"Chimp Crazy" on Netflix

[HoneyDontBadger]

Hi guys,
This is James from across the Atlantic in London; I hope you are all keeping well..

That Chimp Crazy on Netflix was a tough watch……

My opinions:

- The main human protagonists need specialist mental health care, not per Chimps
- There surely must be new laws introduced in the US to stop private ownership of exotic and especially dangerous animals

On a positive note, the Chimp sanctuaries look pretty good….

I look forward to debating points with you all

Cheers,

James (AKA Honey Don’t Badger)

 

[Lafone]

I watched most of the first one, I am not sure I will finish it or watch the others.

None of the people in these things are ever flattered by them as they pick on extremes but it was grim viewing to see someone making huge sums trading in rare primates as if they were goldfish. It was hard to see some of the world's rarest small primates being swapped on Facebook and it shows how uncontrolled social media is in terms of doing the right thing.

The whole chimp thing was simply odd. Having a chimp in a basement is plain lunacy as far as I am concerned. I don't believe it should be legal as people simply can't be trusted to do the right thing, something which this film shows.

Alan Cummings (the British actor who regrets being in a film with chimps dressed in human clothes) is added for effect as far as I can see. 'It was a different time' is always used by people who did dumbass things to excuse them. I don't think it was ever a good idea to put a chimp on roller skates myself and the fact these animals grew up and ripped peoples faces off can't be a genuine surprise to anyone but the most stupid.

The Peta people didn't seem particularly sympathetic as characters either which was unsurprising but it wasn't the hard sell I expect they thought it was when they signed up for it as the style of making it isn't about campaigning for welfare, it's little more than a Victorian circus where you laugh at the freaks.

It does feel like tiger king...a close up view of the weird people who keep dangerous animals as trophies and point and laugh at the cartoon life they lead having their lips injected while selling a monkey. In the middle however are animals being mistreated and the filmmakers are dining out on that as much as the people who keep them.

Unpalatable.

 

[Iguana_Cabana]

These Hollywood elitists did this with Tiger King, and they did it once again in this show. What did they do, you may ask? They showed the most insanely abusive examples of irresponsible private exotic keepers and breeders possible, so they can justify the act of banning the entire private sector, even those who are totally qualified to keep and breed them responsibly, even for purposes of conservation, from possesing them. Shameful.

 

[filovirus]

Is it on Netflix? Maybe a regional thing- in the US it's available on Max.

I enjoyed it. I didn't find it as engaging of a watch as I did Tiger King, but I thought it was interesting. I am pretty broadly anti-PETA, so that part was a little tiring, but this was an instance wherein their power was used to do something that I do agree with. I appreciated that the program showcased people who own chimps for a variety of reasons ("Zoo ownership" like Tonia, performance ownership, and private ownership like a pet). I think the inclusion of Cumming makes sense; he's been very deeply involved with PETA for a while, has been very involved with this case, and filled a role in the narrative that is both similar to and opposite of Tanya- someone with a very deep love for Tonka, but contrary to Tonia, someone who wanted to see him free.

I'll be very forward and say that I find the private ownership of all primates, but especially great apes, to be deplorable. The management of such complex creatures is something that should IMO be left to the professionals. And as someone in epidemiology, don't get me started on the zoonotic disease risks associated with primate ownership. I will however add that I'm in favor of AZA-accredited (or similarly professionally accredited) zoos housing primates and am in favor of research in NHP models- anything else and I start getting disgruntled.

I think the style of filmmaking is morally grey but ultimately, Tonka got out, which I'm happy about. And more eyes are on the issue. A net positive? Maybe subjective, and maybe only time will tell. But sometimes documentarians have to walk on that fine line.

These Hollywood elitists did this with Tiger King, and they did it once again in this show. What did they do, you may ask? They showed the most insanely abusive examples of irresponsible private exotic keepers and breeders possible, so they can justify the act of banning the entire private sector, even those who are totally qualified to keep and breed them responsibly, even for purposes of conservation, from possesing them. Shameful.

Just to be completely clear- are you advocating for the private ownership, breeding, and distribution of great apes?

I am genuinely curious if you can provide examples of private great ape owners who conduct their business ethically. I'm equally curious if you can provide an example of anyone who does it with conservation in mind.

I'll expand that curiosity to private primate owners of any kind. Are there individuals or firms you can name who are out there breeding squirrel monkeys or capuchins in the name of conservation?

 

[Iguana_Cabana]

But what if there was a rare case in which some aspiring conservationist in the private sector happened to have the funds (most likely people with net worths of $500M+) and other qualifications necessary to properly exceed in captive great ape conservation? These qualified, responsible people could very well be massive boons to great apes and their conservation, and they should not be counted out. It doesn't matter how rare responsible people with these qualifications are, you never know what could happen. At this point, these bans might as well be useless, hard-to-enforce excuses that ultimately waste more taxpayer dollars. The same applies for just about almost any animal, no matter how large they are. (Except maybe the larger whales. I'm not saying they should be banned or anything, but you'd probably need a really well-filtered and deep enclosure that is the size of like, at least 3 SoFi Stadiums for them to survive, let alone thrive. HARD NOPE).

 

[filovirus]

But what if there was a rare case in which some aspiring conservationist in the private sector happened to have the funds (most likely people with net worths of $500M+) and other qualifications necessary to properly exceed in captive great ape conservation? These qualified, responsible people could very well be massive boons to great apes and their conservation, and they should not be counted out. It doesn't matter how rare responsible people with these qualifications are, you never know what could happen. At this point, these bans might as well be useless, hard-to-enforce excuses that ultimately waste more taxpayer dollars. The same applies for just about almost any animal, no matter how large they are. (Except maybe the larger whales. I'm not saying they should be banned or anything, but you'd probably need a really well-filtered and deep enclosure that is the size of like, at least 3 SoFi Stadiums for them to survive, let alone thrive. HARD NOPE).

"Aspiring conservationist" and "qualified" don't belong in the same sentence. And the solution is quite simple- donate all the money they'd be spending on the private care and keeping of those animals to facilities who already specialize in doing exactly that.

But it sounds like you're suggesting that people should be allowed to privately own large cetaceans. So I'm not sure we're gonna get anywhere productive with a conversation about this.

 

[GamerGorilla]

These Hollywood elitists did this with Tiger King, and they did it once again in this show. What did they do, you may ask? They showed the most insanely abusive examples of irresponsible private exotic keepers and breeders possible, so they can justify the act of banning the entire private sector, even those who are totally qualified to keep and breed them responsibly, even for purposes of conservation, from possesing them. Shameful.

With many people not realizing how keeping chimps as well as other primates as pets is inherently abusive I think the show showcasing the extremes of it is actually a pretty good choice. As well as depicting the people involved in breeding and selling the animals. The show is far from perfect for a number of reasons, but wanting to get rid of private ownership of primates and especially chimps is not a particularly crazy wish to have in my opinion.

 

[Iguana_Cabana]

But what if they maintain proper chimpanzee social groups? (Y'know, NOT pet material? Just throwing it out there) Also, you missed my point. I consider myself to be a normal human being, so naturally, I would consider animal abuse to be abhorrent in all regards. It is important to show these mental cases' experiences with the world, but where is the implication and/or sense of inspiration that We, the People, can do better to conserve great apes in captivity? The godless elites who don't care about wildlife whatsoever just say, "leave it to the AZA "experts" and call it a day. If those same "experts" incompatibly house dart frogs with stress-inducing tree boas, still utilize barbaric pinioning tactics on birds, and lay back and relax when it comes to the humidities and temperatures needed to keep tortoises of any age alive, then rest assured there must be pitfalls with their care of apes. The private sector has outclassed the AZA in specialist settings when it comes to the husbandry of the animals AZA zoos neglect, particularly the non-mammalians I mentioned. So what if people who specialize in husbandry for apes in the private sector helped out, too?

Long story short, why can't we help?

 

[GamerGorilla]

But what if they maintain proper social groups? (Y'know, NOT pet material? Just throwing it out there)

Do you have any examples of collections under private ownership that have actually been kept in proper social groups? Even if a few did it (which I have never seen anything close to) the vast majority do not keep chimps in proper social groups or suitable envoirments. I think looking at how private ownership of chimps is today gives a pretty good look at why it needs to be regulated. Saying that potentially there could be people that could keep them well isn't much of an argument. What reasons would they even want to keep them? If they want to support conservations there's much better ways than acquiring your own group of chimps, such as donating to already existing organisations.

 

[Iguana_Cabana]

At this point in the discussion, all I can really say is, never say never.

I hope you have a great life, GamerGorilla.