canibanol cannonball said:
it dont matter how big or nice the cage is, human contact and lack of freedom changes an animals mannerisms. The way they eat, converse, temperment etc.. Monkeys are not native to North America.
Taking a wild animal and breeding the "wild" out of it f___s up the species.
These new monkeys have little chance of living without human aid.
Its is the same with dogs, cats, and any other animals bred in captivity.They can't live without human aid either. Either way, monkeys are tamed in captivity, but we are not breeding the wild out of them. They still have their "wild" mannerisms, but along with that are able to associate with people. I believe the main difference between captive & wild monkeys is that they would not know what foods could cause potential hazard, and would be less aggressive than their wild counterparts, increasing the risk of getting hurt. Pet monkeys still groom, have hierarchies with in the family, have a troop leader, and even my squirrels still do their little leg lift dominance display/greeting when they see someone new.
As for Kaotic's reply- I totally agree that laws don't work 100%, but they do help. What I think we need is better enforcement of those laws, not new ones. What is the point in making a new law (say a ban), if no one is going to be there to make sure its followed through? Instead of making a ban why not enforce current import laws. Either way, I don't think smuggling monkeys happens often in the US because there are many breeders, and importing a live animal isn't that easy. They move, make noise, etc. It isn't as easy as planting a seed in your yard or room and letting it grow. Weed can be grown here, or seeds smuggled in much easier than a live animal. It is much easier to break the law and not get caught with weed, than animals. In the case of the US import has been banned for 30 years. Allowing captive breeding here in the US would preserve the species (perhaps not all its survival instincts but the species), and puts less pressure on wild populations because we don't need to by them illegally from outside the US. What are we to do with those already in captivity here in the US? Fix them so they can't reproduce, and allow them to die off? Why not allow them to continue bearing offspring, and allowing those who have the dedication and experience, be zoo or private owner, maintain viable species alive? I would like to note for those who believe that private owners are clueless, that most of the major studies, improvements or what not regarding primates, were not made by scientists, but rather regular people who took interest and pride in caring for their animals, and lived with them in close proximity. The founder of the Yerkes institute (1920's) actually went to study the home of a woman who kept apes as pets, and she, Rosalia Abreu, formed the foundation of captive primate husbandry upon which other scientist built upon. Not much has changed since, other than the public PERCEPTION of private owners, I think in large part due to the Animal rights movement. Every once in a while I will read a new study by some primate researcher, where if they took one moment to ask a private owner, they could have told them. But they choose to ignore their roots, and take the long way to figure it out.
Many of the countries that primates are native to have very passive laws, if any, against poaching. Here in the US we know that there are certain protected species we can't touch. If we do we get jail time, and heavy fines. People understand, appreciate them, and for the most part let them be. In most third world countries, where these animals are native, that is not the case. . I would 100% support efforts to conserve them in the wild. And do believe that those countries of which they are native should amp up penalties for illegal poaching. Unfortunately, animals aren't their top priority. Money is. But we can't blame the problems in other countries on Americans who's laws prohibit it. Yes 30 years they were taken from the wild, but that has since changed.
