When a laboratory said it would donate money to a wildlife organization, the lab probably expected the organization to express appreciation. But Harvard’s Professor Richard Wrangham, who runs Kibale Chimpanzee Snare Removal Project in Uganda, saw through Yerkes National Primate Research Center’s plan. Prof. Wrangham turned down the money and jumped into an administrative law battle as Yerkes’ biggest critic.
The story starts a win for animal welfare: In 2015, the National Institutes of Health decided to stop funding chimpanzee research, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared all chimpanzees endangered.
So would our evolutionary cousins, once experimented on in laboratories, now get to live free? Not so fast.
Yerkes, a Georgia laboratory that previously experimented on chimpanzees and that has a reputation for ethically-questionable primate experiments, still owns eight chimpanzees. Precluded from continuing to experiment on its eight chimpanzees, Yerkes has decided to get rid of them. Multiple U.S. sanctuaries have come forward offering to take care of these eight individuals for the rest of their lives. A sanctuary would provide the chimpanzees with space to roam and to exhibit their natural behaviors for the first time in their lives. Instead, however, Yerkes has decided to send the chimpanzees to an unaccredited zoo in England, where noisy crowds can pay to look at the animals. Why? Perhaps because a well-run sanctuary requires money, to properly care for an animal. An unaccredited zoo, however, uses animals to make money, and thus will jump at the chance to own a crowd-pleaser like a chimpanzee, without requiring any compensation beyond the expensive animal.
Does the Endangered Species Act allow a laboratory to save money by shipping endangered animals to another country? We’ll see. Generally, the Endangered Species Act prohibits the export of an endangered species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services may authorize an exception to this anti-export rule, however, if the exporter shows that the proposed export will benefit the species’ propagation or enhance the species’ survival. So, to receive the economic benefits of sending its chimpanzees to the unaccredited zoo in England, Yerkes needs to find a way to make U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services think that the export to England will somehow help chimpanzees.
Yerkes came up with a creative idea: Yerkes would offer to make small donations to a couple of wildlife protection organizations in conjunction with Yerkes’ export of the eight chimpanzees to the unaccredited zoo in England. This way, by describing the export to England and the donations to these unrelated organizations as one action, Yerkes would claim that its export of the chimpanzees would “help” the species. (If you’re thinking this doesn’t really make any sense, that’s ok—it doesn’t.) A plan like this would let Yerkes save money by avoiding paying for the chimpanzees to receive proper care, and instead just paying a smaller amount to some unrelated wildlife groups. Yerkes applied to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for an export permit based on this scheme.
But Yerkes forgot one thing—to ask the wildlife groups if they wanted its money.
It turns out that a thoughtful Harvard professor, Richard Wrangham, founded and directs one of the two wildlife groups that Yerkes aimed to use as part of its scheme: Kibale Chimpanzee Snare Removal Project. As someone who cares about chimpanzees, Wrangham did not take kindly to his organization being used as a pawn to evade the Endangered Species Act.
When the two wildlife groups found out about Yerkes’ plan, both groups refused to accept donations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services had opened a comment period for the public to weigh in on Yerkes’ permit application.
Professor Wrangham posted a scathing comment in opposition to the permit: “Importantly,” wrote Wrangham, “through this proposed export, the Yerkes National Primate Research Center is attempting to avoid financial responsibility for lifetime care of the chimpanzees it bred for use in biomedical research.”
Other conservation and primatological experts also posted comments in opposition to Yerkes’ plan. The New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the Humane Society of the United States, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the European Endangered Species Programme, the International Primate Protection League, the International Primatological Society, Born Free Foundation, and Great Apes Survival Partnership also all came out against Yerkes’ export permit. In fact, the permit received so much opposition that FWS had to re-open its comment period.
If U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services grants Yerkes’ permit after all this, the permit would be the first of its kind regarding the export of captive chimpanzees. Such a permit would constitute disregard for the intent and language of the Endangered Species Act, and would set a dangerous precedent. The permit would promote a “Pay to Play” policy, in which applicants seeking exceptions to the Endangered Species Act provide financial donations to a conservation organization, in lieu of truly complying with the law..
Hopefully, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services will see through Yerkes’ plan just as the Harvard professor did, and will require Yerkes to send the chimpanzees to a real sanctuary.
Alene Anello is a third-year law student and president of the HLS Student Animal Legal Defense Fund.