• newsletters • best of austin • find a paper • submit an event • advertise with us • contact • jobs •
HOME: DECEMBER 15, 2006: NEWS
text size

Famous Long Ago

Legendary "Humanzee" Oliver, his friends, and the bitter fight over animal welfare at a Texas refuge

BY JORDAN SMITH



"He used to fly in a 747, smoke cigars, and drink sherry. This is not what he is used to." - Court appointed receiver Lee Theisen-Watt

Once upon a time, everyone knew Oliver.

The exact date and place of his birth aren't certain – records suggest he was born in 1962, somewhere in the Congo – but by the time he was about 10 years old, he'd become an international celebrity. Stories about those years, especially in the mid- to late Seventies, paint Oliver as a jet-setter – flying around the world, making a string of television appearances, most memorably on The Ed Sullivan Show and extensively on Japan's Nippon TV. There were credulous stories about his favorite pastimes: watching TV while smoking a cigar and drinking sherry, or making, serving, and drinking coffee.

Oliver is a chimpanzee – perhaps the most storied of all the Old World simians to achieve celebrity status. As for so many celebs, it was Oliver's appearance that transformed his life, setting him on a course that would, inevitably, bring on his subsequent downfall. More so than his primate brethren, Oliver appeared – and still does (his legend remains fodder for any number of Web sites) – almost human. His head is smaller and less hairy than that of a typical chimp, his nose smaller and more defined, his ears more pointed. Most dramatically, Oliver walks upright, like a man – knees locked, powerful shoulders straight and broad, arms swinging at his sides – instead of hunched forward and using his hands and arms, like most chimps. It was his bipedal walk, combined with Oliver's other humanoid features, that earned him the dubious honor of being dubbed the "Humanzee" – promoted as the "Missing Link" between man and ape.

He was brought to the U.S. by animal trainers Frank and Janet Burger, who ran a chimp, dog, pony, and pig show that was once a regular feature on The Ed Sullivan Show and at Radio City Music Hall, Janet Burger told the San Antonio Express-News in 1996. But in 1976, when Oliver had reached sexual maturity and became difficult to handle, the Burgers sold him to New York lawyer Michael Miller. Miller began promoting Oliver as a possible chimp-human "hybrid," taking him to Japan and exhibiting him on TV and stage. Before long, Oliver was sold again – and again – to a string of West Coast animal trainers, who variously exhibited him as a freak.

Oliver's celebrity soon ran its course. In 1989, he was sold, one last time, to the infamous research-animal broker Buckshire Corp. of Pennsylvania, where he languished for seven years in a small metal cage, receiving little human or animal interaction. There were dozens of chimps housed at Buckshire, spending years in tiny cages or leased out for dangerous research projects. In 1995, an undercover investigation by the animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals produced a surreptitiously recorded video showing some 40 cruelly housed chimps at Buckshire. Under pressure, Buckshire eventually agreed to retire a dozen chimps who became known as the Buckshire 12. At the time, retiring research animals, and especially chimpanzees, was uncommon, and there were (and remain) few options for housing and caring for chimps or other primates. Chimps are humans' closest biological relatives; they're strong, social, highly intelligent, and in captivity can live nearly 60 years. But providing adequate care is complex and expensive.

It appeared that Oliver and his Buckshire brethren had finally received a reprieve when Wallace Swett, founder of Primarily Primates Inc., the now nearly 30-year-old northwest Bexar Co. animal sanctuary, contacted Buckshire to say that the Leon Springs refuge would be willing to provide permanent retirement for the Buckshire 12. In 1996, the chimps were transported to Texas, and Oliver, then in his 30s, walked upright from his transport cage into a larger enclosure at PPI. "He's been dragged around and exploited for over 20 years, but this is his final retirement," Swett told the Express-News, calling Oliver a "national treasure." "He'll never go into research or on exhibit again."


"Neglectful Treatment"

And that was that, or so it appeared – at least publicly – until this year, when troubling allegations that PPI was guilty of animal cruelty exploded into the media, and then into court. In a petition for a temporary restraining order – seeking the ouster of PPI's current management, including Swett and newly appointed director Stephen Tello, and the appointment of a temporary receiver, wildlife rehabilitator Lee Theisen-Watt, to take over running the sanctuary – Texas Assistant Attorney General Ted Ross, of the agency's Charitable Trusts Section, argued that the nonprofit PPI has long mismanaged its donated funds, to the detriment of its large population of primates and other animals. As a result, the state charged, PPI's animals have been living in conditions so substandard that they amount to severe animal cruelty. "PPI confines ... animals ... in substandard caging, and under conditions which are inherently unsafe and which constitute inappropriate, neglectful treatment," Ross wrote in the Oct. 13 complaint, adding that the refuge has failed to provide even "adequate veterinary care." In fact, PPI has never had an on-staff vet – a factor, the state charged, that contributed to the 2004 death of retired Air Force research chimp Betty, who had delivered a stillborn chimp that fall and soon after was put down (with three shotgun rounds to the head) after languishing for several days in her enclosure, lying in her own excrement, swarmed by fire ants.



Oliver's current home
photo by Jana Birchum

The state charges that PPI was chronically understaffed, leading to deplorably filthy conditions – raw sewage collecting in a "cesspool" near several chimp enclosures, and the animals dwelling in cages and sleeping in "night boxes" infested with cockroaches. They'd also been denied an adequate diet, the AG contends, subsisting mainly on Monkey Chow – the equivalent of hard dog biscuits – had little protection from the elements, lived mostly on bare concrete slabs, and been denied any real "enrichment": toys, climbing structures, or other elements to engage their minds.

In an affidavit, Jorge Ortega, vice president of shelter services at the Houston SPCA, recalls visiting PPI in August, where he immediately became concerned about Oliver's living conditions, which he called "cruel." "His enclosure is filthy, too small," and without "meaningful enrichment materials to occupy him" except "an old cardboard paper towel roll," Ortega wrote. The enclosure "has no bowl or bucket for food. Instead, food was thrown onto the dirt floor of the outdoor cage, allowing [it] to become soiled with dirt and excrement. This is unacceptable by any standard."

The allegations led many animal welfare advocates to conclude that the once-famed PPI – the place Swett promised would be a refuge for long abused and abandoned primates like Oliver – had degenerated into a dismal place of confinement, with conditions similar to those in places like Buckshire. In short, the AG alleges that over at least the last decade, PPI has turned into a sanctuary that merely hoards animals – in the manner of a "cat lady" or a puppy mill – a place where the primates have, in fact, become primarily forgotten.


Good Intentions

The current legal battle began last year, with the news that Ohio State University would be retiring nine primates – seven chimps and two capuchin monkeys – to PPI. The OSU chimps were part of the longest running cognitive research study of its kind, under the direction of psychology professor Sally Boysen (herself the focus of yet another animal melodrama with legal repercussions), for which funding had finally dried up. According to court documents, OSU officials originally sought to retire the primates to the newly constructed Chimp Haven in Louisiana, the first federally funded sanctuary for research chimps. But in mid-2005, when OSU was ready to close Boysen's lab and move the chimps, Chimp Haven was not yet ready to accept the group, and OSU turned to PPI. A November 2005 site visit gave PPI a clean bill of health – in a letter to OSU officials, veterinarian Thomas Butler (also a member of the Chimp Haven board of directors) wrote that based on his observations, PPI chimps appeared "both physically and behaviorally healthy." Butler concluded that PPI would need to build larger enclosures for the OSU chimps, but in the interim could provide "adequate temporary housing." So plans were made to send the animals to PPI in early 2006 and to provide PPI with nearly $250,000 for permanent enclosures.

PETA attorney Leana Stormont, who was involved in exposing the allegedly dismal living conditions at PPI, says this was not good news, coming as it did on the heels of Air Force chimp Betty's tragic death. In fact, after a PPI volunteer contacted PETA with "a real laundry list of complaints" about PPI, PETA became so concerned about allegedly deteriorating conditions, Stormont said, that the organization hired a professional videographer in August 2005 to make an official record of life at PPI.

How PETA got access to the normally private sanctuary is unclear; PPI supporters say a disgruntled employee arranged the visit without alerting PPI management, and Tello says the visit was staged to show PPI in the worst possible light. Nonetheless, after seeing the video – of animals in barren enclosures and filthy night boxes – Stormont said PETA was even more troubled: "Then we heard about the OSU chimps, [and] we immediately contacted [the university]," she recalled. "I told them what we'd found [at PPI] and pleaded with them not to send them there." Nevertheless, the OSU chimps arrived at PPI on March 2 of this year, and the same day, one died. According to a necropsy, 16-year-old Kermit died of a heart attack, "probably directly related" to a pre-existing heart condition, a veterinary pathologist concluded, but Stormont blames PPI. The sanctuary wasn't prepared to receive the chimps, she said, which meant Kermit had to be sedated in order to move him into an enclosure. "Eyewitness reports say [Kermit's] head fell forward, and we believe his airway was compromised and that contributed to his death," she said. A month later, a second OSU chimp, 19-year-old Bobby, was found dead in his enclosure, also apparently from complications related to a pre-existing heart condition.

Tello and longtime PPI supporter Priscilla Feral, founder of the animal advocacy group Friends of Animals, which is footing PPI's legal bills, argue that the chimp deaths, while lamentable, are not PPI's fault. Indeed, it seems likely that stress connected to the long-distance move could at least be a factor in the chimps' deaths. But PETA immediately sought to file a lawsuit on behalf of the remaining OSU primates – named individually as plaintiffs – in Bexar Co. district court. Judge Michael Peden appointed a fact-finder, veterinarian Todd Bowsher, to assess the situation at PPI. In his June 15 report, Bowsher noted that the OSU chimps "appear in good health," but was concerned "with the facility and how it may affect the [OSU] chimps in the long run." Bowsher's concerns included many of the same complaints detailed in the AG's suit – including that the inside holding areas were "dark" and "very small," that in one the "bars, walls, door frames, etc. [were] covered in roaches," and that an "open cesspool proved that a large amount of fecal material made it to the ground water." One OSU chimp was housed alone in a bare concrete enclosure without heat, air conditioning, or outdoor access. "It is my opinion, and mine alone," Bowsher concluded, "that ... [PPI] cannot completely meet the health and psychological needs" of the OSU chimps. Bowsher's assessment was the last the Bexar Co. court would hear on the matter. In August, Peden dismissed the case, ruling that the chimps did not have standing to file suit. By then, Stormont said, there were at least two more "seriously sick" OSU chimps. "What we were most afraid of," she said, was that more chimps would die. The OSU chimps, she said, "desperately needed to be moved."

PETA's complaints about the OSU chimps prompted the AG to file its suit, in an Austin probate court. In October Austin Judge Guy Herman agreed to wrest control of the sanctuary from Swett, Tello, and the PPI board of directors, and to appoint Theisen-Watt, who has been tasked with facility remediation.



Wildlife rehabilitator Lee Theisen-Watt was appointed by the court in October to take over running the sanctuary.
photo by Jana Birchum

Herman's ruling sparked a conflagration of personal attacks and counterattacks in the small but volatile world of animal advocates. Those who defend PPI charge that the court-ordered takeover is simply an attempt by foes of Swett – namely PETA, with whom Swett has feuded for years – to seize control of the entire population of exotic primates and other animals, and of PPI's prime 75-acre parcel of Texas Hill Country. Theisen-Watt and others in the sanctuary, zoo, animal-rights, and animal-law community, respond that PPI, once considered a model sanctuary, hasn't kept up with evolving standards of animal care, especially those required for the highly intelligent primates, and has simply taken in many more animals that it can adequately house. "The facility is overwhelmed by the sheer number of animals," Theisen-Watt testified in court. "It is the classic 'cat lady' syndrome – [caretakers] become overwhelmed by good intentions to the detriment of the animals in [their] care. [It is] just a good intention gone very, very bad."

The current situation doesn't surprise Lynn Cuny, founder and director of the Kendalia, Texas, sanctuary, Wildlife Rescue & Rehabilitation. Cuny first heard of problems at PPI as early as 1992, when several PPI employees reported serious concerns about the welfare of the animals. The primate enclosures reportedly weren't well maintained, she said, so it was nearly impossible to tend to individual animals or do any hands-on cage cleaning. She was also told that the animals were housed in enclosures with bare concrete slabs, bereft of materials used to build nests or to keep warm, and that the night boxes weren't cleaned, producing accumulations of excrement prone to insect and rodent infestation. "The first complaints ... via volunteers, started coming in around 1992, [but] they were never heeded by the large animal protection [organizations]," Cuny recently recalled. "I remember it very clearly, and I encouraged the people making the complaints to go forward and to get someone with legal authority involved." But no one ever did get involved, she said. "They went to various existing national organizations and I know they went to the [AG]," but nothing was done.

Cuny said she'd hear similar complaints "on and off," yet "I don't think anyone [got] involved in trying to clean up the place." Cuny said she tried on several occasions to talk to Swett about helping out – bringing in produce, for example, to supplement the primates' diet, but her efforts were rebuffed. After a while she just gave up. Stormont says PETA also had been aware of complaints since 1992, when they first heard from "former employees, volunteers, and donors" that animals were suffering at PPI. "I remember one letter talking about a monkey with such severe self-mutilation that his leg was just hanging there by a few tendons," she recalled. PETA sent letters to the PPI board of directors, without response.

Indeed, it appears that no one – not the state, not PETA, not Jane Goodall (who visited the facility in recent years) nor her foundation, among others – did anything. Why the allegations went unpursued isn't clear, and there are likely several reasons. But perhaps the most significant is the overall miserable state of animal-welfare law. Laws governing animal welfare are few, and those on the books are rife with loopholes and enforcement problems. There are, for example, no state or federal laws that ban the personal ownership of exotic or wild animals, nor are there any laws – with the exception of the federal Animal Welfare Act – providing strict parameters for animal treatment, or any workable enforcement scheme to ensure that captive animals live in safe, humane conditions. The provisions of the AWA are mostly conceptual, with compliance mostly voluntary.

Given the considerable challenges, before this crisis no one really pushed to ensure that the animals at PPI – a total of nearly 500 primates (including chimps, hundreds of monkeys, several baboons, and an orangutan) and several hundred other animals (an African lion and other big cats, fowl, rodents, horses, and dogs, among others) – weren't being abused or neglected. Many animal welfare advocates now express relief that the AG's office has finally intervened and that PPI is in receivership.

Yet it's hard to know whom or what to believe since, even in the face of years of complaints, nothing had previously been done. If the current actions against PPI aren't personal, or political, and things were truly so bad and so wrong at PPI, asks Feral, why wouldn't someone have done something before now – or, at least, have offered to help? "If you care about the animals, why wouldn't you want [to do] that?"


Animal People

The human world of animal rights and animal welfare is extremely small and ingrown. Everyone involved, it seems – those running sanctuaries, lawyers who bring animal-welfare cases, zoo curators, lab animal caretakers and veterinarians, animal-rights activists – knows everyone else, and has a firm opinion about everyone else's business.

That includes Primarily Primates founder Wally Swett. "Wally is a great guy – for those people who know him, you can absolutely respect ... how innately brilliant he is with primates," says Tello, who met Swett shortly before going to work at PPI in 1986, first as a volunteer, later as a caretaker, fundraiser, and curator, before being tapped this summer to replace Swett as the sanctuary's leader. But while "he's great with primates," Tello says, Swett "has no social skills with people." In recent years Swett's manners have gotten worse, say Tello and Feral, and his involvement with the sanctuary has waned because of deepening alcoholism. "He was really devoted to the task of running a sanctuary," says Feral. "Wally is no longer helpful because of his substance-abuse problem." Swett denies he's an alcoholic. (Swett has been banned from the sanctuary since Theisen-Watt took over in October, and through PPI's San Antonio lawyer Eric Turton, declined to be interviewed for this story.)



After Theisen-Watt relocated a group of dogs to Houston, PPI's staff and volunteers demolished the cramped and dark kennel. The area will now be used as a kitchen and laundry room.
photo by Jana Birchum

Yet Tello and Feral say that for nearly 30 years Swett devoted himself to saving discarded animals, and was one of the bravest pioneers in the effort to provide shelter and relief for primates abused for research, discarded as pets, or grown too intractable for entertainment. Tello sees in Swett the cumulative effect of sacrificing his life to the cause. "I see what happens when you work for 30 years, 24/7, for little money and with no retirement," says Tello. "He's given everything ... and the stress of decisions and the responsibilities ... in and of itself, takes a toll."

It wasn't always such a burden. Back in 1978, Swett and two friends decided to open a sanctuary, driving from New England to Texas with monkeys and other animals they'd rescued from disillusioned pet owners. They eventually landed outside San Antonio, in a rolling expanse of beautiful Hill Country; through dogged fundraising, 10 acres eventually became 75, and the monkeys were joined by nearly 800 other animals. Swett's nonprofit PPI was the first private sanctuary in the country to accept chimpanzees used in lab research. It had been widely presumed that research chimps could not be rehabilitated sufficiently to cope in a natural setting or among social groups akin to those they would form in the wild. Swett, it seemed, proved the doubters wrong.

Over time, PPI became a go-to facility for researchers wanting to retire their animals or animal welfare groups looking to place rescued animals, particularly primates. They accepted refugees from the NYU School of Medicine-affiliated Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery in Primates lab. Okko, the chimp who starred alongside Matthew Broderick in the movie Project X, and Punkin, the orangutan featured in the short-lived Hanna-Barbera show Going Bananas, found a permanent home at PPI. Thirty Air Force chimps, once part of the long-running research into the effects of space travel on humans, made it to PPI, and, of course, the Buckshire 12 were also given refuge – including their most famous member, Oliver.

Swett's PPI was also on the very short list of sites identified by federal lawmakers looking to retire the 17 monkeys who'd had nerves in their limbs severed for research at the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Md. Exposing the horrors of the Silver Spring monkey experiment established PETA's activist reputation, after evidence of mistreatment collected by cofounder Alex Pacheco in 1981 ended in a police-led nighttime raid on the facility where the monkeys were housed in filthy conditions; the IBR researcher, Dr. Edward Taub, was eventually charged and convicted of animal cruelty. (The convictions were later overturned.) According to Tello and Feral, at that time PPI had a good relationship with PETA – good enough that PETA actually placed several rescued monkeys at Swett's sanctuary. Tello says PETA even touted PPI as a "model" facility.

While specifics about the deteriorating relationship between PPI and PETA are hard to confirm, Tello and Feral suggest Swett's failure to reflexively defer to PETA's priorities led to a deepening rift. Tello says Swett agreed to take in several PETA-rescued monkeys in exchange for financial support – specifically, for PETA's promise to help set up and fund an on-site medical and rehab clinic for the primates. PETA "was doing a ton of publicity" to tout the rescuing of the monkeys in question, Tello said, "and eventually we said, 'Can you help us with the clinic now?' And they weren't going to donate any money." Swett was angered and let PETA know it, Tello said – and that was the end of amicable relations between the two groups.

Stormont says she isn't privy to the details of any past dealings with PPI, but that if PETA sent animals there it would've been long ago. "My understanding is that if that ever happened it would've been at a time when a lot of people had the belief that [PPI] was a good sanctuary."

Those days, she says, are long gone.


Just Say No?

For Tello, the dismissal of the OSU chimp lawsuit was a relief because he believes all the allegations were trumped up or misleading – for example, he said, the chimp housed alone was overaggressive, a fact OSU failed to mention in the chimp profiles provided to PPI. He calls the lawsuit nothing more than a "desperate" and "last-minute" attempt by the "OSU care staff" and by professor Boysen, who wanted "to keep the chimps at OSU" and not have them retired at all.



More than 70 chimps live at Primarily Primates in Bexar County.
photo by Jana Birchum

Tello and Feral thought the controversy was over and Tello could return to running the sanctuary; Tello says he was in the process of making physical improvements to the enclosures, and Feral says FOA was "in the process of a merger with PPI, so that they could get the ongoing financial support and the administrative support that they needed." Tello thought things were going well until Oct. 13, when the AG's office filed suit, Tello and Swett were ousted, and Theisen-Watt was appointed receiver.

As it stands now, PPI and its animals are in legal limbo. Theisen-Watt will remain receiver at least until January (when PPI's attorneys hope for a favorable response from the 3rd Court of Appeals), though it's more likely that she'll remain at the sanctuary until later in the year, when the suit against PPI goes to trial. On Oct. 20, Herman granted a second emergency request, allowing Theisen-Watt to move animals away from PPI or, if necessary, to euthanize any sickly animals. That enraged PPI supporters, including Feral and Tello, who claimed in an open letter to FOA supporters that the PPI takeover was orchestrated by PETA, which "plans to kill [PPI's] animals rather than providing for their long term care."

The suspicion is not necessarily outrageous, in light of past statements made by PETA officials describing euthanasia as often preferable to life in a cage, and more recent actions by PETA-identified activists. Last year, two organization employees were indicted on 31 animal cruelty charges related to acquiring dogs and cats at no-kill facilities in North Carolina, by telling employees they would find homes for the animals, which they instead euthanized and dumped. At PPI, Feral charged, PETA has similar intentions: PETA "wants to liquidate the place and send the animals to animal heaven."

That's preposterous, says Stormont, noting that in this instance PETA has joined forces with many groups it typically wouldn't even talk to, like zoos and animal research labs. "This is a pretty broad coalition of people" who have come together to try to help PPI's animals, she said. "For PETA to be sitting next to [these partners in court shows] you don't have to be into animal rights to know it is wrong to deprive animals of care, health, diet, and proper social interaction." (And, notably, Theisen-Watt is not a PETA member.) In November, Tello and Feral were held in contempt of court for using the PPI donor list, which was supposed to be turned over to Theisen-Watt, to send out letters imploring donors to stop making direct contributions to PPI – instead, the pair asked donors to send money to Friends of Animals. (Herman has ordered Tello and Feral to turn over both the donor list and whatever money was raised through the illegal solicitation.)

PPI supporters have even referred to Theisen-Watt as "Lethal Lee." Such attacks are not unusual, says San Francisco attorney Bruce Wagman, a prominent animal welfare attorney. Wagman is familiar with the history of PPI and says it's clear to him that "what's gone on [at PPI] is a hoarding situation," he says. "No question, hands down." Indeed, the current situation at PPI may have most directly been caused by Swett's inability turn away any animals in need of shelter. "I understand the desire to keep animals, I understand that very well and it's very difficult [to say,] 'No, I'm sorry, we can't take [the animal],'" says Lynn Cuny. "[But] any time I hear of any nonprofit organization who is constantly accepting new clients ... and I know we are all confined by our [budgets], and you see someone out there constantly saying, 'yes,' [then I know] they're either being put down when they come in, sold out the back door, or are being stockpiled."

At PPI, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that animals were in fact being stockpiled. By the time Theisen-Watt took over, PPI had just two caregivers for more than 70 chimps; the industry standard, she says, is typically 1-to-5 or, at most, 1-to-8. Inevitably, caregivers just can't keep up. "[You] can only do so much in a day no matter how hard or fast you work," says Lorraine Smith, curator of mammals at the North Carolina Zoo, one of the experts Stormont asked to review primate care at PPI. With such a small staff, it isn't surprising that the PPI animals were just subsisting. Theisen-Watt was visibly distressed as she testified in court about conditions at PPI while holding up pictures of several night enclosures – close-ups of rotting wood and degraded concrete, littered with excrement and roach egg casings. Tello argues – as have PPI's attorneys – that the pictures might've been doctored by PETA to make things look worse than they really are. Wagman says that argument is "offensive," but not uncommon in hoarding cases. "The key fact of a hoarder is that they have more animals than they can take care of," but continue to deny responsibility for substandard conditions or care. That's "the classic hoarder psyche," he said.

Theisen-Watt testified that in her judgment, Swett was nonchalant when she questioned him about Oliver's living conditions and suggested the chimp be moved to a different space. "I said, [Oliver's living] conditions are deplorable, to which [Swett] responded, 'But he's used to it.' I think I used the words, '[It's a] horrible and disgusting place where [Oliver] lives,'" she told the court. "And Swett responded, 'but it's ... what he knows.'"


Best Interest

It's a bright and cold December morning, nearly two months after Theisen-Watt took over running PPI – a job for which she's accepted no pay, even though, by court order, she could get $50 an hour. So far, she says, things are coming along and conditions are improving. There's now a full-time vet on the premises, and today Theisen-Watt is working on several emergency grant requests, seeking about $20,000 to implement a "big plan" to connect, through a series of tunnels, many of the smaller corn crib cages that house monkeys, an effort that will open up the living space and provide more opportunities for enrichment. She and her newly augmented staff and a bevy of volunteers have already done a monumental amount of work. The primate cages are filled with hay and toys, and the chimps have been given blankets for warmth; they're getting fresh produce every day (some donated by Whole Foods); and state environmentalists have been called in to make recommendations on mitigating the sewage problem. "We are trying to make changes and we are, and it's amazing because, day-to-day, the demands are so hard."

In all, Theisen-Watt says, walking past a cage of spider monkeys and macaques and toward a larger enclosure of chimps, she and the staff are trying to "undo years" of neglect. "Other sanctuaries have left PPI in the dust, so we're cleaning that up." Pointing at a chimp enclosure, Theisen-Watt describes the cage itself as a perfect example of PPI mismanagement; the chimps were caged without a means of allowing caregiver access to clean or to provide medical attention. "Poor management has painted these chimps into a corner," she says. "These animals have been locked in here and nobody has been in or out for years."

Theisen-Watt continues the tour, stopping in front of a small and short metal enclosure, not much larger than a closet, connected to a small, dark night box. There is hay on the ground now, and a couple of toys; this, she says, is where Oliver has lived for most of the time he's been at PPI. Looking at the small space, Theisen-Watt's eyes light up, fiery, and she recalls with disbelief Swett's excuse for keeping Oliver isolated in the cramped, barren space. "He used to fly in a 747, smoke cigars, and drink sherry," she says, her voice rising. "This is not what he is used to." Walking inside Oliver's night box, where he's resting, wrapped in a pink-and-white blanket that has become his favorite, Theisen-Watt strokes his shoulder and says she hopes Oliver will soon be moved to a larger enclosure, along with pair of female chimps, an elderly mother, and her daughter. For now, though, it's only a plan; with nearly 500 animals, PPI is still too crowded.

Although Theisen-Watt has relocated more than 250 animals – a group of domestic animals to the Houston SPCA, which agreed to find them homes; several elderly monkeys to Cuny's sanctuary; and a pair of baboons to a sanctuary outside Dallas – her ability to effectively manage the population at PPI has been hindered by a stay granted PPI by the 3rd Court, which, as of Nov. 3, precludes Theisen-Watt from finding permanent homes for any animals without first giving former PPI management a chance to challenge any transfer. Theisen-Watt can arrange for temporary relocations, but cost and complexity of care is so great that sanctuary or zoo operators hesitate to accept temporary placements. Nonetheless, last month Chimp Haven agreed to take the seven remaining OSU chimps to Louisiana, if only temporarily. The day the chimps were moved, all hell broke loose. Tello showed up, and Swett emerged from his house, reportedly brandishing a rifle; he did not want any animals to leave, witnesses said. Calm was eventually restored, and Swett was warned by police but not cited. He vowed to have the chimps returned to PPI.

Theisen-Watt remains focused. The chimps "are so patient, so forgiving," she says. And with a little help, she hopes that patience – the kind that Oliver, the "national treasure" has exhibited for nearly 44 years, as he's been shuttled between owners, kept in a cage and forgotten – will ultimately be repaid. Theisen-Watt says that the ideal outcome would be to thin the PPI population and to keep the sanctuary open as a refuge for its older inhabitants and those who won't find homes in other places. Frankly, says Theisen-Watt, there just aren't that many places for these animals to go – and that's unlikely to change, so long as the law allows for the nearly unfettered private ownership of wild and exotic animals. For the sake of the animals, she says, PPI must be rehabilitated. "One would hope" that will happen, she says, "because it's in the best interest of the animals."


Want to Help?

The Primarily Primates refuge remains in need of financial and in-kind donations that will improve the lives of the animals. For specific needs and more information on donations, see www.primarilyprimates.org/donate.htm. For a donation wish list, see www.primarilyprimates.org/wishlist.htm.


The appeal of the temporary receivership by Primarily Primates (and Friends of Animals) is before the 3rd Court of Appeals, and pending that ruling, the trial concerning the permanent status of the refuge will be heard by Austin Judge Guy Herman early next year.

RELATED STORIES
 
Share Digg Twitter Facebook Del.icio.us LinkedLn Email Print article
COMMENTS
44
 
Lynn Cuny, why re-write history? guest Dec 15, 2006 - 11:12 am
"During the [1992] controversy, several animal rights activists came to Swett's defense. One of them was Lynn Cuny of Wildlife Rescue, whose sanctuary had come under similar accusations and was later vindicated. She arranged to have Primarily Primates inspected by a Dallas zookeeper and prominent primatologist Carol Noone. Noone concluded that there were no signs of animal neglect or mistreatment...."

-- "The Great EscApe" by Carol Flake Chapman Houston Press February 15, 2001 http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2001-02-15/feature2.html



None the Wiser. guest Dec 15, 2006 - 03:10 pm
Jordan Smith's article "Famous Long Ago" fails to further elucidate the ongoing legal battle at Primarily Primates; she offers little new information not readily available through a five second Google search. Smith reiterates the highly incendiary campaign claims made by PETA, and offers few counterpoints to them. In lieu of reporting the story and allowing the reader to draw from a balanced set of facts, Smith seems intent on convincing us that PETA and Theisen-Watt are selflessly serving a tragic cause. The imagery and copy chosen for the pull quotes and sidebar title (Famous PPI Inmates) seem further designed to sway the reader into a foregone conclusion that all was lost before PETA came to the rescue.

As Smith notes, this case is still pending and will go to court next year. PETA's claims have not been verified, and my personal experience at the sanctuary tells me that many of the claims are unfounded and outrageously exaggerated. The Chronicle has underserved its role in this article. In addition to the bias inherent in this piece, I was left wondering: How does a private entity get handed over, part and parcel, to an outside individual? What in our legal system makes this possible? What makes Thiessen Watt qualified to stand in the role of receiver? I hope to find these questions and others answered in a future issue of our beloved weekly.

-None the Wiser, Austin



Interesting... guest Dec 15, 2006 - 05:35 pm
Interesting comments from other readers. Seems that any time a reporter writes an article on the topic, the Friends of Animals crew comes out to attack the journalist for being biased. Same thing happened with the article in the San Antonio Express-News.


This is a David vs. Goliath story guest Dec 15, 2006 - 11:00 pm
To the reader above, it's called supporting what you believe to be the truth and trying to balance the powerful PETA media machine. This is a David vs. Goliath story. Friends of Animals is not the only group following this case. PETA's involvement in this case brings up alarming conflict of interest issues, to the point that it's as if the PETA attorneys and staff are conducting the State’s investigation to a greater degree than the Attorney General. PETA has a well known history of misrepresenting the facts. PETA profits off of "finding" animal rescue stories whether they are true or fabricated. Primarily Primates asked PETA for financial assistance in the past. PETA declined to help them with upgrading the facility, and yet they dip into their deep pockets for what is likely hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on attorneys to attack the sanctuary. I would love to know what PETA has spent in 2006 alone on Primarily Primates all their litigation. Just a fraction of this could have been used to help the sanctuary instead of tearing it apart. See WWW.PETAKILLSANIMALS.COM for a laundry list of PETA misdeeds.


Missing the point... guest Dec 16, 2006 - 11:28 am
You're reiterating my point for me. Why wasn't it the goal of Friends of Animals and Tello to fix what was wrong until PETA and the Attorney-General got involved? What, they didn't know Swett was an alcoholic until recently? They didn't know that there were accusations of sexual improprieties between management and staff? They didn't know that there were concerns about the welfare of animals? Give me a break. It sounds like they had ample opportunity after the 1993 complaints by the Attorney-General to be made aware of things, but they did nothing effective. Animals kept suffering and dying, funds kept being mismanaged, and Swett kept touching employees.

So now PETA gets involved, and Friends of Animals chooses to redirect all of the outrage to them? That's silly. And blaming journalists for being biased? That's silly too. And attacking Theisen-Watt's qualifications? Silly again.

Until Swett, Tello, Feral, and the rest of the board of Primarily Primates accepts responsibility for the conditions there, all of this hand waving is just an absurd attempt to distract from the real issues.



No Place for Special Interest Groups guest Dec 17, 2006 - 06:58 am
I have no objection to the Texas Attorney General investigating Primarily Primates for cause. However, this case should be an independent investigation by the AG. PETA appearing to run the show with such intimate ties to the receivership and molding the case is cause for concern. A special interest group should not be partnering with the Texas Attorney General in any investigation. If this is routine, I think it needs to be addressed.

My interest stems in that the AG would strike up a partnership with a radical, extremist group such as PETA, not question the credibility of their accusations, and allow them to be so actively involved in all aspects of the investigation. Now that these charges are being disputed, the extent of PETA's involvement is truly disturbing. As a citizen of Texas, this is what I find of interest and concern.

Some appear to accept everything PETA says as gospel. I respect that as their choice. Please respect that I choose to question. Questioning is not "silly". Our legal system is based on questioning accusations, hence the "innocent until proven guilty" phrase. I am troubled that the receiver has been given the power to dismantle the facility before a trial has even begun. Some have already convicted the accused on all counts when a trial has not taken place yet. Conflict of interest issues abound. I believe a receiver acting on behalf of the state in this case should not be backed and supported by the accuser. The receiver should be above reproach and independent. Is that so unreasonable?

Theisen-Watt's backers, attorney and staff are intimately tied to PETA. She lied to the court about her credentials. A college degree does not appear on one's resume by accident, raising credibility issues. Her attorney is a PETA activist award winner. PETA attorneys and staff have been very vocal to the media about their involvement at Primarily Primates since the takeover. PETA is paying the salary of the veterinarian guiding many of the receiver’s decisions on the welfare of the animals. Numerous non-PETA connected people - donors, veterinarians, universities, state agencies, documentary film makers, etc., who have had ongoing and recent access to Primarily Primates did not report the horribly atrocious conditions that everyone PETA-connected claims existed.

I do not object to the investigation. I object in the AG partnering with a special interest group who can benefit from the outcome.



Chimp Haven being sued by directors? Virginia Dec 17, 2006 - 02:55 pm
Theisen-Watt moved animals to Chimp Haven in Louisiana recently, praising the facility as state of the art and an example of everything a sanctuary should be. "Chimp Heaven," I believe was the endearing catch phrase used by PETA in their media releases. The Shreveport Times reports something very different. Chimp Haven is being sued by board members - not by an out of state radical activist group mind you, but people actually involved in the facility - for misuse of funds, mismanagement and animal abuse, citing among other things, a chimp that was killed by mismanagement. Theisen-Watt led us to believe Chimp Haven was absolute perfection in providing primate care, and failed to mention any hint of these charges in this lawsuit. Yet another example that she is leading by misleading.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061212/BREAKINGNEWS/61212020

Sadly, I believe this case is about politics, publicity, money and flexing muscle against an enemy. The animals are a minor consideration. Same old PETA, different target.



Special Interest Groups guest Dec 17, 2006 - 02:55 pm
So special interest groups shouldn't be getting involved in court proceedings? Ok, so then I assume that you're opposed to Friends of Animals providing legal assistance to Swett and Tello...or wait, it's ok for Friends of Animals to get involved, but not for PETA to get involved. Is that it?

I love the David vs. Goliath metaphor. Remember that part of the Bible where David goes around molesting employees, stealing money, and mistreating animals, so Goliath had to get involved? Boy, I tell you, the Bible still has some valuable lessons we can learn today.



Question guest Dec 17, 2006 - 03:27 pm
Those of you who are Friends of Animals supporters, I have a question: what would it take for you to say something about the former management's performance instead of just attacking the people trying to fix things now? If you were truly concerned with the welfare of the animals, why wouldn't you have the appropriate level of concern for what happened prior to the Attorney-General's involvement?

Instead you deliver this mixed message that special interest groups shouldn't be involved (when Friends of Animals clearly is), and that it is irresponsible to throw around unsubstantiated accusations (when you're perfectly willing to lob your own at PETA and Theisen-Watt).

Please step back for a moment and ask yourself if you're really making smart decisions or if it is possible that you have a bias that is distracting you. How can it be that EVERY journalist reporting in the news on this topic is getting the story wrong? How can it be that Friends of Animals and the former PPI board have it right, and EVERYONE ELSE (former employees, PETA, other sanctuaries, veterinarians, the Texas attorney-general's office, and the judge in the case that ruled for receivership) has it wrong? What are you really fighting for in the first place? Is it the animals? It doesn't sound like it.



PETAKILLSANIMALS.COM Dan Morgan Dec 17, 2006 - 07:26 pm
Yes, we get it, PETA is infallible, all-powerfull, all-knowing. PETA can do no wrong. PETA should never be questioned. No one should be provided a defense if PETA says they are bad. PETA lawsuits should just get the green light and skip right to sentencing. Really, you people are like a cult. Anytime someone has a differing view you go nuts. When someone stands up to you and fights back with a dose of your own medicine you freak out at the thought that someone could not see it your way. I don't know Friends of Animals' history, but I already like them if they are causing PETA to squirm. PETAKILLSANIMALS.COM - That's who enlightened me. Dan


Too funny Skippy Magoo Dec 17, 2006 - 09:09 pm
Wow...way to point fingers. I'm not a PETA member. I don't personally know any PETA members. I don't believe in PETA's mission. Plus, I like bacon, fried chicken, hamburgers, and steak. Mmmm-mmm yummy. Maybe if PETA kills as many animals as the website you keep touting says they do, then I'll eat some of 'em. It's a win-win.

Now, you've gone all haywire with more hand-waving and hissy fits about PETA instead of having anything useful to say about what went wrong at Primarily Primates. And you compared me to a member of a cult! Neato! I'm not really sure what the whole "dose of my own medicine" thing is about.

Thanks for making my point for me AGAIN. Please, Friends Of Animals members, pretty pretty please keep writing responses back about how PETA (of which I'm not a member - scout's honor) is all nutty-coo-coo instead of addressing anything relevant. I'm really getting a tremendous laugh out of this.

BTW: PETA KILLS ANIMALS!! OMG!!11oneoneone



A Legal Defense guest Dec 18, 2006 - 08:48 am
It is my understanding that Friends of Animals is involved with providing the accused of Primarily Primates a legal defense. Everyone accused of legal wrong-doing is entitled to such a defense -- except maybe in the not-so-great state of Texas where the government first froze the assets of PPI and then dragged it to court to defend itself. So Friends of Animals offered help.

Understandably, the opponents of PPI are not thrilled PPI gets to have a voice in the matter, and are not thrilled with Friends of Animals for allowing it to happen.

The same opponents, now disappointed that they could not exploit the legal system so easily, are now attempting to try the case in the media -- a serious indication that the case is not as convincing as they are seemingly so desparate for the public to believe.

If the AG has a case why is it dragging its feet bringing the case to trial? And just why aren't the newspapers reporting on this delay of justice? The fate of the animals at PPI hang in the balance while the AG tries to get everyone's story straight. Contact the AG and ask why the delay.



Friends of Animals responds noah_foa Dec 18, 2006 - 09:46 am
Friends of Animals has supported Primarily Primates over the years, and like the article said, we were in the process of merging with them so that we could fully support their efforts. Sanctuaries are an important part of the animal rights movement -- it's the only way to respect the rights of animals who have been freed from institutionalized exploitation. The exploitation of animals creates the need for sanctuaries. Until the exploitation ends, we will need sanctuaries.

In contrast, PETA does not believe in sanctuaries. When they ran their Aspen Hill "sanctuary" they systematically killed healthy animals. PETA's Norfolk, VA, cat and dog sanctuary has a 90% kill rate. So imagine the alarm bells that went off when the first thing the PETA-backed receiver did was to ask the court for permission to kill the animals.

The PPI allegations that were raised in 1992 were brought before the Attorney General and then dismissed because they were false. To bring them up again is to engage in the same pattern that's happening now -- if PETA just says the same falsehoods over and over again, someone will believe them.

Friends of Animals is helping Primarily Primates to get the word out about the real conditions. Please visit our website http://www.friendsofanimals.org . You will find many open letters from Stephen Tello as well as many comments from PPI workers and supporters who have been unable to get PETA to address Tello's points.

The bottom line is that the sanctuary needs to be supported. Even if you are truly convinced there were problems, then the appropriate response is to help the sanctuary -- not file costly lawsuits and destroy its reputation so that it will be even more difficult to raise funds in the future.

Noah Lewis

Friends of Animals



The Facts guest Dec 18, 2006 - 02:52 pm
The animals provided sanctuary at PPI have seen marked improvements in their care and quality of life since the court-appointed receiver took over the facility.

Oliver himself was moved Thursday into an enclosure 10 times the size of the circus cage he was held in for 10 years. Errol the lion, whose bones were showing just 2 months ago, has put on 30 lbs. Daily tangible improvments are made to the facility, which was in a state of disrepair and disfunction before the receiver took over.

I would have more respect for FOA's and Tello's position if they would first admit that things had gone horribly wrong under Wally Swett's leadership. It also should be known that FOA's "merger" is an attempt to take over the faciltiy for themselves. That's what they are fighting for.

Whatever happened before, people who care about these animals need to band together now to help.

Go here to find out how:

http://www.primarilyprimates.org/



What Facts? guest Dec 18, 2006 - 03:46 pm
Until the entire matter is heard by a judge and jury offering a few undocumented "facts" is hardly proof of things going "horribly wrong" at PPI. Once again, it's an attempt to try the case in the media where allegations do not have to be proved and cross-examination is not possible. How about a few "facts" about what has gone wrong since the inexperienced receiver took over. Animals dying and getting sick, animal theft, vet bills unpaid. Sounds like another lawsuit.

See: www.friendsofanimals.org for details.

What Peta is just finding out now, FoA already knew. It costs money to run a sanctuary. Let any competent organization offer to merge with PPI, and that offer will surely be considered by the court. FoA was just the first to line-up. Where are all the other big animal organizations offering to guarantee the survival of the sanctuary? Let them make a better offer, any offer, or just shutup.



Double Standard guest Dec 18, 2006 - 04:51 pm
Isn't FOA spreading a story of unsubstantiated claims based on a complaint filed against Chimp Haven and sending it to the media before "the entire matter is heard by a judge and jury"?

Seems what is good for the goose is not for the gander. The least you could do is be consistent.



"the real conditions" Derek Johnson Dec 18, 2006 - 08:25 pm
Noah -

I appreciate that you took the time to write out your response, but I take issue with the notion that "the real conditions" at PPI can be found in Tello's letters on the Friends Of Animals website. In fact, FoA's message board, I made several attempted postings, only one of which got through your admins, even though they were completely factual and conformed to the guidelines posted on your site. Specifically, I had a problem with the statement by a member of the Friends of Animals legal team that "Primarily Primates does not breed animals".

I still have the memo that I posted, along with the irate emails that it generated to me from Priscilla Feral's husband, Bob Orabona. At first, I was a little put off by Bob's reply, but then I Googled his name, and found that he was in the habit of having tiny-fisted tantrums when getting into debates with people online, so I didn't really take any personal offense. There's a 2500 character limit per posting here, so I'll add my rejected FoA posting as an additional posting here so that folks can see what was rejected by your site.

Second, Noah, the Attorney General's other case was in 1993...not 1992. And it was not dismissed. It was settled out of court with the agreement that Tello and Swett would address the problems. I was sitting outside in the hallway that day waiting to testify, and it was decided on that morning that maybe a settlement would be a good idea. I never got a chance to report my experiences, but I won't miss my chance this time.

There can be two reasons why your comments here and comments on the Friends of Animals website might be inaccurate: you're either ignorant or you're lying. I don't know how much time you've spent at PPI. I spent a year and a half. My brother spent close to 10 years. I'm very much in tune with what has gone on at the facility. If you haven't spent any time there, I'm willing to grant you the excuse of ignorance. But anyone who has spent a substantial amount of time there and says that there were not instances of animal neglect or improper sexual behavior by Swett is just plain lying. Period.

Incidentally, I'm volunteering as the current webmaster for the PPI page at www.primarilyprimates.org, and I hope to have a detailed account of all of my experiences there online in the next day or two in the "Testimonials" section. I assume I'll be attacked on the Friends of Animals forums for it, but I refuse to be silent. Thanks.



My rejected posting Derek Johnson Dec 18, 2006 - 08:28 pm
Here's my posting that was rejected by FoA admins.

---------------

If I may, I'd like to respond to Lyda King's comment. I was the one who brought up the breeding of animals at PPI. After the rebuttal, I exchanged some emails with one of the admins of this site, Bob Orabona. Bob made some good points, and I accept those points. I'll do my best to explain my stance in as factual of a manner as possible.

I assure you that these three statements are absolutely true:

1) Animals were born at Primarily Primates while I was employed there. I was the carestaff supervisor and quite familiar with the animals.

2) The mothers of these animals had been in the care of Primarily Primates for longer than the gestation periods of the species in question.

3) After the pregnancies, the females were not separated from the males that they were housed with, thereby leaving open the opportunity for further pregnancies.

Now, does this constitute a breeding program? No, and I agree with Bob's assessment that this is not deliberately and willfully participating in animal husbandry. We can come up with all sorts of possible reasons why Wally and Stephen may not have known that a pregnancy might have occurred. Is it negligent? Well, I think so, but that's my opinion. If there were a deliberate effort to ensure that no further pregnancies occurred, I think they'd have more of an argument. But we had a breeding pair of golden handed tamarins that bred twice while I was there. They were not split while I was there (roughly a year and a half). Now, should the management take responsibility for these things? I think so. Is it true that PPI did not breed animals? Well, technically yes, but I consider that to be intellectual dishonesty and intentionally misleading.

Let me illustrate with another example from my own recent past: last year, I purchased two dwarf hamsters. Not knowing much about how to determine the gender of dwarf hamsters (it's not as simple as you might think - trust me), I asked the pet store clerk to ensure that we received two males. I was assured that I got two males. You probably see where this is going. Today, I have 8 hamsters, each in their very own hamster cage so that I don't get MORE than 8 hamsters. Now, did I institute a hamster breeding program? Certainly not. But do I consider myself responsible for those births? You bet! And I wouldn't go around making the statement that I don't breed hamsters. Once again, in my opinion, it is factual, but mi



Derek the rejected by guest Dec 18, 2006 - 09:13 pm
Heads-up Derek: no one cares

about the matrimonial status

of those whose attention you

crave, nor does it advance your lame arguments. Whether or not people are partners isn't compelling.

Pathological liars are of interest,however, and PeTA

has an infestation of those.



$100,000 Pyramid guest Dec 18, 2006 - 09:51 pm
Hmm...

Things a frustrated member of Friends of Animals would say.

Ummm...

Things a bad haiku writer would say.

Ahhh...

Things someone who wanted to push all the blame off to PETA would say.

Oh!

Things BOB ORABONA, HUSBAND OF PRISCILLA FERAL would say!!!

DING DING DING!!!



FOA site rejects postings guest Dec 19, 2006 - 07:17 am
I also had all of my postings rejected on the FOA site, including one that simply provided a link to this story. All of them were factual and complied with the posted rules.

I received an e-mail in response to one where I had mentioned that Wally Swett had spent $30,000 to buy a baby chimp and was told that it was rejected not because that was untrue, but because: "While lively debate is encouraged on this blog, this particular subject involves a sanctuary struggling for its future. Thus, we have to set limits

here regarding comments."

I can only conclude that the FOA folks are scared of the truth and open debate. No wonder they claim the media is "biased" whenever a story is published. Biased how I have to wonder?

At least here people can hear all sides.



A Better Place -- Austin Chronicle guest Dec 19, 2006 - 08:48 am
August 5, 2005

Excerpt:

When popular attention subsided, Oliver was cycled through a variety of animal "parks" and roadside zoos, eventually ending up at the Buckshire Corporation, who did not use him for research but kept him in a tiny cage for seven years and claimed not to know his origins. Primarily Primates acquired Oliver with the first group of chimpanzees it got from the research facility; for a while he was able to live with a group of "extremely mellow" chimps, Swett says, but as he became increasingly blind and deaf was moved to his own enclosure to avoid accidental injury (even mellow chimps are rambunctious, it seems). Swett estimates his age to be 45 or so, the tail end of the lifespan of a chimp in captivity (chimps in the wild generally die younger). He still hears and responds to the calls of humans, moving slowly to the edge of the enclosure at Joann's call. He looks like nothing so much as a sweet old man in a retirement home. Which is, give or take a few chromosomes, what he is. "He's just had a horrible life," says Swett. "But he's doing okay."



A Better Place (2) -- Austin Chronicle guest Dec 19, 2006 - 08:53 am
August 5, 2005

Excerpt:

Old Debt

When he first started rescuing primates, Swett knew that he could only offer better, not ideal, conditions for them. Early on, he explored the possibilities of eventually returning them to the wild. "I have tried three different approaches in West Africa to see if it might be possible to do release programs, and came back just absolutely convinced it wouldn't work, in the countries that we were working in, at least," he says. In trying to reintroduce them to Ghana – where they have been wiped out by a combination of habitat loss and capture for meat and trade (including the original Air Force chimps) – he was defeated by trade lobbies creating panic that Americans were trying to use the chimpanzees to introduce disease to Africa. He's witnessed similar failures in Gambia and Liberia, and says he's heard of tamarins reintroduced to the wild in Brazil being easily recaptured, because they had once been pets or in zoos, and cycled back into the pet trade.

When you ask Swett why he does what he does, the answer is "guilt." Most articles on him feature the story of his being a kid, getting a pet squirrel monkey, and being required by his mother to keep it in the basement, where it died young. It's doubtful that guilt for unknowing mistreatment of a childhood pet has kept him at it all these years, but it might be part of why he calmly plugs along, raising money for things like new enclosures for the last of the Buckshire chimps, whose arrival will be doubly thrilling because it will signal the end of that facility's use of chimps in research.

"I don't know if it's really guilt," he says, "but it's just trying to repay what I did wrong as a kid. You know, I should have done more research, not listened to my mother ... I think that's part of it. Although I'm fascinated by the learning process and so forth, having seen monkeys and some of the tropical birds in the wild – when you actually see a pair of parrots flying across a river, and then you think of them being kept in someone's house in a parrot cage, it's just horrible."

It's hard not to point out that they're still better off at Primarily Primates than they were when he got them.

"That's the only way I justified it to myself when I came back from Africa," he says. "Every single one is in a better place than it was before. It may not be perfect, but it's in a better place than they were before."



No game involved guest Dec 19, 2006 - 08:54 am
The large number of dead and distressed animals at Primarily Primates since the Oct. 13, 2006 police raid speaks volumes about the receivership that was imposed on PPI on that date. There are sick and vulnerable monkeys and other animals at Primarily Primates. What will it take for decent people to defend this sanctuary from the people who are destroying it and sending its residents away -- or to the crematorium? Shutting off the claptrap by PeTA is a start.


Chimp longevity Derek Johnson Dec 19, 2006 - 10:26 am
Swett has all sorts of interesting things to say about chimp longevity. Someone just posted a quote indicating that Oliver, in his mid-40s, was at "the tail end of the lifespan of a chimp in captivity". Yet, in another article earlier this year, when Arthur, a male chimp in his mid-20s died, we see "Swett says the average life span of male chimps in captivity is 27, and for females 35." (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16747463&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=484045&rfi=6)

Particularly odd, then, that the chimpanzee that played the role of Cheeta in the Tarzan movies in the 1930s and 1940s is still alive today in his mid-70s. I'll grant that Cheeta is an aberration, and under no circumstances should a chimp's expected lifespan to be anywhere near that high, but 27 years? Come on.

Here's a webpage documenting the currently living oldest chimpanzees in zoos around the United States: http://www.lpzoo.org/chimp-ssp/locations.htm

Even chimps living in the wild live dramatically longer than Wally's numbers for captive chimps. Fifi, the matriarch of one of the wild troops of chimpanzees in Gombe, GAVE BIRTH to her 9th child at the age of 44, and that was a couple years ago.

From "Walker's Mammals Of The World, 5th Edition, Volume I" - "Reproductive capability in the female apparently lasts until at least age 40, and a maximum life span in the wild may be 60 years."

Wally also apparently padded Arthur's age for the article to make him sound older. The reporter was told that all of the chimps died in their mid-30s. However, Arthur was one of the actor chimps from the movie "Project X", which was released in 1987. He was one of the juveniles, and was perhaps 5 at the time the film was made. Anyone who knows anything about the chimpanzee life cycle and has a basic understanding of arithmetic could easily figure out that there's absolutely no way that Arthur was in his mid-30s.

Just noticed a quote from Priscilla Feral in the old article: "Wally Swett is a capable and talented person."

Odd that just six months later, Feral and Tello have changed their tune: 'In recent years Swett's manners have gotten worse, say Tello and Feral, and his involvement with the sanctuary has waned because of deepening alcoholism. "He was really devoted to the task of running a sanctuary," says Feral. "Wally is no longer helpful because of his substance-abuse problem."

I won't bother to speculate why they changed strategies.



Bet FOA is really mad now guest Dec 19, 2006 - 11:58 am
If this story has the FOA fanatics riled, wait until they see today's Chicago Tribune.

Headline: Officials: Refuge became prison;

Respected sanctuary charged with abusing, neglecting hundreds of animals in its care

Includes quote from Richard Farinato, a sanctuary expert at the Humane Society of the United States: "A place like Primarily Primates subscribed to no set of standards other than its own because legally they are not bound to, and this is what happens. The place is in deplorable shape."

This reporter from the Tribune and the guy from the Humane Society must be biased too. Or on the take from PeTA.



Let me see if I can do it guest Dec 19, 2006 - 02:01 pm
Wait...I want to see if I have the FoA line down so I can start spamming the Chicago Tribune editorial page:

1) It's all PETA's fault.

2) It's ok for FoA to be involved, but no other organizations.

3) Swett was a hero, but now he's a loser alcoholic who we have no use for.

4) All that stuff that the Attorney-General mentioned in their complaint is just make-believe.

5) Former PPI employees are stooges of PETA and are pathological liars.

Did I skip anything?



Oops...forgot one. guest Dec 19, 2006 - 02:13 pm
Forgive me...I left one off:

6) Since we decided Swett is a loser alcoholic, we aren't responsible for anything that happened while he was directing the place...even though we were on the board of trustees.

Or maybe that should be an addendum to 3). Like maybe we could make that be 3a). Dammit. This is tricky.

Sorry for being so arrogant as to think that I could do this, FoA dudes. It's a serious juggling act that you're pulling trying to keep this all together. You have my newfound respect.



As earlier noted: guest Dec 19, 2006 - 02:21 pm
PPI will have its day in court unless the Texas AG turns it tail and runs (again). The opponents of PPI will undoubtedly continue with their personal attacks on both PPI and its supporters both until then and well after -- it matters not. Newpapers may continue to report allegations -- not facts that have been scruntized by judge and jury. The rush to try PPI in the media and not the courts will continue, but is not a threat to either the US legal system or PPI.


Eye Witness Account Dave Dec 19, 2006 - 02:50 pm
I've visited PPI recently, and I can attest that the conditions there were unacceptable. The animal enclosures were poorly designed and have been poorly maintained over the years. The takeover was entirely justified. I say this as someone with years of experience working with primates.

Anyone who claims that Primarily Primates was doing ok either hasn't seen it, doesn't know how to assess an animal facility, or they're friends with Wally Swett.



Eye-Witness Testimony guest Dec 19, 2006 - 03:27 pm
The least reliable testimony allowed in court is "eye-witness testimony". There are a lot of people wrongly sentenced to prison based on inaccurate and biased eye-witness testimony. That said, at least even the wrongly sentenced had their day in court. Let PPI have their day in court.

Or not? Heck, we have eye-witness testimony right here. Why bother with a trial at all? Let's just string them up now and save the taxpayers the cost of a trial.

If you are a more sensible sort, please contact the Texas AG at: (512) 463-2100. Tell them to go to trial right now (it means the AG has to renege on the three month delay in the trial that it begged for and received). Got a rock-solid case right here. We got that "eye-witness testimony". Time is short as the value of eye-witness testimony erodes over time.

Oh, you already called the AG's office and was told they are still investigating the allegations?

Guess you have to wait then. And that's the only relevant point to be made in the interim.



To the ambitious witnesses "guest" Dec 20, 2006 - 09:00 am
Anyone's ideas about the viability of the refuge are best expressed from a visit pior to October 13, 2006. Anytours following the AG's seizure of the refuge don't reflect on Stephen Tello's role as interim executive director of PPI.

Moreover, the court-appointed reciever had a legal and moral obligation to examine the books (not a word about that, dear Austin Chronicle), and then work to strenghten the refuge, if needed. All of the convoluted ideas expressed here from the takeover team are a disasater for animals, and they focus on public spectacles, not on lifetime care for the sanctuary's residents.Apparently it was never the intention of the receiver to allow Primarily Primates to survive as a charity. What a misery that people and animals have suffered under the receiver's occupation, and that PeTA expects financial rewards for the ruin they're imposing.



Can I get a witness? guest Dec 20, 2006 - 12:58 pm
Yeah, it's entirely possible that enclosure gates rusted up and huge pools of standing sewage cropped up overnight on October 13th. I see no reason to expect the laws of physics and chemistry to hold true in such a case. That's an excellent point.

As for you, Mr. Attacker-Of-Eyewitness-Testimony, why are you so opposed to people making statements about what they've seen? And do you really think that bugging the AG to go to court sooner is really going to make a difference? And do you really think that there isn't abundant photographic and video evidence to support the eyewitness testimony? Do you think a jury is going to buy Priscilla's argument that all the cockroaches infesting the enclosures were part of animal enrichment? Or the subsequent argument that all of the pictures of cockroaches were doctored. Well, which is it?

Saw that Noah had drummed up support at a bigfoot website back in November (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/primarily-primates/). I guess you gotta take what you can get. And yet, he's one of the people talking about how we should wait until it goes to court before saying anything and criticizing PETA for trying the case in the press. Noah, you attended Harvard Law, right? So you're familiar with the First Amendment? Quit trying to shut people up. By the way, Noah, you have a telltale signature in your postings even when you don't sign your name to them.

Speaking of which, "guest" with quotes, you don't have to type "guest" in the "Post as" field. It automatically does that, as the comment right below the field indicates - 'You may leave blank to post as "guest", or sign in below to use your registered name.'. Another FoA supporter put "by guest" so that the tag line read "by by guest". Computers are hard.

Stephen's lucky to have you guys supporting him.



Eye-Witness Testimony (2) guest Dec 20, 2006 - 01:53 pm
The weakness of eye-witness testimony has already been explained here, and cannot be countered by the rhetorical question, "...why are you so opposed to people making statements about what they've seen?"

Yes, everyone gets to talk about what they have seen, but until they are on the witness stand under cross-examination and before a judge and jury, it has no value to the ongoing legal procedings.

Same is true of photographic evidence (which thank you very much, can be faked or biased). The questions of who took it , when, what equipment was are all important questions when the photographer answers them under oath.

Yet one more flaw in the AG's investigation is that they failed to maintain the chain of custody of the evidence. They raided PPI but left faster than a get-away driver at a bank heist gone bad -- failing to secure the evidence left behind. What was left behind is now tainted and of dubious value to the court case.

The point in calling the AG at (512) 463-2100 is not to get them to give a fair and speedy trial -- they are way past that point -- but to verify for yourself how the investigation is going. Besides in recent years, the Texas AG has spent about $100,000 investigating PPI, the cost of a few more phone calls is de minimis as were the results of the investigation to date.



Don't forget about the animals guest Dec 20, 2006 - 02:53 pm
I don't follow the politics of animal rights or PETA, and I have never been to Primarily Primate's refuge...but how could I not be in tears to read the description of the mourning mother chimp, left to lie alone in excrement and ants, until she is shot to death. How many of you would allow your dog's life to end in that manner, much less a primate that knew exactly what was happening to her? If it is true, whoever is responsible for that gruesome scene should be caged and shot him/herself. That's what this is really about. To those of you involved in the battle, on both sides, don't lose sight of what really matters - the welfare of these animals. Not the press or the egos or the money or the politics.


PPI's response to Peta's Allegations guest Dec 20, 2006 - 03:08 pm
Excerpt from Stephen Tello's Response 10-19-2006:

The story of Betty is one of the most awful situations in Primarily Primates’ history. I am always deeply hurt by this story because I know that Betty deserved better. During the final days of Betty’s life at Primarily Primates Terry Minchew and Michael Dreadt, partners living together in a home on our property, were together responsible for all of the daily animal care. Minchew was the enrichment coordinator (a job she did poorly) and Dreadt was the animal carestaff supervisor (a title he never deserved). When Betty was found dying she was morose and in her final moments of life. Swett called all of our veterinarians, but it was Sunday afternoon and he was unable to find anyone who was available. In our 28 year history this is the first time we were unable to obtain a veterinarian on an emergency basis. As the time progressed, Minchew continued to harass Swett asking for permission to shoot Betty. But Swett refused until all other options failed. It’s ironic that the individual who shot Betty, Minchew, is the same person who complained in her sworn statement about Betty’s death. How convenient that she “forgot” to say she was the one who killed Betty. What offends me the most about this situation is that there was a more ethical alternative....We had tranquilizer guns, rifles, darts, a “dart stick,” and other darting equipment. In addition, Primarily Primates also had a bottle of Phenobarbital, a drug used to humanely euthanize animals. All this equipment and the drug necessary to humanely euthanize Betty was at Primarily Primates and available for use. As a supervisor, Dreadt, and his partner Minchew, should had made sure that all medical supplies were categorized and placed for easy access. Instead, Michael Dreadt did nothing of the sort and allowed Primarily Primates supplies of medical equipment and medications to go unchecked and unused. It was Mike’s failure to properly perform his duties that led to this horrible incident. Dreadt and Minchew were ill-prepared to handle the job of caring for the animals at Primarily Primates and are now looking to blame Wally for Betty’s death, and to alleviate their own guilt they now want to place all the blame on Wallace Swett.

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/october/ppis-response-to-pet.html



The buck doesn't stop here guest Dec 20, 2006 - 05:06 pm
Notice that every lapse in reponsibility, every sickness or death is not Wally Swett or Stephen Tello's fault. When you are the head of a facility or a board member you are bottom-line responsible. I would place far more credence in FOA, Swett and Tello if they even once took responsibility and owned up to mistakes.

I know some of you "ain't from Texas" but if you were you would know that for the Attorney General to take such action is extraordinary and that the AG is not in any way connected to PeTA or other animal rights groups.

Yes this is a legal proceeding and the very fact that a receiver was appointed shows that so far the legal proceeding does not favor the former directors.



The buck hasn't even started. guest Dec 21, 2006 - 10:07 am
No sense skipping over the legal process and spectulating where the buck is ending up.

It's not reasonable to call the AG's action against PPI extraordinary, as it is their second attempt since the the earlier 90's. They have spent about $100,000 of your Texas dollars so far, and haven't even completed their investigation.

It doesn't really matter who the AG is connected to, or not connected to, when you are wrong, you are wrong. We have to rely on the courts to determine who is right here -- not on unsubstantiated opinion.

If you have any evidence that the legal proceedings have so far favored the receiver, let's hear them now.

Even so, "it ain't over until its over" (Yogi Berra).



2 examples of AG legal victories so far guest Dec 21, 2006 - 04:41 pm
1) A receiver even being appointed is a win for the AG's office.

2) Tello and FOA were ruled in contempt of court and fined for sending a soliciation to PPI donors urging them to instead send $ to FOA.



Receiver losses guest Dec 21, 2006 - 08:04 pm
1. Denied the authority to euthanize animals. Needs to get the permission of the judge. One of the first things she asked for.

2. Denied the authority to permanently relocate animals. Needs to get the permission of the judge.

3. Denied the authority to sell off or mortgage PPI real property. Must get permission from the judge. She was looking into selling 65 of the 75 acres of PPI.

4. Ordered by the court to submit a complete financial report on PPI by the middle of January showing money she has raised since the takeover.

5. AG was asking for jail time and/or fines for the contempt charges -- got nothing, not even a slap on the wrist. There were no fines. Money raised by FoA for PPI goes to PPI.

6. Appeal court will rule on the vacating of the receivership and a change of venue. AG filed an inadequate (really lame) response to the motion on the change of venue (you should read it).

7. In appointing an unqualified receiver, the AG has weakened its entire case against PPI. The judge in the case thinks Stephen Tello is a possible candidate to run PPI.

While it ain't over until it is over, things aren't going so well for the receiver -- and just wait until she gets deposed.



Revisionist History guest Dec 24, 2006 - 11:42 am
I think it is interesting how vehemently the FOA and PPI (former) management keep trying to focus on the condition of the sanctuary now. As if the refuge just got in this condition since this legal case began or since the receivership changed. If things were so great before then how did they deteriorate in a month? I think people would like to try and blame PETA, and they are a great scapegoat since they are so darned weird on most everything they do, however it doesnt make much sense here.

FOA is not a conduit for public comment and I have strong doubts about why they are so interested in this case.

Some try to refocus everyone on how Wally Swett took on this project out of great love of primates, which was probably true before he lost his way on his path to the Xanadu of alcohol, and how this is a 'Texas' issue, (bullshit) and depending upon whether you live here or not, you either can or cant see the truth. Either our AG is in PETA's pocket or else someone wants to sell the animals to hunting ranches.

Absolute bull and cockamamie camoflage to the truth - which is the animals need to be cared for which takes an enormous amount of capitol and human expertise and it WASNT Happening. If PPI was doing a great job of it -in the past few years- I have doubt that the Texas AG would have stepped in. Just an observer, not a PETA supporter and not a Texas Republican



The Moving Finger guest Dec 25, 2006 - 06:08 pm

The history on this issue hasn't been written yet so it can't be rewritten.

All there are allegatons from the AG. It begs the question as how things got so bad when it has yet to be shown in court that things are bad.

Have you called the AG yet (512) 463-2100 to ask how the case is going? When are they going to produce the receiver for deposition? Just when, if ever, are they going to present their allegations and evidence before a judge and jury? Why the delay?

This won't be the first time the Texas AG has backed out of a case, or lost at trial, so it's reasonable to doubt the outcome of this and any yet to be prosecuted case.



AG abandons animals at PPI gmdf May 30, 2007 - 01:08 am
FoA/PPI have control over sanctuary. I saw the sanctuary (Primarily Primates) in '03-'04 and I was a part of the receivership (10-'06 to 5-'07). The animal’s lives pre-receivership was that of a faded existence. Barren dirty infested cages, poor diet, and lack of medical care was thought to be acceptable by management. The animal to care staff ratio was/ and now again (as of May 1, 2007) is unacceptable. During the receivership I saw the animals begin to heal physically and mentally. Their cages were disinfected on a regular basis. They got produce every day. We gave enrichment, hay, and blankets because they are owed these things. The animals used to have to go through winters with no blankets or hay and despite what people might think they will not just go into their "night box" because it is freezing cold. They also never were given enrichment. What kind of life is that? This is supposed to be a retirement for them. The situation at PPI seems to be that of an animal hoarder in my opinion. Animals were/are allowed to breed continuously. Why would a "sanctuary" allow more animals to be born into captivity when so many already need retirement from labs, zoos, and the pet trade? Several vasectomies were performed during the receivership to help relieve the overcrowding. As for the reformed board... well there wasn't much reforming. Many of the current board members knew the conditions of the animals and in some way or another were involved with Wallace Swett for many years. It doesn't matter who does it but these animals deserve a better life. Their enclosures need to be updated and their lives enriched. I see the new management in charge (Friends of Animals and Primarily Primates) spending great amounts of money attempting to retrieve animals that were placed in great homes during the receivership instead of concentrating on the monumental task of improving the facility and lives that are already in need of their immediate attention. Old PPI board/”new” PPI board… it is all the same.. they do not have the animals best interest at heart. I ultimately hope these animals get the dignity and respect they so deserve. They will definitely be in my thoughts. I hope people do not forget or give up on these animals. Please visit www.primarilyprimatesxposed.com There is also a petition we are encouraging the public to read (and sign if in support of) for sanctuaries to become regulated/inspected. Thank you for your time.



www.kermitscommunity.com guest Jul 01, 2007 - 09:09 pm
Please visit www.kermitscommunity.com to learn the truth about the horrors faced by the OSU primates




POST A COMMENT

(optional):
:

Permission to Print. Letter to the editor.
 
RELATED STORIES


Famous PPI Inmates

Primarily Primates Photo Gallery
Scenes from Primarily Primates

FURTHER READING
More about
animal welfare
Winograd Fixes Austin: NKE Knows Best October 31, 2008
Nathan Winograd makes his case for 'taking back' the animal center

Still Seeking No-Kill Solutions March 17, 2006
San Francisco consultant offers advice on reducing animal shelter euthanasias

Snipped Funds Mean Unsnipped Animals August 19, 2005
Money from 'Animal Friendly' license plates goes unawarded

all animal welfare stories
More about
Primarily Primates
Primarily Primates: AG Folds on Apes May 4, 2007
Lawyers representing warring factions in bitter dispute over operation of Hill Country primate sanctuary square off over conditions of settlement between attorney general and sanctuary's board and management

Keywords
for this story
Oliver the Chimp
Buckshire Corp.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Primarily Primates
Wallace Swett
Lee Theisen-Watt
Guy Herman
Leana Stormont
Stephen Tello
Lynn Cuny

Deep Focus
Health & Human Services

University of Texas

BLOGS
Doing 25 to Life
BPP Recommends Life
Car2Go Arrives

Pride and Prejudice
Fire Departments Are Charging for Services
Developing Stories: A Long Route to Go

ARCHIVES
More from
December 15, 2006
News
Arts
Books
Food
Screens
Music
Features
Columns
Sports

Browse the
Archives by
Issue
Author
Column
Review
Section

More by
Jordan Smith
Hampton Runs for Republican-Dominated Court November 20, 2009
Dem candidate has extensive experience with death penalty cases

Bradley Spars With Lawmakers November 20, 2009
New head of Forensic Science Commission is all fired up

Questions Unanswered November 13, 2009
APD suspends Quintana, fires Dunn – but doubts remain about the Nate Sanders II shooting

Acevedo: Chris Dunn Is 'Damaged Goods' November 13, 2009
Two days after Nathaniel Sanders II was shot and killed by Austin Police Officer Leonardo Quintana, Internal Affairs investigator...

all stories by
Jordan Smith


Short Story Contest
Online Contests
Chrontourage
Chronicle Merch

 
Arts & Entertainment (108)
Services (108)
Civic (20)
Retail (48)
Food & Drink (67)
Coupons (8)
Jobs (9)

Ads of the Day