Forest debate dogged by baseless hysteria
September 14, 2006 Edition 1
I am horrified by the amount of misinformation being spread around by supposedly intelligent people involving Table Mountain National Park and the various plans that have been mooted for the removal of the pine trees from the plantations (not forests!) and the areas where people may walk their dogs.
Consider the following:
Fact 1. The pines were planted as a cash crop like any other agricultural crop. As fine as a field of wheat looks, do we tell the farmer not to harvest his wheat?
Fact 2. The TMNP is not cutting the trees down. They are being cut by the company that won the tender for the trees. Perhaps the "cool forests" people would like to spend their considerable energies raising the money to buy the trees at the commercial rate and thereby "save" them - until they fall down.
Fact 3. These "cool forest" people are actually spreading misinformation about the TMNP's intentions. I can state this having sat in meetings between management, the TMNP Forum and the pro-pine lobby.
Fact 4. The issue as to the management of the plantations after the trees are removed - over a 20-year period - is indeed in the hands of the national park. However, there is a process of public participation in place, which started with a series of open days and workshops - one of which was totally disrupted by the "cool forest" people - which will decide the eventual use to which the cleared areas will be put.
Some areas may well be allowed to revert to fynbos, others will be steered in the direction of afro-montane forest (shade!) regeneration. Others - the higher impact leisure areas - could well be re-planted with the pines that seem to be so special should that be the overall vote of the public, much to the chagrin of the genuine conservationists who wish to encourage the bio-diversity that we all (hopefully) seek.
Fact 5. Similarly, the dog walkers who are up in arms about the proposals (not cast in concrete) for the zoning of the park, must realise that this is just a proposal. They are right to object and to voice their opinions - that is what the public participation process is all about.
But let us debate this in a rational manner. All that bandying accusations achieves is to put the park management on the defensive.
Question 1. Has the park handled these issues well? No. The communication could have been a lot better and the participation process more open and transparent. As part of the wider interface with the park, as a member of the TMNP Forum (the public link with the park management), I have found that the public participation process has been sadly lacking.
Question 2. Has the media handled this debate well? Emphatically no! The over-emotive articles in the press (John Yeld is a notable exception) have merely added fuel to the flames with their assertion that "Mother City set to ban dogs from its table" and other similarly inflammatory statements.
Yes, there are issues that need to be addressed but let's allow the due process to run its course.
Greg Moseley
Kirstenhof
