|
|
Dogwalkers' opinions
of the proposed activity zoning for TMNP
No! no! Nooooooo !
|
I have been walking with my dogs on a daily basis on Table Mountain and the Peninsula mountains to the south since I settled in the Cape in 1978.
I am aware that dogs are no guarantee of my safety, but they are very alert and give me great advance warning of anyone approaching. At least nobody will be able to surprise me. My dogs are disciplined and respond to their dog whistle. I am gravely concerned at the proposals to take away from Capetonians the pleasure of walking on our mountain . At least 90% of the people I encounter on the mountain are tax-paying locals. This mountain is unique in that it is right in a city. Access to the mountain should not be geared primarily towards tourists, but should keep in mind the requirements of its main visitors, the local rate and tax paying residents. Last Sunday there were two reported incidents of muggings on the mountain in the Rhodes Memorial area. Please do not further curtail our ability to walk with our dogs. Pam Newby (29 August 2006) |
It wasn't dogs that wiped out the game on the mountains and in the plains below
it was humans with guns - and matches.
| The proposed activity zoning for TMNP just came to my attention.
I've allowed myself two days to cool down so that I can respond in a more or less civil way, so this is the 100% nicer me speaking: The proposal to exclude dog walking from 'remote' areas really makes me mad. Even some of the 'remote wilderness' areas as now defined take some traditional dog walking areas away from us. I can't believe that dogs in the company of their owners pose a threat in these areas, and definitely not in the low numbers currently making use of this facility. This really sounds like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you are aware of people hunting with dogs or walking with dogs that are an actual threat to the environment, track those down; don't come down with a blanket ban. | |
 |
 how to pose a threat to the environment. |
|
The majority of dog walkers are your best customers: regular mountain types who enjoy and respect nature and appreciate the paradise we have in our midst. They are also the ones who buy your Wild Cards. An urban national park can't be run in the same way as a normal national park. This park, more than others, belongs to the people who live in its shadows. Please reconsider this proposal and let's stick with the zones already in place where dogs aren't allowed. Regards
| |
| No ! to stopping us walking with our dogs on the mountain.
What is the agenda of people who want such a thing? Do they want to make us an even easier target for the muggers!!!! Our dogs do no damage. Catch the bark strippers instead! No to this nonsense!! Leo Harford (Sept 3rd 2006) |
| I have allowed myself a few days for my outrage to calm down.................
The recently published proposed zones for "recreational activities" in the Table Mountain National Park certainly seem to illustrate a blatant disregard and indifference by managers of the Park for the requirements of the regular users of one of the Mother City’s most valuable assets. For decades hikers, walker, climbers, runners etc. and their most trusted four-legged companions have been enjoying the freedom and space the mountain has to offer whilst spending ‘quality time’ together. The mountain has not suffered from our presence in the past, so why should it do so in future just because a Park has been officially declared ? After all, we are dealing here with a Park in the middle of a city, divided by a network of public roads, with suburban areas scattered throughout, and not a highly sensitive wilderness area. I see no evidence at all in the proposed zoning plans that the issues raised by the various user groups during discussions in the numerous forums have been acknowledged or considered in any way. What is the reasoning behind prohibiting dog-walkers on most of the peninsula ? While it is understandable that areas such as the Cape Good Hope Nature Reserve, Kirstenbosch, Orange Kloof and the top of Table Mountain between the Cable Station and Platteklip Gorge remain “no-go” zones for dogs, it is totally unacceptable that dog-walkers are now being excluded from vast areas of the mountain previously accessible to us. Where are the objective specialist studies and impact assessments providing quantitative evidence that dog-walkers (and the various other user groups whose recreational activities have been curtailed) are causing a disturbance or damaging the environment? It is critical that the environmental management plan and proposed zoning of the TMNP are based on objective, quantitative information whilst considering the recreational needs of the public and are not simply founded on the circumstantial ideals of self-centred National Parks officials. Most dog-owners have happily supported TMNP by purchasing Wild Cards so that they can continue to enjoy walking and running with their dogs in the less crowded parts of the peninsula. Many of us also need the security of our companions when walking/running alone in places such as Silvermine, Constantia Nek and the Muizenberg/Kalk Bay mountains, especially in the light of increasing attacks on visitors to some parts of the mountain. By severely limiting access to dog-owners and other user groups as proposed, SANParks is not only showing indifference to the support provided by Wild Card holders in financing the management and maintenance of the Park, but seem ignorant to the fact that by attempting to take the park away from the user groups they will succeed only in gaining substantial negative publicity as well as extreme animosity from the people of Cape Town. TMNP admits that they are unable to adequately control such a vast area, and if they insist on imposing a blanket ban on dog-walkers and other user groups, they should not be surprised if the public retaliate by withdrawing their Wild Card support and begin using at their own discretion what has after all always been theirs. If TMNP wants the continued cooperation of Capetonians in ensuring the sustainable use of our precious peninsula environment they should possibly consider a different approach than their current proposed radical attitude. Don’t make enemies by taking away what has for decades been available to us, rather utilise our appreciation and respect for nature. In adopting a co-management approach by increasing the environmental awareness of dog-walkers (and other user groups) TMNP could gain enormously in the implementation of sensible, user-friendly management plans. Through very simple educational means such as requesting dog-owners to keep their pets under control (and this does not mean having the animals on a leash at all times, but having the leash with them at all times), carrying ‘pooper-scoopers’ and plastic bags to remove their dogs’ excrement (or at the very least removing it from the path), providing suitable disposal bins at busy parking areas for this (just as they are in the process of provided toilet facilities for human visitors at many venues), and appealing to users to ensure others do the same, TMNP could achieve and enhance an environmental pride in the regular users of the park, which can only act to their advantage. If TMNP insists on inflicting their management plans and zones for recreational use onto us, regardless of the protest cries by the regular users and affected parties, then it is possibly time for them to re-consider their logo “A Park for All, forever” and change it to rather read: “Restricted access to (almost) Everyone”. Andrea Pulfrich (PhD)
|
|
Dear Mr. nick@djec.co.za (I am sorry, but unfortunately I know you by no other name),
I am told that you have the unenviable, mammoth and what must, indeed, be the unpalatable function of receiving objections to the proposed TMNP’s “zoning” of “recreational activities”. I think (and hope) that you are going to be kept extremely busy doing this. Here is mine. I have been walking, climbing and running on the mountain, with and without various dogs, since I was a student in 1959. I hope to continue to do so for some time to come, if I may be permitted by those now in command. I really do hope that I have completely misunderstood the inwardness and true meaning of a document entitled “TMNP ZONING: Recreational Activities” which, complete with accompanying map, was brought to my notice yesterday. If, indeed, it means something different from what I imagine that it means, kindly forgive me and ignore this e-mail. The kind of regimentation and “exercise by numbers” which is apparently now being proposed (I trust tongue in cheek) was popular in various parts of Europe from 1939 to 1945: it is fortunately considerably less so now that some sanity has at last prevailed there, although remnants of it survive in Switzerland, which has unfortunately become a very silly “paint by numbers” country as a result. If you want a good laugh, go into a Swiss “wilderness area” high in the Alps and observe the thickets of notice boards in every direction bearing signs which prohibit, on pain of prosecution, running on this path, riding a horse or a bicycle on this one, walking on this one, standing still at this point, looking in such-and-such a direction at any time, and breathing without a licence. And as for dogs, forget it! The TMNP’s latest proposal has, of course, at its foundation the fallacious notion that the mountain is its own private property, to do with as it pleases. Nothing could be further from the truth. The powers which govern the TMNP should really make a serious effort to get their minds round the concept of public ownership – res communis and res publica if they prefer the Roman law terms – of such places as mountains, rivers and seashores. It really is not difficult. Nor is it an outdated concept: far from it, for if a man cannot ramble harmlessly over land which he owns in common with the rest of humanity, he can hardly be described as free, notwithstanding anything which the heroes of the brave new world may tell him. The same applies to his dog, who is probably better informed about these things than he is. Incidentally, I assume that the Powers that Now Be are aware of the origin of the ban on dogs in certain areas of what is now the TMNP, viz. the insistence by a certain lady (now deceased) in the 1970’s or ‘80’s that her activities as a member of a certain hunting outfit should not be impinged upon by the dogs of mere mortals becoming entangled with The Pack. She, happening at the time to be the wife of the then Minister of Forestry Affairs, made the same error as the TMNP appears to be making now: that these areas were her own private property (or that of her husband). I notice, however, that the hunting sprees of such outfits are no longer advanced these days as a reason to ban dogs. But has the attitude to public ownership changed? Regrettably, it does not seem so. The Powers that Now Be say that it is quite impossible for them to render the mountain and its environs safe from muggers, murderers and rapists: that is perfectly true: (perhaps fortunately) they cannot be everywhere; nor should they try to be, nor to behave like public nannies; adults must learn to take responsibility for themselves and go it alone. At least, that seems to be the philosophy of many of our modern so-called “law enforcement agencies”: the law which they seek to enforce has little to do with the protection of individuals against violent crime; they are after big fish, the real criminals – like the little old ladies who transgress the regulations by taking their Maltese poodles where it is forbidden! Nevertheless, the frequency and viciousness of recent attacks on innocent members of the public on the mountain present yet a further excellent reason for taking your dog with you when you leave the safety of your home: self-protection. A final word of humble advice, in case I have not completely misunderstood the relevant documents: if the TMNP really wants to make a laughing-stock of itself, why not go the whole hog, so to speak, and decree that only organised parties of hikers, not less than 10,000 in number, each one of them wearing a uniform of knee-high white stockings and lüderhosen and clutching a rubber-stamped permit issued by the Parks Board in Pretoria only to members of recognised and approved hiking clubs not less than seven nor more than eight days previously, for which application must have been made in person in that city, shall be permitted anywhere on the mountain, on pain of imprisonment for not less than life; that such parties must at all times march as a regiment, in step, in strict formation, and in one direction only; and that they use the goose-step as their sole means of perambulation? That would teach the sloppy Swiss a thing or two! And as for dogs, forget it! Fondly I bid you farewell and many happy hours arranging your objections.
|
|
I would like to register my dissatisfaction regarding the proposed changes concerning dog walking in the Park Management Plan 2006-2010.
As a regular walker of my dogs in the Table Mountain Park area the proposed restrictions will seriously affect my enjoyment of the park. It is a time honoured right to walk one's dogs in the park which brings enjoyment to so many citizens and visitors alike. The very presence of the dogs in the park reduces the high crime prevalent in these areas ensuring a drastically increased level of security for all people in the area where the dogs are. At certain times of the year the majority of park users are people who are walking dogs along many of the trails and paths in the park. Without them, those trails would be dangerously empty. Lost tourists are frequently found by dog walkers in rural parts of the park, long before the situation turns into an official search and rescue operation. We are no longer enjoying the relatively high levels of safety on our mountain park that we experienced in past decades. You are unable to police the trails adequately, resulting in muggings and assaults in the park on a daily basis. Do not reduce our security even more by restricting one of the largest group and most consistent users of the park, the dog walkers. Sincerely, |
Friends of the Dog Walkers' comments on Table Mountain Park Draft Conservation Development Framework 2006.
email us your message of support
| Web Master: Pam Newby (021) 447-2820 or 082-5646257 |
I derive enormous pleasure from this quality time. The presence of my dogs makes me feel safe and adds immeasurably to my enjoyment. I derive no pleasure from walking without my dogs and so I never visit restricted areas like Cape Point Nature reserve unless I am on a teaching field trip. (I am a Biologist).