Skip to Content

Safari Vehicle Operators

Discuss and find information on the Kruger National Park
Penny
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: Durban, Kwa Zulu Natal, SA

Unread postby Penny » Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:17 pm

Herein lies the crunch Alex - take their radios away and you solve 80% of the problem as they will then have to find their own game. It is magnified more so as the wavelength that they obviously use is accessed by other tour operators and hence the melee and any significant sighting. I for one do not want to embark on any witch hunt as mentioned earlier but something clearly has to be done about these jeep jockeys before there is another incident like the one at Nsemani Dam. I have written to a company whose staff were disobeying every rule in the book and they never had the decency to even reply to my communication - they just do not care!
NO BAIL - JAIL AND NO TRADE IN RHINO HORN EVER!
[color=#FF0000]NO TO BUILDING OF HOTELS IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK[/color
24 Sept 2015 Hlane, 25-2 Burchells, 2-4 Elephant Plains, 4-7 Satara, 7-9 Pretoriouskop, 9-15 Ngwenya, 16 Hluhluwe
The addiction is fed once again

User avatar
Obelix
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: A little village in Gaul

Unread postby Obelix » Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:04 pm

I've been following this threat with interest and I totally agree with Penny on this one. One simple (and easy) way for Sanparks to send out a positive signal that they are serious about addressing the problem, is to start off by banning all radios from these vehicles.

Arks, your comments about our obligations to report the incidents are valid, but the last thing you want to worry about when you're at a special sighting (cause that's normally where these people cause all the trouble) is to get a good photo of the perpetrators, instead of a good photo of the sighting, with the hope of getting some positive reaction in the end (positive maybe being a warning to the specific touring company?).

I honestly believe the ONLY reason for their speeding antics are the radios. Take away their radios and you take away their prior knowledge of some special sighting and therefore also their need to speed. Then they will realise that they will have to travel slowly and do their own spotting if they want to impress their clients! Simple as that. O, and maybe they will then also realise that it pays to be friendly and considerate to the normal visitors (us) who could still give them information about special sightings the good old way (if they behave, that is).

I'm sorry, but unless Sanparks can come up with a special reason why they should be allowed to carry radios, I'm with Penny and inclined to think that Sanparks is not doing what they should be doing - i.e. addressing the problem appropriately.

User avatar
Obelix
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: A little village in Gaul

Unread postby Obelix » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:07 am

Hi Arks, I respect your different view on this. Just a few comments in response to your post.
arks wrote:I have to disagree with those who say that we, as park visitors, should not be trying to help SANParks in recognising and dealing with the offenders in a non-confrontational way.
I've never even hinted that we should not be trying to help Sanparks. In fact, I previously agreed with you on this, although I am advocating stronger action on Sanpark's side.
arks wrote:It takes little (more) away from a spoilt sighting to try to get a pic of the offending party, or at least to write down details such as the plate number and/or name on safari vehicle.
Sorry, but here I disagree. Our hearts were still thumping with excitement (literally) over witnessing a leopard stalking impalas, and then walking over the road right in front of our lone vehicle, when one of these touring guides raced to the scene and started driving into the field off the road (disappearing after about fifty metres into the bush). Believe me, the last thing I want to do after such a sighting is to dive for the camera to try and get a shot of their green vehicle disappearing into the bushes.
arks wrote:Just how do you expect SANParks to pay for the extra vigilance that you advocate if they also don't raise their fees?And if you expect greater vigilance, meaning more personnel on the ground, then you can expect higher prices to cover those costs.
I believe banning radios would not result in extra costs. Initially maybe, when some touring companies show some protest to this strong signal sent out by Sanparks. However, do Sanparks really want the ones protesting against such a step in the parks in the first place? In the end, I believe there will be no change in the number of touring companies operating in the park (be it with or without radios). I stick to my view, unless Sanparks can give a good explanation as to why radios on these vehicles are necessary, I think they're failing to use an easy and cheap way of addressing at least the speeding problem appropriately.

User avatar
Obelix
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: A little village in Gaul

Unread postby Obelix » Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:36 pm

Snoobab wrote:All radios were locked onto one frequency (which is probably the case in Kruger) There is one person who mans the central operations radio and he can hear everything that is said. This guy has to be the ethical guy and anyone abusing to radio (i.e. reporting sighting to other operators) is fined. Simple as that.
Snoobab, this is definitely a thought in the right direction, although I still think banning them altogether will achieve the best results.

Gwendolen wrote:When you drive in your own car you are responsible for yourself and your own family. However, when you do a tour or a walk with a company, they become responsible for your safety and well being. If they fail to do so, they will be accountable for all damage/costs.
Sorry Gwen, but on this one I disagree. I can't see why they should be in a better position than us only because they carry tourists and we carry our family. If they are not allowed to carry radios, no tourist can hold them resonsible if something goes wrong only because of that. There will be a duty on them to care for the tourists within the set parametres. If radios are excluded, the tourists will know that and like me and you will know that they could be in for some trouble if something goes wrong on the vehicle.

And if that tourist then wants to take on Sanparks because of their rules on radios in the safari vehicles, good luck to him/her because IMHO there is no chance of such a claim succeeding simply for the fact that that will open the floodgates for claims, which the courts won't allow (e.g. it will be followed by claims against Sanparks for their failure to give us cell phone reception in the park, thus endangering our lives. Who knows where it will end)

Bert wrote:Agreed with Gwen. When guiding, either on wheels or on foot the basics to carry along is a knife, compas, first aidkit and a radio. Lives can depend on the lack of abovementioned
Sure Bert, but once again I can't see what difference it makes whether you're in a safari vehicle or just a normal tourist in his own car. (Aren't we all guiding when in the park? :wink: ) From a safety point of view, cell phone reception all over the park would have been great, but we as tourist's don't have that. Why should they have the privilege of radios?


Return to “Kruger National Park”