Final answer:
The fence around Kruger Park was dangerous as it epitomized the negative consequences of unregulated grazing which contrasted with the sustainable practices inside the park. It also symbolizes the tension between sedentary and nomadic lifestyles, and drives wildlife management programs such as Campfire, although it can lead to conflicts between humans and animals.
Step-by-step explanation:
The fence around Kruger Park was considered dangerous as it represented a divide between sustainable land management and the devastation caused by overgrazing without proper planning. Satellite photos from the 1970s show this distinction clearly. Inside the park the land was privately owned by informed farmers who practiced rotational grazing and fallowing, whereas outside the fence, land used by nomads was left bare. This led to severe soil erosion, plant death, and ultimately the death of both cattle and people. By contrast, in Botswana, fences can prevent wildlife like elephants from destroying crops, which led to defensive killings. The implementation of programs like Campfire aimed to reconcile human-animal conflicts by empowering local communities through resource management and financial incentives from regulated hunting practices. However, the use of fences by sedentary farmers has historically been a point of contention with nomadic peoples, who view such structures as barriers to the free movement of grazing animals, leading to societal clashes.