Human-Wildlife Conflict

[Lisbeth]

Monkey Business (Part Three): Cape Peninsula’s dated baboon management plan is a failure, say critics

By Elsabé Brits• 6 September 2021


Mother and baby from the Waterfall baboon troop, Simon's Town. (Photo: Joyrene Kramer)

The way the baboons in the Cape Peninsula are managed is hailed as a great success, but not everyone agrees

This is the final part of a three-part series looking at the management of baboons in the Cape Peninsula. Read Part One and Part Two

“I think because the programme is ‘sold’ as a science-based one, there should be clearly defined measurements of success of the baboon management programme,” said Jenni Trethowan, from the Baboon Matters Trust, which has been actively involved with the baboons for the past 25 years.

“It is important that people understand the different troops and their personalities. When I watched paintballing one day, it was chaotic. The juveniles were rubbing themselves as they came over the wall. They were being fired at from all over. If you are being shot at on the mountain and in the village, it makes no difference and they don’t know the difference,” she said.

She sees little tolerance for the natural behaviour of the baboons, or that the measures being used are working.

Professor Justin O’Riain, a behavioural ecologist at the University of Cape Town’s Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa, is the only consultant for the City of Cape Town. The city said in an email “he is a world-renowned primatologist and an independent researcher from UCT”.

When asked how he is scientifically measuring the success of the urban baboon management programme, he said:


Baboons and a monitor near Cape Point. (Photo: Gallo Images / Nardus Engelbrecht)

“This really depends on your definition of success. The Urban Baboon Programme (UBP) stated their goals and they have changed little from the Brownlie strategy (in 2000) which predates our involvement and the involvement of most people currently part of the UBP.

“The goal: to ensure a sustainable population with reduced conflict between humans and baboons. If that is the definition of their success, then yes, we can state unequivocally that the UBP has been successful. The population has increased by 58% from 1998 to 2020. The number of troops increased from 10 to 16. In 1998 there were a few troops with no adult males. In 2020 all troops had adult males. Then, as indicated in the previous section, the time that baboons have been spending in urban areas has declined and with that there has been reduced conflict. Less damage to houses, people, pets and less injuries and deaths to baboons.”

Trethowan, who keeps data on all the troops, said the strategy was written 20 years ago. She questions why it has not been updated, given the fact that there has been a lot of research done in the intervening years. Only 11 troops are managed and one troop in Misty Cliffs has been completely eliminated.

(See the population tables Baboon Matters kept for 2020 and the one for 1998 to 2019. Adult males, adult females and immature baboons are marked. There is a high number of immature baboons that do not reach adulthood, and the numbers shown to us by the managers is not necessarily a healthy population in terms of an increase in breeding adults.)




“The service providers show no adaptive management and do not encourage field staff or field management to be adaptive. For example, the last four females at Misty Cliffs foraged on easily accessible food at three Scarborough restaurants every morning. Instead of planning around this pattern, the rangers went up to the roost site every morning and the baboons then went directly to the restaurants. I suggested a couple of ideas to [Human Wildlife Solutions, HWS] but [they] dismissed them all. I think it was brutal on the men running up and down the cliff daily and achieving nothing,” said Trethowan.

O’Riain said: “However, if one’s definition of success is that baboons and people should share the urban environment ‘because baboons were here first’, then the programme is a failure, because it seeks to keep baboons in a natural habitat and out of urban areas where threats are known.

“Furthermore, if your definition of success is that the peninsula baboons should be managed as if they were in a sanctuary which includes feeding and providing them with veterinary care for even natural injuries, then you might consider the programme a failure. Lastly, if you believe that humans do not have the right to euthanise individuals with proven poor welfare to prevent suffering and acts of cruelty as the management guidelines suggest, then you will also consider the programme a failure.

“I think it is imperative to remember that the authorities are managing an ecosystem without natural predators. Thus, when a male is deposed as alpha and becomes peripheral to the troop, they invariably spend more time in urban areas while the core of the troop remains the focus of the field rangers and their efforts to keep them out of town. Such males start to roam alone and can more easily forage in urban areas. In a natural ecosystem, lone males would suffer high predation risk and hence there would be very few of them. Not so on the peninsula where there are no predators. Low-ranking peripheral females (who find life near the social centre tough as they are low in rank and hence constantly picked on) and old females or females in poor condition very often join such males enjoying greater access to rich pickings in urban areas and even copulations with the deposed male.”

This is how splinter troops form on the peninsula and with the single team of rangers focusing on keeping the majority in the main troop out, these splinters spend more time in town and with that, there are more injuries and deaths linked to urban causes, as a result of increased access to human foods and the higher risks of being closer to humans, according to O’Riain.

Pete Oxford, a zoologist who knows the baboons in Betty’s Bay well, said the only natural predator there has ever been in that area is the leopard. It is still there and only 5% of its diet is baboons. “All three of our adult males, who rotate through dominance, every few days are known to enter the house. Does he [O’Riain] think they should be killed? The troop has not formed splinter groups; they all sleep together. However, the troop is now being splintered on a daily basis by the aggressive chasing. This makes the management entirely ineffective.

“The method is failing and has led to an increase in house entries, despite all the money spent. There is too much in-house protectiveness and not enough objectivity.”

O’Riain said, for instance, that “Kataza could not persist on the peninsula once removed from Tokai where he was integrating well. He was taken to a sanctuary, and I believe is enjoying a good quality of life with lots of food, social interactions and no predators. The problem is this option is not sustainable and the sanctuary owners have stated this. Hence the public opposed to lethal management for a baboon that cannot be deterred from dangerous urban areas must fundraise and build a local sanctuary for baboons that cannot live a wild life on the peninsula without putting themselves, other baboons and the public, at risk.

“This will include the many baboons who, in the absence of predators, suffer enormous hardship in old age. Toothless, emaciated and with sparse hair. That is not a humane way to survive a Cape winter.”


Simon’s Town resident Luana Pasanisi uses a red flag to stop traffic so that the Waterfall baboon troop can safely cross the town’s main road.(Photo: Joyrene Kramer)

Trethowan said there is indeed hair loss among fairly young baboons, as well as older baboons. “Why is this not investigated? Many baboons’ [have] loose teeth — they eat hard substances like pine nuts and mussels and have coped very well through the ages. No one objects to humane euthanasia but it seems some have lost sight of what is genuinely humane and what is population control.”

Oxford disagrees with O’Riain: “The service provider claims the baboons’ teeth are rotten due to sugar and they can no longer feed on natural fynbos. Our oldest baboon died a few years ago, of old age, and she was still feeding on fynbos. Hair loss, we believe, is a direct result of stressful management and range restrictions resulting in suboptimal forage. Our previously unmanaged troop is now managed by HWC and they are already showing scraggy fur and huge weight loss, just within four months. They are definitely losing condition. HWC claims it is due to losing the human-derived food fat layer. The argument fails because since they began house entries and food acquisition have increased. It is stressful.”

Daily Maverick asked O’Riain several other questions and he gave a lengthy response. It can be read here: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article ... y-critics/

There is another way — a perspective

Dr Ruth Kansky, from the Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology at Stellenbosch University, has researched wildlife tolerance models to understand human-wildlife conflicts and is working on learning-based approaches to improve collaborative human-wildlife governance systems

“There needs to be independent recording of the efficacy of the baboon monitors because you cannot have the service provider monitoring itself,” she said.

“When I was living in Scarborough when HWS [the previous service provider] started the baboon monitoring, I had volunteer residents record baboon presence in the village and compared it to what HWS were reporting. There were discrepancies, which I told them about. After this their reports were more accurate but I could not keep this up long-term because I moved on to other things.

“Another time I was approached by the Baboon Matters Trust to assist them to analyse the raiding and removal of male baboons’ data from HWS’s monthly reports, to see if removing what they recorded as raiding males, reduced raiding by the rest of the troop. The reporting by HWC was problematic, but from what we could gather it seemed like removing specific males did not reduce raiding by the rest of the troop. At any rate, there needs to be a stronger evidence basis for the policy of the City of Cape Town,” she added.

Reflecting on 21 years of baboon management on the Cape Peninsula after her initial involvement in conducting research and setting up the baboon monitoring programme, she described the changes that took place over the years that, in her opinion, led to the current crisis.

• The Baboon Monitor Project continued and expanded to more troops although there were issues of funding, quality and efficacy;

• The Baboon Management Plan that was agreed upon through a stakeholder engagement process was never fully implemented because there was conflict between authorities about their responsibilities;

• The baboon demography changed, with an increase in population and more dispersing males;

• New role players whose understanding and values were different from the original group;

• The authorities became more secretive and less collaborative;

• Management practices were changed without wide consultation and were more intrusive and lethal;

• Conflict arose between stakeholders concerned with animal welfare issues and the authorities; and

• Kataza, who was removed from his group, was “the straw that broke the camel’s back”.

“If I were to pick one key driver it is the value conflict between people with domination wildlife value orientations versus those with mutualistic wildlife value orientations. Domination values are held by people who believe animals are there for human benefit and use and that human wellbeing should be prioritised over animals.

“Research shows that such people support lethal control and other more intrusive management practices. The mutualists’ see animals as having equal rights to humans and support non-lethal and humane management interventions. Scientists and conservationists can also have these value orientations and hence conflict can happen when they have more domination values and some residents and other stakeholders have more mutualistic values.

“One of the more systemic drivers of this conflict and others is that conservation managers are not really trained to deal with people, how to manage conflict or different models of collaborative governance involving stakeholders with different values, worldviews or perspectives. Therefore, when conflict arises they may feel helpless to deal with the situation and prefer less collaboration and take decisions unilaterally.

“Wildlife management in the 21st century should increasingly aim to manage interactions between wildlife and people to achieve goals valued by stakeholders,” said Kansky, quoting from the textbook Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management. DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

Parts of SA may soon be INFESTED by ‘a record number’ of brown locusts

A grim warning has been sounded by agricultural community, as ‘one of the worst brown locust infestations on record’ is now heading for South Africa.

by Tom Head 21-09-2021


Photo: FAO Emergency / Flickr

Farming experts have warned of an incoming ‘infestation’ for certain regions of South Africa, as a number of unfavourable factors could bring misery to landowners and rural businesses over the next few weeks. The expected swarm of BROWN LOCUSTS could see the bugs come out in record numbers this year, too.

OUTBREAK FEARED: BROWN LOCUSTS SET TO PLAGUE THESE REGIONS

Already in September, small outbreaks have been reported in the Concordia and Springbok areas of the Northern Cape, as well as the Graaff-Reinet, Cradock and Aberdeen districts in the Eastern Cape. It’s now suggested that the Karoo region in the west of South Africa could experience the worst of these swarms.

Speaking to Farmer’s Weekly just a few days ago, Dr. Gerhard Verdoorn – who serves as the operations and stewardship manager at CropLife South Africa – explained what conditions are likely to facilitate a significant infestation:

“There is enough soil moisture in some parts of the Karoo to catalyse the hatching of brown locust eggs, if the temperature rises to above 16˚C in the soil and 30˚C in the atmosphere.”

WHAT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE THIS ‘RECORD’ INFESTATION?
Other factors have also been listed by farming experts, with the Eastern Cape once again looking vulnerable to another plague of brown locusts across the province’s ‘agriculturally important’ locations:

• The good rainfall forecast for the upcoming season doesn’t bode well for South Africa…

• Brown locusts had laid their eggs near irrigation areas in the Eastern Cape earlier this year.

• Substantial downpours could therefore result in large-scale infestations.

• Farmers have been told to be vigilant, and regularly scout their velds where locusts were present last year.

• According to Agri SA, stationary swarms of 2km x 1km in diameter had been reported during the previous rainy season.

• The nightmare could become a reality by the end of October, with ‘large-scale infestations’ now feared.

[Richprins]

[Lisbeth]

Not a nice forecast

[Richprins]

Lots of food for insectivores!

[Lisbeth]

There are so many that they can still ruin a lot of harvests, even while a lot are being food for insectivores

[Lisbeth]

From the wilds of Mana Pools to the urban fringes of Cape Town: Lessons learnt from living with baboons

By Phil Richardson• 3 October 2021


A cyclist watches baboons close to Cape Point, Cape Town. (Photo: Gallo Images / Sunday Times / Marianne Schwankhart)

The problem with urban baboons is that the natural order of things gets blurred when the baboons get over-habituated and lose their natural fear of humans. The minute a dangerous animal learns that it does not need to fear humans and, in fact, humans can provide some very nice high-energy food as well, then the problems start. The natural reticence has gone, and there is a big reward just waiting to be taken.

• Dr Phil Richardson is a behavioural ecologist and project manager at Human Wildlife Solutions. He is a research associate at the Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa (iCWild) at the University of Cape Town.

Almost all land-based animals fear humans. For good reason. For 300,000 years, anatomically modern humans, and for over a million years, our predecessors, have been hunting all sized mammals, birds and reptiles. Consequently, almost all mammals have an instinctive fear of humans because they have learnt that humans are generally more successful at hunting them than they have been at hunting or killing humans.

There are obvious exceptions to the rule. But even lions and elephants, which would obviously win most one-on-one battles, are still wary of humans and would generally rather avoid them than challenge them. Humans have achieved this wariness from the animal kingdom because they are smarter than other animals, and have learnt how to make weapons, use fire and communicate and collaborate in social groups to hunt and protect themselves.

At this stage in our evolutionary history, this is basically the status quo — “the natural order of things”, so to speak. One that most animal rights activists, often from cities, have forgotten. This status quo became very clear to my wife, Lynne, and me, when we spent six years living in tents, without any fences, in Mana Pools National Park in the Zambezi Valley of northern Zimbabwe. For the last four years of our time there, we were filming a wildlife documentary for National Geographic Television, called Walking with Lions. That is another story, but while we were there Nat Geo also made a film about us, called Living with Lions. Although we were indeed living in the middle of a pride of 20 lions’ territory, to us it was much more about living with baboons — because we really were.

Our tents were alongside a dry riverbed and pitched directly under three huge sausage trees, which normally produce tens of 1-2kg sausage-like fruits every year. The only reason we could live safely under these trees, without the risk of massive fruits falling on us, was because every night we were there (July to December), the baboons slept in the trees directly above us. The baboons ate all the flowers before they could ever produce any giant fruits. Every night we would go to sleep to the sounds of baboons squabbling and to the telltale sounds, and smells, of being a baboon lavatory. We were very careful though, never to let the baboons become our friends, or ever associate us as a source of food. Twenty years later this troop is still just as wild and wary of humans.


Baboons wander around on December 6, 2013 in Sun City, South Africa. (Photo: Stuart Franklin/Getty Images)

The baboons saw us every day as they came and went to their nightly roost. The juveniles often watched us from overhanging branches as we bathed our baby daughter in a basin. On the ground, however, they always gave us a wide berth of at least 10 metres and never allowed us to approach them. They were always wary of us, despite walking past us and around us having supper in the evenings.

So, to get back to the status quo, it was amazing that while we lived under a baboon roost, and had lions and elephants walking past our camp at the edge of a dry riverbed, there was always a great respect for each other. If we approached too close to film them, the baboons always sauntered away. The elephants and lions generally also walked away, but sometimes mock charged.

This, to me, is the crux of the matter. Why should an elephant or lion mock charge a human? Why not make it a full charge and get rid of the problem? Often while walking to a good viewing point or canvas hide, we would be stopped by a low, warning growl of a lion. We would scan around and spot them crouched under or behind a nearby bush. This was sufficient to alert us that we were invading their space. So, we would stop and take a wider berth. At other times they saw us too late, we were too close, so a mock charge was in order. We would stand our ground and sometimes shout and wave our arms, then we each went our own way again.

Clearly, the lions and elephants were signalling to us that they did not like us being too close and could flatten us if they wanted to. So why didn’t they? We were unarmed. With nothing more than pepper spray to protect us. I can only presume that evolutionary history had taught them that if they killed a human they would be in trouble: “the natural order of things”.

We were never charged by baboons in the wild. But in Cape Town one quite often hears of male baboons charging people. Sometimes they even push people over, and occasionally stand over them with teeth bared, but still they seem reluctant to bite. As if they know that would ultimately lead to much bigger trouble. The problem with urban baboons is that the natural order of things gets blurred when the baboons get over-habituated and lose their natural fear of humans.

The minute a dangerous animal learns that it does not need to fear humans and, in fact, humans can provide some very nice high-energy food as well, then the problems start. The natural reticence has gone, and there is a big reward just waiting to be taken. Once the wild animal learns that there is very little to lose and lots to gain, the game is over.

During the second half of the 20th century, when game lodges were becoming popular and many zoologists were starting to habituate wild animals in the field, people soon became very aware of the huge problems associated with rewarding habituated animals, or rewarding animals in order to habituate them for photographic or research purposes. Lions jumped on to the backs of bakkies that brought them food so that tourists could watch them feeding; chimpanzees and baboons became extremely aggressive to get their bananas. These sorts of practices very soon stopped because the lessons were well learnt, and the message passed on.

Despite wild animals’ natural fear of humans, it is often just a fine line that holds them back. Walking in the bush at night is a very different story from walking by day. Normally lions hunt by night and sleep by day. Humans are the exact opposite. They are scared of the dark, whereas lions thrive in the dark. They like to hunt under cover of darkness without any moonlight. It is easy to see how the balance could tip at night, and humans could indeed become prey.


Waterfall troop on their way to their home range to roost for the night at Admirals waterfall.
(Photo: Di Ruthenberg)

A classic example of this is described in the famous book, The Man-eaters of Tsavo, written by JH Patterson in 1907. Similarly, during times of plenty, elephants generally avoid human habitation and crops, but during a drought the incentive to raid crops greatly increases as the balance of risks versus rewards changes as the drought progresses. And once they have learnt how easy the rewards are to obtain, the risks to humans and themselves escalate very quickly. Almost invariably, in all these events, the lions and elephants ultimately are killed for crossing the line.

Whether wild animals attempt to cross the line or not, primarily depends on two factors: economics (costs versus benefits), and knowledge. From the economics point of view, this is exactly how Professor Shirley Strum (University of California San Diego), a world-renowned primatologist, summarised the situation when she was invited to attend an international workshop organised to consider how to manage the Cape Town baboons in 2011. She said “I have tested and witnessed many control techniques in the past 40 years. They all point to the need to make the costs higher than the benefits for the baboons.”

Knowledge takes us back to habituation. It is easy to understand the temptation to habituate wild animals. Most field biologists and wildlife camera people have done it to a greater or lesser extent at some stage of their careers. It is an incredible experience to observe totally free-living wild animals from close range on foot. Opportunities like this allow one to take brilliant photographs and gain intimate knowledge of the habituated animals (presuming of course one’s presence does not change the animal’s behaviour).

However, habituation is a double-edged sword. Not only does the human gain intimate knowledge about the “wild” animal, but it also gains intimate knowledge about the humans. Furthermore, with increasing habituation, the humans become progressively less scary until, ultimately, it takes very little to tip the balance of “the natural order of things”.

Habituation frees animals from their instinctive fear of humans and allows them to take liberties they would never have dreamt of before. It is fake freedom, however, because “the natural order of things” returns as soon as the habituated animal encounters other humans not involved in the habituation process.

Habituation of wild animals therefore requires very serious ethical consideration before being undertaken by researchers or photographers. The key question is whether the habituated animals are ever likely to encounter “unhabituated” humans.

A classic example of habituation going wrong was the feeding of bananas to facilitate the habituation of chimpanzees and baboons at Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania. These animals were fed bananas for years, to the point they were still “free-ranging” but became extremely aggressive. So aggressive, in fact, that the researcher involved felt compelled to raise her young child in a steel cage for his protection (Jane Goodall, 1971, In the Shadow of Man, London: William Collins Sons & Co).

This habituation process was strongly criticised by eminent primatologists Vernon Reynolds and Richard Wrangham in the mid-1970s. And for good reason (Reynolds, V, 1975. How wild are the Gombe chimpanzees?. Man, pp.123-125; and Wrangham, RW, 1974. Artificial feeding of chimpanzees and baboons in their natural habitat. Animal Behaviour, 22(1), pp.83-93).

As any African farmer knows, baboons are incredibly smart. Although they are not known to kill humans, there are cases in South Africa where baboons have injured people. For example, a four-year-old child’s belly was slashed open by a baboon while picnicking with his family at Kogel Bay between Gordon’s Bay and Rooi Els. And just a few months ago, a man was hospitalised after a baboon bit his shoulder.


A baboon sits on a rock at the Cape Point Nature Reserve in Cape Town. (Photo: Gallo Images / BATELEUR PUBLISHING – MARK SKINNER)

Thankfully, such incidents are rare. What is much more evident is that baboons can cause great damage and trauma once they have learnt how easy and rewarding it is to eat human-derived food. An example of this is the behaviour of male baboons killing sheep in Namaqualand. When or where this behaviour started, is not known, but it is spreading slowly across this arid landscape as dispersing males take the behaviour learnt from their fathers and uncles to neighbouring troops. This habit is going from troop to troop and from farm to farm and having a devastating effect on many subsistence farmers in northern Namaqualand. Where or when this habit will stop, is also not known.

Having spent nearly 20 years either living with baboons in some of the deepest, wildest and most natural bush in Africa, or working with them on the edge of a huge African city (Cape Town), has taught us a great deal about these incredible animals.

The best part is the realisation that it is physically possible to live side by side with baboons, to respect each other, to tolerate each other, and also have almost no effect on each other as long as the humans are careful and respect the boundaries.

The worst part is the realisation of how easy it is for humans to totally ruin a whole troop of baboons within a very short space of time.

Feeding is an obvious recipe for disaster, although one can almost understand it if people are trying to be kind to the baboons. However, there can be no excuse these days for any deliberate prolonged habituation of a wild animal living within or just outside an urban area.

These animals will undoubtedly gain the false belief that humans can be trusted, and this trust will undoubtedly be betrayed, ultimately by those who habituated them. DM

[Klipspringer]

good read!

[Lisbeth]

More problems than solutions: Being paid to kill Western Cape baboons is no way to manage wildlife

By Pete Oxford• 6 October 2021


Baboons are chased off the road near Cape Point, Cape Town. (Photo: Gallo Images/ Nardus Engelbrecht)

Pete Oxford has responded to an opinion piece by Phil Richardson, owner of Human Wildlife Solutions, a company that holds the contract to manage baboons in the Overberg. Oxford asks why HWS has long criticised an ‘anthropomorphic’ consideration to managing baboons, despite a global swing towards a more empathetic approach to wildlife management as we slowly emerge from the dark ages. To Human Wildlife Solutions, a baboon is a baboon — they give it a number, almost like a commodity, he says.

Pete Oxford is a qualified zoologist, professional naturalist, photographer, writer and conservationist. He has spent more than three decades in intimate association with wildlife in some of the wildest places on earth. He has travelled repeatedly to all continents, including 15 times to Antarctica. He has published 14 books. He lives in the Overberg.

I am writing in reference to the article published by Phil Richardson on 3 October 2021 in Our Burning Planet. (The article above this one.)

The article wants to come across as a voice of reason, as I am sure it will to a large number of Daily Maverick readers not fully au fait with the realities on the ground. It is, however, loaded with sinister overtones and blame which need to be laid to rest.

I know Richardson personally and find the article consistent with his one-sided public arguments regarding baboons.

He talks at length in the article about his experiences with lions, elephants and baboons. I’m not really sure why. We all have bedtime animal stories. He references that, like me, he has worked with National Geographic. We are both credible.

I looked up the films they have made which he referenced. I found them impossible to find anywhere on the internet. I did, however, manage to dig up a 13-minute clip.


A Human Wildlife Services ranger fires his paintball gun at members of the Slangkop baboon troop to keep them contained on Slangkop Mountain above Kommetjie in the deep south of Cape Town. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

HWS has long criticised an “anthropomorphic” consideration to managing baboons, despite a global swing towards a more empathetic approach to wildlife management as we slowly emerge from the dark ages. To Human Wildlife Solutions (HWS), a baboon is a baboon — they give it a number, almost like a commodity.

Imagine my surprise when I watched the clip. It was mostly about a lion pride, filmed in the late 1990s. It was the epitome of habituation. The lions had been given names and individual characters were recognised. “Shumba the lioness was so confident and full of life… Kavinga was a wonderful lion, with a superb confidence about him. Mrs Hunter was a fantastic and very gentle mother… Farai was without a care in the world, an indomitable little fellow.”

What’s best, said Lynne Richardson, Phil’s wife and co-owner of HWS, talking about a lion, “is that he is relaxed with us and accepts us. Speaking to them very gently and quietly makes them relax”.

Writing about the baboons in his camp, Richardson states that they were “always wary of us”. Yet, the clip shows him walking towards a stationary baboon standing outside his tent a few feet away, and other baboons bouncing all over the tent roof!

What happened, Mr and Mrs Richardson? Where did you lose your empathy? When money was involved?

The article goes on to reference a rather poisonous letter written by Shirley Strum, against “activists”. It was written a decade ago, with reference only to those baboons in and around Cape Town. It was not, or is, at all relevant to the Overstrand (where Richardson is working as the owner of HWS after not having had their contract renewed in Cape Town) — nor is there any reference to Strum’s subsequent letter of 2018 where she essentially changes her tune and blames poor waste management as being a root cause of baboon/human interaction.

Strum is certainly not the only primatologist in the “circus”.


Primatologist Dr Jane Goodall. (Photo: EPA-EFE / David Mariuz)

Then to go on and disparage Dr Jane Goodall about her work and methods from the 1970s is rather below the belt! Has he picked on her specifically because she has now written two letters to me personally regarding the Betty’s Bay troop, where nothing that she mentions has not come true under the flawed management style of HWS?

He goes on and on against her, blaming deliberate feeding as a problem. Here we agree — feeding baboons is a problem. Tell it how it is, though. “Deliberate” feeding by allowing baboons access to bird seed and public and household waste and so on needs to be addressed urgently. It is well known that the quickest and most effective way to habituate any animal is through food rewards.

Richardson uses a lot of space in the article to “blame” habituation, with particular mention of photographers being responsible. Having been accused repeatedly, both in public and in private, by Richardson as having habituated our baboons (in order to fulfil a desire to photograph them and make lots of money, he claims), I take this as a veiled accusation against me and will answer as such.

First, I take images of them, yes, for local education purposes, but I have never sold a single Betty’s Bay baboon image. Nor have I distributed them to any of my agents. Please lose this disparaging statement. Richardson seems incapable of accepting that an animal habituated to humans is habituated to humans, not just specific individuals. Dozens of times, for example, we have watched fully uniformed HWS monitors, in bright yellow vests, sitting very close to our baboons, with no reaction from them.

If they start to shoot at them or chase them, then the baboons scatter.

This, Mr Richardson, is where the problem with your management starts. When HWS was awarded the contract to manage baboons in Betty’s Bay, there are a few things to remember. Firstly, Richardson was fully aware that the troop was totally habituated before he was given the contract, even commenting while we were together with them “how wonderfully chilled” they were. Now he claims it as the reason for their failure to solve the problem. They have only, so far, succeeded in displacing the issue.

Second, the contract was awarded, via a deviation process, based on the municipality being sold the idea of the efficacy of the “virtual fence” which was hailed as the answer. It has been deployed repeatedly in and around Betty’s Bay now, but has not worked. Should we ask for our taxpayer’s money back and start again? It is a lot of money, to be sure.

The Betty’s Bay troop is fully habituated, but no more so, according to renowned primatologist Dr Dave Gaynor, than almost every other troop on the peninsula. The individual troop members have each spent their entire lives in association with the urban area of Betty’s Bay. They have been getting into houses, opportunistically, or by removing sliding doors for many, many years — long before I arrived on the scene. There are many long-time residents who will corroborate this, even with photographic evidence. We can therefore ignore those that say they never saw them.

He talks of a natural fear of humans by animals and birds. They only usually fear us when they have been previously hunted. No hunting, no need to fear. It is “the natural order of things”. How many examples do you need? In fact, with specific regard to baboons, we once hiked to a remote troop in the Waterberg, which had seldom, if ever, had previous contact with humans. They all came towards us to check us out!

Then there is the fear-mongering of baboons being dangerous. Sure, they have big teeth and they could do damage if they wanted to. In the neighbouring village of Rooi Els — living a coexistence model with baboons where they are very regularly in the village — there has not been a human bitten by a baboon in 50 years.

We are not told the full story regarding the freak event of a poor child’s injury that was referenced. There is a backstory to the incident. Interestingly, some of the same people who claim baboons are dangerous, keep very dangerous dogs inside their homes. My father-in-law, a doctor once, literally had to sew a girl’s face back on after being attacked by her neighbour’s pet. He has sewn up many other dog injuries. Indeed, South Africa has the highest incidence of fatal dog attacks, per capita, in the world. Yet we accept living in intimate association with them.


A baboon grooms a fellow troop member at the Cape Point Nature Reserve in Cape Town. (Photo: Gallo Images / Mark Skinner)

HWS promotes baboons as being dangerous — they actively fear-monger about them in the community. It keeps their cause alive and justifies their need. It would be a shame for them, no doubt, for the public to understand that the about R26-million for three years to manage 166 baboons might be construed as “fruitless and wasteful expenditure”.

What a pleasure it would be if HWS actively worked themselves out of a job through education and understanding. Helping apply pressure for waste management protocols, introducing easy fixes to stop return visits by baboons to houses, possessing an (unbiased) understanding of baboon behaviour and showing empathy towards solving the conflicts, rather than needing them to remain employed. I could live with that.

Perhaps wildlife should not be “managed” for profit in the first place!

My concerns are widely shared, as evidenced by the hundreds of people who felt the need to publicly protest against HWS while they were still operating in Cape Town. Now, after HWS has forged their way east to the Overstrand, hundreds are marching against them once more.

This, after already killing one of our troop’s three adult males, Scarface. It was telling that one banner read, “Solutions not Executions!”

Lynne Richardson told the media how saddened she was by the “need” to kill Scarface, yet she actively canvassed against him. Nothing was done to resolve his behaviour, but simply criminalise it, playing always to her sycophantic, radical following.

HWS have called for us in Betty’s Bay to be patient. The Cape Peninsula, however, waited 10 years — scores of baboons were killed and nothing changed. Baboons are still coming into the urban area.

How patient do you want us to be, HWS?

It was Einstein who famously said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” If we expect things to change by allowing HWS to repeat the same things over and over, then surely it is we who are insane.

We cannot avoid the fact that if there is tension in our biosphere, then there is a problem.

Baboon management systems need to change and adapt to individually unique situations. We have made proposals, as yet to no avail, but, in the words of Richardson, “that is another story”. DM

[Lisbeth]

HWS should explain in detail how it is justifiable within any civilised society to kill baboons

By Lorraine Svoronos Holloway• 8 October 2021


South Africa. Animals, Wildlife. Baboon. Lone male baboon looks to camera while eating from his hands. (Photo: Media24/Gallo Images)

Instead of declaring baboons ‘dangerous’ amid monumental unmitigated circumstances, it makes a lot more sense to deal with the problem of habituation.

One would have hoped that the opinion piece by Phil Richarson, project manager at Human Wildlife Solutions (HWS) would have got down to brass tacks and described the true state of our urban baboons and how the system needs to change to bring some empathy and understanding for these beleaguered creatures.

Instead, we are taken on a personal journey of Richardson’s which is neither here nor there to any of us. What he should be explaining in fine detail is how it is justifiable within any civilised society to kill baboons in terms of the protocols. More than 402 baboons have died since 2012, of which 68 (according to HWS records when they held the contract on the Cape Peninsula from 2012 until September 2020) were killed in terms of the protocols. The other deaths were human induced, unknown, killed by hunting permit and natural causes. What a diabolical record of baboon loss. Our own record of baboons killed in terms of the protocols from 2012 to date is 78.

Human behaviour at every level has contributed to the demise of our baboons. Firm action should have been taken years and years ago to alter this behaviour. Yet here we are in the same “canoe without a paddle” and the same diatribe continues to be aired in the media with baboons being criminalised and unmitigated circumstances remaining unmitigated.

Why is there never any mention of the fact that we live in a declared World Heritage Site, a floral kingdom of note and that baboons play an integral part in our biodiversity?

Why is Dr Richardson not calling for a new and positive new era for our Cape chacma?

These are his words: “The problem with urban baboons is that the natural order of things gets blurred when the baboons get over-habituated and lose their natural fear of humans. The minute a dangerous animal learns that it does not need to fear humans and, in fact, humans can provide some very nice high-energy food as well, then the problems start. The natural reticence has gone, and there is a big reward just waiting to be taken.”

That word “dangerous” conjures visions of aggression and baboons attacking people. It is a “dangerous” word used too often and too liberally to describe baboons. All it does is establish a particular mindset of fear among the public.

Dr Richardson again: “Having spent nearly 20 years either living with baboons in some of the deepest, wildest and most natural bush in Africa, or working with them on the edge of a huge African city (Cape Town), has taught us a great deal about these incredible animals.”


Baboons near Cape Point on 24 October 2012. If you consider human behaviour towards these powerful animals, they continue to prefer flight over fight. (Photo: Gallo Images / Nardus Engelbrecht)

Yes, they are “incredible” animals, but during Dr Richardson’s tenure as service provider on the Cape Peninsula we heard first-hand the baboons being described as “gangsters” who must “feel pain” in order to get them under control. These iconic animals deserve better than this.

Dr Richardson: “We were never charged by baboons in the wild. But in Cape Town one quite often hears of male baboons charging people. Sometimes they even push people over, and occasionally stand over them with teeth bared, but still they seem reluctant to bite. As if they know that would ultimately lead to much bigger trouble. The problem with urban baboons is that the natural order of things gets blurred when the baboons get over-habituated and lose their natural fear of humans.”

What Dr Richardson has failed to mention are the circumstances under which such incidents may have occurred, nor has he given statistics of their frequency between 2012 and 2020.

There are statistics (from HWS monthly reports) which show many baboons have been electrocuted, attacked by dogs, poisoned, hit by cars and shot at with catapults, pellet guns and other weapons with fatal results. These incidents occur way too often, and we seldom find that the law takes its course and offenders are prosecuted.

We only hear about “baboon behaviour”. Why not discuss both sides of the coin?

Richardson again: “The minute a dangerous animal learns that it does not need to fear humans and, in fact, humans can provide some very nice high-energy food as well, then the problems start. The natural reticence has gone, and there is a big reward just waiting to be taken. Once the wild animal learns that there is very little to lose and lots to gain, the game is over.”

The term “dangerous” is a word we find hard to come to terms with. If you consider human behaviour towards these powerful animals, they continue to prefer flight over fight. We have seen this for ourselves over 11 years. If a baboon is provoked or is in a stressful situation they will react. Wouldn’t all of us do the same? Are we losing sight of the fact that they are wild animals because they are inside the urban edge more than they should be?

After all of these years, the “game” should be to completely overhaul the system. There is no point trying to build on a system which is clearly not working and is failing to keep the baboons outside the urban edge. How about discussing electric fencing as an option before it is too late?

“The worst part is the realisation of how easy it is for humans to totally ruin a whole troop of baboons within a very short space of time,” said Richardson.

Yes, we have to agree on this point, but if the authorities had put measures in place to deal with human behaviour years ago, the outcomes for baboons may well have been very different.

Activists and lobbyists have put forward many solutions for change to the system. These have not been considered. Quite the contrary. It appears activists and lobbyists are dismissed as nothing other than troublemakers and an obstacle to the baboon management system which the scientists hail as a huge success.

Richardson: “Feeding is an obvious recipe for disaster, although one can almost understand it if people are trying to be kind to the baboons. However, there can be no excuse these days for any deliberate prolonged habituation of a wild animal living within or just outside an urban area.”

It most certainly cannot in any way be understood that feeding baboons is “kind”. All it does is show a lack of education and deliberate ignorance by some.

Richardson: “These animals will undoubtedly gain the false belief that humans can be trusted, and this trust will undoubtedly be betrayed, ultimately by those who habituated them. ”

We doubt very much that the baboons have considered any form of “belief” as regards humans. They are opportunistic and take the risk to access human food.


Baboons are considered an ‘animal nuisance’. With that label, how do they stand a chance? (Photo: Stuart Franklin/Getty Images)

Speaking of betrayal, how can we accept that so many baboons have died in terms of the protocols, human-induced deaths and disappearances since 2012 and not consider that the supreme betrayal? Yet it carries on as we speak.

We have all failed our baboons by our lifestyles and the lack of commitment by the authorities to implement measures to give our Cape chacma a chance to survive on the peninsula by changing human behaviour.

Baboons are considered an “animal nuisance”. With that label, how do they stand a chance? There are no safety nets in place for our Cape chacma. No, this system does not work.

We do question the timing of Dr Richardson’s article to start declaring our baboons “dangerous” through habituation which has been allowed to happen for all the reasons we have offered above.

It certainly appears there have been no lessons learnt. Let us rather deal with the prevention of habituation. It makes a lot more sense than declaring baboons ‘dangerous’ amidst monumental unmitigated circumstances. This coupled with a lack of understanding of our baboons by those who do not consider the consequences of their actions.

The current dialogue is beyond threadbare and the public and other stakeholders have become saturated by the “same old, same old” across the media. We need to move on to new beginnings for our baboons, communities and all stakeholders. DM/MC

Pete Oxford has also written a response to Richardson which was published earlier this week. (The article is above this one.)

Lorraine Svoronos Holloway is an avid environmentalist and wildlife conservationist and a lobbyist for the Cape chacma for the past 11 years. She founded Baboons of the South in 2017, which has at its core education and awareness and engaging with the authorities with regard to baboon management. She has been a CapeNature Voluntary Conservation Officer since 2012 and works directly in the field with baboons doing education and reporting any infringements of the law. She has been a community volunteer since 2005 and held the position of chair of the Simon’s Town Civic Association in 2014.