Response by Associate Professor Justin O’Riain (BRU, UCT) to open letter by Jenni Trethowan (JT) of Baboon Matters (17th 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 13th 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.
