hi guys
I may be knew to this site however what i would like to add is that zoos are there for financial reasons whereby private keepers have only the animals best interests at heart and do not gain any finance to look after their animals.

kirk

Very valid point Kirk, well said.

It is said at times, and you may be familiar with this, that in fact due to the lack of restrictions upon the budget of the private keeper, the latter in fact make for the better administrators of their animals.

Unlike Zoos, whom are constantly under the firing line of regulative administrative cuts.

R

__________________

Whilst that may be true in one sense, in another completely the opposite is true. With a Zoo, the financial backing to maintain the animals they keep is more or less a constant, and if the 'admins' decide to move the zoos money in another direction (although primates are always popular attractions in zoos so thats more unlikely than for less popular species) then the zoo will have the contacts and motivation to move the individuals on to more suitable establishments.

However the personal keepers financial situation, regardless of what species is being kept, is subject to much more sudden change which, when you have expensive, needy animals to maintain can really leave you up the creek!! How many ads are there in the classifieds every week saying along the lines of 'change in circumstances and i need the money' and most of those animals being sold cost a fraction of that of a primate. So i'm just saying the point about finances being more constant for private keepers isnt really true.

The other issue with changable finances is that private keepers, who, if they have gone to the trouble of researching and keeping the animal properly in the 1st place will no doubt be extremely devoted and attached to their primates, and this attachment often, unfortunately, leads to the owner not being able to sell the animal if their circumstances change, and do whats best for the animal. whereas a zoo would be forced too, whether its keeper was upset or not!

What my point is, is that no matter how noble the private primate keepers initial intentions and how well they set up their animals, the changable nature of human circumstances means that it can be very difficult to maintain such an expensive animal for its whole life, when its lifespan is so long!

__________________


Whites Tree Frogs, Litorea caerulea (Australian and Blue)
Crested Geckos, Rhacodactylus ciliatus
Mossy chahoua Geckos, Rhacodactylus chahoua

Golden Retriever
4ft Tropical Community tank
2 tier mixed Koi pond

One of the problems that zoos have with private keepers is that no serious effort is made to maintain self sustaining populations of any particular species. There is very little, if any, cooperation to make best use of viable bloodlines. The buying and selling side of things is all-pervasive unfortunately.

Can you think of one single example amongst private keepers of a species where individuals are exchanged or co ordinated to best maintain a strong bloodline? It certainly occurs amongst domestic pedigrees but with wild species it is unheard of. I can think of a mere handful of cases where private keepers maintain studbook registered animals and this is only on the strict proviso that they fully cooperate with the administrators of the zoo populations (who, lets face it, are not biased by financial gain and have only the fitness of the species as a whole to influence their decisions). When you acquire any non-studbook species in the private sector (which is inevitably the case) it could effectively have come from anywhere, be related to virtually any degree, to any or none of the others in the population. Beyond a couple of generations, bloodline histories are are virtually unknown.

This is something I have had personal experience with. Banging one's head against a brick wall is as effective as trying to inaugurate selfless cooperation within the private sector.

There is very little altruistism amongst private keepers and rare are those who would even consider donating one of their prized animals to another for the good of the future of the species in captivity. Individuals are too importatant to individuals and no one really gives a damn about the long-term futures of any captive populations.

Perhaps the TSKA has role to play in changing this attitude or has the potential to bring some kind of regiment to the preservation of certain species in captivity in private hands? It is something that that zoos realised decades ago. Perhaps with so many threats to the hobby, now is the time that private keepers did too.

Hi Paradoxus, hope life bodes well for you?

I am under the impression from those that l am in communications with on a fairly regular basis that a liasion is to be had at some future point, which all going well will open up a pathway between the private keeper and the 'zoo - game park' etc.

Now you and l both know that a certain level of this 'pathway' exists already to what the latter class as 'specialist keepers' and arrangements have been made in the past.

The zoo's etc, perhaps rightly so believe that in fact the majority of the private keepers are in it - not so much for the benefit of expanding their collective base - but many say they are in it for the money.

A long time ago in todays' terms, but in many respects not that long ago - 2001 - 2003 private keepers were well known for breeding loans to both fellow private keepers and 'zoos' not all these bade that well and as a result, one does not hear that much about them now, seeing as a good majority went horrribly wrong. And as a practice is more or less frowned upon now by the private keeper.

The private keeper now views the zoo + establishments with a certain amount of caution.

Whilst l can see the benefits of having a much better communications and exchange of 'knowledge and blood line' l at times have also viewed the zoo industry with some scepticism recently .....

Again my friend, you and l know that what you suggest in the final paragraph of your post would be ideal, however it is not readily achievable in todays private exotics market ....... is it?

And no, l am not being negative, sadly realistic.

Rory

__________________

Thanks for your interest Rory. My career continues to place me between the two factions. Ever changing.

I do hope that a more formal relationship between private keepers and public collections can be instigated as it would be of benefit to both parties. As it stands those zoos that choose to supply animals to private keepers see it largely as a way of getting rid of burdensome, non-viable stock without risking bad publicity that the euthanasia option could pose (there has been some good examples in the media over the past year of this). But surely private keepers can take on more responsibilty than that of 'retired' animals. Unfortunately they, as a whole, have done nothing to prove it so far - there has to be one common goal and not 'every man for himself'.

Squabbling in public, as occurs on this forum almost daily, does nothing to improve their image. Unless things can radically change then zoos will continue to regard private keepers as a dumping ground, at best, and something to be distanced from at worst.

The private keeper that 'gets-in' with the zoo comunity is a rare beast indeed and historically such 'specialist keepers' have long-established links with particular collections. On the whole, such keepers keep themselves, whether by incident or design, distant from the rest of the private keeping community. It would be easy to arrive at the conclusion that such lack of proximity to fellow private keepers helps to cement their relationship with public ones - emphasising further the disdain with which one party holds the other.

Someone needs to instigate some kind of union, first of all between private keepers and turn around what is, in effect, chaotic management of populations. Only then can a serious attempt be made towards gaining the acceptance of the zoo world.

Learning not to view individual animals as 'property' but as part of a captive-wide population is a good start. This is a view already accepted by those keepers who are 'on the inside'. Lets face it, in the current climate, capture of wild animals is not going to last forever and unless private keepers can get their act together and cooperate, then they will spell the death of their own hobby regardless of any laws that might pose a threat.

Quite frankly, if private keepers misappropriate animals trusted unto them then why should zoos continue that supply? At least if kept within the zoo community individuals can be put to optimum use and not alowed to peeter out through irresponsible or uncontroled pairings.

I don't think zoos are whiter than white. Far from it in fact. But I do think they've got the concept of managing populations right. Their decision to block out private keepers is a strategic one. From one aspect it enables a coordinator to keep tight control on a population. From another, it serves to maintain their righteousness by disallowing themselves to be tarred by the bad publicity of malpractise within the private sector.

The use of the term 'exotics market' is, sadly, quite pertinant to the whole issue. Unless we can shed any financial influences, the whole concept of co-operation amongst keepers can never be realised.

".......... what can a zoo or game park give a primate more than what i can give them......"



this...

__________________

I have a pair of Common Marmosets. They had a baby on Easter Monday. I maintain these little primates to the best of my ability. They are happy healthy monkeys & I love them to bits.

You quoted as saying "This should be made a punishable offence", Well It is see the 2007 animal welfare act on Defra website.

Hey blue - I keep primates and I keep them damn well! - unfortunately they usually come from people who don't keep them damn well, that said, I know a lot of primate keepers who do a good job and have enclosures that surpass zoo enclosures.

I know a Dutch guy up in Udon Thai (NE Thailand) with a give or take 20 acre enclosure that he actually fenced himself with some of the villagers where he keeps Macaques - usually retired / rescued working monkeys.

__________________
Seize the day