Cape Town is considering removing two troops of chacma baboons from parts of the Cape Peninsula because encounters with residents have become increasingly difficult to manage. The city says the animals will be sterilised and permanently moved to a newly built sanctuary. Animal-rights activists and some scientists argue that the baboons should remain free-ranging and that alternatives, including stronger barriers, have not been properly tested.
What is the plan?
Cape Town’s city council says it will “imminently” round up the Waterfall and Seaforth troops, which have repeatedly come into conflict with residents. The animals would be sterilised before being moved to a sanctuary.
The plan also includes a baboon-proof northern boundary fence between urban areas and nearby mountains. The proposal is part of a wider management programme run with the Cape Baboon Partnership and local conservation authorities.
Why have baboon encounters intensified?
The conflict is linked to the geography of the Cape Peninsula. Baboons are concentrated on a narrow strip of land between the protected area of Table Mountain national park and urban development extending towards the Atlantic Ocean.
According to Joselyn Mormile, who leads the Cape Baboon Partnership, baboons naturally seek lower-lying ground because it offers better access to water and more productive vegetation. Much of that land has been developed, bringing the animals into closer contact with people.
The baboons have been reported ripping off roof sheeting, entering unlocked cars, raiding food pantries and breaking into homes and convenience stores. Some residents say they can no longer barbecue or hold garden parties without worrying about raids.
How did the problem reach this point?
- Late 1990s: The city stopped culling baboon troops after public pressure.
- Since the 2000s: The conflict has continued to build.
- 2025: A census found 493 baboons in 12 managed troops, up from 360 in 2000.
- Past two years: The conflict has reached what the source describes as a boiling point, with more reports of animals entering homes and businesses.
- 2025 management plan: The Cape Baboon Partnership initially proposed moving four troops to a sanctuary, but revised the plan to focus on two troops while allowing two northern troops more time to adjust.
Why do opponents reject relocation?
Animal-rights activists, who have staged peaceful protests for months, say the baboons should continue roaming freely. They argue that removing the animals from their environment could cause psychological distress and disrupt their social groups.
Opponents also say the baboons have an ecological role, including dispersing plant seeds. Some scientists and activists have proposed building a fence to keep the Waterfall and Seaforth troops away from urban areas rather than moving them to a sanctuary.
Behavioural ecologist Justin O’Riain said a fence might simply push the baboons towards the next available area of low-lying land. He also argued that there might not be enough food for the animals in the proposed fenced area.
Why does the city support the plan?
For residents and authorities, the issue is not only about inconvenience. The baboons can damage buildings, enter homes and take food, while people and animals are already being put at risk during encounters.
O’Riain said the baboons’ presence had affected property values, citing homes covered in faeces and paw prints. The source also reports that baboons have been poisoned, hit by cars, chased by dogs and shot.
The management programme costs about 20m rand for 18 months, equivalent to £920,000 according to the source. Full-time rangers monitor most troops and try to prevent conflicts, making the dispute an expensive as well as divisive public-policy problem.
What is at stake?
The disagreement is about more than whether two troops should be moved. It raises a broader question about how a city manages wildlife when development has reduced the space available to animals and residents have become dependent on measures to keep them apart.
Relocation could reduce immediate encounters in the affected neighbourhoods, but critics question whether it would address the wider pressure drawing baboons into low-lying urban areas. A fence could leave the animals in place, but opponents of that approach say it may shift the conflict to another boundary.
Both sides also point to animal welfare. Supporters of relocation cite the existing dangers faced by baboons and the poor quality of life for people living in affected areas. Opponents warn that capture, sterilisation and removal could damage the animals’ social structure and wellbeing.
Chacma baboons are not considered endangered, but the source does not establish that relocation or fencing will provide a lasting solution. The immediate decision therefore reflects a choice between competing risks: continued conflict in populated areas, or intervention that critics say could create new welfare and ecological problems.
Source
This explainer is based on information published by The Guardian.
