• palordrolap@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The way I read it (specifically the Reuters link provided elsewhere), it’s the total cost of upkeep, not just any “rent” to China. The fact they’re on loan makes them an easy target for sending elsewhere to cut costs. Other animals might not have anywhere quite so easy to go back to.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      in the facility where the animals live and faced annual costs of 1.5 million euros for their upkeep, including a preservation fee paid to China

      That’s straight from the Reuters article. It mentions it includes a fee

      • palordrolap@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        My use of “rent” in quotes was not to imply that no payment was being made, but that “rent” isn’t quite the right word in that context.

        Sorry for the confusion.