Copy sent to Premier of Western Cape Helen Zille,
Executive Mayor Dan Plato, Executive Deputy Mayor Ian Neilson
CAPE
TOWN'S CHACMA BABOONS -
WHO AND WHAT
WILL PROTECT THEM?
Who
will protect Cape Town's baboons?: Youngster
is held by female Chacma baboon as baby shelters beneath protective
male baboon. Currently, the Peninsula's
baboons urgently need protection from new management strategies and
decisions.
Female Chacma baboons are caring mothers and males make excellent fathers, tolerant and highly protective of their young.
However, when it comes to human "care" and "tolerance" of the "protected" baboons of the Cape Peninsula, they currently appear under great threat. This is due to controversial management changes and strategies together with questionable scientific recommendations and/or endorsements.
Included is the highly controversial new protocol or "Action plan for dispersing males and/or repeat raiders" that could potentially be used to cull any baboon coming into urban areas or eating human food, thereby removing baboons' protected status.
The Peninsula baboons' natural habitat has shrunk. Baboons do enter their formerly uninhabited territory but if residents secure bins and properties, this presents no problem to them, even living numerous years without a single baboon incursion.
In July 2009, public concern was raised after an interim baboon monitoring contract was awarded, amidst allegations of a flawed process and politicking, away from Jenni Trethowan's Baboon Matters to another service provider, NatConCor, previously employed by the City, under a former administration, to run several City reserves.
Members of the public widely acknowledge that Trethowan has shown utmost dedication and concern for the baboons' welfare over many years, beginning when a troop of 18 Kommetjie baboons was shot by Cape Nature Conservation (now CapeNature) in 1990. She ran the monitoring program for over a decade in an effort to minimize conflict between residents and baboons, training monitors to herd animals away from the urban areas to forage in the hills. Baboon presence in urban areas was reduced by 85%.
Those who oppose baboon presence in residential areas are often extremely vocal, displaying heated emotions regarding baboons, but it should be very clearly understood by authorities that many other residents actually welcome the occasional visit by baboons, appreciating it as part of living in a more natural setting and a privilege to see free-ranging wildlife.
While many show tolerance for baboons and their situation, others have not been as understanding. A number of baboons have been killed or injured. Baboons are riddled with pellets and projectiles. They have dogs set on them, they are whipped, hit with sticks and stones. They are ridden over.
Despite claims to the contrary by NatConCor and supporters, baboons continue to come into residential areas where they continue to be hurt by residents. On 20 November 2009, an adult male was ridden over in broad daylight on the road next to a well-known baboon sleeping site, his facial features terribly mangled as a result of the impact.
While his identity is yet to be officially confirmed by BRU and NatConCor, there is evidence suggesting this latest victim could be Anele, son of Eric, Cape Town's oldest baboon, one of the young males tagged and targeted by the new protocol as a "dispersing male". (Anele was moved into the area by BRU earlier in the year contrary to advice given by Baboon Matters.)
Tagged
for death - dispersing males or disappearing males?:
In terms of the new protocol, "dispersing males" leaving
their natal troop for 72 hours {or less}, may be tagged
for culling. Anele, pictured above, was one of those tagged,
however it is suspected he may be the baboon
recently ridden over and killed. Whether by actions of
residents or by new management strategies, Cape
Town's Chacma baboons are in danger.
At the baboon expert workshop hosted by the City with CapeNature, BRU's Dr O'Riain endorsed the use of whips and bear bangers in monitoring. When implemented in September, supposedly as a noise aversion technique, it caused an outcry including from Alan Perrins, CEO of the SPCA. Usage is subject to possible abuse and also sends a wrong message to residents that whips (or weapons) are permitted to be used on baboons. Despite protests, whips are still in use for at least one troop. {In December an announcement was made that they would be re-introduced, together with plastic pipes to hit on the ground, according to Natasha WIlson of CapeNature, chairwoman of the BMT, under "strict control". However, monitors are for the most part alone with the baboons.}
Although legally protected, with fines in place, few prosecutions have occurred in the past to discourage residents' illegal behaviour against baboons, with some residents thinking it acceptable to even openly hurt the baboons, often leading others to follow their example.
Now the protocol threatens to completely strip baboons of any protected status they may have had by defining them as "dispersing males and/or repeat raiders” eating human food in urban areas. In terms of the protocol, they can be killed from the 2nd to 4th capture. Many residents, as "repeat non-securers", fail to take the simple steps of effectively securing their garbage or properties which also helps avoid potential conflict. As any baboon will predictably eat available food, the protocol is a potential death sentence for any of the Peninsula's baboons.
The protocol also targets "dispersing males" who may leave the troop for more than 72 hours {or less} and come into the urban setting, often difficult to avoid given the Peninsula's urban layout, for example in the home ranges of the Kommetjie and Da Gama Park troops. (Males may also simply leave the troop temporarily as a result of fights over dominance in the hierarchically structured troop to avoid further injuries, fully intending to return, yet they can now be processed for culling if they do so.)
Several males have been ear-tagged, the first step in the culling process, including Anele and Bart, who has gained considerable fame and fans by frequenting UCT campus, despite the death threat hanging over him. Up to now he has avoided the lethal dart, although he is still actively being pursued for darting and culling.
Not posing a threat to anyone, and popular amongst students, scientists of the Baboon Research Unit stationed there have undoubtedly played a role in threatening Bart's future by proposing and/or endorsing a number of the controversial recommendations and strategies now implemented and used as back-up by the authorities.
An apparent dichotomy exists with BRU publically congratulating itself on producing a digitised map of baboon home ranges presented both to the City and Department of Environment and Planning. "We at BRU regard this as the single most important step in the conservation and management of baboons on the Cape Peninsula." Yet, on the other hand BRU has also been responsible for controversial recommendations as well as preparation and endorsement of the very protocol which currently threatens the conservation of so many of the Peninsula's baboons.
Although baboons are wild animals, any conflict is usually predictably related to food or threatening, confrontational human actions that should have, wisely, been avoided in the first place. Experts agree baboon reactions towards humans are remarkably restrained, given the size of their canines, a natural defence against their primary natural predator, the leopard, and also used in fighting with other males for dominance. (A number of the male baboons, like Bart, have lost some canine teeth in fights, BRU now also classifying them as “low quality males”, despite the fact they are functioning well, even as Alpha males, and neither tooth loss nor parasites are seen as any reason for culling by primatologists.)
There have long been those who oppose baboon presence in urban areas - but then they may also have problems with penguins, porcupines or guinea fowl. In the first half of 2009 some residents, wanting baboons totally removed from the urban area, made claims that baboons could possibly-perhaps-maybe be a threat to human safety sometime in the future.
"What if a baboon kills a child?" they asked. "Can we shoot baboons in self-defense?", one Simonstown woman queried the authorities, giving the impression that baboons were a very real threat to human security and safety, necessitating the urgent action of authorities - even prior to any incident having occurred.
The media ran a number of letters and articles at the time including quoting sources known to be against baboons in the urban area, giving the impression of residents being under siege. At the time the monitor program had not received funding for several areas which obviously did mean baboon presence would have been more prevalent - again proving monitoring efficacy.
However, accusing baboons of potentially threatening future human security and safety could be seen as a very biased approach against the baboons, particularly if authorities were to act on information that was not accurate, leading them to make flawed and even fatal decisions regarding the baboon's future.
The issue of baboons being presented as a potential threat to human safety and security in stakeholders' decisions should not be overlooked, as it has been mentioned as determining the baboons' future, including in closing comments at the baboon expert workshop by Cllr Marian Nieuwoudt, a driving force behind the July workshop.
Ironically, it is the baboons who right now are facing a greater threat than ever before to their own safety and security. More than ever Cape Town's baboons are in need of protection, not only from residents, but now also from management strategies and decisions which are putting the already endangered baboon population of around 400 at risk, aiming to reduce their numbers even more. (Aside from other baboon deaths, 10 breeding age adults have been killed this year, including by cars.)
Who and what will protect Cape Town's Chacma baboons? They are a popular tourist tourist attraction, they are enjoyed by many locals, they play a role in biodiversity, are a natural heritage and have been described in the past by the City as a “major asset” of Cape Town.
In November 2009, Cape Town received an international Virgin Holidays Responsible Tourism Award in the Best Destination Category, accepted by Executive Deputy Mayor Ian Neilson on behalf of the City. Perhaps individual "responsibility" is the key to attaining a viable solution to baboon management:-
Individual responsibility in baboon management includes:-
-
stakeholders such as the City, CapeNature, SANParks accepting
individual responsibility for sourcing reliable funding for the
monitoring program rather than considering the easier, cheaper option
of culling baboons. (In giving his presentation at the expert
workshop, Dr O'Riain stated the City had asked him to speak on
culling.) The City is currently the sole contributor of funds;
- scientists realising their responsibility is not to merely look at baboons from an experimental, research or data collection point of view but as intelligent living creatures that experience pain and suffering if scientific recommendations influencing management practices are not in their best interests. Realising that if their recommendations are flawed yet followed by authorities, the Peninsula baboons, here since before human settlement in the Cape, could be affected adversely, both in the short and long term, either as individuals or as a whole. A map of baboon home ranges will mean nothing if the baboons are no longer free-ranging as a result of being culled ;
- residents assuming responsibility for effective baboon-proofing instead of blaming baboons for raids. If some residents can live for numerous years without baboon incursions into bin and house, this proves it can be done. Landlords should also assume responsibility for baboon-proofing properties before renting out;
- estate agents taking the responsibility of informing people that baboons frequent the area and exactly what this means in real terms, so that people do not move into an area only to find they do not wish to make lifestyle adjustments, then become frustrated with baboons and the residents who tolerate baboons.
Given that the Chacma baboons are indigenous to the Cape and that they are part of a natural heritage, people who move into areas already frequented by the baboons, should not be permitted to lobby for their removal as has occurred.
Perhaps the urban areas baboons pass through should be officially zoned as "baboon friendly", so people will know that baboons passing through are expected to be tolerated and treated humanely, rather than seeing them as invaders of human space to be treated as vermin. Often those mistreating the animals, erroneously think their attitudes are shared by the majority of residents who may fear to confront or report them if already aggressive, spurring them to further unapposed illegal actions;
- law enforcement being willing to assume responsibility to ensure accountability of residents who mistakenly and arrogantly think they are in the right to injure baboons by any means, at times also endangering the safety and security of neighbours and pets when shooting in residential areas, creating an atmosphere of aggression and harrassment not only directed towards baboons, but to those who appear tolerant of them;
- those entrusted with physically managing the baboons accepting their responsibility and realising that much of a baboon troop is comprised of vulnerable and sensitive youngsters as well as females, that baboons are easily stressed, are affected by how they are treated both physically and psychologically, both in the short and long term, both as individuals and as a troop and therefore need to be treated humanely and with respect. The use of whips traumatises youngsters and could even possibly provoke aggression in adult males if they feel their young threatened, given their highly protective role.
Service provider management also has a responsibility to treat the public, concerned about the welfare of baboons, with politeness, sensitivity and transparency. NatConCor was recently approached for information regarding the baboon ridden over on 20 November. Although the baboon's features were severely mangled by the impact of the car, a director e-mailed the response "No head. Car accident" conjuring up the image of decapitation. When this statement was queried, he did not respond. On hearing about the baboon's death from someone at the scene, he responded by asking was it "usable" and could it be "stuffed", statements seen as a. inaccurate and b. unnecessarily insensitive given the circumstances.
At other times, NatConCor management have point-blank refused to answer questions regarding their treatment of baboons, including a proposed trapping of a baboon in a cage trap with a large metal hook in a public area, following complaints of repeat raiding by a shop-owner who refuses to baboon-proof. The baboon acquired an injury requiring stitching around the same period, for which there has been no explanation by NatConCor, raising questions as to whether it occurred as a result of the trapping. (CapeNature's Natasha Wilson has also not answered questions on the incident nearly two months later.)
The shop remains without baboon-proofing, in terms of the protocol, an open invitation and a death-trap. Given the protocol of culling, why did NatConCor not instruct the owner to baboon-proof his premises?
- scientists realising their responsibility is not to merely look at baboons from an experimental, research or data collection point of view but as intelligent living creatures that experience pain and suffering if scientific recommendations influencing management practices are not in their best interests. Realising that if their recommendations are flawed yet followed by authorities, the Peninsula baboons, here since before human settlement in the Cape, could be affected adversely, both in the short and long term, either as individuals or as a whole. A map of baboon home ranges will mean nothing if the baboons are no longer free-ranging as a result of being culled ;
- residents assuming responsibility for effective baboon-proofing instead of blaming baboons for raids. If some residents can live for numerous years without baboon incursions into bin and house, this proves it can be done. Landlords should also assume responsibility for baboon-proofing properties before renting out;
- estate agents taking the responsibility of informing people that baboons frequent the area and exactly what this means in real terms, so that people do not move into an area only to find they do not wish to make lifestyle adjustments, then become frustrated with baboons and the residents who tolerate baboons.
Given that the Chacma baboons are indigenous to the Cape and that they are part of a natural heritage, people who move into areas already frequented by the baboons, should not be permitted to lobby for their removal as has occurred.
Perhaps the urban areas baboons pass through should be officially zoned as "baboon friendly", so people will know that baboons passing through are expected to be tolerated and treated humanely, rather than seeing them as invaders of human space to be treated as vermin. Often those mistreating the animals, erroneously think their attitudes are shared by the majority of residents who may fear to confront or report them if already aggressive, spurring them to further unapposed illegal actions;
- law enforcement being willing to assume responsibility to ensure accountability of residents who mistakenly and arrogantly think they are in the right to injure baboons by any means, at times also endangering the safety and security of neighbours and pets when shooting in residential areas, creating an atmosphere of aggression and harrassment not only directed towards baboons, but to those who appear tolerant of them;
- those entrusted with physically managing the baboons accepting their responsibility and realising that much of a baboon troop is comprised of vulnerable and sensitive youngsters as well as females, that baboons are easily stressed, are affected by how they are treated both physically and psychologically, both in the short and long term, both as individuals and as a troop and therefore need to be treated humanely and with respect. The use of whips traumatises youngsters and could even possibly provoke aggression in adult males if they feel their young threatened, given their highly protective role.
Service provider management also has a responsibility to treat the public, concerned about the welfare of baboons, with politeness, sensitivity and transparency. NatConCor was recently approached for information regarding the baboon ridden over on 20 November. Although the baboon's features were severely mangled by the impact of the car, a director e-mailed the response "No head. Car accident" conjuring up the image of decapitation. When this statement was queried, he did not respond. On hearing about the baboon's death from someone at the scene, he responded by asking was it "usable" and could it be "stuffed", statements seen as a. inaccurate and b. unnecessarily insensitive given the circumstances.
At other times, NatConCor management have point-blank refused to answer questions regarding their treatment of baboons, including a proposed trapping of a baboon in a cage trap with a large metal hook in a public area, following complaints of repeat raiding by a shop-owner who refuses to baboon-proof. The baboon acquired an injury requiring stitching around the same period, for which there has been no explanation by NatConCor, raising questions as to whether it occurred as a result of the trapping. (CapeNature's Natasha Wilson has also not answered questions on the incident nearly two months later.)
The shop remains without baboon-proofing, in terms of the protocol, an open invitation and a death-trap. Given the protocol of culling, why did NatConCor not instruct the owner to baboon-proof his premises?
Some have thought the decisions and "solutions" of the last months could be seen as avoiding the real issues of baboon management that should have begun to be solved at the baboon expert workshop, but which meeting instead preceded the current drastic changes in baboon management.
Although one would wish it not to be the case, such changes could easily be seen as "taking the easy way out" in terms of baboon management - simply culling any so-called "problem" baboons, thereby reducing not only baboon numbers, but "solving" the so-called "safety threat", some residents' vociferous complaints about baboons being in the neighbourhood, as well as reducing stakeholders' financial commitments. Be that as it may, often the seemingly quick and easy solutions have long-term negative effects, one of which would be the blot on Cape Town's international reputation of how it officially treats one of its most popular tourist attractions.
After four months of changed management and strategies, to many it appears that:
1. the
baboons have not benefited from being under new management, but have
in a number of instances shown signs of stress and trauma and are
currently as a whole threatened by management strategies. An
impression is left that NatConCor management does not have
appropriate or sufficient genuine concern for the baboons. Such
attitudes can easily filter down to staff.
2. residents still encounter baboons in urban areas, enjoyed by those who baboon-proof, resented by those who don't or who oppose baboon presence;
3. a revoking of the flawed changes and strategies adopted since July 2009 (including the protocol) is vital to protect the increasingly threatened baboons;
4. the monitoring contract needs to be placed once again into the hands of those who truly care for the baboons as individuals and as a whole and who are genuinely concerned about the baboons' welfare and health, physically and psychologically, both in the short and long term;
5. the entire matter needs to be looked at anew with fresh input from independent sources - scientists, primatologists, experts and residents - while focusing on the original problems that had previously needed addressing and resolution at the baboon expert workshop, namely that of funding, resident education, effective waste management and property security with law enforcement for hurting baboons.
2. residents still encounter baboons in urban areas, enjoyed by those who baboon-proof, resented by those who don't or who oppose baboon presence;
3. a revoking of the flawed changes and strategies adopted since July 2009 (including the protocol) is vital to protect the increasingly threatened baboons;
4. the monitoring contract needs to be placed once again into the hands of those who truly care for the baboons as individuals and as a whole and who are genuinely concerned about the baboons' welfare and health, physically and psychologically, both in the short and long term;
5. the entire matter needs to be looked at anew with fresh input from independent sources - scientists, primatologists, experts and residents - while focusing on the original problems that had previously needed addressing and resolution at the baboon expert workshop, namely that of funding, resident education, effective waste management and property security with law enforcement for hurting baboons.
In a not entirely transparent process, with BRU still denying it is a protocol for "culling", by means of the protocol authorities have been given carte blanche to cull any of the Peninsula's baboons they may choose on the basis of being "dispersing males and/or repeat raiders", using scientific recommendations to back up the process which are slammed by other scientists, primatologists and experts.
By means of the protocol for "Dispersing males and/or repeat raiders" prepared by BRU on 19 August 2009, baboons are no longer protected.
Rather than removing legal protection from the Peninsula baboons, solutions need to be sought that do not threaten or endanger Cape Town's Chacma baboons' survival but effectively protect them as individuals and as a whole.
25 November, 2009
Lorna Thomas
All rights reserved 2009
All Content Copyright 2009-2010
All Rights reserved L Thomas
No portion of content may be reproduced in any way without written permission
