A scientific and ethical rebuttal to Esme Beamish’s claims on baboons

Population viability and removal impact: mathematical errors and contradictory claims

In an article published in Daily Maverick on 5 September 2025, Beamish claims: “The baboon population has increased by nearly 70% since 1998, so removing 121 individuals will not endanger their viability”. However, her numbers fundamentally contradict current field data. The most recent Urban Baboon Programme census (2023/2024) records a total of 489 individuals along urban borders, not the “about 500 baboons in 12 troops” she claims would remain after culling. Her assertion of a “37% increase from 1998 baseline” and dismissal of extinction concerns as “simply false” appears wholly disconnected from reality — removing 121 from 489 yields approximately 368 baboons, not 500, representing extreme decline rather than growth.

Critical demographic impact on breeding population

The proposed culling would create a severe demographic bottleneck by reducing breeding males to just 28 across both northern and southern populations — leaving merely 19 of 25 adult males in the northern population and only nine adult males remaining in the south after removing the Waterfall and Seaforth groups (southern troops) and the C1 and C2 troops (northern troops). This demographically unsustainable figure threatens long-term viability regardless of total numbers. Additionally, the dispersing male protocol means many if not most young males are culled, creating an even more dire picture. One would also need to analyse the number of breeding females in each of the troops.

Disproportionate impact on southern subpopulation

The southern subpopulation faces particular vulnerability, with only 194 individuals in total. Removing the Seaforth and Waterfall troops would eliminate 58 individuals — representing 30% of the entire managed southern population. This substantial reduction raises serious questions about genetic diversity and long-term population sustainability within this subpopulation.

Human-induced mortality and troop-specific pressures

The percentage of human-caused baboon deaths during the 2023/2024 period is approximately 49.3%. Specifically, out of 67 total known mortalities, 33 were directly attributed to human activities such as shootings, vehicle collisions and dog attacks, while four additional urban-related deaths weren’t strictly caused by direct human action. Each troop endures different levels of such human-induced mortality, heavily affecting their stability (CapeNature, 2023-2034).

The Da Gama troop exemplifies these localised pressures, having experienced a 63% decline since 2012 and currently numbering only 20 individuals, despite not being slated for culling. This decline amid elevated human-related mortality illustrates the complexity that must be understood before implementing radical elimination management interventions.

The case for comprehensive troop-level analysis

It is a significant oversight to rely solely on aggregate population figures without accounting for the unique demographic dynamics and challenges faced by individual troops. Conservation best practice typically requires troop-specific demographic analysis rather than relying solely on aggregate population figures. Each troop experiences different levels of human interaction and environmental pressures, as demonstrated by varying decline rates such as that observed in the Da Gama troop.

A more detailed examination of individual troop demographics, breeding ratios and localised mortality factors might provide a more comprehensive foundation for management decisions and help address concerns about genetic diversity and population sustainability. 

Best practice in conservation demands detailed, troop-specific analysis to guide ethical and effective decisions. The lack of such detail in Beamish’s argument fundamentally weakens its validity and ethical correctness. These nuanced troop-level data contradict Beamish’s oversimplified interpretation and underscore the risks that removals pose to population viability, genetic diversity and sustainable management.

Humane removals or culling?

Beamish maintains that: “Authorities have not committed to culling but instead are prioritising translocations and sanctuaries to handle conflict humanely.” The Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team’s draft Action Plan outlines that translocation results in significant welfare and ecological risks such as stress from capture, disease transmission and territorial conflicts, concluding that it is not a responsible option. Furthermore, their Appendix H similarly critiques sanctuary placements for welfare and logistical challenges.

A key insight is that the Culling Appendix receives substantially greater focus and detail compared to the relatively sparse translocation and sanctuary appendices. Given that these other options have been discounted in the plan, this disproportionate emphasis on culling indicates a clear institutional preference for this approach as the primary management tool. Beamish’s failure to acknowledge this highly detailed and dominant focus reveals a significant omission in her argument. It demonstrates that culling is not merely one of several options but rather the central and favoured management approach within official planning documents.

Decline in urban deaths and welfare trends

Beamish states that: “Urban-related baboon deaths dropped significantly between 2010 and 2020, supporting management decisions based on removals.” The correlation between this decline and robust non-lethal management efforts is clear, with the post-2020 reduction in funding and programme support corresponding to a notable increase in mortalities. Successful community initiatives such as Green Group Simonstown demonstrate the potential for effective coexistence without removals. However, this project was sidelined in 2025 when Shark Spotters took over. Failure to implement key infrastructure, such as baboon-proof bins, exacerbates ongoing conflict and welfare challenges. According to the SPCA report: “The Cape of Good Hope SPCA would like to see stricter regulations and penalties being applied and enforced concerning the private, domestic use of air rifles and air rifle-like weapons (including so-called ‘paint ball guns’), that are being widely employed against urban edge wildlife species, with special emphasis on the baboons.”

Ecological role and management necessity

Beamish supports population management based on baboons’ ecological role. Baboons are critical seed dispersers in the Cape Floral Kingdom, designated a Unesco World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve. However, the principal drivers of conflict are human activities, namely unsecured waste and habitat encroachment. Forced removals disrupt the primates’ complex social and ecological dynamics, thereby risking the integrity of this unique and distinct population, uniquely adapted to this region, in addition to causing damage to the fynbos floral region and its continued sustainability. 

Therefore, it is imperative that they be protected, including a moratorium on the culling of male troop leaders, e.g. Martello of the Seaforth troop and Samuel of the Waterfall troop, which has existed for more than 20 years, so cannot be called a breakaway group of little value. Killing them would be highly disruptive and harmful to the troops.

Natural social dynamics misrepresented

Beamish’s use of the term “splinter troops” is scientifically inaccurate. Troop fission is a well-established, natural component of baboon social systems worldwide, and misrepresenting these events undermines effective ecological understanding and management. This term is specifically used to problematise the baboons.

Resource allocation for humane management

While Beamish claims increasing resourcing and community engagement, reports indicate that resources remain inadequate, transparency is lacking and key mitigation measures such as baboon-proof bins are not uniformly or adequately implemented. Institutional and bureaucratic constraints continue to impede humane coexistence solutions.

Dismissing activist welfare concerns

Beamish calls opposition concerns “clickbait” and “serial abuse of authority”. Yet NGOs and researchers present well-founded evidence of severe welfare harms within current management protocols. Proven non-lethal methods, while effective within community projects, have not received sufficient funding or policy emphasis. Opposition to culling and removal strategies remains strong within scientific and civil society groups, highlighting ethical and ecological implications overlooked and minimised by Beamish.

Community-based baboon monitoring and conflict reduction

Beamish claims that: “Leaving the baboons in these five troops to roam urban areas for the three years it will take to build fences in areas like Simon’s Town is simply consigning them to a demise with extreme suffering and ongoing conflict with homeowners in affected areas. They are too habituated to be deterred by the current non-lethal means.”

This statement is both misleading and inaccurate. Contrary to Beamish’s implication, the Green Group Simonstown implemented a successful community-led Baboon Monitoring and Civil Coexistence Pilot Project focused specifically on the Seaforth Troop (also called the Simonsberg “Splinter” Troop). Rather than allowing the baboons to “roam urban areas” unmanaged, the group programme employed compassionate, continuous monitoring combined with proactive measures such as reducing food attractants and improving waste management. 

Over the project period, the Seaforth Troop exhibited marked behavioural improvements, spending substantially more time in natural habitats and significantly reducing urban incursions. This evidence underscores the effectiveness and importance of community-based, humane baboon management programmes that foster coexistence, countering Beamish’s pessimistic and inaccurate characterisation. 

Additionally, such projects would be more cost effective and humane than culling. The Seaforth Troop’s demonstrated behavioural improvements through community-based management directly refute Beamish’s claim that culling represents a humane solution. True humanity lies in preserving life while achieving coexistence, not in taking life as a first resort when proven alternatives exist.

Unesco involvement

The baboon populations reside within a Unesco World Heritage Site, which requires adherence to strict conservation obligations. Unesco’s World Heritage Centre has formally engaged with South African authorities to assess the impact of management actions, underscoring the issue’s seriousness. A Unesco spokesperson informed Mongabay:
“We are following the issue closely and are in contact with the South African authorities to better understand the situation and how it might impact the qualities that justify the Unesco status.” (Unesco, 2025, para. 3). I commented in the article: “You blame baboons for coming for food that you don’t secure, and now you say they must die because of that. That’s really perverse.”

The evidence from scientific data, welfare reports, ecological research, legal frameworks, and international oversight contradicts Esme Beamish’s claims. The draft Action Plan’s systematic elimination of translocation and sanctuary options through problem-focused analysis while developing detailed culling implementation plans reveals institutional/structural bias that undermines claims of objective evaluation. 

Ethical, science-based, transparent and community-centred approaches are critical for sustainable, humane baboon management that respects both conservation principles and the unique ecological significance of this Unesco World Heritage Site population of Outstanding Universal Value. DM

Carol Knox is a conservationist and member of Green Group Simonstown.