Daphne Sheldrick's

Oct 27th, 2007, 05:46 AM
  #21  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,309
Jan has some info thatís just confirming that you have to pay the park fee. http://www.bushdrums.com/forum/showthread.php?id=621
Nyamera is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 06:36 AM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 196
I totally agree with Predator biologist in his support for the Kenya Wildlife Service and agree that while the new fees might be prohibitive for schoolchildren's visits (and that is really a tragedy), it shouldn't be enough to dissuade most safari-ists (?) from persuing their dreams of visiting Sheldricks. I do fear for the orphange however. Do most people even realize that the KWS actually assists the Sheldricks in their elephant rescues? Please look into the Sheldrick website and read about the latest orphan rescue last month, that of little Sinya, who fell down a well:

http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.or...tes.asp?ID=129
carolines is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 07:51 AM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,002
Sandi,
I was under the impression that the $40 fee for Nairobi National Park was separate from and didn't include the Safari Walk or Orphanage which have their own entrance fees at $10 each.

http://www.kws.org/tariffs-2006.html

Patty is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 08:11 AM
  #24  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,309
Since Iím the only Fodorite ever ďcomplainingĒ about park fees, I suppose Iím the one who should be upset about Predatorís post Ė and I am. This thread isnít the right place, but as the post appeared here Ö

Maybe $40 isnít that much of a fee for a one off visit to Sheldrickís combined with a game drive in Nairobi NP, but itís stopping the huge numbers of visitors and as a payment for every day on safari itís blindingly expensive. My safaris - of a shorter length and lower quality than I would like Ė are already far above my financial pain threshold and the planned raises make me nauseous. The smugness of people willing to pay higher fees because they care so much about conservation makes it even more sickening. Itís not just not a sacrifice; it will even give wealthy travellers (a majority on Fodorís?) more of what they want Ė fewer tourists that arenít of their kind. I canít even complain because with four trips to Kenya Iím more privileged than most citizens in spoilt rich countries, not to talk about how many Kenyan citizens, even with their very much less expensive fees, can visit game parks. Itís just that higher park fees and other skyrocketing costs threaten my entire existence. Have you ever heard of global warming? Iím burying my head in the sand as everybody else, but what if taxes to reduce flying would make flights ten times as expensive? Not a problem? Then, what about rationing? Limiting flight miles to one Africa trip every ten years? Are you feeling the creeping panic that park fees make me feel? You canít complain because then you donít care about the environment.

BTW, fostering an elephant is just $50 a year.
Nyamera is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 10:30 AM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 592
Predator Biologist

You have made some good points.

However, your assumption that money going to KWS will also be used for wildlife conservation is not necessarily so, and you may be looking at them through rose colored glasses. In the last several years KWS has been on a quest to amass huge sums of money and it doesnít appear to be doing much for wildlife. On my trip in August I spent 18 days in two parks and never once saw a ranger. This is totally unacceptable. A year ago when an elephant was mired up to the top of his back in a mudhole, it took an hour for four rangers to show up, though they were 15 minutes away, and it was the men who volunteered from a lodge that actually saved the elephant. Incidents of drivers harassing wildlife are greatly increasing as are incidents of off-road driving Ė nothing is being done.

KWS has been exceptionally good at their help in rescuing orphaned animals, their translocations, their veterinary care and their anti-poaching units (though they need more of these). These units are kept busy and do their work well. However it seems to stop here. They need to be out patrolling the park/reserve roads to spot ill/injured animals, fining poor tour company drivers harassing wildlife, blocking roads, or driving off-road. They need to be reporting bad road situations and calling in the necessary graders to fix them. There is so much more they can and should be doing.

From an unnamed Kenyan I know (not the Sheldricks) who understands what is going on, ďI am afraid that no matter how much we complain to KWS we will never get their decisions reversed. The Director is a very financially motivated gentleman. Minimum service for maximum money seems to be their motto. Others have had to build the bridge at Aruba for them, put pumps on the Ndara Dam, lend pumps and motors for Aruba waterhole before they put in the windmill.Ē


In addition to this, I know of several people who were Kenya Wildlife people and who quit within the last couple of years because they couldnít stand to see the direction that KWS was heading into.

In an article in the Kenyan papers in August, KWS stated they were raising their park fees from $40.00 - $60.00, and the money was going ďto the communitiesĒ (not to wildlife). I suppose they think that by giving a clinic or school to a community it will help decrease the people poaching, spearing, bushmeat trade, etc. I think this is very naïve thinking. So they build a clinic or school, it is not putting money into the pockets of the people who need it and is not going to change peopleís thinking about poaching, spearing and bushmeat trade. Instead, if they hired several thousand more rangers including people who live near the parks with that money, thousands more people would benefit financially and PERHAPS might change their thinking.

Sheldrick Trust has been one of the leading wildlife organizations in Kenya over a period of many years. They not only rescue the orphaned/ill rhinos and elephants, but they have purchased fuel for KWS vehicles, purchased an engine for KWSís anti-poaching plane, put in boreholes for water for the animals, have installed fences in high human-wildlife conflict areas in Tsavo, have worked with the schools to try to encourage the children to conserve their wildlife, initiated six desnaring tearms that walk the borders of Tsavo to collect snares and free any animals that are still alive, worked with KWS and Vier Pfoten to set up two veterinary teams, one that handles Tsavo and Amboseli and another that handles the Mara and the northern area of Kenya and thousands of other things beneficial to KWS, the Kenyan government and its people and wildlife in general.

KWS should encourage the work they do and encourage people to visit the Trust with no added park charge, and allow them to leave their donations and adopt because it will only help all wildlife, including those that KWS is mandated to protect.

KWS has, after all, been hired to be stewards of wildlife, and it seems they should be more protectors of wildlife and less concerned about amassing huge sums of money to go to things that may or may not benefit wildlife.
JanGoss is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 11:14 AM
  #26  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 290
Everyone has to remember why Daphne Sheldrick's was set up. It was set up to help the orphaned elephants. This was something that KWS was not able to do successfuly. It was a sort of a partnership between KWS and Daphne's. Daphne was given land (don't know if they pay rent) on the edge of Nairobi National Park to rehabilitate these elephants, so that they can go and live independently. I am not complaining about paying the US$40. Why should we have to pay money to KWS to go and see Daphne's. If a person just wanted to go and see the elephants, but not enter the National Park, they should not have to pay the fee.

According to KWS, say if you went to visit Nairobi National Park, you paid US$40. Now there is no public access from Nairobi National Park to Daphne Sheldricks. The road that is there is a service road, and not for public access. So you have to leave via a public gate (say Banda).As soon as you leave the National Park, you forefit your entry to the Park, and then have to pay the US$40 again to enter the Service entrance to see the elephants.

Everyone is supportive of what is happening at the elephants. I am sure that most people would not mind paying the US$40 if say US$30 went to support the elephants, and US$10 to KWS.

I live in Kenya, and it frustrates me how government agencies "milk" such charitable ventures such as Daphne Sheldrick's to make a quick buck, without thinking of the damage they are doing.
roadwarriorafrica is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 12:02 PM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,675
Patty, you're correct.

But, at this point, I'd rather take a "wait and see" approach, as often these changes have to shake out. If there is a major protest about the new fee for Sheldrick... things may change. I don't believe KWS will be seen favorably if less visitors show up at Sheldrick.

The fees for Animal Walk and Cheetah may be incorporated; maybe not. Who yet knows how this new fee for those visiting Sheldrick will be distributed?
As to local children visiting the park or Sheldrick, it comes to about $1-$2/per child; I'm sure there are special arrangements for school groups. And, doubt very much that each and everyone of these local children will be hit further with this new Park Fee, even at the local rate.

TIA, and whether there is corruption or someone filling their own pockets, it's the Kenyan's who have to protest for change or reversal, much as we have to in our own countries. Of course, we can support those in other countries by making our feelings known, but until KWS sees a negative results from this or other "brilliant, but fruitless ideas" - it's a waiting game.

I often wonder whether there is any organization anywhere who has the charter for doing something positive, that doesn't eventually present us with some fault, shaddy operation or corruption? Headlines aren't too far away!

sandi is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 12:42 PM
  #28  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
Jan: glad you posted as you are certainly an authority on the work of the Sheldrick Trust and well versed in KWS operations. I admit I pay the least amount of attention to Kenya of all safari countries because they do seem to do the poorest management job around, especially by protecting the least amount of land. You illustrate that Sheldrick Trust is filling in a large gap by assisting in things the KWS should likely be doing on its own which ties into a recent interview that I read with Richard Leakey who was suggesting that the government agency is extremely inefficient and they should hire out the park and wildlife management to a private vendor. You point out the huge number or duties and responsibilities that KWS has -- some that seem to be going well and others very wanting. To me that is the point of park fees, revenue is very needed and current global conservation theory dictates that having sufficient benefits accruing to local populations is essential for lasting conservation to be achieved. How to do that efficiently is enormously complicated and if the KWS has labor shortages I agree hiring locals to work in the park is the best way to get started. I have no idea if they are properly allocating funds and would not be surprised if they need to do it better.

Cutting off visitation to the orphanage with exhorbitant pricing does seem extremely unreasonable and short sighted. I would hope they could come to an arrangement where perhaps a small fee of $5 or $10 could go to the KWS coffers but not prohibit visitation to the Sheldrick Trust. Since the park fee is for non-residents I'm assuming that local school groups can continue, obviously a travesty if that were prevented.

Nyamera: sorry you felt the need to be upset with my post. You are certainly not even close to the only person who complains about park fees and you hadn't even posted any thoughts on this thread when I posted but other posters right here had suggested the KWS was greedy to want to collect funds for their own use and another chose not to pay it based on principle. No reason for you to feel called out. I'm not one of those posters who tries to single people out or get into battles, the point of my post was to stimulate the thought process and think about the need and purpose of park fees.

You are not the only person here who has to struggle to be able to afford trips to Africa. I really don't understand why you are sickened by people willing to pay more for conservation -- if they didn't there might not be anywhere for you to visit in the future and as you say your existence would be over. There are lots of people donating to NGO's that will never have the privilidge to go on a safari and yet they contribute to conserving Africa wildlife and habitat. Private concessions are essential for adding large protected habitat areas, the fact that high dollar low intensity tourism provides such protection is enormous. Without it these lands would be used for something other than wildlife. It's too bad everyone cannot be afforded the opportunity to visit them but thank goodness they exist and its a great working model to be happy about since its one of the best wildlife protection success stories around. The public parks provide excellent opportunities for those with less funds. It concerns me that more local people do not get the opportunities to see their own parks and Nairobi National Park has to be one of the best places in the future for this to happen as it is located so close to the large population center. It would be great if everything could be free but of course it would all be overconsumed in a very short time and we would have nothing left of African wildife. In my view we need to protect more lands and have them managed for different purposes. The most sensitive areas should be very low visitation, some even no visitation, other areas should be designated high use with very low pricing. It's harder on wildlife but provides a better alternative than not protecting that space and allows for more people to experience the different species. Basically a portfolio of lands under varying degrees of restriction could protect the max amount of land and allow for the most people to visit with differing experiences.

As to your other statements about flight restrictions and seeking a way to panic me about not being able to go to Africa that would not change my views on conservation one bit. I am not a smug tourist (I think I was being lumped into that group), I am a conservationist first and foremost. I retrained via night school while working fulltime and took a huge paycut to work in the wildlife field so I think I have demonstrated where my soul lies. It's easy for me to say that if I could never visit Africa again because I was priced out or restricted in someway I would still advocate and contribute toward its conservation. My enjoyment and consumption really is irrevelant to everyone but me but protecting biodiversity is an essential task that has to be successful or most life as we know it will cease.
PredatorBiologist is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 03:04 PM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,002
Since the park fee is for non-residents I'm assuming that local school groups can continue, obviously a travesty if that were prevented.

There are different fees for non-residents, residents and citizens but all groups have to pay. The $40 one that keeps getting mentioned is the non-resident entrance fee, and fees will be going up on May 2008.

The current fees are listed here:

http://www.kws.org/tariffs-2006.html
Patty is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 03:39 PM
  #30  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,309
Predator, I suppose I need to use more quotation marks, what Iím sickened by is hypocrisy. And, I canít think of anyone, except me, who dares to complain about raises in park fees. The people who feel complacent about not worrying about raised park fees very often demand bizarre high impact luxury and I donít feel the least grateful to them. Only recently have threads questioning the trend theyíre promoting appeared. Youíre obviously not part of the smug tourist crowd, but you do sound like their champion. Iím extremely frustrated by not having enough knowledge and time to discuss every aspect of what youíre saying. Youíre certainly among the more knowledgeable Fodorites but I get the impression youíre too convinced that a certain conservation philosophy is ďthe truthĒ. Also, I feel youíre very wrong in your perception that thereís some huge quality difference between Kenyan park and wildlife management and that of other African countries. The only country I know something, but far from sufficient, about is Kenya and there are worse things going on than you read about here on Fodorís, but I usually need just a quick Google search to find appalling facts about the supposedly most exemplary countries and that their ďexpertsĒ (here) had never heard about.
Nyamera is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 06:59 PM
  #31  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 592
Predator: I am certainly no authority on either the Sheldrick Trust or KWS. It is simply because I care about both organizations so much that I want to see them work together for the good of wildlife.

Sandi: $1 -$2 a day may seem little to us for a native child to visit the Trust. However, many Kenyan families live on $2.00 a week. Thus they would not be able to give their children the money to make a trip such as this. I have been proclaiming to KWS for six years that all school groups should be allowed a day trip in the parks free of charge.

Nyamera: I join you in complaining about park fees rising. If we all felt the fees we paid were going to wildlife conservation/preservation, and it was visible, I don't think people would complain as much but when you can't see improvements in what you have paid for, it seems like extortion and so very wrong.
JanGoss is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 10:50 PM
  #32  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
Nyamera: I do appreciate that you speak out and often bring a different point of view -- that's good for all of us! I know you focus on Kenya and may have missed it but for some time there has been much speaking out about the over emphasis on luxury and subsequent higher prices in Southern Africa, especially Botswana by many on this board so I do think you have some allies including me. I do not have any problem with more money going to support conservation or locals but I am strongly disappointed with the trends toward providing environmentally damaging amentities and raising prices to cover such luxury extras which raises the profits for ownership groups who are already making a mint rather than wildlife conservation. I am definitely not a champion for such trends.

However, you are right that I am totally dedicated to one basic conservation truth. That is the conservation of land and maintaining it as wildlife habitat. I firmly believe that scientifically it is a fact that loss of habitat is the major cause of decline in the majority of declining species and thus we must protect as much land as possible for wildlife. Thus, I do not like that on many private concessions camps are adding an environmental burden by having internet, private plunge pools, and air conditioning, etc. but I very much prefer it to an area decimated by cattle grazing and human settlement. Even in the most extreme case of hunting concessions, I despise hunting, but protecting additional natural habitat beyond non-hunting parks and concessions is better for wildlife even when some individuals are harmed than losing that land and all of the population using it. This is something that has haunted Kenya -- neighboring Tanzania allows hunting but it has lead to protecting exponentially more land and thus Tanzanian wildlife populations dwarf those of Kenya. It is the reality of being a scientist that I'm forced to see past emotion which is very difficult and focus on the preservation of species as a whole. Beyond that basic tenant of conserving wild habitats there are many different approaches and in every case answers can differ but I have yet to see a valid dispute that anything other than protecting the habitat -- food, water, and shelter for each species -- can form the basic foundation of conservation. Without that step nothing else can follow.

You are right that every country has their management issues, all governments are far from perfect, but as alluded to above Kenya by far trails the others in the amount of protected lands and thus is leading the others in dwindling wildlife populations.

From the World Resources Institute, 2003 data for Protected Areas by percent of total land area

Kenya 12.3%
Tanazania 39.6%
Zambia 41.4%
Botswana 30.2%
USA 15.8% -- keep in mind that Kenya is only the size of 2 States of Nevada and the USA is the 3rd largest land area in the world so a similar percent means a much greater area of protected land.

Number of protected areas greater than 1 million hectares -- this is especially important because only in large areas can you maintain fully functioning systems.

Kenya 1
Tanzania 6
Zambia 4
Botswana 3
USA 20

I could be off base but I think these numbers are very telling that Kenya is trailing way behind in protecting wildlife habitat and that is what has formed my opinion of Kenya vs. other safari countries -- doesn't mean that there are not very special places in Kenya or that it is too late to save more. I am very interested in the Laikipia region and think that the private conservation efforts there are providing a great source of hope for establishing conservation on private lands via tourism which is in many ways just another model of the private concession used well in other countries but with the interspersion of ranching it is a critical area to have success. Kenya certainly has some parks that are jewels and the base to conserve from but much more needs to be added.

As an aside we are fortunate in the USA to have reached a point in the economy where parks fees can be ridiculously low (they should be raised here too as parks are underfunded) and for $80 you can purchase a pass that will allow visitation to all parks for a year. For $15 to $25 you can have a week in any National Park. It is the opposite of Africa where who pays the most gets the most exclusive experience. In the USA there are millions of backcountry acres and whoever is willing to put a pack on their back and go where there are no roads gets the exclusive experience. Just something to think about for those looking for a great wilderness experience on a tight budget.

Back to topic. Based on the statistics I quoted above and Jan's run down of all the tasks the Sheldrick Trust is performing it is clear that KWS needs a lot of help and since Sheldrick Trust is providing a lot of it I hope this situation can be resolved in a way that does not negatively impact the Trust. BTW, Jan you are being very modest. Your passion and interest has made you very knowledgeable about the Trust and KWS.
PredatorBiologist is offline  
Oct 27th, 2007, 11:38 PM
  #33  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,774
Wow, PB, you have sure given me personally a lot of food for thought tonight with your posts in this thread.

My first reaction to the park fees being charged was 'oh oh, maybe we won't go to Sheldrick's next time' until I read your post telling us to remember all that KWS does - although probably not perfect as Jan points out, they do 'make a difference'. Thanks for changing my first reaction on that point.

Then you really made think in your last post (the one above this one). I was absolutely shocked when I saw your stats on the US compared to Kenya. We have driven all over the US and so far I can say I have seen a bear, some hawks, some mountain sheep, a moose or two, a few skunks, cazillions of people and multitudes of cities & buildings. But then I thought - well, yes, there is my problem, we took in the cities, we did not go into the back country. And besides that I guess I should also take into consideration that the parks in Kenya are so much more accessible in a shorter time than the US (because it's smaller) and that we went to Kenya purposefully to go the parks and see wildlife.

I also must say that I have seen MORE wildlife here at home since I have been to Kenya - I don't know if I am looking more now or what, but I saw a coyote not two blocks from here last night (now I won't let the cats out... do coyotes eat cats?), a skunk last Friday in my front yard, 2 ducks in the front ditch, a loon along the highway last week, and a family of racoons crossing the road a few weeks ago at my friend's house. Jim keeps telling me I am starting to rival the guides in Kenya as spotters!

The most awesome sighting I have had here in Canada though was a herd of bison (HUGE!) running along the side of an out-of-the-way road in Eastern Manitoba when we were visiting my parents one day about two years ago. We stopped and gawked, it was incredible, there must have been 10-15 of them in the herd. And theyw ere SO big - bigger I do beleive than the elephants in East Africa, or so it seemed! None of us could believe it, and of course the cameras were packed in a bag as we had just flown in that day. My mom found out later that they were actually a herd that has been raised domestically that broke loose - the guy is trying to re-introduce bison into Manitoba.

Wild or domestic - that was an amazing sight that I will never forget!
LyndaS is offline  
Oct 28th, 2007, 04:19 AM
  #34  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,675
Jan (nice to see you join us again). You have to follow up on recent trips, as your adventures are so interesting and different than most visitors.

Agree that $1 or $2 can be a fortune for many Kenyan families to allow their children to go on a trip to Sheldrick, Giraffe Center or others. That said, over the years, I've never been to any of these "animal centered" activities where there weren't groups of children (from little 5/yr to 13/yr olds) in attendence. If those parents who could did pay, and many more parents who couldn't afford to... somehow these children were able to visit; either supplemented by some organization or the visits were free.

I based the $1/$2 on the fee schedule at local prices only, not specific as to who may have actually paid or not.
sandi is offline  
Oct 28th, 2007, 04:20 AM
  #35  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7
As were were in the carpark at Sheldrick's, grappling with the new fee, one bus full of local school children came out and another went in. So things seem OK on that score.
We travelled through Kenya (and Tanzania) with my two stepdaughters, aged 21 and 18 and my daughter, aged 11. That means every time we entered a park it cost us US$180.
By then we had already spent 6 or 7 days in Kenyan parks, so we had already made a pretty decent contribution to the KWS. The fees are on the high side, but hey, we came to Africa to see the animals. We certainly didn't begrudge paying.
However, after paying something over a thousand US dollars to the KWS, we were not going to fork out US$180 to be allowed to drive 50 metres up a road. That just smacks of cynical exploitation and greed.
Yes, we are a fortunate family and could easily afford to pay, but I for one felt so angry I just wouldn't (even though the 11 year old was crying because she wanted to see the baby elephants).
For those who think its OK to charge silly fees in return for no service whatsoever, just because the KWS is a good cause, well sorry, but you're wrong. There are globally accepted principles and practices for setting such fees, and extortion isn't one of them.
And from what I can tell, the KWS would alredy be profitable enough to cross-subsidise other parts of the Kenyan economy (and before you jump on me I am a public sector budget analyst and I fully understand issues of infrastructure, overheads and capital costs.)
We were able to explain to our 11 year old that sometimes you just have to stand up for whats right, even if it means missing out on what you really want.
sammyl is offline  
Oct 28th, 2007, 05:16 AM
  #36  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 369
Entering a KWS park is still MUCH cheaper than entering a Disney Park.... and a KWS park is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better!!
simbakubwa is offline  
Oct 28th, 2007, 06:19 AM
  #37  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 592
Thanks for all your comments. Just goes to show that we can all learn from one another with our different points of view.

I just had a note this morning from a new tour operator in Kenya. He had gone to JKIA to meet 65 Europeans arriving from Europe and learned of the new KWS ruling of charging to go and see the orphans while he was at the airport. Since he had not costed that amount into their bills, he asked if they would be willing to pay $40.00 each and they wouldn't. Thus there were 65 people terribly disappointed at the KWS ruling.

I would beg of all of you, please don't stop adopting the orphans, and if you can afford it please continue visiting the Trust. Now, more than ever, Sheldrick Trust needs all our assistance in order to be able to continue the magnificent job they do. If donations are down due to fewer people visiting, they will be feeling it already. Last night when I readopted one of my 17 orphans I added an extra $500.00 to the donation to help them get by. Please think about extra donations if you can afford it. I put mine on my credit card so if necesary it can be paid off in small amounts. Let's all do what we can to help this most worthy organization. It can only help wildlife in general by doing so.
JanGoss is offline  
Oct 28th, 2007, 06:33 AM
  #38  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 592
I forgot to add, just think of the cost of flying in enough SMA from England to make milk for all the babies. Cost must be astronomical.

Also, every time they rescue an orphan the cost of chartering the flights is costly.

That is why all who can should donate to keep this group growing.
JanGoss is offline  
Oct 28th, 2007, 06:57 AM
  #39  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,309
Predator, I think the whole idea of conservation through setting aside lands to be enjoyed only by the privileged few is wrong in its core. Even if it could be done democratically, by citizens deciding itís the best way for them and their country, and without human rights abuses Ė and this is NOT how itís been done anywhere in Africa Ė itís far too insecure to be relying on that rich tourists will be coming forever. Apart from what can happen with fuel in a long (or not so long) term, youíd only need a couple of bombs a week for some months to almost (Iíd still be going) stop tourism for years.

Lynda, I suppose the US has some great wildlife, but I donít think youíve missed any herds of mastodons by not taking backcountry roads. I really donít think thereís even a comparison with Kenya.

As the US is mentioned, I could mention thereíre no park fees at all in my country. It doesnít say that much as thereís only an 8 % of protected land. I always vote for parties that want more protected land Ė financed by taxes and not fees. Things are not going my way politically and sometimes I have to take it out on Fodorites. Without a pack on my back Ė just some lip-gloss and chocolates in my pocket - I can walk to a forest, sit on a stone for a day freezing to death and having a good chance of seeing a moose, two hares, two roedeer and half a fox. In Kenya, in the Kiserian area south of Nairobi, without paying any fees Iíve sat down in the grass without freezing to death while having the pleasure of meeting not only some nice people and their even nicer goats, but also seven giraffes, hundreds of zebras and some Thomsonís.

Again Iím frustrated by not having facts and figures. Where are the figures telling that there is more wildlife in Tanzania than in Kenya (in relation to the countriesí areas)? I havenít been to Tanzania, but I donít think Iíd be any wiser even if Iíd been there. A year or so ago I read a newsletter by Iain Allan from Tropical Ice saying what BS this Kenya bashing and Tanzania glorification is, but he has a product to sell and I donít know anything about his facts either.

I still think $40 per day is insanely expensive and Iím still upset by the planned raises. Without fraud and deep pockets KWS would have huge revenue with $20 per day, but theyíre getting a better smart card system as well.

Simbakubwa, aha, I could stop my daily visits to Disney Parks!

Re. the Sheldrickís situation, there could be some conflict on individual level behind it all. I donít even think the Trust is that much inside the park since I could walk there. And, do continue fostering elephants. As theyíre so long-lived I wont make another commitment and keep to just my Solango, but Iíll make a one off donation for Christmas, not $500 though. Thereíre other important causes in Kenya.

Nyamera is offline  
Oct 28th, 2007, 08:03 AM
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,002
Keep in mind that all of those countries including the US have lower population densities than Kenya, and in the case of Botswana and Zambia, it is much, much lower, so is it fair to make such a comparison without taking population statistics into account?
Patty is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:17 AM.