# pet monkey



## twiggy1992 (May 5, 2010)

what type of pet monkey is best to be keep on its own ???


----------



## Nix (Jan 23, 2008)

I'm going to punt and say none. I don't know any species that do well on their own they are generally really sociable with their species and exist well in family groups.


----------



## yugimon121 (Oct 4, 2009)

No monkey should ever, in any case be on its own


----------



## skimsa (Sep 28, 2007)




----------



## twiggy1992 (May 5, 2010)

that is what i fort that why i put the post to see what people would put 

and what about these people that keep them on here own ??? cant be good for there health


----------



## yugimon121 (Oct 4, 2009)

twiggy1992 said:


> that is what i fort that why i put the post to see what people would put
> 
> and what about these people that keep them on here own ??? cant be good for there health


...What? could you retype that, using 's and ,
you also said the wrong their


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

I've heard from various sources that most primates are fine with just human company until they leave infancy, but after that will need others of the same (or similar) species. 
Kinda makes sense as most of them are carried 24/7 until then. I think bored monkeys have similar problems to bored parrots, fur pulling, foot and tail biting, aggression, destruction, some seem to do ok though, I saw this thing about an old lady who kept a marmoset in a parrot cage in her front room for 20 years, fed well and aware of its needs, never left at all, and it looked very healthy and seemed happy, most aren't so lucky though.


----------



## ipreferaflan (Oct 8, 2009)

I look after two monkeys that live on their own.

One, Djebera the Red-tailed Guenon, DID live with a female before she died. Apparently any attempts to introduce him to other guenons has been met with extreme aggression on his part (we think that his partner must have been quite a nuisance and he's happier now). He seems quite content to live by himself as long as we give him loads of attention and plenty of activities to do. He loves a good tickle in the morning (he was originally an illegal pet seized from Israel and enjoys human company) but as soon as you stop, things turn sour haha.

I also look after Marty, a white-throated capuchin, who doesn't like being alone at all. He lived with his brother Owen all his life until he died from kidney problems (he wasn't fed the most ideal diet before he was rescued). Marty gets very stressed and pulls his fur out, he also makes lots of noise and is quite skittish. To make matters worse, he's the only white-throated capuchin in the UK, so it's very difficult to find him a partner. He's an absolutely gorgeous monkey though and he's given as many new toys/branches to play with/climb as possible.

In my experience (and granted; I don't have much) I believe that the only primates that should be kept alone are the ones that would be happier that way, such as in the case of Djebera. This applies to individuals, their personalities and their history, and cannot be limited to a specific species.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Devi said:


> I've heard from various sources that most primates are fine with just human company until they leave infancy, but after that will need others of the same (or similar) species.
> Kinda makes sense as most of them are carried 24/7 until then. I think bored monkeys have similar problems to bored parrots, fur pulling, foot and tail biting, aggression, destruction, some seem to do ok though, I saw this thing about an old lady who kept a marmoset in a parrot cage in her front room for 20 years, fed well and aware of its needs, never left at all, and it looked very healthy and seemed happy, most aren't so lucky though.


All primates need educated to be monkeys during infancy and should be left to do so.
Even when being carried 24/7 they are learning--what to do when they have babies,what to eat & most important how to be a monkey...
If removed for any reason and reared by humans they become imprinted and are very hard to introduce to there own kind.
If spending 24/7 with someone giving all there needs then they dont know how to be a monkey..
Thats turning them into what youd like them to be and not a monkey.
Some species become agressive to humans when thy become sexually mature.
Even some marmies will start to bite...
Especially a male to a female human and especially at that time of the month.
The one the lady had for 20yrs is a prime example..
Healthy but was it happy..
It didnt know anything else and maybe looked like a monkey..
So phisically it would be fine..
But mentally it wouldnt be a monkey..
They are social animals that live in groups(family) and some in troups(social groups of same species)
Yes there are people or sources that would say different..
Lots hand rear etc to make better pets...
A monkey in my opinion should be a monkey and not changed to fit into our dreams and wishes..
But some cant resist the money to be gained....
This is my opinion and something i feel strong about,
But its my opinion....


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

100% agree with you Peter. I was talking from a more theory point of view, not an advisory one. I got the idea the OP was just interested rather than actually planning anything.
If he's planning anything then I take it back. Leave the monkeys well alone unless you are prepared for a group.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Devi said:


> 100% agree with you Peter. I was talking from a more theory point of view, not an advisory one. I got the idea the OP was just interested rather than actually planning anything.
> If he's planning anything then I take it back. Leave the monkeys well alone unless you are prepared for a group.


Wasnt meant for yourself.
Ive a habbit of replying by clicking on the quote bit.
Sorry for confusion..
Just used yours to put my opinion....:lol2:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

ipreferaflan said:


> I look after two monkeys that live on their own.
> 
> One, Djebera the Red-tailed Guenon, DID live with a female before she died. Apparently any attempts to introduce him to other guenons has been met with extreme aggression on his part (we think that his partner must have been quite a nuisance and he's happier now). He seems quite content to live by himself as long as we give him loads of attention and plenty of activities to do. He loves a good tickle in the morning (he was originally an illegal pet seized from Israel and enjoys human company) but as soon as you stop, things turn sour haha.
> 
> ...


Sorry to drag up an old thread.....

But this point there being only one of this kind of capuchin in the UK isn't strictly true. There's a very sweet one in Manchester that I know of, and I believe he's recently gone to live with some others at his new home.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> Sorry to drag up an old thread.....
> 
> But this point there being only one of this kind of capuchin in the UK isn't strictly true. There's a very sweet one in Manchester that I know of, and I believe he's recently gone to live with some others at his new home.


And even if that was the only White-Fronted Capuchin in the UK, he could be paired with another Capuchin species, such as a Brown Tufted, female that was implanted with a contraceptive to prevent breeding. Monkey World have done this with 2 different Gibbon species.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> Sorry to drag up an old thread.....
> 
> But this point there being only one of this kind of capuchin in the UK isn't strictly true. There's a very sweet one in Manchester that I know of, and I believe he's recently gone to live with some others at his new home.


I'm reading between the lines and assuming that the capuchin the post is speaking of is the single male at IOW, who would only be eligible to move to another zoo or have another animal move to him from a zoo. Only two other zoos have them, Wetland Wildlife Park in Retford and The Jungle Zoo in Cleethorpes, both of which appear on zootierliste to have single animals who may or may not be able to mix with others. Apart from the UK there are only 14 other zoos in the world with this species so it could be a struggle to find a suitable match.
On the subject of mixing species, it could be risky, plus it may increase the chances of the lone male not accepting a suitable mate when found. Most places will only mix species when given no other choice. Monkey World is different as they seem unwilling to transfer animals out of the zoo for some reason, even when shown to be in the best interests of the animal and the species as a whole like their lone agile gibbon.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

Devi said:


> I'm reading between the lines and assuming that the capuchin the post is speaking of is the single male at IOW, who would only be eligible to move to another zoo or have another animal move to him from a zoo. Only two other zoos have them, Wetland Wildlife Park in Retford and The Jungle Zoo in Cleethorpes, both of which appear on zootierliste to have single animals who may or may not be able to mix with others. Apart from the UK there are only 14 other zoos in the world with this species so it could be a struggle to find a suitable match.
> On the subject of mixing species, it could be risky, plus it may increase the chances of the lone male not accepting a suitable mate when found. Most places will only mix species when given no other choice. *Monkey World is different as they seem unwilling to transfer animals out of the zoo for some reason, even when shown to be in the best interests of the animal and the species as a whole like their lone agile gibbon*.


Because nowheres better than Monkey World!!! :whistling2:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Devi said:


> Monkey World is different as they seem unwilling to transfer animals out of the zoo for some reason, even when shown to be in the best interests of the animal and the species as a whole like their lone agile gibbon.


That is because they believe that no one else other them themselves should be able to keep primates is the honest answer! Monkey World campaign to end private ownership of primates but are themselves the UK’s largest private keepers, somewhat hypocritical I think!!!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> That is because they believe that no one else other them themselves should be able to keep primates is the honest answer! Monkey World campaign to end private ownership of primates but are themselves the UK’s largest private keepers, somewhat hypocritical I think!!!


*err.....that's 'cos too many people have this......










......instead of this.......










.....in their back garden!*


----------



## Talk To The Animals (Jan 10, 2008)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> All primates need educated to be monkeys during infancy and should be left to do so.
> Even when being carried 24/7 they are learning--what to do when they have babies,what to eat & most important how to be a monkey...
> If removed for any reason and reared by humans they become imprinted and are very hard to introduce to there own kind.
> If spending 24/7 with someone giving all there needs then they dont know how to be a monkey..
> ...


In the same way, you wouldn't expect a baby human to be raised by monkeys (or any other species) and then be able to react perfectly normally to other humans.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> *err.....that's 'cos too many people have this......*
> 
> *image*
> 
> ...


What about the very good private owners who provide outstanding housing for their animals!


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> What about the very good private owners who provide outstanding housing for their animals!


Would tend to go to the mr chris side with this one.
Although monkey world has money and space.
Doesnt mattrr how well you provide you always want better and bigger.
Although i dont know many that have orangs or chimps in there back garden.
There attitude that only they should be allowed stinks.

They have made many televised errors with smaller primates.
Do some really good work.

Getting attitudes changed is important.
And stopping them as pets especially in parrot cages inside the house.

There new crusade is needing licence to sell.
Maybe would make a diffrrence.
Policeing it would be difficult..

I watch it all the time
but usually mute the sound when alisons speaking.

But on saying that theres as many that dont like any exotic as a house pet.

I like seeing them as natural ss poss..


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> What about the very good private owners who provide outstanding housing for their animals!


Yes I know they're around thank you! All of my primate keeping friends have excellent enclosures for their charges. 

But in answer to your statement/question (not quite sure which it is because questions usually end with "?"), then I'm sure Monkey World _have to be seen_ to take this kind of standpoint by nature of the kind of work that they do! They can't be expected to have that kind of clout when it comes to rescuing a monkey with no teeth kept in desperate conditions abroad, and then say "oh but private collectors in the UK are fine because they have lovely pretty enclosures!"

It would be like the Born Free organisation condoning a butcher keeping a lion in their back garden in Basingstoke because he has a good supply of quality meat! Or the RSPCA taking the position that dog-fights are fine, so long as they remain muzzled throughout!

Now I know, Chris, that you like to jump on your political high horse about our rights and so on....but before you do, you must recognise that something has to be done to regulate the keeping of primates, and stopping goons like the OP to this thread (and countless other tedious monkey and slow loris threads started on this forum) from ever getting their hands on one! You might suggest that's what the DWAL is for.......*newsflash*......_IT DOESN'T WORK!_ I haven't held a DWAL for about 12 years, but I could _easily_ lay my hands on a monkey (not just a marmoset) tomorrow, if I had the cash or the inclination (of which I have neither). 

Consider the case featured on a TV programme about a certain North Yorkshire vet, where a couple living in the middle of nowhere kept a grossly overweight capuchin in a glass cabinet, and fed it curry, chips and lollipops! This was treated as a comedy item for the TV show! You can't seriously believe they possessed a DWAL, can you? With cases like this on our back door steps, is it any wonder that Monkey World take the stance they do on the private keeping of primates?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

I have only been to Monkey World once and that was to reprocess some primates they held unlawfully, unsurprisingly I didn’t get a guided tour!
I have no doubts they have excellent facilities, with all the millions of£££££ they have made out of primates so they should. However, I find it somewhat hypercritical to campaign against the private ownership of primates when that is precisely what you are involved in [or have I missed something?] Let’s not forget that Monkey World is a private limited company – NOT a charity!
What is required is minimum standards, not just for primates but all animals! We would all like to provide better accommodation for the animals we keep, and should strive to do so. I’, sure my kids would love to live in Buckingham Palace, but they will have to make do with what they have! Or are suggesting that unless you live in a mansion you shouldn’t have children!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> Yes I know they're around thank you! All of my primate keeping friends have excellent enclosures for their charges.
> 
> But in answer to your statement/question (not quite sure which it is because questions usually end with "?"), then I'm sure Monkey World _have to be seen_ to take this kind of standpoint by nature of the kind of work that they do! They can't be expected to have that kind of clout when it comes to rescuing a monkey with no teeth kept in desperate conditions abroad, and then say "oh but private collectors in the UK are fine because they have lovely pretty enclosures!"
> 
> ...


The keeping of primates in the UK is regulated – ‘allegedly’, there is the Defra Code of Practice for primates, something Monkey World vigorously campaigned against, to the point they were thrown out of the Working Group.
Be very clear Monkey World are fundamentally against the keeping of primates by anyone, other than themselves of course. So you are supporting an organization [business] that fundamentally opposed what you friends do, regardless of how well they keep them – you support this stance??? 
Sure there are bad keepers, might surprise you we have _some_ bad reptiles keepers, so do you think all reptiles should be banned from private keepers because a tiny minority keep them badly!


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

Saving rainforest, protecting endangered species - World Land Trust-US

better to preserve some habitat than buy a monkey...


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> We would all like to provide better accommodation for the animals we keepNot all of us, or there would be no need for Monkey World! DUH!!!, and should strive to do so. I’, sure my kids would love to live in Buckingham Palace, but they will have to make do with what they have! * Or are suggesting that unless you live in a mansion you shouldn’t have children!*




I don't think I've ever heard such a ridiculous and immature statement! As a result, I see that this thread is going to head round in the circles you are so fond of creating, Chris....so therefore I leave. Suffice to say, do all the campaigning you like, but Monkey World do an excellent job.....a far better job than we've seen any do from sitting behind their computers, bi:censor:ing on a forum and complaining about how unfair life is!:bash:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> I don't think I've ever heard such a ridiculous and immature statement! As a result, I see that this thread is going to head round in the circles you are so fond of creating, Chris....so therefore I leave. Suffice to say, do all the campaigning you like, but Monkey World do an excellent job.....a far better job than we've seen any do from sitting behind their computers, bi:censor:ing on a forum and complaining about how unfair life is!:bash:


That is precisely what you have argued! Monkey World may well be able to afford the ‘Buckingham Palace’ - doesn’t mean that a decent 3 bed semi is not good enough! Minimum standards, not prohibitions are the only way forward for people that genuinely care about the welfare of animals, I would suggest.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> I don't think I've ever heard such a ridiculous and immature statement! As a result, I see that this thread is going to head round in the circles you are so fond of creating, Chris....so therefore I leave. Suffice to say, do all the campaigning you like, but Monkey World do an excellent job.....a far better job than we've seen any do from sitting behind their computers, bi:censor:ing on a forum and complaining about how unfair life is!:bash:


*Perhaps this might interest you [see below], notes from a meeting held back in 2008 at Westminster. Note some of the comments from Jez Hermer of Monkey World, he seemed a decent a reasonable chap. Yet ultimately Monkey World would not/could not participate in the Working Group that drafted the CoP for primates because they would only accept a total ban on private ownership, that I think speaks volumes!!!*



*Animal Welfare Policy Discussions, Primates, Monday 23 June 2008.*



Codes of Practice: The Codes of Practice for primates under the Animal Welfare Act was discussed. It was noted that there had been progress made in developing a Code and that Defra and the working group were on the third draft, when work was stopped. It was noted that this was due to Defra budget cuts and that there had been no timetable presented on when the Code under Defra would be completed. There was a general consensus on the principles of the Code, however, there were some differences expressed, particularly in relation to the detail. 

Rachel Hevesi, from the Monkey Sanctuary Trust, outlined concerns that the Code may not be strong enough and as presently drafted may permit monkeys to remain kept in living rooms, in small cages and in garden sheds.

Chris Newman, from FOCAS, responded that private owners are capable of keeping and providing the welfare needs of primates.

Jez Hermer, from Monkey World, noted that while there may be differences on opinion over the issue of private ownership, ensuring that monkeys and primates under the control of man received high welfare standards was of paramount importance.

Concerns were expressed about primates being kept in private dwellings. Jim Collins from the Pet Care Trust commented that in certain circumstances primate welfare requirements can be met in private dwellings. Bill Wiggin commented that the welfare issues and the Codes were about ensuring that people maintain welfare standards and are not ignorant to their responsibilities rather than specifically ruling out certain types of accommodation for primates.

There was agreement that there should minimum welfare standards criteria laid down in the Codes of Practice, and that these should avoid primates being kept in inadequate facilities, such as ‘in a cage on top of the TV’. Bill Wiggin commented that the Codes would be flexible and could be re-visited and amended as time went by to reflect scientific advances and other changes.

In the absence of further support from Defra, it was agreed by all present that work would continue on developing and agreeing the Codes of Practice and that Robert Quest would chair and convene these discussions. Bill Wiggin offered to assist, if required, and to also raise the issue of the Codes

with the Government once it had been agreed and completed.

The contents of the Code of Practice were discussed and it was suggested that there could be specific codes developed for each species/type of primate to reflect their individual needs.

Rachel Hevesi commented that the standards should be similar to the Secretary of State’s zoo standards.

The issue of who should be able to keep primates was raised and it was noted that they should not be made available for impulse purchases. It was also noted that primate owners are often very knowledgeable about the primates in their care and are capable of providing adequate welfare standards. Michael Fielding from the British Veterinary Association, mentioned that there are private keepers who are skilled in providing for primate welfare and that some re-home primates from zoos. It was also noted that restricting ownership to ‘specialist’ keepers may lead to some difficulties ascertaining the definition of ‘specialist’. Bill Wiggin commented that the Codes should be about welfare criteria rather than ownership criteria.

Bill Wiggin suggested that in addition to the Codes, when a change of ownership/transaction is involved concerning a primate, a welfare checklist should be made available for the person who is obtaining the primate to ‘tick off’ before taking the primate into their care as a way to deter people who may not be suited to taking care of animals with a long lifespan, such as primates.

It was noted that one of the most important functions of was to educate and inform. It was also suggested that, given the specialist nature of primate keeping, it may be more appropriate to opt for a long version of the Code to be given when ownership is transferred rather than a short version containing references to a longer version.

Primate welfare: Jez Hermer commented that at Monkey World, they are made aware of around 7-8 complaints each week concerning primates, Inspector Alan Fisher from the RSPCA noted that there were a small number of prosecutions involving primates and IFAW’s estimate that there could be as much as 3,000 primate kept as ‘pets’ in the UK was also noted. It was thought that the supply of primates through pet shops was minimal compared to other supply sources. It was suggested by Chris Newman that to help improve welfare standards and spread knowledge, greater interaction between zoos and primate owners would be beneficial.

Terminology: It was noted that there was some difficulty with the terms ‘pet’ and ‘companion animal.’ It was thought that these were ‘catch all’ expressions and that those responsible owners who keep primates tend to be specialists.

Primate behaviour: Concerns were raised that some primates kept in the UK are not always provided with the right environment. Jez Hermer commented that primates may not be able to exercise normal behaviour and be in a suitable environment. Concerns were also raised about the dietary requirements of primates being met. It was noted that these areas should be covered in the Code. Matthew Ford commented that the Codes should cover information on the dietary requirements and supplements that primates may need. 

It was noted that primates were social animals and as such had certain needs, such as needing to be kept together in groups. The issue of hand-rearing was raised and it was noted that hand-rearing should be kept to a minimum (eg, weaning) as this can cause psychological and behavioural changes in primates and may cause them to think that they are human. This causes particular behavioural problems as primates enter maturity and it was suggested that advice in the Codes should be given to educate keepers on avoiding this situation from emerging.

Michael Fielding noted that the keeping of social species, such as primates, in isolation should be discouraged and this could be done through the Codes.

The issue of whether primates kept in the UK can be classed as wild or non-wild was also discussed, as were the implications of primates kept in the UK over many generations.

Primate breeding: Bill Wiggin raised the issue of the future of primates that are bred in the UK and where they end up. Michael Fielding commented that some of the outlets for these primates included zoos and private keepers. Matthew Ford added that many primates that cannot be sold on are handed into sanctuaries and welfare organisations.

Concerns were raised about in-breeding amongst some primates kept under human control. It was thought that this was something that could also be covered in the Codes. Jim Collins advised that primates should be kept in breeding groups.

Primate trade: It was noted that the trade in primates was banned in 1992, but that some smuggling may be taking place.

Enforcement: Concerns were raised about the standard of enforcement of existing laws by local authorities and the inconsistencies across the country. It was noted that enforcement was also problematic in the absence of the Codes and in the absence of local authorities possessing expertise in the field of primate welfare. It was felt that the environmental health/trading standards officers who handle welfare issues should receive better training and go on more courses. It was suggested that there should be uniformity in standards. The Dangerous Wild Animals licence was raised and the varying costs between local authorities.

New regulatory and registration measures: It was suggested that there should be a stricter regulatory framework for primate keeping and that primate keepers should be registered. Jez Hermer thought that a registration scheme would assist with enforcement and policing. Bill Wiggin commented that some of those likely to cause welfare problems are probably unlikely to register and that while there is little political appetite for intrusive regulations, this, along with other suggestions, would still be considered.

Internet sales: Chris Newman raised the issue of internet sales and the need for a Code to cover these activities. He noted that there was a current Code in place, whereby the vendor should declare the country the primate is coming from along with a total of ten key factors. It was also noted that there were internet scams involving the sale of primates and Rachel Hevesi mentioned that internet fraudsters were posing as the Monkey Sanctuary Trust. Alan Fisher commented that there were ongoing issues with internet enforcement.

British Primate Society: Chris Newman commented that primate keepers were in the process of setting up the British Primate Society. He stated that primate keepers were responsible and that they do not want there to be bad keepers out there causing welfare risks to primates.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> I don't think I've ever heard such a ridiculous and immature statement! As a result, I see that this thread is going to head round in the circles you are so fond of creating, Chris....so therefore I leave. Suffice to say, do all the campaigning you like, but Monkey World do an excellent job.....a far better job than we've seen any do from sitting behind their computers, bi:censor:ing on a forum and complaining about how unfair life is!:bash:


Surelly evrryones intitled to there own opinions.
Valid points from all cases.
Good to see that others are being educated about grammer.
Maybe we should consentrate on the post and leave sarcasm at home.

All have areas outwith public view
including alison cronnin...


She will never get private keeping stopped as she is the owner
of the park.
So is a private keeper.


Have been to meeting with her and husband and it didnt go the way they wanted.

Have lots of collegues that put them to shame..

But as previous.

They do some good.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> That is precisely what you have argued! Monkey World may well be able to afford the ‘Buckingham Palace’ - doesn’t mean that a decent 3 bed semi is not good enough! Minimum standards, not prohibitions are the only way forward for people that genuinely care about the welfare of animals, I would suggest.


Not at all! All I have argued is the reason why Monkey World HAVE TO take the stance that they do! They have no choice because it would otherwise render their work redundant.

It is you, Chris, that have been arguing the "ooo....poor private keepers/minimum requirements" aspect of this thread...ringing that same old, worn down bell of yours....I haven't touched upon it, nor am I interested in talking about it here right now. That is for others to decide....thankfully away from the likes of RFUK. However, if it meant in some utopian world, that cruelty could be _completely_ stamped out for good by introducing a blanket ban on private primates, then I would welcome it with open arms......I'm sure that my friends, and other primate keepers here, could live with that too.....otherwise, they would be lending their support to said cruelty! 

I really have to get on with my day now.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> Not at all! All I have argued is the reason why Monkey World HAVE TO take the stance that they do! They have no choice because it would otherwise render their work redundant.
> 
> It is you, Chris, that have been arguing the "ooo....poor private keepers/minimum requirements" aspect of this thread...ringing that same old, worn down bell of yours....I haven't touched upon it, nor am I interested in it. That is for others to decide....thankfully away from the likes of RFUK. However, if it meant in some utopian world, that cruelty could be _completely_ stamped out for good by introducing a blanket ban on private primates, then I would welcome it with open arms......I'm sure that my friends, and other primate keepers here, could live with that too.....otherwise, they would be lending their support to said cruelty!
> 
> I really have to get on with my day now.


I would, with all due respect, suggest that you are completely and utterly wrong. I am staggered that you also oppose minimum standards. Please explain to me how continuing to push for a ban on private ownership can ever benefit captive primates and raise welfare standards? 

If Monkey World would climb off their high horse and engage with private keepers reasonable and responsibly the good they _could_ _do_ would be immeasurably more than they are doing today. They do _some_ good work, but they could do much, much more.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> I am staggered that you also oppose minimum standards.


I don't know where you got this from in any of my posts! You see, this is why I try to stay away from discourses with you, Chris, because you ALWAYS read stuff where it's never been written! As previously said, I haven't even touched on that side of the thread. 

Now read very carefully, Chris, for I shall write this only once.....

All I've said is that there is justifiable reasoning _why_ Monkey World NEED TO take the stance they do with regards to private primate keeping. They have to, or their rescue work would have no credibility.

I've said nothing else, so please don't accuse me of anything in your inimitable way of twisting things.

(as a sidenote....you keep referring to Monkey World as private collectors. Well maybe they are, but I think we can all agree that they have elevated this to levels that even the best zoos often fail to reach, and therefore can be considered amongst their ranks, rather than as your bog-standard private keeper!)


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

Really enjoying this thread with some very good points.

Shame it is turning a little personal though.

I keep primates but do not class myself as experienced but even I sit with my mouth open in shock at some bits I see on Monkey Worlds tv programme.

I feel my primates are in decent enclosures but as has been mentioned we are always wanting to improve etc. They are given the correct diets and supplements, stimulation etc.

Why should I be banned from keeping them because a few people don't keep them correctly. Why should I be banned because AC appears to power hungry and wants to be the only place in the country that can keep primates.

I believe the Guidelines are a very good guide as how primates should be kept and all in all mine are kept to those guidelines. I believe they should be more than guidelines though and be enforceable by law, difficult I know but !!!.

I agree with Chris Newman on the point that Monkey World can do a lot more to help with the correct keeping of primates in the UK. For the life of me I cannot understand how turning their backs and ignoring the situation other than trying to ban animals can help. They are in a position to do so much good without promoting the keeping of primates. 

Monkey World actively turn down requests for information, in my opinion that does more harm than good and in fact could actually lead to animals suffering. Do they believe by not offering advice that the primate will come to them. They need to get real and the best way to help is to get on board and actively support the correct keeping. To me if MW class themselves as a rescue centre then surely information / advice is a great part of that ?.

Yes our animals welfare are our responsibily but who hasn't asked for help / advice on how to keep an animal or improve its welfare in captivity. That is one of the best ways to learn, to impropve our standards. Besides Peter Robertson on here and EKF there is sadly very little experienced help or advice out there for primates and we wonder why there is a problem

Sorry for the long post.

Neil


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

kodakira said:


> *Why should I be banned from keeping them because a few people don't keep them correctly.* Why should I be banned because AC appears to power hungry and wants to be the only place in the country that can keep primates.


I don't think you should be banned at all Neil (I'm more than sure that your standards are excellent anyway), but again I can see and understand why MW have to be seen to take this stance.:2thumb:


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

Hi Chris

My reply was not aimed at you.:2thumb:

It was just a general reply.

Obviously something I am passionate about and something I have discussed with others for a long time :gasp:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> I don't know where you got this from in any of my posts! You see, this is why I try to stay away from discourses with you, Chris, because you ALWAYS read stuff where it's never been written! As previously said, I haven't even touched on that side of the thread.
> 
> Now read very carefully, Chris, for I shall write this only once.....
> 
> ...


My response comes from what you write? Perhaps if you dropped the inane sarcasm you may be able to make your points more coherently! 

Whether you like it, or perhaps more importantly whether they like it or not – they are private keepers, nothing more nothing less. They are private keepers who hold a zoo license and exploit primates for a financial return; unless things have changed recently Monkey World is still a private limited company and NOT a charitable body! Are they a ‘rescue center’? I would suggest not, certainly they take in [selectively] primates that require rehoming, but they do so in expectation of receiving a financial reward. I have no issue with this personally, making a viable businesses by fulfilling a need is absolutely laudable, however, I do think it’s hypercritical for them to continually criticize all private keepers when they themselves are nothing more themselves! The “do as I say not as I do” mentality I find unpalatable.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

kodakira said:


> Hi Chris
> 
> My reply was not aimed at you.:2thumb:
> 
> ...


I did not read it as such… You made some very valid points. I too would like to see better stronger guidelines, my argument is it’s the destructive way the likes of Monkey World operate that prevent this from happening which is deeply regrettable.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> My response comes from what you write? I HAVE NEVER SAID I AM _OPPOSED_ TO MINIMUM STANDARDS AS YOU SUGGESTED....DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, CHRIS!





I won't answer to any more of your posts, Chris. Insisting that I have said things that I clearly didn't is really rude, and not something I would ever do. People are entitled to think what they like, but they are not entitled to do that. It's a very cheap trick!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> I won't answer to any more of your posts, Chris. Insisting that I have said things that I clearly didn't is really rude, and not something I would ever do. People are entitled to think what they like, but they are not entitled to do that. It's a very cheap trick!


Probably a very good idea……


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> *I did not read it as such*… You made some very valid points. I too would like to see better stronger guidelines, my argument is it’s the destructive way the likes of Monkey World operate that prevent this from happening which is deeply regrettable.


hahaha.....it...errr...wasn't aimed at you, chris. Think you got the wrong end of the stick there 

kisses xxx


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> I won't answer to any more of your posts, Chris. Insisting that I have said things that I clearly didn't is really rude, and not something I would ever do. People are entitled to think what they like, but they are not entitled to do that. It's a very cheap trick!


Can always be a hard one as discussions face to face can take whats said.

When its the written word its always a hard one.

but dont see it as a reason to throw the toys out the pram.

Have read alot of posts that have ended the same way...

As said previously there are valid points from all.

Would like to think that discussions wouldnt be taken personally..

After all isnt it what these places are about.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> All I've said is that there is justifiable reasoning _why_ Monkey World NEED TO take the stance they do with regards to private primate keeping. They have to, or their rescue work would have no credibility.


I can't see why this would be the case. I work with a lot of rescues and most of the work is education and helping people to keep their pets properly. I've seen plenty of exotics pass through and get rehomed to homes deemed suitable. Even a raccoon a few months ago, which I would suggest are harder to keep than many small primates, which went to a home with other raccoon and a fantastic enclosure.
Rescue work does not need to condemn private keeping.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Devi said:


> I can't see why this would be the case. I work with a lot of rescues and most of the work is education and helping people to keep their pets properly. I've seen plenty of exotics pass through and get rehomed to homes deemed suitable. Even a raccoon a few months ago, which I would suggest are harder to keep than many small primates, which went to a home with other raccoon and a fantastic enclosure.
> Rescue work does not need to condemn private keeping.


With all due respect, I think the difference is that much of MW's rescue work is fought in the offices of awkward foreign politicians and requires a great deal more delicate diplomacy and getting through a massive amount bureaucratic red tape...not to mention the whole process of transporting them back to the UK and dealing with the whole quarantine thing. They can't be seen to take much loved apes (which are quite often beloved local celebrities) from one country, only to condone the keeping of primates in our own.

Their political stance is probably born from all of that. It's a bit more complex than rehoming a poodle in the west country 

Please understand that I'm in no way against private primate keepers...I can just see why they kind of have to take the stance that they do. It can't be easy trying to deal with some of those foreign diplomats (especially the corrupt ones) and all their weird laws.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

i like grizzly bears... but i enjoy them knowing that they are out there doing their thing out in the wild... not in a cage in my backyard... that seems rather selfish...


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

HABU said:


> i like grizzly bears... but i enjoy them knowing that they are out there doing their thing out in the wild... not in a cage in my backyard... that seems rather selfish...


You wouldn't have seen it Habu, but there was a tv show here a few weeks ago where a guy in america (he was an absolute nutter) kept a load of grizzlies in his back garden. He was very odd.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> Their political stance is probably born from all of that. It's a bit more complex than rehoming a poodle in the west country


If only it was so easy! A lot of my work is domestics from cyprus, but I have also placed highly protected inverts and amphibians that have imported themselves on fruit and veg. It's pretty hard to explain to cites that you found an endangered animal in tesco banana counter!
On a more serious note, politics is tricky, but the zoos in this country deal with politics on a daily basis, do you realise how many years it took to get pandas over here? Monkey World has no monopoly on tricky negotiations. They choose to take this angle on private keeping.
It also does not involve disputing foreign keeping while accepting english keeping, it involves discussing what is acceptable keeping and condemning the non acceptable keepers.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

As an aside here I like the Monkey World programmes as pieces of television, and I do remember going to Spain in the early 80s and seeing photographers chimps on the seafront so I am sure that they are better at Monkeyworld than The Costa Del Sol .

I dony know enough about their stance on private keepers and have never kept primates so cant comment on this.

One thing puzzles me,the animals that are rescued from abroad do not seem to have any quarantine period.Either that or its clever editing.They have the health checks in the foreign country but do they have the equivalent of a pet passport?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

colinm said:


> As an aside here I like the Monkey World programmes as pieces of television, and I do remember going to Spain in the early 80s and seeing photographers chimps on the seafront so I am sure that they are better at Monkeyworld than The Costa Del Sol .
> 
> I dony know enough about their stance on private keepers and have never kept primates so cant comment on this.
> 
> One thing puzzles me,the animals that are rescued from abroad do not seem to have any quarantine period.Either that or its clever editing.They have the health checks in the foreign country but do they have the equivalent of a pet passport?


Monkey World do their own quarantining, they have ‘special’ privileges when it comes to importing primates.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> Monkey World do their own quarantining, they have ‘special’ privileges when it comes to importing primates.


Well don't make it out like MW get special treatment.....all zoos do their own quarantining!


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

Don't most zoos do their own quarentining? 

I don't know anything about monkey world, never even seen the programme, but It does seem a rather weak stance, the 'no one can have primates except us' view, even politicaly. It would be a much stronger stance to come up with minumum requirements, even if they were requirements that most private keepers couldn't reach, but they could.

Keeping primates that would do better elsewhere, and refusing to give out information on care etc. sounds counter productive.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

em_40 said:


> Don't most zoos do their own quarentining?


Here's a little off-topic tip......

All the best stuff is in the off-show quarantine areas. When you go to a zoo, try to get "backstage", 'cos that's where they keep the really exciting things!:2thumb:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> Well don't make it out like MW get special treatment.....all zoos do their own quarantining!


It would help if you read what I had written and not just jump straight to the defense of your ‘buddies’ @MW! I said they have special privileges when it comes to importing primates – NOT quarantining them, something most zoos and indeed some private keepers do.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> It would help if you read what I had written and not just jump straight to the defense of your ‘buddies’ @MW! I said they have special privileges when it comes to importing primates – NOT quarantining them, something most zoos and indeed some private keepers do.


Then you should have used a full-stop instead of the comma which implied the two ideas in your post are connected. I simply interpreted how it was written.

And MW aren't my "buddies" at all.....I just think that you're hilariously exasperating when you get on your political high-horse, Chris....however misguided it might be! I have merely played the devil's advocate role.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> And MW aren't my "buddies" at all.....I just think that you're hilariously exasperating when you get on your political high-horse, Chris....however misguided it might be! I have merely played the devil's advocate role.


Personally I don’t find organisation that oppose private ownership amusing, so we will have to differ on that point.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> Personally I don’t find organisation that oppose private ownership amusing, so we will have to differ on that point.


That's not what amuses me, Chris, you're once again 'misunderstanding' me (using the inverted commas there, because I know you really don't....read on!).

It's more your pathological _need_ to "stick it to the man" at every available opportunity, no matter how banal (such as a petty discussion on an internet forum). When you blindly ignore any reason and are so blinkered to the other side of the argument. How you twist what people say (as above) and put words into their mouths to suit your own ends (a very low trick). As an ex-psychology student, despite making me want to repeatedly bang my head against a wall :banghead:, this behaviour actually fascinates me!


----------



## suity (Aug 4, 2009)

Give it a rest please folks, not what this forum is for. A discussion is fine, even a heated one, but what's the point in petty personal remarks?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> That's not what amuses me, Chris, you're once again 'misunderstanding' me (using the inverted commas there, because I know you really don't....read on!).
> 
> It's more your pathological _need_ to "stick it to the man" at every available opportunity, no matter how banal (such as a petty discussion on an internet forum). When you blindly ignore any reason and are so blinkered to the other side of the argument. How you twist what people say (as above) and put words into their mouths to suit your own ends (a very low trick). As an ex-psychology student, despite making me want to repeatedly bang my head against a wall :banghead:, this behaviour actually fascinates me!


Your support for Monkey World is very clear and that is of course your prerogative.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> Your support for Monkey World is very clear and that is of course your prerogative.


I have no particular support for monkey world.....if I did, I certainly wouldn't be ashamed of it! I appreciate that they do a good job saving apes from bad situations, and I like that they put them into spacious pretty enclosures....my support absolutely ends there as i have no strong feelings about them either way.

But as I've said throughout this lamentably long thread, I merely understand why they do what they do...*I never actually said I agreed with it!* Maybe I'm just able to view the situation from both sides....I'm quite open-minded like that, you see? 


Time to go walk the coati now......i'll tell you what, I wish Manchester had the same lovely weather that Monkey World has. It always seems to be sunny there!


----------



## nikgemzak (Aug 25, 2009)

*Marmoset monkey*

I have a male marmoset for sale,he's 3yrs old,if interested mail me back,no timewasters please,


----------

