Page 1 of 8
Thoughts on the new Sanparks Vision & Mission statements
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:28 pm
by serval
Re: Thoughts on the new Sanparks Vision & Mission statements
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:29 pm
by Lisbeth
Here it is
http://www.sanparks.org/forums/viewtopi ... 4&start=15
Posted by Lesego il 28.11.2011
TRANSFORMATION OF NATIONAL PARKS CAN CREATE A BETTER SOUTH AFRICA:
Speech by Dr. David Mabunda (synopsis)
It is approximately 139 years since the first national park in the world was established. the reasons for establishing national parks have evolved from protecting wildlands, and wildlife to protecting biological forms, promoting socio-economic development and patriotism. Revolutionary changes similar to those that ushered in political changes from Julius Ceaser's crossing of the Rubicon, the French Revolution and the Arab Spring Uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, are sweeping across the conservation sector. As we speak the world is gathered in Durban for COP 17 of the United Nations framework on Climate Change (UNFCC) to find solutions to a growing global warming problem which has increased temperatures to unsustainable levels. Thanks again to our peaceful revolution in 1994 that today South Africa id part of the global village playing a leading role in global events such as COP 17 to secure a sustainable future for our planet. Change is inevitable. ..
(Thulani has posted the next chapter)
Unfortunately environmental matters in the new South Africa are still steeped in the context of the previous racial stratification. Through a well crafted apartheid system environmental policies, practices, repressive management approaches and models of service-delivery succeeded in alienating Black people from enjoying access and benefits accruing from the country's natural capital, including wildlife viewing. This exclusion by design, of the majority of our population, has bred a deep-seated resentment and bitterness towards national parks and conservation in general and it will take another "long walk to freedom" to normalise the situation in the future. National parks were and still are perceived as a playground for the elite and changing this negative public image is like climbing a greasy pole on a hot summer day. However difficult it may seem change is inevitable.
...As we celebrate the hosting of COP 17, tonight's winners of both the Chief Executive Officer's Award and the Kudu Awards we should be thinking of the meaning of these new words and how they affect us individually and as a proud family of the national parks of South Africa. Congratulations to everyone who will be ascending the podium tonight and may you continue to contribute to conservation in the country in a meaningful and significant way by helping each of us to discover our personal connection to this - our national heritage..
Does not promise anything good for the future and the race card being played once again
Re: Thoughts on the new Sanparks Vision & Mission statements
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:30 pm
by leachy
from the above speech.........
"racial stratification"....... what on earth might the meaning of this be ?? according to our esteemed friends from oxford, stratification means "form into ss"
"National parks were and still are perceived as a playground for the elite".......from what i can see.......sanparks are pricing their way directly towards an elite section of the population......so why blame anyone else ????
Re: Thoughts on the new Sanparks Vision & Mission statements
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:37 pm
by Lisbeth
Peter Betts wrote:..what this slanted report didnt mention that the fabulously wealthy black population arent really keen to go to Kruger..and would rather go to the beachfront in DBN, Plett and go overseas etc...and the author of that report has a Doctorate in Tourism..aint got a clue
Lisbeth wrote:The change in mission is even more worrying :(
Stark wrote:Interesting change to the Vision and Mission statements.
Used to be:
Vision: National parks will be the pride and joy of all South Africans and of the world.
Mission: To develop and manage a system of national parks that represents the biodiversity, landscapes, and associated heritage assets of South Africa for the sustainable use and benefit of all.
and now is
Vision: South African National Parks connecting society.
Mission: To develop, manage and promote a system of National Parks that represent biodiversity and heritage assets by applying best practice, environmental justice, benefit-sharing and substantial use.
I used to ask how certain strategic initiatives laddered up to the V&M statements of SANParks. Its a moot point now.
iNdlovu wrote:Dr Mabunda, please take a deep breath and give your head a shake. You are so keen to turn the whole topic of commercialization in our parks into a racial thing because that way you will be sure of calling up the masses.
The whole point is that we would love to have all forms and sectors of society in our parks, be they green, yellow pink or blank, but we would like them to be there to enjoy the experience of nature, game viewing, the solitude, piece and quiet and behaving in a way that doesn't interfere with others doing what our parks were intended for. Unfortunately your hotels, discos, casinos and whatever else you invisage should be in a 'resort' just doesn't go along with that idea. I notice that according to you, your mandate has changed 'to protecting biological forms, promoting socio-economic development and patriotism'. Since when can you, just like any other citizen, unilatorally change the laws of this country. I don't recall anything being changed in what is expected of you and SanParks, neither what is written in your legal mandate.
Please sir, take a look at the countries around us (there is really no need to go traipsing off to the US unless you felt like a good holiday), show me one park in Botswana, Namibia, even Swaziland, Zimbabwe or Zambia where the majority of the population are clamoring to visit, I just don't get it, unless you think that we South Africans are soo different to the populations in those countries.
Please note, I am not making an accusation or a statement, it is a question. Is the commercialisation plans and schemes for our National Parks not more about the tender procedures than about conservation? Have not the tender procedures within government and agencies become the new 'money game'. I sincerely hope the answer is "No"
Richprins wrote:The "law" is on Sanparks' side now, unfortunately. They may decide on any commercial ventures, and then request ministerial approval to rubber stamp.
However, Parliament as a whole is watching!
iNdlovu wrote:Somehow that doesn't give me a lot of confidence RP....the parliament thing
Richprins wrote:The Parliamentary standing committee is watching! That's why the hotels were postponed!
Re: Thoughts on the new Sanparks Vision & Mission statements
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:37 pm
by Lisbeth
The integral speech:
SPEECH Presented by SANParks CEO, Dr David Mabunda at the annual Kudu Awards
Ceremony held in Skukuza, Kruger National Park on 28 November 2011
TRANSFORMATION OF NATIONAL PARKS CAN CREATE A BETTER SOUTH AFRICA
It is approximately 139 years since the first national park in the world was established. The
reasons for establishing national parks have evolved from protecting wildlands, and wildlife
to protecting biological life forms, promoting socio‐economic development and patriotism.
Revolutionary changes similar to those that ushered in political changes from Julius Caesar’s
crossing of the Rubicon, the French Revolution and the Arab Spring Uprisings in the Middle
East and North Africa, are sweeping across the conservation sector. As we speak the world
is gathered in Durban for COP 17 of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change
(UNFCC) to find solutions to a growing global warming problem which has increased
temperatures to unsustainable levels. Thanks again to our own peaceful revolution in 1994
that today South Africa is part of the global village playing a leading role in global events
such as COP 17 to secure a sustainable future for our planet. Change is inevitable.
Unfortunately environmental matters in the new South Africa are still steeped in the context
of the previous racial stratification. Through a well crafted apartheid system environmental
policies, practices, repressive management approaches and models of service‐delivery
succeeded in alienating Black people from enjoying access and benefits accruing from the
country’s natural capital, including wildlife viewing. This exclusion by design, of the majority
of our population, has bred a deep‐seated resentment and bitterness towards national
parks and conservation in general and it will take another “long walk to freedom” to
normalize the situation in future. National Parks were and still are perceived as a playground
for the elite and changing this negative public image is like climbing a greasy pole on a hot
summer day. However difficult as it may seem, change is inevitable
We must begin mobilising support for national parks from the broad mainstream of society
– from the squatter camps of our townships, deep rural villages from Venda to the Transkei,
to the leafy suburbs of our towns and cities. Public proprietorship or support for national
parks in South Africa remain skewed in favour of those who enjoyed them previously.
People living in townships and rural areas are still excluded (by financial means and
attitudes) and attempts to bring these folks on board continue to be opposed by the same
anti‐transformation lobby. If national parks are to become a mirror of our society’s
environmental values and vigorous symbols along with the national flag, the national
anthem, the coat of arms and the Union Buildings, then they ought to reflect the
demographics of our new nation in all respects. The roar of the Kruger lion, the iconic view
of Table Mountain, the night call of the jackal at Mokala, the ancient graves of the Balemba
people on Mapungubwe Hill, the Nama vastrap of the Richtersveldt people, the red sand
dunes of the Kgalagadi and the trumpet of the Addo elephant ought to evoke a love of our
country for its intrinsic values and to define our patriotism.
It will be an unforgivable mistake if we were to accept the sickening tendency by a handful
of ‘old‐school’ conservationists appointing themselves as agents of positive societal change.
They continue to campaign for the retention of past policies and privileges as they were
over the last 100 years. That campaign will not succeed in a democratic society. As society
changes we too must change. We have taken a long hard look at ourselves as new
conservation leaders and practitioners and decided to reinvent our organization into a
modern institution that is more adaptive and innovative. This is in order to better respond
to the challenges we face in our Second Century of existence. Our Board has debated and
eventually adopted a new vision and mission “to connect our national parks to society”.
[South African National Parks Connecting to Society]
The new vision is an attempt to address the deep concern that we see playing itself out in
the open where national parks in particular are becoming irrelevant to a society whose
majority is disconnected from nature and history. We have a tall order to help all 50 million
or so South Africans (including naturalised foreigners and the youth) to discover a personal
connection to their national parks. It can only be the entire nation, not just those who
understand biodiversity, which can make our parks come alive in our national psyche. All
citizens will relate to and cherish national parks if given a chance to connect, through
offering a diversity of products or by using available cutting‐edge technology. If people
cannot physically visit parks our outreach programmes should benefit them in their homes
in ways that parks cannot. It has been said by those resisting change in form or thinking that
products like hotels have no place in a national park environment. This is a point that fails to
recognise that the tastes and profiles of our visitors are changing. A new society is being
born. .
Our new vision derives its meaning from the provisions of the new Constitution which
stipulates the existence of protected areas in the socio‐economic and political context of
South Africa. Section 24 (a)‐(b) (ii) and (iii) says: “Everyone has a right to have the
environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through
reasonable legislative and other measures that (ii) promote conservation; and (iii) secure
ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting
justifiable economic and social development”. Quoting the relevant section in the
Constitution exposes two very key points which must not be treated with triviality. The first
one is that the government of South Africa in executing its mandate of protecting the
environment is expected to benefit present and future generations by developing
reasonable legislation and other measures, including practices and processes. Furthermore,
the government is expected to promote conservation and ecologically sustainable
development and resource use. There is nowhere in the Constitution that says there shall
be no development done in national parks or that there are certain groups or individuals
who are not allowed to benefit from the existence of protected areas including national
parks. Our parks must change to benefit all 50 million of our citizens. We therefore agree
with our Minister (Edna Molewa) when she refers to national parks as “hubs of economic
development in our society”. We must create more job and business opportunities for this
region and the rest of the country through the conservation function. We must add
meaningful value to society.
The work that we do is far more than keeping tourism facilities in a state of good repair,
welcoming visitors to a wilderness experience, protecting the rhino from poachers, keeping
the elephant population in check or making a government bureaucracy run smooth. Our
work is at the very core of nation‐building in post‐apartheid South Africa. We should
become a national institution that represents the love and commitment of all South Africans
for their living heritage, as opposed to the love and commitment of a by‐gone era purist
ideology. The idea of a “safari in Africa” is an idea whose time has passed for it was crafted
with the vision of a continent that is filled with exotic animals and what was then regarded
as a sub‐human species whose only existence was for the assistance of the supposedly
civilized European visitors to navigate the “dark continent”. We were never consulted in its
crafting and neither were we considered. Today we should help South Africans celebrate the
best of themselves, their places, wildlife, stories and experiences that make us who we are.
By inviting all South Africans, instead of just some, to visit the parks we so proudly maintain
on their behalf, we ensure that each new generation will be nourished by unique personal
experiences that help them learn what it really means to be one with this place that we call
our home and native land. We make their previously suppressed and ignored passion for
wildlife a living experience. We take their yearning for understanding and learning and give
it fulfilment. We provide them with spiritual healing and therapy to help them deal with the
harsh realities of an emerging society that faces rampant crime, poverty and high
unemployment. We make them understand that our country faces a challenging but not an
impossible future. We give them South Africa in all her natural diversity and human
complexity.
In recent months we travelled to the United States of America and Canada to visit a few of
their national parks and learnt to our consternation how limited and archaic our views of
visitor management are. This visit showed us how other countries have gone out to
embrace the challenges of growing populations, intrinsic diversity and an increasingly
demanding populace by creating products which cater to the differing needs and challenges
from virtual experiences, to solitary camping in the wild and to the ultra‐luxurious
accommodation in posh hotel establishments. Of course all of this did not come without its
attendant challenges, which was one of the valuable lessons we learnt from the visit. In
Canada it was very interesting to learn that they have a programme to introduce “new
Canadians” to the national parks system of Canada by providing a suite of activities that will
attract their interest and bring them closer to the national parks. Both countries were also
insistent on the fact that National Parks are not Nature Parks; their role far exceeds that of
the traditional practice of protecting nature without consideration of social and economic
dynamics of society. They kept reminding us that their national parks are managed for the
benefit and enjoyment of their citizens and not as exclusive pieces of land for the enjoyment
of the “elite” and the preservation of stick in the mud conservation practices.
Our national parks face a daunting future underwritten by the effects of clinging on obsolete
traditional conservation methods, climate change, air and water pollution, plundering of
natural resources by poachers, declining state subsidies, historical infrastructure
maintenance backlogs, accelerated rates of biodiversity loss and many other challenges. It
cost R1,4 billion to run the affairs of SANParks and this figure is growing annually. To
overcome these challenges we need futuristic ideas than personal biographies and the
previous century’s ideological paradigms. . Perhaps the only thing we know for sure is that
we must think and act in new ways. Solving these national challenges for our sector requires
the collective intervention of all communities (sophisticated and traditional), government,
educational institutions, business (the tourism industry) and organs of civil society to work
differently – and work together. The state has other financial priorities and will not be
channelling millions to conservation. We must adapt and be innovative. There is enough
room to do so. We still manage 99% wilderness and all accommodation for general public
access. We only commercialized the few 5 Star concession beds, shops and restaurants.
Nothing more. Our Rangers are still doing traditional wildlife management, we have not
outsourced this to “Robocop” or private security and we have no future plans to do so. Our
development footprint for all national parks stands at a paltry 0,17% and the rest is as
natural as it comes. We have no intention of overdeveloping or over‐commercializing this
heritage and national asset.
In this context we give you South African National Parks in its Second Century of existence in
the best form ever. We urge all citizens to join us in creating a South Africa that works, a
South Africa of people with diverse cultural and political persuasions connected to their
national parks, to their stories and one another to make South Africa a better country than
it is at the moment. Our national parks should inspire our natural faith, that through acts of
conscious conservation stewardship and full public enjoyment, we begin to fulfil our
profoundest duties to each other and the living world around us. Our national parks are not
just ecological geographical landscapes or playgrounds for the elite but an important part of
our proudly South African existence. Each of our national parks is part of the country’s
collective soul and an inalienable component of our nation’s promise to its future. Our
transformation and product diversification programmes seek to achieve that future for the
benefit of all citizens and live up to our new vision of “South African National Parks
connecting to society”.
As we celebrate the hosting of COP 17, tonight’s winners of both the Chief Executive
Officer’s Award and the Kudu Awards we should be thinking of the meaning of these new
words and how they affect us individually and as a proud family of the national parks of
South Africa. Congratulations to everyone who will be ascending the podium tonight and
may you continue to contribute to conservation in the country in a meaningful and
significant way by helping each of us to discover our personal connection to this – our
national heritage. .
Thank you.
Dr David Mabunda is CEO of South Africa National Parks
Re: Thoughts on the new Sanparks Vision & Mission statements
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:46 pm
by Lisbeth
Penga Ndlovu wrote:The first thing that caught my eye was the fact that he is playing the race- and Apartheidscard again.
Calling us relics and part of a system that wants to prevent the " other" South Africans to be able to get to the park.
However, with the same breath, he wants to mobilize the rural communities to come to the park.
How and with what I ask myself?
These people are so poor that SanParks are donating a lot to them out of our pockets and the prices of entering the parks are way above what they can pay.
Somehow there is a screw loose and then they call me crazy.
Amoli wrote:I personlly feel that every person is appointed in a position because he said he the ability to do something. He presented a vision and his bosses 'bought' it.
If Dr Mabunda cannot deliver on this issue, I feel he will not be necessary in that position anymore. Gathering from his statement, It seems as if he trying to rescue and re-impress what he presented his board with. MHO
Richprins wrote:I think he has to justify what his "bosses" decided...
Penny wrote:Decided being the operative word methinks!
Richprins wrote:Helo, Penny!
The strange thing is this has been left on SPforums chit-chat since since Tuesday... A lot of us would have been shot at dawn for less! :lol:
Anyhoo...I wonder what the Bigwigs' trip to America cost?
And after extensive advice that it is UTTERLY impossible to compare Kruger and other Sanparks to meek National Parks there!
Lisbeth wrote:Not the whole speech, I posted it a few hours ago
I have an article somewhere about the visit and on how they had made mistakes in Canada and the journalist hoped that they would not repeat it in South Africa.
iNdlovu wrote:Thanks for posting this Lis (some of us can't see it on the other forum
)
What a wagon load of rhetorical crap. Your sentiments are trully noble Dr Mabunda, but are so far from reality that they would be better if kept to yourself. Personally I would love to see every single man, woman and child in South Africa visit our parks and be bitten by the bug that we were bitten by, to see them have the love and
respect for our wild places, to hear the lion's roar, the elephants trumpet and the many bird calls, to be in awe of nature. Is this realistic, I think not. Would our house angel or gardener be able to spend a week or even a day in Kruger, for example, with his or her family? Not at current prices and certainly not in a 4 or 5 star resort. If we take our
whole population into account, as you tend to do repetitively, the average South African probably is worse off than the 2 examples I have used. Where then is the reality in your words?
Secondly, if as you say, our parks are utilised by the 'elite' few and we are only too aware of the kinds of behaviour exibited by some of the 'elite' where visiting a picnic sight and getting totally drunk, radios blaring, nude bathing, total disregard and respect for their surroundings and fellow visitors is the reason for their visit to Kruger, I sincerely ask, how does this do anything for them in getting to understand and appreciate nature in its purest form.
Yes it is a costly thing to run our parks with little government funding, how much of yours and other senior management salaries go to adding to these costs, with your noble sentiments towards the public of South Africa, would you be prepared to earn a 'working man's salary' to reduce costs so that even 1 poor family could visit the parks?
Your and your teams visit to the US and Canada exibits total disregard for the financial situation of SanParks, unless you paid for the trip out of your pocket, may I ask what similarity you found between national parks over there and ours in South Africa. Theirs are all about prestine natural beauty, magnificent scenery, certainly not about the varied flora & forna of our system. Other than seeing the odd moose, bear or elk, and a few heards of bison in some of the parks there is very little game viewing. Generaly visitors to their parks are light years ahead when it comes to general behaviour and most importantly rules are stricktly enforced, unlike what we find here.
Overseas tourists come to our parks to see nature as it was before man started screwing it up, I'm not saying that they don't want 4 or 5 star accommodation whilst they're about it, but they already have that with the very underutilised concession lodges.
Go ahead, build your damned hotels, but why within the boundries of Kruger, why not on the site accross the river which has already got approval and a bridge has already been built with traversing rights into the park?
Your mention of financial benefit for the general population and for the individual worries me, are you and your chosen few the individuals who will benefit?
Noble dreams for sure, but about as close to reality as the sun is from Pluto, get real!
Re: Thoughts on the new Sanparks Vision & Mission statements
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:59 pm
by Lisbeth
iNdlovu wrote:My problem with the Dr's political rhetoric is that in my opinion they all hide a contreversial agenda. His constant call for all South Africans to benefit from visiting the parks, to enjoy the splendour of our animals etc is just not real from an economic viewpoint. How many South Africans can afford staying at the palace at Sun City for example. His talk is always about the financial benefit the parks should bring to the people, but this is always where he stops. Why not tell us how.
If it means feeding the people with meat from the parks then OK, start culling elephants and use the meat for the benefit of the poor. If he thinks that the population in SA will benefit from the meagre share which might be payable to local communities from the profits of any hotels, he needs to think it over realistically Firstly you have to build the hotels and secondly (the big one) make a profit. Jobs for local communities? What does 300 jobs do for the SA poulation.
He has all these grand ideas of what the parks should do for us, but never is there a mention of how. Stop with the politicking Dr and bring it all out in the open....you may just get some support for some of the reasonable ideas.
serval wrote:I find his statement offending all I can say is I dismiss the veiled attack on opposers of his commercialisation plans and the accompanying political slant with contempt .
To me it is melodramatic enough to appeal only to a select group of well heeled exclisive safari clothing clad poetry academics whose wilderness experience is limited to the views experienced from the back of a game viewing vehicle and the patio of a fancy game lodge .
Lisbeth wrote:
I wonder if Dr. Mabunda wants to enter politics :?
iNdlovu wrote:He would fit in perfectly. Rhetorical statements with no semblance of any foundation or facts to a long term game plan. They sound like promises, but can never be delivered. It's all about using favorable phrases to gleen support and then you walk away from the mess you created with not a care in the world.
Just another thought....take a look at parks in Botswana and Namibia. They have taken the stance of low impact - high profit when it comes to their parks, so much so that even for the very 'elite' it is a financial hardship to visit their parks, but nature is still natural. Is there an outcry from the poeple in those countries that they can't afford to visit their parks, is there the feeling amongst them that these parks are only for the rich and famous and therefore should be despised, I think not...they recognise them for the tourist draw card that they are and the benefit to the countries coffers. Is the South African public so far behind the average Botswana or Nabibia citizen that they cannot percieve the same benefits without having to personally get cash in the pocket from the national parks. If our people are poorer than the average Botswanian or Namibian then why is it the rhetoric of Mabunda that will raise the standard of living in the country to the detriment of conserved areas, surely it is for the policies of the government to do on a very broad plane.
Lisbeth wrote:If the South African citizen is poorer, Dr. Mabunda has an answer to that too and you all know which one it is.
Id rather not be able to visit a park, economically, but know that it is there untouched and with a limited influence of man. No country in Southern Africa can afford NOT to use their natural wonders to attract tourists, but if they do it in a careful way, not too much harm will be done and the wonders will remain.
iNdlovu wrote:It will be an unforgivable mistake if we were to accept the sickening tendency by a handful
of ‘old‐school’ conservationists appointing themselves as agents of positive societal change. I think you have realy missed the point, we are not agents of societal change,and have never claimed to be, we are 'owners' of our natural heritage and will not sit back and see you ruin our flora & forna.They continue to campaign for the retention of past policies and privilege as as they were
over the last 100 years. Absolutely not, we welcome every citizen in our parks, but not at the cost of irreversable damage to them.
That campaign will not succeed in a democratic society. A campaign against damage to our natural areas as will happen with your (so far) one proposal in Kruger will eventualy succeed in any responsible society.As society changes we too must change. I agree that we as individuals must change but why must nature change for society, What is more natural than nature. We have taken a long hard look at ourselves as new conservation leaders and practitioners and decided to reinvent our organization into a
modern institution that is more adaptive and innovative. This is in order to better respond
to the challenges we face in our Second Century of existence. Our Board has debated and
eventually adopted a new vision and mission “to connect our national parks to society”. But surely not to damage our National Parks by society
[South African National Parks Connecting to Society]
You see Dr Mabunda, the issues for us are nothing to do with discrimnation as to who should and shouldn't visit our parks, it is very plainly and simply a matter of your brand of commercialization having an adverse effect on every citizens' wild areas in a conservation sense. And as long as you want to play the discrimination game, are you not doing so by planning resorts in our parks that only a few elite members of our society will be able to afford?
Geza wrote:Wow. I am having a great deal of difficulty digesting that such rubbish can come from a supposedly educated man.
Why is it that everything always has to be blamed on the past (appartheid)? The ruling party have been in power for very close on 20 years now.
And why is it that the race card is always used?
From what I can see, the whole speech is filled with nothing but contradictions and inflammatory racial statements. I am seriously tired of all this rubbish.
Oh and whoever said Dr M should become a politician: I think he already has the perfect qualification. The ability to talk utter nonsense and make it sound great is surely one of the leading prequisites of becoming one.
But let me move out of the past and into the future. Yes, it seems that if we build them, they will come. The expensive hotels will draw the poor uneducated masses from the squatter camps to the Kruger in droves just as surely as I am in the running to become the next Pope.
Then again, not wanting to share peace and tranquility with a screaming bunch of drunken hooglians must surely make me an elitist racist. How is this Dr M? Is it not important to you that as a middle class South African I have to save for years to afford the rediculous prices currently being charged for crappy service and an overutilised Kruger?
If I want to hear screaming and drunken idiots, I can just go to the local zoo. It costs me less than 100th of the price. Oh, and the national reserves are our heritage. I believe that while you earn your income from anything to do with our income tax and or from services that you render to us, then we are the paymaster. Or is that you want more black diamonds because you want a bigger paycheck?
I am not so much concerned that your little pet project will fail (for I do believe it surely will), I am more concerned that nature will suffer irreversible damage while you are on this daft crusade.
iNdlovu wrote:Vague promises to land claimants, they are not patient and he will soon have to deliver. Saying that every person from every squatters camp in SA must be able to visit our NP's when every thinking man knows that at current prices (let alone those of a 4 or 5 star resort) precludes this from being anywhere near a reality. All his plans, political rhetoric, vague promises are all so short term that he will soon have to run for the hills.
Richprins wrote:As I said..they're desperate!
Flutterby wrote:But if the under-priviledged black majority are reading his promises and are expecting to stay in his hotels at affordable rates..what then? Disaster!!
iNdlovu wrote:For sure
Picture this for a laugh -O -O 20 million citizens arrive at the gates of Kruger and the poor flustered clerks are trying to process the people into the park. "That will be R800 per night per person, there are 16 in your party sir, and you want to stay for the long weekend. Oh and then there are the conservation fees and the levy" Mr public says "no, no. no. You don't understand, Dr Mabunda said we can come, it is our right and we demand to speak to him"
"Hi Dr, there is another gentlemen that would like a word with you. By the way why are you breathing so hard? Oh I see, yes sir, I'll tell him you are not available, you're heading for the hills. Yes sir, I'll tell them from now on that your phone is off, just like during the fire. "
-O -O
Geza wrote:I'm all for the idea of more people from all walks of life developing a love and passion for our wildlife. My big fear of this commercialisation strategy is that I believe it will attract too many of the wrong visitors.
In 2003 I had the privilege of doing a tour of the northern parts of the KNP. At some stage along the main North South Highway, just past Satara, we came across a car full of (let's refer to them as "black diamonds". ) They were having what looked to be a game drive and even though they were clearly drinking, (didn't worry me because I had a cold one going as well) they seemed to be fairly well behaved. They were looking at some game I chose not to stop for and so we passed them. Chugging along at a steady speed of about 35, they later came flying past us at high speed with music blaring from the car. A short while later they were stopped again, he (the driver out of the car) was having a "pit stop". A short time later, they came flying passed us again. Then stopped to view some animals. This went on for a while until somewhere close to Letaba where he had been pulled over at a speed check. Once again out of his car clearly arguing with the officer and it looked like he was struggling to stand.
Now my question is this: Is this the sort of person we want in a game reserve. Drunken revelry, loud music and speeding?
spaniel wrote:I haven't been on both forums for a while - but I liked what TheunsH and Junkie had to say on Sanparks and guess what ...poooofff the whole post has been removed???
I say it again, he knows very well which buttons to push and gets us to react. Well I will take it as a compliment that I am considered as elite - don't know what is so elitist about me. We scrape and save to go to the KNP as much as possible because we love it there but do I want to continue spending thousands in a hostile environment created by one person? Maybe consider Namibia next time but there is only ONE Kruger and yes I am shouting. I am suffering from withdrawal symptoms since my last visit at beginning October and have now planned(with some encouragement from MZ) to get there as soon as possible in January - lots of sleeps still - not to mention the nightmares re the object of these posts
Geza wrote: Personally, I feel if SANPARKS had encouraged healthy debate (even in a very controlled environment) on the issues of hotels / bush lodges, then this forum might not even exist. To be sure, I'm happy that it does.
As long as we debate the issues responsibly and hopefully get this information into the public eye, this is what it's all about.
Please note that when I refer to "our wildlife" I refer to the national parks being the heritage of each and every South African.
Tourism has the potential to generate huge foreign revenue fr this country. Not all in one feel swoop, but on a long term sustainable basis. Once KNP and the other game parks are ruined, those who come here from other continents, will simply no longer come here. Foreign revenue will dry up and we will be in deep dwang. :roll:
So, if the hotels get built, much of the revenue generated will be lost to offshore shareholders. Do we really want offshore stakeholders to have a say in KNP and who knows which reserves will be targeted next.
If we look at the speeding topic over yonder in the SANPARKS forum. It is apparent that this issue is still not being addressed adequately. If they cannot manage such small things, how much worse will it be with another 240 odd cowboys speeding around the already over utiilised south areas of KNP?
Re: Thoughts on the new Sanparks Vision & Mission statements
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:52 pm
by Richprins
Re: Thoughts on the new Sanparks Vision & Mission statements
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:57 pm
by Richprins
"SanParks can only play a very limited role in land reform as this role falls outside its jurisdiction."
SANParks 2022 Vision
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:08 pm
by Bushcraft
Have you guys checked this out. Some scary stuff for many of us who prefer that the priority focus is wildlife.
I will post the rest of the “marketing” campaign tomorrow
