Letter: Monkey article biased

Tom Clarkson of Ballito writes:

I refer to your article “Monkeys, the problem……” (Courier, November 8).

Such a beautiful, one-sided article.

No opposing argument.

This is no criticism of Craig Johnstone, who obviously believes in what he does.

I see things differently.

Before Ballito, there were cane fields.

No monkeys.

You do not see monkeys in the cane, and Ballito did not swallow up their habitat.

There were sub-tropical coastal forests, like Zimbali, and they are welcome to stay there.

Like any other vermin (rats, cockroaches…) they infest human habitation. Rats and so on are controllable and not so cute.

Monkeys not so, especially if you print a picture of a baby, with big eyes in the Courier.

Better to have shown the same baby eating chicks from a bird’s nest. Not so cuddly. When I came here there were many birds in my garden. Not now. Don’t think of the cute little monkey hugging a tree. Think of the same monkey licking its lips after downing four chicks.

Monkeys don’t attack pets and children “without provocation”. Without provocation is the watch phrase. You teach your dog or child not to go near a monkey. “Provocation!” Rubbish. These things are dangerous. Get between a big one and a banana and see what happens.

Clean – maybe personally – but not for humans. Clean up the kitchen cupboards or yard, after them. Re-paint your outside walls every two years because their paw marks will not wash off.

Your article should have been less biased, constructive and listed how to humanely keep monkeys away from unwelcome places – good talk, but no detail, widening divisions in this community.

Download The North Coast Courier mobile app, now available free from the Apple iStore and on Google Play, for IOS and Android phones.