Review: HBO's Chimpanzee Murder Mystery
What happened to Tonka the chimp? The Chimp Crazy series investigates.

In HBO's docuseries Chimp Crazy, the minds behind the COVID-19 pandemic sensation Tiger King turn to another exotic animal.
At the heart of the series is Tonia Haddix, the self-described "Dolly Parton of chimps." Haddix's bond with her favorite chimpanzee, Tonka, goes beyond the typical relationship between a human and a pet: She treats Tonka like her child, sharing McDonald's Happy Meals and scrolling through Instagram together—though through the bars of a cage.
The story begins with the break up of the Missouri Primate Foundation, where Haddix served as a volunteer caretaker. When a fellow volunteer exposes the foundation's cruel conditions, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) intervenes, closing it down and relocating the chimps to true sanctuaries. But Tonka is nowhere to be found.
Haddix insists Tonka died shortly before the rescue operation. But with no evidence to back up her claim, suspicions grow. What begins as an exposé evolves into a murder mystery: What really happened to Tonka? Could he still be alive, hidden from authorities?
As the standoff between Haddix and PETA escalates, Chimp Crazy raises larger ethical and legal questions: Should animals with near-human levels of intelligence be kept in captivity? What role should the government play in regulating the ownership of dangerous animals? What obligation does a documentarian have to intervene in the face of suffering?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Remember what happened when they put Kong in chains.
He kidnapped fey way, claimed the empire state building, killed a few pilots, then got an ebt card?
Or maybe...Tonka never existed to begin with!
"Should animals with near-human levels of intelligence be kept in captivity?"
Careful there, we may cross that thin line between zoos and congress.
“Remember when you wanted a chimp? And then you learned they would pull your nuts off and eat your face?” Billy Bob Thornton in Landman
New Rule: If Tonia Haddix invites you over for dinner, think about what that could mean...
I pondered "animal rights" for a while after PETA went apeshit crazy and sued to allow animals to vote and own property, of course with them as guardians / translators. My conclusion was that the best any legal definition could offer was that anything worse than what happens in the wild is animal cruelty; anything less is fair game. Don't eat animals alive, don't enslave them to train your children how to kill them by eating them alive, and don't let them starve to death from an untreated injury. And don't stub your cigarettes out on them.
Animals get eaten alive all the time, as soon as a wolf pack gets large prey down, it is torn apart
Exactly my point. PETA likes to claim raising and slaughtering cattle is animal cruelty. Police like to charge people with animal cruelty for stomping cats to instant death. I say both are far less cruel than real animal life in the wild.
'Should animals with near-human levels of intelligence be kept in captivity?'
Should humans with near-animal levels of intelligence be kept in captivity?