These consequences are a daily war against wildlife and within the strongly divided community. We need a more ethical, legal and holistic community-supported approach to human-wildlife coexistence.
I would like to respond to Fran Gebhardt’s article, “Mistakes of past decades must be rectified or there will be no wild baboons left”, which raises several concerns.
Specifically, I object to the normalisation and condoning of reckless human misbehaviour, such as the improper disposal of primate attractants and hazardous materials. Furthermore, I disagree with the presumption that there is so much healthy, suitable space on the Cape Peninsula for entire baboon troops to be relocated to or pushed towards, with the assumption that they will remain there and thrive.
On 2 August 2024, a few days after the male ‘Junior’ was removed from the Waterfall troop under JTT management, a nursing female and her baby were repeatedly paintballed. She was shot directly in her right arm, left ear and face, all of which violated the standard operational procedure. (Source: Green Group Simon’s Town)
Finally, and even more concerningly, her article is promoting a baboon-proof electric fence without waiting for the relevant authorities to publish an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. By doing so, Gebhardt is prematurely rallying public support for a solution that may have unintended and potentially devastating consequences, bypassing the essential evaluation process that ensures environmental safety and responsible decision-making.
The construction of a fence to contain baboons on the mountain poses a multitude of potential risks and consequences. In the regular occurrence of fires, the fence could become a deadly trap, for wildlife and people. Also, poachers may take the opportunity to exploit the inaccessible areas. In addition, beyond the immediate dangers, the fence could disrupt the natural migration patterns of wildlife, precluding their access to vital food sources, breeding grounds and corridors. Furthermore, there would be a substantial financial burden on the public, for maintaining the fence and remunerating the fence rangers. The risk of vandalism and damage would only add to the costs. The visual impact of the fence might also affect property values.
How are these risks going to be prevented and mitigated? Why should residents opt for a fence when these mitigation measures have not been properly thought out and published for consideration?
The current baboon management suffers from a lack of transparency, and accountability, with crucial data being deliberately withheld. Decision-making is concealed, disregarding the opinions of many stakeholders. Consultations fail to present various holistic options and a range of reasonable essential rules for public compliance. Instead, they propose a single pre-established solution, expecting public acceptance. However, the court has been very clear about what constitutes meaningful public consultation.
In the peninsula, a top-down approach, led by renowned scientists from the University of Cape Town, informs decisions and guidelines. Yet, this structure limits opportunities for diverse perspectives. In consultation with the scientists, the Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team (JTT) – comprising CapeNature, the City of Cape Town (CoCT) and SANParks – is, then, the decision maker. The JTT, though, is an agreement between parties and not a legal entity in itself, thus avoiding accountability. Under the cooperative governance framework, government entities can in fact collaborate, but this can sometimes foster a culture of mutual protection in cases of negligence or wrongdoing.
We must understand why simply removing them is not only cruel but detrimental, and also ineffective, failing to address the root causes of the problem, mostly human-caused.
Notably, the protocols and guidelines that outline the methods, procedures and tools for managing baboons were not subject to public consultation. These guidelines – such as the BTTG03 on managing damage-causing baboons – overlook critical aspects of animal well-being, for instance in a post-fire scenario. In the case of removal, they have no consideration of how such removals will impact the dynamic and well-being of the troop. Therefore, they might be outdated and inconsistent with the recent requirements of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004. Such protocols fail to account for the escalating threat of devastating wildfires, which necessitate adaptive behaviours and movement patterns, including across corridors, for species survival and recovery. This oversight potentially compromises animal well-being.
Under the instructions of the JTT is, then, a private service provider, funded by the CoCT with ratepayers’ money. This private company operates under a veil of secrecy, shielded by privacy policies that prevent transparency and accountability of their business. With a blanket permit from CapeNature, this provider executes the JTT’s directives and predetermined agenda, without any opportunity for scrutiny, exacerbating concerns about unchecked decision-making and potential neglect of animal well-being.
The service provider’s monthly reports, published on their website, lack crucial information, such as, for example, stress hormone test results, which might allow a comparison of stress levels between managed and unmanaged troops; other unpublished data could be population trends, including troop numbers, dynamics, gender ratios, numbers of births and deaths, and the reasons. Despite public requests under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 to access this missing information, such important data has not been made available and was refused in full by the CoCT.
Read more: Community baboon monitoring project in Cape Town claims pushback from authorities
Read more: Baboon activists launch legal action seeking better management of troops in the Cape
As we move forward, it’s essential to have an open and honest conversation about the future of baboon management, with data and evidence at hand. We would also need to hear from experts, scientists and authorities about the crucial role these animals play in maintaining the delicate balance of our ecosystems. We must understand why simply removing them is not only cruel but detrimental, and also ineffective, failing to address the root causes of the problem, mostly human-caused.
The unintended consequences of the current management are a daily war against wildlife and within the strongly divided community. Officials shooting paintballs, injured baboons, resident conflicts, gun shooting, fights, road rages and intentional killing of healthy wildlife are highly questionable and immoral outcomes.
We need a more ethical, legal and holistic community-supported approach to human-wildlife coexistence. This includes enforcing policies and legislation, considering animal and people’s well-being, and ultimately addressing the duty of care emphasised in our national environmental policies, as well as the underlying causes of baboons searching for any food they can eat. DM