WHEN THE PUBLIC KEEPS PAYING
Myrtle Beach Safari—and the responsibility behind the demand
A wildlife encounter business needs more than animals and an operator. It needs customers willing to pay for access—and an audience willing to help make that access desirable. Myrtle Beach Safari brings that relationship into sharp focus.
ㅤ
Its founder, Bhagavan “Doc” Antle, pleaded guilty to federal wildlife-trafficking and money-laundering conspiracies. Yet the attraction continues to market paid encounters with wild animals. The question extends beyond what regulators and courts should do: when does the public accept responsibility for the businesses its spending sustains?
ㅤ
What the federal case established
ㅤ
On November 6, 2023, Antle pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act and conspiracy to launder money. The Justice Department described transactions involving two cheetah cubs, two lion cubs, two tigers and a juvenile chimpanzee between September 2018 and May 2020. Bulk cash, misleading paperwork and payments presented as charitable donations concealed the transactions.
ㅤ
In July 2025, Antle received a federal prison sentence, a $55,000 fine and three years of supervised release. He was also ordered to forfeit three chimpanzees and more than $197,000. The Justice Department documented a separate conspiracy involving more than $500,000 in cash represented to be proceeds of migrant smuggling. That wording matters: the money-laundering case concerned what Antle believed about the money’s source.
ㅤ
These were federal conspiracy convictions involving trafficking and financial deception. They should be described accurately, without recasting them as animal-cruelty convictions or suggesting that every animal at the facility was illegally acquired.
ㅤ
Two important updates to the legal history
ㅤ
Antle was also convicted in Virginia in 2023, but those convictions no longer stand. On June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the remaining conspiracy convictions and dismissed the underlying indictments, while affirming the reversal of the purchasing convictions. The court held that the state statute at issue prohibited selling protected wildlife but did not prohibit purchasing it. That ruling concerned the Virginia prosecution; it did not overturn the separate federal convictions.
ㅤ
A July 17, 2026 report by wildlife journalist Rachael Bale for WIRE stated that Antle had been released from federal prison. Accordingly, describing him today as still incarcerated would be inaccurate on that reporting. The documented federal guilty pleas and sentence remain central to this history.
ㅤ
A different license holder does not settle the accountability question
ㅤ
After Antle’s 2022 arrest, plans emerged to transfer the operation to Sugriva Co. LLC, associated with China York, his longtime associate. Reporting documented the company’s acquisition of a USDA exhibitor’s license. However, The Sun News reported in January 2026 that it could not establish whether the proposed business sale had ultimately been completed. The business, its exhibitor’s license, ownership of individual animals and ownership of the land are separate matters.
ㅤ
In August 2026, WMBF described Sugriva as the company holding the facility’s exhibitor’s license and reported its continuing litigation over chimpanzees taken into federal custody. Sugriva asserted ownership; federal prosecutors characterized it as Antle’s alter ego. Those are opposing positions in litigation, not interchangeable findings of fact. Antle separately sought to challenge the chimpanzee forfeiture. The August reporting described those disputes as unresolved.
ㅤ
The public-facing question is therefore about meaningful change: who controls the operation, what has changed in its practices, and what independent evidence supports those changes? A different company name cannot answer those questions by itself.
ㅤ
What customers are being sold now
ㅤ
Myrtle Beach Safari’s website, reviewed October 16, 2026, advertises day tours starting at $389 per guest and photo encounters at $150 for a three-to-five-minute session. The photo package may involve a lemur, African cat, capuchin monkey or wolf, with no particular animal guaranteed.
ㅤ
The same website advertises private elephant-swimming and primate “Paint and Play” experiences starting at $7,000 for two guests. Its language centers on proximity, interaction and memorable photographs. These are advertised prices and offerings, not independently verified sales totals or proof that every listed activity occurs exactly as described.
ㅤ
The facility calls its animals ambassadors and presents visits as supporting conservation through the Rare Species Fund. Such claims deserve scrutiny alongside the federal record, which documented the use of purported donations to conceal wildlife transactions. A claimed conservation contribution does not, by itself, establish that a particular encounter is necessary or beneficial for the animal.
ㅤ
The big-cat law changed the menu—not every encounter
ㅤ
The Big Cat Public Safety Act, enacted December 20, 2022, prohibits exhibitors from allowing public contact with covered big cats, including cubs. Its listed species include tigers, lions and cheetahs; it does not cover every wild cat. Servals and caracals are outside that species list.
ㅤ
That distinction helps explain why a business historically associated with cub petting can continue marketing other animal encounters. It also matters when evaluating photographs: a recently posted tiger-cub image is not sufficient evidence of a recent encounter. Its capture date and circumstances must be established before alleging a current violation.
ㅤ
The public supplies more than ticket money
ㅤ
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime identifies consumer demand as a central driver of wildlife trafficking. In an encounter business, customers buy access to animals rather than ownership of them. The ethical concern is the commercial incentive created when wildlife becomes a product people repeatedly pay to touch, hold or pose beside.
ㅤ
Antle’s federal case provides documented evidence of illegal animal acquisition connected to this operation. That does not establish that every contemporary encounter involves a trafficked animal. It does establish why customers should examine the history behind the experience being sold.
ㅤ
Promotion matters too. A 2011 experimental study found that photographs showing chimpanzees beside humans increased their appeal as pets and distorted perceptions of their conservation status. The study did not measure bookings at Myrtle Beach Safari, but it demonstrates why apparently affectionate imagery can communicate unintended messages about wild animals.
ㅤ
A smiling photograph cannot show the animal’s full day, whether participation was avoidable, or what lifelong care looks like when public attention fades. Nor can it establish what the visitors knew. The responsibility discussed here is collective and practical: spending, recommendations and celebratory posts can help sustain demand.
ㅤ
When concern becomes a consumer decision
ㅤ
Operators remain responsible for their conduct. Regulators remain responsible for enforcement. Customers also have a choice about what they finance and promote—especially once a business’s documented history is available to them.
ㅤ
Before booking, ask for evidence of lawful animal sourcing, independent welfare oversight, freedom for animals to withdraw from interactions, and transparent lifetime-care arrangements. Ask what measurable conservation outcome requires the visitor to touch the animal. If those questions cannot be answered convincingly, declining the encounter is a meaningful response.
ㅤ
On a Positive Note
ㅤ
The public can redirect demand toward experiences that value distance, natural behavior and habitat protection. Support for conservation and lifelong care need not depend on access to an animal’s body.
ㅤ
A ticket is more than admission. It is financial support for the business behind the encounter.
Related Reading:
Doc Antle, Four Chimpanzees--And A Fight To Get Them Back
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.
