Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-10-28 09:51:41 +02:00 | Anya | No I do not | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | This is cruel and an unacceptable treatment of wild animals. Humans are the ones encroaching on their habitat! | |
2026-10-28 08:46:20 +02:00 | Tania | No I do not | All of the above | 5. Deliberate Waste Mitigation Failure: Exclusion of Simon's Town Bins | |
2026-10-28 04:35:07 +02:00 | Wendy | No I do not | All of the above | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | I personally will not be voting for the DA. None of my family members will be voting DA. More transparency and conservation preservation is required before we can support them. I know many people who feel the same way now.. We don’t deserve to live in paradise will we condemn wildlife to suffering and extinction |
2026-10-27 22:54:39 +02:00 | Christelle | No I do not | All of the above | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | - Restricting free-ranging primates to a compressed enclosure violates basic welfare norms under the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 and aligns with the Cape of Good Hope SPCA’s formal position rejecting long-term captive holding of healthy wild troops. - Decision-makers are legally bound to evaluate viable, less restrictive alternatives. The authorities have failed to produce any documented, rational evaluation rejecting the southern coexistence proposal. |
2026-10-27 22:17:27 +02:00 | Cally | No I do not | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | ||
2026-10-27 20:48:32 +02:00 | Desiree | No I do not | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | ||
2026-10-27 17:39:10 +02:00 | Tasmin | No I do not | All of the above | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | |
2026-10-27 17:16:17 +02:00 | Rose | No I do not | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | It’s just to horrible and cruel to contemplate | |
2026-10-27 15:47:22 +02:00 | Cathy | No I do not | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | ||
2026-10-27 15:42:50 +02:00 | Noleen | No I do not | All of the above | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | |
2026-10-27 15:34:56 +02:00 | Erica | No I do not | All of the above | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | Previously agreed mitigation measures have never been implemented, so one is not able to argue that they have failed or that all mitigating measures have been implemented. |
2026-10-27 14:49:17 +02:00 | Clive | No I do not | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | I’m deeply concerned by the proposed plan to capture the Seaforth and Waterfall baboon troops and confine them at Kogelfontein for life. The Waterfall troop’s natural range reportedly spans 736 hectares, while the proposed enclosure is just 2.52 hectares — a staggering 292-fold reduction in territory. How can we justify taking wild animals from their natural mountain habitat and confining them to such a fraction of the space they naturally roam? Equally concerning is that no convincing free-ranging alternatives appear to have been presented publicly. Before committing these animals to permanent captivity, surely every possible alternative that allows them to remain wild should be thoroughly explored. Our indigenous wildlife deserves better than a lifetime behind fences simply because coexistence is challenging. We need transparency, accountability, and solutions that respect the animals’ natural behaviour and freedom. Please reconsider this plan and prioritise humane, free-ranging alternatives. | |
2026-10-27 14:26:00 +02:00 | Adam | No I do not | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | ||
2026-10-27 12:52:50 +02:00 | Lize | No I do not | All of the above | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | We are experiencing a massive wave of species extinction due to unmitigated human greed and entitlement. This 'plan' is part of this ongoing diminishing of animal rights. The focus should be on human education, including education about the effects of human population explosion and uncontrolled economic activities on the environment and our fellow species. If we can't live with other animals in this complex arena of holocene life, we will take ourselves out with all the rest of this rich, interconnected web of life. |
2026-10-27 12:52:50 +02:00 | Ian | No I do not | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | ||
2026-10-27 12:41:40 +02:00 | Anita | No I do not | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | ||
2026-10-27 11:45:30 +02:00 | Maurice | Yes I do | Other | ||
2026-10-27 11:28:44 +02:00 | Marianne | No I do not | All of the above | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | |
2026-10-27 11:11:22 +02:00 | Dorrienne | No I do not | All of the above | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | |
2026-10-27 10:43:52 +02:00 | Robert | No I do not | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | Public Participation Submission: Concerns Regarding the Proposed Cape Baboon Relocation and Enclosure As a Kogelberg Villages Environmental Trustee (KVET) Baboon Information Officer (BIO) working in the Overstrand in Pringle Bay, I am raising critical objections to the proposed "sanctuary" enclosure based on operational realities, animal welfare, and fiscal sustainability: • Exclusion of Key Welfare Authorities: The SPCA is notably absent from the City, Cape Nature (CN), and SANParks alliance because they have publicly opposed this project. Proceeding without the primary animal cruelty authority is a massive red flag. • Inadequate Space and Severe Conflict Risks: The plan crams two separate troops into a single 1.5-hectare enclosure—a drastic, unacceptable reduction from the originally discussed 25 hectares. Forcing two distinct troops into the same small, confined space will cause extreme stress, territorial conflict, and prevent natural male dispersal, leading to severe intra-troop genetic issues. • Ineffectiveness of Fencing & Lethal Consequences: Based on extensive field experience, baboons consistently bypass residential electric fencing. These containment structures will fail to keep them in. Worse, authorities have stated that baboons attempting to escape—or outsiders trying to get in—will be targeted and killed. • Lack of Long-Term Funding: Management and fence maintenance are only funded for 3 years. The public deserves to know what happens when this infrastructure inevitably faces the same maintenance issues plaguing other South African infrastructure. Authorities have indicated that if funding dries up after 3 years, all remaining baboons will be culled. • Misallocated Funds & Conflicted Management: Spending R10 million of taxpayer money on what is essentially a high-stress containment facility is unacceptable, especially while the City of Cape Town (CoCT) fails to manage basic urban attractants like waste and bins. Furthermore, appointing well-known "pro-baboon" figures to paid advisory and management roles has divided the conservation community and masked a deeply flawed strategy. Conclusion: This project is not a sanctuary; forcing two troops into one tiny enclosure creates a costly, short-sighted containment camp. The City must pivot away from expensive, failing infrastructure and refocus on proper urban waste management. | |
2026-10-27 10:25:53 +02:00 | Christoff | No I do not | All of the above | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | I wish to register my unequivocal opposition to the proposed relocation and permanent confinement of Cape Peninsula baboon troops (including plans involving sites such as Kogelfontein). This objection is grounded in principles of sound conservation science, animal welfare, administrative law, and sustainable human-wildlife coexistence. The current proposals fail to address the root causes of urban-wildlife conflict and represent a regressive approach to managing indigenous fauna. My core objections are detailed below: 1 - Regulatory Prematurity and Administrative Non-Compliance: Recent evidence highlights that the push toward capture and relocation is legally and procedurally premature. Advancing major wildlife interventions prior to securing the complete, transparent regulatory authorization chain and conducting meaningful public participation violates the tenets of procedural fairness. Decisions of this magnitude cannot proceed under interim arrangements or in the absence of finalized, legally compliant permits. 2 - Severe Spatial Compression and Compromised Animal Welfare: Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) are highly intelligent, highly social animals that naturally range over extensive territories, foraging across diverse environments and maintaining complex troop hierarchies. Relocating free-roaming troops into restricted, fenced enclosures (effectively translating to spatial reduction by magnitudes of hundreds) inflicts severe psychological and physical harm. Spatial compression disrupts natural social structures, elevates stress, and triggers abnormal behaviors. Confinement of this nature substitutes genuine conservation with life-term captivity. 3 - Inadequate Mitigation of Human-Centric Drivers: The conflict between baboons and urban areas is fundamentally driven by anthropogenic attractants; predominantly unsecured waste and accessible human food sources. Relocating or caging wild troops treats the symptom while ignoring the disease. Long-term success relies heavily on stringent, enforced municipal waste management, baboon-proofing of bins, and the reduction of human-derived food access. Shifting the burden of human urban planning and waste management failures onto the animals through containment or reproductive suppression is neither ethical nor sustainable. 4 - Failure to Prioritize Free-Ranging Coexistence Models: There has been an inadequate, non-transparent assessment of funded, science-backed alternatives that allow baboons to remain free-roaming. Cape Town has a unique opportunity to model global leadership in urban-wildlife coexistence. True leadership requires investing in dedicated mitigation officers, robust fencing strategies at the urban edge, community education, and waste compliance, NOT resorting to containment facilities that compromise the ecological integrity of indigenous wildlife. In conclusion, I urge the decision-makers to institute an immediate administrative freeze on all capture and relocation operations. Authorities must withdraw current confinement plans, ensure absolute regulatory transparency, and recommit to a collaborative, scientifically rigorous framework focused on human-side behavioral compliance and free-ranging coexistence. |
2026-10-27 10:24:06 +02:00 | Karen | No I do not | All of the above | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | It goes against every animal welfare law there - national and International! If I was to keep a baboon without a permit as a Wildlife Rehabilitator , the officials would be all over me and threatening to arrest me - this is already happening to another CWR who had tons of help an injured baboon!! Double standards! |
2026-10-27 09:20:11 +02:00 | Helen | No I do not | All of the above | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | |
2026-10-27 09:19:08 +02:00 | Virginia | No I do not | All of the above | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | |
2026-10-27 08:25:49 +02:00 | Simone | No I do not | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | Humans need to live alongside animals and should not forget that it is not animals invading our space but that humans have been invading their space for centuries. Alternative waste management, "herding techniques" and education about contact minimizing measures have to be implemented consistently. And yes, we had a farm with baboons and know what it is like. | |
2026-10-27 07:58:58 +02:00 | Paula | No I do not | 6. Failure to Formally Assess Funded Free-Ranging Coexistence Alternatives | Vasectomise is a NO!!! destroy the genetics of more than 2 million years of adaption is a crime to nature and the baboons. They are the gardener engineers they are in this area to make the fynbos a healthy ecosystem. The plan to cage them is cruel and MUST STOP . Fence and mitigation strategies for coexsistance must be implemented first. The baboons can be free, wild and out of town. | |
2026-10-26 19:34:56 +02:00 | Quintin | Yes I do | All of the above | 7. Regulatory & By-Law Void: Confinement Under Interim Agreements | The City, SANParks, and CapeNature are pushing to implement a hardline Urban Wildlife Management By-law by November 2028. While managing our peninsula’s wildlife is necessary, the current approach contains massive legal gaps. Top environmental and constitutional experts point out that this By-law, as currently planned, is profoundly unconstitutional on four distinct fronts: • 1. No Public Participation (Fatal Procedural Flaw) • The Law: Sections 152 and 160 of the South African Constitution strictly state that a municipality cannot pass a law without opening it up for formal public review and comment. • The Flaw: The draft text is being developed behind closed doors without standard democratic scrutiny. Bypassing public comment is a legal "slam dunk"—South African courts routinely strike down entire laws purely for lacking proper public consultation. • 2. Automated Culling Flouts Environmental Rights (Section 24) • The Law: The Constitution guarantees the right to an environment protected through reasonable, scientifically sound conservation measures. • The Flaw: The By-law locks in rigid population caps (e.g., 250 for northern troops). If exceeded for 6 months, automated culling protocols kick in with zero administrative leeway. Bypassing case-by-case ecological assessments and replacing them with an arbitrary calendar clock is irrational and legally indefensible. • 3. Forced Financial Burdens (Section 25 Property Rights) • The Law: The state cannot arbitrarily deprive you of property or pass laws that place disproportionate financial burdens on specific citizens without extreme justification. • The Flaw: Mandating that private property owners bordering wildlife zones must install and maintain expensive, specialized wildlife barriers during any renovations shifts the state's management costs directly onto private citizens. • 4. Overstepping Municipal Boundaries (Jurisdictional Flaw) • The Law: Municipalities only have the legal power to make laws regarding local municipal matters (like noise, street trading, and waste). • The Flaw: Wild animal culling, population management, and nature reserves are strictly regulated by Provincial and National laws. A local city council cannot use a municipal by-law to bypass or rewrite national environmental permitting frameworks. ? What We Can Do Right Now Because authorities are trying to bypass public comment on the draft text itself, we have to force our objections onto the official record. We are routing community objections through the active campaign on Dear South Africa. Unlike a standard petition (which government counts as just one signature), this platform logs every entry as an individual legal submission straight to the Mayor, CapeNature, and SANParks. ? |
2026-10-26 19:24:06 +02:00 | Nicholas | Not fully | All of the above | 2. Unconsulted Shift: Material Deviation from Plateau Road to Kogelfontein | |
2026-10-26 19:08:00 +02:00 | Lesley | No I do not | All of the above | 3. Extreme Spatial Compression: 292x Territory Reduction and Welfare Harm | |
2026-10-26 18:41:09 +02:00 | Ralph | Yes I do | Other |
-
- Mitigating Severe Human-Wildlife Conflict:
The Joint Task Team maintains that the Waterfall and Seaforth troops have become chronically urbanised in Simon’s Town, creating substantial human-wildlife conflict, property damage, and safety risks that previous management methods have failed to resolve. - Non-Lethal Management Solution:
Authorities argue that permanent confinement in a purpose-built “semi-wild” Urban Wildlife Centre is preferable to euthanasia or leaving troops in urban environments where they face dog attacks, vehicle collisions, illegal pellet-gun shootings, and poisoning. - Protecting Regional Genetic Lines:
Proponents state that purpose-built enclosures provide shelter, water, and veterinary care while preventing troops from raiding residential waste and human food attractants. - Established Strategy:
The JTT asserts that baboon management has been continuously informed by extensive consultation, including the 2023 Strategic Management Plan public-participation process and review by an independent expert panel.
- Mitigating Severe Human-Wildlife Conflict:
-
- Regulatory Prematurity & Missing Permits:
CapeNature confirmed on 29 September 2026 that a completed captivity permit application has not been submitted and the operational management plan remains unfinalised. Capturing, transporting, and caging protected wildlife without completed statutory permits violates the Nature Conservation Ordinance 19 of 1974. - Severe Spatial Confinement:
Spatial tracking by primatologist Dr David Gaynor shows the Waterfall troop’s natural territory spans 736.1 hectares. Caging them in a 2.52-hectare enclosure (with the JTT enclosure specified at 2.3 hectares) reduces their living range by ~292 times, which experts warn constitutes a monument to management failure and an unviable welfare outcome. - Procedural Unfairness under PAJA:
The authorities substituted the announced November 2025 Plateau Road staged trial (which included a 6-month review and EIAs) with permanent confinement at Kogelfontein without conducting a specific notice-and-comment process under Section 4 of PAJA. - Refusal to Mitigate Waste Attractants: The City rolled out 2,200 baboon-proof bins across the Peninsula in September 2026 but intentionally excluded Simon’s Town on the grounds that the troops are earmarked for removal. Opponents argue the City is manufacturing a justification for removal by refusing to secure municipal waste.
- Viable Coexistence Alternatives Ignored:
A fully costed, funded alternative developed by WAPFSA and Dr Gaynor—incorporating strategic exclusion fencing, waste securement, and shepherding—has been bypassed without formal, transparent comparative assessment. - Animal Welfare Objections:
The Cape of Good Hope SPCA formally stated in July 2026 that it opposes placing healthy, free-roaming, wild-caught baboons into long-term captive sanctuaries.
- Regulatory Prematurity & Missing Permits: