/file/dailymaverick/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/label-Opinion.jpg)
- This article was added as a response to this article by Adam Cruise.
A popular refrain in the local press and on social media is that residents and baboons could, and therefore should, coexist harmoniously on the Cape Peninsula. Justification for this approach is provided by citing the coexistence model applied in the small coastal village of Rooiels near Cape Town. Here the residents tolerate baboon presence in the village with a focus on preventing access to houses and waste but allowing them to roam the streets and gardens freely.
To a naïve member of the public, the notion of peaceful coexistence with wildlife is romantic, and likely to be more appealing than field rangers armed with paintball markers herding baboons out of town. So, if sharing urban space works in Rooiels, why not on the Peninsula too?
For several years I lived in Rooiels where I studied both the baboons and the residents as part of my PhD. I specifically chose to study this community to understand their model of coexistence. For the first few weeks I was astounded by how the community accepted the almost daily visits by the troop. Could this be the “solution” to the tumultuous relationship between people and baboons that is pervasive in South Africa?
But less than a month into my study, I witnessed the first coexistence concern when an infant baboon was run over by a car as the troop bounded across the highway on their daily morning route from the mountains into the village. A few months later, another infant baboon was run over. And then again. And again. And again. Over four years I witnessed the death of 11 infants because of vehicles. To my surprise, and distress, baboon mothers who lost their infants to the road did not appear to learn that the road or vehicles posed a danger to their future offspring. In fact, all baboon mothers that lost an infant to the road lost additional infants to subsequent motor vehicle collisions during my study.
Sadly, the findings of my study showed that the chances of an infant baboon in Rooiels surviving to one year of age was a mere 44.4% compared with 55% to 80% for troops living in natural environments. While the deaths of infant baboons in natural settings are predominantly attributed to natural processes such as infanticide and predation, which, as unpleasant as they may be, serve an ecological purpose, 80% of all infant mortality in Rooiels was attributed to anthropogenic causes. In addition to the death of these infants, during my study period an additional three baboons were killed by dogs, and one adult female baboon was bludgeoned to death by a resident while she tried to rescue her juvenile from being killed by his dog. Needless to say, my hopes that people and baboons could somehow peacefully coexist while sharing urban space were dashed.
Viewing the Rooiels model as successful coexistence is arguably flawed. Despite the extensive, valiant and respectable efforts by the community to live responsibly with baboons, the troop still sustained high levels of mortality linked to human activity which ultimately threatens their persistence. Over the past five years working with the City of Cape Town’s baboon programme, I have unfortunately witnessed far worse than what I experienced during my PhD. Simply put, no urban area is safe for baboons.
Baboons are highly opportunistic and adaptable in nature, which allows them to utilise urban areas. This is not, however, justification for leaving baboons to live in urban area as they please. As we have learnt from numerous species, the presence of wildlife in urban areas does not necessarily imply benefit to the species. Many species living in urban areas are stuck in what scientists refer to as ecological or evolutionary traps – situations in which a previously reliable behavioural cue (such as what to eat, where to live) becomes maladaptive due to anthropogenic disturbance, resulting in negative impacts on an individual’s survival or fitness. In other words, the opportunistic nature of baboons is both the source of their success, and of their downfall.
Roads and dogs, the two main causes of death in Rooiels, are ubiquitous in urban areas. Preventing motor vehicle collisions with baboons on major arterial roads with high volumes of traffic is highly unlikely, as is preventing the ownership of dogs. These are but two of the largely unavoidable dangers present in the urban area. Unfortunately, this challenge is not unique to baboons in Cape Town. Local research suggests that caracal and Cape clawless otters are also experiencing these traps and similar threats.
Leaving baboons to roam urban areas is not only bad for them, but for people as well. As much as some may enjoy seeing baboons around town, it is essential to remember that they are not domesticated animals and should not be treated as such. Baboons are wild animals and pose a very real threat of damage to property, may impact negatively on resident lifestyle and mental wellbeing, and present the risk of zoonotic diseases. We also cannot ignore the hostility that arises between neighbours over baboons. As residents clash over differing value systems, tensions boil, causing persistent stress and anger, and occasionally leading to physical violence and lawsuits.
The Rooiels community is living proof that community education and awareness programmes, reduction of human-derived food attractants, baboon-proofing and lifestyle adjustments can reduce, but never eliminate, the potential for negative interactions between people and baboons in urban spaces. These concepts are applicable and valuable to other areas but require buy-in from individual residents. Importantly, as my study has shown, these activities alone will not keep baboons out of urban spaces or safe when in them.
The recently finalised Action Plan for the Cape Peninsula has provided a coexistence plan in which humans and baboons live together on the Peninsula – just not in urban areas. Sensational headlines suggesting that the plan seeks to remove all baboons on the Peninsula seek only to misinform the public. The goal is to have a sustainable baboon population that can be well managed within realistic budgets in a city with many competing fiscal demands.
The Action Plan presents a practical and rational approach to addressing present challenges with an adjusted focus on proactive, rather than reactive management. This includes the development of an urban wildlife by-law which will provide increased protection for baboons, the roll-out of baboon-proof bins which will reduce their exposure to toxins and disease, the installation of a strategic baboon-proof fence which will protect a large proportion of the population from urban and agricultural threats, the provision of a sanctuary that provides safe haven and care for baboon troops that do not have sustainable natural habitat and are thus locked into conflict in urban areas, and a reduced reliance on aversive conditioning.
As much as one might yearn to repair our human separation from nature, true coexistence with baboons means keeping them at a safe distance from us and the landscapes we’ve transformed. The urban edge is not a sociopolitical boundary, nor an imaginary line – it is a distinguishable divide between where baboons can live sustainably and where they cannot. Failure to recognise this is misguided and ironically human-centric. DM
Dr Joselyn Mormile is a conservation scientist who has been working with baboons and communities in South Africa for more than 15 years. Her work has included sanctuary care and veterinary medicine, behavioral research on natural- and urban-ranging baboons, and human dimensions research. Joselyn completed her PhD in conservation biology from UCT in 2024. Joselyn has worked for the baboon programme in Cape Town since 2020, as a manager and a scientist. She is the applied conservation scientist for the Cape Baboon Partnership.
