The Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team (CPBMJTT) – comprising SANParks, CapeNature and the City of Cape Town – has proposed removing five splinter baboon troops, totalling about 120 individuals, which represent about a quarter of the managed baboon population on the Peninsula.
The proposal is one of the most significant wildlife management decisions in years on the Peninsula. It has sparked a serious ethical, legal and ecological debate.
A march was recently organised by concerned stakeholders in Simon’s Town aimed at pushing the City and conservation agencies towards non-lethal methods of baboon conflict mitigation and towards a peaceful coexistence.
Baboons, as fellow primates, bear remarkable similarities to humans – biologically, behaviourally, historically and even culturally. These shared traits compel us to reconsider how we assess their wellbeing and how we relate to them ethically. To truly protect and coexist with baboons, we must develop a unique and more relevant moral framework – one that goes beyond traditional anthropocentric ethics and accounts for their sentience, social lives and shared history with humans.
Sentience as a moral foundation
At the core of any ethical consideration lies the concept of sentience – the capacity to feel, particularly to suffer and to experience pleasure. Sentience forms the foundation of moral value in both human and non-human animals, especially in higher-order mammals like baboons.
Because humans are primates too, it is easier for us to recognise sentience in species so closely related to us. This similarity suggests that baboons deserve moral consideration comparable to humans.
Read more: Is killing Cape Peninsula baboons a conservation-based plan, or a travesty and a con?
Given their proven capacity to suffer, any act that causes baboons physical pain or psychological distress – whether lethal or non-lethal – raises ethical red flags. Tools commonly used to deter baboons, such as paintball markers, gel blasters, bear bangers, strobe lights and high-pressure water units, may not kill but do cause harm, stress and discord. As such, they are ethically indefensible under a sentience-based framework.
Beyond suffering: The limits of pain-based ethics
However, an ethical system based solely on the avoidance of suffering is inherently flawed. For example, it might permit the “humane” killing of an individual if done painlessly. Yet, removing a single baboon from its troop disrupts the social cohesion vital to their collective wellbeing. Baboons are deeply social creatures, and harm to one can reverberate through the entire group.
Other necessary interventions – such as capture, translocation or rehabilitation – might also be deemed unethical under a strict anti-suffering model, even if they are carried out for the long-term benefit of the animal or the group.
These measures, however, could also disrupt baboon societies and cause long-term psychological harm. They ought to be done under extreme situations, such as injured animals that require veterinary care. The removal of more than 100 baboons from the Cape Peninsula does not fall into this category since that is sure to cause protracted mental harm for the entire troop.
Most critically, a sentience-only model remains human-centric. It assumes that moral value is defined by human perception of suffering, placing humanity at the top of a moral hierarchy. Even if baboons rank highly on this scale, the problem is that they are still ranked below humans, and this diminishes their protection in conflict scenarios.
Cultural bias and the baboon’s ‘misbehaviour’
Human moral judgement further complicates things. Baboons engage in behaviours that humans often find morally unacceptable – stealing, damaging property and even attacking other animals or people. From an anthropocentric viewpoint, such acts might be labelled as criminal. Yet, for baboons, these behaviours are survival strategies, not ethical transgressions.
This mismatch in moral codes means that applying a human framework to baboons is not only unjust but ineffective. Baboons live in and adapt to human spaces, making conflict more likely. And in disputes, human interests – under our current ethical model – will almost always take precedence.
Towards a new ethic
To move beyond these limitations, we must adopt the concept of intrinsic value – the idea that baboons have worth not only because they can suffer but because of who they are and how they live. This leads us to the ethical concept of flourishing, which emphasises a species’ ability to develop its natural capacities and live in a way that is meaningful to its nature.
For baboons, flourishing doesn’t necessarily mean living untouched in wild landscapes. Unlike many other wild mammals, baboons have a long history of adapting to and thriving alongside humans. This co-evolutionary relationship suggests that baboon wellbeing can include life within human-modified environments.
Read more: Cape baboons — removal plan aims to protect primates and Cape Town residents
Historically, baboons and humans have lived side by side. It was only relatively recently that humans began creating exclusive spaces – farms, towns and conservation areas – barred to other primates. Recognising this shared past urges us to develop an ethic of coexistence, not separation.
Reimagining conservation
To truly conserve baboons, we must redefine what conservation means. Rather than prioritising human needs and only protecting baboons at a distance, we need a model rooted in peaceful, nonviolent coexistence. This includes acknowledging their culture, social structures and historical ties to human spaces.
Such a model challenges rigid divisions between the “natural” and “human” worlds. Baboons do not fit neatly into either category – they blur the lines, just as our shared history does. In recognising this, we are compelled to develop a baboon-specific ethic that incorporates their capacity for suffering, their social lives, their adaptability, and their intrinsic worth.
As the world becomes increasingly shaped by human hands, the survival of baboons depends on a radical shift in how we perceive and treat them. A baboon ethic must move beyond pain and punishment and towards respect, cohabitation and mutual flourishing. Only by embracing this integrated, compassionate approach can we ensure a future where both humans and baboons thrive – together. DM