Abstract
Rehabilitation is an attempt to enable a captive animal to re-adjust to living independently under (more or less) natural conditions. It is prescribed where confiscated animals of an advanced mental capacity are to be set free, and involves providing individuals with the experiences and/or training which is believed to be necessary to survive and reproduce successfully under feral conditions. Rehabilitation is therefore a management tool in the field of nature conservation, and although it may attract disproportionate public attention, it is no more than a minor tool, often deployed with dubious results. It should by no means be confused with ‘species’ conservation, which is a complex of conservation actions focused on one particular wild-living ‘umbrella species’, or endangered species.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Keepers and trainers of orang-utans, in order to be able to maintain face-to-face interactions with the adult apes in their custody, therefore usually assert their dominance aggressively, which commonly involves physical abuse by means of implements (e.g. sticks or electric devices); note, however, that G. Brandes maintained friendly face-to-face relations with the wild-caught adult orang-utans kept at Dresden zoo (in the 1930s).
The total WWF support in 1971 for the establishment of quarantine cages at the Ketambe rehabilitation station amounted to US$ 8,794; the annual WWF contribution to the station in the period 1972 —1978 was on average about US$ 5,000 (Rijksen, unpubl.; see also WWF Yearbooks).
As a matter of fact, two other young women, also sent by Leakey, had tried to study the mountain gorillas before Dian Fossey; they were Rosalie Osborn and Jill Donisthorpe.
See Fossey, 1970: pp. 53, 60, 61; 1971: pp. 578, 579; 1981: pp. 504, 505.
See Galdikas-Brindamour (1975) National Geographic Magazine cover, and pp. 444, 448, 451, 452, 453, 456, 462, 463, 465, 472.
Unfortunately some managers of ape rehabilitation stations, despite general rules laid down to prohibit human-ape contact, often behave as though they were exempt from such rules, and take for themselves the privilege of showing off ‘heir’apes to larger audiences or cameras. Such behaviour undermines the required discipline, renders regulations useless and degrades rehabilitation to a cheap publicity act.
At the Bohorok station in North Sumatra an attempt was made to have the best of both worlds. The head of the PHPA and the international technical experts were aware of the possible dangers but felt that the station management would be able to control the process, allowing no more than 50 persons to attend a feeding session. An effort was made to adhere to the rule that visitors be kept well separated from the apes, but in practice this could not be enforced consistently, because the numbers of attending visitors soon spilled over the limit. The lure of profit from paying visitors led perhaps to extraordinary leniency and to corruption of the best intentions.
It is perhaps not surprising, albeit unacceptable, that all brochures and leaflets designed and issued by national organisations contain biased propaganda rather than adequate information, usually avoiding the issue of regulations and a warning note on the dangers of apehuman contacts. It is noteworthy in this respect that an official PHPA leaflet for the Bohorok station (1989) carries a section entitled ‘Controversy over rehabilitation’.
At the Bohorok and the Camp Leakey Stations, people have frequently been attacked and seriously bitten, in particular by sub-adult males and females with infants (see e.g. Yeager, 1997).
Since the 1980s the Bohorok, Samunsam and Sepilok rehabilitation stations have been secretive about the numbers of apes taken in and returned to the wild; all typically claim to have rehabilitated ‘more than one-hundred.’ In Bohorok the formal station record lists a total of 176 apes in 1996, although the 1991 brochure noted that in the period 1973–1988 a total of 166 had been brought to the station, of which at least 35 had died. In reality a total of at least 190 orang-utans were taken into the station between 1973 and 1991, and in 1991–96 another 14 were added, three of whom died.
The International MoF Tropenbos programme is implemented with technical assistance from the Institute for Forestry and Nature Research (IBN-DLO) and the Agency for Forest Research and Development (AFRD) of the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry.
I.e. Dr Willie T.M. Smits, IBN-DLO researcher and team leader of the International MoF Tropenbos project, and Dr Jonathan Cuthbertson, head-master of the Balikpapan International School.
During the drought of 1998, some 65% of the Sungei Wain forest went up in flames, and although no ape casualties have been recorded, it is evident that the carrying capacity of the area has been decimated. which may necessitate a return to prolonged provisioning of the apes. That some 35% of the forest has been saved was due to a small group of up to 20 fire-fighters battling fires continuously for some two months under the command of Gabriella Frederiksson.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Stichting Tropenbos/H.D. Rijksen / H.D. Rijksen and E. Meijaard
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rijksen, H.D., Meijaard, E. (1999). Rehabilitation of Orang-Utans. In: Our vanishing relative. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9020-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9020-9_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-5755-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-9020-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive