Riverbed cycle challenge in Kgalagadi

[annie]

I agree that no cycle event inside the park would be first prize. However, I'm prepared to take what I can in the improved scenario, e.g.

• 1. I'm much happier about all the traffic being on an existing road, rather than across virgin territory in the riverbed.
  2. SP will now draw up an EMP - which wasn't the case before; they even seemed to indicate it was silly to suggest it was needed
  3. There were hints behind the scenes from various people that many of the SP guys in KTP (section rangers, guides, etc) were anti the event. Now that it has been moved out of the riverbed and onto the road, I think they will use any power they have to ensure that it is done in the least disruptive way possible (though I agree that outside the park would have been better)
  4. Now it is in the south, the impact of vehicles on the road will be less because of less distance to be travelled.
  5. SANParks management themselves must be feeling the full force of the glare of public attention so I suspect they may be extra eager to prove they can be responsible and "tread lightly"

Nonetheless, I agree with the viewpoint that there is a danger if this is allowed inside the park, we may soon be fighting another bigger event of a similar nature. I also still want an answer to my question about whether this is intended to be a loss-leader first event, and then will be pumped up into a much grander, much bigger and more impactful annual event.

[Lisbeth]

I agree 100% with Annie

[Wolf Avni]

agree 100%.

Would also rather that the event were not taking place at all. I am unshaken in the belief that a path of commercialisation is the road to hell...

but I'd rather save my bullets for targets that can be brought down, and the credibility of my challenges for fights that can be won. SANparks are on much firmer ground now with this revised format and it's much harder to make arguments against the cycle event that are solid enough to offer a realistic threat to them. The most valid argument left is
a.the disruption to other visitors caused by pods of cyclists,
b. the disruption to visitors caused by the extra traffic

but because of the triangular route, effectively the disruption is significantly reduced and while I may not agree with the broad SANparks management strategy with it's emphasis on maximising commercial exploitation, it is within the terms of their mandate. Going forward I'd far rather position myself to be able to exercise a credible IAP role, calling the spotlight down upon excesses that are challengeable, rather than just continuously firing broadsides of hot air that have no chance of hitting anything effectively.

[Flutterby]

annie and Wolf!

[Lisbeth]

Wolf

[Mel]

One thing that I'm still kinda surprised about is the fact that the outcry
regarding the proposed developments in KTP was so much less than it
is regarding this event.

[Lisbeth]

Right you are, Mel! So am I. Very strange indeed Maybe because the procedure is much longer But it is certainly much worse than a bicycle event, especially in the long run and IMO the consequences are going to be catastrophic to the ecosystem of the park.

[Bushcraft]

One thing that I'm still kinda surprised about is the fact that the outcry
regarding the proposed developments in KTP was so much less than it
is regarding this event.

Agreed

[Poplap]

Very good and valid points, Annie, Wolf, Mel and Liz.

agree 100%.

Would also rather that the event were not taking place at all. I am unshaken in the belief that a path of commercialisation is the road to hell...

... rather than just continuously firing broadsides of hot air that have no chance of hitting anything effectively.

[Poplap]

You need a dentist!

-O

BJ, enemy of the SP State, are you? Very valid point you are making. If it not good for the gander, why is it good for the goose?