Africa Wild

Now that this has come to light, NOT via transparency fromSanParks, but a disgruntled camper (and rightfully so ), what would be the impact of regular campers avoiding this camp due to the obviously less than desirable accommodations?

Was the previous occupancy rate so low as to justify this intrusion? Or does someone-know-someone?

The management had to know this would not go over well, and if it was a business decision, why not be honest and put forth their case?

Glen Phillips still owing us traffic assessment figures for Skuks, Malelane traffic figures also still outstanding!! With regard to this new trend, tents popping up all over show, it must be taken into account that this is all happening on already disturbed ground, therefore requires no obligation from the curator to call for any PPP's or any Environmental Impact assessments. Legislation (Nema), cleverly has defined a very loose set of principles that govern those in power practicing landscape architecture and the ethics thereof! Each and every situation, like the tented adventure above, will be handled as a isolated case in study! However traffic flows through any conservation area like blood flows through any body!!! Maybe Glen Phillips getting to grips with ethics and responsibilities.!, or maybe just another ploy in the making??

ExFmem wrote:Now that this has come to light, NOT via transparency fromSanParks, but a disgruntled camper (and rightfully so ), what would be the impact of regular campers avoiding this camp due to the obviously less than desirable accommodations?

Was the previous occupancy rate so low as to justify this intrusion? Or does someone-know-someone?

The management had to know this would not go over well, and if it was a business decision, why not be honest and put forth their case?

The occupancy rate we don't know, Ex. But generally campsites are booked about full in-season, especially in the south. It is not a huge camping area at all, vs most big camps, so that makes it worse IMO. The permanent tents at Skuks have not really been noticed, for example.

It was obviously a business decision, in a sense, as a guaranteed source of income annually, without really breaking the rules, it seems? The operator probably runs at low occupancy on average, making most money out of large groups every few weeks, which will still create profit. In between, too bad for others, as the tents stand empty.

Yes, I think someone made a deal, as other operators have tried to do similar but been rebuffed, even on a small scale.

This whole new venture reeks with fetching monies
at would be regularly chartered soil!! Seems they have
a great need to scrub the so called bottomless pit of
good fortune. To hell with fauna and flora!!

Makes me think about, "snapping at the hand that feeds"!!

Pics from leachy this weekend:

Thank you, Leachy

I had to pitch my tent right there and that was certainly not by choice At the bottom of the camp, under the big "Wurgvy" tree (Ficus thonningii) where I usually camp, and also next to the fence there is an army of tents from some company As a matter of fact, I was told by one of the occupants that I cannot camp there as the space is used to park their vehicles at night I ask you

It's ridiculous that this has been permitted and I'm noticing how quiet Sanparks are on it, hence basically showing the general loyal camper the middle finger

BC, the so called custodian has already admitted that
there be not much revenue to be reaped from campers
like us. We are actually a headache to them.

This is becoming ridiculous,...somewhere back then I
recall something to the effect that booking endless time
at one site was not to be granted,!?

Goes to show how profitable Kruger has become. Booking
sites even if they cannot be filled with bums.

Grosely unfair!!