Human-Wildlife Conflict
-
Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 67467
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
IMO you can cry for both. You cannot blame a wild animal for following its instinct though. If there are too many human-wildlife accidents a lot are caused by a lack of intervention by the state and the directly interested.
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
-
Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 67467
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
Cape Town’s baboon programme: Successful coexistence between wildlife and urban communities through trial and error
By Justin O’Riain• 19 July 2021
A baboon sits on a rock at the Cape Point Nature Reserve in Cape Town. (Photo: Gallo Images / BATELEUR PUBLISHING - MARK SKINNER)
Cape Town’s urban baboon programme has resulted in more baboons spending more time in natural habitats and suffering fewer human-caused injuries and deaths. Against the sombre backdrop of the sixth great extinction of life on Earth, this is cause for celebration.
Twenty years ago, the Cape Peninsula baboon population was heading for extinction. Ten years ago, numbers were on the rise, but the leading cause of death was trauma suffered in an urban area. Today, baboons need contraceptives to curb their burgeoning numbers and most die of natural causes.
However, a reader of Daily Maverick would be forgiven for thinking that not only are the Peninsula baboons back on the extinction cliff, but the heartless authorities are right behind them, shoving.
This perception has been crafted on select social media platforms and then further curated in mainstream media, which is sympathetic to the “David vs Goliath” parallel of caring citizens standing up to the heartless governance machine.
The problem, of course, is that the facts do not support the narrative that the authorities are willingly pushing the population to extinction while being cruel and uncaring in the process.
There are more baboons, spending more time in natural habitats and suffering fewer human-caused injuries and deaths which are associated with the worst kinds of suffering and cruelty. Against the sombre backdrop of the sixth great extinction of life on Earth, this is cause for celebration.
These successes are not by chance, but by careful collective design that has involved hundreds of people in countless workshops and meetings since 1998. Welfare organisations, NGOs, scientists, concerned citizens, volunteers and councillors have, together with civic, provincial and national operational managers, devised a successful, largely non-lethal programme to keep baboons out of dangerous urban areas.
By contrast, throughout most of Europe, wild boars – a mammalian proxy for baboons, being adaptable, social and no less sentient – are invariably shot on the urban edge by residents with hunting licences, and summarily eaten.
International scientific experts who have visited Cape Town and understand the objectives of the programme consider it to be wholly consistent with best practices for ensuring coexistence between wildlife and communities on an urban edge.
How do readers reconcile these facts with the constant suggestions that the authorities are inept in their management plans, cruel in their methods and guilty of driving the population to extinction?
What of international celebrity conservationists like David Attenborough and Jane Goodall who have variously lent both vague and more explicit support (respectively) for animal rights groups’ claims of baboons being treated inhumanely and the need to “embrace not chase” our wild neighbours in the Anthropocene?
What would Attenborough say to more and healthier baboons in and around one of Africa’s fastest-growing cities? How could Goodall possibly argue for a reversion to the status quo a decade ago, when Peninsula baboons spent more time in urban areas and paid for that privilege with greater loss of life and limb?
To be fair to both, neither are apprised of the facts because the authorities never thought of writing to tell them the good news. To be critical of both, they should have asked the authorities for the facts or approached independent experts after being lobbied with emotive letters and before writing platitudes dramatically divorced from the realities on the ground.
What the above reveals is that the current anti-authority stance in Cape Town is less about the (f)actual conservation status and welfare of the baboons on the Peninsula, and more about the fundamental differences that exist in any society on how people view their relationships with wildlife and each other.
If we rewind to 2008, before the current programme was extended to all troops and was properly resourced, civic halls were packed with irate citizens demanding that the authorities get the baboons out of town by either culling the lot or packing them into a truck destined for the Boland.
The authorities rejected both suggestions and opted for a coexistence model that relied mostly on non-lethal methods to keep most baboons out of urban areas for most of the time. Their success means that such incendiary public meetings have largely been extinguished.
Yet the methods used to achieve this success have become the focus of equally vociferous groups who have forsaken town halls for social media chat rooms, demanding an end to the programme and attempting to “cancel” all who contribute to it.
Such is the plight of the managers appointed to fix the problems we all created when natural land was transformed to support our modern lifestyle. None of us are exempt in creating the problems, but only a few are tasked with being responsible for the solutions.
The problem is that there is no one right or simple solution to fixing a complex ecological system that we broke when we killed all the natural predators and usurped the more productive low-lying land for our houses, schools and shops.
How does one simulate natural predators and the profound influence they have on the abundance and behaviour of prey species like baboons? How does one simulate dispersal and emigration in a population isolated and fragmented by our urban sprawl?
Through trial and error with the best available science and expert opinion, and with constant education of the public on the how and why, these actions are essential to conserve a healthy population of baboons. All this, while local, provincial and national government seek to address more pressing problems of crime, grime and fiscal decline.
It is, of course, easy to simply take the moral high ground by saying “baboons were here first so we must share our space with them” or “people should be punished, not baboons”. However, in the absence of practical and sustainable means for achieving these ideals, they remain as virtual as the Facebook pages in which they are written.
When baboons visit urban areas, they suffer all manner of injury and death, with cars and dogs among the leading causes. You cannot punish people for either driving or having dogs, and so if you genuinely care for baboons, then you can only argue for them to be kept in protected areas where such threats are limited.
Furthermore, baboons are generalist, opportunistic omnivores with a penchant for low-lying land. Compared with the indigenous, less digestible vegetation in the mountains, they consider the average well-watered suburban garden in the valley to be a lush bonanza. So, even perfect baboon-proofing of all other food sources will see baboons attracted to private properties.
When a visit to snack on a protea flower coincides with a children’s outdoor party and the birthday cake is spirited away amidst screams and wahoos, then the family is justified in demanding that the authorities – to whom their rates are paid – devise methods that prevent a repeat performance.
This they have done, and the result after 10 years was a rare four-way win: less damage to property and pets, with more and healthier baboons experiencing fewer welfare harms and contributing more to the natural ecology of the Peninsula fynbos.
This does require deterring baboons from urban areas with tools that are both legal and humane, for if they were not, then users would have long since been charged with violating the Animal Protection Act. It may also mean the death of baboons that do not respond to these tools and, in doing so, present a risk to themselves, pets, people, property and other baboons.
Animal rights groups may apply to place such animals in a sanctuary or a rehabilitation centre, provided they satisfy the relevant CapeNature regulations that pertain to such facilities.
The general absence of such facilities in the Western Cape, despite repeated attempts to raise funding for such ventures and/or support those in existence, suggests that the vocal denouncing of lethal management on social media is not matched by a financial commitment to provide an alternative option.
Furthermore, criticism of the current approaches – while failing to acknowledge the successes and, worse still, failing to provide realistic alternatives that are practical, commensurate with the law and work to the betterment of both ratepayers and baboons – serves only to hinder meaningful dialogue and progress.
There are many improvements to be made to the urban baboon programme, including a transition to baboon-proof fencing in conflict hotspots and an associated reduction in the use of paintball markers, improved education and improved waste management.
However, efforts to get the authorities to the discussion table to look forward are constantly thwarted by their having to spend most of their time engaged in a rearguard defence of their much-maligned programme, and countering the false, alarmist claims of cruel methods, secret killings and the imminent demise of the population.
Understanding this threat, Prof Shirley Strum, an internationally recognised expert in baboon behaviour and conservation who, having visited the Peninsula and met with the role players, advised the following:
“I strongly urge the activists to stop this senseless campaign. Instead, they should use that energy to help support the reasonable efforts that are being proposed. If they don’t, they will have more baboon deaths on their conscience. The epitaph of these baboons will read: ‘Met an untimely end because activists could not face reality’.”
It is further important to recognise that anti-baboon sentiment is rife in South Africa and even pervasive among national and private custodians of our protected areas. In many provinces, farmers can kill as many baboons as they wish to protect their property and livelihoods, while in the Western Cape, farmers can kill one per day every day of the year in order to produce the apples and wines we consume.
It is against this backdrop, and the absence of viable baboon populations adjacent to any of the other major metropoles despite their historical presence in all of them, that Cape Town’s baboons and their ongoing management programme needs to be considered.
Cape Town has shown that we can live next door to wildlife, including the agile and adaptable baboon, and that baboon numbers, welfare and health can improve while our human population continues to grow and our footprint expands.
If these successes are not acknowledged and, yes, even celebrated, then other metros both in South Africa and elsewhere in the world will have no incentive to invest the millions of ratepayers’ rands it takes to run a successful non-lethal programme that allows wildlife and people to coexist as good neighbours. DM
By Justin O’Riain• 19 July 2021
A baboon sits on a rock at the Cape Point Nature Reserve in Cape Town. (Photo: Gallo Images / BATELEUR PUBLISHING - MARK SKINNER)
Cape Town’s urban baboon programme has resulted in more baboons spending more time in natural habitats and suffering fewer human-caused injuries and deaths. Against the sombre backdrop of the sixth great extinction of life on Earth, this is cause for celebration.
- Professor M Justin O’Riain is Director of the Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa at the University of Cape Town. He has supervised six PhDs and eight master’s degrees on the Peninsula baboons and published more than 20 peer-reviewed publications on the Peninsula baboon population. He is a consultant to the City of Cape Town, CapeNature and SANParks on baboon management.
Twenty years ago, the Cape Peninsula baboon population was heading for extinction. Ten years ago, numbers were on the rise, but the leading cause of death was trauma suffered in an urban area. Today, baboons need contraceptives to curb their burgeoning numbers and most die of natural causes.
However, a reader of Daily Maverick would be forgiven for thinking that not only are the Peninsula baboons back on the extinction cliff, but the heartless authorities are right behind them, shoving.
This perception has been crafted on select social media platforms and then further curated in mainstream media, which is sympathetic to the “David vs Goliath” parallel of caring citizens standing up to the heartless governance machine.
The problem, of course, is that the facts do not support the narrative that the authorities are willingly pushing the population to extinction while being cruel and uncaring in the process.
There are more baboons, spending more time in natural habitats and suffering fewer human-caused injuries and deaths which are associated with the worst kinds of suffering and cruelty. Against the sombre backdrop of the sixth great extinction of life on Earth, this is cause for celebration.
These successes are not by chance, but by careful collective design that has involved hundreds of people in countless workshops and meetings since 1998. Welfare organisations, NGOs, scientists, concerned citizens, volunteers and councillors have, together with civic, provincial and national operational managers, devised a successful, largely non-lethal programme to keep baboons out of dangerous urban areas.
By contrast, throughout most of Europe, wild boars – a mammalian proxy for baboons, being adaptable, social and no less sentient – are invariably shot on the urban edge by residents with hunting licences, and summarily eaten.
International scientific experts who have visited Cape Town and understand the objectives of the programme consider it to be wholly consistent with best practices for ensuring coexistence between wildlife and communities on an urban edge.
How do readers reconcile these facts with the constant suggestions that the authorities are inept in their management plans, cruel in their methods and guilty of driving the population to extinction?
What of international celebrity conservationists like David Attenborough and Jane Goodall who have variously lent both vague and more explicit support (respectively) for animal rights groups’ claims of baboons being treated inhumanely and the need to “embrace not chase” our wild neighbours in the Anthropocene?
What would Attenborough say to more and healthier baboons in and around one of Africa’s fastest-growing cities? How could Goodall possibly argue for a reversion to the status quo a decade ago, when Peninsula baboons spent more time in urban areas and paid for that privilege with greater loss of life and limb?
To be fair to both, neither are apprised of the facts because the authorities never thought of writing to tell them the good news. To be critical of both, they should have asked the authorities for the facts or approached independent experts after being lobbied with emotive letters and before writing platitudes dramatically divorced from the realities on the ground.
What the above reveals is that the current anti-authority stance in Cape Town is less about the (f)actual conservation status and welfare of the baboons on the Peninsula, and more about the fundamental differences that exist in any society on how people view their relationships with wildlife and each other.
If we rewind to 2008, before the current programme was extended to all troops and was properly resourced, civic halls were packed with irate citizens demanding that the authorities get the baboons out of town by either culling the lot or packing them into a truck destined for the Boland.
The authorities rejected both suggestions and opted for a coexistence model that relied mostly on non-lethal methods to keep most baboons out of urban areas for most of the time. Their success means that such incendiary public meetings have largely been extinguished.
Yet the methods used to achieve this success have become the focus of equally vociferous groups who have forsaken town halls for social media chat rooms, demanding an end to the programme and attempting to “cancel” all who contribute to it.
Such is the plight of the managers appointed to fix the problems we all created when natural land was transformed to support our modern lifestyle. None of us are exempt in creating the problems, but only a few are tasked with being responsible for the solutions.
The problem is that there is no one right or simple solution to fixing a complex ecological system that we broke when we killed all the natural predators and usurped the more productive low-lying land for our houses, schools and shops.
How does one simulate natural predators and the profound influence they have on the abundance and behaviour of prey species like baboons? How does one simulate dispersal and emigration in a population isolated and fragmented by our urban sprawl?
Through trial and error with the best available science and expert opinion, and with constant education of the public on the how and why, these actions are essential to conserve a healthy population of baboons. All this, while local, provincial and national government seek to address more pressing problems of crime, grime and fiscal decline.
It is, of course, easy to simply take the moral high ground by saying “baboons were here first so we must share our space with them” or “people should be punished, not baboons”. However, in the absence of practical and sustainable means for achieving these ideals, they remain as virtual as the Facebook pages in which they are written.
When baboons visit urban areas, they suffer all manner of injury and death, with cars and dogs among the leading causes. You cannot punish people for either driving or having dogs, and so if you genuinely care for baboons, then you can only argue for them to be kept in protected areas where such threats are limited.
Furthermore, baboons are generalist, opportunistic omnivores with a penchant for low-lying land. Compared with the indigenous, less digestible vegetation in the mountains, they consider the average well-watered suburban garden in the valley to be a lush bonanza. So, even perfect baboon-proofing of all other food sources will see baboons attracted to private properties.
When a visit to snack on a protea flower coincides with a children’s outdoor party and the birthday cake is spirited away amidst screams and wahoos, then the family is justified in demanding that the authorities – to whom their rates are paid – devise methods that prevent a repeat performance.
This they have done, and the result after 10 years was a rare four-way win: less damage to property and pets, with more and healthier baboons experiencing fewer welfare harms and contributing more to the natural ecology of the Peninsula fynbos.
This does require deterring baboons from urban areas with tools that are both legal and humane, for if they were not, then users would have long since been charged with violating the Animal Protection Act. It may also mean the death of baboons that do not respond to these tools and, in doing so, present a risk to themselves, pets, people, property and other baboons.
Animal rights groups may apply to place such animals in a sanctuary or a rehabilitation centre, provided they satisfy the relevant CapeNature regulations that pertain to such facilities.
The general absence of such facilities in the Western Cape, despite repeated attempts to raise funding for such ventures and/or support those in existence, suggests that the vocal denouncing of lethal management on social media is not matched by a financial commitment to provide an alternative option.
Furthermore, criticism of the current approaches – while failing to acknowledge the successes and, worse still, failing to provide realistic alternatives that are practical, commensurate with the law and work to the betterment of both ratepayers and baboons – serves only to hinder meaningful dialogue and progress.
There are many improvements to be made to the urban baboon programme, including a transition to baboon-proof fencing in conflict hotspots and an associated reduction in the use of paintball markers, improved education and improved waste management.
However, efforts to get the authorities to the discussion table to look forward are constantly thwarted by their having to spend most of their time engaged in a rearguard defence of their much-maligned programme, and countering the false, alarmist claims of cruel methods, secret killings and the imminent demise of the population.
Understanding this threat, Prof Shirley Strum, an internationally recognised expert in baboon behaviour and conservation who, having visited the Peninsula and met with the role players, advised the following:
“I strongly urge the activists to stop this senseless campaign. Instead, they should use that energy to help support the reasonable efforts that are being proposed. If they don’t, they will have more baboon deaths on their conscience. The epitaph of these baboons will read: ‘Met an untimely end because activists could not face reality’.”
It is further important to recognise that anti-baboon sentiment is rife in South Africa and even pervasive among national and private custodians of our protected areas. In many provinces, farmers can kill as many baboons as they wish to protect their property and livelihoods, while in the Western Cape, farmers can kill one per day every day of the year in order to produce the apples and wines we consume.
It is against this backdrop, and the absence of viable baboon populations adjacent to any of the other major metropoles despite their historical presence in all of them, that Cape Town’s baboons and their ongoing management programme needs to be considered.
Cape Town has shown that we can live next door to wildlife, including the agile and adaptable baboon, and that baboon numbers, welfare and health can improve while our human population continues to grow and our footprint expands.
If these successes are not acknowledged and, yes, even celebrated, then other metros both in South Africa and elsewhere in the world will have no incentive to invest the millions of ratepayers’ rands it takes to run a successful non-lethal programme that allows wildlife and people to coexist as good neighbours. DM
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
-
Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 67467
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
We need a different solution to enable baboons and humans to co-exist, not the same old, tired arguments
By Pete Oxford• 21 July 2021
A baboon picks fleas off of his mate at the Cape Point Nature Reserve in Cape Town, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images / MARK SKINNER
Perhaps we don’t even need academics any more. Perhaps we need engineers to look at secure waste management, or human psychologists, even professional mediators. What we, the community, need is a system that works.
Pete Oxford is a zoologist, writer, photographer and conservationist. He is a permanent resident of Betty’s Bay working hard to find a practical and manageable solution to the baboon/human issues within the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve.
It seems Justin O’Riain’s (see above) article is once again forcing us to waste time on yet another rebuttal of the same old tired arguments. I understand the ecology and the reasons why baboon incursions are happening, despite the claimed “careful collective design”.
There is a lot of veiled criticism in the article, particularly of the work of the “activists” to whom he and Shirley Strum refer. Is this helpful? Should we then call the other “side” radicals? Here in Betty’s Bay they certainly call for radical “solutions”. Will our taunts help to provide a way forward?
O’Riain comes well qualified as an academic with PhD students and published papers etc. Remember though that the single greatest driving force of an academic is to get things out in the scientific journals. Have those same papers really helped baboon management? In the main, no, not really. We probably do not need to know the urinary C-Peptide levels in baboon urine.
Perhaps we don’t even need academics any more. Perhaps we need engineers to look at secure waste management, or human psychologists, even professional mediators. What we, the community, need is a system that works. The “anti” baboon lobby, for want of a better word, have got what they wanted from the municipality, namely “the only company in the world who have found an effective management strategy to prevent human-baboon conflict”, the virtual fence (sold to the municipality as the coup de grace), the paintballs, the radios and the monitors, and yet the current monitoring methodology is not working. Should it not be deemed the end of the “10-year experiment” and those bright minds now be turned towards a different solution?
The killing and paintballing have certainly not stopped baboons entering homes or urban areas on the peninsula. I invite you to come to Betty’s Bay and walk with me, Justin, then tell me, with an open heart, if the regime is successful or not.
He is correct when he states that there is “no one right or simple solution”. When talking about Betty’s Bay specifically, it is O’Riain himself who has said such things as “low density residential areas such as… Betty’s Bay should not be managed using field rangers but rather should baboon-proof their properties and opt for a coexistence strategy as there is no clear urban edge and a lot of food in and amongst houses.”
We do not want to fight with you Justin (we could continue ad nauseum to no avail), but rather apply our minds together for a more successful way forward for all four parties, namely, the community, the baboons, the service provider and the municipality.
We need to agree that energy budgets are an all-important factor. With only 10 daylight hours in winter, foraging time is important, and keeping baboons on a cold, shadowed mountain slope with paintballs, as has been common, requires greater energy for baboons to stay warm, while chasing them requires still more energy, as does stressing them. Calm foraging in optimal areas is critical. Anything less and a sense of “desperation” ensues to repay that energy budget. We know that a loaf of bread can be equivalent to eight hours of natural feeding. What else should a hungry animal do?
How many of us have driven over the Harold Porter bridge to see one, two or three “monitors” glued to their phones? Meanwhile, as was the case again today, the baboons are unknowingly behind them deep into the urban area causing massive frustration to residents. I believe that this was not what was hoped for by either “side” – especially considering the money involved. If it’s broke then fix it!
I will, however, take exception to the somewhat derisive comments made against Jane Goodall and David Attenborough. As all three letters from them were addressed to me personally I would like to say that in my discussions with them nothing I said has not already come true. I consider the comments both shameful and disrespectful, especially when considering their inordinate following as true conservationists (not the offhanded description you offer of “celebrity” conservationists). There are many, including them, who believe in another approach to wildlife management. DM/MC
By Pete Oxford• 21 July 2021
A baboon picks fleas off of his mate at the Cape Point Nature Reserve in Cape Town, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images / MARK SKINNER
Perhaps we don’t even need academics any more. Perhaps we need engineers to look at secure waste management, or human psychologists, even professional mediators. What we, the community, need is a system that works.
Pete Oxford is a zoologist, writer, photographer and conservationist. He is a permanent resident of Betty’s Bay working hard to find a practical and manageable solution to the baboon/human issues within the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve.
It seems Justin O’Riain’s (see above) article is once again forcing us to waste time on yet another rebuttal of the same old tired arguments. I understand the ecology and the reasons why baboon incursions are happening, despite the claimed “careful collective design”.
There is a lot of veiled criticism in the article, particularly of the work of the “activists” to whom he and Shirley Strum refer. Is this helpful? Should we then call the other “side” radicals? Here in Betty’s Bay they certainly call for radical “solutions”. Will our taunts help to provide a way forward?
O’Riain comes well qualified as an academic with PhD students and published papers etc. Remember though that the single greatest driving force of an academic is to get things out in the scientific journals. Have those same papers really helped baboon management? In the main, no, not really. We probably do not need to know the urinary C-Peptide levels in baboon urine.
Perhaps we don’t even need academics any more. Perhaps we need engineers to look at secure waste management, or human psychologists, even professional mediators. What we, the community, need is a system that works. The “anti” baboon lobby, for want of a better word, have got what they wanted from the municipality, namely “the only company in the world who have found an effective management strategy to prevent human-baboon conflict”, the virtual fence (sold to the municipality as the coup de grace), the paintballs, the radios and the monitors, and yet the current monitoring methodology is not working. Should it not be deemed the end of the “10-year experiment” and those bright minds now be turned towards a different solution?
The killing and paintballing have certainly not stopped baboons entering homes or urban areas on the peninsula. I invite you to come to Betty’s Bay and walk with me, Justin, then tell me, with an open heart, if the regime is successful or not.
He is correct when he states that there is “no one right or simple solution”. When talking about Betty’s Bay specifically, it is O’Riain himself who has said such things as “low density residential areas such as… Betty’s Bay should not be managed using field rangers but rather should baboon-proof their properties and opt for a coexistence strategy as there is no clear urban edge and a lot of food in and amongst houses.”
We do not want to fight with you Justin (we could continue ad nauseum to no avail), but rather apply our minds together for a more successful way forward for all four parties, namely, the community, the baboons, the service provider and the municipality.
We need to agree that energy budgets are an all-important factor. With only 10 daylight hours in winter, foraging time is important, and keeping baboons on a cold, shadowed mountain slope with paintballs, as has been common, requires greater energy for baboons to stay warm, while chasing them requires still more energy, as does stressing them. Calm foraging in optimal areas is critical. Anything less and a sense of “desperation” ensues to repay that energy budget. We know that a loaf of bread can be equivalent to eight hours of natural feeding. What else should a hungry animal do?
How many of us have driven over the Harold Porter bridge to see one, two or three “monitors” glued to their phones? Meanwhile, as was the case again today, the baboons are unknowingly behind them deep into the urban area causing massive frustration to residents. I believe that this was not what was hoped for by either “side” – especially considering the money involved. If it’s broke then fix it!
I will, however, take exception to the somewhat derisive comments made against Jane Goodall and David Attenborough. As all three letters from them were addressed to me personally I would like to say that in my discussions with them nothing I said has not already come true. I consider the comments both shameful and disrespectful, especially when considering their inordinate following as true conservationists (not the offhanded description you offer of “celebrity” conservationists). There are many, including them, who believe in another approach to wildlife management. DM/MC
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
-
Richprins
- Committee Member
- Posts: 76026
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
- Location: NELSPRUIT
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
You need fewer armchair/woke critics! 
Just shoot us when we become too much, no probs.
Just shoot us when we become too much, no probs.
Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
-
Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 67467
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
The point is that you cannot expect all these people to agree. "Put two people together in a room and after a few minutes they'll start to quarrel".
This goes for the Italians, but might go for everybody else too
This goes for the Italians, but might go for everybody else too
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
-
Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 67467
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
25 Years of Livestock Guarding Dogs at Cheetah Conservation Fund
Dr. Laurie Marker, Executive Director of CCF, gives an insight into the latest research publication on Livestock Guarding Dogs. CCF has the longest reaching data on Livestock Guarding Dogs (LGDs) dating back 25+ years to 1994. LGD work in Namibia has been instrumental to better management of guarding dog programs, ultimately contributing towards sustainable coexistence between farmers and predators. The long-term study provides unique insights into a highly successful program and is recommended to be replicated and adapted where imminent human-predator conflicts threaten coexistence. https://cheetah.org/resource-library/...
LGDs have reduced livestock losses for 91% of respondents and farmers were highly satisfied with their LGD. Subsequently, retaliatory predator killings by farmers reduced. Between 1994 and 2020, more than 625 LGDs were placed across Namibian farmlands
Namibia’s livestock guarding dogs are saving cheetahs
Read the whole article here
Dr. Laurie Marker, Executive Director of CCF, gives an insight into the latest research publication on Livestock Guarding Dogs. CCF has the longest reaching data on Livestock Guarding Dogs (LGDs) dating back 25+ years to 1994. LGD work in Namibia has been instrumental to better management of guarding dog programs, ultimately contributing towards sustainable coexistence between farmers and predators. The long-term study provides unique insights into a highly successful program and is recommended to be replicated and adapted where imminent human-predator conflicts threaten coexistence. https://cheetah.org/resource-library/...
LGDs have reduced livestock losses for 91% of respondents and farmers were highly satisfied with their LGD. Subsequently, retaliatory predator killings by farmers reduced. Between 1994 and 2020, more than 625 LGDs were placed across Namibian farmlands
Namibia’s livestock guarding dogs are saving cheetahs
Read the whole article here
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
-
Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 67467
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
Outcry in Knysna over advert for hunter to shoot baboons
By Tembile Sgqolana• 1 September 2021
(Photo: Paula Bronstein / Getty Images)
Peaceful cohabitation between humans and baboons in Knysna seems unattainable if an advert circulated by the municipality for a professional hunter to shoot baboons in the area is anything to go by.
An advert calling for the services of a professional hunter to kill baboons in the Hunters Home and Pezula residential areas of Knysna has pitted animal rights activists, residents and Knysna municipality officials against one another.
According to the advert published on 23 August, an increase in baboon activity within certain residential areas has resulted in excessive damage to property, potentially compromising the safety of residents.
Baboon Solutions’ Terry Corr said the problems faced by Knysna are the same as those faced by Overberg and the Cape Peninsula.
“We keep chasing these baboons away, but they don’t know where away is. Knysna is their home,” he said.
Recently, there was a huge outcry when the City of Cape Town wanted to cull an alpha male named Kataza. He was sent to Riverside centre in Limpopo.
Marylou Botha, a resident of Hunters Home for more than 20 years and founding member of Guardians of the Garden Route (an organisation that fights for land and environmental issues), told Daily Maverick that the area where the animals roam was the baboons’ natural habitat until huge developments were put up in Knysna.
“They put huge electrical fences around these properties. The area is now surrounded by a golf course, forest and the lagoon. People added electrical fences to that and suddenly baboons were trapped in the suburbs with nowhere to go. It is difficult for them to get back into their natural wild areas and also there is plenty of food here,” she said.
Ban Animal Trading South Africa and members of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa have asked to be included in the decision-making process of the drafting of the new policy for the management and protection of the baboons in the Cape Peninsula.
Ban Animal Trading South Africa has called on people to contact the municipality and demand that it recalls the advert, not kill baboons and consider another management option.
Knysna resident Debbie Davies said this is one example of human-wildlife conflict which has led to species becoming extinct.
“The tender for hunting two alpha male baboons which are part of the troop of baboons which regularly forage in Hunters Home and are causing distress amongst residents has left residents outraged. Shooting these alpha males will result in the younger males fighting for superiority until new alpha males evolve. Shooting the existing alpha males may also result in the troop splitting and creating another problem in the area,” she said.
Davies said shooting the alpha males is only a short-term solution to the problem and will merely demonstrate to the affected residents that action has been taken by the municipality.
“Many residents of Hunters Home have had their homes ransacked and incurred damages and had to take measures to try and prevent access to their houses by baboons. Despite the inconvenience that it has been to live with the baboons, we would not wish that the baboons be physically harmed as they have also lived in the surrounding area for many years,” Davies said.
She said this was a human-wildlife cohabitation issue that needed to be solved scientifically and with input from the appropriate nature conservation and management groups.
“We understand some residents’ frustration, but we can in no way condone the proposed solution of shooting baboons in an effort to resolve the problem. If this horrific act takes place then action must be taken to raise awareness of the fact that the powers that be in Knysna took the path of least resistance when looking for a solution to this problem,” she said.
Beauty Without Cruelty South Africa wrote to Knysna Mayor Elrick van Aswegen and urged him to put the guns away and work towards a plan of action that will make a positive difference for all concerned as there are methods that can be put in place.
“We are appalled to hear that Knysna is resorting to the killing of the alpha baboons to supposedly stop human and baboon interface,” read the letter.
The letter stated that killing baboons did not solve the problem. Instead:
“It is unacceptable that baboons are to be killed through human apathy and laziness, while punitive by-laws and requirements are not in place to ensure that there are appropriate and proper deterrents in the form of fines and/or a sentence,” read the letter.
The letter stated that wildlife was under constant and increasing threat due to ever-increasing land use, exacerbated by residents unwilling to make an effort or compromise.
“The current methods have not worked in the past, and are not working now, as the standard hurt (paintballing) and kill response has made no difference. Baboons, like other animals, are suffering the consequences of human laziness and arrogance,” the letter said.
Baboon Matters’ Dreyer said one of the things to reduce conflict is to make your area “baboon boring” and make sure waste is disposed of efficiently.
“This is something that Simon’s Town is now doing with regular Solid Waste compliance inspections in the area to keep their area uninteresting to baboons. The fact remains though: shooting an alpha male is not the answer.
“By removing the alpha you have a far more unstable, aggressive troop while the males fight for dominance to get the alpha position. This will cause more human and baboon conflict and the next alpha male could have less experience with controlling his troop. A new alpha male could also possibly commit infanticide in efforts to get rid of the older alpha’s offspring,” she said.
Dreyer said the municipality could only go ahead with this if CapeNature granted it permits to shoot alpha male baboons in residential areas — one a private estate.
“I do not feel that the Knysna municipality has asked for the experts in baboon behaviour to address sustainable methods of getting control on the situation. Hunting two alpha males is not a long-term solution,” said Dreyer.
She said baboon activity in residential areas increased from about June to August as food in the veld and forests declined in winter and baboon populations came in search of other sources of sustenance.
“While baboons can even stroll into town on occasion, persons living near the urban edge are most likely to be affected,” she said.
Knysna municipality’s Steven Langlands said baboon troops were attracted to residential areas by the ready availability of food and had been the cause of much irritation to residents of Hunters Home and George Rex during recent months.
“Damage has been caused to property and in some cases some of the males have been quite aggressive,” Langlands said.
He said that they had held meetings with residents and with CapeNature to try to find the best solution for the problem.
“Immediate interventions include the appointment of baboon monitors, and we are in the process of acquiring baboon-proof dustbins for residents in affected areas. We have also put out two RFQs [requests for quotations] recently. One for a service provider to assess the baboon-affected areas by gathering information on the troop movement, size, etc. Once we have their report, a management plan can be drawn up and implemented,” he said.
Langlands said the second RFQ, for a professional hunter, had caused much concern.
“The municipality is not planning to cull any baboons. As the baboons, especially some males, have been quite aggressive, this is a precautionary measure to make sure that should there be a life-threatening situation, we can act.
“If there is a need to euthanase a baboon, the right steps will be followed and an application will be made with CapeNature for the necessary permit.” DM/OBP
By Tembile Sgqolana• 1 September 2021
(Photo: Paula Bronstein / Getty Images)
Peaceful cohabitation between humans and baboons in Knysna seems unattainable if an advert circulated by the municipality for a professional hunter to shoot baboons in the area is anything to go by.
An advert calling for the services of a professional hunter to kill baboons in the Hunters Home and Pezula residential areas of Knysna has pitted animal rights activists, residents and Knysna municipality officials against one another.
According to the advert published on 23 August, an increase in baboon activity within certain residential areas has resulted in excessive damage to property, potentially compromising the safety of residents.
Baboon Solutions’ Terry Corr said the problems faced by Knysna are the same as those faced by Overberg and the Cape Peninsula.
“We keep chasing these baboons away, but they don’t know where away is. Knysna is their home,” he said.
Recently, there was a huge outcry when the City of Cape Town wanted to cull an alpha male named Kataza. He was sent to Riverside centre in Limpopo.
Marylou Botha, a resident of Hunters Home for more than 20 years and founding member of Guardians of the Garden Route (an organisation that fights for land and environmental issues), told Daily Maverick that the area where the animals roam was the baboons’ natural habitat until huge developments were put up in Knysna.
“They put huge electrical fences around these properties. The area is now surrounded by a golf course, forest and the lagoon. People added electrical fences to that and suddenly baboons were trapped in the suburbs with nowhere to go. It is difficult for them to get back into their natural wild areas and also there is plenty of food here,” she said.
Ban Animal Trading South Africa and members of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa have asked to be included in the decision-making process of the drafting of the new policy for the management and protection of the baboons in the Cape Peninsula.
Ban Animal Trading South Africa has called on people to contact the municipality and demand that it recalls the advert, not kill baboons and consider another management option.
Knysna resident Debbie Davies said this is one example of human-wildlife conflict which has led to species becoming extinct.
“The tender for hunting two alpha male baboons which are part of the troop of baboons which regularly forage in Hunters Home and are causing distress amongst residents has left residents outraged. Shooting these alpha males will result in the younger males fighting for superiority until new alpha males evolve. Shooting the existing alpha males may also result in the troop splitting and creating another problem in the area,” she said.
Davies said shooting the alpha males is only a short-term solution to the problem and will merely demonstrate to the affected residents that action has been taken by the municipality.
“Many residents of Hunters Home have had their homes ransacked and incurred damages and had to take measures to try and prevent access to their houses by baboons. Despite the inconvenience that it has been to live with the baboons, we would not wish that the baboons be physically harmed as they have also lived in the surrounding area for many years,” Davies said.
She said this was a human-wildlife cohabitation issue that needed to be solved scientifically and with input from the appropriate nature conservation and management groups.
“We understand some residents’ frustration, but we can in no way condone the proposed solution of shooting baboons in an effort to resolve the problem. If this horrific act takes place then action must be taken to raise awareness of the fact that the powers that be in Knysna took the path of least resistance when looking for a solution to this problem,” she said.
Beauty Without Cruelty South Africa wrote to Knysna Mayor Elrick van Aswegen and urged him to put the guns away and work towards a plan of action that will make a positive difference for all concerned as there are methods that can be put in place.
“We are appalled to hear that Knysna is resorting to the killing of the alpha baboons to supposedly stop human and baboon interface,” read the letter.
The letter stated that killing baboons did not solve the problem. Instead:
- It caused social upheaval in troops, trauma and splintering.
- More than 72 male baboons in Cape Town were dead because of authorities and years later nothing had changed in respect of baboon behaviour and easy foraging in urban areas.
- The baboon troops were not properly balanced, as we kept killing the males and new alphas kill offspring that was not theirs. This caused behavioural changes.
- Humans were the root cause of difficulties. Humans had invaded baboon areas and refused to live sensibly in wildlife areas and ensure that they didn’t litter, leave food waste and that bins were tamper-proof. This applied to residents and companies/restaurants.
“It is unacceptable that baboons are to be killed through human apathy and laziness, while punitive by-laws and requirements are not in place to ensure that there are appropriate and proper deterrents in the form of fines and/or a sentence,” read the letter.
The letter stated that wildlife was under constant and increasing threat due to ever-increasing land use, exacerbated by residents unwilling to make an effort or compromise.
“The current methods have not worked in the past, and are not working now, as the standard hurt (paintballing) and kill response has made no difference. Baboons, like other animals, are suffering the consequences of human laziness and arrogance,” the letter said.
Baboon Matters’ Dreyer said one of the things to reduce conflict is to make your area “baboon boring” and make sure waste is disposed of efficiently.
“This is something that Simon’s Town is now doing with regular Solid Waste compliance inspections in the area to keep their area uninteresting to baboons. The fact remains though: shooting an alpha male is not the answer.
“By removing the alpha you have a far more unstable, aggressive troop while the males fight for dominance to get the alpha position. This will cause more human and baboon conflict and the next alpha male could have less experience with controlling his troop. A new alpha male could also possibly commit infanticide in efforts to get rid of the older alpha’s offspring,” she said.
Dreyer said the municipality could only go ahead with this if CapeNature granted it permits to shoot alpha male baboons in residential areas — one a private estate.
“I do not feel that the Knysna municipality has asked for the experts in baboon behaviour to address sustainable methods of getting control on the situation. Hunting two alpha males is not a long-term solution,” said Dreyer.
She said baboon activity in residential areas increased from about June to August as food in the veld and forests declined in winter and baboon populations came in search of other sources of sustenance.
“While baboons can even stroll into town on occasion, persons living near the urban edge are most likely to be affected,” she said.
Knysna municipality’s Steven Langlands said baboon troops were attracted to residential areas by the ready availability of food and had been the cause of much irritation to residents of Hunters Home and George Rex during recent months.
“Damage has been caused to property and in some cases some of the males have been quite aggressive,” Langlands said.
He said that they had held meetings with residents and with CapeNature to try to find the best solution for the problem.
“Immediate interventions include the appointment of baboon monitors, and we are in the process of acquiring baboon-proof dustbins for residents in affected areas. We have also put out two RFQs [requests for quotations] recently. One for a service provider to assess the baboon-affected areas by gathering information on the troop movement, size, etc. Once we have their report, a management plan can be drawn up and implemented,” he said.
Langlands said the second RFQ, for a professional hunter, had caused much concern.
“The municipality is not planning to cull any baboons. As the baboons, especially some males, have been quite aggressive, this is a precautionary measure to make sure that should there be a life-threatening situation, we can act.
“If there is a need to euthanase a baboon, the right steps will be followed and an application will be made with CapeNature for the necessary permit.” DM/OBP
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
-
Richprins
- Committee Member
- Posts: 76026
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
- Location: NELSPRUIT
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
After seeing Dwarf's scars from his baboon attack, I'm all for it! 
Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
-
Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 67467
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
Monkey business: There is an ongoing urban war on the Cape Peninsula — humans versus baboons (Part One)
By Elsabé Brits• 2 September 2021
Baboons are chased off the road near Cape Point, Cape Town. (Photo: Gallo Images / Nardus Engelbrecht)
For as long as there have been humans and baboons, there have been conflicts over resources. The idea that the violent separation of baboons and their human neighbours is the only option is a profoundly political one that must be re-thought, especially in this era when urban societies have expanded and animal habitats are under threat.
Baboons on the Cape Peninsula are seen as “raiders”, “robbers”, “gangs”. They are criminalised and forced to the edges of their own habitat. If they “trespass” they are shot at with paintball markers.
Prof Lesley Green, an anthropologist and director of environmental humanities at the University of Cape Town, notes that “baboons are trying to live on the edge and we need to find a solution to live with them. What does it mean to be a neighbour of baboons? You have to manage the relationship.
“Would any of the officials paintball their dogs or their neighbours? Of course not! Humans and baboons have always been uneasy neighbours, but building relations of care for good neighbourliness in baboon neighbourhoods is both possible and preferable to violent policing.
“How did we get to this situation where we agree that life on the urban edges must be characterised by the violent separation of people and animals?” she asks.
“Controlling a baboon’s movement through pain is not necessary if what is on the other side is not attractive. Paintballing and culling of baboons are absurd and unfair, without attention to the specific roles people play in each neighbourhood.
“Why is there not a single social scientist on the baboon management team, to advise on baboon-human relations in different neighbourhoods? Each range of Cape Town’s various baboon troops extends to areas with different daily or weekly rhythms; different patterns of food growing or storage and different kinds of food waste and waste management concerns.
“Every neighbourhood has a different human presence in its streets, and if the relationship of baboons and people is to be better governed, each should be understood via its specific patterns of life that create different invitations and opportunities for baboons.
“One can’t govern with a one-size-fits-all approach that draws property lines enforced with paintballing: that is simply not responsive governance.
“At the end of the day, you are asking people and baboons to be better neighbours. But the current policy of the City of Cape Town is fostering a relationship of conflict and violent policing, instead of building responsible neighbourliness,” said Green.
For as long as there have been humans and baboons, there have been conflicts over resources. The idea that the violent separation of baboons and human neighbours is the only option is a profoundly political one that must be re-thought, especially in this era when urban societies have expanded and animal habitats are under threat.
“Can humans and animals be good neighbours? Yes, of course they can. But like any relationship it requires both parties to be responsible, not only one. Society and nature are not separate; they never have been and never will be. But as long as that idea is in place, it will provide a rationale for the violent policing of that imagined boundary,” argues Green.
A baboon attempts to get into a car near Cape Point. (Photo: Gallo Images / Nardus Engelbrecht)
Not only is social science absent in baboon management, notes Green, but the approach to primatology is limited.
“Why has only one approach to primatology been allowed to have a voice in the debate — the approach that presumes power and violence to be central to baboon life? The split between feminist and patriarchal approaches to primatology has been central in global debates for decades, but it is totally absent in Cape Town.
“The advising primatologists present their approach as ‘the voice of science’, but their approach is rooted in a masculinist patriarchal approach to baboon behaviour that is deeply contested in scientific contexts elsewhere.”
Dr Elisa Galgut, a trustee of Baboon Matters, said she has questions for the authorities:
“If the current management tools are said by the authorities to be working, why are baboons still being killed? The defence of aggressive tools such as paintballing is that ‘it’s better to use paintballs than to have baboons killed’. But baboons are still being killed — so will the city admit that current tools are not working?
“Why is there still a waste management problem on the peninsula? If the city took the welfare of the baboons seriously, one would think that all efforts to manage waste effectively would be the first thing the authorities would do.
“It is of great concern to note that these aversive techniques are being applied even though no official ethics review has been done. Nor, as far as I know, is there any consultation with an ethicist regarding baboon management. If a university, for example, wanted to use harmful and aggressive tactics in animal research, the protocol would have to be subject to ethical review. It’s not clear why conservation management tools are not required to undergo similar ethical review.
“Moreover, the authorities appeal to behavioural psychology in defence of these aversive techniques, but as far as I know, there is no behavioural psychologist on the committees that oversee the protocols,” Galgut said.
“The most concerning aspect of baboon management in the Cape is the use of aggressive tactics such as paintballs, and the killing of male baboons — over 70 baboons have been killed under the management strategy, which clearly indicates that the management is not working. The refusal of the authorities to manage the waste is also of extreme concern,” Galgut said.
The City of Cape Town was asked why it still supports the use of paintball markers when the SPCA withdrew its support for it. Marian Nieuwoudt, the MEC for Spatial Planning and Environment, said: “This has recently been changed and the Cape of Good Hope SPCA does support the interim use until the guidelines/protocols are reviewed.”
At the time this question was asked, the Standard Operating Procedures for the use of paintball markers were updated and the SPCA did not support it.
Jaco Pieterse, chief inspector of the Cape of Good Hope SPCA said: “The SPCA does not support, promote or endorse the use of paintball markers; however we cannot ban or stop their use, provided that it is used in a humane manner. The SPCA however believes the indiscriminate use of paintball guns fired at point-blank range at animals causes unnecessary suffering and therefore constitutes a criminal and prosecutable offence in terms of the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962.”
Baboons are often injured and illegally shot and harmed by residents, and then it becomes the responsibility of the SPCA.
The budget to pay NCC Environmental Services to run the Urban Baboon Management Plan is “between R12-million and R14-million, depending on increases and contingencies. With HWC, it was slightly more,” she said.
“The injured baboons (as a result of human-induced conflict) are not the mandate of the city and, in addition, the city does not have the budget or the resources to intervene. The city alerts the SPCA and, on occasion, CapeNature, and assists where possible,” she said.
Pieterse said the city has “not offered any financial contributions towards the treatment of any baboons. The SPCA is absorbing all the expenses. It costs the SPCA just over R5,000 to dart a single baboon, as we have to use a private veterinarian with a dart gun. Then there is also the additional cost of treatment that also falls on us.
“Responsibility needs to be accepted for injured baboons and this must not fall on to the SPCA. Currently, no one intervenes with injured baboons besides the SPCA, and the expenses we are incurring are astronomic.”
The rules also state that any baboon that is injured and treated only has five days to recover or improve before it is euthanised. The five days seems rather arbitrary, said Galgut.
Taryn Blyth, an animal behaviourist, said that by applying aversive techniques (paintball guns and bear bangers) that are associated with people rather than the urban area, we potentially risk creating aggression in the baboons, which, instead of seeing people as “neutral”, could associate people with something threatening, which could cause defensive aggression.
By creating a negative association with people, but still providing rich food sources through unsecured waste and fruit trees, we may be creating “approach-avoidance conflict”.
The baboons have both negative and positive associations around people, in as much as people do “scary stuff” to them, but where people are also a great food source.
Creating both associations of punishment and reward with the same stimulus (being around people) could cause the baboons to become extremely conflicted, and be caught between wanting to approach to get food, but at the same time wanting to avoid danger. This emotional conflict tends to lead to high levels of stress and unpredictable behaviour, such as aggression, she said.
According to the standard operating procedures, only adult baboons may be targeted with paintball markers. No adult females carrying infants may be shot at; the field guide working for NCC may only target adult baboons that are within a safe distance from juvenile and infant baboons, but within 20m of the guide.
Living with wildlife, as humans have for ages, is expressed in a recent 130-page document with the World Wildlife Fund.
In A Future for All: The need for human-wildlife coexistence, the authors write: “Around the world, human-wildlife conflict (HWC) challenges people and wildlife, leading to a decrease in people’s tolerance for conservation efforts and contributing to multiple factors that drive species to extinction.
“HWC is a significant threat to conservation, livelihoods and myriad other concerns and should be addressed at a scale equal to its importance. By allocating adequate resources and forming wide-ranging partnerships, we can move towards long-term coexistence that benefits both people and wildlife.
“We are convinced that if we adapt, replicate and scale up those successful efforts in a more concerted manner globally while considering local contexts and needs, we may well be able to achieve some level of human-wildlife coexistence. The time has come for stakeholders to step back and rethink how they can reduce and manage conflict between people and wildlife and foster coexistence for the benefit of both wildlife and people.”
As implemented in Cape Town, however, the human-wildlife conflict paradigm holds only baboons to account, said Jenni Trethowan, from Baboon Matters Trust: “Over the years, baboons have been paintballed in sleep sites, on waking, whilst foraging, even after having just given birth. They have little respite and are kept in areas that are easy to manage, so seasonal movement and wide-ranging foraging is effectively curtailed — possibly driving the ongoing need to grab high reward human foods.” DM/OBP
This is part one of a three-part series into the interconnectedness of communities living on the urban fringe and baboons and on how, if at all, the two can co-exist. In Part Two, we ask: Who is responsible for the management of the baboons on the Cape Peninsula?
By Elsabé Brits• 2 September 2021
Baboons are chased off the road near Cape Point, Cape Town. (Photo: Gallo Images / Nardus Engelbrecht)
For as long as there have been humans and baboons, there have been conflicts over resources. The idea that the violent separation of baboons and their human neighbours is the only option is a profoundly political one that must be re-thought, especially in this era when urban societies have expanded and animal habitats are under threat.
Baboons on the Cape Peninsula are seen as “raiders”, “robbers”, “gangs”. They are criminalised and forced to the edges of their own habitat. If they “trespass” they are shot at with paintball markers.
Prof Lesley Green, an anthropologist and director of environmental humanities at the University of Cape Town, notes that “baboons are trying to live on the edge and we need to find a solution to live with them. What does it mean to be a neighbour of baboons? You have to manage the relationship.
“Would any of the officials paintball their dogs or their neighbours? Of course not! Humans and baboons have always been uneasy neighbours, but building relations of care for good neighbourliness in baboon neighbourhoods is both possible and preferable to violent policing.
“How did we get to this situation where we agree that life on the urban edges must be characterised by the violent separation of people and animals?” she asks.
“Controlling a baboon’s movement through pain is not necessary if what is on the other side is not attractive. Paintballing and culling of baboons are absurd and unfair, without attention to the specific roles people play in each neighbourhood.
“Why is there not a single social scientist on the baboon management team, to advise on baboon-human relations in different neighbourhoods? Each range of Cape Town’s various baboon troops extends to areas with different daily or weekly rhythms; different patterns of food growing or storage and different kinds of food waste and waste management concerns.
“Every neighbourhood has a different human presence in its streets, and if the relationship of baboons and people is to be better governed, each should be understood via its specific patterns of life that create different invitations and opportunities for baboons.
“One can’t govern with a one-size-fits-all approach that draws property lines enforced with paintballing: that is simply not responsive governance.
“At the end of the day, you are asking people and baboons to be better neighbours. But the current policy of the City of Cape Town is fostering a relationship of conflict and violent policing, instead of building responsible neighbourliness,” said Green.
For as long as there have been humans and baboons, there have been conflicts over resources. The idea that the violent separation of baboons and human neighbours is the only option is a profoundly political one that must be re-thought, especially in this era when urban societies have expanded and animal habitats are under threat.
“Can humans and animals be good neighbours? Yes, of course they can. But like any relationship it requires both parties to be responsible, not only one. Society and nature are not separate; they never have been and never will be. But as long as that idea is in place, it will provide a rationale for the violent policing of that imagined boundary,” argues Green.
A baboon attempts to get into a car near Cape Point. (Photo: Gallo Images / Nardus Engelbrecht)
Not only is social science absent in baboon management, notes Green, but the approach to primatology is limited.
“Why has only one approach to primatology been allowed to have a voice in the debate — the approach that presumes power and violence to be central to baboon life? The split between feminist and patriarchal approaches to primatology has been central in global debates for decades, but it is totally absent in Cape Town.
“The advising primatologists present their approach as ‘the voice of science’, but their approach is rooted in a masculinist patriarchal approach to baboon behaviour that is deeply contested in scientific contexts elsewhere.”
Dr Elisa Galgut, a trustee of Baboon Matters, said she has questions for the authorities:
“If the current management tools are said by the authorities to be working, why are baboons still being killed? The defence of aggressive tools such as paintballing is that ‘it’s better to use paintballs than to have baboons killed’. But baboons are still being killed — so will the city admit that current tools are not working?
“Why is there still a waste management problem on the peninsula? If the city took the welfare of the baboons seriously, one would think that all efforts to manage waste effectively would be the first thing the authorities would do.
“It is of great concern to note that these aversive techniques are being applied even though no official ethics review has been done. Nor, as far as I know, is there any consultation with an ethicist regarding baboon management. If a university, for example, wanted to use harmful and aggressive tactics in animal research, the protocol would have to be subject to ethical review. It’s not clear why conservation management tools are not required to undergo similar ethical review.
“Moreover, the authorities appeal to behavioural psychology in defence of these aversive techniques, but as far as I know, there is no behavioural psychologist on the committees that oversee the protocols,” Galgut said.
“The most concerning aspect of baboon management in the Cape is the use of aggressive tactics such as paintballs, and the killing of male baboons — over 70 baboons have been killed under the management strategy, which clearly indicates that the management is not working. The refusal of the authorities to manage the waste is also of extreme concern,” Galgut said.
The City of Cape Town was asked why it still supports the use of paintball markers when the SPCA withdrew its support for it. Marian Nieuwoudt, the MEC for Spatial Planning and Environment, said: “This has recently been changed and the Cape of Good Hope SPCA does support the interim use until the guidelines/protocols are reviewed.”
At the time this question was asked, the Standard Operating Procedures for the use of paintball markers were updated and the SPCA did not support it.
Jaco Pieterse, chief inspector of the Cape of Good Hope SPCA said: “The SPCA does not support, promote or endorse the use of paintball markers; however we cannot ban or stop their use, provided that it is used in a humane manner. The SPCA however believes the indiscriminate use of paintball guns fired at point-blank range at animals causes unnecessary suffering and therefore constitutes a criminal and prosecutable offence in terms of the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962.”
Baboons are often injured and illegally shot and harmed by residents, and then it becomes the responsibility of the SPCA.
The budget to pay NCC Environmental Services to run the Urban Baboon Management Plan is “between R12-million and R14-million, depending on increases and contingencies. With HWC, it was slightly more,” she said.
“The injured baboons (as a result of human-induced conflict) are not the mandate of the city and, in addition, the city does not have the budget or the resources to intervene. The city alerts the SPCA and, on occasion, CapeNature, and assists where possible,” she said.
Pieterse said the city has “not offered any financial contributions towards the treatment of any baboons. The SPCA is absorbing all the expenses. It costs the SPCA just over R5,000 to dart a single baboon, as we have to use a private veterinarian with a dart gun. Then there is also the additional cost of treatment that also falls on us.
“Responsibility needs to be accepted for injured baboons and this must not fall on to the SPCA. Currently, no one intervenes with injured baboons besides the SPCA, and the expenses we are incurring are astronomic.”
The rules also state that any baboon that is injured and treated only has five days to recover or improve before it is euthanised. The five days seems rather arbitrary, said Galgut.
Taryn Blyth, an animal behaviourist, said that by applying aversive techniques (paintball guns and bear bangers) that are associated with people rather than the urban area, we potentially risk creating aggression in the baboons, which, instead of seeing people as “neutral”, could associate people with something threatening, which could cause defensive aggression.
By creating a negative association with people, but still providing rich food sources through unsecured waste and fruit trees, we may be creating “approach-avoidance conflict”.
The baboons have both negative and positive associations around people, in as much as people do “scary stuff” to them, but where people are also a great food source.
Creating both associations of punishment and reward with the same stimulus (being around people) could cause the baboons to become extremely conflicted, and be caught between wanting to approach to get food, but at the same time wanting to avoid danger. This emotional conflict tends to lead to high levels of stress and unpredictable behaviour, such as aggression, she said.
According to the standard operating procedures, only adult baboons may be targeted with paintball markers. No adult females carrying infants may be shot at; the field guide working for NCC may only target adult baboons that are within a safe distance from juvenile and infant baboons, but within 20m of the guide.
Living with wildlife, as humans have for ages, is expressed in a recent 130-page document with the World Wildlife Fund.
In A Future for All: The need for human-wildlife coexistence, the authors write: “Around the world, human-wildlife conflict (HWC) challenges people and wildlife, leading to a decrease in people’s tolerance for conservation efforts and contributing to multiple factors that drive species to extinction.
“HWC is a significant threat to conservation, livelihoods and myriad other concerns and should be addressed at a scale equal to its importance. By allocating adequate resources and forming wide-ranging partnerships, we can move towards long-term coexistence that benefits both people and wildlife.
“We are convinced that if we adapt, replicate and scale up those successful efforts in a more concerted manner globally while considering local contexts and needs, we may well be able to achieve some level of human-wildlife coexistence. The time has come for stakeholders to step back and rethink how they can reduce and manage conflict between people and wildlife and foster coexistence for the benefit of both wildlife and people.”
As implemented in Cape Town, however, the human-wildlife conflict paradigm holds only baboons to account, said Jenni Trethowan, from Baboon Matters Trust: “Over the years, baboons have been paintballed in sleep sites, on waking, whilst foraging, even after having just given birth. They have little respite and are kept in areas that are easy to manage, so seasonal movement and wide-ranging foraging is effectively curtailed — possibly driving the ongoing need to grab high reward human foods.” DM/OBP
This is part one of a three-part series into the interconnectedness of communities living on the urban fringe and baboons and on how, if at all, the two can co-exist. In Part Two, we ask: Who is responsible for the management of the baboons on the Cape Peninsula?
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
-
Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 67467
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: Human-Wildlife Conflict
Monkey Business (Part Two): Who is responsible for the management of baboons on the Cape Peninsula?
By Elsabé Brits• 5 September 2021
(Photo: Stuart Franklin / Getty Images)
Bolo, a baboon from the Simon’s Town Waterfall Troop was killed in July, despite recovering from an injury after treatment by the SPCA. The killing prompted several questions. Who takes the decision to formally kill or euthanise, as the authorities refer to it, a baboon causing ‘trouble’ and are there any scientific criteria to determine when and how a baboon should be killed? It seems that not a single entity is taking full responsibility.
It seems that as part of the “Baboon Management Plan” there is a checklist of “offences”, such as entering homes, cars and raiding rubbish bins. Too many offences on a sheet, and it is the end of the road for the baboon.
When the City of Cape Town was asked to provide the scientific criteria for making such a decision, it only provided the link to its protocols and guidelines.
The service providers, Human Wildlife Solutions (HWS), first agreed to discuss the issue, but later did not respond to questions sent by email, and NCC Environmental Services said all media enquiries had to go through its client, the City.
He said, she said. Who makes the decision?
According to CapeNature it is the City of Cape Town and its service providers who make the decision:
“The City of Cape Town and its service provider, NCC, are authorised under a permit issued by CapeNature in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance, to conduct restricted activities pertaining to the management of wild animals, including the capture, holding, relocation and euthanasia of baboons identified as habitual raiders. The permit allows them to make decisions in this regard without consulting CapeNature.
“The current operational guidelines are used by the service provider to track and record the movement, behaviour and activities of any baboon identified as potentially becoming a habitual raider putting itself or the troop at risk.
“A case study is put together by the service provider after evaluating its behaviour over an extended period. If according to the guideline criteria its behaviour has become irreversible, the animal is identified as a candidate for euthanasia. This case study and the completed BTTG03 form are submitted to the Biodiversity Branch of the City who has the authority to take a final decision under the auspices of the permit issued by CapeNature.”
The City’s response was, according to Marian Nieuwoudt, the mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment: “Yes, CapeNature’s response complies with the permitted system, but in a recent press statement the City noted that in this interim period all decisions would be diverted to CapeNature. Therefore, in the case of WF7 (Bolo), CapeNature made the decision.”
However, she said: “The guideline available shows the decision-making elements. The final decision rests with CapeNature, the authority that issues the permits.”
Confusing.
Both were asked to provide the specific case study. However, the City and CapeNature said they were sticking to what was in the press statement.
According to South African National Parks (SANParks), which manages Table Mountain National Park, it has “no jurisdiction to manage baboons or any other species outside the boundaries of the national park”. SANParks’ mandate was specifically focused on the management of national parks. When asked about the baboons inside its parks, Babalwa Dlangamandla, the spokesperson, did not respond.
But what is the actual baboon management plan? The City of Cape Town was asked to provide such a plan on which all role players have had a chance to give input.
“The overall baboon management plan/strategy is not a mandate of the City. The City is just one role player and does not have a conservation mandate in relation to the Cape Peninsula baboons. This plan must be led by CapeNature and SANParks. Draft plans/strategies are available and there has been public engagement in 2013/14. These plans have not yet been approved,” said Nieuwoudt.
But if it is not a mandate of the City, how does it have the knowledge to provide service providers to manage the baboon troops, Daily Maverick asked again.
Nieuwoudt’s response this time:
“The governance of baboon management in the Cape Peninsula is complex, involving CapeNature, SANParks and the City. No formal agreement exists and has been the subject of many discussions and a court case. CapeNature has committed to lead a process to finalise an agreement between the authorities. In addition, the SPCA plays a pivotal role in terms of animal welfare.
“The objective of the Urban Baboon Programme, run by the City, is to keep baboons out of the urban areas. The decisions for the Urban Baboon Programme are contained in the guidelines and permit conditions as approved by CapeNature. These guidelines are best practice for managing baboon-human conflict and are based on science and have proven to be very successful in the field.”
No bins?
One of the serious complaints is that the City does not provide baboon-proof bins, and the previous ones were easily manipulated by the animals.
Professor Darby Proctor, from the Florida Institute of Technology, who does research on decision-making in non-human primates, also did the same fieldwork with the baboons in 2008. She said about the lack of bins: “I think that is a shame. While I understand that providing those bins would be an expense, I think it would be worth it to help preserve your natural resources – in this case, the Cape baboons. This is also one of the easiest solutions to help mitigate human-wildlife conflict.
“Providing baboon-proof bins would by no means solve all the issues, but I suspect it would help significantly. The baboons are likely around human settlements because of the easily accessible food. Making food less accessible may encourage them to find more natural sources of food.
“Education is definitely part of the solution. People need to know what they can do to prevent human-wildlife conflict and what to do should they encounter problematic wildlife. People also need to understand how important it is to preserve this population of baboons. They are a treasure for the Cape,” she said.
Jenni Trethowan, from the Baboon Matters Trust, has been involved with the baboons for 25 years. “The most basic requirements are effective bins, those in use do not work effectively. It’s a people problem.”
Xanthea Limberg, the City’s mayoral committee member for water and waste, said: “New-design lockable bins for households are subject to a tender process and will be issued in areas adjacent to baboon troops’ natural habitat from 1 October 2021, if all goes as planned, once due process has been finalised. In the Simon’s Town area, there are new brown polywood, baboon-resistant bins between the station and the magistrates’ court. These polywood bins have also been installed in Scarborough.” DM/OBP
By Elsabé Brits• 5 September 2021
(Photo: Stuart Franklin / Getty Images)
Bolo, a baboon from the Simon’s Town Waterfall Troop was killed in July, despite recovering from an injury after treatment by the SPCA. The killing prompted several questions. Who takes the decision to formally kill or euthanise, as the authorities refer to it, a baboon causing ‘trouble’ and are there any scientific criteria to determine when and how a baboon should be killed? It seems that not a single entity is taking full responsibility.
It seems that as part of the “Baboon Management Plan” there is a checklist of “offences”, such as entering homes, cars and raiding rubbish bins. Too many offences on a sheet, and it is the end of the road for the baboon.
When the City of Cape Town was asked to provide the scientific criteria for making such a decision, it only provided the link to its protocols and guidelines.
The service providers, Human Wildlife Solutions (HWS), first agreed to discuss the issue, but later did not respond to questions sent by email, and NCC Environmental Services said all media enquiries had to go through its client, the City.
He said, she said. Who makes the decision?
According to CapeNature it is the City of Cape Town and its service providers who make the decision:
“The City of Cape Town and its service provider, NCC, are authorised under a permit issued by CapeNature in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance, to conduct restricted activities pertaining to the management of wild animals, including the capture, holding, relocation and euthanasia of baboons identified as habitual raiders. The permit allows them to make decisions in this regard without consulting CapeNature.
“The current operational guidelines are used by the service provider to track and record the movement, behaviour and activities of any baboon identified as potentially becoming a habitual raider putting itself or the troop at risk.
“A case study is put together by the service provider after evaluating its behaviour over an extended period. If according to the guideline criteria its behaviour has become irreversible, the animal is identified as a candidate for euthanasia. This case study and the completed BTTG03 form are submitted to the Biodiversity Branch of the City who has the authority to take a final decision under the auspices of the permit issued by CapeNature.”
The City’s response was, according to Marian Nieuwoudt, the mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment: “Yes, CapeNature’s response complies with the permitted system, but in a recent press statement the City noted that in this interim period all decisions would be diverted to CapeNature. Therefore, in the case of WF7 (Bolo), CapeNature made the decision.”
However, she said: “The guideline available shows the decision-making elements. The final decision rests with CapeNature, the authority that issues the permits.”
Confusing.
Both were asked to provide the specific case study. However, the City and CapeNature said they were sticking to what was in the press statement.
According to South African National Parks (SANParks), which manages Table Mountain National Park, it has “no jurisdiction to manage baboons or any other species outside the boundaries of the national park”. SANParks’ mandate was specifically focused on the management of national parks. When asked about the baboons inside its parks, Babalwa Dlangamandla, the spokesperson, did not respond.
But what is the actual baboon management plan? The City of Cape Town was asked to provide such a plan on which all role players have had a chance to give input.
“The overall baboon management plan/strategy is not a mandate of the City. The City is just one role player and does not have a conservation mandate in relation to the Cape Peninsula baboons. This plan must be led by CapeNature and SANParks. Draft plans/strategies are available and there has been public engagement in 2013/14. These plans have not yet been approved,” said Nieuwoudt.
But if it is not a mandate of the City, how does it have the knowledge to provide service providers to manage the baboon troops, Daily Maverick asked again.
Nieuwoudt’s response this time:
“The governance of baboon management in the Cape Peninsula is complex, involving CapeNature, SANParks and the City. No formal agreement exists and has been the subject of many discussions and a court case. CapeNature has committed to lead a process to finalise an agreement between the authorities. In addition, the SPCA plays a pivotal role in terms of animal welfare.
“The objective of the Urban Baboon Programme, run by the City, is to keep baboons out of the urban areas. The decisions for the Urban Baboon Programme are contained in the guidelines and permit conditions as approved by CapeNature. These guidelines are best practice for managing baboon-human conflict and are based on science and have proven to be very successful in the field.”
No bins?
One of the serious complaints is that the City does not provide baboon-proof bins, and the previous ones were easily manipulated by the animals.
Professor Darby Proctor, from the Florida Institute of Technology, who does research on decision-making in non-human primates, also did the same fieldwork with the baboons in 2008. She said about the lack of bins: “I think that is a shame. While I understand that providing those bins would be an expense, I think it would be worth it to help preserve your natural resources – in this case, the Cape baboons. This is also one of the easiest solutions to help mitigate human-wildlife conflict.
“Providing baboon-proof bins would by no means solve all the issues, but I suspect it would help significantly. The baboons are likely around human settlements because of the easily accessible food. Making food less accessible may encourage them to find more natural sources of food.
“Education is definitely part of the solution. People need to know what they can do to prevent human-wildlife conflict and what to do should they encounter problematic wildlife. People also need to understand how important it is to preserve this population of baboons. They are a treasure for the Cape,” she said.
Jenni Trethowan, from the Baboon Matters Trust, has been involved with the baboons for 25 years. “The most basic requirements are effective bins, those in use do not work effectively. It’s a people problem.”
Xanthea Limberg, the City’s mayoral committee member for water and waste, said: “New-design lockable bins for households are subject to a tender process and will be issued in areas adjacent to baboon troops’ natural habitat from 1 October 2021, if all goes as planned, once due process has been finalised. In the Simon’s Town area, there are new brown polywood, baboon-resistant bins between the station and the magistrates’ court. These polywood bins have also been installed in Scarborough.” DM/OBP
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge