Sabi Sands & The Bachelor
 

So, I'm not a fan of the show, The Bachelor, BUT I have to watch tonight because they are on a date in South Africa at Sabi Sands.
We are in the middle of planning our first trip to the continent. I am so excited for our first safari. We are considering South Africa in the Kruger Park area or Kenya and Tanzania.
This show is sure making decisions harder for which country but easier that I definitely can't wait to go!
Anyone else watching?

I'm watching and it's SOOO gorgeous! I wonder if the fantasy suite in the tree is there all the time or was set up special for the show.

I love it! Yes, they have the tree house. Here's their link.
http://www.lionsands.com/experience/treehouse.php

I have been to all three properties at Lion Sands in the past two years. Brad & Chantel where using a suite at 1933 and the tree house. Brad & Emily were in a luxury room at River Lodge and Brad & Ashley were at Ivory Lodge. The rose ceremony was at 1933.

Craig Beal - owner - Travel Beyond

Happened to see this post just as the show was about to start on the west coast. Going to SS in Sept. so quickly tuned in -- saw just as quickly that it was going in a direction I did not want to go in (never heard of it before) so turned off sound and looked up periodically to the great shots of scenery & animals. It just adds to the excitement!

Flipping thru channels, stopped to see what this was all about, coming in at the promo before they showed the Fantasy suite. Immediately knew Brad had "issues" and I'd have no patience, but did wait to see the Fantasy suite. Quite lovely, but the program wasn't going to be to my liking, so was out of there!

shouldbewriting-that is a great way to watch it. My 21 yo dd was here. She had never seen it before either. Family consenus was the same. We only watched for the South Africa scenery. That part was mesmerizing.

Some of the shots were also at Tinga, which is in Kruger and managed by Lion Sands. It sure made me feel home sick watching it, although the show itself....well... enough said :)

Mike

Here's the observation I made when reading that that program is recorded at that lodge in SS;

1) I cannot afford to go there
2) People who basically don't give a rat's a$$ for nature and for the lowveld in particular, they DO get to go there, as long as you have the money and/or get the money from someone else.

Don't interpret the above as jealousy. I am not jealous, as there are other places I can go to, even in that same reserve (for instance, I'll be at Umkumbe in a couple of months). The only thing I'm trying to say is; I wonder how many people go there for the right reasons.

B.regs,

J.

<i>"I wonder how many people go there for the right reasons"</i>

... for those that do, I'd have to assume it's the right reason for them.

Not all travelers have the same goals, interests or budgets, nor might want to travel/stay where others might select; why there are so many choices to fit those who do venture anywhere!

Pixelpower, since I have been there, are you saying I do not care about nature? I would prefer if you do not speak for me or about me in that manner. You do not know me or what I care about. Generalizations like that are at not a good way to make a point.

I think you need to get some facts before you express your expertise in things you know nothing about.

Mike

Mike,

WHERE did I say that everyone - which would mean including you - goes there for the wrong reason? I said I wonder HOW MANY. That is not "everyone".

Sandi puts the finger in the wound; "for those that do, I'd have to assume it's the right reason for them". I guess that's what it comes down to, yes.

But that's all I wanted to point out; their reason may be to soak in a bathtub full of flower petals, or to dine & wine like a king in an airco'd restaurant, or in the case of "the bachelor" to exchange bodily fluids with as many bimbos as possible (I assume the format is the same over there as it is here).

Now I hope everyone can forgive me for not liking the fact that the little prime habitat we have left sometimes goes to waste to people who's main reason for being there is NOT nature?

B.regs,

J.

You said "People who go there..." and I am a people. If you added the word "Some" in front of it, would have been better.
For the most part, the many times I have been there, the folk I have met have been there for the right reasons.

Mike

No I did NOT say that.

I said "I wonder how many people go there for the right reasons". Exact words.

You took something personal for no reason. End of story.

J.

There is another good thing about the private game reserves aside from excellent accomodations, great food, generally newer vehicles, long time experienced guides, etc; Most of them run profitable businesses and therefore sustain the natural environment and the animals in perpetuity.

Craig Beal - owner - Travel Beyond

Who's to say what "the right reasons" are? It seems to me to be completely subjective, and those who go have the right to determine that for themselves. Just because you may not agree with why they're going doesn't make it the "wrong reason."

@Craig; I agree 100%.

Whether we like it or not; in time, the only remaining wildlife we will have will be the areas that generate sufficient $$ to justify it's existence.

@althom1122;

There may indeed be a plethora of reasons, but it seems to me the top reason should be the wildlife itself, should it not? Or do you think it is OK to (ab)use this prime habitat merely as a decor for, say, a casino?

In the case of the bachelor, the biggest reason for being there was NOT the wildlife. And all I wanted to say is; I wonder how many more bachelor-like type of visitors pass by there. My concern is all that luxury-spa-and-bubble-bath stuff attracts the wrong(*) kind of visitors.

I can't believe the heat I'm getting for just voicing this opinion, nota bene on a website that should be full of nature-lovers and eco-travelers.
(*) Yes, I dare say "wrong" and I'd hoped everyone on this board would agree with me.

B.regs,

J.

While I am in agreement that the show most likely was shallow and silly, I didn't watch. The reality of it was probably many who were watching and don't watch discovery channel said, Wow this is an incredible place. I am going on a safari to naturally see the animals but I honestly will not mind having a bubble bath or two along the way. Wonderful about this world (in most places) we have a choice, whether it be in a 5 star resort or a tent in the bush, you would go away with with memories and I think that is what most of us travel for. Aside from catching a bit of heat Pixel you have contributed very good information, we all open a few can of worms from time to time on here. Some of my friends back home watched the show and said to me, please bring back lots of pictures, case in point - I think everyone who goes on a safari at the end it will all come down to the animals.

MY ONLY TWO CENTS IS THIS: the fantasy suite that Emily and what's his face shared was REALLY BORING. How much did they charge for that? Did anyone else think that? They had a little tiny wicker couch to sit on, for the two of them. Really strange.

I was really surprised to see that lodge displayed in such a boring manner, and had been looking forward to this episode to see the scenery/lodges. Call me lame, whatever.

ALSO- God's window looked spectacular.

@returntoyourseat;

True! You may actually have pinpointed the only positive aspect about this bachelor-in-the-bush (sic) thing. That is; the beauty of nature in Sabi Sands may have reached some people who would otherwise never have known about it.

And indeed, one may hope some decide to visit, and in doing so; support the existence of all animals there. I'd like to add my hope to that; I hope some of these people decide to return multiple times, each year with a focus more on nature itself, and less on the excess luggage called "luxury".

After all, choosing "greener" options each year that one returns; it's also a process. I know it happened to me. For my first trip I also was afraid of "getting sick" or "being too hot" or "not safe", so I looked for the "five stars" venues. Simply because I did not know better.

B.regs,

J.

@Laurenanne; IMHO the room should be as boring as possible, as it's <outside> the room what matters. There it should <not> be boring. :-D

B.regs,
J.

pixelpower said: <i>IMHO the room should be as boring as possible</i>

You've said a lot in this thread that I disagree with, and this statement is the cherry on the sundae.

Why on earth would <i>anyone</i> want to stay in a boring room?

One of my favorite memories of a safari was staying in Shompole, in Kenya, where the "room" was carved out of a hillside, with no exterior walls, and I was sharing the space with whatever birds happened to fly by. An architectural triumph, and a different, but terrific, way to be in touch with nature.

Another superb accommodation was the tent at Governor's Il Moran, also in Kenya. The furnishings were extraordinary, mostly made from wood carved by local craftspeople. The headboard was absolutely museum quality.

In both of those spots, the beauty of the room added to my enjoyment of the trip and had nothing whatsoever to do with game viewing or guiding.

Rizzuto,
I was happy to read your very positive comment about Il Moran at Governor's Camp. We will be staying there in September. What else can you tell us about it? Thank you.
Carole

wkwb42a:
http://www.fodors.com/community/afri...rip-report.cfm

@Rizzuto,

You copied only part of my statement. The reason why I said that my room should be as boring as possible followed right after that sentence; I think the room should not distract you from what's happening <outside>. I also think that no interior can match the outside world in terms of beauty.

That very special room you had in Kenya may be the exception that proves the rule, but only because you let the outside world come in (the birds). Think about it. Otherwise you'd be staring at some carved out stone walls. It may be special, yes. But even so, the outside world (Africa!) is more special. Why would you remain sitting on the inside staring at those walls, when it is all happening outside?

Take the average room in the bush. Imagine yourself in it. What do you do there? Sleep. Wash. Get dressed. That should be about it, no? Anything else that keeps you there (a TV, for instance, or a comfy chair) is actually a distraction, and in the end will be a negative on your overall experience of the bush. If you are looking for a comfy chair, find one outside.

Anyway, opinions are like... So don't worry too much about it. It's only MY opinion as I said.

B.regs,

J.

Been thinking some more about this...

You know, this is actually also a talk about stone walls vs canvas (again), if you think about it.

What I've seen a couple of times by now is that a lodge decides to provide airco. Airco, in my view, distracts as well. It may lure people into their room to escape the heat. By doing so, they do not adapt to the climate, and they miss whatever is happening outside.

Let's dig into this a bit further; if you add airco, you need stone walls, doors, and glass windows. To keep the cold in. In other words; you create a bit of a bunker, actually.
Nobody likes bunkers, so that's when the "dressing up" comes in. A nice color on the walls. Paintings. Lots of artwork. Unnecessary furniture like a small salon and a desk. Atmospheric lighting. The list goes on.

But now think about what you've given up by adding airco and going the "dressed up" route.

1) The views. Small windows mean little view of the world outside (a painting that far exceeds any painting in your room, in terms of beauty).
2) The air. You also blocked out the outside air (and any smell and draft that comes with it). That is why stone buildings have ceiling fans. In EP, we even had one of those things that spread a nice scent of flowers on the top of our closet. Is that not pure Kafka? The room was so "closed" it developed an unpleasant smell, which was countered by something artificial ..in the middle of pure nature. I'll have you know; those things contain carcinogenic products (idem with incense sticks, btw)!
3) The sounds. Especially at night this is a huge difference. One of the most fun experiences in the bush are the sounds at night. You cannot hear most of those when the ceiling fan is on, or when that damn little refrigerator starts rattling, or when you use your airco at night (which is even sillier than using it during the day).

Conclusion for me; if you like a "dressed up" room, let nature dress it up for you (via huge netted windows and canvas walls) and keep the room items itself to a minimum and as boring as possible. You really do not need more than a comfy bed, some closet space and a good shower.

I know anyone who goes to Africa the first time is a bit scared of missing the comforts he has at home. I know I was like that too. So he/she looks for a room with airco, and all that other stuff that you <think> you may need. And an outdoor shower? Are you mad?? :-)

Nothing wrong with that. But once you are more confident when going to Africa, and once you have opted for canvas, that all changes.

B.regs,

J.

The impression that I get, pixelpower, is that you're suggesting (in multiple instances) that <i>your</i> priorities ought to be <i>my</i> priorities. Maybe you don't really believe that, but your writing very much implies it.

To my mind, everyone is entitled to seek out the things that are important to him/her. What's valid and true for you might not be for me, and there's nothing wrong with that. If Ms X wants to spend a week in a camp where she can spend the mornings on a game drive, the afternoons in a spa, and the evening in her air-con cabin watching a DVD, no one has any business telling her that's wrong. You (and I) almost surely won't be going to the same camp as Ms X, but that doesn't make her preferences and priorities any less valid.

>> To my mind, everyone is entitled to seek out the things that are important to him/her.

Really? Everyone? A poacher seeks out to make a ton of money by shooting a rhino, removing the horn and then selling it to Asians on the black market. The money is important to him, the rhino is not. And there's "nothing wrong with that"?

I admit my example is extreme. But here's the point I'm trying to make with it:

If we discuss the negative impact of poaching on nature on this board, then why can we not - for example - discuss the negative impact of mass tourism on nature? Or why can we not discuss the negative impact of luxury travel on nature? Because this time the culprits are ...ourselves, the tourists? And we do not like to be confronted with our own behavior?

If I put up a mirror, and someone looks into it and doesn't like what he sees, then he should not blame the mirror and neither should he blame me. He should blame himself.

>> ...no one has any business telling her that's wrong.

True, but on a discussion board (!) one can certainly point out things that one can improve. Without being derogative, of course. Note that I am actually not telling anyone they are "wrong" and I am "right". As I wrote above; I once opted like them. There is no wrong or right. There is no black and white.

But there ARE a lot of shades of gray. Now what is wrong with pointing out those shades, and perhaps persuade some people to move to a bit lighter gray, so to speak? After all, it is for the good of nature, is it not?

There was not enough footage of the lodge to even tell what room they were in. I guarantee there was more than a bench. The rooms are definitely not boring and they all face the Sabie River. It is not boring to be in your room when you still can look outside and see wildlife.

This shot was taken from my room. Boring ? I think not.
http://www.pbase.com/mytmoss/image/112783329

Mike

This thread took a weird turn. I just got back from 3 weeks in africa in January. 2 in namibia and 1 in stellenbosch/cape town, so I had some perspective when commenting on the rooms showed in this particular segment. My point was that the lodge is probably really expensive, and I was surprised at the blandness of the decor. Many of the rooms we stayed in in Namibia and south africa were really beautiful, and had lovely "touches". We didn't spend a whole lot of time in them, but when we were there, we appreciated the properties making the effort for the rooms to not look "corporate" or what I equate with boring. We loved Camp Kipwe in damaraland and the Hawksmoor inn in Stellenbosch. The rooms were gorgeous, unique and flowed into the outdoor spaces around them. The worst place we stayed at, in my opinion, was the Westin in Cape Town (only because we had points with starwood). The room was very bland as was the hotel, and it felt corporate and lacking of soul. There is no reason a room/hotel needs to lack soul in order for you to enjoy nature as well. I have never stayed at the lodges showed in this episode, but was not very impressed with the decor displayed, in light of my recent trip, and in light of what the lodges, most likely, charge for those rooms. Perhaps the lodges are beautiful, my point was what they showed of them in the episode didn't show them in a very interesting light.

Laurenanne, they really never showed the rooms. I never saw more than a 2-3 meters of space at a time. Also its unknown if the show's producers asked for the walls behind the contestants to be minimal. I know that I am quite happy with the room decor

Mike

Well I guess if you had watched the show in the past, which I admit to having done:) then usually the fantasy suites seem to be more lavish, more detailed. The rooms and how they were presented/edited for the show, just seemed to lack any details and were somewhat spare or bare bones for a "fantasy" suite. Again, I agree they didn't show a whole lot of the rooms, but when they showed the one Emily and Brad were in, they were squished on a little wicker couch and the room itself just looked rather generic(and the couple looked uncomfortable, but I supposed if you have followed the "relationship" since, that might explain the uncomfortable looks!)

And I was merely reference the room decor, not the gorgeous scenery outside of them or the amazing photos of elephants you were able to take. Two different discussions.

And Mike, I wish I had had a lens like yours for my trip (the 100-400 mm). Your shots are beautiful, but I could only afford the body and kit lenses for this trip (Canon t1I). Out of curiosity, do you have any pictures of the lodge/lodges themselves? Not sure if you are interested, but here is a link to our photos from Namibia (my husband accidentally deleted a lot of our SA ones without telling me until we got home...UGH).

http://community.webshots.com/user/ElleBea

Laurananne, thanks for the link. Your shots are excellent and most importantly, they are YOURS! I really liked the impala fighting shot. Canon makes excellent cameras and lenses so no excuses about a Canon t1i :)

As for pictures of the lodges, you know..in all my trips I have never bothered to take shots of the lodges or the rooms. Its just not what I am interested in although many have asked for me to do it...I just seem to forget.

However, someone has taken pictures....soo. They did a much better job than I would do. So here are the links below if you are interested in what the Bachelor show missed.

River Lodge where some of the shots were taken http://www.lionsands.com/galleries/river.php

Ivory Lodge which seemed to have the fewest shots on the bachelor.
http://www.lionsands.com/galleries/river.php

And 1933 Lodge which is really an entire large house that is suitable for large groups and families. I have never stayed here, but I visited it and I literally drooled over the 180 degree view of the Sabi River from the master bedroom.
http://www.lionsands.com/galleries/1933.php

Mike

Mike, I thought your pictures looked wonderful too.....I bought my husband a Canon D7 and I thought I brought a great all around lens for it but we are going on a Safari in a couple of weeks, our first, he says he just has to have a wide angle lens, do you have an opinion. We were told that an EF 16-35.....I know this isn't about the bachelor but had to ask.

Hi returntoyourseat

I am not Mike but have used the Canon EF-S 10-22 for 4 years and now moving to the EF16-35mm. Unless you want a very specific high quality prime (fixed focal length) wide angle lens which is very fast and have budget only for 1 , IMO the EF 16-35 is the best ultra wide angle zoom lens option from Canon.

Since you have the 7D with a 1.6 crop factor, you could possibly choose from EF-S 10-22, EF 10-35 or EF 17-40 which are the Canon ultra wide angle zooms. The last 2 use the higher quality L glass

The 16-35 is a winner in terms of quality with the L glass and constant lowest f-stop at f2.8 ( 10-22 lowest f stop is between f4.5 to f5.6 and also as an EF-S lens you wont be able to use it on full sensor bodies should you ever upgrade and the EF 17-40 has a constanct lowest f stop at 4.0).

Ofcourse the 16-35 is twice the price of the other 2 ( roughly). My preference would be EF 16-35 if price werent a concern and the EF 17-40 if price would be a concern.

For a lot of landscape work you could use either- the difference would be apparent when for example you wanted to take photos of the Northern Lights- At an ISO of 400, at f2.8 you would have to expose for roughly 30 seconds (which would be the slowest shutter speed on 7D(?). At an ISO of 800, at f2.8 you could expose only for 15 seconds and get more defined lights but also more digital noise. At a lowest f stop of 4.0 you would be at best be able to do a combination of ISO 800 for 30 seconds or higher ISO with higher noise. ( These are all back of the envelop estimates).

I am sure there would be other examples in landscape photography where this could be an issue but for most situations both 16-35 and 17-40 would work great!

I hope this helps!

Anita

Anita - Wow, this is great, copying and pasting it now. I wanted to wait and get on our return to the US but we are going to try and find a Canon store in Cape Town so he can have it for the trip. Thank you so much for taking the time to give me this information.

Anita is correct that the 16-35 is a great lens. Personally I own the 17-40 which I am quite happy with. However I do not take it on my trips to Africa because I do so little wide angle photography there. I also take a 28-70L which is no longer made, but its a great lens. My Mark IV has a 1.3 hit instead of 1.6 so its still wide angle on both lenses.

Also thank you for your kind comments on my pictures :)

Mike

Glad was of help rtys!

I'll try to compare the pricing between US and Cape Town, as Mike said you wouldnt use it THAT much so if prices are exorbitantly expensive in CPT over US, might be better to wait to go home and buy.