Chimp attack victim seeks primate sales ban

Quote:

---

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut woman blinded and disfigured by a chimpanzee attack will visit Washington this week to urge the passage of rules to make it harder to keep primates as pets.

Charla Nash, who lost her nose, lips, eyelids and hands after she was mauled by her employer's 200-pound pet chimpanzee in 2009, said people who buy baby chimps would be wrong to think they will be harmless, childlike companions.

"There are many people that know nothing about myself and what happened. The more awareness is made, the better off people will be," Nash told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. Nash, whose eyes were surgically removed after the attack, said chimpanzees "are not the type of animal that anyone should keep as a pet. They're just too wild and dangerous when they get older."

Nash, who underwent face transplant surgery in 2011, is scheduled to appear at a news conference on Thursday in Washington with representatives of The Humane Society of the United States to press Congress to support the Captive Primates Safety Act. She is also meeting with congressional staff to discuss the legislation, which has previously passed the U.S. House. It would amend the Lacey Act by adding "nonhuman primates" to the list of animals that cannot be traded or transported across state lines as pets. Currently, the Lacey Act puts such restrictions on big cats, such as lions and tigers.

Approximately 25 states prohibit people from keeping some or all primates as pets. But John Goodwin, director of animal cruelty policy at the Humane Society, said buyers can skirt those laws by purchasing primates from exotic animal breeders they find online or at large exotic animal auctions. Infant chimpanzees can sell for about $5,000 apiece.

Goodwin said there is no accurate count of how many primates are currently being kept as pets in the U.S. because there is little regulation of the exotic pet industry. But Goodwin calls 15,000 a "best guess." And some of those animals have been involved in violent occurrences.
Chimp Attack Victim Speaks to CT Lawmakers Play Video
Chimp Attack Victim Speaks to CT Lawmakers

"There have been several primate attacks on human beings documented in the news over the past couple of decades. And those are just the ones that make the news," he said. He said primates can also expose humans to various diseases.

In February 2009, Nash had come at the request of her friend and employer, Sandra Herold, to lure the woman's pet chimp, Travis, back inside her Stamford, Connecticut home. But the animal went berserk and attacked Nash.

Herold, who died in 2010, had bought the chimpanzee in Missouri when it was an infant and brought it to Connecticut.

Earlier this year, the Connecticut General Assembly denied Nash the ability to sue the state in court. She claimed the state is partly liable for her injuries because officials knew the chimp could be dangerous and was being kept without a permit. Nash, who is now living alone in a small apartment in Massachusetts and relies on government assistance to cover most of her expenses, said she has not given up hope on her case even though her lawyers told her they can't go any further.

In the meantime, Nash said she hopes to play a role in preventing other attacks.

"It's a lot of suffering and hardship on everyone," she said. "And your life is never the same."

---

http://news.yahoo.com/chimp-attack-vict ... 21652.html

She knew there were risks when she agreed to help look after that chimp and now she's trying to take out her frustration on all the other primate keepers. And of course the HSUS is backing her. :mad: I don't keep any primates and have no desire to. But I think we should still follow this story. Any exotics ban could potentially effect us.

Ban cars, because poeple die in accidents. ban guns, because poeple die when shot. ban peanuts for cryin out loud, since those with allergy may die from it.
ban ban ban ban everything that you poeple can die from.....oh wait, there's always a common denominator to all this. human responsibility.... so ban humans!!!!:rofl:

Chimpanzee should definitely NOT BE PETS or sold as pets. It is extremely traumatic for the mother and the baby chimpanzee to be separated to begin with. There is really no responsible way to keep a chimpanzee as a pet as it grows older. I'm not sure if you know what happens to the chimps once they become unmanagable. They're locked up as no one can go near them without endangering themselves. Chimpanzees are often neglected as well. They are social and extremely intelligent.

My only worry is that people won't be able to tell the difference between pet monkeys or chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are one thing. A very complex member of the great ape family, they should definitely be left to professional institutions. Now, monkeys and lemurs on the other hand... those can be left to those private keepers who know what they're doing. There's a big difference between monkeys/lemurs and great apes such as chimpanzees. I can understand banning chimpanzees but I don't expect them to know their limits and do see them going overboard and banning all primates.

I'll laugh if they're dumb enough to ban themselves. :rolleyes:

Agreed there is a difference between chimps and most monkeys. That said, I am of the opinion that none of them are suitable domesticated pets. Their care is just too specialized for common folk. They should require some kind of certification, license, or should only be kept in Zoos by specialists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

I'll laugh if they're dumb enough to ban themselves. :rolleyes:

---

Slavery got banned a long time ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbie.dragon

Chimpanzee should definitely NOT BE PETS or sold as pets. It is extremely traumatic for the mother and the baby chimpanzee to be separated to begin with. There is really no responsible way to keep a chimpanzee as a pet as it grows older. I'm not sure if you know what happens to the chimps once they become unmanagable. They're locked up as no one can go near them without endangering themselves. Chimpanzees are often neglected as well. They are social and extremely intelligent.

---

I 100% agree with this. No one needs to have a pet chimp in their back yard or in their home. Their much too difficult to care for, plus they are so strong & smart they don't belong in someone's home in a cage they belong in the wild with their family. I remember a story where a man had a full grown tiger in his apartment in New York City and ended up getting eaten by it because he wasn't feeding it enough. Seriously people should be able to just buy a chimp or any kind of big cat just because they want one. Because in the end the animal always ends up getting killed for being a wild animal. It's completely pointless. I read in a National Geographic magazine that was talking about exotic animals, that a man had over 50 exotic animals that consisted of lions, tigers, bears, zebras and some other animals. He couldn't take care of them all so one day he let them all go to run around the neighborhood and the authorities came and shoot all the animals dead. It was a horrific picture of corpses lying all over the ground. Maybe banning isn't the best choice since they can go overboard with it but something seriously needs to be done about this. Sorry I'm going on & on but this is something that really upsets me. This is the last thing I'll say, I think it's pretty sad that your blaming that poor woman for getting her face torn to pieces. I don't think it's her fault at all. Her friend should've never had a freaking chimp in the first place. I'm pretty sure she's doing all of this to keep others from having to go through what she did. Okay I'm done now. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexisFitzy

I 100% agree with this. No one needs to have a pet chimp in their back yard or in their home. Their much too difficult to care for, plus they are so strong & smart they don't belong in someone's home in a cage they belong in the wild with their family. I remember a story where a man had a full grown tiger in his apartment in New York City and ended up getting eaten by it because he wasn't feeding it enough. Seriously people should be able to just buy a chimp or any kind of big cat just because they want one. Because in the end the animal always ends up getting killed for being a wild animal. It's completely pointless. I read in a National Geographic magazine that was talking about exotic animals, that a man had over 50 exotic animals that consisted of lions, tigers, bears, zebras and some other animals. He couldn't take care of them all so one day he let them all go to run around the neighborhood and the authorities came and shoot all the animals dead. It was a horrific picture of corpses lying all over the ground. Maybe banning isn't the best choice since they can go overboard with it but something seriously needs to be done about this. Sorry I'm going on & on but this is something that really upsets me. This is the last thing I'll say, I think it's pretty sad that your blaming that poor woman for getting her face torn to pieces. I don't think it's her fault at all. Her friend should've never had a freaking chimp in the first place. I'm pretty sure she's doing all of this to keep others from having to go through what she did. Okay I'm done now. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I was appalled when I saw some people were blaming her. I don't think anyone fully understands how strong and UNPREDICTABLE chimpanzees are. Even professionals that has been working with them for many years are extremely weary of chimpanzees.

I firmly believe they should ban the sales of all primates in the hominidae family (great apes) as it is incredibly cruel. Or the requirements for a permit should be at a higher standard and the penalty for possessing an exotic animal without a permit should be much heavier. Not sure if everyone read through the entire article but the owner of the chimpanzee did not have a permit and the state knew about it. Harsher penalties would be a great start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbie.dragon

I was appalled when I saw some people were blaming her. I don't think anyone fully understands how strong and UNPREDICTABLE chimpanzees are. Even professionals that has been working with them for many years are extremely weary of chimpanzees.

---

Thank you! Omg I was pretty baffled when I read "She knew there were risks when she agreed to help look after that chimp" that's like saying to an Army Vet "you knew the risks of going to war so it's your fault your legs got blown off by a land mine." After someone has been through so much as being attacked by a chimp & getting your face ripped off after all that people are blaming YOU?? What kind of sense does that make? I've watched a video about her and she said that people are afraid of her now because of the way she looks and no one want to speak with her or be around her and she feels so lonely. I just want to give the poor lady a hug. Maybe I'm just a more sentimental person but my heart just goes out to her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexisFitzy

I 100% agree with this. No one needs to have a pet chimp in their back yard or in their home. Their much too difficult to care for, plus they are so strong & smart they don't belong in someone's home in a cage they belong in the wild with their family. I remember a story where a man had a full grown tiger in his apartment in New York City and ended up getting eaten by it because he wasn't feeding it enough. Seriously people should be able to just buy a chimp or any kind of big cat just because they want one. Because in the end the animal always ends up getting killed for being a wild animal. It's completely pointless. I read in a National Geographic magazine that was talking about exotic animals, that a man had over 50 exotic animals that consisted of lions, tigers, bears, zebras and some other animals. He couldn't take care of them all so one day he let them all go to run around the neighborhood and the authorities came and shoot all the animals dead. It was a horrific picture of corpses lying all over the ground. Maybe banning isn't the best choice since they can go overboard with it but something seriously needs to be done about this. Sorry I'm going on & on but this is something that really upsets me. This is the last thing I'll say, I think it's pretty sad that your blaming that poor woman for getting her face torn to pieces. I don't think it's her fault at all. Her friend should've never had a freaking chimp in the first place. I'm pretty sure she's doing all of this to keep others from having to go through what she did. Okay I'm done now. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Chimps are not big cats. That same kind of generalization is done by animal rights groups and the ignorant public who will also throw your snakes into that category. As for Zanesville, that kind of situation was propaganda bait for animal rights groups as well. There are plenty of big cats among other things kept in captivity where they are not released and there are no incidents. While I'm of the position that animals such as large cats should definitely require a permit and qualifications to own, caring for them in captivity is not impossible or unobtainable and the option should still remain for the devoted individual as many have existed for years without a problem. The same goes for other lesser primates. Capuchin monkeys and lemurs are not chimpanzees and while they are no dogs or cat either, they are not as dangerous, complex or difficult to own in captivity as a great ape and many people do own and breed these unrelated primates without any sort of issue. Being as sophisticated as great apes and lesser apes are, they are definitely only for the appropriate institutions.
Otherwise, I'm somewhat surprised I'd be hearing such comments on an exotic pet forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

Chimps are not big cats. That same kind of generalization is done by animal rights groups and the ignorant public who will also throw your snakes into that category. As for Zanesville, that kind of situation was propaganda bait for animal rights groups as well. There are plenty of big cats among other things kept in captivity where they are not released and there are no incidents. While I'm of the position that animals such as large cats should definitely require a permit and qualifications to own, caring for them in captivity is not impossible or unobtainable and the option should still remain for the devoted individual as many have existed for years without a problem. The same goes for other lesser primates. Capuchin monkeys and lemurs are not chimpanzees and while they are no dogs or cat either, they are not as dangerous, complex or difficult to own in captivity as a great ape and many people do own and breed these unrelated primates without any sort of issue. Being as sophisticated as great apes and lesser apes are, they are definitely only for the appropriate institutions.
Otherwise, I'm somewhat surprised I'd be hearing such comments on an exotic pet forum.

---

So you think it's okay for anyone to be able to buy a chimp or big cat just because they want one? I never said to ban the ownership of all of these animals. I just don't think any wack job should be able to own a big cat or a chimp because hey I have the money to buy one so why not. There are more tigers in captivity than there are in the wild so yes professional experienced people or facilities can safely keep tigers/big cats or chimps safely. But I do agree that people should own permits and should be screened to see if they are even capable of caring for such a wild animal. They need to know if they have the KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE to actually be able to handle such a strong wild animal. They also need the money, and space to be able to feed and house them since it's not cheap! People just don't have the skills to care for animals like this so they should NOT be able to own them. And it's not like were talking about banning everything or anything for that matter. I personally think that reptiles and big cats/chimps are two totally different worlds. Since one group the big cats/chimps can actually be a threat if put in the wrong hands. A snake on the loose is not a life threatening situation even though media makes it seem that way, but everyone knows that tigers can kill you, and especially after what happened with the whole chimp situation people are aware of the strength a chimp has. That's why I think they are two different worlds. One is harmless but made out to seem dangerous the other is actually dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

Chimps are not big cats. That same kind of generalization is done by animal rights groups and the ignorant public who will also throw your snakes into that category. As for Zanesville, that kind of situation was propaganda bait for animal rights groups as well. There are plenty of big cats among other things kept in captivity where they are not released and there are no incidents. While I'm of the position that animals such as large cats should definitely require a permit and qualifications to own, caring for them in captivity is not impossible or unobtainable and the option should still remain for the devoted individual as many have existed for years without a problem. The same goes for other lesser primates. Capuchin monkeys and lemurs are not chimpanzees and while they are no dogs or cat either, they are not as dangerous, complex or difficult to own in captivity as a great ape and many people do own and breed these unrelated primates without any sort of issue. Being as sophisticated as great apes and lesser apes are, they are definitely only for the appropriate institutions.
Otherwise, I'm somewhat surprised I'd be hearing such comments on an exotic pet forum.

---

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. Alex clearly said that banning would not be the best solution to this problem. And I do not see where she stated that a chimpanzee is a big cat either. AlexisFitzy is clearly just giving an example of how exotic pets are abused.

Not only is there an issue of exotic pets causing harm to people, there is the huge issue of neglect and inadequate care. These are the cases that need more attention as the animals live in poor conditions, locked away from society in general. I know and know of A LOT of individuals that keep very exotic animals and the care is subpar. Putting an animal in a condition to survive is incredibly easy. I know of people that keeps a tiger in a cage that is 20x30 ft and gets fed well everyday. Iron bars and concrete floors, nothing else. No incidents of attacks or anything but does that mean the tiger should be kept in that condition?

Also it really isn't difficult to keep a chimpanzee in captivity. It's the problem of is it humane to do so? Are we able to provide all the enrichment? What is the minimal amount we can provide? These are the questions that needs to be answered. Like the tiger example above. The owner is devoted in a sense that they spend A LOT of money feeding the tiger, providing veterinary care and keeping the animal alive. A decent enclosure would be something like the SF Zoo or SD Zoo. Most people or private collectors do not keep animals in that "natural" kind of enclosure as it is incredibly expensive, difficult to maintain and so forth. I can easily say that most people that own exotic pets ARE NOT able to provide the optimal care. Is it a generalization? Yes but I believe it to be the truth.

Although I agree that chimps, other great apes, and to a certain extent, big cats, are not good choices for a "normal" keeper, (and I agree that the level of care needed to provide for the animal, it's safety, and proper environment / enrichment is difficult to say the least), I think the main issue here is the use or misuse of laws... Although it may all be well and good to ban ownership of chimps and other great apes, the problem is that the law won't stop there.. Government always increases and always grows based on precedent. i.e. once they ban great apes, they'll expand to big cats, then smaller cats, then the rest of the exotics. If only the government always acted in the true best interests of animals and went on expert opinions, this wouldn't be an issue. The animal rights extremists groups however, use cases like this to push their agenda (total elimination of all animals in captivity) and chip away at your rights as a pet owner a little at a time.

You can see this in very mundane things like cities requiring permits to have more than "x number" of dogs, or in many cases, charging hefty permit fees for those with intact animals.. It sounds good on the surface (reduce indiscriminate breeding) but eventually leads to you having your right to say, breed a certain breed of dog or cat, taken away.

Many states I believe already ban ownership (or require permits) for certain exotic animals, so I don't see why this would need to be a federal issue (see the lacey act and how it's being used now). If you were to go with a national permit system instead, that would lead to a whole new world of red tape, government mismanagement,etc (how many puppy mills are USDA licensed?) Although I hate to say it, generally speaking the government makes situations worse (at least on the federal level). If they do anything about this, I hope that it is on a state level.

I don't mean to step on anyone's toes... just wanted to note the bigger issue that is at play here.

i dont think the question of great apes (chimpanzee, gorilla, orang utang and bonobo) has anything to do with the pet trade. or at least its in no way similar to a ban on, lets say, giant snakes or venomous snakes or big cats or sharks or whatever.

so i dont buy the slippery slope arguments in this case.

Quote:

---

Although it may all be well and good to ban ownership of chimps and other great apes, the problem is that the law won't stop there.. Government always increases and always grows based on precedent. i.e. once they ban great apes, they'll expand to big cats, then smaller cats, then the rest of the exotics.

---

slippery slope argument, im not buying it in this case, because the issue is different. the issue is not that they can be dangerous.

the issue is that they are our closest relatives and they are very human. when it comes to shared DNA, intelligence, behavior, physiology, and many other relevant factors, they clearly beat all other species when it comes to how close they are to humans.

check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project

basically they want some very basic rights for the great apes, and create sanctuaries where they can live rather freely and safely and without much human contact or only with voluntary human contact, and then release those that can be released into those sanctuaries. and because such sanctuaries dont really exist yet there is no place to put any great apes right now. so a ban on ownership can be done in law but cannot be enforced right now, because when you take them, there is no place to put them. but they want a ban on breeding.

i think that makes sense. i mean, when a chimpanzee gets sick, you dont bring him to a vet, you bring him to a doctor, because the health issues are the same ones humans get. diabetes, arthritis, alzheimers, asthma, allergies, heart problems, issues with blood pressure. i really think they are not pets and deserve better treatment.

so i am for legislation that helps in getting closer to these goals. i think bans on breeding and sale and higher minimum keeping requirements are good first steps. outlawing them makes no sense right now, but only because there are no sanctuaries.

and i dont see how this is related to puppy mills or bans of giant snakes or big cats or anything like that. if there is a slipperly slope leading anywhere, then the next species to look at would be whales and dolphins, because of their intelligence and long lifespan. the exotic pet trade will be just fine. also its different people behind it, its not the PETA-crowd or the vegans. this push is coming from the humanists, they care about great apes, and to a lesser degree other extremely intelligent species like whales and dolphins, and then they enjoy their steak and really dont care about any other species that are not smarter than a cow or pig. and pigs are quite intelligent.

so i dont see this spilling over, and i dont think you should wonder if it will come on state level or national level. sure, they will try to improve things locally, but when it comes to legislation they are looking at the international level. as in, a multinational convention where individual nations can join and that grows eventually. basically something like the Ottawa treaty that bans land mines. the USA is very reluctant to join any of these (still didnt join the ottawa treaty, hooray anti-personell mines) and is usually among the last nations on the planet to join something like this, so you will be fine. i mean, the great ape keepers among you will be fine for quite a while, the rest of us will be fine anyway ^^

I also agree, chimps are above the care of most average pet owners and should be left to specialists. Cute little babies grow into potential menaces due to boredom, hormones, or just the unnatural environments most are left in, they are highly social and to be kept as a singleton borders on cruel.


I agree with the over banning statements, pretty much any pet can be a danger if you look closely enough. PETA would have everyone petless vegans if they ever get their way, lets hope it never comes to that. Well cared for pets are an important part of learning empathy for other living beings, a skill that many more humans are in need of.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

i dont think the question of great apes (chimpanzee, gorilla, orang utang and bonobo) has anything to do with the pet trade. or at least its in no way similar to a ban on, lets say, giant snakes or venomous snakes or big cats or sharks or whatever.

so i dont buy the slippery slope arguments in this case.



slippery slope argument, im not buying it in this case, because the issue is different. the issue is not that they can be dangerous.

the issue is that they are our closest relatives and they are very human. when it comes to shared DNA, intelligence, behavior, physiology, and many other relevant factors, they clearly beat all other species when it comes to how close they are to humans.

check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project

basically they want some very basic rights for the great apes, and create sanctuaries where they can live rather freely and safely and without much human contact or only with voluntary human contact, and then release those that can be released into those sanctuaries. and because such sanctuaries dont really exist yet there is no place to put any great apes right now. so a ban on ownership can be done in law but cannot be enforced right now, because when you take them, there is no place to put them. but they want a ban on breeding.

i think that makes sense. i mean, when a chimpanzee gets sick, you dont bring him to a vet, you bring him to a doctor, because the health issues are the same ones humans get. diabetes, arthritis, alzheimers, asthma, allergies, heart problems, issues with blood pressure. i really think they are not pets and deserve better treatment.

so i am for legislation that helps in getting closer to these goals. i think bans on breeding and sale and higher minimum keeping requirements are good first steps. outlawing them makes no sense right now, but only because there are no sanctuaries.

and i dont see how this is related to puppy mills or bans of giant snakes or big cats or anything like that. if there is a slipperly slope leading anywhere, then the next species to look at would be whales and dolphins, because of their intelligence and long lifespan. the exotic pet trade will be just fine. also its different people behind it, its not the PETA-crowd or the vegans. this push is coming from the humanists, they care about great apes, and to a lesser degree other extremely intelligent species like whales and dolphins, and then they enjoy their steak and really dont care about any other species that are not smarter than a cow or pig. and pigs are quite intelligent.

so i dont see this spilling over, and i dont think you should wonder if it will come on state level or national level. sure, they will try to improve things locally, but when it comes to legislation they are looking at the international level. as in, a multinational convention where individual nations can join and that grows eventually. basically something like the Ottawa treaty that bans land mines. the USA is very reluctant to join any of these (still didnt join the ottawa treaty, hooray anti-personell mines) and is usually among the last nations on the planet to join something like this, so you will be fine. i mean, the great ape keepers among you will be fine for quite a while, the rest of us will be fine anyway ^^

---

Don't get me started on Whales, Killer Whales should (In MY Opinion) NOT be kept in captivity, at all, end of story. These animals, in their natural habatat swim miles each day, the ocean is their playground. Sea World comes along and stuffs these Highly intelligent animals in what is basically equivalant to a Betta cup (don't get me started on Bettas either!!!). Then train the whales to do tricks for our enjoyment....nope, sorry, can't back that. My family and I are staying as far away from Sea World as possible. Sure it is possible the animals are happy in their tiny tanks....hell they've bred so that must mean they are happy, but they are also hurting and in some cases killing their trainers....why, only the whales know.

It's a proven fact that pigs are smarter than most dogs. I wonder if they are lazier than our Golden Retriever!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlottesmom1966

Don't get me started on Whales, Killer Whales should (In MY Opinion) NOT be kept in captivity, at all, end of story. These animals, in their natural habatat swim miles each day, the ocean is their playground. Sea World comes along and stuffs these Highly intelligent animals in what is basically equivalant to a Betta cup (don't get me started on Bettas either!!!). Then train the whales to do tricks for our enjoyment....nope, sorry, can't back that. My family and I are staying as far away from Sea World as possible. Sure it is possible the animals are happy in their tiny tanks....hell they've bred so that must mean they are happy, but they are also hurting and in some cases killing their trainers....why, only the whales know.

It's a proven fact that pigs are smarter than most dogs. I wonder if they are lazier than our Golden Retriever!

---

I'm so glad you brought up the point of the Killer Whales. I watched the documentary on Netflix called Black Fish after seeing parts of it when it came on tv and it changed my whole world upside down. I was on the brink of tears. Sea World is such a horrible corporation that feeds people completely wrong info on the Orcas telling people they only live for 20-30 years when that's how long they live in CAPTIVITY they can live a nice long life in the wild almost a human lifespan. They tell the people "Oh their fin is supposed to be flopped over like that" and when you see Orcas in the wild the fin is pointed straight up. They've kept all the attacks and deaths hidden from the public and from workers which results in more attacks & deaths. They took a baby orca from it's mother to take to another Sea World and the mother got extremely depressed and would scream out to it's baby to come back so she could find her. That part makes me cry every time. It's absolutely horrendous what people do to animals for "entertainment." Sea World won't be getting a cent of my money or from any of my family or friends because they never should have even been in business in the first place. Leave them in the ocean where they belong. No one on earth is capable of providing what an orca needs because it needs the ocean, so leave them there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk