PREVENTION SHOULD NOT BEGIN WITH THE FIRST BITE
Primate welfare, the online trade, and the case for passing the Captive Primate Safety Act.
AN UNKNOWN NUMBER SHOULD NOT MEAN AN UNADDRESSED PROBLEM
Four spider monkeys living at a home in Basehor, Kansas, have prompted a disagreement over the city’s animal ordinance. The dispute raises a question that reaches beyond one neighborhood: should protection depend on an animal first demonstrating dangerous behavior?
ㅤ
KCTV5 reported on October 14 that a neighbor believes the monkeys are prohibited, while the city’s attorney says complaints have not established dangerous behavior or public injury. The city says its animal codes are being reviewed. The owner declined an on-camera interview and told the station she did not expect to remain in the neighborhood much longer.
ㅤ
The report does not establish that these particular monkeys have attacked anyone or are being mistreated. The broader concern is the system that allows wild primates to enter the pet trade—and leaves communities debating what they can do afterward.
ㅤ
What does the ordinance actually say?
Basehor’s published animal code includes nonhuman primates within its definition of dangerous animals. Its wording addresses both species characteristics and past behavior. That makes the difference between the neighbor’s reading and the city’s stated enforcement position a substantive issue deserving a clear public explanation.
ㅤ
This article does not resolve that legal disagreement. It identifies the prevention question it exposes: if a community considers certain wild animals unsuitable for residential ownership, its rules should communicate that standard clearly before the animals arrive.
ㅤ
How many primates are kept as pets in the United States?
On October 4, 2026, the American Society of Primatologists acknowledged: “we don’t know how many primates are living in private homes in the U.S.” The organization questioned the repeatedly cited 15,000 estimate, noting that the figure has remained unchanged for years.
ㅤ
That estimate appeared in a September 2003 National Geographic article and continues to circulate. Its repetition does not establish a current population count. These figures also concern nonhuman primates collectively—including monkeys, apes and lemurs—not monkeys alone.
ㅤ
The absence of an updated count does not prove how much the population has grown. It does expose an information gap: the country cannot reliably establish how many primates are being kept in private homes. Communities should not have to wait for an escape, bite or emergency to learn that a wild animal is living nearby.
ㅤ
The big-cat precedent: uncertainty did not prevent federal action
The campaign for the Big Cat Public Safety Act confronted a similar problem. A House Natural Resources Committee report acknowledged that the number of big cats in private ownership was unknown. It described state laws ranging from no restrictions to registration requirements or outright bans, and warned that first responders were often unequipped for incidents involving these animals.
ㅤ
The Big Cat Public Safety Act became law in December 2022. It prohibited new private pet ownership and breeding, subject to exceptions, and required qualifying existing private owners to register their animals with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to retain them legally. Registration was one part of a broader prevention framework, alongside restrictions on acquisition, sale and public contact.
ㅤ
Pet primates present a comparable oversight concern. Different animals pose different risks, but inconsistent rules and incomplete information complicate prevention in both cases. Registration can improve accountability for animals already in private possession; restrictions on future acquisitions and breeding address the continuing supply.
ㅤ
For neighbors and first responders, knowing which animals are present can support preparation. For the animals, accountability must also address lifelong care and what happens when owners can no longer keep them. A precise national total is not necessary to recognize those responsibilities.
ㅤ
The market is documented, even when the population is not
A peer-reviewed study by Seaboch and Sydney Cahoon recorded 551 primates advertised for sale on six U.S. exotic-pet websites between June 2019 and June 2020. That is evidence of animals offered through a sampled market, rather than a census of household pets or confirmation that every advertised animal was sold.
ㅤ
A 2026 report, Primates for Purchase, by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, International Fund for Animal Welfare and World Wildlife Fund examined social-media offers. Researchers recorded 1,131 pieces of sales content representing at least 1,614 advertised primates during monitoring from June 15 to August 1, 2025.
ㅤ
Important limits accompany those figures: most posts had unknown seller locations, some came from outside the United States, and completed sales were not established. The report describes an online market accessible to U.S. users, not 1,614 verified animals newly entering American homes. Different sampling methods also prevent a direct growth comparison with the earlier website study.
ㅤ
The American Society of Primatologists warns that social media helps expand demand and advertise availability. That concern can be reported without pretending there is a reliable annual count of pet primates. An accessible market and increasingly visible promotion warrant attention even when national population trends cannot be quantified.
ㅤ
A pet label does not change a primate’s needs
The welfare issue begins before an escape, bite or neighborhood complaint. Primates have complex social, behavioral and nutritional requirements. Captive birth and familiarity with people do not amount to domestication.
ㅤ
The Duke Lemur Center explains that human companionship cannot replace the social relationships lemurs require with other lemurs. Early maternal separation and isolation can have lasting consequences. Its guidance illustrates why evaluating a primate’s welfare requires more than asking whether the animal appears affectionate toward an owner.
ㅤ
Species differ, and a particular pathogen should not be attributed to every primate. Nonetheless, injury and infectious-disease risks are established reasons for caution. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that nonhuman primates cannot be imported as pets; federal import restrictions have been in place since 1975. That import restriction has not ended domestic pet ownership and breeding.
ㅤ
What the Captive Primate Safety Act would change
The Captive Primate Safety Act remains proposed federal legislation. The current measures are H.R. 3199 and S. 1594 in the 119th Congress. The House bill would extend the Lacey Act’s captive-wildlife framework to nonhuman primates, prohibiting possession, breeding and specified commerce, subject to statutory exceptions.
ㅤ
Qualifying existing owners could retain animals born before enactment if they register them with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 180 days and comply with restrictions: no further breeding, acquisition or sale, and no direct public contact. The proposal therefore would not automatically remove every existing pet primate.
ㅤ
Exceptions also cover specified institutional and care settings, with conditions. The proposal is broader than an interstate-sales restriction, but should not be described as a ban on every primate held in human care.
ㅤ
Prevention should not begin with the first bite
The Basehor dispute is one local example of a national problem: inconsistent rules, an accessible trade and animals whose needs continue long after a purchase. Communities deserve understandable standards. Primates deserve protection that addresses how they enter private ownership, rather than waiting for a crisis to draw attention to them.
ㅤ
Ask U.S. representatives and senators to support the Captive Primate Safety Act, H.R. 3199 / S. 1594, and advance it through committee toward a vote. Avoid sharing content that promotes primates as household companions, and support qualified sanctuaries caring for animals already affected by the trade.
ㅤ
The lesson from big cats applies to all pet primates: an unknown number should not mean an unaddressed problem. Uncertainty is a reason to improve oversight—not to postpone protection.
Source:
Neighbor says Basehor code bans her neighbor’s spider monkeys. The city disagrees
Related Reading:
“There’s No Such Thing as a Pet Monkey”
California’s decision to reject a petition allowing certain nonhuman primates to be kept as pets reinforces a central question: should wild animals have to demonstrate dangerous behavior before laws protect them and the public?
ㅤ
Evidence • Education • Accountability
How You Can Help:
Awareness is the first step toward meaningful change. Help advance evidence-based education, transparency and accountability by sharing this article with others.
Together, we can encourage a more informed conversation about the treatment and protection of wildlife.
