Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific one

Moderators: ritad, RosemaryH, lion queen, Crested Val

User avatar
Bushmom
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:35 pm
Location: Johannesburg

Re: Nature VS Humans in Kruger

Unread post by Bushmom »

If we want a completely natural habitat for animals and plants again, we will have to take all humans and all their structures away completely. Nobody is saying animal life cannot recover, but given the distribution of man, I do not think it is feasible, especially in Africa!
The world is truly round and seems to start and end with those we love...
Nelson Mandela
December '12????
1-6 May '13
User avatar
oddesy
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Randburg, SA

Re: Nature VS Humans in Kruger

Unread post by oddesy »

Yes, some systems can recover but ONLY if humans are prevented from interfering.
It is important to protect areas, providing the means for the ecosystem to regenerate in all its aspects.
Often the natural environment cannot deal with what we have thrown at it, pollution for example is something that when levels exceed what an ecosystem is capable of managing then what else can be done, leave it to itself??
NO human intervention has to happen.

A good example would be the huge ecosystem service wetlands provide, cleaning water, removing pollutants and other heavy metals which are then sequestered in the plant vegetation.
We are reducing the area of the wetlands, removing the peat, planting crops.
How Malealea do you suppose the environment can sort itself out, without intervention and an existence facing humans??

Another one, the rivers in Kruger are polluted by through a number of waste water sources, this pollutant often is collected in fine sediment and builds up in the water, without direct human intervention to cease this contamination and a number of remedial process how do you suppose that the water quality will return to acceptable levels?
Within these riverine environments there are important ecosystem balances and if one is disrupted they are all effected.
If water is polluted macro invertebrate assemblages responsible for "cutting" up plant material (they are sensitive to pollution) will decrease in number.
This will result in a reduction of water soluble nutrients and most likely an increase in those organisms which are much more tolerant of pollution such as flies and mosquitoes.
That may then lead to a number of possible outcomes where certain insect borne diseases become more prevalent.
That may not be the case, but the point is one action leads to a cascade of further reaching consequences and human intervention is needed to try and understand and right what is happening.
The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
BushFairy
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1402
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 9:51 pm
Location: Grahamstown, Eastern Cape

Re: Nature VS Humans in Kruger

Unread post by BushFairy »

I am confused as to why you need examples where human intervention has saved species??

If humans remove species from a certain area through hunting, habitat loss, reducing food sources, etc. then the species are lost from that particular system forever, UNLESS humans relocate animals from another area to replenish the stocks....

E.g. *** in KNP.
They were removed from the area by humans, they did not reappear magically, human intervention in the form of relocation from Malawi saved the species.

Malealea if species were as resilient as you say then all our species would be roaming free and we would not need national parks (set up by HUMANS) to protect them?
SANParks would not exist because animals would not need protection, they would simply adapt in a matter of decades and learn how to have 10 babies a year instead of 1....
Not possible.
Yes animals can adapt over time, but they simply cannot adapt to the challenges created by humans in the current world situation....
High population, high development, deforestation, etc.

Some examples (just found on google, there are LOTS):

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06 ... pecies.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[the main part of this article is that if humans don't intervene and bring this *** a mate, the species will be lost to this area forever, i.e. human intervention]

http://www.gov.ph/2011/02/01/conference ... te-change/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[the Philipines has based there new environmental policy on the need for human intervention to save biodiversity]

There are lots of examples. The fact that lions had to be reintroduced into the Karoo National Park is testament that human intervention is need.
The lions were not resilient enough to withstand human development many years ago so HUMANS needed to step in to save the species in the area.

I am not going to argue this point any longer.
If you want more examples, read any developing countries environmental policy.
Remember you may be used to conditions in developed countries where people do not rely on natural resources (wild animals and plants) as much as they do in developing countries.
It makes for a whole different scenario.
Humans need animals to feed themselves cheaply, thus if they are available without other humans protecting them, they will wipe them out to save themselves.
Yes this is sad, but this is also a fact, whether it be poaching to make money, killing for bush meat or whatever.
In Africa, conservation bodies are needed to save species. - E.g. take away the environmental protection (HUMANS) in central Africa and see what happens to the gorillas.
Really there are too many examples to name!
Species can adapt to natural changes but they cannot adapt to changes in the form of guns, poison, traps, etc.
If there was a way to adapt to this humans would have thought of it and there would be no more murders.

I rest my case, if you are not happy with my examples, just google it yourself, or visit the Endangered Wildlife Trust Website or WESSA or World Wildlife Fund and find some of your own!
This is essentially what these websites stand for..... T
he need for human intervention to save species....
Study nature, Love nature, Stay close to nature. It will never fail you!
User avatar
oddesy
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Randburg, SA

Re: Nature VS Humans in Kruger

Unread post by oddesy »

Malealea if species were as resilient as you say then all our species would be roaming free and we would not need national parks (set up by HUMANS) to protect them? SANParks would not exist because animals would not need protection, they would simply adapt in a matter of decades and learn how to have 10 babies a year instead of 1.... Not possible. Yes animals can adapt over time, but they simply cannot adapt to the challenges created by humans in the current world situation.... High population, high development, deforestation, etc.

:clap: :clap: Unfortunately so true!
The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
User avatar
Son godin
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:03 pm
Location: Trichardt, MP

Re: Nature VS Humans in Kruger

Unread post by Son godin »

If it was not for humans many animals and birds will not be on the endangered list today and I can add to the list other humans races that died out like the bushman that lived in the Drakensberg, due to other humans. :cry:
Contradictory to this statement I can say if it was not for humans some species will not recovery and increase again, but unfortunately it not that easy due to only a few conservation areas available and the ever increasing populations even in rural areas.

Examples are KZN. 20 Years back there was a long stretch of natural veld with no human dwelling before reaching places such as Cathedral peak or Royal National Park.
Today people live right opposite the park on the Tugela river.
Looking forward to the next trip:
Jan 2019: Karoo NP, Tankwa NP, WCNP and Namakwa NP
User avatar
Malealea
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Germany/ Greifswald

Re: Nature VS Humans in Kruger

Unread post by Malealea »

Thanks for the input, I will read it.

Exchange of animals and so on is a natural Phenomenom.
New animals come and go.
I think you are with me.
We don´t need to fence everything for protection.
I like the idea of the NP´s in Tanzania Kenya.
They did not fence everything and it works.
To avoid misunderstandings, humans does play an important role of natural protection, but still we intervene to much.
Quite often the Intervention are more worst then if we let it go.
That is a normal human behavior we want to controll everything. We can´t let go.

I believe the clash between Nature and human is already too big, we have to get used to it, that pure Nature is Utopia.
Some changes are absolutely needed some don´t.
A compromise is rarely seen.
Best examples Dams, needed for water and economy but the natural impact is huge.
Humans have the same right for area then anybody else.
But now we do have a density problem, we as a humans are simply to much.
In addition, the distribution of humans is not equal balanced, so we do have areas with little and much humans.
this causes problems as well.

But still we do have examples where humans pay the bill for misbehaving.
e.g Global change and so on.
Nature will be strong enough.
I think especially sedimentation is a good filter.
In the short run it causes changes and problems but i think, if we allow nature to deal with it, that everything will be sorted out.
life is Game, you rather play or flee. I chose to play the Game.
User avatar
Grantmissy
Legendary Virtual Ranger
Legendary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 15798
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:21 am
Location: SA

Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific one

Unread post by Grantmissy »

The scientific profiling of a typical Kruger visitor for planning purposes will probably take into account the age, gender, income, spending patterns etc, etc, etc. But how does the alternative profile of a typical present day Kruger visitor look? In my case it would include – Enjoys peace and quiet whilst in Kruger, appreciates a litter free environment, have many books (according to my perception) on Kruger and reads a lot about Kruger, resist changes to the character of Kruger and welcomes extreme action against those who disrespect the Kruger rules and regulations :D . There may be more not so scientific features to add to an alternative present day Kruger visitor profile?
“Whether it's the best of times or the worst of times, it's the only time we've got.”
User avatar
stephan groen
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:43 pm
Location: Johannesburg (Exactly 626km from Shingwedzi)

Re: Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific

Unread post by stephan groen »

I am:

1. A visitor who agrees with all the :rtm: of the park and who would like to see the :rtm: enforced.
2. There to relax
3. a visitor who enjoys the peace and quiet of nature and who cannot understand why people would go to Kruger if they do not feel the same??? :?:
"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer by the stars."
User avatar
Bush Baptist
Legendary Virtual Ranger
Legendary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:38 pm
Location: In the shadow of Table Mountain

Re: Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific

Unread post by Bush Baptist »

It is a long way to Kruger for me, so I like to maximize the time there. I can relax when I get home.

1. I get up far earlier in Kruger, to be out when the gates open.
2. I spend as much time 'out there' as I can, including birding in camp.
3. I usually get the cheaper accom so I can afford to stay there longer.
4. I expect - and get - great sightings, but have no demands.
5. Thanks to the forum I have become more rule conscious and encourage those in my party to obey them.
6. I long ago realized that Kruger is about a heck of a lot more than just the marketed, so called 'big 5', and try to enjoy as much of the variety as I can.
Whatever : "You are right but I don't want to admit it".

In a world of grey, be RED

Latest lifers: Red-rumped Swallow, Red Phalarope, Purple Gallinule, Chukar Partridge, Australasian Gannet, Brown Booby

Latest World Lifer: White tailed eagle
User avatar
Andreas_79
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:28 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific

Unread post by Andreas_79 »

It seems to me that most mites do have the same intentions and therefore a very similar profile.

To what has been said already i would like to add that i am going to KNP (and not only KNP but any nature reserve) because:

- i like beeing out in the bush and far away from the citylife
- i am a keen wildlife photographer
- the hides in KNP are fantastic
- you can always find a quite place in KNP although it is a busy park
- the diversity of animals and landscapes in KNP is just amazing
- as i am from overseas i like the special atmosphere in the African bush
- for me as a European it is always thrilling for me to see the animals in their natural habitat (and not in a zoo)
http://www.mywildlifephotos.de - Oktober 2011: new photos from my trip to Kenya and the Serengeti.
User avatar
Elsa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 40137
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: Tinley Manor Beach

Re: Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific

Unread post by Elsa »

I think we pretty much all agree on what a typical Kruger visitor as per this forum is like but I have found lately that many of the Kruger visitors that one encounters on the roads in the park are becoming more self centred and somewhat inconsiderate of others or the environment as long as they get the sighting at any cost.
Maybe its the general trend of fast paced living and it is carried over into the park instead of tuning out of the concrete jungle and into the real jungle.
I am certainly not saying it is all like that but I have noticed a shift in what I recall from years gone by.
Take time each day to be with nature
User avatar
Bush Baptist
Legendary Virtual Ranger
Legendary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:38 pm
Location: In the shadow of Table Mountain

Re: Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific

Unread post by Bush Baptist »

Good point Elsa, and not all are jeep jockeys.
Whatever : "You are right but I don't want to admit it".

In a world of grey, be RED

Latest lifers: Red-rumped Swallow, Red Phalarope, Purple Gallinule, Chukar Partridge, Australasian Gannet, Brown Booby

Latest World Lifer: White tailed eagle
User avatar
Weltenman
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:11 pm
Location: Here...there, somewhere, where's my GPS?

Re: Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific

Unread post by Weltenman »

I think this is very noticeable at especially at lion or leopard sightings. Anybody else get a disliking for lion sightings knowing it will only lead to chaos and a huge traffic jam? I would be tempted to rather look at impala on my own than sit in a traffic jam with people breaking all the rules for a lion sighting sleeping under a tree....
Study the past, if you would divine the future.
Confucius
User avatar
Grantmissy
Legendary Virtual Ranger
Legendary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 15798
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:21 am
Location: SA

Re: Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific

Unread post by Grantmissy »

Richprins wrote:
But I firmly believe all enjoy the experience immensely! :dance:
Very true Richprins! :D

Elsa wrote:I think we pretty much all agree on what a typical Kruger visitor as per this forum is like but I have found lately that many of the Kruger visitors that one encounters on the roads in the park are becoming more self centred and somewhat inconsiderate of others or the environment as long as they get the sighting at any cost.


Some visitors will even try to get as close as possible to a sighting Elsa and I think they cause a lot of stress and fear to the animals :( . They will not even move away and allow aothers also to see the animals. I think visitors should not "invade" the space of the animals or think they have the exclusive right to a sigthting. Other people should also get a chance, from a distance that allows the animals their own "saftey space" I believe. :thumbs_up:
“Whether it's the best of times or the worst of times, it's the only time we've got.”
User avatar
Bundu_SA_Guy
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:00 pm
Location: Too blerry far from Kruger

Re: Present day Kruger visitor profile – not the scientific

Unread post by Bundu_SA_Guy »

My Profile:

Don't care if I don't see a thing .. as long as I am in Kruger I am in heaven, I can drive all day and just take in the beauty of this magnificent park.

At night I enjoy sitting round the campfire and watching the stars and listening to the sounds of the bush.

A bush breakfast is also a must, to be out as early as possible and drive to one of the more quieter picnic spots and enjoy a breakfast out in th open wilderness.

Oh how my heart pines to be in Kruger ....
Stress levels are rising ... need a Kruger fix
Locked