in terms of compassion. The animals must be, and remain, the paramount concern. FOA must not allow any other agenda to take priority over the animals. FOA does not have limitless resources, and must take this fact into account. Please respond, and thank you.
[Susan, are you aware that the other sanctuaries (represented by Bruce Wagman, who is a litigation advisor with the Animal Legal Defense Fund and has worked closely with PETA’s legal staff) are suing us to keep temporarily repositioned animals based on the theory that they are “in possession” of these individuals? That is a traditional property argument, so do not be bamboozled by those who are suing us and say they are all about compassion and not making any property arguments. They are.]
On August 6, 2007, Leslie Dakin, RN wrote:
Today’s Hartford Courant commentary section has an article that is not at all flattering about Friends of Animals trying to send chimps and other primates back to a facility called Primarily Primates, Inc. What exactly is going on? I am very suspicious of FOA and what they are trying to do. Can anyone from FOA respond to the commentary, written by Lori Gruen? I would like to hear their side of things.
[First, thank you for asking us; and it would help if you will keep an open mind regarding the answer instead of a suspicious one. We certainly can and will respond. The “facility” you mention is actually a refuge, the oldest primate refuge in the country. Contrary to what’s stated in Gruen’s essay, chimpanzee experts from Ohio State University did indeed examine Primarily Primates before sending the chimpanzees there, and so did Virginia Landau, a primate specialist with the Jane Goodall Institute. Priscilla Feral did as well. All of this is publicly documented and so is the actual reality that the two chimpanzees who died did so due to pre-existing heart conditions. Gruen maintains that the chimpanzees ought to have been kept in a laboratory. But eventually the lab itself didn’t think so, and neither did Primarily Primates, which stepped up to look after these individuals for life. Do you? You are responding to an entry on this page that details some of the positive things happening since Primarily Primates, under a restructured board, was cleared by the Texas Attorney General’s office and the probate court in Austin to continue providing for the apes and other animals. We’re committed to supporting that — as we think the animal advocacy movement ought to be. ]
On August 6, 2007, Peter Auster wrote:
I too am troubled by the article in the Hartford Courant. While I applaud the changes underway at Primarily Primates, your response to the previous question does not address the ongoing conflcit about seeking the return of the animals that have seemingly found good and supportive homes elsewhere. Why disrupt their lives again to return them to Texas?
[Dear Peter Auster: Do you believe that where there is a temporary upheaval in a sanctuary (or in someone’s home— recall Katrina) that animals who are offered temporary shelter should never be returned? Would you, in such a situation, decline to “disrupt their lives”? Please recall that each of these entities agreed in writing to house animals temporarily. We think “good and supportive homes” would not advance a policy of doing that and then refusing to return animals. The primates and steer, when brought back, will have good, secure living spaces and people who are dedicated to their lifetime care. If Primarily Primates did not care about getting them back — then you should be concerned about Primarily Primates’ commitment. It’s quite odd that anyone in the advocacy community would not understand why a refuge seeks the very animals whom it promised lifetime care.]
On August 6, 2007, Sandy Smith wrote:
I am sorry but you still avoid the question in the two comments above and this is unnerving. It is my understanding that you still have many animals to care for that are living in substandard conditions.
[Hello to Sandy Smith, and thank you for your concern. Please know that you are not understanding the situation correctly. No one at Primarily Primates at this time is living in substandard conditions. Nor will they be in the future. We assure you of that. It’s the animals’ quality of life and our reputation on the line, and let us tell you, we care very, very much about both.]
It is also a fact that you are involved in serveral legal battles at the moment that cut into your funds.
[Not all of our making, as you know. The restructured refuge was encouraged by the Texas authorities at the conclusion of the receivership to put forth efforts to bring back the nonhuman residents who were temporarily moved out.]
Why would you be fighting and essentially wasting donations to take those animals from wonderful and providing homes to put them at PPI which has a long way to go before it will be in any condition to receive more animals to care for.
[Most of our donors expect us to “fight” for animals. But why would anyone in the animal-advocacy community force us to? Each one of the animals we’re bringing back has a perfectly good spot, without exception. In the case of the gibbons, for example, twelve were removed, one gibbon alone remains. In a spacious area, where they were animated, sociable, and always active and singing in their lovely way.]
Would that money not be better spent to continue to improve the enclosures already existing at PPI?
[Both are important — not only one or the other.]
Why not use the enclosure you are constructing for the OSU chimps to better another animal’s life that may be living in cramped condtions or could just use more space (there is never enough space in captivity)?
[Good heavens! These are individuals we’re committed to! They are not replaceable, like cars or brooms.]
Some of your donors are not confident in these choices. Please help us understand your decisions other than your comment concerning your promises to life long care for these animals. The animals you are trying to retrieve are already receiving wonderful care in homes that are better suited for them than PPI is at this time or in the future. Thank you for your time.
[Again, these are individuals. They were already there, some of them raised there, and that counts for something in moral terms. It also counts for the ones still there, who know them. By “homes” do you mean sanctuaries? Sanctuaries especially should know why this is important to a refuge. What if a gibbon sanctuary gets overtaken by flooding (a highly plausible scenario) and their gibbons have to be temporarily repositioned? Should the sanctuary never expect to see them again? What if another Katrina hits (highly likely)? Are people told “Your cat’s in wonderful care now, and you can get another”? That would set a terrible policy.]
On August 7, 2007, S.Smith wrote:
First, I would like to thank you for your response.
[You are welcome and thank you for writing to us].
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. You are not FORCED to “fight” for these animals, you choose to.
[We believe it a good thing to stand by one’s commitments, yes.]
I understand your train of thought on this matter, but it is not like you would be saving them or rescueing them. The stress the animals would endure during the transfer and tearing them away from there exquisite new homes and families would seem, in my opinion, not at all in the animals’ best interest.
[You are aware that signing in agreement with two trips — out of the refuge and back — was done by the temporary Receiver and the other parties who are suing to keep the animals, correct?]
The gibbons, for example, are at a nationally reknown gibbon sanctuary. What better place for a gibbon than a gibbon sanctuary, where they will do everything you mentioned they did at PPI and more?
[Please note that we have never cast aspersions on the sites; we have never been critical of what gibbons are offered at the gibbon sanctuary. Primarily Primates is also a gibbon sanctuary — it is a refuge founded to offer sanctuary primarily to apes and monkeys. Both sanctuaries should be respected and supported.]
I was, by no means, implying that you should REPLACE animals that have been moved or to not care about them.
[Thank you for that.]
I am just wondering why part of your commitment wouldn’t be to realize that they may have a better life where they are at now, and to turn your focus back to several animals already at PPI that you also have a commitment to.
[Primarily Primates already has a commitment to the ones at the refuge and the ones who were temporarily repositioned. Although humans can never truly replace the families primates would have had in their own habitat, a refuge ought to have the concern that a parent has.]
I wouldn’t say this situation is like your example of Katrina(or other disasters). I should think a sanctuary would look at the animals’ best interest and quality of life. If another sanctuary can offer something more to an animal than your own then why not do what is better for the animal and give them that opportunity to flourish?
[But is that how the sanctuary community ought to function? Should that be standard practice? The most well-endowed refuge should keep all the animals? Would that be the best policy in a child custody case? Often, it would not. Primarily Primates is indeed making decisions on a case-by-case basis, and taking the responses to these suits extremely seriously.]
The animals in question would definitely benifit. You (or those having a connection with these animals) might be sad not to have them in your personal care, but wouldn’t you be happy that you were able to grant them something more?
[Again, it depends on the full circumstances of the case. But if you were to agree to take in some nonhuman refugees in the midst of some temporary upheaval, and you agreed that — absent some official order to the contrary — you’d give them back when the emergency was over, what would you do? If you are unsure, perhaps it is best not to make the agreement to accept the animals temporarily if you might change your mind later?]
Again, thank you for your time and conversation.
[You’re welcome. Thank you for clarifying your views for us.]
On August 9, 2007, Letter printed in Hartford Courant today wrote:
Chimps’ Cause Of Death Disputed
August 9, 2007
Lori Gruen’s Commentary article [Aug. 5, “False Friends”] is wonderfully compassionate, but it’s also dead wrong in some of its facts. That’s troubling when Gruen makes the point that she’s using the story of these animals in her teaching.
She maintains that Kermit, the alpha male chimpanzee, suffocated during transport into the refuge. But a necropsy immediately after his death showed he died from a pre-existing heart condition. We posted that necropsy report online for all the world to see, but many animal advocates, like Gruen, ignore the facts.
She then maintains that Bobby, a young male chimp, died of loneliness. The necropsy report on Bobby, which we also posted publicly, showed he also died of a different pre-existing heart condition, not an uncommon malady among captive great apes.
Although it makes great drama to tell the story Gruen’s way, it’s still false. College professors, like journalists, have a responsibility to get the facts straight.
Earle M. Holland
Assistant Vice President for Research Communications Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio