Please scroll to the end for some newly added information…
Parkscape (the group of people that have been lobbying for trees and shade at Tokai Park rather than restoring a Critically Endangered vegetation type remnant) last week posted some proof that the Critically Endangered Cape Flats Sand Fynbos at Tokai Park should be restored! So I thanked them publicly. Maybe they did not appreciate my gratitude?
They (Parkscape) have since ‘blocked’ me on Facebook, as they have also blocked a number of other pro-conservation, pro-fynbos, pro-functional ecosystem commenters. Each time they have blocked one of these ‘pro-restoration’ commentators they have also deleted a number of valuable and insightful comments, links to information and advice, etc. on their (Parkscape’s) Facebook page. Slowly but surely, Parkscape is closing down debate.
To what end one might wonder? Could it possibly be in order to limit comments on their Facebook page to only the comments of those that support their own personal agenda; to keep the South African community at large – but particularly their supporters – from the wealth of information, advice and experience offered by various botanists, seed bank ecologists, restoration ecologists, conservationists, environmentalists, journalists, etc. etc.; and/or, to afford themselves an unfettered opportunity to forge ahead with ‘quote-mining‘ such as this thoroughly out-of-context one from Tony Rebelo (the original context for Tony’s ‘incendiary’ statement may be viewed here and a slightly more interesting annotated version from one of the participants may be viewed here) . Yet, those in control of Parkscape appear to be thoroughly unwilling to reveal the source and context of this and a number of other postings that publicly dismiss ecologically sound information sources? Why would anyone do something like this?
Could it possibly be that those who have a personal preference for a shady parkland – and who by the same token actively choose not to restore an irreplaceable (“the extent to which the loss of the area will compromise regional conservation targets“) and Critically Endangered vegetation type remnant – could it be that these few folks are holding South African conservation efforts and international obligations to ransom by disingenuously discouraging and even actively banning full public debate? Why on earth would someone prefer a following of mushrooms (folks who are kept in the dark and fed horse manure) to a following of fully apprised and thoroughly well-informed people who can make an informed, intelligent and rational decision? I am unsure. But if they are concerned that fully apprised and thoroughly well-informed people might go with their head and not with their heart – once they have truly gotten to grips with the conservation imperative – then maybe that is why mushrooms are preferred?
As to my being banned from the Parkscape page, for daring to disagree with them, in some ways this is actually a deep relief – since it means I no longer feel duty-bound to keep providing context for their out-of-context quotes and providing links to some the science that they are either misunderstanding or dare I think ‘misrepresenting’. If it is indeed the latter then I fear for them. Since misrepresentation leads to many awkward moments – as certain high-profile personages (e.g. in the SABC) are discovering. If it is the former, then why close down good information and active debate if it can lead to a better understanding of the issues and opportunities?
It has been exhausting and demoralising to watch misrepresented information, myths and crowd-pleasing knee-jerk posts attempting to sway opinion – while dissing the conservationists and shutting down active – and clearly necessary – debate.
To anyone who remains undecided on whether the area should be treed or returned to the natural fynbos habitat, please remember that there is an enormous body of information, readily available, that can help to inform your decision. While your heart might hurt at the loss of a relatively brief era of plantation forest, your mind can revel in the knowledge that restoration of this lowland fynbos area can afford our generation and future generations a glimpse of the magnificent flora of this Critically Endangered vegetation type that once was widespread across the City of Cape Town, most of it now lost forever under houses, roads, and factories.
Above all – think please. It is your future and the future of your descendants.
Addendum 1: The Parkscape blockade
Thus far – the tally of pro-fynbos, pro-restoration, pro-conservation voices that I personally know have been blocked/banned on Parkscape’s Facebook page (please feel free to add any others in the comments) – Parkscape admins are also most welcome to contribute, since they will have the full list – so that would be extremely helpful:
Tony Rebelo – SANBI – botanist, ecologist
Zoë Poulsen – botanist
Carina Bekker – botanist
Alanna Van Der Linde – ecologist
Mike Golby
Lee Jones
Fiona Scott-Hayward Viglietti
Any others?
Addendum 2: From the horse’s mouth
Nicky Schmidt – chair of Parkscape – comments:
Nicky Schmidt :
“Parkscape will not waste further time engaging with people who make it more than apparent that they do not wish to respond except to be obstructive and closed-minded on the subject of Lower Tokai. It will not engage with people who are unwilling to acknowledge the human needs of the situation, who say “people’s needs don’t count”. And who, moreover, return to their own social media space to be thoroughly unpleasant. Parkscape offered the opportunity of constructive and open engagement, it was turned down, as witnessed through multiple comments. One cannot engage with those who do not wish to engage and who only wish to prove the other wrong.”
Might I suggest that pointing out that:
This land contains a tract of Critically Endangered habitat – considered irreplaceable legally, politically, constitutionally, ecologically, by international Convention (there’s more but I should hope you have the picture by now – you have deleted enough of my posts to know the full story) …
is not being obstructive – it is being fairly objective and simply clashes with your point of view.
Might I also suggest that pointing out the issues within a public forum – has lead to Parkscape in many instances appearing to be thoroughly ill-informed which is never particularly pleasant (it can even be extremely embarrassing) for the person/people who is/are clearly refusing to accept that:
1) This is State-owned Land;
2) Managed by SANParks who have a conservation mandate;
3) Who have regularly engaged with locals and I&APs;
4) Who have kept residents and locals well informed of the MTO process (MTO actually started harvesting pines two months later than they intended) – see the Facebook post by Parkscape chairman Nicky Schmidt and relevant section of the Tokai Residents Association minutes below:
tokai-community_april-2016_schmidt_large
which (posted on 26 April 2016) – in summary points out that the chairman of Parkscape was well aware – by April 2016 that the pines were going to be harvested this year.
and
An excerpt from the Tokai Residents Association, AGM minutes, 15 November, 2015
The pine plantations were going to be harvested over a period lasting until 2024, but this programme had to be drastically accelerated, and damaged pines removed in the space of a couple of months before they started rotting. The deadline for removal of the pines is now July 2016. The operations are devastating, but the future looks promising regarding new growth coming through.
5) that here if the entire area is restored to its natural habitat – human ‘needs’ are in fact more than adequately (over-substantially in fact) met – but it is ‘wants’ by a relative few that are not being met because of real life ecological and conservation needs that also require more urgent attention. Shady trees are not a ‘need’ – they are a nice-to-have – they are a desire, a ‘want’. There will still be open, flat ground for perambulation. Open access appears to be guaranteed – at this point.
I do not find in our Constitution (or anything anywhere else for that matter) – anything that indicates that shade is a human need.
Safety – yes, that is a constitutional need – but conflating shade with safety does not compute. Argue exclusively for safety and I will be right behind Parkscape. Argue for trees and I will revert to my clear standpoint, backed by a rich array of environmental legislation, International Convention, the benefit of many decades of extensive research by an array of excellent ecologists and conservationists, etc., and, a huge amount of common sense.
If these are the arguments and debates that Parkscape is trying to keep off its Facebook page then that is tragic. Rather allow the debate to happen. Rather allow the information to flow. Rather allow appropriate decision-making. Rather have support from people who know the facts than from people who are simply reacting to selected, often ‘quote-mined‘ information and other contextomies. Provide the information sources – all of them – unless you are worried that people who know the ‘more complete’ truths will make choices for a sustainable future – for a future that ensures conservation, within a National Park, of a tract of irreplaceable, Critically Endangered Cape Flats Sand Fynbos.
In the interests of free and fair debate – unblock all of the folks who are informing the debate, adding to the science, and providing the alternative views. Unless Parkscape has a passion for absolute mushrooms?
This comment by Frank Barry on the Parkscape page kind of sums it up really
While Chelsey Kayla’s comments (still miraculously present at time of writing) have persisted – despite her being one of the people who consistently attempted to inject a little reason into the debate.
Chelsey – your myth-busting comment won the internet on 15 September!
Addendum 3: The case of the disappearing comments …
Where – for example – posts on Parkscape’s page used to look like this:
but now they look like this! It is magic – click on “more replies” or one of the other many comments and information supplied by the information-givers – and watch them poof into the ether. The URL for this specific post is here.
Fynbos rambles 
Just f.y.i. – there is clearly a small mistake (typo) here relating to the date: AGM minutes, 15 November, 2016
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you John. Greatly appreciated.
LikeLike