Written by Heather Clemenceau
The ÏKEA Munkë is soooo Dec. 2012. Despite this, the meme lives on, as do the challenges for Story Book Farm Primate Sanctuary and their volunteers, who must endure a seemingly endless poo-flinging from their opposition, not only on Facebook but sprinkled liberally elsewhere on the internet.
In my first blog on Darwin, I acknowledged feeling a certain empathy for the former owner when he escaped at the North York IKEA and was seized by Toronto Animal Services in December 2012. In the last few months my sympathy has waned considerably as a direct result of the behaviour of some of her supporters. I’m quite sure some of them have been working full-time trying to dredge up emails, messages, and texts that they believe will incriminate the sanctuary and Sherri Delaney, the owner/operator of Story Book Farm Primate Sanctuary. Their accusations have become so outlandish and oppressive that reasonable people can only reject them outright. We’ve all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.
Today, I’m picking through a petition sent to the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) and Brock Township by a group of 116 petitioners, seemingly as part of a plan to revoke the charitable status of the sanctuary. Too bad this empty rhetoric will fall on deaf ears, since just about the only way to have your charitable status revoked is if the charity itself doesn’t comply with CRA’s regulations, they fail to file their returns, or they ask to be de-registered. In addition to that, many of the claims made in this petition are dangerously speculative and will not be of interest to any of the parties petitioned. You can read the original on Scribd, or here in PDF format, in case the original suddenly goes “poof” in the night. So…. point by message point, here’s my response to the accusations against Story Book…..
“As the Sanctuary had not been granted a licence to operate, the Sanctuary ought not to have accepted new residents until the finalization of its licensing. The adoption of the Japanese baby macaque, Darwin was premature and inappropriate in the circumstances.”
Despite this group’s best efforts, the sanctuary does have a license, but it’s important to note that a license was not required until recently. And they’ve also been approved by the OSPCA and the Fire Department. And yes, perhaps their acquisition was premature, because they’re not psychics and had no idea Ms. Nakhuda was going to lose Darwin at IKEA in December 2012. Next time a private citizen acquires an illegal monkey in Toronto, perhaps they should consider providing appropriate notice of their intent to take a day trip where he/she might get loose, so that all sanctuaries in North America are prepped and at the ready to accommodate stylishly-attired occupants.
“On Tuesday, December 18, 2012, Ms. Delaney, verbally confirmed to a member of the public that all her staff was registered with Ontario Association of Veterinary Technicians (“OAVT”). Since then, it was confirmed with OAVT that the members were not registered with OAVT. We are hoping that OAVT will initiate their own investigation in relation to licences/registrations that Sherri Delaney reported they hold. Ms. Delaney’s misrepresentation of her qualifications and that of her volunteers is unethical and unbecoming of an owner of an organization mandated to act in the best interests of the community.”
I have no idea what the qualifications are for many of the volunteers, but I’ve been told that some of them are quite specialized in either monkeys or vet tech. But you know, I just can’t attach much merit to a claim that someone “verbally confirmed something to a member of the public.” It appears that this isn’t verifiable in any way – is that the standard of evidence these days? Reminds me of that old REO Speedwagon song – “heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another……” But since the educational and experiential qualifications of the volunteers at Story Book are called into question, let me ask what qualifications are possessed by the 116 petitioners? How about a little quid pro quo? What special skill set do they possess that allows them to make these determinations? I suspect more than a few might be real-estate agents or closely associated with that field, which begs the question, what do they know about monkeys or veterinary care, or even running a sanctuary? How many of these 116 people have been to the sanctuary? How many have been to ANY sanctuary? A woman who lives in El Salvador signed the petition – what are her qualifications? And when did Rhonda from Arkansas visit the sanctuary?
“Toronto Animal Services confirmed in its official statement to the media that though the baby monkey was not happy, it was healthy. Public opinion was that the monkey was well dressed and did not show any indication that it was abused.”
All Toronto’s stray monkeys wear faux-shearling coats. God forbid we have unstylish monkeys roaming the streets. Anna Wintour would be proud!
“Tests performed on Darwin also confirmed that he was in good health. We are advised that the repeated requests for the return of Darwin to its owner, who guaranteed the animal would be relocated to another city where there was no prohibition of owning exotic animals, were refused without just cause. Despite Ms. Delaney’s admission that where a baby monkey has imprinted on a human and there is a bond between the two, any separation may create significant trauma to the primate, she refused to do so. When pressured to grant access, Ms. Delaney imposed such stringent and absurd access terms on the owner and the primate that the owner turned down the visitation rights afraid that exercising access in compliance with those terms would be psychologically damaging on the baby macaque.”
Okay, let’s be honest – I’m sure if people had not been threatening the sanctuary and driving by taking photos which included the operator’s PRIVATE RESIDENCE, posting them on the internet, the terms would not have been so stringent. How ironic that the group are now citing imprinting and bonding as concerns; if they were truly concerned, the baby Darwin would not have been purchased, thus separating him from his mother who would have still been nursing him. It’s anthropomorphization plain and simple, to presume that humans are an apt replacement for a baby monkey’s own mother.
“A copy of the proposed terms of access offered by Ms. Delaney through her counsel is enclosed herein as appendix “B”. For your kind information, the owner of the macaque is a female professional, a mother of two teenagers, with no criminal record. Meanwhile there is admission by Ms. Sherri Delaney that at the time she adopted Pockets Warhol, a resident primate from its consenting owner, Ms. Delaney allowed Pockets’ owner not only to enter the cage of the primate but to be there for the entire day for four consecutive days from 08:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. In a You Tube posted by the Sanctuary as recently as September 5, 2012, Ms. Delaney confirmed that the presence of Pockets’ owner facilitated the transfer and eased any stress caused to the animal during the transfer and happens to be one of the “best stories” of the Sanctuary. Seethe following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp7v_gwMvVw&feature=endscreen&NR=1
I’m going to assume that Pockets former owner probably did not set up a Facebook page and facilitate, even unknowingly, adherents to harass others and threaten to “liberate” all the primates at the sanctuary by any means. The former owner of Pockets probably didn’t possess a group of hangers-on who drove by the sanctuary and took pictures, or called their donors and sponsors. Nor did anyone connected with Pocket’s former owner refer to the Sanctuary as a SCUM-Tuary or SCAM-tuary. Yes, it’s all very clear to me now why the two former owners were treated so differently during the transition period.
“It is the petitioners humble submission that Ms. Delaney is guilty of cruelty to Darwin, the baby macaque by purposefully attempting to sever a healthy bond between the owner and her primate, or, in the alternative, the Sanctuary was not protecting Darwin from abuse or fear as per its own mandate but merely imposing its own judgement of private primate ownership on the animal and its owner.”
I realize it was not deliberate, but losing Darwin at IKEA was the ultimate act of separation, is it not? It therefore seems hypocritical (not to mention wrong) to accuse the sanctuary of cruelty when Darwin was roaming the parking lot frightened and confused. I’m sure he was far more frightened in the parking lot then he ever was upon seeing new surroundings, or the blue latex gloves that so terrify Ms. Nakhuda’s supporters.
“The Sanctuary claims that animals which are taken by the Sanctuary are allowed to live a life closer to the natural habitat they were taken from. There is little or no evidence of the residents of the Sanctuary being provided with such closer return to their natural habitat. Information received from visitors of the Sanctuary confirms that all the animals are caged in small cages, mostly alone with little or no social interaction. The Sanctuary refuses access or use of cameras in order to prevent the uncovering of further information regarding the standard of care of its residents.”
Already Darwin has grown a thicker coat consistent with that of wild Japanese macaques, who spend part of the year in a cold climate. And you can’t get much closer to “natural” than by ditching your diaper and leash. Are we to believe that the petitioners have somehow located and interviewed visitors to the sanctuary, and if so, that’s kinda spooky to me, along the lines of delivering petitions to people’s private homes in the evening and refusing to identify yourself in the process. There are several videos that I’m aware of on Youtube, taken by people who visited the premises, along with still photography, so it seems unlikely that they don’t allow cameras, but perhaps not for people suing or harassing them. But surely this group does not expect there to be CCTV that is beamed directly into their televisions 24/7?
“Pictures that were posted on the Sanctuary’s website prior to the Sanctuary taking possession of Darwin and which were removed immediately when the Sanctuary took possession of the baby macaque disclosed that (1) the size of the cages, holding cells or other enclosures where some of the animals were kept was nothing close to a natural environment, (2) existence of filth, decay and lack of maintenance; and (3) that the residents at the Sanctuary did not enjoy the attention and caring that the Sanctuary now displays or professes they receive. We are attaching herewith pictures that were removed by the Sanctuary showing the existence of rusty bars and restrictive fencing holding suffering and/or unhealthy and/or unhappy primates as appendix “C”, and “D”. There is also a picture of Darwin taken by the media which poses concern as it shows what appears to be an electrical cord within the reach of the baby macaque. See Appendix “E”. The Sanctuary’s mission statement as published on its web site is to heal and save animals from abuse and fear. See attached a copy of the Home Page of the Sanctuary attached herein as appendix“A”. It is our humble position that at the time the Sanctuary took over Darwin the baby monkey, there was no evidence of any abuse or neglect by its owner.”
I hate repeating myself, but again, Darwin was LOST in a parking lot! That’s a pretty fearful situation for a baby monkey. But what does the Story Book mission statement have to do with the method by which Darwin came to them? By the group’s own admission, Pocket’s previous owner voluntarily surrendered him. Maybe Pockets experienced no abuse or neglect whatsoever. If the sanctuary only admits animals that by strict definition have been abused or seized for abuse, where should Pockets or any other monkey who doesn’t fall into that category have gone? It seems someone is taking the mission statement a bit too literally. And what is “restrictive fencing?” Is that the kind of fencing that keeps a monkey on the premises rather than wandering around in a parking lot? If so, I’m down for that.
“In fact, there is concern of abuse as there have been admissions of use of date rape drugs on the residents to control them.”
I can’t imagine a lawyer sanctioning any such statement. What proof does this group have? The date on this petition is January 2, 2012, curiously enough, several months before he was even born. In any case, this accusation never came up in court either – do you suppose it’s because there is no actual evidence? Will people in this group just make shit up as they go along? This is, without doubt, one of the most libelous slurs made against anyone associated with the Sanctuary. And again, not something either Brock Township nor the CRA would know anything about, although I would imagine they must look on such claims with as much skepticism as we all do. Lawyers are required to enforce the rule of law and protect the public, and the public is not served by any of the wild accusations made herewith.
“There is also proof that abusive and intrusive surgical procedure such as castration has been used on a primate who the Sanctuary took over to “protect and save from fear and abuse” : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttdzHl_1b50 (Julien’s Big Day is a video recording of the publicized castration of a resident male monkey).(5) The Sanctuary’s mission is to educate people. Yet it appears that information imparted to the public is generally biased and used to create a fear of monkeys. Primatologists and other experts can confirm that with appropriate training and care, monkeys can be controlled and become good pets and can make contributions to humans. Boston College for e.g., trains monkeys to assist disabled persons and the program has been successful:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGdHjSyry-A.In Japan, Japanese Snow Macaques have received labour law protection to work as waiters in a restaurant – a place where food is served and the monkey servers interact with strangers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeSQ5Rv7eH8.
So, the removal of the canine teeth (which Nakhuda admitted to considering) is OK, but neutering a monkey is not? Does the group not realize that this same procedure is provided by veterinarians for dogs, cats, and other species of animals? The procedure, as published on Youtube, is educational and displays proper veterinary protocols, including the use of the much-maligned blue surgical gloves, which are a source of great consternation to the blue glove phobics in Ms. Nakuda’s camp. I’ve often wondered what type of pet owner might want to purchase Neuticals®, now I have a pretty good idea who they are! While it’s true that monkeys have been trained to serve disabled people, they have had their canines and sometimes the last digits on their fingers removed to avoid them biting and scratching the very disabled persons they are helping. We can’t say that we perform either of those procedures on therapy or guide dogs either. And I can’t imagine what kind of primatologist would come out and state that monkeys can make good pets – Dr. Jane Goodall certainly does not.
“The Sanctuary advises that monkeys are violent and kill people and yet statistics received from US where there is a large population of primate owners show that the incidents of violence are fewand there were no cases of death reported in a period of 10 years. Attached herewith are pertinent statistical and informative reports regarding ownership of primates and frequency of bites as appendix “F1”, “F2”, “F3” and “F4”.(7) The Sanctuary has used factual medical information in a prejudicial way without cause to create fear of monkeys in humans. The petitioners are prepared to submit evidence that primates are not a threat to public safety and in fact prove statistically to be safer than your common pet dog or cat.”
Sometimes monkeys do kill people. More likely is the possibility that they will hurt someone, which they are more than capable of doing once they reach sexual maturity. We know that Darwin was biting a child and an adult, as this was confirmed in court. And yes, dogs and cats cause more damage relative to monkeys, because they exist in the population by orders of magnitude over monkeys. There are well over 100 million dogs and cats in Canada, while privately owned monkeys in Canada would likely number in the low thousands. So it makes perfect sense statistically to state that more people are bitten by dogs than monkeys in Canada, because there are MORE of them.
“Additionally they do not carry diseases that are transferable to humans. According to the US health reports (US research reports here are being used as in US there are over 15,000.00 private primate owners), there has never been a case of rabies infection in a nonhuman primate that was euthanized or quarantined after a bite incident in the US. Nonhuman primates are not carriers of the rabies virus nor has a pet primate ever transferred ANY disease to a human. The rare cases of disease transmission from a primate were acquired from research facilities where primates are imported directly from the wild. They are not captive bred primates. In addition, research facilities inject diseases into these primates for the purposes of research. Pet primates of today are born in captivity and do not harbor diseases. Whilst it is true that monkeys may carry herpes which is fatal to humans, such transmission is very difficult and there is no statistical evidence to support any death toll to make this fact a fear factor.”
First sentence of the above is patently incorrect. I’ve covered zoonotic diseases in a previous blog post about Darwin and monkeys, but further reading is available here. Rabies transmission to humans is a relatively rare occurrence in Canada, so it’s practically pointless to claim that monkeys don’t transmit rabies to humans – also because there are so few of them in Canada in the first place. But again, why are the authors of this document discussing rabies in monkeys with the department of the Canadian government which governs taxes and unemployment insurance? Methinks they have lost sight of their audience yet again.
“Please see report enclosed as appendix “G1”, “G2”, “G3”,“G4” and “G5” regarding carriage of herpes by monkeys which is self explanatory.(8) Story Book Farm Primate Sanctuary appears to be a place of animal hoarding and unfit for its residents.”
Well why not? The accountants and tax specialists at the CRA and the bylaw officers in Brock Township must wonder on a daily basis what their risks are of acquiring herpes from a monkey. And no, nothing in this petition is self-explanatory.
“The Sanctuary has publicly admitted that they were not expecting Darwin and therefore he could not be caged in a better enclosure than the current small holding cell. In an article dated December 4, 2007 to the Globe And Mail, while Ms. Delaney reported that the sanctuary was at “full capacity” she added that she was still thinking of rescuing 6 more primates in her area. Again, the sanctuary confesses back on March 22, 2010 todurhamregion.comand on March 24, 2011 to the Toronto Star, that they were “almost out of room” and “filled to capacity”(source:http://www.storybookmonkeys.org/media.htm yet the sanctuary continues to take in new residents. Visitors have also reported that the place was cramped. There are currently 22 or more animals in a 4000 square feet area, most of them being primates who can jump 15 feet in one leap. As recently as December 10, 2012 Ms. Delaney indicated to CBC News that she was expecting two female rhesus macaques in the next few weeks(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/12/10/toronto-ikea-monkey.In a youtube posted by Ms. Delaney on September 5, 2012, Ms. Delaney admits seeking to bring in chimpanzees and requires her followers to “stay tuned” as she plans further expansion to add to her collection of primates:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp7v_gwMvVw&feature=endscreen&NR=1.
Of course they weren’t expecting Darwin, they had no idea he even existed prior to being contacted by Toronto Animal Services. I have no idea whether any of these anticipated monkeys ever arrived, and it’s pointless to go into a long diatribe over what someone “might” plan to do in the future. And what’s the point to mentioning something Sherri Delaney said she was considering in 2010, three years ago? I guess Ms. Delaney will have to approach one of the Darling Darwin Monkey group’s most famous alleged chimpanzee owners for advice if she ever acquires a chimp. Stay tuned – we may get to see exactly what practical knowledge this supposed chimpanzee owner really knows!
“The petitioners take the view that these video recordings indicate that the Sanctuary’s owner Ms.Delaney primary agenda is not the rescue of unwanted or neglected animals but to build a private zoo or collection of primates and other exotic animals.(9) Immediately upon the capture of Darwin, the Sanctuary revamped its website removing existing information of its residents and modified them so that the residents appear to be in better health and condition.”
Are you sure the website wasn’t scheduled for a revamp? How do you know? I doubt that any of these petitioners had reviewed the Story Book website in any detail before Darwin escaped because they had almost certainly never heard of the place. And if they revamp their website, so what?
“Reports have been received from many Facebook users that unfavorable comments made by Facebook users were actively deleted by the Sanctuary so that the Sanctuary could preserve its good public image. The sanctuary appears to be concealing its true intent and purposeby tampering with viewer postings to manipulate public opinion.”
Yes, the Canada Revenue Agency will be so incredibly captivated by the fact that people got butthurt on Facebook. I hope the followers of the DDM Facebook know that the CRA governs excise taxes, GST/HST, income tax, Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance, RSP’s, and corporate taxes, among other things. They don’t care that you got your feelings hurt on Failbook. The admins on the Story Book Facebook page have the right to censor anyone they want on their Facebook page, because it’s THEIR page. You can also delete comments on the Darling Darwin Monkey Facebook page without explanation or justification. Nevertheless, you don’t see us whining to any government agency that we got censored on Facebook.
“The Sanctuary appears to be driven by business income generation rather than animal care and safety. Immediately upon taking in Darwin, the baby macaque, as its new “celebrity” resident,the Sanctuary revamped its website adding a new section entitled “DOLLARS FOR DARWIN”.Pictures of the baby macaque are being sold to the public for $50.00 -$100.00 each and the Sanctuary created a Facebook page for Darwin which blocked members of the public protesting against such financial exploitation. The Sanctuary has admitted to raising donations totaling$15,000.00 in a week through Darwin alone.”
Again, no proof that the animal care is substandard. And they wouldn’t have a “celebrity” resident if he hadn’t been lost in a busy parking lot on that fateful Saturday. And Darwin would have probably quietly faded away had there not been a big media circus afterwards, which had nothing to do with Story Book either. And anyway, what’s wrong with selling photos or artwork by monkeys? Ms. Nakhuda seems fixated on the monkey waiters in Japan, which she does not see as exploitation, yet targeted fundraising is somehow manipulative of the public and the monkeys. The Rescue Darwin and Friends group are selling t-shirts and books to support this lawsuit, when all the sanctuary is doing is soliciting funds for future care for all the animals, not just Darwin. How is it less virtuous for the sanctuary to fundraise for future care, while the RDAF is fundraising to pay off a lawyer’s anticipated future expenses incurred suing a charity staffed by volunteers? This is unbelievably hypocritical. And we get it, some of you got blocked on Facebook – please – enough already. No one is obligated to “like” your views on Facebook.
“Further, there is disturbing indication that Ms. Sherri Delaney, a Durham Region police officer may have attempted to misuse the charitable status of the Sanctuary by offering a Canadian Citizen, a tax receipt for $3,000.00 for a donation she never received from him during negotiations for the purchase of a trailer which she indicated to him was to be used for housing cages on sanctuary grounds. The undersigned are also concerned that the purported purchase of a trailer to cage animals of the Sanctuary (for quarantine or otherwise) indicates that the Sanctuary is unable to provide the “natural habitat” it promises to give to the animals it keeps hoarding and is desperate for new facilities and funding. A request for a tax audit and investigation into the validity of issuance of tax receipts by the Sanctuary is being directed to Charities Directorate, Revenue Canada Agency who is also being copied with the petition herein.(11) There is information, from some of the petitioners herein and through Facebook comments which were intentionally deleted by the Sanctuary that Ms. Delaney may have harassed owners of exotic pets and used coercion to have them surrender or persuade them to surrender their animals to the Sanctuary.
My understanding after reading this paragraph is that Ms. Delaney offered a receipt for fair-market value. And Ms. Nakhuda’s own home wasn’t a “natural habitat” either, unless wild monkeys wear stylish outfits and designer diapers whilst climbing armoirs and brushing their teeth. I’d also to know and understand what Ms.Nakhuda’s definition of “hoarding” is. Hoarding encompasses a mental aspect as well as the keeping of large numbers of animals, and it’s incredibly presumptive and quite likely libelous for these armchair psychologists to assume that anyone has any sort of mental issues. Rescues are not hoarders.
“There is information, from some of the petitioners herein and through Facebook comments which were intentionally deleted by the Sanctuary that Ms. Delaney may have harassed owners of exotic pets and used coercion to have them surrender or persuade them to surrender their animals to the Sanctuary.”
I have no idea what transpired in the past with the acquisition of the Story Book monkeys, but this just sounds like more overblown rhetoric to me, coming from the same people who constantly claim that they are in all sorts of unsubstantiated danger from the Story Book supporters.
“It is to be noted that Ms. Delaney claims that she is a “published author” on her web site and yet we are in receipt of information that the only publication that she has published was the Durham Police 25 Anniversary 1976-1999, a publication that was apparently recalled due to various misrepresentations and fabrications which included report of a police officer’s death at a shoot out when in fact there was no such death. The petitioners are inclined to believe, pending an inquiry to show otherwise, that the Sanctuary(1) is unqualified and lacks the expertise and knowledge to take care of primates; (2) is guilty of cruelty and abuse to its residents; (3) is operating on its own personal agenda and mission to stop private ownership of exotic animals; (4) operates primarily for its own pecuniary interest and gratification; (4) has failed to serve the community interest; (5) is not acting in the interest of the animals it has a mandate to protect; (6) is guilty of unethical misrepresentation, bias and prejudice.”
Again, why will the CRA care whether someone is a published author or not? How does the existence of any publication have anything to do with the care of the monkeys? So what if this anniversary publication was recalled? It’s not like a recall for a Toyota with bad brakes – it sounds like a private, internal publication. Should we blame Sherri Delaney if it also had typos? I also have a “personal agenda” in writing this blog – yes, I’m BIASED, in favour of the truth. And I would also like to stop private ownership of primates in Canada. Let’s be clear please – what’s required to be a registered charity in Ontario is not encumbered by any of the above statements made by the plaintiff’s group. There is no evidence of cruelty whatsoever, and in fact, no one on the plaintiff’s counsel presented any evidence of cruelty or abuse during the January/February 2013 hearing to determine the residency of Darwin. So that’s a major fail on the part of the individuals behind this letter – attempting to introduce an accusation that has no basis in fact.
“The petitioners are inclined to believe, pending an inquiry to show otherwise, that the Sanctuary(1) is unqualified and lacks the expertise and knowledge to take care of primates; (2) is guilty of cruelty and abuse to its residents; (3) is operating on its own personal agenda and mission to stop private ownership of exotic animals; (4) operates primarily for its own pecuniary interest and gratification; (4) has failed to serve the community interest; (5) is not acting in the interest of the animals it has a mandate to protect; (6) is guilty of unethical misrepresentation, bias and prejudice has misled and/or misinformed the public (8) has actively concealed its true agenda by manipulation of facebook and You Tube viewer postings; and (9) has attempted to misuse its charitable status to raise donations inappropriately . As such we require that you do the needful to forthwith investigate into the following:
The background of Ms. Sherri Delaney and the competence of the owners, associates and volunteers in providing care to the residents of the Sanctuary
Compliance of the Sanctuary with applicable statutory regulations to include, building code,fire code, Electrical Act and OSPCA
Hoarding of animals
Cruelty and abuse to animals
The questionable procedures used by the Sanctuary for neutering Julien a “protected”resident of the Sanctuary
Exploitation of animals for pecuniary gains
Separation of loving owners from their pets without just cause
Manipulation of public opinion and tampering with viewer postings
Yeah, I think the Brock Township and the CRA should get on this right away, because this is how I want my taxes spent. If any of these petitioners want to see real exploitation of animals for profit, they can visit any number of public roadside zoos or a large travelling zoo. And what the hell is up with people who insist that they have the right to compel you to read their inane social media commentary? Does Brock Township investigate if you block some posters from commenting on your Youtube channel? God I hope not, or I might end up being the subject of a campaign myself………
“Misuse or abuse of its charitable status by the Sanctuary. Please be advised that the undersigned petitioners strongly oppose the granting of a licence to the Sanctuary. Based on information and other reports obtained by the undersigned, the undersigned are inclined to believe that the Sanctuary not only wants to destroy any relationship private pet owners may have with their primates and other pets but to use its residents for its own gratification. The Sanctuary appears to be private ownership of animals without the sanctity of a sanctuary. We request an immediate enquiry in its operation and your findings be made public. We thank you for your prompt attention herein.”
Nothing destroys your relationship with your wild animal quite like losing him in an urban environment. If I were a baby monkey I would feel utterly betrayed by my human.