Update on Hunting Permits in Constantia

Update on Hunting Permits in Constantia

Update on Hunting Permits in Constantia

by Jenni Trethowan

When the Constantia Bulletin broke the news on 4 July 2018 that Cape Nature had issued permits to two vineyards to hunt up to two baboons per day, there was shock and confusion – confusion as we had always believed that the Cape peninsula baboons were protected from hunting, and shock that permits issued for one year would allow 2 baboons per day to be hunted. But more than that, there was outrage that right here in our own backyards baboons were being killed by commissioned professional hunters.

Following on from a well-attended protest action and as a result of letters of demand issued by the Cape Party, Buitenverwachting voluntarily withdrew its permits, and we are told that subsequently Klein Constantia has also withdrawn their permit.

In the ensuing weeks there has been a great deal of activity but the overall situation reflects a lack of information and what seems to be a steadily increasing number of unaccounted for baboons.

Here is what we know:

When the story broke it was reported that 7 baboons had been killed and that the elderly and weak had been targeted to emulate predation. Secondary media articles noted that specific damage causing baboons had been targeted, and from communications it seems that a semi-paralyzed male, and elderly female and an “injured” baboon had been identified as “problem” baboons and were some of the seven baboons killed. It is not clear if baboons were being targeted as “damage causing” or to reduce overall numbers.

Note that at this stage we were getting information only from the media as the BTT made no public statement.

When the service provider report for June 2018 was released, there was no mention of hunting permits, only that “some baboons had been removed”. But it was noted that 20 baboons were “missing”.

The HWS July 2018 report and the Annual Report for 2018 gave updated population tables and the ground count and census undertaken in June 2018 by HWS staff. From these reports is was clear that the situation was worse than had been initially reported. The population table (pg. 10 of the Annual Report) shows that despite 37 deaths in the northern population from July 2017 – June 2018, it was expected that the population of the northern troops would be 255 baboons – yet only 211 baboons were found.

Of huge concern is the dramatic decrease in the numbers of adult male. In her census of 2015, E Beamish recorded 31 adult males, however the June 2018 count found only 7 adult males – a loss of 24 adult male baboons over 3 years!

So from initial reports of 7 baboons killed, we move from 20 “missing” baboons to now 40 “missing” baboons.

But we are also “missing” a great deal of information. I am not alone in requesting information – various animal welfare organizations, civic groups and many concerned individuals have written to all the authorities asking for facts. We have requested detail such as: minutes of meetings where is issuance of permits was discussed/agreed/debated; attendance registers and agenda; communication detailing which baboon deterrents had been trialed on the affected vineyards; why electric fences at two locations appear to have failed in comparison to the Zwaanswyk electric fence where baboons are kept out of the area for a reported 98.8% of time.

We asked for details of recorded damage caused by baboons that would have led to Cape Nature issuing seemingly unrestricted permits allowing 2 baboons to be killed per day for one year.

We have also requested detail of the hunts – when did they take place, what were the ages and sexes of baboons killed.

The Cape Animal Rights Forum has used the Public Access to Information Act (PAIA) and requested specific detail. In terms of the Act, the City of Cape Town, Cape Nature and TMNP have 90 days to supply requested information, so although the request was sent weeks ago, we do not expect any detailed response until the time limit is up in October.

But the collective animal welfare organizations’ have also been proactive in offering help to try and shed some light on what the City of Cape Town has referred to as a “phenomenon” – the 40 “missing” baboons.

Baboon Matters has volunteered to count the northern troops to establish an independent ground count, and our colleagues from Prime Crew have offered their valuable time to assist – one would have thought that the TMNP and BTT would have been grateful to have had a joint team effort with experienced staff to pool their knowledge and proactively take on the immediate and necessary hours of ground work at no cost or detriment to themselves.

But our request to the BTT was deferred to TMNP, who said they had their own research personnel who could undertake the work, yet have not. Our further offer to assist was referred back to the BTT and our subsequent direct request for permission to count the troops has been ignored thus far.

We have been asked why we need permission to count the baboons. Well TMNP has made it very clear to me that all visitors to the TMNP have to remain on designated paths at all times – or face prosecution. Clearly the baboons do not remain on designated paths and so we would need access to the baboons, wherever they roam, to effectively count them.

So, in conclusion – the numbers of baboons killed or “missing” has risen from 7 to 20 to now 39 or 40 (I remain unclear on the actual final figure). We have received minimal information from the BTT and requests for an investigation into the disappearance of 40 baboons who are managed during daylight hours, 365 days per year need to be addressed.

The City officials have not answered any communications sent by Baboon Matters in the past 3 – 4 weeks.

Baboon Management in Cape Town needs a Management Plan!

Baboon Management in Cape Town needs a Management Plan!

Modern-day problems require modern solutions …

by Jenni Trethowan

The recent furor surrounding the issuance of permits that allowed professional hunters to kill baboons on two Constantia vineyards has highlighted the biggest problem with baboon management on the Cape peninsula – that there is no management plan for this isolated population of chacma baboons.

It has been interesting to note that, typically, when issues to do with baboons arise, the City of Cape Town immediately issues a media release on behalf of the Baboon Technical Team, a “co-operative” arrangement between role players of the City of Cape Town, Table Mountain National Park and Cape Nature who are guided by scientific input from the Baboon Research Unit of UCT and by welfare for the baboons from the Cape of Good Hope SPCA).

However, in the Constantia hunting case, there has been complete silence from the co-operative BTT, effectively leaving Cape Nature to defend the issuance of permits in isolation of overall baboon management on the Cape peninsula. We have witnessed individual role players actively diving for cover, denying knowledge of the permits or merely reiterating their mandates and roles in an attempt to defer any blame.

The BTT reportedly liaises with civic groups and residents through the Baboon Liaison Group and although neither the BTT nor the BLG have Terms of Reference, active constitutions or mandates, the two organizations meet regularly to discuss baboon management. However minutes of these meetings are continuously unavailable to the general public.

We are told that during the course of BTT/BLG meetings in 2017, the long held belief that baboons were protected from hunting on the Cape peninsula was dismissed and it was clarified that private landowners could in fact obtain permits to kill baboons through the permit process of Cape Nature. None of this information was conveyed to civic or interest groups.

Following on from the discussion of permits, it has been confirmed that at a meeting of both BTT and BLG on 9 November 2017, Cape Nature communicated the “issuance of permits” for two vineyards – Klein Constantia and Buitenverwachting.

We are informed that all role players of both the BLG and BTT, including BRU and CGHSPCA were present at that meeting and all role players were aware that the vineyards could now use professional hunters to kill up to 2 baboons per day (according to the Cape Nature “bag limit”).

From media reports and discussions with some of the involved parties, it seems that both Klein Constantia and Buitenverwachting felt that they had attempted all possible baboon- proofing and that there was no other solution available to them to resolve on-going conflicts.

Although the implementation of baboon-proofing and which aversion tactics were in fact utilized by the two vineyards can be questioned, it does seem that the only overall BTT “strategy” that exists, is to keep baboons away from humans – but how this “strategy” is accomplished appears to be at the discretion of individual land owners, leaving gaping holes in effective overall management.

The absence of an overall management plan, that should encompass the differing mandates, laws and regulations that govern the three authorities, has allowed the many differences of opinion and implementation of tactics to hamper effective long-term management.

In an open letter to the Constantia Bulletin, John Green, the long term chairman of the Baboon Liaison Group, denied any knowledge of the permits. In his letter he noted that successive fires had resulted in baboons coming closer to the urban edge and he specifically mentioned the fires of 2000, 2005 and 2015. He noted that the 2015 fire “had a huge additional impact: overnight the main food supply from the pines disappeared….”. John Green noted that after the 2015 fire the baboons “resisted moving up the mountain as the fynbos had been destroyed and the cold winter months were approaching.”

It would seem logical that the fires, the clear-felling of the plantation and the extreme drought, which would have impeded fynbos recovering after the fires, have all resulted in baboons seeking food in the lower plantations and in the vineyards. However, the chief scientific advisor to the BTT, Prof O’Riain stated that the fires “created a windfall of food, as the pine trees released their seeds …”.

From urine and fecal samples collected, the Baboon Research Unit was convinced that one month after the fire of 2015 the baboons were in a good nutritional state. It would be enlightening to see how their nutritional state has fared in the ensuing 36 months since the 2015 fires, with the clear felling removing a major food source and the drought stunting recovery of vegetation – have the baboons maintained a good ”nutritional state”? Are more recent findings available?

As the tendered service provider to the City of Cape Town, HWS provides monthly reports on the management of the ten troops under their care. The reports of 2017 into 2018 negated any concerns about food and water availability, and direct questions and concerns tabled to the conservation authorities were dismissed – we were told there was plenty of food and water for all ten troops.

Yet in the HWS annual report, Dr. Richardson makes specific mention of the impact of the fires, felling of pines and impact of the drought on vegetation – this is in direct contrast to their own monthly reports.

A key factor in strategizing and planning management of baboons should be sleep site areas, and on the Cape peninsula, baboons have utilized alien trees for not only food but also for sleep sites.

The Constantia Bulletin quoted Prof. O’Riain from a study published in 2011, whereby he warned the wine farmers that the “removal of pine trees on SANparks land through harvesting would result in baboons tracking the remaining large alien trees in the area. Given that most of those are on the wine farms, we warned of impending increase in baboon presence…….” . The statement goes on to say that BRU recommended removal of the alien trees, fencing and rangers. However, a recent visit to the area shows that the last groves of alien trees are all on the boundaries of the vineyards, or within the farms, and it seems that the troops actively use the areas as roosting sites – clearly such close proximity to the farms could see an increase in conflicts.

Buitenverwachting and Klein Constantia maintain that they have, collectively, installed 5,5km of electric fencing to keep the baboons out of their properties. From comments made by the vineyards, it seems, that trees on TMNP land frequently fall onto their fence line thereby allowing baboons access onto their lands.

If TMNP already has a policy of clear-felling, it would seem to make more sense, as part of an overall baboon management plan, to remove pines closest to the urban area first and leaving some temporary stands of pines on the upper stretches of the plantations, thus encouraging baboons to go back up the mountain for some food and also providing roosting sites away from farms and habitation.

However, SANparks are managing their land to the exclusion of all alien vegetation – regardless of impact on animals who have adapted to the trees over very extended periods of time, the lack of transitionary plans does appear to have impacted negatively on the baboons and the knock-on effect could be the increase in conflict with the vineyards.

The one common denominator in baboon management appears to be baboon rangers. The City of Cape Town employs a service provider whose rangers do their best to keep baboons out of urban areas. Yet even this service falls foul to differing mandates and implementation – the rangers work daily in Da Gama Park and Waterfall Barracks (Navy owned land), they traverse large tracts of privately owned land (such as Baskloof Nature Reserve, Solole and Kompaniestuin) to keep tabs of their various managed troops.

The City employed rangers work in residential areas (frequently going onto privately owned property) and on herd the troops on TMNP land daily – yet they are not “mandated” to work on the wine farms meaning that the service provider is left waiting for baboon troops outside the vineyards and are reliant on vineyard staff to work effectively to get the baboons safely out of the vineyards..

The problem with differing land owners working to their own mandates, rules and regulations is that there is no cohesive baboon management plan – badly managed waste on Navy land attracts baboons into the area; food waste attracts baboons into light industrial areas of Fish Eagle Park, and pine trees are a preferred roosting site and provide food – but the expectation is that as long as those attractions are on your land you must manage the situation.

For baboons the consequences of human mismanagement are dire – if baboons trespass or become “problematic” in their efforts to get to food, sleep sites or even water points – they can be killed. The Cape peninsula baboons face a variety of violent and aggressive outcomes, surrounded as they are by dense urbanization . Death by professional hunters, TMNP snipers, shot by pellet guns, mauled by dogs, hit by a car or electrocuted – not great options for our chacmas!

A grim observation is that when baboon management first stated in 2001, there were minimal budgets – the biggest allocation coming in 2007 of approximately R800 000, almost R8500 per “managed baboon” pa. However, in recently presented management data Prof. O’Riain stated the current R12 million p.a. equates to R25 000 per baboon pa.

Until mid-2009 only three (Slangkop, Da Gama and Scarborough) of the ten troops had daily monitors and management, and despite the restricted management an average of 26 baboons were killed annually on the Cape peninsula, with approximately 40% of deaths as a result of humans – cars, dogs and pellet guns being the main causes of deaths (E. Beamish Thesis 2010).

Conversely for the period 2012 – 2018, the numbers of baboons killed annually has almost doubled, with an average of 52 baboons killed p.a. Although the Human Induced Deaths (HID) may have dropped in the last two years, the numbers of deaths due to unknown causes have increased dramatically from 1 unknown cause in 2012 to 13 unknown causes in 2018. It seems unusual to be unable to cite the cause of death in daily managed troops and the fact that this category has risen so dramatically is cause for concern, and also cause to question the veracity of reporting.

What the figures seem to be showing us is that bigger budgets and more aggressive tactics have resulted in more deaths annually than in the period 2002 – 2009, suggesting that although there is a lot more money allocated, an encompassing management plan is desperately needed.

There has been talk of a steady population growth, yet this growth is contained mainly in the northern sector where the 4 troops have increased by 79 baboons over the 5.5 years of currently recorded data. In real terms this equates to an average increase of just 3 baboons per troop per annum.

In the six troops of the south, for the same period of 2012 to 2018, the total increase is 30 baboons – an average of 5 baboons per annum, over 6 troops. This slow population “increase” is evident in the Groot Olifantsbos troop, for example, where there was not one recorded birth over a three year period.

The baboon population must be viewed in light of ever encroaching urbanization as well as a realistic review of available natural forage after the successive fires and climate change impacts to the fynbos. Although previous studies indicate that the carrying capacity for baboons was much higher than the current population, these studies may need to be reviewed.

If the carry capacity of available land is indeed marginalized by landscape change there needs to be proactive planning in place now and successful birth control strategies need to be implemented before the population is deemed to be “out of control”. Immunocontraception has been used successfully in primate rehabilitation facilities, elephant herds and many wildlife management projects and could be implemented on the Cape peninsula instead of lethal management tools – this would be an effective way to ensure that the population does not exceed the carrying capacity of available land.

The lack of accountability for overall baboon management appears to suit the role players very well and the debatable decision handed down in the high court ruling of 2016 has merely endorsed an unwritten co-operative agreement that is not backed up by a documented and cohesive management plan.

The Table Mountain National Park is one of only two national parks surrounded by urban areas in the world and it is clear that managing an open access park will present many challenges not only for the park but also for the landowners abutting the park. It is essential that the buffer zone is implemented and that the co-operative agreement is translated into a meaningful management plan so that there is clear accountability and transparency.

The role-players of the Baboon Technical Team need to realise that the modern age, problems facing the isolated population of chacma baboons need modern solutions and that the outdated lethal management options are no longer acceptable to the general public who are increasingly aware of more ethical and sustainable alternatives.

Cape Town baboon management:  How legal is it?

Cape Town baboon management: How legal is it?

The legalities of Baboon management in Cape Town

by Jenni Trethowan

Towards the end of 2017, in response to our on-going requests for information, we heard that the existing protocols were being reviewed and would be available for public comment in early 2018.

Based on communication between Baboon Matters and the City of Cape Town, we were cautiously optimistic –  the protocol was being reviewed and one of the most pressing, on-going issues (that of waste management) was finally going to be addressed as a critical step in resolving baboon-related conflicts.

But the start of 2018 seemed eerily like a scene from a “Ground Hog Day” type movie – the scenario where the same situation plays out over and over again until eventually there is understanding and change.

The year started with Dodger being killed in terms of the protocol, and the response from residents of both Tokai and Capri, where Dodger had been encountered most commonly, was that of fury – how had well-intentioned calls to alert the service provider as to Dodger’s whereabouts been turned into “assertive raids” and “complaints” that resulted in the death of this gentle baboon?

Many residents wrote to the City of Cape Town stating their anger at the decision, and demanded an explanation and information about the proposed changes to the protocol. The official response from the Baboon Technical Team (made up of representatives from the City of Cape Town, Table Mountain National Park and Cape Nature) was to inform complainants that the new protocol would be released to the Baboon Liaison Group (the BLG represents residential associations) at their first meeting in 2018, rather than undertaking a public participation process before the protocol was adopted.

This all sounds terribly rational and it seems that all the boxes are ticked, but what is really happening behind the scenes?  The BLG should be reporting back to residents – yet, in response to a request for information, the chairman of the group has stated that “As chairman of the BLG, the policy is to confine communications to the other civic associations which are members of the BLG. Questions such as you raise below, should be referred to the managing authorities.”

It is not clear how the BLG communicates with the civic associations other than relying on area representatives who do attend some meetings to report back to some resident committee meetings.

The minutes of BLG and BTT meetings are not available to the general public – despite the fact that all of the members on the BLG and BTT represent residents or are paid civil servants and should be accountable to the public.

A point of concern is that members of the BLG are simply not prepared to disclose any information regarding meetings or decisions made within BLG meetings, and frequently our “area reps” get current information about baboons from “other sources” and not the BTT.

It is equally vexing that few residents know who their particular “area rep” actually is – and requests for a list of these and their contact details are met with stony silence.

The question of legality and responsibility for baboon management has been a hot potato since Wally Petersen first drew attention to the plight of  baboons in 1990 and the reality is that NONE of the relevant authorities want to be held accountable for baboon management.  The Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) argues that baboons are safe on their land and can stay there, and that if the residents have a problem with baboons in urban areas the City must be held accountable.  The City argues that TMNP should keep the baboons “in the park”  and out of villages – and so the argument goes back and forth.

When the City of Cape Town took the matter to the high court for a final legal ruling, the judge was persuaded by arguments detailing a “co-operative management agreement” between the authorities, and so he left the City with the financial burden. The other partners of the BTT got off scot-free as there is no written management plan and no written agreements, in fact the only  written document we can find is a single protocol  – “PROTOCOL for reducing the frequency and severity of raiding behaviour by chacma baboons on the Cape Peninsula, South Africa”.  In essence then, the only protocol for managing our baboons is the one that allows them to be killed.

It seemed to me that the high court judgement was illogical and perpetuated an unpalatable state of affairs, but I was not thinking like a member of the BTT – as a member of the BTT, the lack of written agreement, lack of management plan etc, is actually quite useful for the very reason that there is no legal accountability.

It is very confusing when we read press statements issued by the BTT as the media articles commonly refer to protocols (plural).  In a project of this size and scope, and with a budget of over R10 million pa, we would expect to see protocols for aspects such as training, skills development, care for sick and injured baboons, education, waste management etc.  But despite our numerous requests to see these documents (any documents….) we have consistently been referred back to the single protocol detailed above.

When we challenge the protocol and decisions resulting in the deaths of more baboons, we are informed that the protocol is “just a management guideline” – it has no legal standing. From monthly service provider reports, we cannot see how removing “problem baboons” has solved on-going raiding, in fact the December 2017 report showed that 12 “raiding baboons” had been killed in 2017 – an increase on the number of baboons killed in the previous 3 years.

This year started with the death of Dodger, making him the 70th baboon killed under the protocol, and unless we change the way dispersing male baboons are managed Dodger will be just one of an escalating number of male (and female) baboons killed under this flawed management guideline.

The protocol lists several mitigating circumstances, but to concerned residents these mitigating factors do not appear to be applied consistently. It seems that the system is merely a rubber-stamping method to “legitimately” get rid of “problem baboons”.  It is the Wildlife Advisory Committee (WAC) of Cape Nature who issues permits allowing baboons to be killed, but they maintain that not all requests for “removal” are approved, that each case is decided on its own merits and that mitigating circumstances are taken into consideration.

The WAC has the task of considering the case history of baboons that have been identified as problematic and based on their judgement either issues or declines permits for “problem baboons” to be killed.  The mitigating circumstances such as waste management, drought or fire-impacted landscapes do not have to be applied if WAC so decides, rather the “body of evidence” is weighed up and assessed.

On the face of it, we could assume that NO baboons should be killed under the protocol as waste management issues remain the highest cause of raiding behavior (from a review of all baboon raids recorded by HWS from October 2012 to Dec 2015) and waste management is a mitigating circumstance listed in three separate areas under the Protocol.

But before we head off and protest outside Cape Nature offices, consider the loopholes throughout this system – starting with poor waste management by residents, businesses and the City of Cape Town.

In addition, the Table Mountain National Park does not legally require permits to kill baboons on its land.  Rather, the TMNP has rules and regulations that allow them to make management decisions affecting the interests of state-owned national parks.

In effect, the TMNP has been killing baboons on behalf of the CoCT for many years now – Peter, Carpenter, Tammy, JJ, Moby, Sparky………the list goes on. These are baboons  shot by TMNP snipers on TMNP land for “raiding behavior” that happened in urban areas -i.e. City of Cape Town land.  So much for baboons being safe on TMNP land then?

When we made a request through the Public Access to Information Act (PAIA) to see the TMNP instructions and staff orders regarding the killing of baboons, our requests were denied and deferred to the City of Cape Town, even though the City cannot order TMNP staff to kill baboons.

In recent months and weeks we have been directing concerns – concerns now boiling over to outrage – to the City of Cape Town because the City is the authority who controls the budget, the City runs the tender process and should be ensuring that the project is well run.

But, in fact, all the members of the BTT are complicit, and unless we want to see this groundhog day scenario repeat over and over we have to change the process now.

Co-operative management agreements are useful for press and media statements and can certainly be used to make it appear that both the BLG and the BTT are working effectively and progressively for the well-being of our baboons, but unless there is accountability, the co-operative management disappears faster than water from Cape Town dams.

The current project is not without merit, but aspects of concern (such as water points for the baboons in this drought, veterinary care for sick and injured baboons, skills development for the rangers and a non-lethal approach to management) need to be addressed and a full management plan signed off by all members of the BTT.

Concerned residents and stakeholders have to be allowed to affect change to the protocol and be part of the drafting of a management plan for our baboons – this cannot be left to the authorities whose main aim is to dodge responsibility and hide behind the co-operative management façade.

We cannot rely on the Baboon Liaison Group to represent our concerns since this is not transparent and there is little communication from the BLG to residents.

So, it is going to be difficult to hold the BTT accountable to ethical and effective management for our baboons without full, energetic support from the residents, residents’ associations, businesses and tourism – as well as all animal welfare groups.

The process starts with you – if you are reading this, you are a stakeholder who can insist on change, and the changes need to apply to all the villages across the Western Cape and South Africa.

If we want to see baboons in the landscape in the future, the change starts now in 2018, any later is too late.

 

ADDENDUM:  On 10th February, just as we were due to publish this newsletter, the BTT, via their Facebook page Baboons of Cape Town, posted the new draft guidelines or protocols for baboon management in Cape Town.  

The lack of detail contained in these protocols, which the BTT admits have no legal standing and are to be considered as guidelines for day to day management,  serves to further demonstrate the urgent need for a proper management plan by which the BTT can be held accountable.The BTT claims that these protocols are aimed at encouraging socially responsible behavior by residents in baboon-affected areas, yet there is no detail on how this will be done –  there is no mention in the protocols for improved waste management, education of residents, improved training of monitors, training on paintball guns. 

 On the positive side, the BTT admits that the drafts are “evolving management tools”  but it is concerning that  the two important supporting documents (BTT Doc 1 and BTT Doc 2)  that the protocols refer to are still only classified as “work in progress” – it seems that  the priority should be  that there is a full management plan in place first, with areas of accountability signed off by all members of the BTT, including the TMNP.  Once there is an agreed  management plan “evolving management tools” would have more gravitas.

Update 14th February: The Baboon Technical Team (BTT) today informed the Baboon Liaison Group (BLG) that the meeting scheduled for 22nd Feb has been postponed, with no new date set.

You can view the draft protocols here

If, like us, you feel that baboon management in Cape Town needs to incorporate ethical treatment of these primates, to focus on managing waste which results in raiding, and not just on keeping baboons away from humans no matter the cost to baboons, please email julia.wood@capetown.gov.za, ebaard@capenature.co.za and lesley-ann.meyer@sanparks.org 

 

2018’s first baboon victim has been killed.

2018’s first baboon victim has been killed.

2018’s first victim of Cape Town’s flawed protocol for “removing” problem baboons has been killed.

by Jenni Trethowan

Dodger was a young dispersing male from the Slangkop troop who first showed up in the Da Gama troop home range in October. Dispersing to new troops is vital to keep troop gene pools strong – even more so on the Peninsula where traditional migration routes on or off the Peninsula have long been cut off by urban sprawl.

His attempts to join the Da Gama troop and oust the current alpha were marked by some typical fights – in the wild he would have retreated away from the troop to recover and re-strategise before his next attempt, but in Cape Town, with ever-shrinking natural habitat, the only place he could retreat to was the urban edge of Capri. Under normal circumstances this process of joining a new troop can take many months, but our males are simply not given enough time to settle down.

At the beginning of December, he was trapped and we were told he would be tagged and collared and released again, but we subsequently learnt that the authorities had planned euthanise him – it was only because of the concern expressed publicly by many people that he was instead relocated to Tokai.

Of course he never stood a chance there, and it was only a matter of time before his luck ran out. Plucked from familiar territory and placed somewhere completely un-known, he was given less than a month to settle down with a new troop in the North. We have heard of males moved from pillar to post and given even less time to settle before being killed.

The protocol for dealing with these males urgently needs to change! This systematic removal of dispersing males will have disastrous consequences for the genetic health of our troops. Our repeated requests to see census figures, particularly male vs female and female vs immature ratios, are routinely ignored – these figures are vital to establish whether our troops are indeed as healthy as the authorities would like us to believe.

For many years Baboon Matters has been the lone voice calling for the ethical treatment of our precious baboons, but there is now a growing anger amongst residents who don’t like what is going on. The authorities believe the baboons must be kept away from humans at all costs, even if it means they must be killed – but we know that residents have more tolerance than the authorities give them credit for.

The protocol for removing raiding baboons is currently under review, and now is the time to make your voice heard! We ask you all to please join us in calling for change – please email Julia.Wood@capetown.gov.za and have your say!

 

Baboon Matters heads North

Baboon Matters heads North

Baboon Matters heads North

by Jenni Trethowan

By now anyone who knows me, knows that I love baboons and that I love to see baboons in the wild.
People who travel with me need endless patience as I make them turn back, or reverse and stop as I delight in sightings of baboons. I marvel at the moms, count the kids and consider the strength of the male baboons. Baboons make me feel joy, so you can imagine my excitement and enthusiasm at the thought of finding baboons up in the far western and northern Cape provinces as we embarked on our recent road trip.

Sadly (astonishingly?), despite travelling over 3000km, we only spotted baboons on four occasions – one sighting of a few skinny baboons outside of Springbok, a small troop outside of Kathu, a lovely looking troop near to Postmasberg and then a few scattered members of a small troop near the Swartberg Mountain pass.We travelled along national roads, farm roads and dirt roads, and travelled from dawn to dusk – all options were covered so one would have thought we would see baboons, right? Not only was it disappointing for me when we saw so few baboons, it is also deeply worrying – where are the baboons?

Across the country, specific areas report “population explosions” or high densities of baboons “above the normal range” – firstly what is the normal range for baboons in a land as diverse in biodiversity as South Africa, and secondly, how are the baboon numbers being monitored? Do any of the conservation authorities actually know how many baboons they have in the different provinces? If not, how can “bag limits” and lethal management options even be considered?

From our observations on this short trip, which I admit was in no way a scientific expedition, I would suggest that far from being abundant, baboon numbers appear to down.
It seems logical that baboons will congregate where there is food and water – especially in the face of one of the worst droughts in over a 100 years. So perhaps farming areas and plantations are not seeing an increase in numbers of baboons, but are seeing fragments of baboon troops coming together into areas where they can find food and water.

The Kelly vehicle had been “branded” with Baboon Matters logos for the trip and of course we all wore our “baboon gear” as we were working, so it was clear who we were and a lot of people engaged with us; asking about our work and telling us about their encounters with baboons. One lovely farmer from the Bloemfontein area reported that for the first time in living memory a small group of 6 baboons had recently found their way to their farm – and the farmer was delighted to see them. The straggling bunch of baboons are doing no damage – just roosting in trees, drinking from the reservoir and eating from the veld.

We are currently busy with reports from the trip and will shortly offer a comprehensive overview of the workshops and the meetings, but whilst looking through some of the images, it was the photographs taken in Dingleton that I thought best illustrated the plight of baboons in South Africa. The photos show a beautiful young male perched atop a post, mine dumps in front, razor wire below and a derelict village behind.
This photo is just an analogy for baboons everywhere; there is rapid encroachment – whether it be mines, farms, plantations or urban sprawl. We are in the midst of the worst recorded drought across the country so everyone is suffering but it just seems that some suffer less equally than others.

Perhaps, maybe, we can put aside outdated categorizations of baboons; perhaps if we stop vilifying them and instead work towards comprehensive solutions, we can find a way to live alongside each other?
I believe that the drought, the pressure on the land and the desperate need for change can result in positive shifts in thinking. I hope that our opportunistic primate cousins can survive the current onslaught, it would be a dreadful day when we simply don’t see baboons anywhere anymore and no longer hear the resonant sound of baboons barking in the mountains and fields……….

“Baboons make mess”

“Baboons make mess”

How is it possible that despite a budget of R10 million pa, well-resourced staff and the full support of the Baboon Technical Team members (being the City of Cape Town, Table Mountain National Park, Cape Nature, the Baboon Research Unit of UCT and the Cape of Good Hope SPCA) baboons are still “raiding” in villages?

“Baboons make mess”

(Front page Peoples Post 29 August 2017)
The banner headline of local southern peninsula newspaper People’s Post today notes that “Baboons make mess” in Simonstown. The article notes that residents, shop owners and the navy personnel have experienced an increase in baboon activity to the point whereby “theft from private homes, as well as businesses, is a concern. The raiding of the public bins is leaving litter”. How many times have we seen this sort of article in Cape Town media over the past 50 years? Take away the date and one could almost substitute this article for one written in 1931.

How is it possible that despite a budget of R10 million pa, well-resourced staff and the full support of the Baboon Technical Team members (being the City of Cape Town, Table Mountain National Park, Cape Nature, the Baboon Research Unit of UCT and the Cape of Good Hope SPCA) baboons are still “raiding” in villages?
We have been fed an ongoing propaganda of research and theory whereby the “landscape of FEAR” was implemented – baboons were collared to show where they are, what they are doing and where they went, bear bangers have been deployed and the baboons have been mercilessly paintballed to chase them away from areas that fall within the “landscape of fear”. (Of concern are the many reports from residents complaining that baboons are paintballed excessively in areas well away from villages.
Where exactly does the “landscape of fear” begin and end?)

More despicable than the aggressive management options, however, are the lethal methods of management that were stringently implemented by the BTT from 2012.
62 so called problem baboons have been killed since the execution of the protocol. A recent review by Baboon Matters proved that removal of individual baboons has not solved the raiding – in fact in many instances, within two months after the removal of an individual baboon, raiding increased in one or more of the identified raiding categories (see graph below)
In most cases, the baboons tagged as being problematic are dominant males. By continually removing the dominant males the troop hierarchy is negatively impacted, and the troop is kept in a semi-permanent state of stress as the remaining males, or new in-coming males, fight for dominance. In these high stress conditions infanticide increases, with the result being that although we note “more” babies when we do see the baboons, we have to balance our field observations with the knowledge that many infants may have been killed through the increase in troop stress, so we are not seeing a population growth, but rather a troop in chaos.
The latest service provider report notes that for the period January to July 2017, there were 11 births in southern troops compared to 14 deaths; in other words, an overall decrease of 3 baboons.

Of interest, is that since 2012, the overall numbers of baboons in the southern troops has only increased by 10 baboons. It seems quite alarming that over six troops and in the five-year period since the service provider gained the contract in 2012, there has only been an increase of 10 baboons – that is an increase of less than 2 baboons per troop for the Southern troops over a 5-year period. Yet we are told continually that we have a “healthy, growing population”.
The idea of bringing dispersing males from other troops into troops such as the Waterfall troop may have some merit as it would benefit the marginalized gene pool, but this could only be a benefit if the males are allowed time to settle in and the troop to regroup.
Using the Waterfall Troop as an example, the dominant male Bongo was killed for trouble he reportedly caused and a new male, Douglas, was “imported“ from Tokai. Accounts from residents of both Tokai and Simons Town indicate that Douglas was a really gentle baboon who spent a great deal of time with the juveniles (frequently he was referred to as “Douglas and the juvvies”). But when confronted with the abundant waste and easy rewards of the Simons Town scenario, Douglas soon joined the troop in their forays into the navy canteen and barracks. Who could blame him? An easy loaf of bread from the navy quarters versus a hard day digging for fynbos on the fire ravaged mountains…
So Douglas was also killed.

City of Cape Town Mayco member Brett Herron explained “The reports reflect an increase in raiding in the Waterfall area as a result of infighting among males in the group and poor waste management by humans” and concludes by saying that “improved waste management by humans at these locations has not to date been addressed and no solutions have yet been implemented”.
How damning and what an incredibly poor response to both the humans and baboons. It is unacceptable for residents who pay over R10 million p.a. of rate payers money for a project that has yet to address the issues, and more importantly how absolutely inexcusable that so many baboons (62) have been killed, such upheaval created amongst the troops as the BTT chases notions of a landscape of fear instead of getting to the core of the issue – being waste management.

Baboon Matters has been requesting meetings with the City of Cape Town’s Brett Herron since February 2017. We are told that despite the fact that the CoCT runs the tender process and employs the service provider, they are not accountable for management of baboons – this being a joint responsibility held by the BTT.
It may be argued that TMNP should “keep the baboons in the national park” and perhaps there should be a joint responsibility between the CoCT and TMNP, but the facts remain, the main reason that baboons come into conflict with humans is in their efforts to secure easy food rewards. The vast majority of the easy food rewards are found in our dustbins and waste because humans are an incredibly wasteful species. There can be no argument, managing waste is a municipal function – and if there were better by-laws, fines and systems in place the food available to baboons from our waste would be significantly reduced. It would be ideal if the City of Cape Town implemented better waste management strategies in areas where there is on-going baboon conflict, but every resident and visitor to the area also has a responsibility to manage their waste and to baboon-proof their bins.

It is sad to note that this week marks the 5-year anniversary of the death of Peter and Carpenter, baboons who were shot and killed by TMNP as they had been deemed to be “problem baboons”. Far from resolving the raiding problems in Da Gama Park, the deaths of Peter and Carpenter simply created troop upheaval, increased infanticide and the net result being that baboons of that troop now break into small groups of younger baboons who are adept at getting in and out of Welcome Glen and Da Gama quickly to secure their easy rewards of human foods.

Five years after the death of Peter and Carpenter, the patterns remain – aggressive management, lethal management but in the words of Councilor Herron “improved waste management by humans at these locations has not to date been addressed and no solutions have yet been implemented”.

Cartoon: With thanks to our talented friend Chip Snaddon, who helped us illustrate the futility of spending money on high-tech collars so that managers know exactly where the baboons are at all times, yet nothing is done to address the underlying cause of raiding – poor waste management.

(click graph to expand to full size)

Graph: Red triangles show where one (or more) baboons have been killed in Southern troops. Yellow line shows number of raids – it is clear that removing “problem raiders” so they don’t teach raiding behaviour to other baboons does not reduce frequency of raiding by the rest of the troop!

Being a Baboon Dad

Being a Baboon Dad

Being a Baboon Dad

A beautiful image of George Baboon posted on the Baboon Matters page on Father’s Day got me thinking about what it’s like to be a baboon father. Chacma baboons live in strictly hierarchical families and while it may be tough being a low ranking baboon, troops are also incredibly loyal and if one baboon is in trouble, the whole family will come to her defense.

I was lucky to get to meet George and his family when Baboon Matters was still able to offer the walking tours. I got to sit on a hilltop with Jenni and the troop and watch them go about their day. George baboon was a particularly gentle boy and a very loving father. The life of a baboon father, even then, was very different than what it might have been for one living out in the bush with only natural threats lurking: leopards, droughts, rival males. George had bigger things to worry about like houses being built higher and higher on the mountain, roads and cars and unfriendly dogs. Things he probably didn’t understand very well and could do very little about. But with his family on the hilltop he had some peace.

Winds have changed and there is now new management and new protocols in place. The Cape Peninsula has become a very scary world to live in for baboon fathers. The protocol means that all adult male baboons who are repeat raiders and show no response to aggressive aversion tactics are allowed to be ‘euthanized’. This started with lone males and alpha males and has spread to all males and now females as well. The theory behind the protocol being that by removing ‘naughty’ baboons they won’t get a chance to teach the good baboons how to be bad baboons.

The fundamental problem with this protocol, one that Baboon Matters has been pointing out for years, is that the dominant baboon is not raiding because he is the only one who knows how to raid, he is raiding because he is the only one who is allowed to raid. Chacma baboon society is structured around hierarchy and food and therefore it’s the highest-ranking baboon, not the worst behaved one, who gets to dominate the food source. And with poor waste management and houses that aren’t baboon proofed that food source might be in someone’s bin or on their kitchen counter.

Fred baboon was a prime example of this flawed logic. Fred was an alpha male baboon who had been getting into cars to steal food from tourists (tourists who has previously fed him and continued to leave their windows open and doors unlocked). So the authorities decided to load him in a truck and get him put down. Jenni and I went to the vet where we knew they were holding him but they insisted we leave. Fred’s death was a great loss for his family and I felt it deeply too. Did this brutal method of management work? No it did not because now without Fred enforcing the hierarchy Force and Merlin, two other big males, could help themselves to the goodies they could find in cars. This means a father who cared deeply about his family and was taken from them and killed unnecessarily. Besides severely disrupting troop structure killing an alpha male also leaves the infants vulnerable to infanticide from a new male coming in.

There is a lot that is scary and unpredictable in this world for baboon fathers today and I realize that this is a situation that many human fathers encounter as well. Feeling like you might not be able to protect your family is a terrible feeling and one I wish no father ever had to experience. What if instead of trying to create a ‘landscape of fear’ those with power focused on creating greater security and safety for all primates, human and non-human alike?
That’s a world George baboon would have approved of.


Written by Noelle Oosthuizen

Raccoon and Baboon:  Not so different

Raccoon and Baboon: Not so different

Raccoon and Baboon: Not so different

On a recent trip to Toronto it dawned on me that the Raccoon is to Toronto what the Baboon is to Cape Town. Though smaller, some say cuter, and found in much larger numbers, the raccoon is at the centre of animal-human conflict in Toronto much the same way as the baboon in Cape Town. Rummaging through dustbins and spilling their contents, getting into garages and even houses raccoons and baboons seem like they collaborated on their plan to inconvenience their urban neighbour.

Opposable thumb or not, both raccoons and baboons have made themselves the waste-menaces of their respective cities. In Toronto raccoons raid bins at night and move into attics and basements when nobody is looking. The small bandits move in groups and are ingenious at getting into waste receptacles where easy rewards can be found. Cape Town’s baboons play by the same rule book but with the addition of a nimble first digit and distinct size advantage perhaps baboons have the upper hand. The clever primates get into waste like it was placed on the curb just for them. Both animals search out human waste to meet their nutritional needs without having to look for food the hard way. It is so much easier to look in your bin for the wealth of food we humans throw away as opposed to tirelessly searching for edible vegetation. How many of us opt for fast food? It’s quite obvious really.

So what does Toronto understand that Cape Town has yet to grasp? It’s a waste problem, not an animal one. Toronto, as part of its extensive waste management programme, has taken both logistical, legal and educational steps to manage their humans. Yes, that’s right, the humans and not the raccoons. The truth of the matter is the raccoons are only a problem because humans fail to manage their waste. Through the city-wide provision of raccoon-proof bins for organic waste the cunning nocturnal raiding antics of the sly raccoons have been effectively foiled.

Granted, baboons are a little larger and their teeth are a little scarier, but meet a raccoon at night and I bet you will be running in the opposite direction. Baboons have the same modus operandi, they help themselves to the food waste we make available in our wheelie bins. The City of Cape Town has provided baboon-proof bins to many residents in areas frequented by baboons but there are many more homes who still do not have them. Furthermore, though the bins are meant to be baboon proof the baboons have figured a way around the gravity lock. With their primate dexterity they are one up on their trans-Atlantic friends making the most of incorrectly closed bins and an design that needs to be revisited.

Photo Credit: www.brettcolephotography.com – Garbage on Brett Cole

It is clear that Cape Town lags a step or three behind Toronto in their waste management. Sure, the budget is bigger, the infrastructure better, but regardless, Toronto does one simple thing that Cape Town does not do: they comprehensively manage their organic waste. Yes, the City of Toronto collects organic waste as part of their recycling programme, but it is even more basic than that. Toronto communicates, has legislated and enforces proper waste management. It is not acceptable to put organic waste in a wheelie bin that is not raccoon-proof. If incorrectly packaged your waste will not be collected and a meaningful fine can be issued.

The City of Cape Town has not yet realised that it is not about the baboons, well not most of the time anyway. Though baboons may be a little more mischievous than raccoons it is more about managing the waste than it is about chasing the baboons up into the mountains. There is definitely a place for Baboon Monitors on our urban edge but there is a greater need for effective management of organic waste and enforcement of meaningful waste by-laws.

Raccoons and baboons will always look for easy food, that is not going to change. What we need to realise in Cape Town, and throughout Southern Africa, is that it is not just about what baboons do but also, maybe even more, about what we do.

It is time for the City of Cape Town to step forward and set an example for other primate-human conflict areas.
It’s time we all look at our own behaviour first and foremost and manage our natural environment from there.

5 Ways to Be a Responsible Tourist & Help Keep Wildlife Wild

5 Ways to Be a Responsible Tourist & Help Keep Wildlife Wild

5 Ways to Be a Responsible Tourist & Help Keep Wildlife Wild

 

The summer months are finally here in the Northern Hemisphere and many are feverishly planning out their next vacation. Whether traveling locally or abroad, the vast majority of tourists have one thing in common—an overwhelming desire to experience something new. What better way to quench this urge than to spend some time with wild animals? Unfortunately, these encounters can be harmful for wildlife and can even have deadly consequences.

Wildlife tourism accounts for 20 to 40 percent of all global tourism. Since 3.6 to 6 million people visit wildlife attractions each year, tourism is causing major disturbances to wildlife by modifying their behaviors, destroying their natural habitats, and by causing physiological changes in animals.

Given the rising number of species currently threatened or facing extinction, it is imperative that humans reduce their impact on the wild. Here are 5 ways you can support the conservation of animals and be a mindful tourist when visiting wildlife.

 

  1. Don’t Feed the Wildlife
  • Disrupts natural behaviors – Wildlife are gradually losing their fear of humans, instead relying on them for food. Chacma baboons, primates found in South Africa, typically eat a diet rich in fruits, insects, grass, and seeds, but they have become accustomed to the human food tourists have been illegally feeding them. These interactions have caused baboons to seek out humans for food—snatching food straight from their hands and even rummaging through cars to find their next meal. Unfortunately, local authorities have begun killing the baboons instead of fining tourists.
  • Bad for their health – Although wild animals may appear to want the food you’re snacking on, it is never a good idea to feed wildlife—and in many cities it is actually illegal. Wild animals, especially babies, have a special diet that requires certain nutrients human food can’t provide. If a young animal eats human food, even a few times, its growth can be permanently stunted. Ingesting human food can also cause many other health problems for animals and can even lead to disease or death.
  1. Don’t Litter

 

The simple act of littering has far-reaching consequences—harming wild animals through ingestion or injury, and by polluting their water and food supplies. Many animals, such as birds and crabs, have been known to get their heads or limbs stuck in soda cans and bottles. Plastic litter also poses a huge concern as animals mistake it for food and consume it—leading to intestinal blockages and even death. With nearly 9 billion tons of litter making its way to oceans each year, it is imperative that travelers manage their waste responsibility. Try carrying a reusable trash bag and travel lightly so as to minimize the amount of trash you generate.

 

  1. Support Tourism That Doesn’t Exploit Animals
  • Don’t view animals in captivity – Riding an elephant and swimming with dolphins may seem like the chance of lifetime—but what are the consequences? Nearly 16,000 elephants, along with many other wondrous species, are being held in captivity in zoos, circuses, and other tourist attractions. Skip these deplorable attractions and visit a national park to see these animals in their natural habitats.
  • Don’t partake in photo sessions with wildlife Although a close encounter with a wild animal may make a perfect photo opportunity, you shouldn’t visit wildlife attractions that use wild animals as photo props. Not only are many animals drugged in order to reduce their chances of hostility, they are also chained and restricted to living in tiny enclosures. Animals are also removed from their mothers at a young age and are repeatedly beaten into submission.
  1. Wear Nontoxic Products

Tourists unhappy with sunburns and bug bites are turning to sunscreen and bug repellent for protection. Unfortunately, these products contain ingredients that are harmful to animals and the environment—polluting waterways and greatly disrupting ecosystems. Oxybenzone, a common ingredient in sunscreens, is bleaching coral reefs worldwide—leaving them vulnerable and at risk of death. In order to protect wildlife from these harmful chemicals and while still keeping your skin safe—try making your own sunscreen using fruit and vegetable oils that naturally contain SPF. There are also many natural alternatives you can use to protect yourself from pesky insects!

 

  1. Don’t Buy Souvenirs Made from Animals

Many tourists visit gift shops to purchase souvenirs as a memento of where they’ve been. Unfortunately, many souvenirs are derived from animals—many of which are endangered species. Removing seashells from shores or purchasing trinkets made from them is a popular habit of many beachgoers, however this is destructive to local ecosystems and makes marine life vulnerable as they rely on them for shelter. Be a mindful tourist when purchasing keepsakes and only purchase ethically made products. Avoid buying common items derived from animals such as ivory, turtle shells, seashells, fur, and coral.

 


Photo: Baboon Matters, Pixabay, Pexels

With grateful thanks to our guest blogger, Audrey Enjoli

Audrey resides in Los Angeles, California with her two dogs, Gullah and Jupiter, and is an avid reader and writer. She is passionate about animal rights and is an advocate of sustainable and ethical living.
Follow Audrey on Instagram @audrey_enjoli.