2
www.thevillagenews.co.za
26 August 2020
Monkeying around with Betty’s Bay baboons Writer Elaine Davie
B
aboon management in the Overstrand has for many years been a contentious issue. However, the warfare that has broken out in Betty’s Bay over the management of the resident troop of 16 baboons has now become a matter of life and death – for the baboons. The most ironic aspect of the matter is that the majority of the stakeholders seem to agree that their main concern is for the welfare of the baboons. Another point of agreement is that things cannot continue as they are, where neither the baboons, nor the human population are winners. It does appear, though, that the baboons are the greatest losers: whereas some people are having their homes trashed and their pets apparently terrorised (no small thing), some baboons are being fatally injured, either in the form of road kill or at the hands of humans and in some cases, their dogs, hence the small size of the troop – this, in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.
baboon management programme in the different areas.” And here lies the rub. One of the factors that has made the Betty’s Bay situation so volatile is the number of stakeholders involved, all with their own agendas: there are the local baboon ‘lovers’ and ‘haters’ (their own terminology) separated by a missing middle majority; the Overstrand Municipality (OM) and their appointed baboon management agents, HWS, and now, also in the mix is Prof Justin O’Riain, Director of Wildlife Research at UCT and even, peripherally, world-renowned primatologist, Dr Jane Goodall. Most important of all, although not consulted, are the baboons themselves.
In September 2019, responsibility for the management of the various troops across the Overstrand was transferred from the province to the municipality, which, in July this year, following a call for tenders, appointed Human Wildlife Solutions (HWS) as its service provider for baboon management throughout the Overstrand for the next three years.
The chief strategy employed by HWS for baboon management in various parts of the Cape Metropole, Gordon’s Bay and most recently in Voëlklip and Pringle Bay, is the Virtual Fence method. Its goal is to keep the baboons away from human habitation and in the mountains. In broad outline, this is done by collaring or ear tagging the males in the troop and when they approach the ‘no go’ zone, activating a sound barrier consisting of recordings of aggressive predator vocalisations and prey animals being killed. On hearing these frightening noises, the baboons are supposed to head for the hills and away from the dangers below. It’s known as aversive conditioning by those who support it and creating a ‘landscape of fear’ by those who don’t.
To the complaint from some Betty’s Bay residents that they were not consulted before this appointment was made, the OM’s response is that, since this is a municipal supply chain process, the community is not asked to comment. However, ‘’what the public can comment on is the techniques or methodology used in the management interventions for the
According to Dr Phil Richardson of HWS, “Given that there is still a good abundance of fynbos forage available to both these troops of baboons (Voëlklip and Pringle Bay) on the mountains and valleys around town, they should be encouraged to continue to feed there without coming to town for a fix of sugar.” This method has been implemented for a consid-
erable number of years with great success in Gordon’s Bay, for example, less so in Kommetjie, according to the Betty’s Bay baboon activists. Well that doesn’t sound too bad then, the ordinary citizen may say, at least the baboons are not being hurt. Ah yes, but what if they refuse to comply? Prof O’Riain has this to say: “If the baboons move towards the urban edge, field rangers will move to block the baboons, starting with shouting and whistling. If they keep going, a warning shot into the ground will come next and only if they then continue to push past this limit will a paint ball be sent in the direction of a fleeing rump.” He goes on to add, however: “Aversive conditioning works for most baboons most of the time. What does one do for the exceptions? Increasing deterrent levels (e.g. rubber bullets) would pose a serious threat of injury and would not be approved by the NSPCA. Leaving them to raid alone is bad for people, the individual (‘rogue’) baboon and other baboons. “Capturing and putting these individuals down is considered more humane than leaving them to be injured or killed by angry residents, when non-lethal management no longer suffices. This is precisely why welfare organisations support the occasional removal of select baboons that do not respond to aversive conditioning.” For removal read ‘euthanising’. To say paint ball, rubber bullets or ‘executing’ to the baboon activists of Betty’s Bay is like waving a red rag at a bull. They accept, without being happy, that it’s a done deal that HWS has been appointed by the municipality for three years, but insist that HWS and the OM adhere to certain conditions. Betty’s Bay resident and member of the Ratepayers’ Association, Renée Bish and her husband,
At peace in his home in the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve, a member of the Betty’s Bay troop. PHOTO: Pete Oxford international award-winning conservation photographer, Pete Oxford are members of the Betty’s Bay Baboon Action Group. They agree that baboons are being injured and are dying as a result of their presence in the urban environment, but are adamant that there are less invasive means of managing them. They believe that greater care must be taken to ensure that more effective waste control is implemented by individuals as well as the authority and are pleased that OM has heeded their calls for the dump site to be closed down. “The simple fact is that the baboons come here for food which is easily available, including the bird seed scattered about by residents, as well as sugar water and fruit. Since the 2019 Kogelberg fires there is much less of their natural food available in the mountains, so foraging amongst humans is obviously an attractive option. The point is that if they can no longer access food here they will not come back,” Pete points out. They are also of the opinion that the baboon monitoring system which was previously employed in Pringle Bay, before the Ratepayers ran out of funds, was a more effective deterrent than the Virtual Fence, and as a side
benefit, provided locals with jobs. Renée also insists that if bylaws were properly enforced, it would go a long way towards solving some of the current problems. “I mean, there is not even one baboon signboard along Clarence Drive, for instance, and if there was effective speed control, it would help to save the lives of all our wildlife, not just baboons.” In a nutshell, the group demands the following: a policy of transparency and public participation from the OM in terms of decision-making about the baboons; removing from HWS the right to kill baboons or to inflict pain on them; and allowing the baboons the freedom to roam free with the proviso that monitors assist in keeping them away from entering homes. There is no doubt that this is a complex issue of which we have barely scratched the surface. Sadly, it has become so adversarial that the various stakeholders are no longer prepared to listen to one another. Never mind the subject of the furore – the baboons – the humans themselves have become the problem. It is to be hoped that through various zoom meetings to be organised by the OM, they will be able to find one another and build on the positives rather than the negatives, to find a win-win solution.
