SANParks.org Forums

I have been shot down for trying this line at least 20 times in the last 3 years ...
I started a thread "Need Sanparks be Self Funding ?" under Indaba around 18 months ago, the howls of protest caused me to wonder if there were more than 10 sensible answers .
So with the dinghy trip thread, I thought what about a lower impact activity, seeing hundreds of safari vehicles aren't a problem, as are expansions to just about every imaginable form of tourist infrastructure .

I was told that Kruger must pay for itself, I am selfish even thinking that one could deny the right of as many people as desired to enter the park no matter what the effect on the ecology, that the many km of private roads on each concession is not a serious threat to the ecology
Then Sanparks proposes building a hotel (one of 7) on the periphery .

Agreed , microlight flights are a bit over the top, but I thought the same when I saw the amount of open safari vehicles in KNP , raping the sense of place while a few make a few bucks on the side .

I am glad there is another sensible one around Oryx , lets see the reaction .

Pleaaaaaaaaaaase don't.
There are many other rivers where the excess adreniline or adventure seeking energy can be used up, outside the KNP.
Just imagine sitting at the tranquil riverside in your vehicle quietly watching animals coming down to drink and listening to the birdsong and then all of a sudden all goes quiet and the animals turn around and flee, and then what appears - some intruders in their domicile floating down the river on a dinghy. No please, never.

Just what I thought when I saw the changes starting back around 15 years ago .

I would hope they would do it out of sight of the public .

Here's an article written by Ian Player, a very well respected conservationist, explaining the 'thin edge' principle. The article was written in 1980!!

Why I don’t allow lamps
On trail when night falls I am often asked “Why don’t you have any lamps?” and I tell the following story.
This is a wilderness area.
It is our job to try to keep it as wild and primitive as possible – hard work in this twentieth century where the battle cry of humanity is development.
Now if I allowed a storm lantern in the camp it would mean having to carry paraffin in every time we came. People would soon become irritated and ask why a drum could not be brought to the camp.
So a 44 gallon drum would be rolled down the river and everyone would be happy for a while.
But when it was empty another one would have to be brought and people would say, “How silly it is to roll it down the river, why don’t you construct a small road, just a track, and bring it in by vehicle.”
So this would be the next step.
Then someone would ask, “These storm lanterns don’t give much light and seeing there is ample paraffin why don’t you have a little engine, with just enough horsepower to light six electric bulbs?”
So an engine – only a little one – would be brought in and there would be more light in the camp.
Before long another person would say, “It seems so silly sitting on logs around the campfire, what harm would a few deck chairs do, as long as they were green and fitted in with the environment.
We would be able to read in comfort late into the night and not have any of this keeping watch alone.
And we could have a guitar and sing songs around the fire.
It would help to drown out the noises of the lion and the rhino – which can be jolly frightening.”
Later, someone would say, “Only bringing seven people on trail is a bit mean.
Why don’t you double the number and all those who can’t walk too well could be brought by vehicle, along the little dirt road, offloaded a hundred metres from the camp so they have to walk the last bit and be in keeping with the wilderness atmosphere.”
The pace starts to quicken.
“You can’t have people going behind trees and bushes; it’s very unhygienic and also the thorns scratch which makes it uncomfortable.
Why not a little pit drop latrine with a wooden seat to fit into the environment?”
So a lavatory is erected.
Soon there would be complaints about the smell and a nice red brick building would arise in the bush, plastic seats, white walls and waterborne sewage.
“Well, seeing that we have a lavatory,” a newcomer would say, “why on earth do we have to sleep on the hard ground, with smoke blowing in our faces and all those ants and other nunus (insects) running over us in the night.
It’s dangerous, snakes could come too, why can’t just two little rondavels be built, one for the men and one for the women.
Very simple in style with camp beds and some nice rugs to add colour to the drab bush.
A radio and gramophone should be installed because people are getting tired of guitar music and songs around the campfire.
Now, there should be no television set, that really would be carrying things a bit far.”
Years pass and there is big camp with restaurants, supermarket, and swimming pool.
It boasts of sleeping a thousand people a night and tarred roads have been constructed so no one is bothered by dust.
Now comes the final act.
Someone says the camp is too big and sprawling, and it costs a lot of money to maintain.
Buildings should go upwards and not be spread around.
So plans are drawn up and no thought is given to the birds and the animals and the wilderness atmosphere.
At last the big announcement and headlines in newspapers:
a 40 storey building is to be built and in order that it should be in keeping with the wild atmosphere it will have a thatched roof to preserve the rustic appearance.
This, I explain, is the reason for not allowing lamps.

It seems no-one at Sanparks who handles tourism understands this doctrine .

Dr. Ian Player was indeed a wise man.

There were many others as well, many of them wore khakis displaying green epaulettes on their shirts some with NATAL PARKS in gold lettering, others again very proudly had KRUGER NATIONAL PARK in gold lettering with the emblem of a Kudu head and if I am not mistaken with a motto underneath something like CUSTOS NATURAE also in gold lettering on theirs.

None of them were were paid very well but boy were they dedicated.

You think he would have approved or disapproved of canoeing in Kruger?

I knew Ian Player quite well (I was a Game Ranger with the Natal Parks Board for many years) and I can assure you this would never have been allowed in any Natal Park while there was a breath in his body. Canoeing the Duzi cannot be compared to dinghy trips down Kruger's major rivers.
Read his doctrine again and then ask the question

Ndloti, I have admiration and respect for your love for nature.
I understand and empathize with your need to enjoy nature in pristine condition / away from the masses.

I am fully aware of all the developments that have taken place in our Parks - for the enjoyment and benefit of tourists - in which I gladly participated until I joined the Forum and had insight re the other side of the coin (pun intended).

I have definitely been touched by the wilderness, and would definitely like to leave it as untouched as possible.
No matter how small the impact... impact is impact is impact.
And seeing what doc Player has said, I do think it will not remain the pleasures of a few elite per year in a secluded spot - Can we really afford to sacrifice more in lieu of Mother Nature and her inhabitants?

So my answer remains exactly the same it was in May of this year...
Remember that two wrongs (hotels and other developments) don't make a right.

Its a complex one this with quite a few factors for and against as mentioned.
There must be some great possible sections in the north and the south.
The biggest problem in my view would be seasonal predictability of water levels in that part of the world. Fluctuating water levels change the river a lot.
They also change the speed of a trip radically.
A bare-bones low water day section could take all day and be really hard work to navigate .
The same day section could take you a couple hours at high water.
And that changes the trip a lot.
One would probably not be able to book too long in advance.

Overall I am in favour of the idea because if numbers and the rules of the trip are strictly enforced then I don't believe that a few people in a couple of rafts will have anywhere near the impact on the river or the ecosystem than has already been inflicted on it upstream of the park.
And some of the best birding one can ever hope to experience can be had drifting silently down a river.
It takes calm to a whole new dimension when you include water

It gets my vote only if.....

1--A very limited number on a shortish day trip length section only.
Def no overnight trails.

2-- Only if the section was very carefully chosen to ensure that safety on the water was not a concern. Basically not a whitewater trip so grade 1 and 2 rapids only making safety much less of a factor.
Higher grade rapids would complicate it a lot ITO safety setups.

3--Only a section where a low impact lunch spot could be placed with ablutions.

4-- A section also needs to be chosen where if the need arose for someone to have to leave the boat outside of the put-in, the lunch spot or the take out point, that it might be possible to do this.
Emergency toilet breaks do happen.
Toilet paper doesn't burn properly either and is really unsightly and transporting a chemical toilet on a day trip might not be practical or desirable.
This needs to be considered too

5-- ONLY two or three 5 or 6 man rafts with a guide in each.
And a do-able section for those width of raft. No 2 seater fibre glass mohawks or 2 seater croc inflatables.
It leaves too much for the individual inexperienced day tripper to do sometimes resulting in a very spread out group.
This is highly undesirable especially in a wilderness area or when you're on a schedule.
Also sometimes your iron-men wannabees are all constantly chomping at the bit at the front and people who are battling or not as strong are doing donuts the whole way down the river at the back.
If you're in a 5 or 6 man raft with a guide it evens things out .

This might very well become a reality.

I see SANPARKS are looking for tenders to operate canoe trips in the Addo Elephant Park. It's planned to offer 2,3,4 night trips.

If it can happen there, then why not Kruger?

Ndloti, start putting a proposal together!!

And you can add to the canoe trips as well, and really go full tilt at screwing up the environment (just stirring), by doing the following(extracted from the Tender):

The successful operator will be encouraged to diversify their product and offer
guests a range of complimentary alternative products. These are not
prescribed, but could include:
o Hiking
o Mountain biking
o Abseiling
o 4x4
o Canopy/cliff touring
o Horse riding (although the complications of keeping horses in the area
would need to be addressed)
o Game viewing and tracking (A black rhino camp is located fairly close
to the concession)

Yes BH, as I have mentioned in another thread, this increase in activities or so-called adventure- tourism is steadily building up and will, in my opinion, become a threat to the sense of place similar to what other types of tourism have become in many ways. It is just a matter of time. Can we do anything about it, I don`t know anymore.

Am tending to agree with you Oryx. Where does it end?
There are plenty of other places to paddle, abseil, ride horses etc. Why do those activities have to be presented in a Sanpark, where it pushed back the only 'untouched' frontier left?

There's another thread for all of this, so I won't say any more here.

See under Indaba thread "Another Step Forward ..."