The Official Chimp Crazy Podcast with Tooth & Claw | Episode 2 | HBO

♪ (HBO INTRO PLAYS) ♪ ♪ (PENSIVE MUSIC PLAYS) ♪ WES LARSON: Hi, I'm Wes Larson, one of the hosts of Tooth & Claw podcast, and this is The Official Chimp Crazy Podcast, produced in partnership with HBO. This week, we're talking about the second installment -of Chimp Crazy. -♪ (MUSIC CONCLUDES) ♪ First up, we'll have a conversation with the filmmakers, Eric Goode and Jeremy McBride. And later, we have an interview with writer Dan P. Lee, who wrote "Travis the Menace" for New York Magazine in 2011. It's really the one-all explanation of the Travis chimpanzee story. And if you're looking for a more in-depth exploration of the series, with recaps and analysis of what exactly happened in each episode, check out The Official Chimp Crazy Podcast on Tooth & Claw, wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, and we are back once again with the filmmakers. I'm joined today by director Eric Goode... ERIC GOODE: Hi, Wes. WES: ...and executive producer Jeremy McBride. JEREMY MCBRIDE: Hi, Wes. WES: How you guys doing? -ERIC: We're good today. -JEREMY: We're great. WES: Great. So, obviously, we have a really big moment to talk about. It happens at the end of the episode, but I kind of wanted just to talk about it first because I think it's such a jaw-dropping moment. And that is where we see Tonia fresh off of hearing that the judge isn't going to chase her down more on this Tonka evidence. She leads the film crew downstairs through this labyrinth of doors, and we see a large chimpanzee in an enclosure in her basement. So I just wanted to ask for you two, how big of a shock was that for you? Did you have any inkling up until that point that Tonka might've been in her house? JEREMY: I mean, it was just a shock to us as it was to the audience. Tonka's disappearance was kind of reported as a death. You know, as we learned, he had this kind of heart condition, he died. So there was a lot of information that Tonia was sharing to us about Tonka being deceased. We didn't really buy it. We kind of thought that he was alive, as we kind of learned throughout the episode. So it was kind of the world's worst kept secret, but no one could really figure out where he was. ERIC: No, I think we were completely shocked. I mean, that Zoom call, we were a fly on the wall, you know, filming that. And then to just discover all along, she's got this chimpanzee in the basement was mind boggling. WES: Yeah. I think what you were saying, Jeremy, earlier too about how you knew something was up, but you weren't totally sure what it was. I think you do a really good job in the documentary of showing that, that Tonia is obviously lying about something, and she's not a great liar. She does the classic thing where she's just giving way too much information and details that are obviously made up. I think it's really well done, how we get this sense of, like, something is going on. These probably aren't his ashes. There's all these things happening. But I was floored by the fact that Tonka was actually in her basement. That was such an incredible reveal. JEREMY: Directly below where we're shooting the Zoom hearing. It was remarkable to us to have captured that image of Tonka. There was a lot of hearsay at the beginning. We didn't have the evidence at first, and it took a while to really understand the circumstances around what really happened with Tonka. And following each step of the way to later discover this really incredible moment in time, which was real. Like, we cannot make this stuff up. WES: (CHUCKLES) Yeah. JEREMY: It was just as real as it was for us as it was in that moment in time for our crew on the ground. ERIC: I would think that after Tiger King, I would imagine that people might think, you know, how is it possible that the same team makes Chimp Crazy and has, you know, a storyline like this? How could this possibly be real life? It reminds me of when I learned, when I was filming Tiger King, that Joe Exotic had hired a hitman to kill Carole Baskin. I was completely shocked. And then to be making another documentary and find out that Tonia Haddix had this chimpanzee. There was a manhunt, effectively, for this chimpanzee. There was a reward out for this chimpanzee. And to find out that she had this chimpanzee in the basement blew our minds. And I would think there will be skeptics out there that'll think this isn't possible. How is it possible that you can make another documentary that has something equally almost as crazy as Tiger King? I'm expecting the critics to come out and say, "This has to be fake." WES: Yeah, you would have to imagine those critics have never tried to move a male chimpanzee around just to get shots for a documentary, though. I don't think-- Personally, just understanding this animal a little bit, there's no way that this could be staged. You know, this is-- Like, that enclosure to build and to have him in there and everything, it's so crazy that you guys managed to capture it. I am still reeling from it personally, so it's an amazing moment. ERIC: Yeah. Yeah. Mind boggling. JEREMY: You'll have to tune in to the next episode to figure out how she did it. WES: You know what? I think I will. I think I'll be there. (CHUCKLES) You know, going off of that, I have another question for you. Why the hell would she ever let a film crew in to see this fugitive chimpanzee? 'Cause it seems to me like she knows that that's going to come out at some point. ERIC: It's a testament to our undercover clown, Dwayne Cunningham, and the relationship they built and the trust between the two of them. I think she just got so comfortable with Dwayne that she didn't really think about it. JEREMY: Well, the question is about is Tonka alive or not? And we sort of knew that he was alive. We just couldn't really prove where he was. So that understanding, I think a little bit with Tonia, and Dwayne having some knowledge of that, provided a little bit of trust. And obviously, a lot of time went by, right? About five months or so. So I think it was probably that and combined with this incredible high of winning led to, "Okay, now you can see him." And that's all we can kind of imagine. I think a lot of it came down to that. But it was a remarkable experience to learn that he was directly below where we were filming for seven hours that day. -You know? -WES: Yeah. She doesn't seem like much of a rule follower either. So it seems to me like that high of knowing that she had him down in the basement and knowing that she had a film crew there that she could show that off to must've been just the most tantalizing prospect for her. But yeah, I guess rewinding now a little bit to some of the other stuff in the episode, I'm really curious about Tonia's background. And she talks a lot about how she's made some of her money in this episode, and that's through transporting primates. Essentially acting as a middleman, or a broker, or a transporter in these deals. And that's a really fascinating subculture to me. And I'm curious. I know you guys have learned a lot about this market through your research. Is it really that big of a market? I mean, how much of this is happening as we speak? ERIC: Well, she sources these primates from people that bring them across the border from Central and South America and primarily Mexico, across the border. Other animals are sourced through roadside zoos in the private sector where she'll, you know, buy babies and sell them. And so, yeah, she told us that on a good year, if she was selling a lot of monkeys, she could make six figures plus. WES: So, yeah. A follow-up question to that. In the documentary, she mentioned zoos specifically, and she says, you know, "I get them from zoos," and maybe people don't understand. And so, just to clarify, are we talking roadside zoos here, or is there actually a market for this in accredited AZA zoos? ERIC: I think mostly roadside zoos, but also accredited AZA zoos. Mostly roadside zoos. And like I said, and people that are bringing them across the border from Mexico. JEREMY: You know, it's a little bit of a, we say middleman, but more of a courier, honestly. I mean, she's doing pickups and drop-offs. And she also has to care for some of them. This is a person who has been a foster parent, who has been a person that's given herself to service as a nurse practitioner. She cares for things and people, falling into that category, as she kind of states. You know, she moved to Festus to live with Connie for five years, and she needed to find a new way to make money. And this became a very natural job for her to fall into at that time, not really understanding, perhaps, the consequences of what she's doing in that moment as it relates to the animal welfare. WES: There's a segment in this episode where we learn about the history of the Endangered Species Act and how that applies to chimpanzees. And I think for most people, when they hear Endangered Species Act, they think of something that's just black and white. But how does it apply in this specific circumstance to chimpanzees? Why is the Endangered Species Act important to include in this conversation? ERIC: So, you know, the Endangered Species Act came into effect during the Nixon administration in the early 1970s, and it was designed to protect obviously endangered species, both animals and plants, and chimpanzees were on the Endangered Species Act. But there was an exception with chimpanzees where there was a carve-out, which is something that didn't happen with very many animals. There was a carve-out for some circus animals. There was a carve-out for chimpanzees, that animals that were bred in the United States, chimpanzees, did not fall under the Endangered Species Act because they were used for both medical research, for space exploration, and for entertainment purposes. And it wasn't until 2015 that that sort of loophole was changed. And so, as of 2015, all chimps fell under the Endangered Species Act, including those bred in captivity for what I just mentioned. When that went into effect and why that's important in our story is that Connie Casey's business and others that bred chimpanzees for resell could no longer sell their chimpanzees to other states after 2015 legally. And so, that's when Connie Casey, you know, the Missouri Primate Foundation, could no longer make money breeding chimpanzees. And so that's when things started to go downhill for the Missouri Primate Foundation. And she couldn't sort of redesign another way to make this work for her, so she ran out of money, and that's when she couldn't live up to those standards that she needed to abide by for USDA. And that's when PETA filed the lawsuit, and she basically gave up because she no longer could sell chimpanzees for 60, 70, 80,000 dollars, whatever the price tag had become. JEREMY: Yeah. If I can just add a couple things, this is something we were really proud about to contextualize for people to understand. Our curiosity was rooted in the same question I think you would probably have, Wes, which is like, how did captive chimpanzees come to be in America now? You know, you look at the effectiveness of something like the Endangered Species Act in the '70s, and then you look behind it, and you think about, how did some of these things we interpreted as good, protecting something like 1,400 species at the time on the verge of extinction, lead to something that kind of countered that? Which is obviously this unintended consequence of cutting off the international supply of animals, but at the same time, perpetuating a domestic issue to allow it to still happen for commercial interest. So it's one of these things to objectively look at and say, "We're kind of in on it too." You know, we can't just say, "We're going to do something good and protect extinction and wildlife across the world and block this," but at the same time appease commercial interests for zoos, for circus, for private use, for entertainment, Hollywood, and to perpetuate it. So that unintended consequence leads to Connie having this kind of cornering-the-market situation, where she's one of several places that one can go to get a captive-bred chimp, and that captive-bred chimp leads into birthing Travis. WES: Right. JEREMY: So if you think about this kind of butterfly effect of issues, that's what was very interesting to us. It's the only really section in our show we really explain something that's really hard to explain, and I think we do a pretty good job of it. I'm really proud of that piece. WES: Yeah. And I'm glad you brought up kind of one of the most famous unintended consequences, which is Travis. And a nice, good chunk of this episode is devoted toward that story. And it's a really cautionary tale of just how bad chimpanzee ownership can go. You know, we host a podcast about animal attacks. This is something I learn about every week, and I can say the Travis story, for me, is one of the most visceral, heartbreaking, terrible stories that's out there. ERIC: I think, you know, listen, there's, as you know, obviously, Wes, because you cover animal attacks, you know so much about them. And we have animal attacks, you know, all the time, whether it's an elephant killing someone, a trainer, or, you know, a tiger attack. There's been, obviously, many big cat deaths. And what's kind of incredible is that apparently there's been no actual death from a chimpanzee in the US. I know there has been internationally, but this particular attack, I think it's maybe one of the more memorable animal attacks in the last 50 years in the United States because it was so unusual. Just the fact that it was a pet chimpanzee in a state like Connecticut that you don't usually associate exotic animals being in. And the way that the chimp-- Just even the backstory of this chimpanzee, the fact that the chimp drank wine from a stemmed glass, and ate dinner with its owners, and seemed so habituated to being in a family setting, and for it to do what it did to a person that was so closely connected to the chimpanzee, Charla Nash, was so shocking. And the way the chimp attacked Charla Nash and literally began to eat her face. Not just attack her face, but eat her face. And how Charla, obviously, how she survived this. And the lasting disfigurement of Charla Nash was so horrific that I think all of that combined, all of those things made for such a salacious story that, you know, it was an international story. It wasn't just a local story. And it was an indelible story. And it was probably, maybe, one of the most horrific in the details. You know, when you hear of a tiger attack or an elephant attack, you don't hear about the eating off of the nose. And so this attack, I think, is the most indelible, and most memorable, and maybe one of the most horrific when you look at all the details of any domestic or wild animal attack in the US. JEREMY: That could be in your backyard, in a place like Stanford, Connecticut, of all places. You know, I think people's association of these things might be in locations that might be kind of more liberal around animal laws and ownership, but to be in a suburb of New York City, I think that's what also captured our attention. I just say this too, for our story, we were always, Eric and I, would just talk about the idea of Travis somehow living in our show from the very onset. And we were always deeply interested in incorporating it somehow, we just didn't figure out really where. And so while we're kind of telling the story of episode two, what really kind of comes to audience at that point is, why do people care so much to find Tonka? And part of the reason, obviously, is because he's a public threat. You know, him being mature, he's 32 years old, you know, out of an enclosure presents a really big public risk. So what, to us, is the biggest and highest example of that? It's obviously the Travis story. So I'm just really proud of the Travis thing because we got the full story. You know, obviously, we could have gone longer, but we got the real story of both sides at a time in media that really didn't give it the attention it deserved. They looked at Travis as a monster. You know, he was a victim of circumstance, honestly. WES: Yeah, I think that's really great. And I'm personally really happy that you included it in the front half of the series because I do think it reframes the way that the viewer looks at these chimpanzees. You know? You realize, okay, this is an animal that can really harm us. And I think that's also what the Travis story did to the general public. If I can add a little to that, it's that I think up until that point, we saw them as, like, bubbles and as our little buddy that we just kind of can carry around, and they'll do little tricks and things. But we didn't see these chimpanzees that have aged and that are sitting in cages and that have been desocialized and depressed and all these things that happened to them that turn them into, you know, a very different animal. ERIC: I should also say that just something we learned along the way filming chimpanzees is we began to learn about their body language. And chimpanzees, when they're depressed and sitting in a cage, rock just endlessly, which is a sign of depression. And you'll notice when you watch the series that oftentimes, you'll see the chimps rocking. Different animals that are in cages that are depressed have different ticks, and chimps do this. And chimps, when they're happy, they don't smile like we do. When they smile, it means they're angry. When they show their teeth, it's aggression. So, all of these. The body language of a chimpanzee is not the same as a human being. And so we just began to learn more and more, Jeremy and I, about, you know, how to see when a chimp is not happy, which was the case in most of these chimps. They would be rocking endlessly. WES: Yeah, I noticed that in a lot of the footage, these kind of stereotypies that they're doing in the... Yeah, it is amazing that you were able to learn so much about the animal as you did this. Shifting gears just a little bit, 'cause I know we're going to talk with Dan more about Travis, but I think another big moment in this episode that we should talk about briefly is kind of this look into PETA and the lengths that they're going to to try and prove that Tonka is still alive. And something that I thought about as I was watching that segment, I was really curious, is this a typical thing that they do? Because for me, it seems like they're spending a lot of resources, a lot of money to chase down one chimpanzee. And I was curious if that's standard practice for them or if they were going really hard on this for any specific reason. ERIC: Well, I think what makes PETA such a successful organization, frankly, is once they set their eyes on something, they are relentless. And so I feel for people that have an animal and PETA's got them in their sights because they're relentless. And they will go and do, as you probably know, they'll take extreme measures to get what they want, including infiltrating zoos with undercover people that get hired and will be filming undercover and documenting what they see. So, you know, they almost act as a government agency. They're almost doing the job of the USDA, and that makes one maybe scratch their head. Is it overreach that PETA can do what they do? And is that entirely even ethical or legal, you know, is a question I guess one might ask. JEREMY: I think it's also personal. A lot of these employees of PETA, particularly Jared Goodman, he spent five years of his life fighting for Tonka, fighting for these Missouri Primate Foundation chimps. He's going to see it through. To be aligned with the certain values of PETA, there's a certain level of personal commitment that one could see as extreme, but someone could also see it as passionate about the cause. So I think part of it is also they keep a pretty low overhead, they don't pay lawyers very well, and a lot of it is individuals who have a deep connection and passion, an extreme, sometimes, view taking it to the finish line. I'd also say to Eric's point, just to kind of crystallize this, what is a big problem for us, objectively, is how a private organization can impose decisions on individual rights. And we do have empathy to a lot of these private owners as it relates to that. It should be done fairly. We should use the government resources that are available to us to hold people accountable for laws and rules and regs. But at the same time, they're going to do what they're going to do. And that's what we to-- You know, what we obviously want to show, the tension between both of those ideas and that conflict. WES: Well, you show it very well. So I just really quickly wanted to bring up a few moments from this episode that I thought were really great, that were funny and interesting, that I thought brought a lot of life to our characters. First of all, the introduction of Frederick Snow brought on two of my favorite moments from this episode. We get Tonia saying, "Look at this dork..." TONIA HADDIX: This guy looks like a real dork. WES: The second that he shows up on the Zoom, which I just love that she can't help herself. Like, she has to say that, even though she knows she's on camera and everything. And then we also get this great interview with him, where he talks about cremation and the process. And it's really interesting to me personally, just seeing how that all happens. But he's quite the character himself. My other favorite moment, I think, is when you're waiting to see how long it takes to cremate those bones, and someone from the film crew asks him, like, "Hey, how long is this going to take?" And he immediately is like, "Are you talking to me? Are you asking me?" And it's just a really funny moment in the middle of all this that I thought brought a lot of a really good character. ERIC: Yeah, it's funny you say that because oftentimes, some of the best moments are when people don't think they're being filmed. You know, when it's just completely natural and you catch something, or you catch audio when someone doesn't think they're being recorded. Those moments can be gold. JEREMY: I was going to say, you know, for us, and I appreciate recognizing that sensibility and choice because it's obviously Eric and for sure Eric's taste. And also just it's fun for us to kind of take moments that are kind of not obvious and really go to this, like, extreme level of detail to explain them. We also just know we needed a break. That Zoom hearing, in reality, was like six or seven hours. So yeah, we just kind of went for it. And then we kind of were just completely fascinated by the process of what it really... You know, what if we just took it further and just explained to everyone what the cremation process actually looks like? And we had these great, you know, supporters at the pet cremation company. That was their patriot. They were really good sports about it. And obviously Frederick Snow, who, I mean, I couldn't... I remember-- I remember hunting him down. He was, like, so down to do it. And it was, again, Eric said like, sometimes the moments you least expect become the best if you, you know, apply that same level of curiosity, intensity to making it. So that's one of our favorites as well. WES: Yeah, I love that whole-- That segment was amazing. Another thing that I wanted to bring up. I'm just curious about how intentional it was and kind of the thought behind it, but we get these really humanizing views of Tonia, often while she's doing some aspect of her beauty routine. And we get these long shots of her with the lip fillers. And I do feel like it's in those moments that we kind of get a little bit below the shell that she has of, like, being the Dolly Parton of chimps, and we kind of see, like, this human side of her. And I'm curious if that was intentional or if you guys were just kind of filming these wacky procedures or what the thought was there. ERIC: Well, I mean, we really just would show up at her place in the Ozarks, in Missouri, and she would say that, "I have a lip filler appointment at three o'clock," or "I have a, you know, eyelash appointment." And we really just followed her routine as much as we could. You know, and having said that, we knew that this chimpanzee story could go very dark, very quickly, and it was those moments of levity that we knew we needed to balance out the darkness of chimps in cages and what could have been turned into a much different kind of story. But we also had a subject with Tonia, which was incredible. Not very many people will let you film them doing such intimate things, such personal things. And she was incredibly open, and there was really no discussion about it. It wasn't like, "Hey, can we film you in a tanning booth?" It was the other way around. It was like, "Hey, I'm going to go tan." And we would say, "Well, can we follow you?" And she was like, "Of course." WES: Yeah. (CHUCKLES) JEREMY: What I love about her too, Eric, is that she is who she is. She's very, very open to share that, really open to share her ideas, and that resonates with people. You can't take that away from her, despite choices that she's made. So I think we treat that with-- We do treat that with care, but it also allows us to have-- to kind of explore this emotional terrain that we get into in her own story. WES: Yeah, I really like it. And for me, as we've gone through this story, I feel my feelings around Tonia are constantly changing. And I think when you see her talking baby talk to her kangaroo in the kitchen or, you know, whispering to her baby capuchins or whatever, you do realize this is a person who's very passionate about these animals, who cares about them deeply. And I do think as we go through this, it's important to remember that. That this isn't necessarily someone who's just taking advantage of these animals. She actually has a lot wrapped up into this. So I think there's some really good-- some good moments there. WES: All right, well, I think we are going to move into our conversation with Dan P. Lee, who is an author that you guys consulted quite a bit for your work on the Travis story. So we'll go ahead and move onto that portion of the interview. (WHOOSH) All right, so now, I'm really excited. We're going to be joined by Dan P. Lee. Dan is the writer who wrote "Travis the Menace," a really amazing article that talks about the Travis chimpanzee story. It was written for New York Magazine. And Dan, we're really excited to have you here. DAN P. LEE: Thanks a lot. I'm excited to be here. WES: So Dan, my first question for you... I know you've written on a really wide variety of topics and stories throughout your career. How does the Travis story stand out for you? DAN: Huh. That's a good question. Um... It certainly seems to have had a longevity I didn't totally expect at the time, but I'm not completely surprised by. Yeah, I just think it's, you know... When I wrote the piece, I almost adopted this kind of gothic fairytale tone to it, and I think it sort of fit that naturally. It's just sort of this evergreen story that's about a lot more than it seems to be. So yeah. WES: Yeah, we actually just talked about that a little bit. How it is a gothic story. There is all these different emotions, and tragedies, and everything that play into this ultimate culmination of the attack. And I think it's told in a really effective way in your article. And I'm curious, how were you able to get such great access to this story as you were putting it together? DAN: Well, I guess I'll give you a long-winded answer, and you can decide what you like. But yeah, so the origin of this story is kind of strange because this was the first national magazine story I had ever written, and it was pretty much written on spec, as almost like a tryout. But I was actually taking care of my grandmother, who was ill at the time, and her daily ritual involved soap operas and Oprah Winfrey. And I wasn't really paying attention, and The Oprah Show came on, and Charla Nash came on, and I just-- it was really one of the most extraordinary things I'd ever seen on TV. And so that was sort of the origin point for it. Originally, the idea was to write about Charla because she was really the only one left, but that proved problematic immediately because she had already had an exclusivity deal with NBC that was pretty ironclad. And that really, kind of presented problems for me because, as you know, everybody else in the story is dead. So access really was kind of scary. And because the story had been so heavily covered, you know, my initial concern was that it was kind of going to be a scorched earth thing and that there really wouldn't be much left. So I went up to Connecticut, you know, without the highest of expectations, but as you often learn with these stories that are picked over, there's actually a lot more meat on the bone. So really, it sort of boiled down-- Not to get into, you know, inside baseball too much, but really boiled down into late or early 2010s chat rooms and the places you could find people back then. And I ended up finding these sources that proved to be really the gatekeepers to the story. WES: Yeah. I've gone over this a number of times. I know Eric and Jeremy have looked at all the different factors and things about this story. But I'm curious, for someone who is so close to the story and knows so much about it, what do you see as the main factors that led Travis to attack Charla Nash that day? DAN: Well, I mean, with all due respect, I think that-- I mean, it's obviously an important question, but it's also reductive because there isn't one thing that ever compels anyone or thing to do anything. But I think that this story, and I think even the show, to me, one of the main thematic points of it is about capturing and harboring. And you know, we do that with all kinds of animals. But there's a continuum. And I think that it was pretty literal. He wanted out, you know? And I think that in some ways, Charla, unfortunately, was collateral damage. This was an inevitable thing, and everyone knew that. Not to pre-jump another of your questions, but the dominant narrative that's been out there, that this was this, you know, fluke, and thing that happened out of thin air, and completely not in keeping with Travis' character is total fiction. By the time that this happened, the drumbeat was blaring. And so, yeah, I just think that the way that it happened and the victim were almost incidental. WES: Yeah, I agree with that. It seems like for Charla, it was just wrong person, wrong time. It wasn't that there was any kind of animosity there or anything. Just he had gotten to a point where that aggression was going to be displayed, and it happened to be her that was called to help. DAN: Yeah, and it's interesting. Because I think this is just, you know, why we tell stories. It's kind of the most common thing. You want to ascribe meaning to something, you know? Sometimes the more brutal and senseless, the more that need comes into play. But I think that, you know, whether it was Xanax, hair color, you know, whether... There were all kinds of almost silly theories around, you know, she had obviously taken care of him at different times, whether she didn't, you know, play with him enough or do this or do that. If it hadn't happened then and there, it would've happened the next day, you know? JEREMY: You know, it's funny, Dan. That was obviously a big entry point for our interest. You know, kind of debunking the theories. What really happened? We obviously contain this as much as we can, but part of what we tell in episode two is obviously this wonderful world of Travis growing up as part-- being a member of the family. He's everywhere. He's the town's-- town celebrity. And then he gets too big, and he gets confined to the home. So it's about this idea of trying to understand the reaction to that confinement. DAN: And one other thing, if I could just add too, just because Jeremy brings it up, that is just so obvious, and you probably already talked about this, but there's something so disturbing, and poetic, and almost sad about how big Travis' life was. You know, this was-- He wasn't-- I mean, I don't know particulars of how other primates are held captive, but he was out. He was, you know, running around town. He was everywhere. And you know, obviously, after that 2003 incident, things really started to change. But it's almost like he knew better, you know? And to have his world so narrowed, and Sandy's as well, frankly. They were both living as prisoners in that house, to some extent. It's just, there's an irony there. ERIC: Yeah, I think what you said about why Travis did what he did is exactly right, and you said it beautifully. And it reminds me of when Siegfried & Roy had the attack when Roy Horn was attacked on stage, and everyone said-- you know, by the tiger, and everyone said, "Oh, it was a woman's beehive in the audience. It was some perfume. It was this. It was that." But the truth is, it was a tiger, and a tiger, at that age, it's what a tiger does. And this was a chimp. Travis was a large, 200-plus pound, adult chimpanzee at this point, and that's what chimpanzees do. WES: Yeah. And I know our perspectives of chimpanzees have changed a lot throughout history. As we've learned more about them, we have learned that violence plays a role in their society, and it's something that they use even as communication. And I'm glad you brought up the 2003 incident, Dan, because I think-- I was really glad that was included in your article and in the film because I think that is a really pivotal moment where you learn these people can't control their chimpanzee. If it wants to get out and run amuck for a few hours, there's no easy way to get it to stop, until, you know, he finally decides he wants to stop, until the ice cream or whatever is worth stopping. And it does, I think, really clearly illustrate that this isn't a dog that you can pull on its collar and get it back in the car. It's a big, powerful animal. And one that's very emotional. JEREMY: What we couldn't fit in there, Wes, also, just to think about, like, what provoked that? A little boy throws a can of Coke in the car and hits Travis. And that's what kind of leads to this series of-- to this kind of chain of events to follow. He shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. And also, like, we kind of-- we as humans provoked it. DAN: That was another place where there was a convenient narrative that was peddled by the heralds and sort of successfully co-opted by the media to paint that incident as this kind of, you know, benign, fun sort of revelry, you know, Travis out. And that was something that even the authorities endorsed and peddled because it was a way of skirting responsibility and sort of, you know, avoiding dealing with Travis. That incident was, from what I can gather, that incident was not as fun and cheerful. It was scary. It was dangerous. JEREMY: And also, Wes, like, it's not as if this was-- You know, the response, as Dan kind of illustrated, which is right. The response was, "Oh, this is not a big deal." But just four years before that, you have Moe going loose on St. James Davis, which I know you covered in one of your stories on the pod-- as an episode on the podcast, that birthday party. So it's not a new idea. That's what kind of was so interesting about the suppression of this information. It's like, why? You know, you obviously can see what happens when humans interact with chimpanzees in an open setting. WES: Yeah. And for context, what Jeremy just referenced, four years before the Charla Nash attack in 2005, a couple was visiting their captive chimpanzee in a sanctuary, and two other male chimpanzees escaped and mauled them horrifically. And the man, especially, was mauled really terribly by those chimpanzees. But I don't think that story got quite the coverage. Well, it definitely didn't get the coverage the Travis story did. So I do think up until this point, a lot of people, and we talked about this a little already in the episode, had this kind of playful image of chimpanzees because they'd mostly seen babies, they're mostly in TV and movies. And Dan, I'm really curious for you, throughout this research process, and writing this article, and learning so much about Travis, how did your perception of chimpanzees and exotic animal ownership change? DAN: I mean, again, I take this to a philosophical, and that's probably, you know, overwrought, but I just think that... I remember once saying to Jeremy as a joke, like, you know, it's like when a dog goes missing, people put up signs saying, "Return the dog." And the assumption is that the dog didn't want to get away. You know? I just think that there's always this question around, you know, having pets. And so, to me, I've always thought the idea of having an exotic animal, so called-- I mean, again, there's a continuum. Like, what qualifies as exotic, you know? But I just think that I've always kind of thought it was the strangest thing. I mean, I know even when I visit my parents, sometimes I just look down at their dog, and I'm like, "This is so strange that there's this animal living there with them, and everyone's in on it." You know? So I just, I don't know. I think the idea that you take a step further and want a chimpanzee, or a tiger, or... And I also think the other thing about it that's so strange to me is that... you know, the extraordinary concessions that people make in order to have these animals, you know? The quality of life that it brings. The responsibility, even if they're not particularly dutiful parents, quote-unquote, or owners to the animal. It's just, it's... it's so much more severe than having a child. JEREMY: A little lighter fun fact for you, Wes, that I think maybe your audience might like. There might be a question as to why are the cages pink? And that's a choice. There's this kind of very specific color, this Baker-Miller Pink. It's this kind of tone that has been observed to kind of reduce this violent, aggressive behavior. So you see that a lot. You might-- Obviously, Tonia loves the color pink, and that's kind of throughout our film. But the choice of the cages being that color is also a choice that you see a lot used in European prisons. And it's just a really, really kind of interesting idea. So those choices and ideas are also in there. WES: That is interesting. Yeah. That's fascinating. Well, Dan, I just wanted to give you time to say anything else that you have. Any other thoughts about Travis, about the story, how it applies to this story of Tonia Haddix. Is there anything you want to leave us with before we wrap up? DAN: I mean, obviously it was an interesting process working this story. As I said, it's been a decade later, and it's still alive and kicking, and there's still so much more to it. And I just think that it's interesting to think about why. You know, again, we were talking about some of these concepts around harboring animals. But there's something this tells about people, at least as much as it tells about animals. WES: Yeah. Great. Well, Dan, as someone that researches this kind of stuff full time, I just wanted to thank you too for writing an article that really gets the whole picture and nails the fact that these things are so nuanced, that there's never just an easy explanation for why they happen. And thanks again for joining us. It was really great talking to you. DAN: Yeah, thanks. Really appreciate it. WES: That's it for this episode. A big thank you to our guests, Eric Goode, Jeremy McBride, and Dan P. Lee. The second episode of the HBO documentary Chimp Crazy is available to stream now on Max. Tooth & Claw is hosted by Jeff Larson, Mike Smith, and myself, Wes Larson. It's produced by Mike Smith, with additional production services provided by Pod People. Special thanks to Tina Nguyen, Michael Gluckstadt, and Erin Kelly at HBO.