18/08/2025
Some pertinent and important questions posed in the article hereunder.
❗️ Science Based Urban Baboon
Mismanagement
Program ?
After spending approximately R120 million on a Program that CapeNature on various occasions stated is "underpinned by two decades of scientific research", approximately 120 protected Western Cape Chacma Baboons, that formed part of this Program, is up for proposed removal.
This science-based Program has not rendered the implementation of mitigating strategies successfully or at all, other than the Ranger Programme to manage individual troops which has not been without its ups and downs. A programme which offered little strategy to prevent troops 'splitting'.
The excuses proffered for the removal are inter alia attractants in the urban area of human derived food waste, fruit trees and compost heaps of residents.
Other excuses proffered are carrying capacity and welfare concerns.
We are aware that Baboon proof bins, Law Enforcement and Education forms part of this science-based management, however never implemented wholly or at all.
We also note that the Service Providers Reports of the last 10 years plus do not refer to concerns regarding carrying capacity, nor do they discuss troop population increases with a view to solutions, or extensive welfare concerns. Waste was the key factor most mentioned in these reports.
We are also aware that in certain troops numbers will increase due to their regular access to human derived food waste, one of the concerns that this science-based management had to address via mitigation and other measures proposed over many years but not implemented. In the scientists/experts own words: "Provisioned baboons have more offspring in their lifetime than natural feeding Baboons." The difference between provisioning and allowing baboons to regularly feed from bins, is that provisioning can be controlled away from the Urban Area and provide for natural food sources, reduce nuisance, damage and exposure to pathogens.
Having regard to the aforementioned it now seems that a Troop that occupied a range for more than or at least 20 years and formed part of the scientific management program, said home range is all of a sudden now too small and as such the whole Troop is up for removal. Why is this the case if the Management was "underpinned by scientific research"?
Is this the scientific-based management funded by Ratepayers that CapeNature was referring to where mitigation is not implemented and removal is the solution? If it is, then it is entirely unjustifiable to consider removals.
Surely the Draft Action Plan on this basis cannot withstand scrutiny and needs to implement non-lethal solutions which have been discussed for decades and not implemented.
You decide!