SANParks.org Forums

Hi Bushbuck87,

cutting some bushes doesn't mean photography comes first. And no I am not a professional photographer.
I wish it was true . I have to work hard in Holland to be able to visit Kruger.I think I pay a lot off money to visit Kruger. But that's not the issue. Just a few!!!! places in Kruger where tourist like I am can come with a little more visibility.....
Does that mean photography comes first???? No not at all, and I still haven't heard any good reason not to do so.
And offcourse the bush is for the animals but like always..... find the good balance. The bush is not the bush only for animals. Why are people building camps, hotels roads and so on through Kruger. Yes, to make it possible for visitors to visit this beautifull place, or is Kruger going to be closed...!? I don't hope so

So let's make a viewpoint a point with VIEW!
And I don't think any animal will think; 'Hey what are these guys doing with those bushes!!!???

Ruud

I am not a professional photographer and I do not care about what Sanparks policy is regarding "filming and photography", all that I am saying is that a viewpoint is a place that has been designated by SANPARKS as to be a place/point with a view, if they do not want to maintain these viewing points just leave them to become "natural" again but then stop promoting them as viewpoints

Hi ruud, thats why we have ended up with game reserves like Kruger,because man has cut a little bush here and there, build here and there and pushed wildlife in to places they had no say about.
Leave the bush as is no cut cut here and no cut cut there.

Natural.

Hi Bushbuck, I respect the way you look at it. But I don't agree with you.
I still haven't heard any good reason what the problem is to improve visibility at some places. Just say 'dont do it' is too easy. Improving visibility doesn't push wildlife into places they had no say about , as you say to me.
I hope some one can tell me why it shouldn't be done.... I can't find them

Ruud

Cut the grass.

Also being a photographer but not only because of that but i am also for keeping a viewpoint a viewpoint.
So cut some grass and if needed a bush or two

Once upon a time, SANParks in their wisdom decided it would be good idea to drill a bunch of boreholes and provide artificial drinking points all over the place. They may regret it now, but have nevertheless decided to keep a number of these waterholes open, especially along tourist roads. Some of these waterholes even have special viewing loops for the benefit of those who want to watch the animals drink. These waterholes are unnatural, and have a major impact on the surrounding environment. The (link)roads are also unnatural, and also have an impact on the environment. Compared to that, the environmental impact of judiciously removing a bush or two between road and waterhole is not even trivial, it is negligible.

Offical viewpoints should either be properly maintained, and that includes bush clearing to ensure a proper view, or else closed. That means removing signs, taking them off maps and closing any loops.

Johan

Greetings to all forumites.I have read through the various points made and must confess that I agree with some and disagree with others.

I agree that viewpoints should be kept as viewpoints and the offending bush or grass should be cut down to a reasonable height. (OK OK what is a reasonable height I hear you shouting and I would say about half a metre). Cutting the encroaching bush down to that height will certainly retard growth for some time so maintenance would be relatively low. I am sure that this would be considered user friendly and would be acceptable to all as it has a low impact on the vegetation and habitat and it will over time recover.

However when it comes to cutting swathes of bush and grass between roads and rivers then I feel that we are putting the vegetation and habitat under extreme pressure and it should be discouraged.

BUT until such time as SANParks gives us an indication of which they are going we will have to wait. But we don't want to be kept waiting too long as forumites have a habit of jumping to erroneous conclusions. So SANParks if you intend keeping the viewpoints tell us so and tell us how you intend to make them user friendly. If you do not intend keeping them then say so and back up your decision by blocking loops/roads to these viewpoints and force cartographers to remove them from maps. I can't, in my opinion, see SANParks doing away with viewpoints but they have to put some effort in with regard to bush encroachment and clearing the mess others leave behind. Remember they, the ones not respecting the property, are in the minority and in all probability are not true nature lovers or respecters of other peoples property.

Let us not reach boiling point but calm down and wait and see what SANParks proposes in connection with this problem. BUT please SANParks don't keep us waiting too long. Remember that most of the time we are on your side and reading from the same hymn sheet.

I read somewhere one of the quid pro quos for closing some of the man-made waterholes was that Sanparks would introduce extra viewpoints, and extra access roads to natural pans / watercourses. Has that started yet, or was that the low m'tce roads near Phalaborwa?

I do feel its a waste and a frustration to drive down a side-road only to find no view, or a potential view blocked by lack of care and attention to overgrown bushes.
It then means we don't stop long and re-trace the 'wasted kilometre', whereas it would be nice to simply turn the engine off and look and listen for 15 mins or so. The side road is one of the joys of KNP.

Leaving mammals aside, it is so much nicer observing birds from the peace of a good view on a side road with the engine off, away from traffic. By and large when cars join you at such viewpoints they understand the 'etiquette' is to turn the engine off.

I agree