Despite outdated monkey enclosures failing to qualify for AZA accreditation and sourcing restrictions in place to protect primate species conservation in the wild, heirs of the man who donated land to the Santa Ana Zoo in California insist on increasing the monkey count to a “50-monkey rule” — an arbitrary number apparently mandated by the late donor.
In 1952, Joseph Prentice, nicknamed the “Monkey Man,” donated the 12 acres of land that the Santa Ana Zoo currently occupies. Prentice lived in a 16-room mansion near what is now the zoo with several monkeys and a gibbon, whose antics allegedly caused multiple housekeepers to quit.
The 50-Monkey Rule Enforced through the Generations
Issues have circulated around the zoo and the number of monkeys kept there since Prentice’s death; in 2008, a great-nephew, Joseph Powell II, informed the city that he had conducted head counts of the monkeys, and in several cases, found fewer than 50 individuals on the premises.
Subsequently, Powell’s lawyer wrote to the city requesting that the zoo property revert to Mr. Prentice’s heirs due to the unsatisfactory decrease in its monkey numbers. Today, there are only 28 monkeys left at the zoo — far below the 50 required by Prentice’s “50-monkey rule.”
After Powell died in 2015, Erin Hernandez, the great-granddaughter of one of Prentice’s sisters, took over the “50 monkey rule” enforcement, despite known concerns over the adequacy of enclosures. “I was brought up as a kid always being told that my generation was going have to make sure that the city abides by the 50-monkey count,” said Hernandez. Earlier this year when she visited the zoo, she counted well below 50 monkeys. Shortly after, she wrote a letter reminding city officials of the agreement with Prentice.
Despite the import laws in place to protect threatened primate species from overharvesting in the wild, the limited number of animals available for transfer from other wildlife facilities, and the clear structural and spatial restrictions at the zoo that would prevent any additional primates from achieving adequate welfare if added to the collection, most of the Prentice heirs continue their fight to increase the number of monkeys back to 50 individuals.
The Zoo’s Monkey Facilities Are Old and Inadequate
Reports indicate that many of the monkey enclosures closely resemble those of 70 years ago. In 2017, the zoo failed to gain accreditation from the AZA, which designates the absolute minimum size and standards of animal enclosures at zoos. The zoo plans on updating these enclosures by expanding several of the monkey habitats as part of a $70-million multiyear renovation project, which will be funded through projected increased revenue, donations, and government support.
At this zoo, and many others around the world, animals suffer in captivity for reasons completely unrelated to improving their conservation in the wild. They suffer for the intrusive gaze of visitors, for more money to line the pockets of individuals over legitimate wildlife organizations that could make a difference, and for the mere principle of upholding an antiquated and unethical “50-monkey rule” that ignores the animals’ welfare and neglects conservation efforts entirely.
A Strange Story with Bigger Implications
While the Santa Ana Zoo’s “50-monkey rule” is peculiar and particular, the story sadly reflects the grim reality of most zoos. These are places that are obsessed with the visitor experience over the value of animal lives — perceived enclosure appeal, the newest, most exotic-looking animals, and the consistent appearance of babies born into a world far more terrifying than what they may have encountered living freely in the wild. Say “no” to supporting zoos, as the animals are so clearly not in their best interests.
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Devan
