DemitriN Posted January 16 Author Posted January 16 Haha this is sooo classic! 😄 I genuinely appreciate hearing from all of you. I must admit, I was expecting more support from my fellow mtb'ers!!! Guess I didn't realise that preserving a breathtakingly beautiful forest with streams, trails and picnic areas in a built up urban city was such an outlandish concept! I can accept those who are fynbos fanatics - whatever floats your boat! But I do challenge those to be a bit more open minded and consider some give and take like marriage. I am not advocating destruction of any fynbos area, but simply the preservation of a forest area. All the negative critical comments have me wondering: - Has vegetation become so highly charged and politicised in SA that people are ready to go to war and destroy anything that didn't originate on our soil? "One alien, one axe!" - Why do we have to label every non-SA plant "alien"? - other countries don't do that. Why can't we use the more common and positive term, "exotic"? - Are pine trees and oak trees really "invasive"? - Really? That label is also being thrown around way too much IMO. Have the pine trees in Deer Park multiplied like maggots and increased exponentially in the last 20 years? I can vouch they certainly haven't. - What about coexisting? With a 'give and take' philosophy in a mountain national park as large as ours, surely we could designate sections for fynbos and a section for forest? To keep things in perspective, take a look at the Table Mt satellite image... Deer Park Forest is a tiny speck in relation to the total space available for fynbos. Why not preserve this forest area for the many Capetonians who cherish it and use it on a daily basis? Or am I missing something?
Sepia Posted January 16 Posted January 16 48 minutes ago, DemitriN said: Haha this is sooo classic! 😄 I genuinely appreciate hearing from all of you. I must admit, I was expecting more support from my fellow mtb'ers!!! Guess I didn't realise that preserving a breathtakingly beautiful forest with streams, trails and picnic areas in a built up urban city was such an outlandish concept! I can accept those who are fynbos fanatics - whatever floats your boat! But I do challenge those to be a bit more open minded and consider some give and take like marriage. I am not advocating destruction of any fynbos area, but simply the preservation of a forest area. All the negative critical comments have me wondering: - Has vegetation become so highly charged and politicised in SA that people are ready to go to war and destroy anything that didn't originate on our soil? "One alien, one axe!" - Why do we have to label every non-SA plant "alien"? - other countries don't do that. Why can't we use the more common and positive term, "exotic"? - Are pine trees and oak trees really "invasive"? - Really? That label is also being thrown around way too much IMO. Have the pine trees in Deer Park multiplied like maggots and increased exponentially in the last 20 years? I can vouch they certainly haven't. - What about coexisting? With a 'give and take' philosophy in a mountain national park as large as ours, surely we could designate sections for fynbos and a section for forest? To keep things in perspective, take a look at the Table Mt satellite image... Deer Park Forest is a tiny speck in relation to the total space available for fynbos. Why not preserve this forest area for the many Capetonians who cherish it and use it on a daily basis? Or am I missing something? Every little bit helps. I cannot believe this discussion is actually happening and have trouble with the society of today with all the litter and the love of alien plants and also invasive plants of which there is a difference. Clearly, the understanding is missing. The crucial point is invasive alien plants and trees take over and destroy our natural eco-systems which means our indigenous flora and fauna WILL disappear. tinmug, Meezo, NC_lurker and 2 others 5
Shebeen Posted January 16 Posted January 16 21 minutes ago, Sepia said: Every little bit helps. I cannot believe this discussion is actually happening and have trouble with the society of today with all the litter and the love of alien plants and also invasive plants of which there is a difference. Clearly, the understanding is missing. The crucial point is invasive alien plants and trees take over and destroy our natural eco-systems which means our indigenous flora and fauna WILL disappear. Little bit dramatic, must be Friday. just to confuse you, here's me and my family in the summer heat collecting valuable seeds with a permit on the slopes of TMNP for a one of their restoration program. TMNP is so unique, it's in the middle of a city. so it has to make compromises that no other national park would consider. This could be one of them. Sepia and mazambaan 1 1
Barry Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Try calling a Russian stripper an alien, and she will bliksem you and tell you she is an exotic dancer. Unfortunately pine trees have no say
U1Nanimous Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Just a thought OP. Going back to the original post. You called for support citing a few things actually, but standing out to me was "disrupt the natural habitat". We can in all fairness deduct that invasive species is not the natural habitat, and calling it such is either really uninformed, or deliberately obtuse. Second, you are asking a group of people whom enjoy nature, arguably the best of South Africa's natural environment, on a weekly basis, to support your crusade. I understand that should this group or at least some, not support your ideals, you, in true aspiring bunny hugging fashion (stereotyping, delete if not applicable or offensive), will be offended, call on statistics reminiscent of early days chat GPT created woke masterpieces (confirm to my standard now, the world says you must!), and shake the rattle to the drums of war, and condemn us all for not agreeing to your petition. For the sake of argument, I hear you. I concede to your pleas. Let us not right the wrongs of the past. Yes let us scrap that word from our collected libraries, amendment. Let us not make corrections to what was once thought was a good idea. He'll, smoking was once considered good and healthy by medical professionals, to damn with the studies and research. Yes, to damn with the studies and research that surrounds this topic. You are right, in fact, why stop removing alien species, be that trees, birds, animals or just stupid opinions we all do not agree with. Heaven forbid we say something or make counter arguments which does not coincide with your own statements or believes. Standing now on both our shared believes, why stop. In fact, let us spare a thought on how we would approach a more serious matter. How do we get our common sense back after wasting so much time on this? Shall we start with a petition stopping the removal of the port Jackson trees that burns so nicely in the dry season, I recommend we start in Mosselbay, you can hang your "Save the fires, stop removing the braaihout" on the shells of the burned out buildings. Go do that, and one day, maybe your ignorance will catch a spark and you will realize that not everything in life is negative if it is an inconvenience, nor as serious as this post is not. 🤙 Sepia and Fisan 1 1
Martin Albrecht Posted January 16 Posted January 16 4 hours ago, DemitriN said: Haha this is sooo classic! 😄 I genuinely appreciate hearing from all of you. I must admit, I was expecting more support from my fellow mtb'ers!!! Guess I didn't realise that preserving a breathtakingly beautiful forest with streams, trails and picnic areas in a built up urban city was such an outlandish concept! I can accept those who are fynbos fanatics - whatever floats your boat! But I do challenge those to be a bit more open minded and consider some give and take like marriage. I am not advocating destruction of any fynbos area, but simply the preservation of a forest area. All the negative critical comments have me wondering: - Has vegetation become so highly charged and politicised in SA that people are ready to go to war and destroy anything that didn't originate on our soil? "One alien, one axe!" - Why do we have to label every non-SA plant "alien"? - other countries don't do that. Why can't we use the more common and positive term, "exotic"? - Are pine trees and oak trees really "invasive"? - Really? That label is also being thrown around way too much IMO. Have the pine trees in Deer Park multiplied like maggots and increased exponentially in the last 20 years? I can vouch they certainly haven't. - What about coexisting? With a 'give and take' philosophy in a mountain national park as large as ours, surely we could designate sections for fynbos and a section for forest? To keep things in perspective, take a look at the Table Mt satellite image... Deer Park Forest is a tiny speck in relation to the total space available for fynbos. Why not preserve this forest area for the many Capetonians who cherish it and use it on a daily basis? Or am I missing something? Two things from my side. First and foremost, plantations are not forests. Forests have high biodiversity, pine plantations are monoculture. 2. Oaks not so much (and that is why they have been “naturalised” in places like Stellenbosch for their heritage value. But Pine is most certainly an invasive species and highly problematic if not actively managed. It also kills everything around it wherever it grows. It’s particularly problematic when it grows along watercourses. It is also a serious fire risk. tinmug, Headshot, christinejvr and 3 others 6
Eugene Posted January 16 Posted January 16 6 hours ago, DemitriN said: Haha this is sooo classic! 😄 I genuinely appreciate hearing from all of you. I must admit, I was expecting more support from my fellow mtb'ers!!! Guess I didn't realise that preserving a breathtakingly beautiful forest with streams, trails and picnic areas in a built up urban city was such an outlandish concept! I can accept those who are fynbos fanatics - whatever floats your boat! But I do challenge those to be a bit more open minded and consider some give and take like marriage. I am not advocating destruction of any fynbos area, but simply the preservation of a forest area. All the negative critical comments have me wondering: - Has vegetation become so highly charged and politicised in SA that people are ready to go to war and destroy anything that didn't originate on our soil? "One alien, one axe!" - Why do we have to label every non-SA plant "alien"? - other countries don't do that. Why can't we use the more common and positive term, "exotic"? - Are pine trees and oak trees really "invasive"? - Really? That label is also being thrown around way too much IMO. Have the pine trees in Deer Park multiplied like maggots and increased exponentially in the last 20 years? I can vouch they certainly haven't. - What about coexisting? With a 'give and take' philosophy in a mountain national park as large as ours, surely we could designate sections for fynbos and a section for forest? To keep things in perspective, take a look at the Table Mt satellite image... Deer Park Forest is a tiny speck in relation to the total space available for fynbos. Why not preserve this forest area for the many Capetonians who cherish it and use it on a daily basis? Or am I missing something? That poor horse..... You have been flogging it for too long
DemitriN Posted January 17 Author Posted January 17 20 hours ago, Martin Albrecht said: Two things from my side. First and foremost, plantations are not forests. Forests have high biodiversity, pine plantations are monoculture. 2. Oaks not so much (and that is why they have been “naturalised” in places like Stellenbosch for their heritage value. But Pine is most certainly an invasive species and highly problematic if not actively managed. It also kills everything around it wherever it grows. It’s particularly problematic when it grows along watercourses. It is also a serious fire risk. Martin, try telling this to my children and their friends who’ve grown up playing in Deer Park Forest since they were toddlers (we live a stone’s throw away). They’ve climbed trees there, collected pine cones, caught tadpoles, picnicked, and played hide and seek there. To them, it’s a forest 100%. Grownups can sure be pretty ruthless and selfish at the best of times. For such a small piece of estate I can’t understand the heart or rationale of those intent on destroying it. Peace bro ✌️
DemitriN Posted January 17 Author Posted January 17 18 hours ago, Eugene said: That poor horse..... You have been flogging it for too long Apparently horses are alien too - and quite invasive 🐿️🐴🙈
U1Nanimous Posted January 17 Posted January 17 2 hours ago, DemitriN said: Apparently horses are alien too - and quite invasive 🐿️🐴🙈 We don't protect horses in natural parks. They do taste good though 🤷♂️ Rapunzel 1
Martin Albrecht Posted January 17 Posted January 17 3 hours ago, DemitriN said: Martin, try telling this to my children and their friends who’ve grown up playing in Deer Park Forest since they were toddlers (we live a stone’s throw away). They’ve climbed trees there, collected pine cones, caught tadpoles, picnicked, and played hide and seek there. To them, it’s a forest 100%. Grownups can sure be pretty ruthless and selfish at the best of times. For such a small piece of estate I can’t understand the heart or rationale of those intent on destroying it. Peace bro ✌️ I’m not sure how old your children are now, but regardless, this could be a golden opportunity to teach them about how fascinating fynbos is, the value of preserving natural habitats for various species and so on. There is a lot of good lessons to learn here. It is also a great way to teach them about change, how change is the only constant, and that not all change is bad. At least this urban green space is still being preserved, it will just look a bit different. When we were kids, during a time of rapid development, many open areas we used to use for all the things your kids did in Deer Park, would often disappear suddenly as it was built over. That’s a lot worse, and made us mad as kids, but we survived. DJR, Meezo, christinejvr and 1 other 4
DJR Posted January 18 Posted January 18 (edited) On 1/16/2026 at 2:30 PM, DemitriN said: The arial photograph you attached is perhaps the best argument for why some form of renewal on the slopes of Table Mountain is needed. Look at the area above Table Mountain Road (that had no or few pine plantations) and compare it to the area below the road that have been planted for about a 100 years. There is a significant difference with the lower slopes vastly more degraded. Now, how to deal with it? The best is to allow it to regenerate from the natural seed bed that is (hopefully) still left and viable after all the plantations and the all too regular fires. What will prevent this re-growth? Alian vegetation. So, control that first. About the Stone Pines: They are not particularly invasive. That is why SANParks have decided to leave them alone and let them meet their natural demise as they age. So, that is why, after the fires around Rhodes Memorial, they only removed the burnt Stone Pines and left the live ones. There are several places in Cape Town where, recently, new Stone Pines were planted with the blessing of most right-thinking conservationists because they are of some heritage value also. The Grand Parade and on the N2 / Philp Kgosana / Hospital Bend area as 2 examples. They are also being left alone on Rondebosch Common. All of those are more appropriate places for Stone Pines that the edge of Table Mountain. Other Pines: Cluster Pines, the ones grown for timber, are very invasive and should not be allowed anywhere near something as precious as the Fynbos Biome. Sadly, they have, and became so serious a problem that we should do all we can to eradicate them. Biological control won't be allowed because it will also affect the commercially valuable timber plantations elsewhere, so cutting them down is about the only option. Deer Park: An argument can be made for leaving the Stone Pines in the lower part of Deer Park alone, the part that is surrounded by suburbia. A similarly valid argument can be made for removing all Stone Pines from the upper part of Deer Park where it runs onto the lower slopes of Table Mountain National Park. Questions that came to mind: Are the Sugarbird people removing Stone Pines from the lower part of Deer Park? Or just the upper part? Are they removing Cluster Pines? Or Stone Pines also? Edited January 18 by DJR Headshot, Mamil, christinejvr and 5 others 5 3
DemitriN Posted January 19 Author Posted January 19 Based on some of the dissenting viewpoints being expressed above, may I ask out of interest: What are your opinions of the existence of Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens?
Bro Derek Posted January 19 Posted January 19 16 minutes ago, DemitriN said: Based on some of the dissenting viewpoints being expressed above, may I ask out of interest: What are your opinions of the existence of Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens? This is neither here nor there. The two things are very different. Originally, you asked for support and thoughts on what was happening in Deer Park as you believed it was unsanctioned removal of trees. It turns out it IS sanctioned work and support is not forthcoming by a majority of those here. You don't like the answers/replies you have received as they don't align with yours. That's fine. But changing the narrative and trying to straw man the discussion isn't going to change the basic idea that most people here support the naturalisation of Deer Park in the most part. I think lets leave it there? Unless you wish to turn Deer Park into a botanical garden that is tended to extensively and eco biomes are kept entirely separate. I don't see this being constructive as we already have an award winning one of those in the above mentioned K-bosch gardens a few km away. Headshot, El Duderino, U1Nanimous and 2 others 5
RocknRolla Posted January 19 Posted January 19 DemitriN One can not be an activist, and not face scrutiny of one's argument. If you feel so strongly about this, you will have to face some uphill. You are canvassing for signatures, and it seems you will not find a lot on this forum. What other avenues have you tried? Posters, Pickets? (With the required permits of course) canvassing people who frequent the park? You are targeting quite a narrow audience here, as not everyone who cycles frequent the bikehub forums.
DJR Posted January 19 Posted January 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, DemitriN said: Based on some of the dissenting viewpoints being expressed above, may I ask out of interest: What are your opinions of the existence of Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens? Kirstenbosch is outside the Table Mountain National Park, so, not the same landowner or the same mandate to conserve and rehabilitate that SANParks have. Kirstenbosch is owned by SANBI, that basically functions like an NGO. Its mandate is MUCH greater than just the Kirstenbosch Botanican Garden, the thing most people see. They are the custodians of basically all the plant specimens for the whole of the Fynbos Biome (the smallest and richest plant kingdom on earth) and their herbarium is internatinally renowned for it. They do extensive research and conservation projects, identify and describe new plant species, preserve threatened ones, even grow plants for re-introduction. Besides for the garden and restaurants, they also have extensive offices and laboratories where botanists from all over the world work. The land where the Botanical garden is today, used to belong to old Cecil John Rhodes who left it to the people of South Africa, exactly like Deer Park. The lawns in Kirstenbosch (exotic grass) were grain fields of the farm called Paradise. The natural vegetation between the lawns and further up the mountain, were left over bits of Fynbos that the botanical garden kept. No land was cleared for the establishment of the garden. Other parts of the agricultural fields were planted with indigenous species from all over South Africa, as a showcase. Many are not native to Table Mountain, but fitting for the purpose of showing and education. A few exotics like oaks were kept because they have historical value. No invasive exotics are tolerated in Kirstenbosch, except the lawns, which are accepted and managed not to spread. The higher indigenous forest part of Kirstenbosch is some of the last natural Table Mountain forest left and is very well looked after, better than the parts that belong to SANParks in the adjacent Newlands forest. (This is truly worth a hike) SANBI and Kirstenbosch do have their problems and their detractors, but are rated as one of the top 10 botanical gardens in the world. They must do something right. Edited January 19 by DJR mikkelz, Vishal72, El Duderino and 5 others 7 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now