Cape Town plan to confine 60 baboons divides residents

Cape Town authorities plan to permanently house two wild baboon troops in enclosed sanctuaries in the Simon's Town area
Conservationists and residents argue that caging the animals sets a dangerous precedent for how cities handle urban wildlife
The proposal has ignited a fierce public debate over whether captivity is compassion or a violation of animal freedom

Cape Town's plan to enclose 60 baboons fuels fierce debate — Two wild baboon troops could lose their freedom. Image: Adri Botma
Source: Getty Images

Cape Town's proposal to permanently confine two chacma baboon troops has divided residents, conservationists and scientists over one of the Western Cape's most contentious wildlife disputes in years.

City authorities want to relocate roughly 60 baboons, specifically the Waterfall and Seaforth troops from Simon's Town, into enclosed sanctuaries as an alternative to culling. Officials argue that the animals have become dangerously habituated to urban life, creating conflict between neighbouring communities and leaving the baboons in poor ecological and welfare conditions.

Coastal and environmental manager Gregg Oelofse said the city was seeing "a very poor welfare outcome, poor ecological outcome" as a result of ongoing human-baboon conflict.

Why critics say caging is not the answer

Opponents of the plan say the real problem is urban encroachment, not baboon behaviour. Animal rights group Beauty Without Cruelty South Africa's Chad Cupido argued that people who live near wildlife have a responsibility to coexist with it, including securing properties and removing food sources. She said:

Simon's Town resident Sue-Anne Norton went further, warning that confining the animals could prove fatal.

"They're not domestic animals. You cannot put them in a cage and you cannot put electric fencing around them because they will kill themselves trying to get out,"

Protesters outside the planned enclosure site carried placards calling Cape Town the "City of Chacma Torture."

Environmental philosopher Dr Adam Cruise raised deeper concerns in a Daily Maverick opinion piece, arguing that scientific expertise does not automatically translate into moral authority. He pointed out that the proposed facilities would allocate around 2.3 hectares to 44 Waterfall baboons and 1.6 hectares to 16 Seaforth baboons — a fraction of the territory these wide-ranging primates would ordinarily inhabit. He also noted that a contingency for euthanasia exists should funding collapse, which he described as far from an unconditional promise of lifelong care.

Read the full Daily Maverick piece here.

The ethical question at the heart of the debate

Mzansi weighed in on the page with sharply differing views:

Herbert Frankenberg Adler said:

"Science does not have a monopoly on knowledge, and scientists do not have a monopoly on ethics."

Renee Bonorchis countered:

"So tired of people tying themselves in ethical, pie-in-the-sky knots and anthropomorphizing the baboons to death. Literally to death. The reality is that as much as people want the baboons to remain wild, there are awful people in this world who shoot them, hurt them, run them over, kill them. How about we save the baboons from us? They are safer in a sanctuary."

Marius Maas offered a different solution altogether:

"They need a natural predator, let nature do its thing. Come on leopards."

Cape Town plan to confine 60 baboons divides residents

Why critics say caging is not the answer

The ethical question at the heart of the debate

More Briefly News stories on animals