SANParks.org Forums

Okie why do they always go sit where you can't take a nice pic.

ruud, Yes i do visit hides and if the vegetation is overgrown i accept it as part of the system.
A hide is a place of concealment for observing wildlife, so the more camouflaged it is with vegetation the better.
I would suggest building a few observation towers in remote parts of the park then no bush needs to be cleared, they work well in other game reserves

And how will that look? A structure standing out from a distance?

If a road can be made in the bush, or a camp can be built - whereby bushes have to be removed, why can't a few branches or shrubs not be removed to give tourists a better experience.

I am not promoting the clearing of big areas. Many of the view points along some rivers can just as well be totally closed as they hardly serve any purpose because the view is totally blocked.

Well now we are getting somewhere on this topic.

We are redefining the concept of a hide. It is not to hide the visitors but rather to hide the animals!

Well its all becoming a lot clearer to understand if not to see.

Stoffel again emphasizes the balanced viewpoint, but its amazing how very different the ideas on what an ideal park should be, have been expressed by so many fervent animal lovers.

KNP is such a special place and provides its visitors an unforgettable experience. However, it's easy to forget that conservation comes first. I for one can't stand the sight of a manicured area if not within camps or picnic spots - so I'm ok with "overgrown" view points.

The animals are everywhere, and spotting them is simply the "luck of the draw", however clear or overgrown the viewpoints are. We must remember we aren't "entitled" to sightings nor are we guaranteed them.

Also remember that in the drier periods these view points should be less overgrown anyway, so the experience isn't totally lost.

King of the Hill, I completely agree with you about needing luck. We have spent 4-6 months a year for the last 6 years in parks throughout Africa. We dont want manicuring. We live in our roof top tent above our Landcruiser, and are out at first light and only return to our base camp as the sunsets. Yes, like you, we want to be in the wild. I can agree entirely with a philosophy let the KNP be wild. But then explain to me the need for tarred roads and fancy camps. In other words there are compromises and the preservation of our heritage will need increasing finance including that gained by attracting tourists to this paradise.

But that means being able to see, listen, and smell the game, and thus feel deeply what this paradise means. If you go back to the photo on this topic with the martial eagle behind the reeds, you will agree it won't excite many of the new or regular visitors unless you sit and wait until he soars up into the sky. No give me a fair chance as we sit up to eight hours a day waiting for a bird to fly, a leopard to yawn, a springbok to pronk, a cheetah to chase, or a butterfly to flutter gently by. But enough of words, our different opinions are healthy and will persist. I think my wife and I can best express our love for the wonderful opportunities and experiences the parks of Africa have given us much more eloquently through our photographs

I wonder how many of the different opinions are related to either being a spotter that can remove the foregrounds in their minds versus the photographers who spend hours trying to find optimal fore and backgrounds to create the optimal bokeh at the view site, and then more hours with post production work. At all times of course being honest with depicting the true raw Africa

Exbrakpanite -

Hi Exbrakpanite!!

I couldn't explain it better

You know us, and like you and you're wife we try to be as long as possible in 'the bush' exploring at least 9 or 10 hours each day beautifull places like Kruger. And trying to find the best location to make 'wildlifephotos'. This discussion has nothing to do with an 'manmade landscape' but has everything to do with the expectations of Krugervisitors. "let the bush be the bush'?????? and what about controlled veldfires??? what about building birdhides (IMHO nothing wrong with that!! ) and what about building a new hotel in Kruger. Offcourse conservation is 1 of the most important things, but you cannot see one thing without the other. It is important to find the right balance between conservation and the expectations of the visitors. And I think improving the visibilty of some waterholes/viewpoints has no impact on the totall environment of Kruger. About 96% of Kruger is 'wild' and visitors of Kruger has no entry to that area. The other 4% of open for visitors. ´clear´ some waterholes or viewpoints (and I don´t mean chop everything away but just make viewing a little easier or pleasant) is really now problem at all. And it provides things like what happens at for instance at Renosterpan, driving with your 4x4 through the bush and ´make´ your own viewpoint. Or people hanging out their car or roof as far as possible to have a better view on whatever there is at that moment. Isn´t it a little strange that the best place for the waterhole at the fence of Talamati is just outside the gate and not from the birdhide in the camp.
So just cut some small bushes down to the ground and you don´t need to sit in your car outside the fence the get some good shots but relax at the birdhide.
And another strange suggestion: ´let the bush be the bush´? let´s get all the tar out of Kruger
I like the dirtroads and maybe speeding will be more difficult....

Ruud

[quote][/ And another stange suggestion: ´let the bush be the bush´? let´s get all the tar out of Kruger
I like the dirtroads and maybe speeding will be more difficult....

quote]

Good idea.

'overgrown viewpoints' = oxymoron

there is no point having a 'view point' without a view

either have no or fewer viewpoints (close some) or clear the minimum amount of vegetation to provide a view at a 'VIEW point!!! Common sense!

Exbrakpanite

3dogs and missings.a, I agree with you 100%, as I stated in my earlier post, if a view point has been made to be a view point why is the view obstructed and neglected.A view point has to be maintained (bushes trimmed etc) or else it is not going to be a view point anymore.

It sounds like some of you bush cutters put photography first and the bush second for that award winning shot which would not be natural after all.
It sounds like some of you could be professional photographers and in that case i can understand your reasons.
I would suggest you check under Sanparks Policies "Filming and Phototography" but i`m sure you are already aware of this.
So all i can say is leave the bush for the animals to trim and shape it.