SANParks.org Forums

Many notions of what conservation means and what conservation is (and is not) have been brought up on this board, by SANParks, and in the SA media. The terms thrown around boggle the mind: sustainable use, no use, conservation, preservation, environmentalism, commercialization strategies, etc. etc. etc.

It doesn't take long to see that people say "we all have the same goals" in regards to SA wilderness and wildlife, but in point of fact we do not. To me it all boils down to conservation vs preservation. Conservation is concerned with the managed use of nature, where preservation seeks to protect nature from use. (regulating human use vs. eliminating human impact)

To me this isn't a right and wrong distinction. I don't think it is for anybody. To be purely on the side of preservation would mean letting nature be --- no KNP trips for Stark. To be purely on the side of conservation would mean there are few off-topic ways nature could be "used". (If done in an environmentally-sensitive way -- and that definition and context changes over time)

I guess to me it comes down to protecting wilderness in rational, effective, intelligent ways that withstand the test of time. Ways that aren't at the whim of political discourse.

I know this video isn't SANParks related, but I ask you to watch. At its core this is what protecting wilderness means to me. I think many forumites will understand why my heart quickens as the Elk is bugling, or identify with the words of Edward Abbey: "The idea of wilderness needs no defense. It only needs more defenders." So what does protecting wilderness mean to you?

Very `telling` video, Stark - just about says it all. (Though I have to say, think much of SA - possibly especially large parts of the Parks - has lost or is in danger of doing so, wilderness `status`). Love the concept of man as a visitor who does not remain!

The idea of wilderness needs no defence, it only needs more defenders.

Stark thank you for that moving, gooseflesh video. I am touched and inspired by it.

Thanks Stark. Brilliant

Very special! Thanks stark

We need to find the balance between the two. In a sense we need to do both. We need to protect nature from use, but we can also use nature wise and sparingly and put back. i.e we need to chop down a tree for a house, for firewood for whatever else, but we can plant another twenty trees in its place. We can use solar power energy instead of mining for coals for electricity. There are so many other ways we can do this. i hope it makes sens.

It does, wildflowergirl. Great post. The balance long-term looks to be the sticking point. I'm sure conservation actions 10/20/100 years ago were seen as beneficial, yet we can find good and bad decisions all around us as we look back. Hindsight is 20/20. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the USA's most dedicated outdoorsman, killed THOUSANDS of African animals while on safari for the purpose of stuffing them and showing the public how majestic they are at our national museum. (The Smithsonian) Yet he was instrumental in expanding our national parks while he was president, and was a genuine lover of wild places. I admire him, and understand that he was a product of his time while also, in many ways of conservation, ahead of his time. I'm hoping the current stewards of our wild places all over the world will rise above what Roosevelt accomplished while not suffering the pitfalls of short-sighted gains.

Thanks all in regards to the video. I am proud that my nations version of SANParks made it, and it gets my blood pumping. Including a quote from passionate (radical?) environmentalist and fellow Southern Arizonan, the late Edward Abbey, was poignant. He was an interesting and controversial man, one of those people of history I'd love to have a beer with around a campfire.

Did not watch the video and will not!
Thanks anyway Stark and I understand
your outset. My reaction to the heading
of your thread,.. well maybe I can add to.

" If ever some creepy crawly or maybe just
even a mozzie crosses your path in life,
momentarily aggrevating, don't stomp your
heel into it, cause it is alive whatever you are
looking at!!!

You may be transforming a beauty into something
else!!

To adapt to a form of kill anything that aggrevates,
is a form of opening a door, to oneself,............

defensively!

Thanks, Stark...

A beautiful video Stark. As MM says, it's the stuff of Goosebumps.

As the video says, the Wilderness needs more defenders, which is where we all come in.

Nice one Stark.

Quite simply it means putting a stop to turning paradise into a three ringed circus. It means NOT developing it. It means NOT putting human needs ahead of those of the animals that conservation is supposed to protect.

It means keeping it simple and virginal the way the James Stevenson-Hamilton envisaged it so many years ago.

It's that simple.

The problem as I see it it that debate is no longer encouraged by SANPARKS as this is contrary to their "vision" of what conservation is.

Heyyy Bunnyhugger!
Lekker to check you again

Hi BH
You are actually saying to reduce the number of visitors and accommodation
(if you want it to be as James Stevenson-Hamilton envisaged)
Who is going to pay the bill and more important.
(We all know government doesnt anymore)
Are you prepared to accept that you might not be able to visit anymore?

No Bert, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that further development must be halted. I was in KNP just on a month ago and was appalled to say the least at how dirty KNP has become. It's over crowded and the Conference center at Skukuza is in my opinion, an absolute monstrosity. It is definitely one of the most hideous things I have ever seen in KNP.

EDIT:

Post censored

End EDIT.

A viable alternative in my opinion would be the privatisation of the national parks. This option though would no doubt lead to many changes which I think would ultimately benefit the reserves. This is of course merely my opinion for what it's worth.

I do not see the raping of KNP as anything short of just that. It is over crowded, mismanaged, and I think that focus shod rather be given to maintaining existing infrastructures rather than the development of new ones.

But then again, it's just my opinion. I take it this post will be seen as being of a political nature but you opened that door. I am merely responding with my take on what I see, as a tax paying resident of this country.