Sri Lanka is a biodiversity hotspot with high human density that contributes to increasing human-monkey conflict (HMC). In 50 years of primate studies there, the development of HMC has been documented, and many workshops and interventions organized to ameliorate HMC. These activities prompted the present survey. In the extensive lowland dry zone of Sri Lanka, the affected nonhuman primates are the toque macaque, gray and purple-faced langurs and slender loris. We surveyed and evaluated the attitudes of rural residents towards these four species in an effort to contribute to an ethnoprimatological approach to conservation, i.e., promote a coexistence and sharing of habitat between humans and monkeys. We selected 13 villages near Polonnaruwa, located centrally in the dry zone. The four nonhuman primate species differ in their behavioral ecologies, and this influenced how frequently they were thought of as pests. Most HMC was with the macaque and gray langur, less with the purple-faced langur and least with the loris. The underlying sentiment among stakeholders towards monkeys was generally either neutral or positive. Nonetheless, the majority (80%) of people desired a translocation of the troublesome monkeys from their properties to protected areas, which is impractical. Few (< 1%) openly wanted monkeys destroyed. While a traditional reverence for monkeys provides a solid basis for science and media-based education, it also contributes to the feeding of monkeys and consequent unnatural population growth, and enhanced HMC. Public understanding of the underlying causes of HMC was poor, hindering effective solutions. A combination of a feeding ban, possibly contraceptive intervention at localized HMC trouble spots, and extensive education may be the only benign alternatives to the destruction of wild primates by a powerful minority. Coexistence through strengthening and expansion of exclusive suitable protected habitats for all wildlife is a priority.

Many investigators of human-monkey competition (HMC) in Sri Lanka have revealed some common threads. Except at temple and protected sites, all monkeys were considered as household or agricultural pests wherever they shared space with humans. This included the widely distributed toque macaque (<i>Macaca sinica</i>), the grey langur (<i>Semnopithecus priam thersites</i>) of the Dry Zone, and the purple-faced langur (<i>S. vetulus</i>) of the southwestern and central rain forests where human densities and habitat fragmentation were greatest. People sharing space with monkeys resorted to various non-lethal methods to chase monkeys away from their properties and most preferred to have monkeys removed to protected areas; such translocations have been politically popular, though contrary to ecological principles. The main cause of HMC near primate habitats has been environmental conversion to agriculture, whereas in many towns the refuse generated in the wake of widespread growing tourism lured omnivorous macaques towards human habitation and stimulated macaque population growth. While most Sri Lankans share space with monkeys reluctantly, only a minority, flouting cultural restraints, want monkeys destroyed. Nonetheless, a major threat to primate conservation has been habitat loss and the killing of monkeys, especially in the densely populated southwestern area of the island where recent surveys showed that most macaques have been wiped out. Two subspecies, <i>S. v. nestor</i> of the rain forest lowlands and <i>M. s. opisthomelas</i> of the montane forests, are Critically Endangered. Sharing space with monkeys rests on public tolerance, understanding, and empathy with monkeys. Religious concepts venerating monkeys provide fertile ground for this. Our science-based educational documentaries (<i>n</i> &#x3e; 35), among other efforts, also have contributed to these human sentiments in Sri Lanka and globally. The trends in HMC suggest that protected nature reserves for all wildlife are more secure for primate survival than ethnoprimatology by itself would be. Rudran [<i>Folia Primatologica</i> 2021, DOI: 10.1159/000517176] criticized our recent publication on HMC in Sri Lanka [Dittus et al., <i>Folia Primatologica</i> 2019, 90: 89–108]. We consider his comments as misconstruing efforts in primate conservation through denying the importance of traditional protected areas, overlooking our achievements in educating the public and reducing HMC, as well as misunderstanding the limits of marketing monkeys to tourists as a source of income to support conservation.