The beginning of the end for hunting in SA

PSE Composites Limited - The next level Rifle Stocks
Zimbabwe is a worked example of failed land seizure. Yet no lessons learnt? It defies logic until you look into the eyes of the ANC and EFF proponents of the scheme. Some look to claim the moral high ground in that they seek to redress centuries old inequality at a stroke, when all they are doing is inequality under a different banner. The recently deceased opposition leader in Zim had a workable solution to the African land redistribution issue, sadly never implemented. It was a form of evolution, not revolution: Wealthy land owners pay exponentially higher taxes based on land owned, those funds collected are then to be ring-fenced for buying land for the masses. The calculation for tax has multipliers if more than one property owned, revenue above "x", etc. No forced land grab, but rather a mechanism that encouraged sales where retention of large tracts of under utilised land persisted. Applied wisely this approach is equitable. No one is dispossessed forcibly. Foreign investors retain confidence. Capital flight averted. Malema's generation will line their pockets. The one after will starve.
 
zambezi said:
Zimbabwe is a worked example of failed land seizure. Yet no lessons learnt? It defies logic until you look into the eyes of the ANC and EFF proponents of the scheme. Some look to claim the moral high ground in that they seek to redress centuries old inequality at a stroke, when all they are doing is inequality under a different banner. The recently deceased opposition leader in Zim had a workable solution to the African land redistribution issue, sadly never implemented. It was a form of evolution, not revolution: Wealthy land owners pay exponentially higher taxes based on land owned, those funds collected are then to be ring-fenced for buying land for the masses. The calculation for tax has multipliers if more than one property owned, revenue above "x", etc. No forced land grab, but rather a mechanism that encouraged sales where retention of large tracts of under utilised land persisted. Applied wisely this approach is equitable. No one is dispossessed forcibly. Foreign investors retain confidence. Capital flight averted. Malema's generation will line their pockets. The one after will starve.
Click to expand...

Stupid question but how does one become wealthy with vast tracts of under utilised land. I thought Zim has shown that seized land by thugs with large tracts of underutilized land just went broke, or am i missing something?
 
Its been on the cards for a little while I think. If it goes the same way as Zim it will be the end of it in my opinion. Tanzania is also going a similar way with so many restrictions some outfitters/PH's are already throwing in the towel.

The wildlife will suffer and poaching will increase, along with the already huge corruption that is systemic in Africa politics there is a bleak future ahead I feel.
 
Why did they go broke ?
Easy
Took the land then still stood with hand out waiting for everything o come to them .... won morale high ground from their point of view but still don’t get fact that if you want something in life you gotta work for it

Paul
 
sauer said:
Why did they go broke ?
Easy
Took the land then still stood with hand out waiting for everything o come to them .... won morale high ground from their point of view but still don’t get fact that if you want something in life you gotta work for it

Paul
Click to expand...

Yep just like any business that gets seized.
 
zambezi said:
Zimbabwe is a worked example of failed land seizure. Yet no lessons learnt? It defies logic until you look into the eyes of the ANC and EFF proponents of the scheme. Some look to claim the moral high ground in that they seek to redress centuries old inequality at a stroke, when all they are doing is inequality under a different banner. The recently deceased opposition leader in Zim had a workable solution to the African land redistribution issue, sadly never implemented. It was a form of evolution, not revolution: Wealthy land owners pay exponentially higher taxes based on land owned, those funds collected are then to be ring-fenced for buying land for the masses. The calculation for tax has multipliers if more than one property owned, revenue above "x", etc. No forced land grab, but rather a mechanism that encouraged sales where retention of large tracts of under utilised land persisted. Applied wisely this approach is equitable. No one is dispossessed forcibly. Foreign investors retain confidence. Capital flight averted. Malema's generation will line their pockets. The one after will starve.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean SNP not ANC?
 
"Stole our land"???? As I understand it, the people who the ANC represent never had ancestors living in South Africa when Europeans arrived. Their forebears moved down from north of the Kalahari to live of the white man's enterprise, so I was told be someone whose brother has/had a farm out there.
 
JTO said:
"Stole our land"???? As I understand it, the people who the ANC represent never had ancestors living in South Africa when Europeans arrived. Their forebears moved down from north of the Kalahari to live of the white man's enterprise, so I was told be someone whose brother has/had a farm out there.
Click to expand...

My short history of south Africa says as much. It also says the voortreckers probably have a more legitimate claim than the tribes but that came from the north but that does fit a simplistic narrative of white = bad and black = good.
 
And when the Chinese offer them a few beans for the last of their Rhino, they`ll take it , waste it, and then calmy sit down in the dirt with their hands out.

The end of a few species there.
 
mchughcb said:
Stupid question but how does one become wealthy with vast tracts of under utilised land. I thought Zim has shown that seized land by thugs with large tracts of underutilized land just went broke, or am i missing something?
Click to expand...

Mmmm. Something lost in translation perhaps. There is no contradiction in that statement. But you are possibly taking it in a way unintended in any event. Mostly I was alluding to govt perception: Farm is large, farmer is wealthy, he has not ploughed all his land/all of the farms he owns/etc. Ergo land can be redistributed. Simplistic. Observable. Easy target in the political climate that existed.Make no mistake, farms that were run commercially by folk with professional expertise in the matter failed completely when turned over to peasant management. No argument. My point was that a clutched and considered land transition based on willing-buyer-willing-seller is sustainable. Expropriation without recompense is disaster.
 
Did not the white settlers make the lands far more attractive to the original peoples and they then flocked to those new developed farming areas as either help or hangers on for an easier life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ALLHONE hunting knives designed and made in NZ
Back
Top