For those visiting this blog to find information about living harmoniously with monkeys or baboons, please click on the link below:

Search This Blog


About This Site

This site was created with one objective: to provide a platform for those seeking primate related information. Although it is a blog site, and comments are read and sometimes added, it is not our intention to have an interactive blog. Residents wanting to liase on how to co-exist with monkeys or baboons, please contact us via email. Given the stats data we receive, many people from all over the world visit our site daily, particularly the slide show on how to co-exist with wild primates. We welcome you all and thank you for popping by.




Once upon a time in Africa, people understood that us humans are not above all other animals but equal to them. And so the time has come for us to reflect on the past, present and look deeply to find a solution to the damage we have caused.

Credo Mutwa is an extraordinary South African character; he is a traditional healer, psychic and talented storyteller. His knowledge of old Africa which has been progressively lost throughout past decades remains a crucial key to understanding our true relationship to nature and other animals. In his book, Isilwane the Animal, he describes how African people did not see us humans as separate from nature in the past: we understood that we are not above animals, trees, fishes and birds but equal to them.

Old Africa understood our interconnectedness with all living beings. When the white man came to Africa, the continent was teeming with animals which were then mass slaughtered once they erected their farms.
Credo makes the point that many westerners still believe that conservation was imported by colonial powers into Africa and Ian Player confirms in the foreward to the book that those who worked in reserves and protected areas in Zululand know that conservation existed long before the white man arrived.  He describes how African tribes respected nature and our interconnectedness with the Earth by holding wild animals as their totems – a system which served to preserve the environment and showed a clear respect for a healthy biodiversity.


“Through Isilwane the Animal, I hope to open the eyes of the world to traditional African attitudes, folklore and rituals which have governed the relationships between the people of Africa and the animal world.
Today we see the human race running around in circles, like a mad dog chasing its own tail. Today, the same type of confusion prevails in all fields of human thought. There is confusion in the way we view ourselves, there is confusion in the way we view the earth, there is even confusion, believe it or not, at the core of every one of the world’s religions. I can state this with confidence as I have studied most of these religions and even joined some of them.

 But why the confusion? It is due to the way we view things: the way we view the atom, stars, life on Earth, and the way we view the Deity Himself or Herself. But the most dangerous and destructive view by far – one which has changed human beings into rampaging, destructive and mindless beasts – is that we compare ourselves with other living things.

Western Man is taught that he is the master of all living things. The bible itself enshrines this extreme attitude, as do other great books. Repeatedly one hears of dangerous phrases such as “untamed nature”, or “interrogating nature with power”. One hears of the strange belief that man is superior to all other living things on Earth and that he was especially created to be overlord and custodian of all things animate and inanimate. Until these attitudes are combated and erased from the human mind, Westernised humans will be a danger to all earthly life, including themselves.”
“When white people came to Africa, they had been conditioned to separate themselves spiritually and physically from wildlife. In the vast herds of animals, they saw four footed enemies to be crushed and objects of fun to be destroyed for pleasure. They slaughtered wild animals by the million. It never occurred to the white pioneers that these animals were protected by the native tribes through whose land they migrated. It never occurred to them, with their muskets, rifles and carbines, that black people worshipped these great herds and regarded them as an integral part of their existence on Earth.”

“In old Africa, every tribe had an animal that it regarded as its totem, an animal after which the tribe had been names by its founders. It was the sacred duty of the tribe to ensure that the animal after which it was named was never harmed within the confines of its territory. In addition, Africans knew that certain wild animals co-exist with others, and that in order to protect the animal after which the tribe was named, it was essential to protect those animals with which the sacred one co-existed. In KwaZulu- Natal for example, there is a tribe, the Dube people, for whom the zebra is a totem. These people not only protect vast herds of zebra in their tribal land, allowing them to roam where they choose, but they also protect herds of wildebeest because they realise that zebras co-exist with wildebeest. ...The old Africans knew that to protect the zebra one had to effectively protect the wildebeest, the warthog, the bushpig, the eland, the kudu and other animals sometimes found grazing with zebra in the bush. But the old Africans knew that it was not enough to simply protect those animals which grazed with their totem animal. It was essential to protect those animals which preyed upon their sacred animals.

“There were tribes, such as the Batswana Bakaru and the Bafurutsi, which regarded the Baboon as their totem. They knew that protecting the baboons alone was not enough. The leopard which preyed on the baboon had to be protected, along with the plants upon which the baboon fed. The people knew that if they did not protect the plants, they would starve in the bush and start feeding on the crops in the people’s corn and maize fields. If this occurred, baboons would become man’s enemy.
The Batswana Batloung tribe, whose name means “people of the elephant”, were sworn to protect the elephant. They also protected the rhinoceros and the hippopotamus, which they regarded as the elephant’s cousins. It was believed that an elephant would not injure a person who carried the Bafluong name.”


“The African people knew, just as the native American people knew, that if you destroy the environment, you will ultimately destroy the human race. ...A remarkable Tswana proverb states that, “He who buries the tree, will next bury the wild animal, and after that, bury his own ox, and ultimately bury his own children.” This saying indicates that people were aware, even in ancient times, of the interdependence on all living creatures upon this Earth, and that if you harm one, you harm others and, in the end yourself.” 

The Case Against Sustainable Use

The Argument Against Consumptive Sustainable Use:

Is it possible to promote the idea of wildlife as a commodity that may be traded, controlled, hunted, subjected to untold cruel practices in the name of biomedical research and entertainment, yet simultaneously expect this practice to foster a respect for wildlife and the environment?

The sustainable use of wildlife can either be consumptive or non-consumptive:

Consumptive use: The killing, trapping and capturing of wild animals for commerce (for ivory, the pet trade, biomedical research) or recreation (sport hunting, entertainment).

Non consumptive Use: An activity that generates income without harming animals or removing them from their habitats.

The concept of sustainable use has been pushed as a sound wildlife management tool, yet in practice it has involved far more “use” (and abuse) and not much sustainability. History has shown that it generally results in the over-exploitation and decimation of the species involved.

Depletion of species used is almost always a foregone conclusion because of several factors, some being:

1.    The short term financial interest and greed (human nature) of the users.

2.    Inadequate scientific knowledge about wildlife populations

3.    The inability to predict the outcome of our attempts to manage wild animals with any degree of accuracy.

These factors and results have almost - without exception - characterised past efforts at consumptive management and the commercial use of wildlife species.


Wild species that are perceived to be in competition with agriculture and forestry are generally painted as healthy and plentiful in spite of the fact that their populations are not monitored. The reason for this is to keep the real damage done to these species hidden from the public so that agriculture can appear to be justified in persecuting them. In Southern Africa, “problem” species have historically been fatally injured and killed in exceptionally cruel ways – poison, gin traps, bow and arrows, dog hunting packs, barbed wire are some of many methods that have been used.

In the past, near Bloemhof about 200 kms west of Johannesburg, a small reserve named the SA Lombard Nature Reserve was in existence. At this reserve, captured predators were fed on meat laced with poisons, while conservation officials recorded the time taken by the animals to die. Dogs were bred (at taxpayers' expense) to supply the dog-packs which hunted the land, killing our wildlife. Large scale barbaric cruelty was carried out, hidden from the tax payers who paid for it. Not much has changed since the days of the Oranjejag hunting club which exterminated 87,570 animals in the Free State alone.

The Wild Dog – once perceived to be a “problem animal” or “damage causing animal”, has been exterminated from large parts of Africa and is an example of how a species that is not monitored, is plagued by misconceptions and is encouraged to be persecuted by legislation and ignorance can become highly endangered due to the message of disrespect conveyed by the consumptive use camp. Today the Wild Dog is one of the continent's most rarely encountered animals.

Other Southern African species that suffer similar effects as perceived “problem animals”, are likely to go the same way unless there is change. The vervet monkey and chacma baboon are generally believed to be healthy due to the fact that they are “commonly” seen in certain areas but the damage caused to troop structures , and how this impacts on related ecosystems has not been taken into consideration. As a result those that work hands-on with these species report a dwindling in numbers and troop structure damage that has a ripple effect on future generations and all related systems.

Founded as the Botswana Wild Dog Research Project in 1989, the Botswana Predator Conservation Trust (BPCT) has expanded to cover all the large carnivore species in Botswana. It is one of the longest running large predator research projects in Africa and one of only a handful of its calibre worldwide.

BPCT research on wild dogs has made it abundantly clear that the health and welfare of the entire predator population is a key indication of overall health of the ecosystem.

Preservationists and animal protectionists have begun to realise the importance of focusing not only on endangered species but on working towards a healthy biodiversity.

In his book Animals In Peril, ex chief executive, John Hoyt from the HSUS, says:

“Whales were supposedly sustainably exploited for decades under the careful scientific management regime of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) – until all eight species of great whales were pronounced endangered.

Sustainable use did not work with such developed North American resources such as grizzly bears, ducks, californian sardines, ancient forests, or just about anything else that has supposedly been managed, conserved, exploited , utilized or harvested on a sustained yield basis.

Not even white tailed deer which have thrived, can be considered an unmitigated management success. Creating and maintaining a “harvestable surplus” of deer has adversely affected other species, and has been achieved by the removal of old growth forests and predators.”

The “Damage” Caused by Elephants Benefits Biodiversity:

A recent study showing environmental benefits conducted by elephants, that are often perceived to be environmentally damaging, illustrates how inadequate scientific knowledge about wildlife populations can be destructive to the environment: ”Areas heavily damaged by elephants are home to more species of amphibians and reptiles than areas where the beasts are excluded”, the study suggests. The findings have been published in the African Journal of Ecology. "Elephants, along with a number of other species, are considered to be ecological engineers because their activities modify the habitat in a way that affects many other species," explained Bruce Schulte, now based at Western Kentucky University, US."They will do everything from digging with their front legs, pulling up grass to knocking down big trees. So they actually change the shape of the landscape."He added that elephants' digestive system was not very good at processing many of the seeds that they eat."As the faeces are also a great fertiliser, the elephants are also able to rejuvenate the landscape by transporting seeds elsewhere," Dr Schulte told BBC News. In the paper, the scientists concluded that difference in abundance and species richness in the damaged areas was probably a result of engineering by elephants, generating new habitats for a diverse array of frog species. Dr Schulte explained the team decided to carry out the study in order to identify effective indicator species that offered an insight into the health of the region's environment. He added that the findings had implications for habitat and wildlife management strategies;"if we are managing habitat, then we clearly have to know what we are managing it for. "What this study point towards is that although things may not look particularly pretty to a human eye does not necessarily mean that it is detrimental to all the life that is there." 

Baboons in Africa - Misunderstanding their Language

A Researcher working in Uganda contacted me some time ago to ask if I could help her understand what was happening to the villagers in her area; a group of the women were being "sexually harassed" by a troop of baboons. These "attacks" occurred when the women headed towards the river to do their daily clothes washing.

I asked if anyone had threatened the baboons, or perhaps walked too close to an infant? She answered that the baboon threats were totally unprovoked by the women and they feared they would be "raped".

Baboons do not rape or sexually harass human women.

Bewildered by this story, I questioned the researcher further.

"Were there any men around when these women were threatened by the baboons?"


The men were threatening the baboons to "protect" the women, the reason being fear.

The behaviour described above is a clear cut case of redirected aggression. The baboons were threatening the women because -  in their eyes -  women are "weaker" hence it is safer to threaten a woman who is connected to a hostile man than threaten the man himself.

This is common behaviour among wild primates. If an adult human man attacks -  or strongly threatens -  a male baboon who feels he has to respond, and there happens to be a woman close by, the baboon will threaten the woman.

As far as baboons sexually harassing humans is concerned, it appears that a certain amount of projection was involved in understanding the behaviour of these baboons.

The solution to a problem like this would be for the men and women to ignore the baboons, act passively and be respectful of their troop and territory.

To harmoniously co-exist with wild primates, it requires us to practice tolerance and patience. We need to take the time to understand their language so we can correctly interpret the behaviour that scares us. 

Living With Vervet Monkeys - Loss of Habitat

Living Harmoniously With Vervet Monkeys

In some parts of South Africa, Vervet monkeys have been forced to compete with humans for resources after having their habitat destroyed by human development. On the surface, it may appear that the Vervet monkeys are being deviant but all too often they are genuinely hungry. Human properties have replaced their ancient foraging routes; your home may be on one of these routes.

When monkeys have no choice but to appeal to humans for food:
While there are many educational initiatives advising the public not to feed monkeys, this approach hasn’t worked effectively, especially in areas where monkeys have no choice but to obtain food from urban environments. In cases where monkeys have no option but to seek food from human properties, denying them this option ensures they will look for food on someone else's property - this does not offer a viable solution.  If we accept that compassionate people are likely to feed hungry monkeys in areas where the monkeys have lost their natural food source, then constructive advice on how to feed monkeys is necessary.
 The Hierarchy Connection:
The Vervet troop in your area has worked out a hierarchical relationship with others sharing their territory. This includes human families and the domestic animals connected to them. Vervet monkeys eat according to their hierarchy with the top ranking members having first access to food. Those lower down the hierarchy are allowed to eat only when the top of the hierarchy have had their fill. Vervets do not give their food to others. Vervet mothers do not even share food with their babies. From the monkeys’ point of view, these principles apply to humans which is why it is a problem to feed them by hand.

Never feed a monkey by hand:
The monkeys around our homes are working out a relationship with us.  When a human hands food to a monkey, it may be interpreted as a giving over of power thus giving the message to the monkey that you are taking a submissive position. Giving away your power when feeding a wild primate is the main reason why feeding becomes a problem as the human/monkey relationship progresses. It is due to feeding by hand that certain monkeys are prone to becoming more and more daring and intimidating when approaching humans for food. This behaviour instills fear in people and the consequences tend to result in the monkeys being harmed.
Accepting responsibility for the problem we have created:
 As we are responsible for destroying the natural habitat of monkeys (and other wildlife), it follows that we are responsible for correcting this imbalance which has caused such harm. To protect the wild animals who share our territory, we need to practice tolerance and patience. We need to adapt our lifestyles to live harmoniously with the wildlife whose habitat we have destroyed.

Feeding Stations:
For those residents who choose to co-exist harmoniously by setting up a feeding station we offer the following guidelines:

1. Don’t feed monkeys by hand. This behaviour may show the monkeys you are lower in the hierarchy which encourages them to act demanding and threatening.

2. When you set up a feeding station, do it when the monkeys are not around to see. This ensures that the feeding station will not be associated with humans but will offer the monkeys a food source that they can survive on.

3. A feeding station requires that you place portions of food in at least three different places – preferably out of sight of each other so that the various groups within the troop are fed. One feeding station encourages the top members of the hierarchy to eat while the
others wait and this is likely to cause those lower on the hierarchy to visit your neighbors to check for food there.

4. If you find that the monkeys are visiting at the same time every day and waiting for food, it means they have come to depend on you for that food source. If this is the case, try to limit the food you are putting out so that they eat what is needed but are encouraged to continue on their foraging route to find food elsewhere too. If you feel that the monkeys are visiting because of a drought or because they have no natural habitat to survive in, encourage your neighbors to put out feeding stations as well.
5. Residents who choose to feed monkeys need to be consistent. If you go away, please ensure that someone is there to feed the monkeys in your place.

Your relationship with the monkeys:

It is beneficial to be consistent in your behaviour when the monkeys visit your home. To keep your "power" so that the monkeys do not enter your home, steal food off your table or threaten your pets, use a water bottle to spray at them when they advance or shout and bang on a pot. Remember that the more hungry the monkeys are, the more likely they are to try different methods for getting food. A communal feeding station is a potential solution for both residents and Vervet monkeys.    

Our Relationship With Nature.

My time spent with both orphaned baboons and wild baboon troops brought a clear message about our self-imposed separation from the nature. This message reminded me constantly to see past our pre-conceived notions about species non-human. This lens is necessary if we are to understand wild animals. Letting go of our human based notions about animals also inevitably brings into focus a lost part of the human self.  




DREAMSKILLS is a project created by Karin Saks (Darwin Primate Group CEO) and Terence Olivier (Rainbow Warriors SA CEO).

As a volunteer working with us you will first be trained as a mentor who will go on to conduct workshops with students from disadvantaged communities in our area.
Each volunteer donation goes towards sponsoring two students per week.

It has been identified that there is a critical need to confront the growing social problems around domestic animal and wildlife abuse in Southern Africa. The link between animal and human abuse which perpetuates a violent society, makes this need crucial.

The explosion of cat and dog populations in third world countries has escalated at an alarming rate as poverty stricken areas increase. This has brought about a rise in animal abuse which continues to pose a health threat to developing communities. As the presence of animal abuse increases in poverty stricken areas, it is a sure sign that human abuse is increasing as well.

Human development continues to encroach on the territories of neighboring wildlife, natural habitats are destroyed, and these species often have no option but to compete with humans for resources which all too often results in cruel methods used to kill these animals.

 Poverty - along with cultural custom - has contributed to a domestic animal explosion, the mass murder of specific wildlife species and the extermination of wildlife that is forced to compete with humans for resources.

Added to this, children as young as eight years old are being lured into a life of crime and drugs with the consequences being a desensitization to violence and the automatic tendency to objectify animals in order to carry out acts of extreme cruelty such as dog fighting and gang initiations.

Dreamskills aims to educate the public on all matters pertaining to wild and domestic animals in order to create a more humane society that will contribute to a less violent future,benefits our children, our animals, the environment, and ensures the future success of this country.

Our programs are aimed at the youth, the public and businesses. We are linked to a UK based, online training academy called Animal Jobs Direct who provide over 60 different career based Animal specific programs. This partnership gives our youth an option to develop a career in Animal Welfare.Venturing into townships to educate has become dangerous hence we offer educational programs at our centre.
Our training program is based on a 4.4 hectare piece of land in Hibberdene, KZN. The property contains student accommodation (eight students can be accommodated at a time), volunteer accommodation, training room and management accommodation. The property is ideal for teaching students (many who have never had the comfort of a bed or experienced a hot shower) about Animal Care, Protection and Welfare.

The facility is set high on a hill overlooking the holiday town of Hibberdene with a 180 degree sea view in front and the Kwazulu Natal Tropical forest behind it. The property boasts its own natural dam and is teaming with vervet monkeys, bush buck, duiker, bush pig, reed buck, birdlife and other wildlife.

DPG orphan baboons with the wild baboon troop.

Recently, I've been  going through all the footage I've taken over the last years. This clip is a short and summarised view of the baboon orphans in my care when I first introduced them to the wild troop. Today, these orphans await the outcome of a future we are trying to secure for them. They are temporarily housed at a nearby wildlife centre - in captivity -  where they are relatively comfortable. However, these scenes brought back the memories of the past... and the freedom they enjoyed before the neighbor farmers and past landlord  stopped us from progressing by co-ercing the authorities into withdrawing our permits.

Update - May 2013

Registered as Non-profit Organisation. Number: 059-587-NPO


It has been some time since I last wrote an update on our situation at the new Darwin Primate Group (DPG) and it is not because I have not thought about it many times, but because I have been hoping for a positive break before burdening you with the full story that has unfolded over the last months. Although this letter seems long, it will hopefully act as a summary for the long process we have been through and I hope by the end of it, you may have some valuable advice and pointers on how we should deal with what is occurring at present.

The Project and its Objectives:
The Darwin Primate Group is still the only official primate rescue centre operating in the Western Cape. Prior to our efforts to help injured and orphaned primates, they were generally euthanased, as there were no organisations that could help them. It is therefore of utmost importance that the presence of the Darwin Primate Group is allowed to continue operating in order to change prevailing destructive attitudes towards primates and other wildlife in this area.
It is also crucial for its future as a sustainable project that funding is raised to attain its objectives:
Objectives: To raise awareness about the ongoing conflict between humans and all primates in South Africa, to develop, publicise and advocate constructive methods to protect primate species and to work towards a safe and protective environment where these primates can be released back to the wild.
The Darwin Primate Group moves - August 2012:
The Crags is zoned as privately owned, agricultural land, with a fair amount of dairy farming taking place. This is where we have been based for the last twelve years, living in a rustic cast iron shack, choosing to live without any electricity to protect the troop of monkeys from electrocution, which had been successfully rehabilitated and released into the forest and doing this without any regret due to the indigenous surround forest with all its wildlife; an appropriate and rare area to find for a rescue project like ours.  The area is situated in the buffer zone next to the Tsitsikamma National Park, which is protected and overseen by South African National Parks.  
We have been attempting to help wildlife in the area about co-existing with wild primates over the last 12 years. This has been beneficial for the most part, but has also inevitably resulted in a conflict of interest with a number of local farmers. Without fences preventing wild animals from wandering onto farmlands in The Crags, our wildlife have continued to be killed without challenge. 
Trapping, poisoning and shooting of wildlife is common here. Having experienced this ongoing conflict first hand, the difficulties we face is representative of a far bigger picture - we need to continue to fight and save our wildlife from lethal methods used by farmers, not only in The Crags, but all over the country.
In the first half of 2012, The Darwin Primate Group almost collapsed under heavy pressure directed at their work from neighbouring farmers. This group of residents, after refusing to try non-lethal wildlife deterrent methods, had been confronted by the DPG for shooting wildlife, including incidents of poaching conducted by their workers. Once this group had discovered that the Darwin Primate Group were planning on moving to a new and better property in the same area, they got together to attempt to shut down the work of the Darwin Primate Group This began – unbeknown to us at the time - with an attempt to get the DPG to move off the property they were renting.
Unable to find a suitable alternative and faced with the daily demands of running a sanctuary without a reliable vehicle, ongoing water problems and no electricity, it looked like the long fight had finally ended and been lost. The situation was the desperate, but thanks to Phil Wollen, and a loan from Save the Primates in Australia, the Darwin Primate Group was given a golden opportunity to progress when the new piece of forest was bought for the project in mid 2012. The new DPG property had been registered as a private nature reserve (formerly known as The Hebron Private Nature Reserve) and has a vulnerable eco-system making up part of it. We are in the process of finding out if this status is still in place and how that affects our work here (as wildlife/animal activists based in an agricultural area inhabited by self serving farmers).
The old and new DPG properties are in close proximity to each other and together, make up part of the territory that both the primates in our care and the wild baboon troop inhabit.  The indigenous forest is uninterrupted between these two properties. Wildlife abounds in this area, including the wild baboon troop I have known for many years. It is a huge step forward for us as we now have underground electricity available (which does not kill animals), a main house and several cottages to accommodate volunteers. It is here that the DPG hoped to continue their work through educational drives and the rescuing, preserving and rehabilitating of primates amongst other related activities.

By November 2012, we still had not received the necessary permits to move the primates. Again, fate stepped in and brought Vernon Gibbs Halls into the picture. Vernon is the head of Eden District Muncipality and once he’d researched the situation, he offered his valuable assistance. It was Vernon we had to thank for the new potential to take this project in the direction we had dreamed of for many years. With his support and guidance, we came a bit closer to confronting the agricultural vs wildlife war in this area.
 As the beginning of February approached we had much reason to feel positive and were finally feeling as if we would reach our goal to move to the new property and operate in the manner we had hoped.

January 20/0- Feb2/ 2013:
February found us frustrated and still based on the old DPG property as well as the new DPG property, waiting for permits to be issued from the authorities before we could fulfil moving all the primates onto the new property. As we were about to make the break through in acquiring permits, our sponsors – Save The Primates – expressed their discontent and sent us a “lease” agreement as “owners” of the new DPG property, to sign.

Because this “lease agreement” was not aligned with the initial Memorandum of Agreement that the DPG entered into with STP, and because signing the agreement would place our project in further danger that threatened to destroy the organisation entirely, we  failed to sign the lease on the date they insisted due to looking for a better solution. As shareholders who had entered into the initial agreement in order to ensure the DPG animals a safe and secure piece of land, many of the clauses did not fit this criteria. We sought out legal help to modify the agreement in a manner whereby it would work in the best interests of both parties but this was rejected by STP who refused to make any changes.
 From the start of the partnership we had found that STP’s control of our funding avenues – the adoption and volunteer programs – and their refusal to allow us to let out accommodation (as had been discussed from the beginning to bring in funds) had resulted in the DPG being:
1.    Unable to address the daily demands of running a sanctuary and
2. Unable to pay back the loan to STP. 

However ironic, we found that while STP was preventing us from raising funds by controlling our fundraising avenues, they were simultaneously preventing us from paying off the loan we owed them.
The ongoing discontent by both parties has unfortunately resulted in a breakdown and what has come to the fore during this process are the different visions that each party envisaged about the joint project they planned on entering together.

Below is an email sent by me to the DPG board which elaborates on the severity of this situation.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karin Saks <>
Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:18 AM
Subject: "Lease" agreement from STP

Dear DPG team,
Regarding the agreement recently received by STP which has been circulated to the DPG board for comment:
STP has insisted on us signing this agreement by Monday night, failing which they have threatened to send a letter to Bitou Muncipality and CNC withdrawing their approval to allow us to continue our work on the property we have invested in and now operate on.
Furthermore, they have claimed that the terms set out in their agreement are non-negotiable.
I would like to ask Gary and Sara to let us know how they would feel about the primates in our care not having our project to support them if they were able to succeed in preventing us from continuing with our work on the property we bought in partnership with them?
The agreement referred to is unreasonable and in some aspects does not align with the initial agreement entered into before the property was bought, hence we'd been in the process of re-writing the agreement to ensure it was democratically agreed to so as not to jeopardise our work and the lengthy process we have been working on with the authorities to get our project up and running.
Our priority has been the difficult process we are now working on re the agricultural/wildlife conflict we have had to endure since moving to the new property.

Please respond as soon as you can so that we can get back to STP once a document that supports the work and goals of the DPG - as well as the animals in our care - is in place.
Kind Regards,

The situation we face with Save The Primates has been unavoidable and we are greatly disappointed to be dealing with this while trying to keep our priorities for the animals going on a daily basis. We have looked into legal advice and will continue fighting until we are through this and able to reach the goal that was so magnificently held up for us when given this opportunity.

April 2013:  
On April 15th, we received an urgent message - from a trusted, close ocntact who insisted on remaining anonymous -  that the authorities planned on shooting the monkeys on the old DPG property due the landlord issuing the authorities with a high court order to remove them.Because Save The Primates had halted the permit process we had been working on, and withdrew permission as the "owners" for us to function and continue to save primates, the monkeys could not be moved to the new DPG property.  On the 16th of April, we thankfully avoided any primates being killed but they were removed from both properties by the authorities and taken to a nearby wildlife centre where we have been assured they will be kept safe until we have a safe secure sanctuary for them to reside on. Cape Nature have been sensitive to our needs and we presently await their input on progressing. If Cape Nature accepts our plans for the future, we will be continuing by working with the owners of the wildlife centre where the primates are residing. This will be a temporary process until the Darwin Primate Group is able to find a safe, secure home to continue without the kinds of threats we have endured by landowners and Save the Primates (withdrawal of permits, legal threats to the authorities etc).