With urban baboon management seemingly having come apart at the seams this past year, South African National Parks (SANParks), the City of Cape Town and Cape Nature earlier this month officially pledged to work together, with the first order of business being to agree on a common set of principles informed by scientific information.
But what does the science say?
Usually, volumes of books (or in this case eight PhDs, eight master theses and 30 publications) – are needed to answer this question. But, thankfully, according to Justin O’Riain, a professor in behavioural ecology and conservation at the University of Cape Town (UCT), it can all be summarised in a few words – we need to put up fences at identified strategic points.
Speaking at the same roundtable discussion where the three conservation and management authorities announced that they had agreed to establish a joint task team to navigate the way forward, O’Riain presented a talk on “weaving science into an adaptive management programme for baboons on the Cape Peninsula”.
Held on Tuesday 7 June, the purpose of the roundtable discussion was to bring stakeholders together “for an open but constructive conversation about sustainable solutions to baboon management in Table Mountain National Park and the City of Cape Town”.
Giving a breakdown of what worked in the past and what didn’t, O’Riain said a study done in Zwaanswyk and published in 2012 already showed the huge benefits that a strategic fence could hold.
Up until May last year, when the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) withdrew their endorsement of the use of paintball markers, monitors were placed on the urban edge (with said paintball markers) to keep baboons out of urban areas while adhering to Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). It was called aversive conditioning.
Just over a month (and a 310% increase in the raiding of bins by baboons) later, the City reintroduced to use of paintball markers.
Before that (2011), field rangers used to herd baboons out of urban areas, for example, all the way from Kommetjie to Ocean View.
Not only did this require huge buffer zones, but it also came with a host of drawbacks such as noise disturbance (whistling and shouting) which, in turn, negatively impacted other wildlife, such as caracals and porcupines.
With the fence put in place in Zwaanswyk (paid for by residents), researchers found that wildlife conservation and welfare for all wildlife had improved, disturbances by field rangers had been reduced, disturbances by domestic animals had been reduced, damage to properties had been reduced and security had improved. It also negated the need to baboon-proof gardens and homes and it reduced the long-term management cost per baboon.
As a plus for homeowners, it also improved property prices.
O’Riain said an economic study showed that, in Zwaanswyk, it was easy to sell your property.
So why hasn’t this strategy been adopted by other suburbs that find themselves in conflict with baboons?
O’Riain said it all boiled down to one thing: who would foot the bill?
With maps of proposed fences drawn up, communities were approached and asked to come on board, but O’Riain said residents met these plans with resistance.
“They were told they had to pay and they didn’t want to pay. They kept on saying if the City had a budget for monitors, couldn’t we just transition (the budget) from monitors to fences, which I think is sound logic. We got stuck.”
He said that, with the roundtable having been called and with the three authorities now again sitting down to the same table, he hoped now would be the moment that baboon management would transition to something more humane.
“Something that solves all our problems together.”
