The Little Rock Zoo has no answers for us about our Chimp Louie dieing! Nor do they care!

So many questions and no answers
by Greg Harrison

It has now been over 2 weeks since we received the email informing us of Louie’s passing, and while the grief, emptiness, and sadness is still unbearable at times, in those moments when we have some time to ponder lucid thoughts, all we are left with are many, many questions….and no answers.

Judie has always given you, her readers across the globe, the opportunity to probe and discuss while learning about apes and monkeys ion ways no other site on the internet provides. Her point of view is like no other, as we have owned primates, worked with primates, and when challenged with the ultimate questions that have confronted so many private owners before us – “What do you do when you know they can’t be with you any longer?” – We answered with what we thought at the time was the correct thing to do – and we placed them.

Here is a link to the story that was posted on the internet - fed by a press release by the PR folks at the zoo – and not really reported on. Take a quick second to read the link below, and then save the link so you can follow along with the tale:

http://www.katv.com/story/15298888/zoo-sadly-reports-loss-of-louie-the-chimp

Now that Louie has passed on from this world, and we have begun the grieving process, this blog would like for you readers to take a few minutes and ponder the questions that are running through our collective brains today:

1. Why weren’t we informed that Louie was sick? Why weren’t we asked for any of the “gen etic records” that the press release claims that could have “aided in the diagnosis” of Louie’s disease?

2. The zoo knew where the chimps were born. We discussed that with them at length before they went there. Why didn’t the zoo veterinarian call the facility, or us, to discuss her needs?

3. What resources did the vet tap into across the world for help with Louie’s condition? Did she call the CDC? Did she call the NIH? Was there any investigation into this condition?

4. The following link, easily found in a 30 second search on the internet, quotes a world renowned researcher, Dr. Alessio Fasano at the University of Maryland “"Apes, monkeys and chimpanzees rarely develop autoimmune disorders…” – so why was the zoo veterinarian convinced that what Louie had developed was indeed an AID?

http://www.physorg.com/news171565111.html

5. Was there an environmental trigger at the zoo that, if Louie had been born with this condition would have triggered his response? We find it very coincidental that this same zoo, in the past three years, has had three infants die, and now 7 year old Louie die. Chimps are very hearty, durable animals. Louie had maybe had two colds in his whole life before he got to Little Rock. He had a great appetite, was as strong as an ox, and in this picture taken at the zoo in June (found on Flickr by us last month) he looks pretty good – maybe even a little heavy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30866950@N07/5915794195/sizes/o/in/photostream/

6. Lastly – we have asked the USDA to investigate the treatment and care that Louie received from the zoo in the past several months. Now we know by reading this blog that this poorly run governmental agency has had its own disagreements with Judie and I – but we must try to find a way within ourselves to trust the system to do the right things and investigate his death the right way. We promise to keep you readers informed of the progress of things from here on out, and we are going to be working on a tribute site to Louie where readers will be able to see many pictures of Louie, his media work, and some real good stories that we will share with you.

Thank you all for your readership

Is a Monkey, Chimp, Lion or Tiger living next to you?

Readers, I just posted some information today about how you can tell whether a sanctuary is a good or bad one. it's worth reading, just a few posts down. This is NOT a sanctuary!!!!!!!! This is why people get confused about what is good and what is bad. The most important thing is that a Real Sanctuary DOES NOT interact with the animals!! That is not sanction for the animals. Anyone that thinks you can take the wild out of a wild animal is disillusioned! I know I worked with them for over 15 years. Once a wild animal always a wild animal. Look at the Travis/Sandra Herold/Charla Nash case. Travis was like a child to Sandra, she slept with him, lived with him in her home and he did all of the things that humans did but...... one day his wildness came out. Not only did he attack Charla but then tried to go after the person that loved him more than anything, the person that raised him from a baby. You just can't make them domestacted no matter what you do or how long you do it for. I had rescued a toothless monkey once and even with no teeth he broke a few bones in my hand by rapid biting me.

I hope when this movie comes out they don't put a spin on it that makes it look "cool" to own an exotic animal. I once met a tiger that was suppose to be put to death because he had pulled a woman with his paw to the edge of his cage and he ripped her apart through the cage!!!!!. Before the authroites could take the tiger the owners moved him to another facility and that's where I meet him. He was housed alone because he couldn't be trusted with any other tigers. People that own exotic animals should have in their wills to donate their organs because their death will surly come.

Story;
Just a few pages into a book given to him by a friend, Michael Webber couldn't believe what he was reading: Thousands of Americans keep exotic wildlife, from tigers to lethally poisonous snakes, in their homes and yards -- absolutely unregulated.

"It just seemed bizarre to me that there are some areas of the country that require you to get a dog license to own a poodle, but in that same area, you can get a tiger and raise it in your home," the Hollywood TV and film producer says by phone from Ohio. "Or you can get a venomous snake, a python, a chimpanzee, and there is absolutely no licensing requirement or oversight. Your neighbor can even stick an elephant in the back yard and there is nothing you can do about it."

The book, "Wildlife Warrior: More Tales Of Suburban Safaris" by former animal-control officer Tim Harrison, became the beginning of an odyssey for Webber, which led to the new documentary, "The Elephant in the Living Room," which opens at selected theaters in Denver next week.

The movie explores the strange and often shadowy world of "exotic" wildlife in the United States, from marketers and auctions to owners who have formed a deep attachment to their "pets." It focuses on Harrison, who has avidly crusaded against ownership and marketing of wildlife, and Terry Brumfield, an Ohio man who raised and kept two African lions, Lambert and Lacey, in his home.

Boulder native Pat Craig, founder of The Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesberg, appears in "The Elephant in the Living Room." Camera file photo ( JON HATCH)touching, even cute, but it's anything but. Lambert, the male lion, escapes onto a local highway, where he is reported for chasing down speeding cars (911 operators were understandably incredulous). After that, the authorities give their owner an ultimatum: give the lions away, or keep them penned up. Brumfield, who formed deep emotional attachment to the lions as cubs, when he was recovering from a severe accident, reluctantly keeps them in a cramped, filthy horse trailer, where they live for several months.

Boulder native Pat Craig, founder of The Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesberg, appears in "The Elephant in the Living Room." Camera file photo ( JON HATCH)touching, even cute, but it's anything but. Lambert, the male lion, escapes onto a local highway, where he is reported for chasing down speeding cars (911 operators were understandably incredulous). After that, the authorities give their owner an ultimatum: give the lions away, or keep them penned up. Brumfield, who formed deep emotional attachment to the lions as cubs, when he was recovering from a severe accident, reluctantly keeps them in a cramped, filthy horse trailer, where they live for several months.

The film mostly walks a carefully non-judgmental line, and Webber even confesses that he formed a bond with Brumfield, who comes off as well-meaning but clueless.

"These aren't evil people," Webber says. "They are people who love animals, arguably more than most people out there. They have a strong connection to their exotics, even stronger than some people have for their dogs or cats."

The story of Harrison's gentle attempts to persuade Brumfield to give up the lions is interwoven with harrowing tales of animals turning on their owners, hidden-camera footage of the people behind the exotic market and interviews with people on both sides of the debate.

But despite the sympathy he developed for Brumfield, Webber says he came down on the side of those who want to limit and regulate, if not ban, the ownership of most wildlife in the United States.

"I just experienced all the negative sides of this, for the animals and the owners," he says.

Pat Craig, a Boulder native who is founder and director of the Wild Animal Sanctuary near Keenesburg on the eastern plains of Colorado, appears in the film. He advised Webber and Harrison, and eventually took in some of the animals shown.

"For me the movie represents a great educational tool. Joe Public will see it and say, 'Wow, that is a huge problem.' I'm a real fan of the movie in that sense," Craig says.

But he is uncompromising in his refusal to "coddle" people who take in animals that they will deprive of a natural habitat and life, and for which almost all are unequipped to care for. He even criticizes Webber and Harrison for succumbing on camera to the lure of some lion cubs.

"All these people love their animals," Craig says. "But they either provide for them or don't provide. I don't doubt that (Brumfield) loved his lions. ... But we learned a long time ago that being sympathetic, having any hesitation initially (with owners) will end up costing the animals."

Craig points out that virtually all large exotic wildlife goes without any veterinary care simply because most vets won't -- or can't -- handle them. Most people have no exotic animal husbandry skills and almost none can provide a suitable habitat for say, a tiger, a bear, or even a large snake.

The Wild Animal Sanctuary permanently cares for almost 300 animals that have been abandoned by their previous owners, including about 70 tigers, 86 bears, 34 wolves and 40 African lions. The animals live on 320 acres and cost about $3 million a year to care for, Craig says. Animals are prevented from breeding through birth control. (The public may visit the sanctuary for a fee; for more information, go to wildanimalsanctuary.org.)

Terry Brumfield, an Ohio man who kept adult lions at his home, in "The Elephant in the Living Room." Courtesy photo. animals," Craig says. "But they either provide for them or don't provide. I don't doubt that (Brumfield) loved his lions. ... But we learned a long time ago that being sympathetic, having any hesitation initially (with owners) will end up costing the animals."

Craig points out that virtually all large exotic wildlife goes without any veterinary care simply because most vets won't -- or can't -- handle them. Most people have no exotic animal husbandry skills and almost none can provide a suitable habitat for say, a tiger, a bear, or even a large snake.

Since animals are considered property in most states and seizing them often results in lawsuits, Craig advocates laws requiring that owners pay for liability insurance.

"We should require a million dollars worth of insurance," he says. "It's amazing how so many owners who say they would never give up (an animal) find out they have to pay insurance premiums and suddenly say (screw) it."

Large carnivores get most of the film's attention, but it notes that Americans own everything from chimpanzees to poisonous snakes such as the deadly gabon viper. The non-profit, all-volunteer Colorado Reptile Humane Society in Longmont, which handles everything from small lizards to venomous snakes such as western diamondback rattlers, constantly battles the problem of people taking in animals they can't care for.

"Calling them exotics is funny to begin with," says associate director Jonathan Sculpin. "The only extraordinary thing is that we humans have taken them out of their natural setting. ... People put a 5-foot long snake an aquarium. But in the wild that animal has at least an acre of habitat over which it roams."

And as the film makes clear with breathless local TV stories, when wild animals behave like, well, wild animals, they tend to take the blame.

"In North America, we think the role of a tiger or a lion or a chimpanzee is to put clothes on them, to dress up a chimp in an Old Navy commercial with a spoon. But eventually, if (the chimp) tears your face, your genitalia, your hands and feet off, we say it went bad. But that is what a chimp is meant to do," Webber says, recalling a horrific 2009 incident in which a "pet" chimpanzee attacked a woman in Connecticut. News reports said neighbors were "shocked" by the animal's behavior.

An emergency room physician in the film, Dr. Roger Paholka of Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton, Ohio, shakes his head at the many cases he's seen of exotic pets harming people.

"We see them as safe and cuddly, as opposed to people in Africa, who see them as something that wants to eat your face," Paholka says onscreen.

But both Webber and Craig regret that public debate over the issue -- to the extent that there is any -- tends to be focused on public safety to the exclusion of the animals' welfare. The film ends with brief footage of animals rescued and released into the grasslands at the Wild Animal Sanctuary, a stark contrast to their earlier extreme confinement.
"These are non-domesticated, majestic animals," Webber says. "After the initial fascination, you become sad. Gosh, that tiger is never going to run, never hunt, and hopefully never breed. It is never going to be able to do things it was programmed and designed to do."
Story and photo Credit Here

Little Rock Zoo wants patrons to support the new Primate Bill

This is where I placed my 2 chimpanzees, Mikey and Louie.

LITTLE ROCK – Officials at the Little Rock Zoo are urging patrons to support proposed legislation that would ban private ownership of primates.

The zoo says it supports senate bill SB901 because of safety and health concerns. SB901 is scheduled to be considered by the house Public Health Committee on Thursday.

In an email, zoo director Susan Altrui says primates purchased by private citizens as pets often grow up to be adults that are difficult to control. As a result zoos are often asked to take custody of the primates, which they can't always do.

In addition, Altrui says pet primates pose a risk to public health because they can carry diseases such as Ebola and hepatitis B.

On Tuesday a group of monkey owners showed up at the State Capitol to speak out against the legislation.
Story Credit Here

Here is the Bill- (click on each page to enlarge- opens as a PDF) bill found here

How does a person know if a sanctuary is a good one or a bad one?

Hi readers!
I received a question in regards to how does one know if a sanctuary is a good or bad one. This is such an important question that I thought it deserved a separate post. I have so much information on here that sometimes it's easy to overlook the comments.

Usually "good" sanctuaries are not located in a neighborhood around people, they are usually very remote with many acres of land to give the animals plenty of space, sanction and away from people for reasons such as, but not limited to, escapes, intruders.
They are a non-profit 501(c)3 and not an exhibitor. Their sanctuary is held by a board of directors with the non-profit owning the sanctuary. The sanctuary is not privately held. According to the USDA all exhibitors must "exhibit", "exploit" their animals by allowing people to come into the facility. Real sanctuaries do not allow people to be present around the primates. Educating people on Primates does not mean that they have to visit or see them in person. That's what zoos are for.

Before they open a new sanctuary they make sure that the primates are permitted not only on a state level but city and county. They obtain all permits before accepting any primates. They don't believe in private ownership of primates.

They speak to the public about how primates should not be held in a personal way. In no way do they help pet owners of primates with care and feeding because this is NOT something that they believe in. An example of this is if someone were to contact a real sanctuary about the care of their pet primate, the sanctuary would do everything in their power to educate that person and help them find a sanctuary to place them in instead of being some one's pet.

This question is so strong that that is why PETA and other organizations send people in under cover to find out what the sanctuary is really doing and what they are all about. Most of the time when these Animal Welfare people conclude their investigation the results are that it is not a true sanctuary.

Good sanctuaries usually have at least one person that has been trained in the drugs, dosage and weight combination to be able to dart an escaped Primate. This prevents any escapes from leaving the property. It sedates the Primate so that the caretakers can contain the animal back into it's enclosure or habitat.
Volunteers at good sanctauries are usually people with allot of experience or are working on a degree, not teenagers or friends.

With the question of good for the animals...

All Primates need ample space to thrive. They need to live with troupes of monkeys not singly housed or with one other monkey. In the wild which truly is where they belong they live in troupes up to 30 monkeys. When monkeys are not housed in proper space and in troupes some of their natural behaviour does not exist.

In my opinion and with my many years of experieince I would say that there are only a handful of good true sanctauries here in the US.

Sally Anne Ryan paints Chimps to raise money to help Cheetah from a former bio-medical research lab

What a talented artist and a good heart.

PRIMATE PIC: Sally-Anne Ryan
Again, Save the Chimps is my favorite!



A MONMOUTHSHIRE animal artist is fundraising to transport chimps to safer environments.

Sally-Anne Ryan, 37, of St Maughans, is raising funds for Save The Chimps to transport a chimp named Cheetah from a former bio-medical research laboratory in New Mexico to the world’s largest chimpanzee sanctuary in Florida.

This is after Cheetah was rescued by the charity from the Coulston Foundation laboratory where he had undergone 400 liver biopsies leading to him having three full blood transfusions.

It is legal to carry out testing on chimps in the US.

When he was rescued, Cheetah was found trapped underground in a cell nicknamed the “dungeon” with hundreds of other chimps.
It costs around $2,500 to transport each chimp which Ms Ryan has raised through painting pictures of the chimps at the sanctuary and giving the charity free copyright to sell the paintings. She also competed in the Reading half marathon at the weekend.

Although she has now raised $2,500 to transport Cheetah, who was the first chimp Ms Ryan painted a portrait of, she is still continuing the fundraising.

This includes helping with a Wales ape and monkey sanctuary appeal to have a chimp named Bili transported from a zoo in Bulgaria back to the UK.

This will cost £5,000 and Ms Ryan is offering to paint five pet portraits to the value of £200 each to help with the fund.

Anyone interested can visit www.gretalovesmabel.com or e-mail info@gretalovesmabel.com
Story Credit here

Charla Nash is holding hope for a new face

It could be tomorrow or it could be next year. But Charla Nash is holding out hope for a new face.

The 57-year-old Connecticut woman, who became the focus of the nation’s horror when she was viciously mauled by her friend’s pet chimpanzee in February 2009, is waiting for a generous family willing to sign away a loved one’s nose, lips, brow and chin — all the familiar things most of us take for granted in the mirror each morning.

For that to happen, the body of a 50-something female organ donor with Nash’s blood type and skin tone must become available, usually as a result of a terrible accident or some other untimely death. But because facial transplant surgery is so new, few people are even aware that faces can be donated.

“Yesterday’s news is good because more people now realize that becoming a face donor requires additional steps beyond checking off a box on your driver’s license,” said John Orr, a spokesman for Nash.

New England Organ Bank spokesman Sean Fitzpatrick said face donations are entirely different from liver, heart or lung donations. “The other organs are internal, and not outwardly representative of the donation itself,” he said. “The (donor) family will need to decide if this is something they want to participate in.”

And unlike other organs, Fitzpatrick said, “There’s not a national list of faces.”

A compatible donation could make Nash, who tops the list at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the nation’s first woman to receive a full face transplant.

“She’s very excited, and she’s really happy about how well things went for Dallas Wiens,” Orr said. Wiens, 25, of Texas, received the nation’s first full face transplant at Brigham and Women’s last week, after losing most of his facial features in a 2008 high-voltage accident.

Once a donor for Nash is found, she plans to share the experience, Orr said. She and her family have agreed to let NBC film her operation and recovery.
Story Credit Here

HSUS Wants NIRC to halt potential government contract fraud

By: Humane Society of the United States

WASHINGTON (March 15, 2011) – The Humane Society of the United States has filed legal petitions with the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services Tuesday requesting investigations and legal actions to halt potential government contract fraud at the New Iberia Research Center, a primate laboratory located in New Iberia, La. and part of the University of Louisiana-Lafayette.

As outlined in the petitions, The HSUS has amassed public records suggesting that NIRC may be breeding federally-owned chimpanzees for use in invasive research in violation of the terms of a multi-million dollar grant agreement between NIRC and a division of the National Institutes of Health called the National Center for Research Resources. NIRC has received the grant annually since 2000, to the tune of more than $10 million.

"This appears to be an open and shut case of government fraud under the federal False Claims Act," said Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation at The HSUS. "The Attorney General should investigate this matter, terminate illegal breeding at NIRC, and take legal action to recover any taxpayer monies squandered by this facility."

Documents obtained by The HSUS demonstrate that during the past 10 years, NIRC has produced at least 123 infant chimpanzees, some of whom were prematurely and cruelly torn away from their mothers. The documents also show that an additional 14 infants died as a result of trauma by adult chimpanzees possibly due to negligent management practices and overcrowding at the NIRC facility. The surviving 123 chimpanzees may languish for the next 50 years or more in laboratories that are totally insufficient to meet their basic needs, while NIRC stands to profit from its breeding program by leasing the young chimpanzees for invasive research.

Evidence presented in the petition shows that by alleging extensive chimpanzee birth control practices and withholding information about young chimpanzees born at its facility, among other things, NIRC may have misrepresented its breeding program to the NCRR in grant progress reports and application materials. These misrepresentations could be violations of the federal False Claims Act, which could entitle the NCRR to recoup up to $30 million in damages due to the law's trebling, or tripling provision.

The HSUS is asking the Department of Justice to take enforcement action against the laboratory for fraudulent use of federal money, and is requesting that the Department of Health and Human Services cease funding the laboratory. The HSUS is also requesting that the Department of Health and Human Services immediately send all federally-owned chimpanzees residing at NIRC to permanent sanctuary with appropriate funding.

The full text of The HSUS's legal petition to the Department of Justice can be downloaded here. The full text of The HSUS's legal petition to the Department of Health and Human Services can be downloaded here. The necropsy reports of the 14 infants who died of traumatic injuries can be found here. B-roll is available to the media upon request.

Facts:
* There are approximately 1,000 chimpanzees in six laboratories in the United States; approximately 500 of these chimpanzees are owned by the federal government.

* Under the False Claims Act, the government can collect treble damages for fraud by government contractors, which means that NIRC could be required to pay $30 million for repeatedly violating its grant agreement with NCRR while certifying compliance with the breeding moratorium.

* The contract between NIRC and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, titled "Leasing of Chimpanzees for the Conduct of Research," is for a total of $7.8 million and is scheduled to end in September of next year, but is up for renewal this coming September.

* Each chimpanzee born into a laboratory can live 60 years and cost the federal government as much as $1 million during his or her lifetime. Seven of the 123 chimpanzees born at NIRC are now owned by, and are the responsibility of, the federal government.

* The HSUS revealed the results of an undercover investigation conducted at NIRC in 2009, including distress caused by lack of enrichment and socialization, severe psychological distress, and inadequate veterinary care.

* The National Institutes of Health has announced that the National Academy of Sciences will be conducting a review to the use of chimpanzees for research purposes, further strengthening the argument to immediately stop the flow of new chimpanzees into the laboratory system.

To learn more about chimps in research, visit Here.humanesociety.org/chimps
Story Credit Here

Capital One has pulled the Chimp ad- thank you

McLean-based Capital One Financial Corp. has pulled a television commercial that featured a chimpanzee and says it will not use primates in any future ads.

The company says the decision was made after reviewing information from PETA about the treatment of apes used in advertising.

“We believe you have made profound and compelling arguments about the treatment of primates,” Capital One (NYSE: COF) said in a statement. “The ad in question is going off the air and we will not use primates in future advertising.”

The commercial did not air in the Washington market.

PETA claims chimps and other great apes used in advertising are typically babies forcibly taken from their mothers shortly after birth and are physically and psychologically abused as part of their training.

It says 10 of the 15 largest advertising agencies now prohibit the use of great apes in their advertising campaigns.
Story Credit Here

Missouri is trying to pass a law to stop the breeding of Primates..... YEAH!!!!! Good bye Connie Casey Braun

Readers!!! This has made my year!!!! Everyday I do research on articles about Primates, and for the most part it is all bad or very sad news, but not today!!! This is something to hope for and will change the world of primates as we know it.

Connie Casey Braun of the Missouri Primate foundation (there's that word again that makes me laugh... foundation haha) is the largest breeder in the US and then there is another chimpanzee breeder in Missouri that recently bought out the breeder chimps from the Glasses in Texas. if these 2 breeding facilities have to have all of the chimps fixed that will be the end of pet chimps, pets in the entertainment business, chimp attacks, babies being ripped off their moms screaming. this my dear readers would be a miracle, I will keep my fingers crossed for this law to go through. KUDOS to the St Louis Zoo!!!!!

Story-
JEFFERSON CITY — A chimpanzee named Travis mauled a woman and left her face unrecognizable when he escaped his home in Stamford, Conn., and attacked Charla Nash, a close friend of his owner on Feb. 16, 2009. A year later, another chimpanzee, Sueko, also escaped from his home in Kansas City, and attacked a police car. Both Travis and Sueko came from Jefferson County, Mo.

The Senate Agriculture Committee debated a bill that would require owners to obtain permits for and neuter their primates incited passionate testimonies from several Missouri primate breeders.

Sen. Joseph Keaveny, D-St. Louis City, sponsored the bill after Eric Miller, veterinarian and senior vice president at the Saint Louis Zoo, requested these large and exotic animals be regulated.
"Missouri is one of the few states with no (statewide) regulation of large and exotic animals," Miller said. "It's a national standard Missouri is working on catching up to."

Currently, Missouri regulates these primates on a county-by-county basis. Some counties in Missouri don't have primate requirements; others require primate owners to register their pets with the county sheriff. Owners must give the sheriff's office their address, a description of their primate and a description of the primate's living conditions.

If the bill passes, the Missouri Department of Agriculture would issue the statewide permits to primate owners, however, they have not yet taken a position for or against the bill.

More than 25 people attended a March 3 committee hearing to speak against the bill. Miller, the only proponent who spoke in favor of the bill, testified on behalf of the Saint Louis Zoo.

Suzanne Windsor, a U.S. Department of Agriculture-licensed exhibitor of primates, opposed the bill.

"It's an all out ban," Windsor said. "They are trying to go above and beyond what the state is supposed to be doing by going above and beyond federal regulations."

Her main concern was the bill's requirement to spay and neuter — both of which are high-risk surgeries for a primate, whose reproductive system resembles a human's. She said it would result in the gradual phase-out of Missouri primate breeding.
"For people that are USDA-licensed to breed and sell, it causes unnecessary surgeries on primates that could cause their deaths," Windsor said. "If you have a 22-year-old primate that's never been spayed, there's a good chance she could never come off that table [alive]."

Keaveny said he is looking into changes to the bill to appease the opposition. He said he has received several suggestions from a veterinarian to help the bill pass next year.

"We are open to making those [necessary] adjustments," he said.

The bill would exempt zoos, nonprofit organizations, animal control and law enforcement, circuses, educational institutions and exhibits, animal sanctuaries and veterinarians.

Currently, 15 states have a permit system for owning primates and 20 states have outlawed some, if not all, primate ownership. States that don't have regulations include Missouri border states Kansas and Nebraska.

A violation of the act would result in a class A misdemeanor charge unless the person intentionally releases a non-human primate, which would result in a class D felony.
Story Credit Here

Suco, the 21 year old Chimpanzee escapes and now resides at the Kansas City Zoo

Readers, this chimpanzee was bred and sold by Connie Casey Braun of the Missouri Primate Foundation. I also have to chuckle when I type foundation because Connie Casey braun is strictly a Chimpanzee breeder and taking the poor babies to birthday parties. in other words folks, Connie lives off of her chimpanzees, they support her even though they are in small indoor cages. ( I have photos of her inside enclosures)

This Chimp was bred from Susie and Coco the chimpanzees. Well if you remember, years ago Susie was the one that Jason Coats in Missouri shot dead! Coco, the breeder was brought over from Africa and breed all of the females until he died a few years ago at the Missouri Primate Foundation. When he died Connie Casey Braun buried him in her yard along with a Zebra that hung itself because they put it in a chimp cage with netting. There are many other chimps buried out at that property. I know that Coco and Susie were her breeders, both of my ex-chimpanzees father was also Coco. So you see folks nothing ever comes out good when it comes to the babies that are stolen by Connie Casey Braun. For some examples, Mikey and Louie, my ex-chimps, Travis, Timmy, Susie, Connor, Kramer and Moe. This is why they should not be bred, babies stolen from their moms, forced to live like humans and ones dieing from either boredom, child birth or sickness.
SHAME ON YOU CONNIE CASEY BRAUN, GET A HEART AND A CONSCIENCE!!!!!! Better yet get a real job, go out and make money off of yourself and give those chimps sanctaury.

For the people that want their chimp back, do some reading on the Travis case and don't think your chimp isn't capable of doing the same thing, because she is!!!!

Story'
When Sueko arrived at the Kansas City Zoo in October she was overweight, accustomed to a human lifestyle.

The adult chimpanzee rode along with a trucker and his girlfriend and apparently enjoyed a diet heavy on people food.

Sueko carried quite a pot belly when she arrived at the zoo in October.

Now she’s eating fruits and vegetables — and has lost weight.

“She looks good now,” said Liz Harmon, general curator at the zoo. “She looks like our other girls. She was pretty chunky.”
But Sueko remains in a tug-of-war between Kansas City and the people who claim her.

The city confiscated the animal after she escaped from Mark Archigo in October and ran rampant in a residential neighborhood near 78th Street and Indiana Avenue. It was not the first time Archigo was in trouble because of Sueko.

The city has charged Archigo and Deborah Kaumans with keeping or harboring a nonhuman primate within the limits of Kansas City. But Archigo and John Michael Oyer, who claims to own Sueko, want to get back the chimpanzee they have raised since she was a baby.

The zoo is a much different life from the one Sueko had been living. She reportedly was toilet-trained and traveled with Archigo, sleeping on a second-tier bunk in the cab of the semi, police have said.

Despite Sueko’s new diet, the 21-year-old still has a long way to go before fitting in with the rest of the chimpanzees at the zoo. Officials won’t try to assimilate her until her legal status is resolved. They’ve been down that road.
“Because of the strong social bond and how difficult it is to get chimps together, it’s equally hard on them to separate them,” said Zoo Director Randy Wisthoff. “We wouldn’t even think about that process until we knew for sure whose property she was.”

Sueko has spent time at the zoo before. She was sent there in 1995 after being accused of biting people. Zookeepers introduced her to a young male and reported that she was making progress.

But Archigo threatened legal action, and the city returned Sueko to him after he promised to keep her outside the city limits.

After that, Oyer said, Archigo gave up his half-ownership in Sueko, leaving him as full owner. Archigo could not be reached for comment.

Oyer believes the city has “illegally confiscated his property” and that her time in the zoo is “undoing years of hard work and training.”

Oyer and Archigo bought the chimp in 1989 to start a tree-trimming service called Monkey Tree Service. Oyer said city codes at the time allowed “temporary animal display acts,” which he believes made it legal to keep Sueko in the city. But five years later, Oyer said, the city changed its codes to outlaw chimps without a special permit, and the city refused to grant him a permit.

“We already had her here,” he said. “We should have been grandfathered in.”

Oyer said the city is “forcing him to file a lawsuit” to get back the chimp, whose name he said is spelled “Suco,” a combination of her parents’ names of Susie and Coco.

Now, as zookeepers wait for a new court date, they report that Sueko — the spelling in city files — is doing well.

“We have seen no health issues with her,” Harmon said. “We’ve not seen any behavioral issues with her.”

It only took about 10 days to get Sueko to start eating vegetables.

She works well with her keepers, presenting her hands and feet for inspection when prompted. She still prefers to sleep on a blanket instead of building a nest of hay as the other chimps do, but that’s not a big deal, Harmon said.
The real test will come if and when zookeepers are confident the chimp is at the zoo to stay. Then they can try to introduce her to the others. Integrating her could take weeks, months or even years.

Assimilation among chimps is not just a matter of introducing new playmates. The powerful apes have strict social hierarchies and are aggressive in enforcing them.

“Chimps can kill each other,” Harmon said.

The Kansas City Zoo has 15 chimpanzees, not counting Sueko, that live in two groupings. Two older females keep each other company and the rest are part of a single troop on exhibit. Sueko would not only have to find her place within that troop but also learn what is — and isn’t — expected of her.

“They’ve got a very complex social structure, and she doesn’t know what all that stuff is,” Wisthoff said. “She’s sort of in a reversal of the boy who lived with wolves.”
Story Credit Here

Shame on you Capital One haven't you learned anything???????

For all of those that have a Capitol one credit card..... The interest you pay to this company is paying for them to use Chimpanzees in their advertisements which is NOT cheap and is to say the least... CRUEL.Not only do these chimps have to travel in small cages to get to their destiny, they are made to do actions over and over again with long stressful days doing things that they really don't want to do. Then the saddest part is that when this owner can't use this chimp for money anymore when it gets to big, where does that chimp go? These exhibitors that have chimps don't keep them around for 40-50 years feeding and housing them when they can't make money off of them anymore! Think about all of this Capital One when you think it's so cute to use them. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!

Story;
Despite recent controversy surrounding the use of chimpanzees in advertising, Capital One is airing a new commercial that features a chimpanzee "actor." Chimpanzees and other great apes used for advertising are typically very young animals who were forcibly taken from their mothers shortly after birth. They are often physically and psychologically abused during training to ensure that they will perform confusing, unnatural behaviors on cue. By the time apes reach approximately 8 years of age, they are too strong to be safely handled and are often discarded at wretched roadside zoos or other substandard facilities. Chimpanzees can live into their 60s, so life after "retirement" from the entertainment industry often means decades spent in appalling conditions.

The American Humane Association (AHA), which was reportedly on set during the production of the Capital One commercial, only monitors animals when they are on set and does nothing to prevent behind-the-scenes abuse and neglect. The AHA does not monitor pre-production training, the living conditions of animals, premature separation of babies from their mothers, or the disposition of animals when they are no longer useful to trainers.

Ten of the top 15 advertising agencies in the U.S.—including BBDO, Young & Rubicam, and McCann Erickson—now have policies in place that prohibit the use of great apes in their ads. In 2010, Dodge, Pfizer, Heartland Payment Systems, and Europcar pulled or modified ads that featured apes after learning about the ethical problems associated with exploiting these highly intelligent and sensitive animals.

Using the form below, please send a quick, polite note to Capital One and urge the company to follow the lead of other companies by agreeing to pull its commercial featuring a chimpanzee.
Story Credit Here

Budget Ammendments Part 2 Chimpanzees

--Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana is anxious to see that no money is used to gather free-roaming horses or burros, except when absolutely necessary.

--As if to top Burton's interest in the animal kingdom, Maryland Rep. Roscoe Bartlett is aiming to see that no funds should be used for grant agreements or contracts that allow or encourage the breeding of chimpanzees.
Information Here

2 Years ago today was the horrible Travis the Chimp/Sandra Herold/Charla Nash incident

Travis the chimp destroyed Charla Nash’s face, eyesight and her trust in wild animals when the animal mauled her on this date in 2009.

That horrific attack on Feb. 16, 2009 thrust Connecticut’s exotic animal laws into the spotlight and the state Department of Environmental Protection is revamping the law and planning to ban chimps, gorillas, orangutans, pythons and some more common animals, like wild ferrets.
Dozens of animal lovers, reptile shop owners and exhibitors voices their concerns at a public hearing at DEP headquarters in Hartford on Tuesday.
“It will really hurt the reptile industry. Connecticut, for a long time, has had some really lenient laws on the big snake and lizard community. A ban would be devastating,” Jeremy Turgeon, of J and D Reptiles, said.
Story credit here

Charla Nash's Lawyer is sueing Connecticut

Attorney Charles Willinger says the law regulating large animals as pets has been on the books in Connecticut for decades, but the problem is it was never enforced for the pet chimpanzee who mauled his client, Charla Nash.

“In terms of my client, obviously, it’s a little bit too little too late,” says Willinger.

Willinger is preparing a $150 million lawsuit on behalf of Nash to cover her mounting medical and health care bills.

Asked if Nash may be preparing for a face transplant, Willinger would only say that it’s something they’re looking into.

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection is holding a hearing on the issue tonight at 6 p.m. at DEP Headquarters at 79 Elm Street, Hartford. More details below.
Story Credit Here

DEP Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Regulations Concerning Possession of Wild Animals


Public Hearing at DEP Headquarters Feb. 15

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will hold a public hearing February 15 on proposed changes to regulations governing the importation, possession, and liberation of wild animals.

The public hearing will take place at 6 p.m. at DEP Headquarters, 79 Elm Street, Hartford.

The proposed regulations are the result of the passage of Public Act 09-198, which required the development of new regulations affecting the importation, possession, and liberation of wild animals in the state.

DEP Commissioner Amey Marrella said, "The proposed regulations create a workable and efficient means of regulating possession of wild animals – while at the same time protecting public health and safety, agricultural interests, and the health of native plants and animals."

"These proposed regulations," Marrella said, "are the result of a robust process that included three informal public forums, discussions with interested stakeholders and consultation with other state agencies – such as the Departments of Public Health and Agriculture – whose responsibilities touch on this issue. We thank everyone who has participated in this process and look forward to hearing additional comments at the upcoming public hearing."

Proposed Regulations:

Establish lists of wild animals that, due to their inherent threat to public health and safety, agricultural crops or native plants and animals may not be imported or possessed in Connecticut.

Allow municipal parks, zoos, marine mammal parks, aquaria, circuses, nature centers, museums, exhibitors, laboratories, and research facilities to import and possess many species without a permit – and establish permit provisions for these facilities to have animals listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern in Connecticut.

Provide for the general public to possess a wide range of animals – generally speaking, those commonly sold in the pet trade – without a permit.

The regulations would also establish:

Explicit criteria for what constitutes a museum, nature center, or exhibitor;

Provisions to allow for veterinarians to care for a range of animals;

Requirements for notification in the event of wild animal escape; and

Wild animal disease prevention and reporting requirements.

All interested persons are invited to express their views on the proposed regulations at the February 15 public hearing.

The DEP will also accept written comment on the proposed regulations through the close of business on March 1. Comments can be mailed to the DEP at 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, to the attention of George Babey, Public Hearing Officer; or emailed to George.babey@ct.gov

All comments submitted to DEP in writing or offered at the public hearing will be considered in the development of the final regulations. The final regulations must be approved by the General Assembly’s Regulations Review Committee before they can take effect.

Copies of the proposed regulations may be obtained online at www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?A=2586&Q=471192, by writing the DEP Bureau of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, or by calling (860) 424-3011.
Information found here

Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of The HSUS speaks out about Chimpanzees in entertainment

February 08, 2011


Mistreatment of Chimpanzees Is No Joke

I was in the Dallas area two Sundays ago — one week before the Super Bowl game at Cowboys Stadium. I was there to take a look at the construction of our new Doris Day Horse Rescue and Adoption Center, an important add-on to the larger animal-care enterprise we operate at the Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch, in Murchison, Texas. As I do whenever I go to Black Beauty, I criss-crossed the ranch pastures to see many of the 1,000 or so animals who live on them. Among the first creatures I see on my visits are three chimpanzees — Kitty, Lulu and Midge, since their home is near the entrance at Black Beauty. They’ve got an expansive outdoor habitat, they receive a healthy diet, and they can enjoy each other’s company. But it’s a world apart from their native habitats in Tanzania or Uganda, and they are far away from their family members and the freedom that life in the wild would bring.

The HSUS

Kitty, one of the chimpanzees at our Black Beauty sanctuary.

They are there because of our human failings. People once used them in circuses and laboratory research, but then discarded them when they’d had enough of them. It’s never a good outcome to be discarded, and there’s usually some sort of trauma associated with it. But beyond that, I also think about it from our organizational perspective, and especially the resources needed to care for them. HSUS and The Fund for Animals — really, our donors — are financing the housing and feeding of these animals for decades, at a cost that will ultimately run into seven figures.

On the weekend following my visit, the Super Bowl was played just about an hour’s drive from Black Beauty. I watched it from the comfort of my home, hoping that in the torrent of ads, I would not see any more of those silly chimpanzee commercials — not because I don’t think the animals are appealing, but because I know what happens to them when they grow up. The animal-training companies that rent out animals for these gambits typically get rid of them when they reach early adolescence and they are too strong to be used on movie sets or in advertisements. They are cast aside at 7 or 8 years old, or even younger, even though they have a life expectancy of up to 60 years.

I was pleased to see many fewer chimpanzees in ads, especially compared to a few years ago when it seemed they were everywhere. This time, CareerBuilder stood alone in its callousness, continuing the theme it’s developed in recent years. For their cheap, tawdry and not very funny 30-second advertisement, they keep the animal-training companies in business, and the consequences are clear: chimpanzees will be abandoned, and operations like Black Beauty Ranch will have to clean up the mess they’ve made. The handful of heroic great ape sanctuaries operating in small rural outposts throughout the nation will spend millions in the decades ahead dealing with the lack of forethought exhibited by CareerBuilder and similar companies that just don’t get it. They are happy to profit, while the animals will pay with their lives, so many of them being forced to live in roadside zoos, research labs, or as pets in someone’s backyard or basement. In the end, only a small percentage of them go to sanctuaries.

In yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor, Patti Ragan of the Center for Great Apes put the lie to any fanciful claims about the educational value of such commercials, or the notion that CareerBuilder had merely brought its chimps “out of retirement.” What the company did was to line up a new generation of young chimpanzees, taken from their mothers at an early age and channeled into the pipeline of caged confinement. Ragan also points out that such portrayals of chimpanzees have a negative conservation impact — who would think that these animals are endangered in the wild when they are used so frivolously?

It’s shocking corporate indifference at work, blithely pressing chimpanzees into service for a commercial, in a day when millions of people understand that this kind of use is plainly wrong. It’s the wrong kind of brand awareness, and dozens of companies have pulled such advertisements or declined to use great apes in such demeaning and harmful fashion. To use chimpanzees as clowns is the oldest and the crudest of vaudevillian gimmicks, and CareerBuilder deserves the criticism being sent its way in the social media.

At HSUS, we’re active on a full range of fronts to help chimpanzees, whether it’s pushing to get chimpanzees out of laboratories, teaching people about chimps and their endangerment, supporting the work of sanctuaries and the protection of chimpanzees in the wild, investigating the mistreatment of chimps and other primates in captivity, pushing for passage of the Captive Primate Safety Act and the Great Ape Protection Act, or calling upon the federal government in our Change Agenda to list all chimpanzees as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (currently, wild chimpanzee populations are listed as endangered while captive chimpanzee populations are listed as threatened).

It’s time for all of the ad agencies to stop using chimps in entertainment, and it’s time for companies to make a similar pledge. It couldn’t be an easier commitment, and there’s no sacrifice involved. Just let the human mind do something more creative and entertaining than have a few baby chimpanzees walk around in human clothing. And do something not just for the animals, but for the self-sacrificing animal advocates who have plenty of other things to occupy their moral attention and their energies than caring for abandoned chimpanzees.
Story Credit Here

Connecticut DEP had the authority for decades to make a list of banned animals-Travis the Chimp

HARTFORD — —


The lawyer for the woman mauled by a 200-pound chimp in February 2009 is mystified that the state only acted after the attack to add gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans to the list of potentially dangerous animals banned in Connecticut.
The DEP next week will hold a hearing on proposed new regulations to carry out a 2009 law that added the primates to the list of banned animals.

"It's too little, too late, for my client,'' Charles Willinger of Bridgeport said of Charla Nash, who lost her hands and much of her face when she was attacked by Travis the chimp, owned by Nash's friend, Sandra Herold, in Stamford.

Willinger said that the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection had the authority for decades to make a list of banned animals, including primates over 50 pounds, and then enforce the ban.

"It remains a real mystery to us why they didn't,'' Willinger said Tuesday.
Story Credit and conclusion here

Executives at Lincoln Park Zoo were not amused at the Careerbuilders commercials

Super Bowl advertisers will do anything for a laugh when they’re paying $3 million for 30 seconds of air time. But executives at the Lincoln Park Zoo were not amused by Chicago-based Careerbuilder.com’s Super Bowl ad Sunday. It featured chimpanzees dressed in human garb sideswiping and trapping a helpless guy in his car.

The Zoo lashed out at Careerbuilder for an “inappropriate use and portrayal of the species” in the Super Bowl ad, which Careerbuilder.com created in-house. Lincoln Park Zoo spokeswoman Sharon Dewar said zoo CEO Kevin Bell sent his counterpart at Careerbuilder a letter expressing his concerns a while ago, but never received a response. A Careerbuilder spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking comment Monday.

Dewar said using chimps in ads and dressing them as humans contributes to the impression that chimpanzees are not an endangered species, when in fact they are. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has predicted chimpanzees could become extinct within 10 to 50 years.

Many ad agencies have agreed not to use chimps in advertising. But Careerbuilder had used chimps successfully in previous Super Bowl advertising and decided to bring them back this year.
Story Credit Here

CareerBuilders used Chimps in their commercials to get chimps a job?

Cartoon chimpanzees are getting animated over on CareerBuilder's Facebook page right now, and we think you should join them! CareerBuilder just aired a Super Bowl ad in which it once again exploited chimpanzees in order to make the point that … wait, what point was it making? That it can find jobs for chimpanzees?
Story Credit Here

For me, the highlight of the 2010 Super Bowl wasn't the Saints' inspiring victory in their first Super Bowl appearance but rather the abundance of animal-friendly commercials that ran between touchdowns. That's why I was saddened to hear that CareerBuilder is planning to run a commercial featuring real chimpanzees during the 2011 Super Bowl, even though the company was bombarded with thousands of letters from concerned people after airing similar ads in 2005 and 2006. CareerBuilder knows by now that chimpanzees used in the entertainment industry are physically abused, torn away from their mothers when they're babies, and usually abandoned by the age of 8, but apparently it just doesn't care.
Story credit here

Two Years Ago was the Horrible Charla Nash/ Sandra Herold/Travis the Chimp case

Feb. 16 will mark two years since Travis, the chimpanzee from North Stamford, viciously attacked the friend of his owner and was killed by a police officer.

On the day before that tragic anniversary, the state Department of Environmental Protection will hold a public hearing on a list of wild and exotic animals to be banned in the state.

If the DEP's list becomes law, you will not be allowed to own lions, bears or alligators in the state. Same goes for deer, striped skunks, raccoons, rattlesnakes or bats.

There are dozens of animals on the list. Some will not be popular with people who aren't satisfied with the idea of owning a cat or a dog.

But the DEP will do right to make the list as restrictive as it possibly can. That is not an emotional reaction to the horrors that Travis inflicted on Charla Nash. It simply is an acknowledgment that wild animals are not made to be pets. Not only is it potentially harmful to humans, it's bad for the animals.

Humans can form relationships with wild animals, no doubt. But there is no such thing as a domesticated wild animal. That's why a chimpanzee like Travis could fly into a murderous rage after years of -- mostly -- docile companionship.

Dogs and cats have become domesticated through a long evolutionary process. They were made to be our companions -- and they do an incredibly good job of it, too.

People who choose to take on the risk of owning a wild animal do not make that choice for themselves only. They put their neighbors in danger, and, as we saw with the Travis incident, the police officers who have to respond when things go wrong.

It's also unfair to the animals. They were not made for captivity, and most are not suited to this climate. If they escape, or are let go after the novelty wears off, they find themselves in an environment for which they are not suited, and often die cruel deaths.

Regardless of the breadth of the ban that does or does not get passed, to all prospective wild animal owners: Shelters in this state are literally overflowing with dogs and cats who need homes. If you think it would be cooler to own an iguana, trust us, a pound mutt has so much more to offer in the long run.
Story Credit Here

Why not use Monster.com instead of CareerBuilders, they don't exploit Chimpanzees!

Well CareerBuilders has said that they did a marketing study and that the years they used Chimpanzees in their commercials they did better then when not. Well, CareerBuilders a lot of things have changed in the previous years that had made people aware that using chimps for anything is cruel treatment to the chimps and dangerous for the public. I hope their sales are the worst this year than ever before. I know I will be changing the channel when that commercial comes on.

Story;
College students represent a key audience for youth-focused companies like CareerBuilder, which is why it's so unusual that the company has chosen to include something in their upcoming Super Bowl ad that young people overwhelmingly disagree with: cruelty to animals.

PETA recently learned that CareerBuilder has plans to run a new commercial featuring chimpanzees during the big game, despite hearing from thousands of concerned consumers after the company aired ad campaigns in 2005 and 2006 that portrayed chimpanzees as misbehaving office workers.

As students are becoming increasingly aware, chimpanzees used in the entertainment and advertising industries are typically very young animals who are prematurely removed from their mothers -- often just days or weeks after birth. Trainers use physical abuse in order to ensure that chimpanzees know "who's boss" and to force the animals to perform confusing, unnatural behaviors on cue. By the time chimpanzees reach approximately 8 years of age, they are too strong to be safely handled and are often discarded at unaccredited roadside zoos or otherwise warehoused in appalling conditions. PETA investigations have revealed that former "celebrity" apes were living in small cages littered with garbage and feces and were denied basic necessities, such as wholesome food and adequate veterinary care.

With such gruesome details coming to light, 10 of the top 15 advertising agencies in the world have now instituted policies that prohibit the use of chimpanzees and other great apes in their ads in order to avoid turning off potential customers. In fact, in 2010, every new ad that featured an ape was pulled or modified after companies were inundated with complaints from animal protection groups and the public. Dodge and Pfizer are just two examples of companies that altered their ads in order to cut the ape footage after learning about the ethical problems associated with exploiting these highly intelligent and sensitive animals.

So what gives, CareerBuilder? Are you really so dead set on alienating your target audience that you're willing to sabotage your own résumé by spending yet another year with your head in the sand? Luckily, other agencies like Monster offer similar services to job-seekers, without involving great apes in their advertising. College students looking to build a career should start with Monster, not CareerBuilder, until the company agrees to end the use of great apes in its advertisements.
Story Credit here