hguy47

I have been an avid reader of and periodic poster on the Fodor's Africa forum for a couple of years now. From time to time I see posts where people say that the longer time you spend in one single area (as opposed to spreading your time over more areas), the more likely you are to see something good. Why would you be more likely to see something better on days 4 and 5 in one area, as opposed to days 1 and 2 in a second area (assuming equal number of game drives and equal "quality" of areas)? My experience, albeit admittedly limited to only two safaris, is that each day (indeed each hour or each minute) that you spend on a game drive has just about an equal chance of having something good happen. Am I missing some fundamental truth (it wouldn't be the first time)?

cary999

"(assuming equal number of game drives and equal "quality" of areas)"

That's the key qualifier and thus I basically agree with you. But might be by staying longer you could have more time at a "quality" sighting. Like perhaps, lions eating a buffalo. Over a few days you could revisit this twice a day and thus claim that more time was spent viewing rather than searching.

My personal preference is to spend at least 4 days in a camp. I like to settle in a bit and get the routine of the camp, become comfortable there. Of course there is always the problem that when you change camps the travel time causes you to miss a game drive. (Not considered in the question, rightly so). I hate when that happens.

regards - tom

Khakif

hguy47, from my perspective, yes it is better to spend a 3-4 days in one place (with a few exceptions where one day is adequate). It takes the guide time to “read” the area so he can develop his plan. In addition, I like to observe a certain lion pride over 3 days to see if they actively hunt, how they interact, possibly locate cubs nearby, etc. We may spot a leopard and return to that area again to see if he has cached a kill in a tree. Our guide may observe a large elephant pride is missing; having knowledge of their routine, on the third day we might observe them returning to the fav watering hole. I like time to get to know the crew, have been known to stay in camp afternoons and learn more from their perspective. If I’ve pre-arranged a cultural experience then I sometimes want to spend a day with the women, not just a photo opportunity.

atravelynn

Sometimes moving around means more time in transit and less time in the bush, as the others have noted.

I agree with Cary999 about seeing a range of activity. This was especially true for the lion pride at Duba Plains. A longer stay increases the odds of seeing a hunt, which occurs every couple of days, and increases views of lion-buffalo interaction.

In East Africa if you are trying to see a wildebeest crossing, you may need several days. A longer stay increases the odds of seeing this. If you know you will remain in the area several days, then devoting numerous hours waiting in one place and watching is psychologically easier to do without feeling you are missing out.

Seeing the same animals over several days offers a nice perspective into their lives.

Like Khakif mentioned, some extra time in one area opens up the door for cultural opportunities and interactions. You have time to find out about possibilities (that were not options when booking) and you have the time to spend with both animals and people.

Of course on a driving safari, you've got the guide with you whether you're in one spot or many. But the pace is more relaxed with less moving around.

You can get to know the staff better from guides to waiters to managers. Often these are some down right fascinating individuals that contribute whose acquaintance contributes greatly to the trip.

You can also find out about and take advantage of other offerings such as walks, boat outings, etc.

I usually tack on an extra day or two beyond what is customary for most nature trips. I've asked myself (even before your question) if I'd ever erred and should have cut out early. The answer has always been no. Some of the most memorable and magical moments of all my travel have occured because I elongated my stay.

If you state where you are headed, then more advice could be given. For example, I thought 1 night at The Ark was perfect and would not have wanted more. If I were to design a trip to search for wild dogs again, I'd do 2-night stays in more places known for dogs rather than the longer stays that I did.

cary999

Could be differences depending on whether you are driving to camps with your own guide or having a resident camp guide. A resident camp guide is there before you so they know the current sightings.

Given that the chance is equal in every camp of seeing the same game, and the same resident guides, then I think the "quality" (not quantity) of game viewing is not dependent on length of stay at a camp. Sure, a longer stay increase the odds of anything happening. You can't compare "quantity", the amount of game seen in 2 days with 2 weeks. Unless, you reduce it to some common denominator like number of different impala seen per hour. What else would make a difference? Agreeing again with hguy47.

regards - tom

hguy47

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, they all make sense and raise some good points. Lynn, my question arose out of general curiosity, not with any particular plans in mind. Although I was thinking in terms of "better" wildlife sightings rather than other reasons to stay in one place, the points about getting to know the staff better, get a "feel" for the camp, and being able to follow up on an animal or group of animals for several days add to the reasoning for longer stays.

In planning our two safaris (one to Botswana, one to Tanzania), I struggled with balancing our interest in seeing different camps/areas/topography/people/animals/etc. versus wanting to become more familiar with one place and avoiding packing and moving too often. In Botswana flying in 6-seater Cessnas from camp to camp actually made the transfers enjoyable, whereas in Tanzania it was usually more and longer driving, not always so much fun.

There's always the possibility of suffering the surfer's lament -- "Boy, you should have been here yesterday (or tomorrow)." But then again, you just never know what might await around the next corner, across the next river, or behind the next tree.

So many places, so little time and money. I envy Kaye's getting to spend 25 days at one camp (anywhere, much less Mala Mala). One day is usually too little for most places, but 25 might be overdoing it a bit for me. Different strokes and all that, you know. But anyday, anywhere, anytime on safari is a good day.

atravelynn

Hguy47,

You are so right about the many places and little time. I'd like to try an experiment at Mala Mala or anywhere for that matter. How many days would it take before I felt a need for a change of scenery.

PredatorBiologist

I think longer stays can help immensely with locating far ranging animals, particularly wild dogs and to a somewhat lesser extent cheetah and lions. The best example I know of is the Selinda pack of dogs and the 'Boys', the famous cheetah in the same area. Both of these range through the Linyanti, Selinda, and Kwando concessions. They are moving through their territory on a daily basis. You could be lucky and have them where you stay on Day 1 but it could also be 6 days before they are back in that concession. The longer you are in an area the more the chance that the wide ranging animals will get into your part of their territory. The downside to that is wild dogs could be gone for 2 weeks and you may have stayed 5 or 6 days and still not seen what you wanted but in general with a longer stay you will see more species as the guides will know you have seen a, b, & c and thus want to show you a deeper breadth of species than the 2 day guest that they feel obligated to show the basic 10-15 species to. As pointed out by others it also helps with seeing action since many predators will only eat every couple of days. If you are in one place for 4 or 5 nights virtually every predator in the area will need to make a kill during that time.

I also try to balance the length of the stay with wanting to see a variety of habitats and species. I think seeing different types of areas leads to the best overall viewing due to the diversity.

So I guess if emphasis is to see hunts, kills, predators longer stays probably increase the odds considerably as your stay lengthens but to maximize diversity you want to see as many different rich areas as possible.

nyama

Regarding spectacular game sightings, I don't see any difference between staying 6 nights in Camp A, or staying 2 nights in each Camp A, B and C, if all of these camps are located in similar habitats and you're using local guides.

I prefer to stay longer than 2 nights at each place, for other reasons, but I don't expect that this will increase the total number of spectacular sightings of the whole trip.

HariS

I like staying longer in one place for the following reasons

1.) No need to rush around unless in extra-ordinary circumstances.

2.) As PB says, animals pop in and out and it then comes down to luck of the draw. Going back to PB's example of the two cheetah boys of the linyanti. There has been a time i spent 10 days and missed them completely(i understand from my guide that they showed up the very afternoon i left). Another instance where i saw them on day 1 and watched them hunt and kill from start to finish and eat up the whole carcass undisturbed(they left the concession after two days). Yet another ocassion, when a newbie guide(not my own guide) thought my siesta time was important and failed to mention that they were waiting on the airstrip. I got severly short-changed of that sighting .....

3.) More places on your schedule usually means more travel/transit and that always translates to more lost time and spent money.

4.) Get a better feel and sense of the area with a longer duration.

5.) I guess getting to know the local people better by staying longer (guides/management/staff) etc etc., this is very important to me also.

nyama

You hardly miss a game drive if you make an air transfer from one camp in the Delta to another.

(This is meant as info to this thread's subject, Hari.)

crassman

Longer is generally better BUT ONLY if you have picked the correct season to visit.

You could spend a month in some areas at the wrong time and see about as much as if you stayed there for 2 days. Spread your bets if you are travelling to an area during their quiet season.

PS Khakif - elephants travel in herds not prides.

Khakif

crassman, you are so right - my brain just misfired.

thit_cho

Personally, I prefer shorter stays at more camps, and for example, if I had a week in the Delta, I would prefer two-night stays at several camps as opposed to a long stay at one camp (or even medium length stays at two camps).

My view is that good guides should be able to show guests most of the resident animals during a two-night stay (four drives), and that good guides are incapable of showing you animals that are not resident on that property during your stay. But, if I move, I have a much better chance of spotting animals that are on different properties.

And, since most of the transfers are done mid-day, I miss no game viewing. Most of the mid-day time is otherwise spent sleeping, lazing by the pool, reading, etc., of on an overhyped game walk, and I don't mind sacrificing this down time to a transfer.

A similar analogy can be made to European travel styles, and whether you are the type of person that would prefer a week in London to 3 days in London and 3 days in Paris. Surely, you can see much more of London in a week than 3 days, but I would prefer splitting the time. My thinking is that, in this example, Paris' best sites are more interesting than London's fourth-day sites. But, there are some who like to make an exhaustive examination of a city prior to visiting a second city.

Its another example of the fox/hedgehog dilemma (the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing). I'm a fox, not a hedgehog.

atravelynn

Thit cho,

Interesting you brought up the city analogy. For cities, I am a fox definitely. For nature, I am a hedgehog. So that fox or hedgehog personality is not necessarily fixed.

Do you find yourself wishing you had more time in some of the places you spend just a few days? Or do you figure no matter how long you're there, if it is a desirable location, you'll always want a few more days, so it's best to just move on?

The green season and short stays is a good strategy by Crassman. I'll remember that when I'm able to travel at that less expensive time.

thit_cho

<<Do you find yourself wishing you had more time in some of the places you spend just a few days? Or do you figure no matter how long you're there, if it is a desirable location, you'll always want a few more days, so it's best to just move on?>>

I try to guage the number of sites I'd like to see, and I definitely want to see all of the first and second tier sites in the places I visit, but I would (generally) prefer to move on rather than remain and see all of the third and fourth tier sites. But it depends on the place -- I have certainly spent a week in London, Paris and Rome, but time for me was not a factor. If I knew that I would only rarely visit Europe (other than several times each year, as I currently do), I would share my time between places.

My next two trips are to the Caribbean (in February) and Nicaragua (in March), but since I find the Caribbean less interesting, I will spend my five days traveling between Saba, Statia and St. Kitts and Nevis, but Granada, Nicaragua has more appeal, and I'll spend my entire time in Nicaragua there (other than the first night when I'll spend in Managua).

HariS

Lynn,

Don't discount the green season as being a bad time for gameviewing(depending on the area, ofcourse). IMO, the only difference is you get wet even with ponchos on and the light for photography isn't as reliable as the dry months.

atravelynn

Hari,
Thanks for the green season thumbs up. With the Botswana pricing, that may be the only time I'll be going in the future. Currently, I am unable to take off that time of year.

Thit Cho,
So if we refer to you in the future as a fox, we'll escape accusations of being flirtatious. If I'm called a hedgehog, I'll assume it is in reference to my travel habits only and not take offense.

sniktawk

No, there is no way of guaranteeing any form of sighting, move around as much as you like or can afford.