Response by Associate Professor Justin O’Riain (BRU, UCT) to open letter by Jenni Trethowan (JT) of Baboon Matters (17^th May 2011)

1. JT: “Dr. O’Riain quotes ‘three baboons killed in ten years (<1% of total population)’. This is misleading in the extreme as the true facts are that the three male baboons in question were all killed in the space of little more than one year, and only after the implementation of the controversial protocol drawn up by BRU and approved by the BLG amongst others.”

 O’Riain responds: The protocol in question was drawn up by the authorities with input from BRU and the BLG.  Euthanasia of Peninsula baboons that pose a risk to human health and safety has been part of the management strategy since 2001 (Brownlie document: see below), i.e. it has been in effect for 10 years. Therefore it is relevant to analyse the number of baboons euthanized in the context of this period. The reasons for all 3 having occurred in the last 2 years are discussed in detail below. Incorrect interpretation of these ‘true facts’ can be misleading and for the sake of clarity, I have chosen to respond by explaining the new protocol and how it relates to Fred.

2. JT: “The protocol and its subsequent implementation are the cause for alarm ‑ particularly when guidelines of said protocol are not followed. (Facts on Fred illustrated five points in the protocol that were overlooked).”

O’Riain responds: No facts were overlooked with respect to the decision to euthanize Fred.  The details of the protocol were followed to the letter. In order to aid understanding in how the protocol functions, I have provided clarifying detail above.  The BCA has explained the details of the protocol to the BLG.  It is thus your responsibility to obtain an understanding of the protocol from your BLG representative.  If your BLG representative did not attend the meetings between the BCA and the BLG concerning the design and acceptance of the protocol nor bother to gain a full understanding of the protocol during subsequent BLG meetings then it is up to you as a civic, represented by them, to demand such knowledge is acquired as soon as possible.  I am furthermore aware that local newspapers who attended a press release on the protocol have published the essence of the above arguments to the public. 

3. JT: There has been an “Increase in number of troops from 10 ‑ 16.  Fissioning troops are as a result of many dynamics within the individual troop and have little to do with improved management.”

O’Riain responds: One of the primary drivers of troop fission is troop size, where for ecological or social reasons, the troop splits into two.  Troops can only increase in size if they are growing and growth in the Peninsula is only possible if human-induced mortality is not higher than recruitment.  The latter was the case for the population between 1998 and 2003 (when numbers dropped).  This is not true of the population since then.  Troop fission and an increase in the total number of troops is thus an excellent indication that the population is growing and means that probability of extinction of the Peninsula population is decreasing.  This is important as charities such as BM frequently raises concerns about the sustainability of the population (see petitions) despite all the population indicators being contrary to this opinion. 

4. JT: “wrt the baboon population: Dr. O’Riain is correct to state various improvements to numbers (his points 1,3,& 4); however it is misleading to think that this is as a result of new management ‑ it is rather the result of years (since 1990), managing with extreme limited resources ‑ but to lay claim to improved figures is misleading (for e.g. the improved ratio of mature juveniles in relation to management ‑ really?? Just what did BRU do to achieve this ‑ feed them all Pronutro?  Also remember that the majority of troops live close to, or in proximity to areas of dense urbanization.  His facts are misleading.”

O’Riain responds: Clearly there is a lack of understanding about this particular aspect of baboon population dynamics by Baboon Matters.  BRU does not feed juveniles nor is it necessary to feed juveniles to ensure that the ratio of immature to mature baboons in the population approaches parity.  BRU is also not a management organization and thus cannot claim success for improved management.  We can assist management by providing them with relevant applied research but it is the authorities’ choice to use these data and implement them to improve management or not.  It is improved adult survival that has restored the balance and resulted in the previous skew of adults to immatures being balanced.  If baboon numbers, number of troops, sex ratio and ratio of immature to mature baboons have all been positive from a conservation perspective then it is fallacious to argue that management has worsened.  These improvements have been across the Peninsula including troops with NO anthropogenic influence within Cape of Good Hope section of Table Mountain National Parks (TMNP).  Thus while anthropogenic factors drive higher troop growth they simultaneously result in increased human conflict with adults being the most vulnerable.  Improvement in these key indicators across the population does suggest that management of the Peninsula baboons has improved across all troops.   The facts are thus not misleading but simply misinterpreted by Baboon Matters.

It is further important to stress that the population declined from 1998 to 2003.  During this time there was considerable raising awareness and raising issues for it was after the inception of KEAG, Baboon Matters and the Baboon Management Team (BMT).  Clearly neither these new organizations nor delineating the TMNP, nor legislation to protect the population were sufficiently adequate to prevent a decrease in the total population size over this 5-year period.  Since 2003 there has been a steady increase in numbers with no year showing a population size lower than that of 2003.  There are many factors that influenced this increase and it almost impossible to prove which are the most significant.  We are however compelled to be critical of organizations that suggest the Peninsula baboons are being culled, not sustainable, numbers declining etc., for there are no factual data to support any of these contentions. 

5a. JT: “JOR’s point 5: Again this is misleading.  One would have hoped that with improved resources, including increased monitors, that human-related injuries to baboons would indeed decrease dramatically.  Is this actually so?  The past three months have resulted in the following (in random order, and only from my recollection and phone calls to me).”

O’Riain responds: Again, I posit that facts cannot be misleading, only the interpretation thereof.  From a baboon-centric perspective fewer deaths per capita is good, irrespective of the causes.  2010 was the best year on record (since BRU started to record such data) and NCC and the authorities need to be acknowledged for this success. NCC have showed professionalism in the handling of baboon management and commitment to routinely working with researchers and civic representatives to constantly improve management on the ground, while the authorities have committed more funds, taken over the responsibility of managing the baboons from the BMT and opened role of service provider to a competitive tender process.  The current atmosphere is highly positive with unprecedented levels of communication, collaboration, data sharing and mutual respect existing between the BLG, NCC, Cape Nature, City of Cape Town, SANParks and BRU.  I would attribute these improvements as having a direct positive effect on baboon management and hence baboon conservation.  We have moved away from the acrimony that typified and paralyzed the BMT to an open, positive and enthusiastic forum with the authorities shouldering responsibility for baboon management and conservation and the BLG for managing the human side of the human-baboon conflict zones. 2011 has yet to be analyzed as it is still in progress. It is true that there have been quite a few baboon deaths in the last few months and this is deeply concerning for all involved. Data compiled and analyzed at year-end will provide comparison with year-on-year figures and will reveal whether there is an increase in human-related deaths.  Speculation does not equate to the facts and we urge influential bodies to report the latter only. 

5b. JT: “The above human related deaths and injuries to baboons are not significantly lower than cases dealt with by Baboon Matters in 2009 ‑ on average one or two per month.”

O’Riain responds: A statement such as the one above is one that is empirically verifiable and if you can provide statistics to support this claim, we urge you to share them with the authorities. However, since Baboon Matters was not involved with management in latter half of 2009, we express concern over the reliability of your data over this period.  

5c. JT: ”*Subsequent to my draft email going out, I have been informed that there have been 14 deaths and 24 injuries in the past three months.”

O’Riain responds: See above comments.

6. JT: “JOR’s point 6: it is true to say that there is a wealth of academics studying the baboons ‑ however, trying to get relevant information from them is almost impossible ‑ until (we are told) their work is published.  There can be a gap of nine years from when research starts, to when interested and affected parties gain access to information.  In the case of census work undertaken by E. Beamish as part of her 9 year masters thesis ‑ last population counts made available on repeated request were for 2008.“

O’Riain responds: BRU shares their data in monthly meetings with the authorities and the BLG.  All completed theses that have been examined by internationally recognized experts are in the public domain.  Some data that form that basis of a student’s thesis that is yet to be examined may not be disseminated in written form to the public as this is in contravention of the copyright rules at UCT and may prejudice the thesis in examination. That is precisely why we meet once a month to provide detailed verbal accounts of our findings as they pertain to improving management and conservation.  In addition BRU gives a minimum of 5 public talks on the latest research findings every year and has done so for the past 4 years.  These meetings are open to the public and Baboon Matters has attended such meetings.  BRU further feeds data to the public via both print and film media. It is thus not possible for Baboon Matters to claim that they cannot get relevant information.  Esme Beamish spent 5 years part-time on her masters and was awarded the degree in 2010. As stated above, this information has been shared with baboon management bodies (i.e. authorities and BLG).

7a. JT: “JOR’ point 7 dealing with access to information.  This is again misleading in the extreme.  Whilst the BRU may input to the BLG and to the ops team, there is such a lack of communication outward that the process closely resembles censorship.  Requests for information are either ignored or prevaricated so that the points raised in concern are not answered, e.g. a: Having been accused of misinforming the general public, Baboon Matters Trust made three separate requests to get the final, implemented version of the Protocol governing individual raiding baboons ‑ One response redirected my request ‑ no answer and no information.

O’Riain responds: The BCA were perfectly happy to explain the protocol in detail to those who requested such information. The SPCA and the media made such requests and the working of the protocol was described to them in detail.  The of how the protocol relates to Fred’s euthanasia should provide Baboon Matters with sufficient detail on how the protocol works and why it is better than what was in existence.  If activists stopped the current protocol then the authorities would have to revert to the previous strategy and many more baboons would be killed given the ease of satisfying the criteria (danger to health and safety – raiding; 3 times into the urban edge – dispersing males) and that the data needed for them to make these decisions are now systematically collected by the service provider and researchers.  Failure to act by the BCA with this knowledge would leave them open to legal challenges for not having protected the rights of law abiding citizens who have been directly affected (i.e. injured) by baboons.

7b. JT:   “Requests for the case histories of Sol, William and Fred ‑ ignored.”

O’Riain responds: It is not clear why such information should be available to the general public as interpretation thereof requires the requisite expertise and experience of the WAC members.  The public had representation on the formation of the protocols through their representatives on the BLG.  If Baboon Matters wishes to oppose the protocol then their concerns should be done through their BLG representative who will then pass this onto the BCA.  The details of case histories are not the target for public participation but rather the protocol itself.  Suggestions that the case histories are wrong are entirely unsubstantiated and Baboon Matters’ assertions in the press appear to be based on a lack of understanding on the decision making process. Aspects of case histories are provided by independent researchers, the service provider and members of the public who provide confidential affidavits of personal experiences that have threatened their right to a safe and healthy environment.  All aspects of the case histories are independently assessed by the BCA, BRU, NCC and members of the BLG from the affected area should they have personal knowledge of events.  No one other than the WAC and the CN executive are present when the case histories and protocol are assessed and final decisions made.  It is important for the public to realize that more baboons have been granted a reprieve than have been assigned to being put down since the protocol was devised.  Under the previous strategy this would not have been the case as only one criteria (i.e. risk to health and safety) would have led to euthanasia, a requirement that would have been readily satisfied by affidavits from members of the public.

 7c. JT: “Official letter of concern to the operational team and the BLG – BLG denied participation on the Ops Team and the response from the Ops team merely noted our concerns but did not address them.”

 O’Riain responds: The BCA responded in the press given that this was the platform that Baboon Matters chose to lodge their concerns.

 7d. JT: “Requests for minutes of meeting and attendance at meetings denied ‑ due to supposed acrimony ‑ when questioned specifically about the acrimony, the chairman of the BLG responded (email 2011‑1‑21) … certainly nothing about any supposed conflict between the BLG and BM and urgently need to know what is happening. Please urgently let me have any of these comments you may have available, as well as any background you can tell me about. I had imagined both the BLG and BM were anxious to discover common ground.”

 7e. JT: “Dissemination of information ‑ this is again misleading as residents of affected areas and other IAP’s only hear about decisions once they have been implemented ‑ there is no apparent system for giving views towards decisions, or for offering ideas to concerns as we are not informed in advance. See attached email to member of BLG raising these issues.  No response has been forthcoming.”

 You must take up 7d and 7e with your BLG representative.

  8. JT: “There is mention of a new “this emotive and important protocol.” (Sue Oosthuizen email 2011.3.24) presented to the BLG ‑ another worrisome protocol?  How do we catch sight of it, input to it ‑ comment?

Denial of involvement in management decisions ‑ both BKG and BRU are intent to make the point that the authorities make the decisions and they have no part in the final decision ‑ this is at odds with an email sent out by BLG chairman (2011.3.28)” . The BLG still hasn’t seen the documentation but proposed a project with two ex‑monitor Baboon Protectors at Miller’s Point, requesting a re‑think while we try it out. They thought about it but decided to go ahead. Consultation among BLG members revealed a substantial majority to let them.”  This indicates strongly that the BLG do have voting power and could influence decision ‑ but without having seen relevant information they voted to let the authorities proceed ‑ Fred was killed.”

 O’Riain responds: Neither BRU, BLG or NCC has any involvement with the final decision making, based on the facts compiled for an individual baboon.  It has been the intent of many activists to suggest that BRU and/or NCC are responsible for killing baboons but we would like to stress that we have no decision making ability on issues pertaining to baboon management.  We provide data that the authorities use to effect decisions.  The same is true for both NCC and the BLG.  In the event that any of these three components of baboon management disagree with the BCA then these disagreements are discussed in a constructive forum at monthly meetings.

 9. JT: “In summary, a wide range of the general public ‑ not limited to areas affected by baboons ‑ have expressed concern and alarm at the elevated numbers of baboons killed under dubious protocols.  There is also widespread unhappiness at the lack of transparency and accountability ‑ and there is certainly no real communication process that effectively divulges information timeously to allow flow of concerns and suggestions.”

O’Riain responds: It is completely unknown how many members of the public have expressed concern about protocols as this has never been independently verified.  It is further unknown if there is widespread unhappiness at the lack of transparency and accountability as this too has never been independently verified.  A public protest was called on Friday the 13^th and I have seen video footage of the people in attendance in addition to a confirmed count from a reporter from local newspaper.  Less than 10 people were present.  Furthermore the reporter confirmed that the large number of organizations that were reportedly represented was a result a few individuals being members of a large number of organizations.  This they confirmed in interviews with individual protesters.  Less than 10 people in a metropole of more than 3 million does not equate to a large number of people.  However presence/absence at one such meeting is not the litmus test for how many people are unhappy with management and protocols.  In the absence of data on the extent of dissatisfaction we would caution BM from making such assertions.  It is our experience at public meetings of which we attend many that the majority of people in attendance do not consider the new protocols to be a problem nor the fact that 3 baboons have been killed by authorities since it became included in management strategies to do so.

A question that is being asked of baboon management on a regular basis is whether using feeding stations (or provisioning) can be used to draw baboons away from human areas, where humans and baboons often conflict with one another.  In this post we address the question, based on data we have collected:

Firstly, in response to assertions that it is untenable for local residents and their pets to have baboons living in close proximity to them (and often sharing the same space), we, at BRU would have to agree. The amount of damage and stress that results from baboons using urban space is considerable. Further, baboons also incur ‘costs’ to entering the urban environment, i.e. being hit by cars, shot with pellets, chased by baboon monitors and occasionally, poisoning. In short, the baboons’ presence in urban environments has a wide range of negative consequences, and achieving spatial separation between humans and baboons is crucial.
 
The primary factor to consider in achieving this end, is food. The suggestion of giving baboons incentive to use natural areas by setting up feeding stations or ‘provisioning’ is logical and has been suggested by a number of interested parties and provisioning wild species is a technique used in other parts of the world, across a range of species and for a number of reasons. One of the experiments that we conducted in Simon’s Town was to test whether provisioning was a viable, sustainable method to keep baboons out of human areas (the experiment is currently ‘in press’, i.e. soon to be published, making the experiment and its findings acceptable by our scientific peers’ standards). Without going into too much detail, here are the take-home messages:
 
1: A feeding patch did change the troop’s movement patterns, but not significantly, i.e. the troop still used the urban environment regularly.
2: The amount of food the baboons obtained from the urban environment was a reliable predictor of whether the baboons used the urban environment (in other words, the urban food was a strong incentive for baboons to enter urban environments).
3: The troop’s use of the urban space was only significantly reduced once access to urban food was restricted (with wire-mesh fencing).
 
The last point is the most crucial. That is, the incentive for baboons to enter the urban environment is so great, that free food (i.e. from a feeding station) was only mildly tempting. The appeal of the feeding station increased when urban food was no longer available.  What was interesting was that we only used dried maize kernels on the feeding station – comparable to natural food items. The urban food diet the baboons were enjoying included bread, sugar, fruit, vegetables, honey, juice, eggs, cereals and various other typical human foods. To any foraging animal, the equation is simple: an hour’s raiding of urban areas provides the caloric equivalent of a whole day’s worth of foraging in natural areas. It is no surprise that baboons invariably choose the former.
 

Corn cannot compete with the large amounts of high-caloric urban food

From here, the argument might go something like this: ‘If baboons are tempted into urban areas by urban food and shutting down those urban food sources is difficult because getting the cooperation of every resident is an arduous task (and it is), why not give the baboons urban food in natural areas, i.e. food that is extremely tempting in natural areas to draw them away from humans?’

 Quite simply, if baboons are eating this kind of urban food in excess (and managers would have to continually supplement a feeding patch with high-caloric items to make it effective), their individual growth rates and reproduction would increase and their mortality rates would decrease. In other words, this would increase the population considerably. And as baboon troop’s grow, so they reach a social or ecological threshold and fission occurs (the troop splits into two). And there is the very real chance that the new troop will simply establish their territory alongside an urban area to access desirable food (since the original troop will defend the feeding station from the fission troop). And so the process starts over.
 
In conclusion, while provisioning might be effective in the short-term, its long-term consequences would be disastrous for successful human-baboon coexistence. The best way to go about ensuring that baboons aren’t in people’s houses and gardens and attacking their animals is to give the baboons no reason to enter these urban environments in the first place (i.e. restrict their access to food). And implementing this strategy will be far easier for an interested resident to achieve than trying to dictate strategy to baboon monitors. As is the case with many instances of human-wildlife conflict, managing wildlife is simple, but it can never be successful without adequate people management.

Article published in The Sunday Times, 7 February 2010

This post has been written to address the incident that occurred at Happy Valley Home in Simon’s Town on the 28^th of January. According to a variety of reports, Happy Valley resident, Michael Bates was pushed off a ramp by a fleeing baboon near the men’s dormitory. Three days later, Bates, already an ill man, died. This incident has provoked a number of responses and we feel the need to address the matter, hopefully providing insightful information.

The Waterfall (or Redhill) troop, contains two males (alpha male ‘Bongo’ & sub-adult male, ‘Jimmy’), nine adult females and 12 juveniles. The troop ranges towards the Northern end of Simon’s Town and enters the urban environment to obtain food on a daily basis. This ‘raiding’ behaviour occurs for two primary reasons:

1. Access to this urban food can be easy (particularly with regards to waste areas, and in some cases where food is actually thrown to baboons).

2.  The nutritional value and digestibility of human food is higher than the food found in the natural environment.

These two facts create a high incentive for baboons to enter the urban environment. It is this incentive that leads the Waterfall troop to enter Simon’s Town on a daily basis, and ultimately led a baboon into the men’s dormitory on the 28^th of January. This baboon was eventually chased out of the dormitory using a bucket of water. The fact that Michael Bates stood between the baboon and its exit was a case of tragic misfortune.

While the incident is worrying, there is no cause to assign malice to raiding baboons. These are animals searching for highly-desired foods. Reducing access to these highly-desired foods will reduce the troop’s incentive to enter the urban environment. In many instances this can be achieved through responsible waste practices and some degree of innovation. During fieldwork on this troop, the baboons were seen to access large amounts of waste (much of which is edible to them), food from large kitchens (or galleys) and hand-outs by vagrants outside the Happy Valley gate. These are the major driving forces that lead the Waterfall (and indeed all raiding troops) into the urban environment.

The real tragedy of this incident is that if access to urban food had been restricted sooner, Michael Bates might still be alive.

BRU researchers spend countless hours observing baboons in their habitat, culminating in valuable data.

The Great Primate Handshake team have posted two more interesting videos that explain the processes followed, progress made and complications of managing and conserving baboons in the Cape Peninsula. The first video features the ever-competent Tali Hoffman who gives a brief introduction to BRU and some of the work that we’re undertaking, while the second video shows Mark Duffel, Simon’s Town resident baboon monitor giving a short account of his work with the Smitswinkel Bay troop. There are some great shots of baboons in both these videos and we urge you to check them out!

To  view the video about BRU, featuring Tali, click here

…and the for the video featuring Mark, the famed baboon monitor of Simon’s Town, click here
 

- The Baboon Research Unit -

One point of clarity, as it is not explained in the video, is that the decisions to euthenase any baboon, including Bart, are made by the environmental authorities of the Western Cape and not by the Baboon Research Unit, although decisions may be based on data presented by the BRU.

Click here to view. 

- The Baboon Research Unit -

Health risks linked to human/wildlife overlap

There are a number of parasites and pathogens that humans share with other animals and these represent a health risk to both parties.  For example humans exposed to dog faeces may become infected with eggs from tapeworms residing in the dog and consequently suffer from hydatid disease. Toxoplasma gondii which is normally a parasite of cats and rodents is known to cause many human birth defects.  In the case of humans and baboons, the concern is valid in both directions. As humans and non-human primates may potentially share a variety of pathogens, humans that cross paths with baboons could transfer pathogens to the baboons, and vice versa (especially if baboons and humans share food sources or come into physical contact with one another). 

www.pringlebay.info

From a conservation point of view, interaction between humans and wildlife in general is therefore thought to have negative effects on the wildlife in question. This was evident in 2007, when a Peninsula baboon was diagnosed with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, or human tuberculosis (TB). Scientists feared the worst for the Peninsula baboon population as this disease can decimate whole groups of primates in short time periods. Fortunately this was not the case in the Peninsula. Because of the invasive nature of the methodology normally used to test individuals for TB (eyelid test, sputum sample or x-ray of chest)  only a handful of baboons have been tested for TB since. However, none of these animals were found to be infected with TB. However, due to the high prevalence of human TB in the Western Cape all baboon that come into to contact with human waste are potentially at risk. 

In recent times, the study of diseases in primates specifically has become a central issue in conservation. Increased contact between human and non-human primates increases the possibility of parasite transmission in both directions and of sharing infectious diseases. More than 100 parasite species are shared between wild primates and humans. It is thus highly probable that the baboons of the Cape Peninsula are at high risk of infection by parasites and other infectious diseases from their neighbouring human reservoir.  It is therefore of great importance to ascertain what diseases are found in the Cape Peninsula baboons as this knowledge may have profound implications for management of both baboons and humans on the Peninsula.

What do we know about diseases in the Cape Peninsula baboons?

Our current knowledge on the viruses and bacteria infecting the Cape Peninsula baboons is virtually non-existent.  This is due to the fact that the tracking of most viruses and bacteria in a host require the collection of blood samples, which can only be achieved by anaesthetising the animals.  This is not the case for gastrointestinal parasites, protozoa and helminths (worms) that could infect the Cape Peninsula baboons. 

BRU member Damiana Ravasi collected data on gastrointestinal protozoa and helminths (worms) between 2006 and 2008 in an attempt to understand how parasite infection dynamics in baboons are being affected by urbanization.  Worms live in the host gut and excrete infectious stages (eggs) in the faeces of the host. Protozoa emit cysts as infective stages. These stages are then dispersed in the environment and will infect new hosts via soil ingestion or other modes of transmission. While we cannot see the worm inside the animal, the infective stages can be easily collected without using invasive techniques, i.e. by collecting the faeces.

What knowledge are we trying to gain by studying parasites?

• First of all, we want to establish baseline data on the gastrointestinal parasite fauna in the Cape Peninsula baboons.
• Once this knowledge has been obtained, we will compare the parasite infections of the Cape Peninsula baboon population with other baboon populations across South Africa and find out if there is variation in infection rates.
• We also wish to compare parasite infections between troops in the Cape Peninsula with varying degrees of human contact, and analyse potential causes of variation in parasite infections.
• Finally, we want to ascertain whether nematode (round worms) species found in both the baboon and human Peninsula population are the result of cross-contamination between baboons and humans
• If this study successfully demonstrates a clear link between parasite prevalence and proximity of baboons to humans then it provides conservation authorities and town planners alike with the necessary information to restrict overlap between the two primate populations.

What gastrointestinal parasites have we found in Cape Peninsula baboons?

With the aid of all BRU members and field assistants, we were able to collect more than 600 faecal samples from six baboon troops. All these samples were processed for the extraction of parasite infective stages and analyzed one by one under the microscope for parasite identification.  The following microscope images show a few examples of what stages we found in baboon faeces. Each stage type corresponds to a different parasite species (worm or protozoan).

 Egg of nematode Trichuris sp. (whipworms).  Scale bar = 25 µm.

This type of nematode occurs in the large intestine of humans and primates throughout the world. Heavy infections with Trichuris sp. may result in severe enteritis, with diarrhoea, and even death. We do not know with certainty if the Trichuris found in baboons can be shared with humans. The human whipworm (Trichuris trichiura) has been well-documented in the clinics of the Cape Peninsula.

Egg of nematode Oesophagostomum sp. (nodular worms). Scale bar = 25 µm.

Primates are susceptible to infection with multiple species of Oesophagostomum. This nematode is very common in Old World monkeys and apes and has the capacity to cause substantial pathology and death. Heavy infections of Oesophagostomum have been associated with mucosal inflammation, ulceration, dysentery, weight loss, and death in primates.

 Cyst of protozoan Balantidium coli. Scale bar = 25 µm.

Infections with this protozoan are common in nonhuman primates.  B. coli is usually not considered pathogenic in primates. However, heavy infections are associated with diarrhoea and ulcerative enteritis.

More information about cross-transmission

If we want to confirm cross-transmission between humans and nonhuman primates, the parasites must be identified to the species level. Due to the limited morphological characters of parasites, delimiting their species using microscopy can be difficult. Molecular techniques are increasingly used as a main tool in the identification of species.  For example, molecular methods have been used to study genetic variation within Oesophagostomum bifurcum in humans and nonhuman primates in Ghana (remember that Oesophagostomum sp. was also found in Cape Peninsula baboons). Using molecular tools, researchers have shown that Oesophagostomum bifurcum found in humans is genetically distinct from that infecting some non-human primates and thus that nonhuman primates are unlikely to be a source of human oesophagostomiasis. More research must therefore be done to confirm cross-transmission of parasites between humans and baboons.

Are there concerns for Cape Peninsula residents?

Currently there is no evidence for transmission of human parasites to baboons or vice versa in the Peninsula but we are investigating this possibility in our study and will be sure to keep the public informed as the results become available. We strongly suggest that people avoid contact with baboons and their faeces. However, to put this risk in perspective we need to be aware that a similar warning could be made for human contact with the faeces of domestic animals that are far more prevalent within our community and whose faeces are more abundant within public areas and private gardens.

References

Cogswell, F. 2007. Parasites of Non-human Primates. In: Flynn’s parasites of laboratory animals, (ed.) R. J. Flynn & D. G. Baker. Blackwell Pub.: Ames, Iowa, pp. 693 – 743.

Gasser, R. B., De Gruijter, J. M., and Polderman A. M. 2006. Insights into the epidemiology and genetic make-up of Oesophagostomum bifurcum from human and non-human primates using molecular tools. Parasitology 132: 453 – 460.

Pedersen, A. B., Altizer, S., POSS, M., Cunningham, A. A, and Nunn, C. L. 2005. Patterns of host specificity and transmission among parasites of wild primates. International Journal for Parasitology 35 (6): 647 – 657.

Source: http://www.biology-blog.com/

Culling is a term that most of us have heard, probably in connection with management of elephants in the Kruger National Park, or perhaps even badgers in the United Kingdom. This management practice has been the subject of a great deal of heated debate during the course of the last few decades because central to culling is the decision by humans to end the lives of animals. Managers claim that this is done in an attempt to improve the management of an area or population or both, but this is refuted by those who are opposed to culling.  More recently the culling debate has erupted in our own back yard (Table Mountain), and it has been used in the media as a catch phrase to elevate the profile of the baboon management debate in the Western Cape.

Indiscriminate use of the term ‘culling’ in local newspapers has led to the misconception by the public that there is a culling protocol for the Peninsula baboons.  This is exemplified by a resident of Cape Town suggesting that all of the baboons on the Peninsula have been culled after he drove to Cape Point and then walked through the Tokai plantation without seeing a single baboon. BRU is thus posting this latest blog in an attempt to stimulate informed debate on culling as a management tool and to inform the public on whether the media and members of the public are correct in suggesting that the Peninsula baboons are subject to a culling protocol.

We all live in homes, consume municipal water from dams, drive cars on roads and consume plant and/or animal products that are grown on farms.  We have all therefore directly and indirectly contributed to the loss of natural land which is the ultimate cause of humans having to ‘manage’ wildlife populations that have been squeezed into ever smaller areas.  We should all shoulder some of the blame for these losses and consequently need to debate sensibly, issues such as culling.

The big picture of culling

What is culling?

With respect to wildlife management, culling is defined as the practice of killing a significant proportion of an animal population in order to reduce the population size or control its growth rate. This practice differs from so-called ‘problem animal control’, which involves the killing of specific individuals to prevent them from causing further damage to infrastructure or causing harm to humans.

When is culling used as a management tool?

Managers use culling as a tool in a variety of situations, including ‘overpopulation’, unusual and problematic population age-sex structure, and when animals take up residence in an area that is undesirable for some reason (e.g., they are non-native to an area).  It is essential to understand that culling typically reflects the need to manage a population that has already been adversely impacted by humans.  The moment we confined animals to a reserve, prevented populations from engaging in large scale migrations, or removed key components of an ecosystem (e.g., top predators), so we evoked the need for further human intervention to manage ‘impacted’ populations.

Culling to reduce population numbers or change population structure

Strictly speaking, the term ‘overpopulation’ refers to the situation in which animals have exceeded their ‘carrying capacity’ in a given habitat. According to one scientific definition, a population has reached its carrying capacity when it stops growing (as a result of growth-limiting environmental factors). Wildlife managers may not be allowed to let this happen however, as large animals, such as elephants, may have profound structural effects on the landscape they occupy and share with other animals.  When elephant numbers are too high within a confined area then elephants may impact negatively on entire ecosystems and indirectly result in the death of other animals. In this case, managers might employ sex- and age neutral culling in attempts to reduce the total numbers of individuals in the population and thus the number of individuals in the population that are breeding.

Unusual population age-sex structures may arise through translocation of animals of a specific sex and age-class, through culling schemes which have not been properly planned, or through deaths resulting from a pathogen that targets animals of a particular sex and age-class. If this occurs, and the condition persists, managers may see abnormal population growth and/or behavioural abnormalities in the population (see article). When this occurs, managers may cull the population selectively in order to restore a typical sex- and age-class structure in the population.

Culling to change patterns of habitat and space use

Examples of animals taking up residence in areas that are not desirable include carnivores that move on to agricultural land (where they may or may not hunt livestock), animals that inadvertently cause some sort of conflict (by moving onto roads for example) and animals that act as vectors of disease moving into agricultural and/or urban environments. When this occurs, managers may cull animals in those areas on a large scale. This may be done in order to reduce the chance of conflict between humans and animals (fewer animals results in lower probability of the problematic behaviour being witnessed). The area-selective culling may also indirectly reduce the numbers of animals present by frightening those that are still alive, away from the area in question (so-called ‘disturbance culling’).

Has culling proven to be successful as a management tool internationally?

There are numerous situations where culling has been applied. In every situation, there are those vehemently opposed to its use, and those strongly in favour of it. Thus, any culling programme must make a thorough assessment of the animal population in question and identify 1: a proximate problem (i.e. too many males, females, adults etc.) and 2: an ultimate problem (i.e. loss of vegetation, human-wildlife conflict etc.). Once the culling has been administered, an assessment must be made to determine whether the proximate and ultimate problems were solved. This is the only way in which the efficacy of culling as a management tool can be determined.

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wabanafcr

Overpopulated white-tailed deer frequently feed in suburban gardens in the United States (proximate problem). When crossing roads, particularly at night, these deer can be a hazard. Annually, more than 1 million vehicle collisions are attributed to deer (ultimate problem). This translates to over 200 human deaths per year. In an effort to reduce these collisions, deer populations have been culled (by sharpshooting) and reduced to between 50% and 75% of their original numbers. Quantification of culling, deer numbers and deer-vehicle collisions, showed that culling was effective in significantly reducing deer-vehicle collisions by between 50% and 80%.

The spread and maintenance of tuberculosis in British cattle has been linked to badgers; animals susceptible to tuberculosis, and capable of transmitting it to cattle. In an effort to reduce the impact of badgers in the transmission of TB, culling was used to reduce their numbers. ‘Reactive culling’ (where badgers were culled in response to TB outbreaks in cattle) was actually shown to increase the incidence of TB in the local cattle. Researchers suggested that as the badger population was being reduced, so remaining badgers were moving more and encountering more cattle (and passing TB onto them). This culling therefore, only reduced badger numbers and did not reduce the spread of TB (ultimate problem).

Has culling been implemented as a management tool in South Africa?

In a local context, elephant management in Kruger National Park (KNP) has become synonymous with culling. The decision to cull elephants in KNP was made in 1967 in response to a growing elephant population. This population previously undertook migratory movements into Mozambique and further north. Fencing of KNP stopped this movement and the now-stationary population started to grow. More elephants meant more competition between elephants, more competition among elephants and other herbivores and more human-wildlife conflict as pressured elephants started breaking through the fence and into neighbouring farms. In the three decades following this, nearly 15000 elephant were culled. While culling managed to reduce elephant numbers (proximate solution), its impact on ultimate goals (conserving other large herbivores & reducing human-elephant conflict) was never quantified properly. In fact, the recommended population size of elephants in Kruger (approximately 7000 elephants) was never based on any ecosystem index. This means that the success or lack thereof of elephant culling in Kruger National Park was never quantified for most of its implementation. This example stresses the importance of identifying and measuring the ultimate targets of culling. Culling for the sake of culling has no management value.

Closer to home: Peninsula baboons and culling

What is the ‘new protocol’ for Peninsula baboon management?

The ‘new protocol’ is in fact not new at all, but is rather a revision of a protocol that was set out ten years ago (see “Getting smart on Bart”). The protocol provides management recommendations for males that disperse into urban areas and males that are repeat raiders, leaving their troops and foraging within the urban edge on human-derived food items.  The Peninsula population is closed and there are no predators, thus there is only a finite number of management options that can be considered at present.  One of these options is that males that are assisted in dispersing to new troops but fail to integrate and revert to raiding urban areas may, after three captures and relocations, be euthanized.

Are the Peninsula baboons being culled?

No. There is no culling protocol for the Peninsula baboons.

Is BRU masterminding a plan to cull baboons in the Peninsula?

No. Despite some crackpot suggestions by members of the public BRU has no authority to enact any management protocols.  All BRU can do is provide the authorities with data that they may then use to inform their management decisions.  At the City of Cape Towns “Baboon Expert Workshop” BRU was asked by the City of Cape Town organisers to present management options for the Peninsula population.  The city requested specifically that BRU include the option of culling.  To this end we stated that any closed population of wildlife that increased in numbers whilst losing space would ultimately face unprecedented levels of conflict and that culling was a management option considered by conservation authorities.  Sterilisation is another tool used in the management of wildlife populations that are effectively fenced and thus have finite habitat.  BRU strongly recommended alternatives to both culling and sterilisation which are extremely invasive and interfere with natural processes.  These included:

1) reducing access to human-derived food sources which have been shown to increase the fertility of females relative to naturally foraging baboons

2) removal of alien vegetation which, because of higher above-ground biomass (relative to fynbos), increases the growth rates of troops relative to naturally foraging baboons

3) protection of the space that the extant troops are currently using.  This, which forms part of Tali Hoffman’s PhD, was identified as the single most important step towards achieving the fundamental goal of a sustainable Cape Peninsula baboon population.

Source: http://www.gonomad.com/

Post script

Managers of the Cape Peninsula baboon population are in an invidious position.  The more effective they are in reducing human-baboon conflict the more baboons will survive which means that the population will increase despite the ongoing attrition of natural land.  Key to this issue is the simple fact that there are no natural predators of baboons on the Peninsula and thus if human conflict was completely eradicated, baboons would eventually become too numerous for the space left over.  The question that we all have to grapple with, given we are all part of the problem, is what is the best management practice for the challenge of a population that may (with reduced conflict) exceed the space and food limitations of the Cape Peninsula island?

Further reading

DeNicola, A.J. & Williams, S.C. 2008. Sharpshooting suburban white-tailed deer reduces deer-vehicle collisions. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2(1), 28-33.

Donnelly, C.A., Woodroffe, R., Cox, D.R., Bourne, J., Gettinby, G., Le Fevre, A.M., McInerney, J.P. and Morrison, W.I. Impact of localized badger culling on tuberculosis incidence in British cattle. Nature 426, 834-837.

Scholes, R.J. & Mennell, K.G. (eds) 2008. Elephant management: A scientific assessment for South Africa. Wits University Press, Johannesburg.

Van Aarde, R.J. and Jackson, T.P. 2007. Megaparks for metapopulations: Addressing the causes of locally high elephant numbers in southern Africa. Biological Conservation 134, 289-297.

Wildlife translocation: Hoisting the heffalump (source: www.sanparks.org)

In the last few weeks, the word ‘translocation’ has been flying across the press, into the realm of public debate and landing in the homes of many people.  But why is this?  Well, it probably has a lot to do with the recently revised management protocol concerning dispersing Chacma baboon males in the Cape Peninsula (see ‘Getting Smart on Bart’).  According to this protocol, the endpoint of three failed dispersals for a male is euthanasia. Translocation is being championed as the humane alternative to this endpoint.

Take Bart for instance.  Bart is a dispersing male (variously regarded as villain and hero) who has repeatedly failed to integrate with a troop, choosing to spend his time alone in places like UCT upper campus and Newlands, among others.  Bart is the first male selected for euthanasia under the new protocol. In response to this, many people are asking ‘Why can’t we move Bart off the Peninsula, where he can be free to live out his life naturally?’ Or, in other words, ‘Why can’t we translocate him?’  There are even farmers (see Carte Blanche) who are willing to supply their land as a release site. In response to these questions and to inform public debate, BRU decided to post some information regarding translocation.

The big picture of translocation

What is translocation?

Also sometimes referred to as relocation or transplantation, translocation is the management practice of capturing a live wild animal, transporting it from the geographic area where it currently resides to another area, and releasing it.

When is translocation used as a management tool?

Managers might opt for translocation in the hopes of saving rare or endangered species from extinction, to provide hunting and/or wildlife viewing opportunities, or to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Animals may be translocated in order to augment existing populations, to re-establish populations in areas where local extinctions have occurred or to establish new populations in areas which are suitable but have not been previously occupied by the animal in question. Where human-wildlife conflict is the reason for translocation (so-called ‘problem animals’), managers might transport the individuals involved to areas where the potential for future conflict is reduced. In this way, the managers might end the conflict without having to euthanize the animals in question. 

Defining success

• Was the animal captured, transported and released without harm?
• Did the animal remain at or near the chosen site of release?
• Did the animal integrate into a social group/establish its own territory (whichever is appropriate for the species)?
• In the case of an endangered species, did the translocated animal mate and reproduce?
• In the case of human-wildlife conflict, was the conflict reduced at the site of capture?
• In the case of human-wildlife conflict, did the translocated animal stop showing problematic behaviour (that resulted in conflict at its capture site)?

Raccoon (source: www.dnr.sc.gov)

For a successful translocation, each question must be answered affirmatively. Based on these criteria it is not surprising that translocation is a difficult and stressful endeavour. While the selection of a release site, the transfer and the actual release of an animal is, to some extent, in the control of wildlife managers, what follows this can be unpredictable. For example, translocation in raccoons (a ‘problem animal’ in United States) sees a 50% mortality rate within three months and 75% within a year. Caribou (Northern Hemisphere ungulates) that were translocated into a mountain ecotype (which differed from their home range ecotype) struggled to feed in their new habitat and experienced higher mortality than local herds.

While there are unpredictable outcomes of translocation, there are certain consequences that have been documented time and again. These consequences can be both positive and negative and both sides must be considered before approving or dismissing it as a management option. 

 Pros of translocation

Management of Threatened/Endangered Species

Species that occur in geographically-isolated populations (e.g. where a large population has been divided by human development) can benefit from translocation as it mimics the natural movement of animals in a large, continuous population. This can be particularly important where inbreeding depression occurs. Inbreeding depression is the process whereby the fitness (or survival and reproductive ability) of animals in a population drops due to a loss of genetic diversity which occurs as a result of inbreeding. While isolated populations of common species can be managed in this way, it may be ethically unsound to use funding for common species when it could be going towards the management of species at risk of extinction. In the case of these threatened species, translocation can prove to be an invaluable management tool.

Solution to a local problem

Where translocation is not being used for endangered species, it is invariably being used to resolve human-wildlife conflict. Where an animal population is under pressure, living close to humans and having frequent negative encounters with those humans, translocation can be a solution. For example, a black-backed jackal may have a territory bordering a sheep farm. This jackal may prey on sheep. This is costly to the farmer, and results in conflict. The sheep-hunting jackal can be caught and translocated away from the area (and into a nature reserve where there are no sheep).  In this way, the animal is removed from the area, and consequently, the problems that are associated with it are also removed: the sheep farmer is pleased to be rid of the jackal, the jackal is not under threat from the farmer and the conflict is resolved. It is important to note that the removal of the problem animal is not necessarily addressing the root of the problem (see below).

Assuagement of public conscience

Translocation has been described as a ‘feel-good solution.’ It is the intuitive panacea to human-wildlife conflict. It is also an ‘animal-friendly’ answer to the guilt associated with human-wildlife conflict. Perhaps it is more comfortable to see the result of this conflict to be the transfer of problem animals away from areas of concern rather than euthanasia or culling. For these reasons, the general public may be in favour of translocation. Management needs always to take into account public opinion (although it is only one of many factors to consider). In short, translocation can be a quick way to gain public approval.

Cons of translocation

 Spread of disease

One of the chief concerns of translocating animals from one population to another is the unintended spread of disease. This disease transfer can occur between animals of the same species, between animals of a different species, and between people and animals.  Both rabies and bovine tuberculosis have been documented to spread through translocation. This disease transfer occurred largely because wildlife managers lacked information regarding the consequences of these translocations. This type of uninformed translocation can have serious financial and ethical implications.

Is it better for the animal?

Moving a problem animal to a ‘safer’ area can be perceived to be in that animal’s best interests. However, the risks entailed in translocating animals question the validity of this perception. Firstly, injury (or even death) can occur through the capture/transport of an animal. Moving large numbers of animals simultaneously increases this risk. Following successful translocations, an animal may come into conflict with resident animals. Further, animals capable of moving large distances may leave their release site, sometimes travelling hundreds of kilometres (as is the case in the North American black bear). These movements can negate any benefits of a carefully-selected release site. They can also put the animal at risk from traffic collisions and conflicts with local residents (where animals may be shot or poisoned).

Caribou (source: www.fseee.org)

Passing the buck?

The impact of translocation must also be considered for the human population at or near the release site. This is particularly relevant for the translocation of problem animals. Animals displaying problematic behaviour (e.g. raiding), will often resume that behaviour at their release site. Translocated animals may actively seek out a familiar food source or situation (e.g. a human settlement) where they exhibit that problematic behaviour. This downside to translocation is often why it is viewed not as a solution to a problem, but rather a way of transferring the problem to some other place.

The Danger in DNA

Translocating animals between two populations that do not mix (geographically isolated from one another) has genetic implications for the target population (the population into which the translocated animals are being moved). The field of genetics is complex, and this paragraph will not suffice to cover a fraction of its complexity. Two primary concerns are outbreeding depression, and hybridisation. Outbreeding depression occurs when the adaptive phenotypic traits of an animal (e.g. fur colour, body size, territorial behaviour etc.) are not suited to its new habitat. As translocated animals mate with local animals, so the unfavourable phenotypic trait may spread through the population, putting the local population at risk.

Hybridisation occurs when two closely-related species mate to produce offspring that cannot be classified as either one of the parent species. This results in the emergence of a new species. Although this is by no means a new phenomenon, it can be problematic where endangered species are concerned. If an endangered animal pairs and mates with an animal of a closely-related species to produce hybrid offspring, it means that the endangered species has effectively ‘lost’ a reproductive individual. For this reason, hybridisation can be viewed as highly undesirable by those responsible for endangered species.

Photo: John Burnside

Bringing things home: what does this mean for baboons on the Peninsula?

 Translocation is a high-risk management strategy. There are many points throughout the process where things may, and do, go wrong.

A poignant reminder of this is David’s story. In 2007, a dispersing male baboon, David was seen in Tokai and Claremont, presumably having come from Tokai forest. The SPCA took him into their care three times before transferring him to the Cape CROW (Centre for the Rehabilitation of Wildlife) in Barrydale. David was re-released in the Cape Peninsula after which he moved into the Southern suburbs. After this, he was translocated to Limietberg Nature Reserve in the Dutiotskloof mountains. He moved 18km from his release site, allegedly raiding a couple of farmhouses. In what must have been a highly traumatic situation, David died in a fight with four dogs as he was being chased off a farm by a local foreman. It is difficult to see any silver lining in David’s story.

Although David’s story is a worrying one, in the history of translocation, it is by no means unique.  Before translocation can be used, the question of whether it is actually in the best interests of the animal must be asked. The downsides of translocation must be weighed against its benefits, and a rational, balanced decision needs to be made. Is translocation a long-term solution? Are we simply passing the problem to somebody else? Are we trying to assuage our consciences? These are difficult questions, but they must all be addressed.

Furthermore, investigations into the genetic implications of translocation, risk of disease transfer and appropriate site investigation needs to be carried out. These investigations must be rigorous and thorough. Lastly, a comprehensive monitoring system needs to be devised to quantify the results of any translocations (e.g. the animal’s condition, behaviour, movements etc.) and to understand the factors that cause the success or failure of translocations.

The final word

Thus, translocation is by no means a simple solution. Its use is being advised against by a growing number of biologists and managers. This is largely to do with its low success rate across a range of species. It is a low-odds management option, and perhaps is better suited where success is measured by whether or not a species succumbs to extinction rather than whether human-wildlife conflict was temporarily mollified.

Further reading

Mills, L.S. 2007. Conservation of wildlife populations: demography, genetics and management. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.

Linnell, J.D.C., Aanes, R., Swenson, J.E., Odden, J. and Smit, M.E. 1997. Translocating of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 1245–1257.

Chipman, R., Slate, D., Rupprecht, C. and Mendoza, M. 2008. Downside risk of wildlife translocation. Developments in Biologicals 131: 223–232.

Craven, S., Barnes, T. and Kania, G. 1998. Toward a professional position on the translocation of problem wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 171–177.