Skip to content

SANParks.org Forums

View unanswered posts | View active topics






Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: HUMAN PRESENCE IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:34 am 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 2576
Location: VEREENIGING
Additions to the Park 1946 to 1960 Part 3.

Mrs. Orpen’s donation of farms to the KRUGER PARK had resulted in Hartebeesfontein being the only privately owned land within the Park.

The Dept of Lands approached the owner Dr. JNW Laubscher in 1951 with the intention of purchasing his farm. Dr. Laubscher initially refused to sell, saying that he was already in his 70s and derived a lot of pleasure and benefit from his farm.

The Board was keen to straighten the western boundary, before the planned fencing of the Park’s perimeter took place. As a result the Board was prepared to forfeit certain farms, including Knaboomkop, Zeekoegat, and portions of Middelin, Batavia, Diepkloof, Klaserie-mond and Vereeniging, in order to acquire Swartkop, Peru and Hartebeesfontein. Knaboomkop, Zeekoegat and a portion of Vereeniging were exchanged for Swartkop in 1959.

Dr. Laubscher offered to sell Hartebeesfontein in 1959 to Government and it was then added to the Park.

Subsequently the western half of Batavia was exchanged for the eastern wedge of the farm Addger, between Sikkelhoutkloof and Red Gorten.

Initially the KRUGER PARK authorities to this exchange because they wanted to retain Batavia intact for the sake of the last herd of Roan Antelope remaining in the area. However the only other land suitable for possible exchange, the elongated section of Middelin, could not be considered as it no longer be suitable for exchange if the farm Albatross belonging to Mr. O Pirow and Dr. A Schoch were to be added to the Park in the near future, and the available portions of the farms Diepkloof and Klaserie-mond had to be kept in reserve for exchange for the farm Peru.

Here below is a copy of the map of the farms mentioned above as well as those donated by Mrs. Eileen Orpen.

Image

As well as a copy of a map indicating how many farms there were in the area during in 1918.

Image

_________________
I participate because I care - CUSTOS NATURAE
No to Hotels in and commercialization of our National Parks.
No to Legalized Rhino and Lion trade.
Done 144 visits to National Parks.
What a wonderful privilege.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HUMAN PRESENCE IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:16 am 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 2576
Location: VEREENIGING
Additions to the Park 1960 to 1970.

A number of additions and excisions were made during this period, primarily along the western boundary in the Central District and along the south western boundary in the Southern District.

An area of 1722 morgen was excised from the Park during 1960/1961 from the south-western corner of the Park, immediately to the west of the Nsikazi River in the Sigambu Block. This was done to facilitate the building of a new main road through the area by the TPA.

In 1964 an area along the western boundary, immediately to the north of the Olifants River, was exchanged with the Phalaborwa Mining Company for the farm Peru, approximately 4000 morgen in size, as the farm jutted into the KRUGER PARK along the western boundary of the Kingfisherspruit Section, its incorporation into the Park straightened the boundary area. Fences were erected in 1965 to finalise the exchange.

A portion of the Park west of the Nsikazi River was deproclaimed to allow a railway line to be built through that area. Negotiations with the Dept of Bantu Administration and Development resulted in the decision that portions of the Park to the west of the new railway line would be deproclaimed and added to the adjoining homelands, while areas to the east of the line would become part of the Park.

In terms of the agreement 880 morgen to the west of the Nsikazi River in the Sigambu Block went to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development as did an area of 4189 morgen to the north of Numbi Gate, which included Numbi Hill.

The area acquired by the Board from the exchange was 3160 morgen to the immediate north of Numbi Gate – the net loss to the Park was 1909 morgen.

Three changes were made to straighten the western boundary in the Central District during 1960/1961. The purpose was to save fencing costs and to facilitate better management. The farm Addger 105 which was approximately 2000 morgen in extent was purchased by the Government two areas were excised – the spear shaped portion of Middelin 202 (490morgen) and Diepkloof 91 (1328 morgen) to the south-east of the Olifants River, which is also shown on the previous map.

The exchange of 23572 morgen of KRUGER PARK land along the western boundary (Nthlaveni) of the Shangoni Section for an equal-sized area between the Levhuvu and Limpopo Rivers, known as Makuleke’s kraal, was officially made in 1968. The fence was erected and the inhabitants of Makuleke’s kraal settled on their new land.

This exchange was on a hectare for hectare basis, the reasons below made sense to both parties:

There was limited infrastructure in the Pafuri area e.g. Proper roads, clinics, shops and schools.

Average rainfall in new Shangoni area was higher – 550 mm to the 400 mm of Pafuri.

The soil was more fertile.

Due to foot and mouth disease restrictions no cattle could be owned in the Makuleke area (only donkeys) since early 1930s.

Large parts of the Levhuvu’s lower reaches were regularly inundated by floods when the Levhuvu dammed against the full Limpopo River.

Temperatures at Nthlaveni are much milder than in the Limpopo Valley.

Elephants regularly raided the little crops they managed to grow, (the elephants were mainly from Rhodesia – few from the KRUGER PARK).

From a Conservation point of view this exchange also made good sense because of the habitat and rich plant diversity and spectacular views and vistas and from a Security point of view it was also favourable as both the River Banks could now be patrolled.

Although the fencing of the boundaries went slow it was seen as a long cherished ideal that was materialising. It was regarded as one of the most impressive steps ever in the protection and control of the wildlife populations, the curtailment of poaching and the preservation of the rare animal species.

The fences were mainly barbed wire strands and did not prove to be game-proof. Numerous negative implications were noted:

Where the fences cut through traditional migratory routes of the larger animals it could not be considered a game deterrent as was intended, strengthening the fence with cables would make it game proof.

Many animals with thin hides were injured while trying to crawl through the barbed-wire fence.

The fence formed an unnatural barrier against which fleeing animals could be forced against during a flood or veld fire.

Large numbers of carnivores had been fenced out which upset the predator/prey relationship, especially in areas with a high predator density.

The numbers of certain rare species were severely reduced by the fence – in the south-western corner of the Malelane Section almost the entire area inhabited by Red Duiker, west of Boulders was fenced off. The only known population of Roan Antelope in the Central District in the Batavia area was fenced out – this was serious loss.

The maintenance of firebreaks along the fence was very costly to the Board.

However it was believed that negative effects were by far outweighed by the advantages. It was also stated that:

A time that may have seemed impossible, is already foreseen, when the fauna in the veld will only find sanctuary in National Parks and Protected areas. It must however be borne in mind that even National parks are not inviolate, and where confrontations along the boundaries with agricultural and human expansion pressure and other established interests are inevitable, an d in view of developments, there will be increasing pressure to eliminate the source of irritation.

The fencing of the western boundary was of veterinary concern , it provided a barrier curtailing the spread of contagious diseases such as Foot and Mouth, Swine fever, Corridor disease, Malignant catarrhal disease – which are endemic to wild animals to domestic stock to the west and south of the Park.

_________________
I participate because I care - CUSTOS NATURAE
No to Hotels in and commercialization of our National Parks.
No to Legalized Rhino and Lion trade.
Done 144 visits to National Parks.
What a wonderful privilege.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HUMAN PRESENCE IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:18 am 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 2576
Location: VEREENIGING
Land Negotiations 1970 to 1985.

No land was added to the Park during this period.

It was announced that the successful transfer of some land from the Dept of Bantu Administration and Development in the area between the Sabie River and the new Kruger Gate, this 2800 ha was still owed to the Park from previous land exchanges.

Despite the promised land in 1974 there was a change of heart and at the 1975 Board Meeting a letter from the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in which it was stated that the requested land would not be transferred to the Board. Instead an offer was made to acquire the Riemvasmaak area for te Aughrabies Falls National Park and “… the triangle of marshes along the Limpopo west of Pafuri” for the KRUGER NATIONAL PARK.

Dr. Rocco Knobel the Director of the National Parks Board remarked that although he had not withdrawn the Board’s request for the land along the Sabie River “… the two pieces of land offered at Aughrabies and Pafuri are from a Nature Conservation point of view much more valuable than the land near Skukuza.”

At the November 1978 Board meeting it was brought to the Board’s attention that the Venda Homeland was expected to obtain its in the independence in the latter half of 1979 and by international law, the boundary along the Levhuvu River would no longer be the high- water level on the northern side, but in the centre of the river instead, despite the Board’s objections the new boundary was enforced at Venda’s independence in 1979.

_________________
I participate because I care - CUSTOS NATURAE
No to Hotels in and commercialization of our National Parks.
No to Legalized Rhino and Lion trade.
Done 144 visits to National Parks.
What a wonderful privilege.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HUMAN PRESENCE IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:19 am 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 2576
Location: VEREENIGING
Additions and Excisions to the Park 1985 to 1994.

Several significant additions were made during this period, the land area available to the traditional migratory routes of Zebra and Blue Wildebeest was greatly increased by the dropping of fences between KRUGER and four major neighbouring private Game Reserves – Umbabat, Sabi Sand, Klaserie and Timbavati.

The land expropriated from Chief Mdluli in 1968 was returned to him.

Mr. Hans Hoheisen donated his wildlife estate to the SA NATURE FOUNDATION in August 1989. The property consisted of four farms Kempiana (3960 ha), Lilliydale (3921 ha, Spring Valley (3839 ha) and a portion of Morgenzon (2113 ha). These properties adjoined the land previously donated to KRUGER by Mrs. Eileen Orpen.

Dr. Pienaar responded do the donation by saying “… we are confident that once the fence between our respective lands is removed, your block of farms will not only make a significant contribution to our greatest and most prestigious National Park, but the additional traditional summer grazing will be of immense benefit to the animal population of the area, and will re-establish age-old migration patterns which were disrupted by the boundary fence.”

The Hoheisen property was transferred to the Foundation on 12 January 1990 and placed under the custodianship of the KRUGER PARK. The Park also took over the running of the Ngala Lodge situated on a small portion of the farm Vlakgezicht in October 1991.

The Lodge was revamped and reopened under the Conservation Corporation banner on 10 October 1992, the environmental management matters remained the responsibility of KRUGER PARK.

The fences with this donation as well as those with the previously mentioned private reserve were removed in March 1993; the entire fence between Orpen Gate and the Olifants River was dismantled.

Dr. Robinson then the Chief Director of the National Parks Board commented that this was the first step towards the formation of Transfrontier National Parks. ”Should the project come to fruition, it could incorporate different managerial models, in one ecological entity and be a world example of regional co-operation and environmental rehabilitation, to the benefit of both man and the natural environment. Ecological processes could be reinstated on a mammoth scale and the threatened Elephant populations could be afforded a sustainable future, unhindered by political and artificial national boundaries.

The potential for wealth creation and benefits for the natural communities were also emphasized.

_________________
I participate because I care - CUSTOS NATURAE
No to Hotels in and commercialization of our National Parks.
No to Legalized Rhino and Lion trade.
Done 144 visits to National Parks.
What a wonderful privilege.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HUMAN PRESENCE IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:21 am 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 2576
Location: VEREENIGING
Three other Land incidents.

After a series of meetings with Chief Mdluli held in 1994, regarding the return of his land which had been incorporated into the KRUGER PARK with the 1968 construction of the railway line Dr. Salomon Joubert recommended that there was sufficient evidence, on both moral and ethical grounds, for his claim for the return of his land to be granted.

Although land to the north of Numbi had been cut out of the Park with the laying of the railway line, it fell outside of Chief Mdluli’s area of jurisdiction and was not part of his land claim.

The recommendation was accepted and returned to Chief Mdluli.

Dr. Pienaar approached the Dept of Defence in 1975 requesting that the Nyavadi Pan, on the north-western border of the Park, be incorporated into the KRUGER PARK.

The pan was a unique waterbird habitat and the only site in te Park surroundings where breeding pairs of Open Billed storks could be found. The request was turned down on the grounds that the land belonged to the Republic of Venda.

The possibility of incorporating the Nyavadi Pan into the Park was again broached with the SADF in 1988. Although sympathetically received the request was again turned down. Alternatives, such as the SADF themselves turning the area into a Nature Reserve and reaching some form of contractual agreement with the Board ultimately came to nothing.

During the 1980s it became apparent that the Tshikondeni Mine just north of the Pafuri entrance Gate were spreading their activities towards the Levhuvu River and that additional shafts would be sunk for easier extraction of ore.

Fears arose that these developments could impact negatively on the underground water resources, and consequentially on the springs south of the Levhuvu.

There would also be a visual impact on the Nyalaland Trails Camp.

To address these gears the Tshikondeni Mine management invited researchers from KRUGER to evaluate the situation.

A team from the Park visited the area in October 1993, to investigate specific problems related to the expected expansion of mining activities into the Makuya area.


The mine’s adherence to the EIA done by the firm Plankonsult.

The ensuing report mentioned that several springs

Which occurred in the extreme northern areas of the Park made an important contribution to the biodiversity of the area, and represented mineral aquatic ecosystems of considerable scientific value.

Furthermore the water from some of these springs was luke-warm possibly that it was of meteoric origins at great depths and therefore flowed through the layers mined for coking coal.

It was also pointed out that the distribution of the springs suggested that several could be fed from the same source between the Mikambeni and Madzaringwe geological formations, and that any impact on the source would therefore have a detrimental effect on all of them.

It was recommended that an independent, detailed geohydrological study be undertaken, and that the mining activities be adapted to avoid damaging the springs.

With reference to the aesthetical aspects of additional shafts in the Makuya conservation area, it was recommended that an EIA of the Makuya area be undertaken. This was done to avoid spoiling the Nyalaland Trails Camp and the hunting camp in the Makuya area.

The study pointed out that the mining activities could have impact on the quality of the Levhuvu River water as well as the entire al the entire spectrum of biota in the region.

To address the possible effects, it was recommended that a comprehensive decommissioning plan be drawn up for the mine and a detailed EIA to determine the effect of sagging close to the river due to mining activities.

At the conclusion of their investigation it was found “… the Tshikondeni Mine, in general, maintained a positive attitude to environmental conservation, that they were sensitive to the impact their activities could have on the environment and that they attempted to adhere to the prescriptions of the original EIA of 1984.

In 1994 a report was received from the Wildlife and Environmental society of Southern Africa regarding suspected irregularities committed by the Tshikondeni Mine in the Makuya conservation area. However a meeting of all parties involved revealed that the accusations were unfounded.

A firm commitment was again made by Iscor to give its full co-operation to all parties involved.

_________________
I participate because I care - CUSTOS NATURAE
No to Hotels in and commercialization of our National Parks.
No to Legalized Rhino and Lion trade.
Done 144 visits to National Parks.
What a wonderful privilege.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HUMAN PRESENCE IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:22 am 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 2576
Location: VEREENIGING
Transfrontier Park.

The idea of establishing some form of integrated cross-border conservation area between the KRUGER NATIONAL PARK and neighbouring Mozambique and/or Zimbabwe was raised on different occasions throughout the history of the Park. Though attempts during the late 1920s and the Dongola Transfrontier National Park promoted by Genl. JC Smuts in the 1940s showed some promise at the time, it never came to fruition.

The idea of cross-border co-operation between the KRUGER PARK and Mozambique again gained momentum during the 1980s. and eventually reached a point where “… the National Parks Board has become aware of, and increasingly concerned by, proposals from South African developers who have among others obtained concessions to develop wildlife parks, game ranches or safari hunting areas adjacent to the KRUGER NATIONAL PARK.

Virtually all these proposals have assumed full co-operation of the National Parks Board to advance their schemes by dropping the boundary fence between the KRUGER NATIONAL PARK and Mozambique.

To address the concerns, a Working Group with representation by Mozambique and South Africa was established in April 1970. Dr. JM Erasmus of the Sub-Committee for Natural Resources of the Commission for Economic Co-operation between South Africa and Mozambique was appointed Chairman.

The Working Group was co-chaired by Mr. Abdul Adamo, National Director of Forestry and Wildlife in Mozambique and Dr. Salomon Joubert, Park Warden of KRUGER PARK.

Great impetus was given by the personal involvement of Dr. Anton Rupert; this included a meeting with President Chissano of Mozambique in May 1990.

Subsequent meetings wee held between representatives of the Mozambican Government, the National Parks Board, the South African Nature Foundation (SANF) and the Working Group, led to the appointment of Dr. Ken Tinley to prepare a preliminary report on the scope and feasibility of the project.

The KRUGER PARK offered the services of Research Staff for initial inventory surveys, and the use of its facilities for training purposes.

The initial objective was to link the KRUGER PARK with the BANHINE NATIONAL PARK in Mozambique. A Geographical Information System presentation of the project was prepared by Dr. Tinley and Professor Willem v/d Riet by August 1991.

From the outset it was clear that the project would not involve conventional nature conservation practices only, but would also make provision for other forms of conservation-based land use and recreation.

The involvement of local communities was of prime importance.

As the project gained momentum, the possibility of incorporating the GHONA-RE ZOU NATIONAL PARK in Zimbabwe was also considered. This possibility enjoyed the support of the Chairman of the Zimbabwe Parks Board – Professor Murphree and its Director, Dr. Nduku.

These negotiations were still in progress by the end of 1994.

_________________
I participate because I care - CUSTOS NATURAE
No to Hotels in and commercialization of our National Parks.
No to Legalized Rhino and Lion trade.
Done 144 visits to National Parks.
What a wonderful privilege.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HUMAN PRESENCE IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
Unread postPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:08 am
Posts: 164
Location: P-town
Thanx :thumbs_up:

_________________
Mel@nie

[b]Unforgettable Adventures and Memories . . . . Metsi Metsi - March 2011[/b]
[url]http://www.sanparks.org/forums/viewtopic.php?style=2&f=27&t=51559[/url]

27.12 - 31.12 (Shingwedzi)
01.01 (Tamboti)
02.01 - 03.01 (L.Sabie)
04.01 - 08.01 (Pretoriuskop)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

Webcams Highlights

Addo Nossob Orpen Satara
Addo Nossob Orpen Satara
Submitted by Lukej at 21:03:07 Submitted by RonelMentz at 21:58:10 Submitted by sarafl at 20:21:57 Submitted by haileyidaho at 23:42:52