Skip to Content

heavy trucks

Discuss current issues and events happening in the parks.
User avatar
4O4-5O4
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby 4O4-5O4 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:35 pm

Really? I shall readily concede that these incident numbers are not an indication of how well SANParks does when it comes to cleaning the toilets in rest camp rondavels, but blaming a long border won't wash. That long border is a fact, dealing properly with its consequences would be an indication of good management. It is glaringly obvious to the entire world, yourself perhaps excepted, that the KNP rhino population is anything but well-managed at the moment. SANParks may well be doing all they can to rectify that, but they have a long way to go.



Now that I am in discussion with a real expert in all matters, I would be very interested to hear from Johanrebel as to how he suggests SANParks go about combat rhino poaching and how a 600km long border with an neighbouring country does 'not wash'?

User avatar
4O4-5O4
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby 4O4-5O4 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:06 pm

Stark wrote:We are spinning off topic, guys.

Personally I have no problem with this isolated incident as long as it does not become the norm, such as the current state of KNP being used as a shortcut to Moz. I assume there is a strict process in place to keep commercial vehicles from using KNP as pass through road.


Sorry Stark, I will bring it back immediately. But glad you are in agreement with my original stand

User avatar
Stark
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 2254
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 1:52 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby Stark » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:21 pm

Just don't want it to get locked. :thumbs_up:

I think there is nearly universal agreement that KNP should not be used as a freeway, and the discussion is around whether this 1 instance is an isolated occurrence or not.
"Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors." West African Proverb

User avatar
Dup
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby Dup » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:37 pm

4O4-5O4 wrote:hehehehehe. You guys are far too serious. And its also clear that you all know far much more than I do. In case you haven't noticed, I know nothing about heavy trucks, rhino poaching or long border control.

But I have established just how many forum members here view SANParks in such a negative light. And I find that kind of sad

Ok , sorry 404-504 we take you serious, won't happen again. :whistle:
SAY NO TO HOTEL DEVELOPMENT IN KRUGER !

NO to frackers products

Lone Bull trail here we come-April 2015

User avatar
4O4-5O4
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby 4O4-5O4 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:30 pm

Right O, Dup.

Stark - if you read all my comments on this topic, you will see the point I have been trying to make.

Lets see if this is a once off - I challenge any forum members to post further examples of heavy trucks using Kruger as a through-fare, because in my opinion, this is not happening.
And I do believe too that many forum members who think they know everything about everything related to Kruger prefer to take a topic and, quite frankly, even after an acceptable explanation from SANParks, still prefer to over react.

cheers

RobertT
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1057
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 10:35 am

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby RobertT » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:36 am

gjorgi wrote:Mmmmm, just read through all 5 pages of comments. Very interesting opinions all around.....it does however seem that poor 404-504 is taking a bit of a beating from everyone else :)

I suppose I agree with everyone else but also agree with 404-504, sitting on the fence I guess....let me explain why I agree with the different parties' points of view.

Everyone else
I think the main problem here is that we in SA are SO used to negative media reports, corruption etc. etc. in municipalities and government institutions that when something like this happens we by default assumes that the powers that be have no clue what they are doing, a mindset made worse by the decision to start building hotels in Kruger. So in a sense I can understand why people find it difficult to just take SanParks word at face value and in that respect I know where everyone is coming from.

404-504
I've been on this forum for a while although I haven't posted much and I must agree that the overall feeling towards anything SanParks says do lean towards the negative and yes, that does irritate me sometimes as well especially if everyone always seem to know better (don't get me wrong, a lot of forumites might indeed be in positions to know better!). I can thus see why 404-405 started this whole discussion. I WANT to believe that this was a once off thing and that the reasons for allowing them were "legit" and until concrete evidence to the contrary surfaces we need to respect the decisions taken by SanParks I suppose.

So....I guess what I am saying is if this happens again I'll probably be in the "everyone else" corner as then it is clearly becoming the norm.....and if it doesn't happen again I'll be in 404-405's corner because it was then clearly just due to certain unforeseen circumstances and not some big conspiracy

:hmz: :hmz: :hmz: :lol:


:thumbs_up: gjorgi.
I need to ask.
If for some arb reason it was considered again. If there was no outcry, what do you think the decision next time would be? Now it could possibly not even get past consideration stage due to the outcry that was created?
If no one complains, chances of changes are slim.
Take restaurants for example, if people didn't complain, do you think SANParks would have woken one morning and decided to put in the new franchises?
I expect there will be more protest action in the same area, so what is now the precedent?
I said something because I think it wasn't the best decision and would not like to see the decision repeated. If I don't see it repeated, you wont see me complaining about it. :thumbs_up:

Mcook
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:17 am

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby Mcook » Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:17 am

What’s confusing for me is that I have seen comments on facebook from an individual stating that they had received a response from a Mr Abe Sibiya-Managing Executive at Kruger Park thanking them for informing him and that this isn’t acceptable and that steps would be taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again, which is confusing

Either way

RobertT wrote:I said something because I think it wasn't the best decision and would not like to see the decision repeated. If I don't see it repeated, you wont see me complaining about it. :thumbs_up:
:thumbs_up:

RobertT
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1057
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 10:35 am

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby RobertT » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:16 am

http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/to ... ariffs.php

General Information on Tariffs

Note: All Prices VAT inclusive and all tariffs in South African Rand - Tariffs subject to alteration without advance notice.

Daily Conservation Fee

Valid from 1 November 2013 to 31 October 2014

South African Citizens and Residents (with ID):
R62 per person, per day
R27 per child , per day
SADC Nationals (with passport):
R124 per person, per day
R62 per child, per day
Standard Conservation Fee (Foreign Visitors):
R248 per adult, per day
R124 per child, per day
Cargo Carriers
Cargo Carrier 2 – 4 tons
Rate to be confirmed
Cargo Carrier heavier than 4 tons
Rate to be confirmed

In light of the above discussion on trucks, could mods please get clarification from SANParks on the line items under Cargo Carriers in their tariffs. What cargo carriers are they expecting?

User avatar
saraf
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8694
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:19 pm
Location: Portsmouth, England

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby saraf » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:41 am

RobertT, as always, your question has been forwarded to SANParks PR.
Want to say Thank You or Well Done to a fellow 'mite? Why not nominate them for a Kudu?

User avatar
Weltenman
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:11 pm
Location: Here...there, somewhere, where's my GPS?

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby Weltenman » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:25 pm

gjorgi wrote:I see your point RobertT :hmz:

:doh:

The best we can do is positive criticism if needed but support and acknowledgement when deserved....problem is with the bordeline cases, who decides what is wrong and what is right.

Some decisions are easy, NO HOTELS, easy.

The truck issue in THIS case, mmmmm, not so clear cut.



No decision is easy, especially when you have people shouting very loudly from the sidelines (with some suspect ulterior motives). I think the issue is that the decisions that have been made by SANParks have been explained and I do not recall one instance where a decision was made that negatively influenced their parks that they are looking after.

But every decision has been set upon by forumites. You will be hard pressed to find some posters commenting on a positive thread but let their be a negative thread and you have people jumping up and posting. Some will call this due diligence, but that is just an excuse to be negative.

Is this decision something to be concerned about? Yes, IF it is allowed again in future without good reason. (A good reason is also up for debate, but seeing as it is impossible to hold a referendum every time such a decision has to be taken we have to trust the decisions that are made.)

RobertT wrote:Take restaurants for example, if people didn't complain, do you think SANParks would have woken one morning and decided to put in the new franchises?


Good example, the question then is why did we have threads 20 pages long discussing the positives and negatives of the franchises if SANParks are listening to the complaints?

Rock, meet hard place...and SANParks, you can settle nicely in the middle, as you are damned if you do and damned if you don't! :hmz: :whistle: :D :tongue:
Study the past, if you would divine the future.
Confucius

User avatar
harrys
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 4298
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:22 am
Location: Boksburg

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby harrys » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:05 pm

Weltenman I agree with you that we should not always see the negative in SANparks decisions, but have you ever thought why do we not trust them :( . Only one answer.....because 90% of the time they lie to us, example while we are on the truck topic, they told this forum it was essential deliveries to Komatipoort and surrounding communities(what is so essential about poles, then we heard mr sibea knew nothing about the trucks in Kruger :big_eyes: and the newest one is it's poles for Telkom that has to be planted in Kruger :roll: .... that is the most bull I've ever heard, so please tell me why should we trust these people in any way. And that's only one example, there are more but has no place here.

Lastly management of SANparks don't care about conservation in Kruger as much as they supposed to otherwise they will do heaps more in preventing the killing of animals by speeding employees, delivery vehicles and guests.....they should start caring more about the animals than about money, THAT'S WHAT CONSERVATION IS ALL ABOUT, NOT CARING ABOUT THE COMMUNITIES around the park, that's the goverments responsibillity :thumbs_up:

Thank You
Say NO to hotels in KNP!!!

KNP:
Lower Sabie:16-21 June 2015
Punda Maria:1-4 August 2015
Shingwedzi:4-10 August 2015

User avatar
DinkyBird
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 45698
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Somerset West, Cape Town

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby DinkyBird » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:11 pm

harrys wrote: Only one answer.....because 90% of the time they lie to us, example while we are on the truck topic, they told this forum it was essential deliveries to Komatipoort and surrounding communities(what is so essential about poles, then we heard mr sibea knew nothing about the trucks in Kruger :big_eyes: and the newest one is it's poles for Telkom that has to be planted in Kruger :roll: .... that is the most bull I've ever heard, so please tell me why should we trust these people in any way. And that's only one example, there are more but has no place here.

Ninety percent of the time they lie to us? I think you best substantiate that Harrys.
Sawubona
Dalene

User avatar
4O4-5O4
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby 4O4-5O4 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:53 pm

hahahahahahaha

gjorgi - the safest place to be in this forum is on the fence, it seems. hahahahha

But thanks for your contribution

User avatar
4O4-5O4
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby 4O4-5O4 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:03 pm

Harrys - no, I think we can trust them... I mean, they've only been managing the park since 1928. And quite honestly, I doubt that there are many that can do better

User avatar
Weltenman
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:11 pm
Location: Here...there, somewhere, where's my GPS?

Re: heavy trucks

Unread postby Weltenman » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:50 am

harrys wrote:Weltenman I agree with you that we should not always see the negative in SANparks decisions, but have you ever thought why do we not trust them :( . Only one answer.....because 90% of the time they lie to us, example while we are on the truck topic, they told this forum it was essential deliveries to Komatipoort and surrounding communities(what is so essential about poles, then we heard mr sibea knew nothing about the trucks in Kruger :big_eyes: and the newest one is it's poles for Telkom that has to be planted in Kruger :roll: .... that is the most bull I've ever heard, so please tell me why should we trust these people in any way. And that's only one example, there are more but has no place here.

Lastly management of SANparks don't care about conservation in Kruger as much as they supposed to otherwise they will do heaps more in preventing the killing of animals by speeding employees, delivery vehicles and guests.....they should start caring more about the animals than about money, THAT'S WHAT CONSERVATION IS ALL ABOUT, NOT CARING ABOUT THE COMMUNITIES around the park, that's the goverments responsibillity :thumbs_up:

Thank You



You really aren't helping your case by plucking a number out of the sky and stating that is why you distrust SANParks. You do realise that you are now misstating (lying?) reality but that is your reason for not trusting SANParks :? .

You do realise that SANParks are about protecting the environment, not the animals? If they feel that the environment would survive by eliminating one animal species, I am sure they would do it. Heck, the previous regime was convinced this was the way to go, ruthlessly eliminating thousands of animals as they felt that this was correct.

Do you think it costs nothing to hire hundreds of new rangers to help in the fight against poaching? Where will this money come from? I do realise that money is being wasted on other "projects", but this does not change the fact that there are millions of your fellow South Africans, you know those that also "own" Kruger, that do not have enough food to eat, proper health service, proper education and a proper standard of life. While we debate the issues faced by SANParks, lets not forget the realities of life in South Africa.

If these trucks were delivering goods that will improve the lives of those on Kruger's borders, who are we to judge, in our warm and dry houses, with electricity and warm food....

P.S. Do you think you will tell the rangers out in the veld tonight, protecting your rhinos and putting their, not your, lives on the line that they are not "caring enough"? They work for SANParks, they are thus SANParks!
Study the past, if you would divine the future.
Confucius


Return to “Forum Indaba”