OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES
INTRODUCTION
Baboons have been damaging pine trees in the Mpumalanga escarpment plantations since
the mid 1970s. Efforts were made to stop the damage on a low scale by shooting baboons in
the most serious damaged areas. By the 1990s the damage escalated to such an extent that
a baboon damage forum was formed and advice was sought form various authorities,
including the Nature conservation department. A research project was done in the Cape
province, looking mainly at the nutritional value of pine cambium/phloem and found that this
was so low that the utilization of this substance cannot be interpreted and food item
(Erasmus 1993).
The recommendation was that the animals should be caught in cages and shot. Cages were
built and the control work was done by forestry officials as an extension to their regular
duties. Capture was fairly haphazard and instructions were not followed to the necessary
extent. Baboons, being troop living and relatively intelligent animals learnt to avoid the
capture and trap success became too low to be effective.
At this stage a person was contracted to do the capture work. Some troops were found to
show cage shyness and the trapping was found to be quite difficult and time consuming. The
decision was taken not to trap the whole troop, as the last few animals became more
difficult and time consuming to trap than the time it took to trap the fist two third or so. This
in effect increased the cage shyness of the remaining animals and caused a greater obstacle
in solving the problem.
By this time animal welfare organizations became involved in the situation and a formal
Baboon Damage Working Group (BDWG) was established on which three of the major
forestry companies were represented with animal welfare representation. Workshops were
held and eventually a research project was contracted to an university. This led to a MTec.
Thesis by Marais (2005) of the baboons in Blyde Canyon Nature Reserve (BCNR) that
borders on some of the damaged plantations.
By 2000 assessments of damage was started on a statistical basis and by mid 2005 a selfimposed
moratorium was called, pending the outcome of the research. At this stage the
results of another MSc thesis indicated that the micro nutrients of pine cambium/phloem
could again not explain the cause of the damage (McNamara 2005). Some non-lethal
damage prevention methods were tested throughout this period.
The university research project, unfortunately, did not produce answers to the most
important questions (Brown et al 2006) (appendix 9)
In the mean time a researcher/capture specialist was employed by one of the companies. A
management plan and research project was drafted and since mid 2006 some baboons were
collared with GPS transmitters and experimental removal of baboon troops were started.
Some of the most important findings thus far indicate that the plantations, instead of being a
“green desert” is much better baboon habitat than the natural vegetation of the BCNR and
that the baboon density in the plantation is at least three time higher than the density in the
national park. Damage occur all over the plantations, in all species and in all ages of trees.
The whole home range of some baboon troops fall inside plantation area (publications in
progress).
Projecting baboon home ranges on map that reflect the damage clearly indicate the highest
damage on home range boundaries and on the overlaps in home ranges. This indicates that
the damaging activities has a behavioural cause. Baboons have been observed stripping bark
when some troop members are upset by the activity of capturing a few troop members in
order to fit GPS collars. Again a clear indication of a behavioural link that suggest the action
of damaging trees to be a displacement (or redirected) behaviour. This implies that any
activity that upsets the baboons to a high enough degree is liable to initiate bark stripping.
A new, much more comprehensive damage survey method was also employed. The
preliminary results from the few plantations that have been surveyed to date shows that the
damage are at least an order of magnitude higher than shown by the previous method. The
damage, at this stage, clearly is becoming a threat to the viability of various forestry
companies. Curbing the damage has become a priority and has to continue until some relief
can be demonstrated.
A large number of damage control alternatives have been suggested, mostly for non-lethal
control. In any animal damage control situation two major factors has to guide the process:
effectivity in solving the damage and welfare of the animals. Social issues are rising in
importance as the amount of damage is reaching levels where job opportunities are lost due
to activities like weeding and pruning stopped when a compartment has suffered high
damage.
The only method that has been demonstrated to relieve the damage has been the capture
and shooting of baboon troops, even though this is hampered by the previous attempts that
caused cage-shyness in the baboons. It should be noted that the method is well described in
a protocol document (Pepler 2007) that is regularly updated and that the NGOs represented
in the BDWG contributes to this process.
The following section is an evaluation of the alternatives in the light of experimentation, as
well as the findings of the research project. When reading this, it is important to bear in
mind that Forestry – especially the production of saw timber, is a highly scientific and
competitive enterprise. Therefore there is very little leeway in producing clean stumps of the
correct length to remain a role player. Some of the aspects that play significant roles in the
practicality of adaptations to lessen damage is:
- Size of plantations
- Ruggedness of the terrain
- Amount of natural vegetation in and around plantations
- Scale of millions of susceptible trees per plantation
- The utilization (or non-utilization) of damaged tree stumps
- Number of baboon troops
Very limited management options exist for:
・ Tree species
・ Age of trees
・ Location of trees
・ Pruning
These management practices are based on decades of research and trail and error. The
industry standards are currently based on these practices. A forestry company that do not
adhere to these standards will quickly loose its niche in the marketplace.
All pine species that occur on plantations that have been surveyed for damage has been
damaged.
Sawing damaged stumps often lead to broken saw blades which causes a real danger to
human operators, as well as causing long stoppages to replace an expensive blade and
thereby significantly reducing productivity.
Whenever the statement is made that pressure groups have not come up with a single
working suggestion, this is denied and lists of recommendations are produced. However the
operative word is WORKING solutions. No viable non-lethal solution exists at the time of this
update.
DAMAGE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
1. Baboon Chasing: The idea is to place guards along the grassland boundary of a
plantation. Approaching baboon then has to be “Shoo-d” away, preventing entry into the
plantation and thereby damage to the pines. The interface between plantation and
grassland is usually quite extensive.
It is important to realize the effect of different ways of chasing and restraint of baboon:
Displace like a predator in vicinity or work team in area– baboons move off & that’s
it. No undue stress or behavioural reaction. Moves off & may or may not cause
damage. This is true for the vast majority of normal forestry management practices.
Pursuit – Baboons realize they are followed and repeatedly chased by same
individual(s). Causes stress & will probably cause more damage
Restraint – Active: Animal caught by predator or human - troop see & hear
distress from the individual – causes severe stress in the troop.
Passive: Caught but left in cage till troop leaves before humans
approach – almost no stress to free troop members
Habituation – Baboons are also well known for habituating to any kind of
harassment that do not lead to direct injury or death of individuals. Even shooting at
baboons, for instance with shotgun with very fine shot size. In previous work
situations baboons have been captured with a blind eye and found to have such
pellets in the eye, yet they have habituated to the shooting. Usually by running off
when the shotgun is seen, but returning as soon as the person is out of sight.
Baboons recognize human individuals and vehicles that pose a threat, but ignores or
even harass other people and vehicles.
Even shooting at baboon with slingshots etc. cause the animals to seek shelter –
jumping over a hedge in a suburban situation, or into the plantation in the forestry
situation – the opposite of the purpose of chasing the animal.
Baboon can easily outrun humans, and in denser vegetation slip by unnoticed within meters
of a person. Wooded drainage lines and rocky cliffs are crossed with ease where humans
struggle to make any progress. When baboons are in the open grassland next to plantation
their flight pattern is straight into the denser vegetation and shelter of the plantation.
Chasing in effect only prevented baboons from utilising grassland and drove them into the
plantation. When baboons feel persecuted the most likely result is to cause damage (see
above) Baboon will easily outflank humans if they are determined to get into a plantation.
At Blyde plantation, the Blyde Canyon Nature Reserve makes a long, thin protrusion through
the plantation along a deepening drainage line that is also denser vegetated. Damage by
baboons inhabiting the reserve, happens to both sides of this drainage line. When guards
chase baboon on one side the animals can move trough the drainage line and be in the
plantation on the other side within a few minutes, while guards on foot or bicycle take much
longer. Baboons would have ample time to still damage trees in the time it takes for the
guards to catch up.
It could be argued that more guards should be employed. However it would not take too
many such employees, doing nothing for most of their time but getting at least minimum
wage, to start rivalling the cost of damage.
The research project that centred on Blyde plantation as the main study area, found 11
troops that influence the plantation and that most of these troops live inside the plantations
and thus cannot be kept out.
Chasing a troop of 40+ individuals into natural vegetation where a resident troop of 20
animals are already present, will cause severe behavioural upsets and will cause
overutilization with resultant population crash and loss of a lot of biodiversity in the
process.
The very real problems that forestry workers have to work with will only properly be
understood when the enormity of the plantations is realized.
2. Baboon “Minders”: This method comes from the way the problem is managed in the
peninsula around Table Mountain in Cape Town. This calls for a dedicated group that gets
themselves habituated and thus accepted by the baboon. They can approach and even
mingle with the troop. When the troop does anything untoward they are chased by the
minder.
This project is lauded as very successful in the press. However there are still opposition from
many home owners in the area and even a “baboon free neighbourhood action group” that
claims unacceptable damage and threats from baboons even while minders are active.
Residents have to lock themselves up and close, or rather screw windows shut in order to
protect their children and property. During the 2010 soccer world cup many websites,
ranging from sports sites to travel sites to news sites were warning soccer fans of the
likelihood of being mugged by baboons in Cape town. Even a property website advertise
houses in a “baboon free neighbourhood.”
There is again a huge difference between minders keeping up with their baboon troop on
tarred roads and small fynbos vegetation, as against in a plantation.
The size of the area and the ruggedness in plantations makes a big difference. Applying this
method depends on habituating each baboon troop to humans. In the plantation the
baboons are completely wild and approaching to within 150 meters is a challenge. The
individuals that become minders will have to work 14-16 hours per day for 365 days per year
even over week-ends, come storm or shine.
Getting the baboons to accept minders, if ever, will be a process of many months. Bearing in
mind that there will have to be quite a couple of minders for each troop on each of up to 15
or 20 plantations, and that there are 11 troops on Blyde (a smallish plantation) alone, it is
clear that this does not offer a practical option.
Because of the research result the indicates that persecution leads to damage activities, this
method has the potential to cause a serious rise in the amount of damage.
3. Change ranging pattern: Keep harassing baboons in sensitive area till they move to a
less sensitive area. Food can also be used to lure the troop to non-sensitive areas. (this
aspect will be discussed on it own elsewhere).
The research shows that there are no preference for any area, species, age, season or any
other identifiable aspect in the damage caused. Damage occur all over and the home ranges
of most of the damage causing troops are inside plantations.
Continual harassment is not acceptable from a animal welfare viewpoint and this has an
even higher likelihood to cause much more damage.
4. Conditioned fear of area: Intensive of previous – some animals are even shot from
hiding so that the fear is developed for the area and not just for humans. This is stronger
than previous method and the effects last longer. However it can only work where specific
spots has to be protected (ie seasonal holiday house).
5. Repel (spray chemical on trees): The susceptible trees are covered in chemical
repellent that makes stripping bark an unpleasant experience.
Trails with chilli sauce have been unsuccessful. In our climate and rainfall the sauce does not
last on the tree. Within days the repellent on the tree has somehow been diluted to
ineffectivity.
Another problem is the effect of this compound on the animals. Animals get burning hands,
lick them and get burning mouths to the extent that the animals clearly get heavily stressed.
This for climbing a tree – which baboons are supposed to do. The repellents tried to date
does not conform to the definition humaneness.
Again, all trees are susceptible and that leaves us with well over 100mill trees. The chemicals
will have to be re-applied every so often – logistically impossible and Prohibitively expensive.
Short term repellents are known not to cause long term aversion
6. Phytotoxic trees: Systemic poisons that is absorbed through the plant roots, or that is
injected into the plant and then spreads throughout the plant, have been in use for a long
time. If such a chemical, or one that makes the tree unpalatable can be found, it could
prevent the baboons from damaging the tree. However, no substances of this kind is
known and the cost of use, because of the scale, will probably be prohibitive.
7. Aversive Conditioning: Aversive conditioning or conditioned taste aversion (CTA)
has been implemented to solve various problem animal situations. In some cases it has
been reported to work well, but there is a cloud of controversy over the method.
The aversion comes about when an animal (or man) become violently ill and vomits after
taking in food. It is stronger and longer lasting if the food is new to the organism
ingesting it. This is a protective mechanism to prevent animals from feeding on poison. If
one dose produces symptoms but does not kill the animal, it will not take that kind of food
again. On the negative side cases of context sensitivity have been reported. Thus animals
that are conditioned in captivity with bark stripped from a tree, might not lead to aversion
to prevent the animal from tearing off bark on its own.
Aversive conditioning is usually done in captivity, where the animal is subjected to the
substance to be conditioned against in a pure form and where other food also consumed
cannot confuse the issue. This would mean that whole troops would have to be caught
and averted in captivity, implying capture, tranquilizer drugs, transport, captive facilities
etc. Therefore this method dependant on infrastructure that does not exist and it seems
impractical to apply at this stage, especially with the uncertainty of context and huge
numbers of baboon. Any baboons missed during capture will continue the damage, and
averted baboons will relearn the damaging behaviour.
8. Chase with dogs: Dogs are much faster than humans & will put much more pressure
on baboons. Chasers with a turbo.
Various problems – humans cannot keep up, thus cannot keep control. Dogs & humans
separated then baboons may attack dogs. Is sure to cause increase in damage. Dogs may
get lost and very difficult to find again. Not considered as a viable method because of animal
welfare issues.
9. Extra High Pruning: Damage in large trees occurs only in crown, so make it
difficult to reach crown.
The industry standard for pruning is seven meters. Experimental pruning up to 9 meters did
not stop damage. Baboon easily scale large trees. High pruning has no effect on the
vulnerability to damage, however higher pruning causes retardation in tree growth and the
resultant loss in production.
10. Supplemental feeding: Place food in area outside plantation. Baboons hang around
and do not venture in to feed in the plantation.
Supplemental feeding have been done for black bear and deer where damage are caused to
trees as a “famine food” when other sources of food is scarce and under the snow. For the
bears this happens after hibernation when the bear is really in need of food. Whole tree
trunks are stripped as far possible by the bear and numerous trees damaged in a single day.
Baboon troops causing damage in plantations have other sources of food. For instance the
two troops causing severe damage on Morgenzon plantation supplement their food: The one
troop by maize planted by TGME, and the other by the rubbish dump of Crystal Springs
resort. Supplemental feeding therefore does not alter the damage pattern.
Feeding wild animals is not good practice in wildlife management. When capture is the
purpose, or some other short term management issue needs to be resolved it may be a
valuable means of achieving a goal. However long-term feeding to alter the behaviour or
space-use pattern is not acceptable. Boredom may also be a cause of bark stripping. Feeding
results in baboons using less energy to obtain high quality food this will lead to breeding up
of numbers and becoming potentially a bigger threat.
11. Plant food trees at plantation edge: Baboons meet their nutritional needs in the
food “lane” and do not have to enter plantation and get to where damage is a probable.
Some places an edge-effect – baboons entering plantation form indigenous forest with lots
of food trees cause most damage at edge next to forest. Damage become less further from
edge. Other places there is no, or very low damage next to natural vegetation. Some of the
highest damage recorded is often in compartments that is surrounded by other
compartments. Vice versa – some of the compartments that is surrounded by pristine
indigenous forest sometime suffers very high damage.
Some of the compartments of the Wilgeboom plantation is situated in the pristine forests
that cover the slopes of the escarpment. Many of the compartments are surrounded on three
sides by the pristine forests. Most of these compartments are heavily damaged and not one
of those compartments had no damage, or even low damage (less that 5 %).
There are many ecological reasons why grassland on ridges between valleys and drainage
line do not have indigenous forest growing there naturally. It is an ecological impossibility
to plant indigenous forest on such ridges.
The introductory sentence of the summery in the ABEERU report states: The primary finding
of the study is that, while the baboons live in degraded habitat, this has no direct, linear
bearing on their use of pine as a resource (the focus of our attention) or of the extent to
which they damage pine outside of any use they might make of it. This in itself lead to the
expectation that other food sources will have no effect on the damage
Pine bark has been clearly proven NOT to be utilised as food. Two masters thesis and some
other publications.
12. Clearing all indigenous food plants out of plantation: Remove attraction of
food inside plantation & prevent baboon from crossing “barren” plantation where
damage is done.
Lots of food such as insects, fungi, corms, roots, fruit on smaller vegetation. Only way to
remove food would be total devastation of indigenous biodiversity. Many baboon home
ranges inside plantation. It is illegal to remove indigenous forest patches.
13. Compensation: In the sense of paying the forestry company for the damage and
thereby they do not have to take out the baboon. The problem is that there is a lack of
timber. Timber is considered a strategic resource by the government. What is needed is
timber to sustain growth in the country, no just money in the kitty of the forestry
companies. This will lead to job losses for quite a number of workers as well as industries in
the utilization of the wood products.
If not enough timber can be produced on the current areas set aside for plantations, more
pristine grassland will be used. This is a worse solution than managing the losses to optimize
production on the current forestry zoned areas.
Birth control as an ADC technique: Number reduced over time, but no animals are
killed.
GENERAL
The rationale behind this suggestion is not clear:
1. The chances of catching a whole troop in one session is low.
2. Follow-up captures cannot select only untreated animals
3. Sterilize all males only – immigration by male – breeding not effected.
4. Sterilize all females what would it do to a lactating female?
5. Sterilize infant females?
6. What do you do with an infant while its mother is “processed”.
7. The time frame to do 20+ females on one day.
8. Result is that animals die without breeding – same as lethal control
9. As troop numbers get lower it will be replaced by neighbouring troop – same as after
lethal control, but dump displaced survivors in survival crisis
10. Stress to sedate, discomfort of operation, stress of release much more than shoot
11. Damage continue as if nothing was done
12. This is genetic interference
13. May well lead to behavioural deviations
14. Will troop maintain troop structure?
15. Facilities needed for such an extensive action
16. Housing & post operation care of 40+ animals
17. Get a qualified vet in remote area on short notice
18. All troops? Male immigration – worse option as culling set number of troops & leaving
remaining troops untouched
19. Astronomical cost, yet damage stay the same for considerable time
20. Less control over process than by removing troops
There are so many practical problems, negatives and uncertainties that it does not make any
sense. The result, however will be the same as culling the effected troops (all animals will
die without leaving offspring), but much more expensive and damage will still continue
unabated. The amount of stress that the whole troop will be subjected to will be
exponentially more than with capture and culling.
14. SURGICAL STERILIZATION:
All of the above points are valid for this method.
15. UNDER SKIN INPLANTS: The same as for the surgical option – the implant will be only
slightly less costly.
16. ORAL STERILIZATION: No need to capture, anesthetise and physically handle animals.
Points to bear in mind:
1. No such preparation registered for baboon
2. Effect on pregnant females
3. Effect on immature females
4. Effect on males of all ages
5. Effect of overdose in all baboons
Does an oral sterilization drug exist that will be stable enough in bait left for hours in the
exposed environment?
17. Translocation: Translocation has become a buzzword as if it is the solution to most
man/animal conflict situations. It is embraced mostly by people who do not have to do the
translocation themselves. Moving individual animals is not too complex and will normally
not cause too many consequences. However translocating numbers of animals with a troop
structure is quite a different matter.
Translocations can only be done under permit from the relevant provincial conservation
authority. Species listed as Least Concern under the red list classification can only be
regarded as welfare relocations. This is the lowest priority and has the least chance of being
permitted. It further is subject to a suitable area, with letters of no objection from all the
neighbours. It also includes testing for all kinds of diseases and parasites. Holding facilities
for a period before release at the new site and further specifications (IUCN guidelines) make
translocation a very complex and expensive option.
The receiving habitat has to be as close as possible to the origin habitat. This severely limits
possible translocation areas for plantation baboons. Thus far (at least four years) no
suitable receiver could be found. Welfare of the baboons in such efforts is also a major
concern.
Most successful translocations of baboon were done with baboons habituated to humans, in
nature reserves with researchers and wildlife experts in attendance. Some that has been
done in South Africa led to neighbouring troops taking over the troop and displacing the
dominant male, by fighting and seriously injuring the male. Therefore introductions were
done with small groups that are rather integrated with existing troops.
During a period of four years only two potential release sights could be found, both withdrew
when the complexity of these operations and the responsibilities following such actions were
properly understood.
18. Hunt (shoot in numbers): This will cause baboons to become wary of plantations and
the numbers will be reduced.
During daytime troop activities it is almost impossible to shoot more than one baboon at a
time as the troop immediately runs off at the first shot. Future approach by humans to
within shooting range get progressively more difficult to impossible. Welfare of possible
wounding.
19. Night hunt at roost sites: A roost is approached at night. The baboons are blinded by
bright spotlights to stop them fleeing and shot in numbers.
The resultant chaos leads to baboons being wounded, baboons injuring themselves and
untold stress in such a troop.
20. Snipe at roost: Night time shoot with image intensifier and silenced rifle.
Limited to relatively open sleeping sites. Therefore not a routine option. May be used for
troop that cause severe damage and are known to have a suitable roost. Obvious welfare
issues.
21. Remove individuals: Concentrate on damage-causing individuals. By removing
them the damage will be reduced. Each troop will have to be studied and damagecausing
individuals identified so that only the right individuals are removed.
This suggestion is based on the premise that only individual animals cause the damage and
not all members of a troop. If only these individuals are removed, it should stop the damage
and maintain the troop presence.
Basic questions then crop up: Is it only individuals, or does all big enough baboon within a
troop participate in damaging trees? How to identify the damage causing individual? How will
such individuals be removed selectively?
In most troops many baboons of all ages seem to partake in bark stripping. There is a lack
of evidence only for large males stripping bark.
Due to the terrain it is difficult to identify damage-causing troops. Identifying the damagecausing
individual is practically impossible. Even if we could, are they then shot? Within one
or two such shootings you would not get close enough to shoot anymore. If captured the
troop will soon become cage-shy. What if it is the dominant animals are removed? Even if
temporary, removal of dominant animals causes severe disruption in the social and other
aspects of a troop.
There are to many clear indications of severe impracticality in this method.
22. Hunt/Chase With Dogs: Dogs chase the baboon and they flee into the trees. In
mature pine stands the trees are too far removed for baboon to jump from tree to tree. The
baboon can then be shot out of the trees.
Dogs and baboons can run much faster than humans and it is difficult to impossible to
control such a situation. When humans are not close by baboon males may attack dogs.
The result is that not all baboon of a troop can be cornered like this in one go. Some of the
adult males descend and fight with the dogs. Clean shots are difficult when shooting at
animals high in the crown of tree. This may cause wounding and severe stress among the
baboon.
Inside plantations the terrain usually does not allow for such chases to be successful.
23. Poison: Pre-bait and then place poison bait. The best knock-down of numbers.
The development and use of poison for specific applications is a very specialized subject.
Once a poison has been registered for a specific purpose it can be used according to the
label directions and thereby applied relatively safely and effectively. No poisons are
registered in South Africa for use on baboon and therefore it should be very carefully
considered before such substances are used.
A specific baboon poison called Papiol (contains brodifacoum as active ingredient) is
registered in Zimbabwe. Brodifacoum is an anti-coagulant and considered as humane – the
animal starts to bleed internally, looses blood pressure, consciousness and dies without
experiencing pain. The poisoned bait (maize) was placed in wooden boxes with slats that
allowed baboons to insert their hands to take out maize kernels, but did not allow other
animals like duiker and bushpig to reach the maize.
However it may take quite a long time (days) from ingesting the poison till death. Therefore
the animal moves and carcasses cannot be found. Secondary poisoning from Brodifacoum
is known. Papiol was developed because of the inefficiency of trap and shoot as applied by
the forestry industry in Zimbabwe.
Choosing the right poison (no secondary poisoning) and with the right methods of
application (species specific and in such a way that carcasses could be removed),
selectivity and humaneness can be ensured, however poison is not considered at
this stage.
24. Fencing: Keep baboon out of plantations. (Plain or electrified – baboon-proof)
Most damage-causing troops live inside plantations. No fences around plantations due to
accessibility during fires and harvesting. Baboon-proof fence will play havoc with biodiversity.
Expense of clearing, erecting & maintenance is prohibitive. Any baboon that may breech the
fence will have to be tracked and shot.
Fence material often ends up as snare material for poachers. Sun charging panels and
batteries are also often stolen.
Fencing is a serious obstacle in emergencies in plantations such as fire where heavy vehicles
has to enter, exit and manoeuvre in the plantation. It also presents a huge obstacle during
routine harvesting and transport of logs.
25. Geo-fencing: Place activated wire around sensitive area. Capture troop leader & fit
shock collar. When leader gets close to geo fence it is shocked and retreats.
Baboon does not know what causes shock – may run over geo-fence, then be scared to
come out. Troop not shocked – only the leader. Separating the troop and its leader may
cause chaos in the social system & necessitate repeated capture and collar for each troop.
Obvious welfare issues
26. Hot wire: Place electrified collar around each susceptible tree – prevent climbing
Damage shows no distinction between location, species or age of trees – all susceptible.
Scale to large – cost prohibitive. Maintenance & removal for pruning, thinning and harvesting
logistically impossible.
27. Capture & shoot: As many as possible individuals of a troop is caught and then shot,
inside the cage, at close range.
Large numbers of cages are needed and the wrong construction material can cause serious
injuries to the baboon. This has been the only method that has been used extensively.
When applied properly, by a specialist it is effective. A protocol has been developed to
ensure effectivity and humaneness. This is still the mainstay of alleviating damage and will
have to remain in place until a viable & better alternative is found.
28. Painting individuals: Supposedly to scare the troop when a member of the troop
that is unrecognisable keeps following the troop and chases the troop out of their home
range.
This is an old wives tale that has obvious welfare issues and a successful prosecution by the
SPCA exsits against this practise. Troop members have been observed grooming such a
painted baboon.
29. Playback of alarms: The idea being that the baboons would feel threatened and flee.
May lead to increased damage in the forestry situation. Otherwise baboons that are in their
home range and hear non-members inside their home range may actively pursue the call
and try to expel the intruder. When no baboons are found habituation is the most likely
outcome.
30. Leave damaged compartments for continued use by baboons: The idea being
that the already damaged compartments can be sacrificed so that other compartments are
not damaged.
There are numerous examples of damaged trees that have been left standing,
throughout the ranging form severely damaged to lightly damaged – some for a decade
or more. Some of those trees are re-damaged regularly, some seldom, and some not at
all. Examples of This can be seen on plantations where no baboons have been removed
in at least four years. Yet in all of them neighbouring compartments also show damage –
again in all stages of severity of damage. Out of the three plantations where damage
surveys with the new method has been completed, the highest percentage of nondamaged
compartments is less that 0.02%. Thus there is virtually no heavy damaged
compartment that does not have a damaged compartment next to it.
31. Supply Mineral additives to baboons: The damage by baboons may be because of a
mineral shortage – thus supplying minerals should stop the damage.
McNamara (2005) examined the relationship of nutrients to damage to pines with the
emphasis on micro-nutrients (mostly minerals) and could not demonstrate any relationship
between these nutrients and damage. Trees are damaged right through the year, but
damage are lower during the dry season and peaks during the wet season. Contrary to
expectations if some nutritional aspect was the cause of damage.
32. Eagle Eye: Rotating pyramid of mirrors, two clear and one red. Used to disorient
and thereby scare off birds like sea gulls and pigeons. Successful in various locations of
which Summerset Mall is a good example.
The feasibility on baboons were investigated. However baboons are not affected. Damage
occurred within 40 meters, indirect line of sight of the Eagle Eye. Baboons walked past
within three meters of an operating mirror on an open road.
33. Do nothing: Idea that baboon activity will cause diversity in the plantation and that
this is positive.
The idea stems from the American and Scandinavian forestry operations where the pine
trees are indigenous and where this is agreeable. However in exotic plantations such as in
the Mpumalanga escarpment this creates both a fire and safety hazard especially during
harvesting, thinning and pruning.
Examples from plantations where no baboons have been killed show a minimum increase of
800% from the survey in 2002 till the 2010 survey. The highest damaged area shows an
increase in damage of over 10 000%.
This is obviously not a viable suggestion.
34. Remove bugweed: (or other specific plant): the idea is that specific plants may attract
the baboon into the plantation and by removing the plant the baboons have nothing to enter
the plantation for.
The basic assumption is inaccurate. The ABEERU report listed 38 food plant species inside
the plantations, most of which is indigenous. The list is incomplete – there are several more
species not listed. Removing any plant, or even all weeds, the attraction of a large number
of indigenous plants that we cannot possibly all remove without causing the loss of
biodiversity. A number of these plants are listed as threatened and some of the remaining
natural habitat in plantations are listed as irreplaceable in the biodiversity survey of the
conservation authority. Of the land under KLF management 27% is set aside for
conservation purposes and it plays a significant role in conservation of biodiversity. This
includes valley forest, grassland and wetlands.
35. Create corridors of indigenous plants through plantations: the baboons will
move through these corridors and find enough food not to venture into the plantations.
As mentioned in the previous point the conservation of almost a third of the land under the
foresters’ management is in pristine condition. All the drainage line through the plantations
are conserved with a wide area of indigenous plants on both sides. This forms exactly what
the suggestion is about. The vast majority of sleeping sites are located in this vegetation and
these corridors are utilised for travel, flight and foraging, but does not provide any relief
form the baboon damage.
36. Ashing: Burn portions of baboon entrails to ashes and distribute the ashes in the area
to be protected.
There is no scientific data or even anecdotal evidence of this working. This seems to be in
the mystic realm. In a Television programme on the baboon problem, the person that made
the recommendation stated that this cannot be expected to work for extensive areas like
forestry, but may be suited to small orchards etc. If all the baboons that have been killed by
the forestry companies were to have been cremated, it would not produce enough ash to
treat even one plantation.
37. Denser plantings: Dr.R Fergusson of Zimbabwe reported that better managed
plantations suffer higher damage as observed through all the countries that has plantations
in the southern hemisphere of Africa. This usually means un-pruned and un-weeded
plantations and high density of vegetation.
Pulpwood plantations are planted denser than saw-wood plantations and are not pruned till
the trees are at least 6 years of age. This means that the stands are very dense and humans
cannot move inside such compartments. Yet these compartments are damaged to the same
degree as even highly damaged saw wood compartments.
LITERATURE LIST
Erasmus D. 1993 Damage by baboons to pine plantations in South Africa, with special
reference to the ecology of three troops of baboons in the western Cape. Unpub. Thesis
Univ. Stellenbosch. 164pp
McNamara LM 2005 Nutrient concentration of inner bark tissue in pine trees in Mpumalanga
in relation to baboon damage. MSc thesis, Univ. Witwatersrant
Fergusson RA 2005 Review of baboons, baboon damage and baboon control in South African
plantation forests, with particular reference to Mpumalanga province. Int. Rep. SA baboon
Damage Working Group.
Marais AJ 2005 Resource utilization of the chacma baboon in different vegetation typesin
north-eastern mountain sour veld, Blyde Canyon Nature Reserve. M.Tech Dessertation,
UNISA
Brown LR, Marais H, Barrett L & Henzi SP 2006 Habitat structure, Population characteristitics
and resource utilization be chacma baboon in commercial forestry areas of the eastern
Mpumalanga escarpment. Applied Behavioural Ecology and Ecosystem Research Institute.
UNISA
Pepler D 2007 Protocol for the management of Chacma Baboons Papio hamadryas ursinus
causing damage in Southern African commercial plantations. Internal document BDWG
Lee PC, Priston NEC, Human attitudes to primates: Perceptions of pests, conflict and
consequences for primate conservation. Dept. Biological Anthropology, Univ. Cambridge UK.
INTRODUCTION
Baboons have been damaging pine trees in the Mpumalanga escarpment plantations since
the mid 1970s. Efforts were made to stop the damage on a low scale by shooting baboons in
the most serious damaged areas. By the 1990s the damage escalated to such an extent that
a baboon damage forum was formed and advice was sought form various authorities,
including the Nature conservation department. A research project was done in the Cape
province, looking mainly at the nutritional value of pine cambium/phloem and found that this
was so low that the utilization of this substance cannot be interpreted and food item
(Erasmus 1993).
The recommendation was that the animals should be caught in cages and shot. Cages were
built and the control work was done by forestry officials as an extension to their regular
duties. Capture was fairly haphazard and instructions were not followed to the necessary
extent. Baboons, being troop living and relatively intelligent animals learnt to avoid the
capture and trap success became too low to be effective.
At this stage a person was contracted to do the capture work. Some troops were found to
show cage shyness and the trapping was found to be quite difficult and time consuming. The
decision was taken not to trap the whole troop, as the last few animals became more
difficult and time consuming to trap than the time it took to trap the fist two third or so. This
in effect increased the cage shyness of the remaining animals and caused a greater obstacle
in solving the problem.
By this time animal welfare organizations became involved in the situation and a formal
Baboon Damage Working Group (BDWG) was established on which three of the major
forestry companies were represented with animal welfare representation. Workshops were
held and eventually a research project was contracted to an university. This led to a MTec.
Thesis by Marais (2005) of the baboons in Blyde Canyon Nature Reserve (BCNR) that
borders on some of the damaged plantations.
By 2000 assessments of damage was started on a statistical basis and by mid 2005 a selfimposed
moratorium was called, pending the outcome of the research. At this stage the
results of another MSc thesis indicated that the micro nutrients of pine cambium/phloem
could again not explain the cause of the damage (McNamara 2005). Some non-lethal
damage prevention methods were tested throughout this period.
The university research project, unfortunately, did not produce answers to the most
important questions (Brown et al 2006) (appendix 9)
In the mean time a researcher/capture specialist was employed by one of the companies. A
management plan and research project was drafted and since mid 2006 some baboons were
collared with GPS transmitters and experimental removal of baboon troops were started.
Some of the most important findings thus far indicate that the plantations, instead of being a
“green desert” is much better baboon habitat than the natural vegetation of the BCNR and
that the baboon density in the plantation is at least three time higher than the density in the
national park. Damage occur all over the plantations, in all species and in all ages of trees.
The whole home range of some baboon troops fall inside plantation area (publications in
progress).
Projecting baboon home ranges on map that reflect the damage clearly indicate the highest
damage on home range boundaries and on the overlaps in home ranges. This indicates that
the damaging activities has a behavioural cause. Baboons have been observed stripping bark
when some troop members are upset by the activity of capturing a few troop members in
order to fit GPS collars. Again a clear indication of a behavioural link that suggest the action
of damaging trees to be a displacement (or redirected) behaviour. This implies that any
activity that upsets the baboons to a high enough degree is liable to initiate bark stripping.
A new, much more comprehensive damage survey method was also employed. The
preliminary results from the few plantations that have been surveyed to date shows that the
damage are at least an order of magnitude higher than shown by the previous method. The
damage, at this stage, clearly is becoming a threat to the viability of various forestry
companies. Curbing the damage has become a priority and has to continue until some relief
can be demonstrated.
A large number of damage control alternatives have been suggested, mostly for non-lethal
control. In any animal damage control situation two major factors has to guide the process:
effectivity in solving the damage and welfare of the animals. Social issues are rising in
importance as the amount of damage is reaching levels where job opportunities are lost due
to activities like weeding and pruning stopped when a compartment has suffered high
damage.
The only method that has been demonstrated to relieve the damage has been the capture
and shooting of baboon troops, even though this is hampered by the previous attempts that
caused cage-shyness in the baboons. It should be noted that the method is well described in
a protocol document (Pepler 2007) that is regularly updated and that the NGOs represented
in the BDWG contributes to this process.
The following section is an evaluation of the alternatives in the light of experimentation, as
well as the findings of the research project. When reading this, it is important to bear in
mind that Forestry – especially the production of saw timber, is a highly scientific and
competitive enterprise. Therefore there is very little leeway in producing clean stumps of the
correct length to remain a role player. Some of the aspects that play significant roles in the
practicality of adaptations to lessen damage is:
- Size of plantations
- Ruggedness of the terrain
- Amount of natural vegetation in and around plantations
- Scale of millions of susceptible trees per plantation
- The utilization (or non-utilization) of damaged tree stumps
- Number of baboon troops
Very limited management options exist for:
・ Tree species
・ Age of trees
・ Location of trees
・ Pruning
These management practices are based on decades of research and trail and error. The
industry standards are currently based on these practices. A forestry company that do not
adhere to these standards will quickly loose its niche in the marketplace.
All pine species that occur on plantations that have been surveyed for damage has been
damaged.
Sawing damaged stumps often lead to broken saw blades which causes a real danger to
human operators, as well as causing long stoppages to replace an expensive blade and
thereby significantly reducing productivity.
Whenever the statement is made that pressure groups have not come up with a single
working suggestion, this is denied and lists of recommendations are produced. However the
operative word is WORKING solutions. No viable non-lethal solution exists at the time of this
update.
DAMAGE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
1. Baboon Chasing: The idea is to place guards along the grassland boundary of a
plantation. Approaching baboon then has to be “Shoo-d” away, preventing entry into the
plantation and thereby damage to the pines. The interface between plantation and
grassland is usually quite extensive.
It is important to realize the effect of different ways of chasing and restraint of baboon:
Displace like a predator in vicinity or work team in area– baboons move off & that’s
it. No undue stress or behavioural reaction. Moves off & may or may not cause
damage. This is true for the vast majority of normal forestry management practices.
Pursuit – Baboons realize they are followed and repeatedly chased by same
individual(s). Causes stress & will probably cause more damage
Restraint – Active: Animal caught by predator or human - troop see & hear
distress from the individual – causes severe stress in the troop.
Passive: Caught but left in cage till troop leaves before humans
approach – almost no stress to free troop members
Habituation – Baboons are also well known for habituating to any kind of
harassment that do not lead to direct injury or death of individuals. Even shooting at
baboons, for instance with shotgun with very fine shot size. In previous work
situations baboons have been captured with a blind eye and found to have such
pellets in the eye, yet they have habituated to the shooting. Usually by running off
when the shotgun is seen, but returning as soon as the person is out of sight.
Baboons recognize human individuals and vehicles that pose a threat, but ignores or
even harass other people and vehicles.
Even shooting at baboon with slingshots etc. cause the animals to seek shelter –
jumping over a hedge in a suburban situation, or into the plantation in the forestry
situation – the opposite of the purpose of chasing the animal.
Baboon can easily outrun humans, and in denser vegetation slip by unnoticed within meters
of a person. Wooded drainage lines and rocky cliffs are crossed with ease where humans
struggle to make any progress. When baboons are in the open grassland next to plantation
their flight pattern is straight into the denser vegetation and shelter of the plantation.
Chasing in effect only prevented baboons from utilising grassland and drove them into the
plantation. When baboons feel persecuted the most likely result is to cause damage (see
above) Baboon will easily outflank humans if they are determined to get into a plantation.
At Blyde plantation, the Blyde Canyon Nature Reserve makes a long, thin protrusion through
the plantation along a deepening drainage line that is also denser vegetated. Damage by
baboons inhabiting the reserve, happens to both sides of this drainage line. When guards
chase baboon on one side the animals can move trough the drainage line and be in the
plantation on the other side within a few minutes, while guards on foot or bicycle take much
longer. Baboons would have ample time to still damage trees in the time it takes for the
guards to catch up.
It could be argued that more guards should be employed. However it would not take too
many such employees, doing nothing for most of their time but getting at least minimum
wage, to start rivalling the cost of damage.
The research project that centred on Blyde plantation as the main study area, found 11
troops that influence the plantation and that most of these troops live inside the plantations
and thus cannot be kept out.
Chasing a troop of 40+ individuals into natural vegetation where a resident troop of 20
animals are already present, will cause severe behavioural upsets and will cause
overutilization with resultant population crash and loss of a lot of biodiversity in the
process.
The very real problems that forestry workers have to work with will only properly be
understood when the enormity of the plantations is realized.
2. Baboon “Minders”: This method comes from the way the problem is managed in the
peninsula around Table Mountain in Cape Town. This calls for a dedicated group that gets
themselves habituated and thus accepted by the baboon. They can approach and even
mingle with the troop. When the troop does anything untoward they are chased by the
minder.
This project is lauded as very successful in the press. However there are still opposition from
many home owners in the area and even a “baboon free neighbourhood action group” that
claims unacceptable damage and threats from baboons even while minders are active.
Residents have to lock themselves up and close, or rather screw windows shut in order to
protect their children and property. During the 2010 soccer world cup many websites,
ranging from sports sites to travel sites to news sites were warning soccer fans of the
likelihood of being mugged by baboons in Cape town. Even a property website advertise
houses in a “baboon free neighbourhood.”
There is again a huge difference between minders keeping up with their baboon troop on
tarred roads and small fynbos vegetation, as against in a plantation.
The size of the area and the ruggedness in plantations makes a big difference. Applying this
method depends on habituating each baboon troop to humans. In the plantation the
baboons are completely wild and approaching to within 150 meters is a challenge. The
individuals that become minders will have to work 14-16 hours per day for 365 days per year
even over week-ends, come storm or shine.
Getting the baboons to accept minders, if ever, will be a process of many months. Bearing in
mind that there will have to be quite a couple of minders for each troop on each of up to 15
or 20 plantations, and that there are 11 troops on Blyde (a smallish plantation) alone, it is
clear that this does not offer a practical option.
Because of the research result the indicates that persecution leads to damage activities, this
method has the potential to cause a serious rise in the amount of damage.
3. Change ranging pattern: Keep harassing baboons in sensitive area till they move to a
less sensitive area. Food can also be used to lure the troop to non-sensitive areas. (this
aspect will be discussed on it own elsewhere).
The research shows that there are no preference for any area, species, age, season or any
other identifiable aspect in the damage caused. Damage occur all over and the home ranges
of most of the damage causing troops are inside plantations.
Continual harassment is not acceptable from a animal welfare viewpoint and this has an
even higher likelihood to cause much more damage.
4. Conditioned fear of area: Intensive of previous – some animals are even shot from
hiding so that the fear is developed for the area and not just for humans. This is stronger
than previous method and the effects last longer. However it can only work where specific
spots has to be protected (ie seasonal holiday house).
5. Repel (spray chemical on trees): The susceptible trees are covered in chemical
repellent that makes stripping bark an unpleasant experience.
Trails with chilli sauce have been unsuccessful. In our climate and rainfall the sauce does not
last on the tree. Within days the repellent on the tree has somehow been diluted to
ineffectivity.
Another problem is the effect of this compound on the animals. Animals get burning hands,
lick them and get burning mouths to the extent that the animals clearly get heavily stressed.
This for climbing a tree – which baboons are supposed to do. The repellents tried to date
does not conform to the definition humaneness.
Again, all trees are susceptible and that leaves us with well over 100mill trees. The chemicals
will have to be re-applied every so often – logistically impossible and Prohibitively expensive.
Short term repellents are known not to cause long term aversion
6. Phytotoxic trees: Systemic poisons that is absorbed through the plant roots, or that is
injected into the plant and then spreads throughout the plant, have been in use for a long
time. If such a chemical, or one that makes the tree unpalatable can be found, it could
prevent the baboons from damaging the tree. However, no substances of this kind is
known and the cost of use, because of the scale, will probably be prohibitive.
7. Aversive Conditioning: Aversive conditioning or conditioned taste aversion (CTA)
has been implemented to solve various problem animal situations. In some cases it has
been reported to work well, but there is a cloud of controversy over the method.
The aversion comes about when an animal (or man) become violently ill and vomits after
taking in food. It is stronger and longer lasting if the food is new to the organism
ingesting it. This is a protective mechanism to prevent animals from feeding on poison. If
one dose produces symptoms but does not kill the animal, it will not take that kind of food
again. On the negative side cases of context sensitivity have been reported. Thus animals
that are conditioned in captivity with bark stripped from a tree, might not lead to aversion
to prevent the animal from tearing off bark on its own.
Aversive conditioning is usually done in captivity, where the animal is subjected to the
substance to be conditioned against in a pure form and where other food also consumed
cannot confuse the issue. This would mean that whole troops would have to be caught
and averted in captivity, implying capture, tranquilizer drugs, transport, captive facilities
etc. Therefore this method dependant on infrastructure that does not exist and it seems
impractical to apply at this stage, especially with the uncertainty of context and huge
numbers of baboon. Any baboons missed during capture will continue the damage, and
averted baboons will relearn the damaging behaviour.
8. Chase with dogs: Dogs are much faster than humans & will put much more pressure
on baboons. Chasers with a turbo.
Various problems – humans cannot keep up, thus cannot keep control. Dogs & humans
separated then baboons may attack dogs. Is sure to cause increase in damage. Dogs may
get lost and very difficult to find again. Not considered as a viable method because of animal
welfare issues.
9. Extra High Pruning: Damage in large trees occurs only in crown, so make it
difficult to reach crown.
The industry standard for pruning is seven meters. Experimental pruning up to 9 meters did
not stop damage. Baboon easily scale large trees. High pruning has no effect on the
vulnerability to damage, however higher pruning causes retardation in tree growth and the
resultant loss in production.
10. Supplemental feeding: Place food in area outside plantation. Baboons hang around
and do not venture in to feed in the plantation.
Supplemental feeding have been done for black bear and deer where damage are caused to
trees as a “famine food” when other sources of food is scarce and under the snow. For the
bears this happens after hibernation when the bear is really in need of food. Whole tree
trunks are stripped as far possible by the bear and numerous trees damaged in a single day.
Baboon troops causing damage in plantations have other sources of food. For instance the
two troops causing severe damage on Morgenzon plantation supplement their food: The one
troop by maize planted by TGME, and the other by the rubbish dump of Crystal Springs
resort. Supplemental feeding therefore does not alter the damage pattern.
Feeding wild animals is not good practice in wildlife management. When capture is the
purpose, or some other short term management issue needs to be resolved it may be a
valuable means of achieving a goal. However long-term feeding to alter the behaviour or
space-use pattern is not acceptable. Boredom may also be a cause of bark stripping. Feeding
results in baboons using less energy to obtain high quality food this will lead to breeding up
of numbers and becoming potentially a bigger threat.
11. Plant food trees at plantation edge: Baboons meet their nutritional needs in the
food “lane” and do not have to enter plantation and get to where damage is a probable.
Some places an edge-effect – baboons entering plantation form indigenous forest with lots
of food trees cause most damage at edge next to forest. Damage become less further from
edge. Other places there is no, or very low damage next to natural vegetation. Some of the
highest damage recorded is often in compartments that is surrounded by other
compartments. Vice versa – some of the compartments that is surrounded by pristine
indigenous forest sometime suffers very high damage.
Some of the compartments of the Wilgeboom plantation is situated in the pristine forests
that cover the slopes of the escarpment. Many of the compartments are surrounded on three
sides by the pristine forests. Most of these compartments are heavily damaged and not one
of those compartments had no damage, or even low damage (less that 5 %).
There are many ecological reasons why grassland on ridges between valleys and drainage
line do not have indigenous forest growing there naturally. It is an ecological impossibility
to plant indigenous forest on such ridges.
The introductory sentence of the summery in the ABEERU report states: The primary finding
of the study is that, while the baboons live in degraded habitat, this has no direct, linear
bearing on their use of pine as a resource (the focus of our attention) or of the extent to
which they damage pine outside of any use they might make of it. This in itself lead to the
expectation that other food sources will have no effect on the damage
Pine bark has been clearly proven NOT to be utilised as food. Two masters thesis and some
other publications.
12. Clearing all indigenous food plants out of plantation: Remove attraction of
food inside plantation & prevent baboon from crossing “barren” plantation where
damage is done.
Lots of food such as insects, fungi, corms, roots, fruit on smaller vegetation. Only way to
remove food would be total devastation of indigenous biodiversity. Many baboon home
ranges inside plantation. It is illegal to remove indigenous forest patches.
13. Compensation: In the sense of paying the forestry company for the damage and
thereby they do not have to take out the baboon. The problem is that there is a lack of
timber. Timber is considered a strategic resource by the government. What is needed is
timber to sustain growth in the country, no just money in the kitty of the forestry
companies. This will lead to job losses for quite a number of workers as well as industries in
the utilization of the wood products.
If not enough timber can be produced on the current areas set aside for plantations, more
pristine grassland will be used. This is a worse solution than managing the losses to optimize
production on the current forestry zoned areas.
Birth control as an ADC technique: Number reduced over time, but no animals are
killed.
GENERAL
The rationale behind this suggestion is not clear:
1. The chances of catching a whole troop in one session is low.
2. Follow-up captures cannot select only untreated animals
3. Sterilize all males only – immigration by male – breeding not effected.
4. Sterilize all females what would it do to a lactating female?
5. Sterilize infant females?
6. What do you do with an infant while its mother is “processed”.
7. The time frame to do 20+ females on one day.
8. Result is that animals die without breeding – same as lethal control
9. As troop numbers get lower it will be replaced by neighbouring troop – same as after
lethal control, but dump displaced survivors in survival crisis
10. Stress to sedate, discomfort of operation, stress of release much more than shoot
11. Damage continue as if nothing was done
12. This is genetic interference
13. May well lead to behavioural deviations
14. Will troop maintain troop structure?
15. Facilities needed for such an extensive action
16. Housing & post operation care of 40+ animals
17. Get a qualified vet in remote area on short notice
18. All troops? Male immigration – worse option as culling set number of troops & leaving
remaining troops untouched
19. Astronomical cost, yet damage stay the same for considerable time
20. Less control over process than by removing troops
There are so many practical problems, negatives and uncertainties that it does not make any
sense. The result, however will be the same as culling the effected troops (all animals will
die without leaving offspring), but much more expensive and damage will still continue
unabated. The amount of stress that the whole troop will be subjected to will be
exponentially more than with capture and culling.
14. SURGICAL STERILIZATION:
All of the above points are valid for this method.
15. UNDER SKIN INPLANTS: The same as for the surgical option – the implant will be only
slightly less costly.
16. ORAL STERILIZATION: No need to capture, anesthetise and physically handle animals.
Points to bear in mind:
1. No such preparation registered for baboon
2. Effect on pregnant females
3. Effect on immature females
4. Effect on males of all ages
5. Effect of overdose in all baboons
Does an oral sterilization drug exist that will be stable enough in bait left for hours in the
exposed environment?
17. Translocation: Translocation has become a buzzword as if it is the solution to most
man/animal conflict situations. It is embraced mostly by people who do not have to do the
translocation themselves. Moving individual animals is not too complex and will normally
not cause too many consequences. However translocating numbers of animals with a troop
structure is quite a different matter.
Translocations can only be done under permit from the relevant provincial conservation
authority. Species listed as Least Concern under the red list classification can only be
regarded as welfare relocations. This is the lowest priority and has the least chance of being
permitted. It further is subject to a suitable area, with letters of no objection from all the
neighbours. It also includes testing for all kinds of diseases and parasites. Holding facilities
for a period before release at the new site and further specifications (IUCN guidelines) make
translocation a very complex and expensive option.
The receiving habitat has to be as close as possible to the origin habitat. This severely limits
possible translocation areas for plantation baboons. Thus far (at least four years) no
suitable receiver could be found. Welfare of the baboons in such efforts is also a major
concern.
Most successful translocations of baboon were done with baboons habituated to humans, in
nature reserves with researchers and wildlife experts in attendance. Some that has been
done in South Africa led to neighbouring troops taking over the troop and displacing the
dominant male, by fighting and seriously injuring the male. Therefore introductions were
done with small groups that are rather integrated with existing troops.
During a period of four years only two potential release sights could be found, both withdrew
when the complexity of these operations and the responsibilities following such actions were
properly understood.
18. Hunt (shoot in numbers): This will cause baboons to become wary of plantations and
the numbers will be reduced.
During daytime troop activities it is almost impossible to shoot more than one baboon at a
time as the troop immediately runs off at the first shot. Future approach by humans to
within shooting range get progressively more difficult to impossible. Welfare of possible
wounding.
19. Night hunt at roost sites: A roost is approached at night. The baboons are blinded by
bright spotlights to stop them fleeing and shot in numbers.
The resultant chaos leads to baboons being wounded, baboons injuring themselves and
untold stress in such a troop.
20. Snipe at roost: Night time shoot with image intensifier and silenced rifle.
Limited to relatively open sleeping sites. Therefore not a routine option. May be used for
troop that cause severe damage and are known to have a suitable roost. Obvious welfare
issues.
21. Remove individuals: Concentrate on damage-causing individuals. By removing
them the damage will be reduced. Each troop will have to be studied and damagecausing
individuals identified so that only the right individuals are removed.
This suggestion is based on the premise that only individual animals cause the damage and
not all members of a troop. If only these individuals are removed, it should stop the damage
and maintain the troop presence.
Basic questions then crop up: Is it only individuals, or does all big enough baboon within a
troop participate in damaging trees? How to identify the damage causing individual? How will
such individuals be removed selectively?
In most troops many baboons of all ages seem to partake in bark stripping. There is a lack
of evidence only for large males stripping bark.
Due to the terrain it is difficult to identify damage-causing troops. Identifying the damagecausing
individual is practically impossible. Even if we could, are they then shot? Within one
or two such shootings you would not get close enough to shoot anymore. If captured the
troop will soon become cage-shy. What if it is the dominant animals are removed? Even if
temporary, removal of dominant animals causes severe disruption in the social and other
aspects of a troop.
There are to many clear indications of severe impracticality in this method.
22. Hunt/Chase With Dogs: Dogs chase the baboon and they flee into the trees. In
mature pine stands the trees are too far removed for baboon to jump from tree to tree. The
baboon can then be shot out of the trees.
Dogs and baboons can run much faster than humans and it is difficult to impossible to
control such a situation. When humans are not close by baboon males may attack dogs.
The result is that not all baboon of a troop can be cornered like this in one go. Some of the
adult males descend and fight with the dogs. Clean shots are difficult when shooting at
animals high in the crown of tree. This may cause wounding and severe stress among the
baboon.
Inside plantations the terrain usually does not allow for such chases to be successful.
23. Poison: Pre-bait and then place poison bait. The best knock-down of numbers.
The development and use of poison for specific applications is a very specialized subject.
Once a poison has been registered for a specific purpose it can be used according to the
label directions and thereby applied relatively safely and effectively. No poisons are
registered in South Africa for use on baboon and therefore it should be very carefully
considered before such substances are used.
A specific baboon poison called Papiol (contains brodifacoum as active ingredient) is
registered in Zimbabwe. Brodifacoum is an anti-coagulant and considered as humane – the
animal starts to bleed internally, looses blood pressure, consciousness and dies without
experiencing pain. The poisoned bait (maize) was placed in wooden boxes with slats that
allowed baboons to insert their hands to take out maize kernels, but did not allow other
animals like duiker and bushpig to reach the maize.
However it may take quite a long time (days) from ingesting the poison till death. Therefore
the animal moves and carcasses cannot be found. Secondary poisoning from Brodifacoum
is known. Papiol was developed because of the inefficiency of trap and shoot as applied by
the forestry industry in Zimbabwe.
Choosing the right poison (no secondary poisoning) and with the right methods of
application (species specific and in such a way that carcasses could be removed),
selectivity and humaneness can be ensured, however poison is not considered at
this stage.
24. Fencing: Keep baboon out of plantations. (Plain or electrified – baboon-proof)
Most damage-causing troops live inside plantations. No fences around plantations due to
accessibility during fires and harvesting. Baboon-proof fence will play havoc with biodiversity.
Expense of clearing, erecting & maintenance is prohibitive. Any baboon that may breech the
fence will have to be tracked and shot.
Fence material often ends up as snare material for poachers. Sun charging panels and
batteries are also often stolen.
Fencing is a serious obstacle in emergencies in plantations such as fire where heavy vehicles
has to enter, exit and manoeuvre in the plantation. It also presents a huge obstacle during
routine harvesting and transport of logs.
25. Geo-fencing: Place activated wire around sensitive area. Capture troop leader & fit
shock collar. When leader gets close to geo fence it is shocked and retreats.
Baboon does not know what causes shock – may run over geo-fence, then be scared to
come out. Troop not shocked – only the leader. Separating the troop and its leader may
cause chaos in the social system & necessitate repeated capture and collar for each troop.
Obvious welfare issues
26. Hot wire: Place electrified collar around each susceptible tree – prevent climbing
Damage shows no distinction between location, species or age of trees – all susceptible.
Scale to large – cost prohibitive. Maintenance & removal for pruning, thinning and harvesting
logistically impossible.
27. Capture & shoot: As many as possible individuals of a troop is caught and then shot,
inside the cage, at close range.
Large numbers of cages are needed and the wrong construction material can cause serious
injuries to the baboon. This has been the only method that has been used extensively.
When applied properly, by a specialist it is effective. A protocol has been developed to
ensure effectivity and humaneness. This is still the mainstay of alleviating damage and will
have to remain in place until a viable & better alternative is found.
28. Painting individuals: Supposedly to scare the troop when a member of the troop
that is unrecognisable keeps following the troop and chases the troop out of their home
range.
This is an old wives tale that has obvious welfare issues and a successful prosecution by the
SPCA exsits against this practise. Troop members have been observed grooming such a
painted baboon.
29. Playback of alarms: The idea being that the baboons would feel threatened and flee.
May lead to increased damage in the forestry situation. Otherwise baboons that are in their
home range and hear non-members inside their home range may actively pursue the call
and try to expel the intruder. When no baboons are found habituation is the most likely
outcome.
30. Leave damaged compartments for continued use by baboons: The idea being
that the already damaged compartments can be sacrificed so that other compartments are
not damaged.
There are numerous examples of damaged trees that have been left standing,
throughout the ranging form severely damaged to lightly damaged – some for a decade
or more. Some of those trees are re-damaged regularly, some seldom, and some not at
all. Examples of This can be seen on plantations where no baboons have been removed
in at least four years. Yet in all of them neighbouring compartments also show damage –
again in all stages of severity of damage. Out of the three plantations where damage
surveys with the new method has been completed, the highest percentage of nondamaged
compartments is less that 0.02%. Thus there is virtually no heavy damaged
compartment that does not have a damaged compartment next to it.
31. Supply Mineral additives to baboons: The damage by baboons may be because of a
mineral shortage – thus supplying minerals should stop the damage.
McNamara (2005) examined the relationship of nutrients to damage to pines with the
emphasis on micro-nutrients (mostly minerals) and could not demonstrate any relationship
between these nutrients and damage. Trees are damaged right through the year, but
damage are lower during the dry season and peaks during the wet season. Contrary to
expectations if some nutritional aspect was the cause of damage.
32. Eagle Eye: Rotating pyramid of mirrors, two clear and one red. Used to disorient
and thereby scare off birds like sea gulls and pigeons. Successful in various locations of
which Summerset Mall is a good example.
The feasibility on baboons were investigated. However baboons are not affected. Damage
occurred within 40 meters, indirect line of sight of the Eagle Eye. Baboons walked past
within three meters of an operating mirror on an open road.
33. Do nothing: Idea that baboon activity will cause diversity in the plantation and that
this is positive.
The idea stems from the American and Scandinavian forestry operations where the pine
trees are indigenous and where this is agreeable. However in exotic plantations such as in
the Mpumalanga escarpment this creates both a fire and safety hazard especially during
harvesting, thinning and pruning.
Examples from plantations where no baboons have been killed show a minimum increase of
800% from the survey in 2002 till the 2010 survey. The highest damaged area shows an
increase in damage of over 10 000%.
This is obviously not a viable suggestion.
34. Remove bugweed: (or other specific plant): the idea is that specific plants may attract
the baboon into the plantation and by removing the plant the baboons have nothing to enter
the plantation for.
The basic assumption is inaccurate. The ABEERU report listed 38 food plant species inside
the plantations, most of which is indigenous. The list is incomplete – there are several more
species not listed. Removing any plant, or even all weeds, the attraction of a large number
of indigenous plants that we cannot possibly all remove without causing the loss of
biodiversity. A number of these plants are listed as threatened and some of the remaining
natural habitat in plantations are listed as irreplaceable in the biodiversity survey of the
conservation authority. Of the land under KLF management 27% is set aside for
conservation purposes and it plays a significant role in conservation of biodiversity. This
includes valley forest, grassland and wetlands.
35. Create corridors of indigenous plants through plantations: the baboons will
move through these corridors and find enough food not to venture into the plantations.
As mentioned in the previous point the conservation of almost a third of the land under the
foresters’ management is in pristine condition. All the drainage line through the plantations
are conserved with a wide area of indigenous plants on both sides. This forms exactly what
the suggestion is about. The vast majority of sleeping sites are located in this vegetation and
these corridors are utilised for travel, flight and foraging, but does not provide any relief
form the baboon damage.
36. Ashing: Burn portions of baboon entrails to ashes and distribute the ashes in the area
to be protected.
There is no scientific data or even anecdotal evidence of this working. This seems to be in
the mystic realm. In a Television programme on the baboon problem, the person that made
the recommendation stated that this cannot be expected to work for extensive areas like
forestry, but may be suited to small orchards etc. If all the baboons that have been killed by
the forestry companies were to have been cremated, it would not produce enough ash to
treat even one plantation.
37. Denser plantings: Dr.R Fergusson of Zimbabwe reported that better managed
plantations suffer higher damage as observed through all the countries that has plantations
in the southern hemisphere of Africa. This usually means un-pruned and un-weeded
plantations and high density of vegetation.
Pulpwood plantations are planted denser than saw-wood plantations and are not pruned till
the trees are at least 6 years of age. This means that the stands are very dense and humans
cannot move inside such compartments. Yet these compartments are damaged to the same
degree as even highly damaged saw wood compartments.
LITERATURE LIST
Erasmus D. 1993 Damage by baboons to pine plantations in South Africa, with special
reference to the ecology of three troops of baboons in the western Cape. Unpub. Thesis
Univ. Stellenbosch. 164pp
McNamara LM 2005 Nutrient concentration of inner bark tissue in pine trees in Mpumalanga
in relation to baboon damage. MSc thesis, Univ. Witwatersrant
Fergusson RA 2005 Review of baboons, baboon damage and baboon control in South African
plantation forests, with particular reference to Mpumalanga province. Int. Rep. SA baboon
Damage Working Group.
Marais AJ 2005 Resource utilization of the chacma baboon in different vegetation typesin
north-eastern mountain sour veld, Blyde Canyon Nature Reserve. M.Tech Dessertation,
UNISA
Brown LR, Marais H, Barrett L & Henzi SP 2006 Habitat structure, Population characteristitics
and resource utilization be chacma baboon in commercial forestry areas of the eastern
Mpumalanga escarpment. Applied Behavioural Ecology and Ecosystem Research Institute.
UNISA
Pepler D 2007 Protocol for the management of Chacma Baboons Papio hamadryas ursinus
causing damage in Southern African commercial plantations. Internal document BDWG
Lee PC, Priston NEC, Human attitudes to primates: Perceptions of pests, conflict and
consequences for primate conservation. Dept. Biological Anthropology, Univ. Cambridge UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment