The death of the Kenyan Safari?
Sep 2nd, 2009, 01:55 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The death of the Kenyan Safari?
Sep 2nd, 2009, 02:29 PM
#2
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doubt it. Reads more as if they had to fill up space.
Nothing new there, the Embassy bombings were over 10/years ago. Likewise the incident on the coast - terrorists - years ago. There have been such attacks elsewhere around the world and yet not brought up again and again, with such negative reporting. Sure the political upheaval last year was shameful and so terribly sad for those murdered and directly affected, but much of what we saw on CNN was staged for the cameras. To me, the latter was worse than the former... a government that can't govern shouldn't!
The downturn in travel is worldwide and even on the Continent, Botswana, Zambia and next door neighbor Tanzania are more expensive then Kenya.
It took much of the world three years to recoup after 9/11/01. The numbers for Kenya and Tanzania were back up by '04 and kept rising thereafter.
What I do agree with and this is shameful, are the budget tours in large mini-buses that are ruining the environment - Ngorongoro and Masai Mara (Amboseli is already too flat, dry and dusty) and detrimental to game. Beginning to look like Europe in peak season... ugh! And, if Kenya chooses only to go "high-end" with more exclusivity - there would be words flying about that too!
The Russians and Chinese are already visiting in East Africa, and have been for a few years. Every group in their own time!
This too shall pass!
Nothing new there, the Embassy bombings were over 10/years ago. Likewise the incident on the coast - terrorists - years ago. There have been such attacks elsewhere around the world and yet not brought up again and again, with such negative reporting. Sure the political upheaval last year was shameful and so terribly sad for those murdered and directly affected, but much of what we saw on CNN was staged for the cameras. To me, the latter was worse than the former... a government that can't govern shouldn't!
The downturn in travel is worldwide and even on the Continent, Botswana, Zambia and next door neighbor Tanzania are more expensive then Kenya.
It took much of the world three years to recoup after 9/11/01. The numbers for Kenya and Tanzania were back up by '04 and kept rising thereafter.
What I do agree with and this is shameful, are the budget tours in large mini-buses that are ruining the environment - Ngorongoro and Masai Mara (Amboseli is already too flat, dry and dusty) and detrimental to game. Beginning to look like Europe in peak season... ugh! And, if Kenya chooses only to go "high-end" with more exclusivity - there would be words flying about that too!
The Russians and Chinese are already visiting in East Africa, and have been for a few years. Every group in their own time!
This too shall pass!
Sep 2nd, 2009, 04:02 PM
#5
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the future lies in the conservancies. Somebody has to take the reign and be responsible. Here are 2 short TV clips of a couple of minutes each sent to me by Jake Grieves-Cook, chairman of the Kenya Tourist Board. He also owns Porini Camps. Click on the links below:
The first is a BBC clip about a recent report by researchers on declines in wildlife numbers in the Mara eco-system but which also highlighted the success of the community wildlife conservancies with which we are involved at Ol Kinyei and Olare Orok within the same Mara eco-system. There is some great wildlife footage all of which was shot in our two conservancies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8129816.stm
The second is a clip from local KTN TV which highlights the two conservancies with a short comment from me on what we are doing: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PT7c8LPxHM
The first is a BBC clip about a recent report by researchers on declines in wildlife numbers in the Mara eco-system but which also highlighted the success of the community wildlife conservancies with which we are involved at Ol Kinyei and Olare Orok within the same Mara eco-system. There is some great wildlife footage all of which was shot in our two conservancies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8129816.stm
The second is a clip from local KTN TV which highlights the two conservancies with a short comment from me on what we are doing: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PT7c8LPxHM
Sep 2nd, 2009, 04:30 PM
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minibuses are actually more environmentally responsible than landcruisers. They use less fuel, and have more people in them.
There's nothing responsible about putting 2 people in a huge Landcruiser!
There's nothing responsible about putting 2 people in a huge Landcruiser!
Sep 2nd, 2009, 08:12 PM
#8
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's surprising is, on one hand we hear about lodges and camps running empty due to various reasons - on the other hand, we hear of so many more new camps opening up ........ Hmmm ...... Certainly a lot of supply in times of limited demand.
Sep 3rd, 2009, 04:02 AM
#9
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simba
Regarding the fuel consumption and # of people within a minibus you are right
I am much more concerned regarding the minibusses despite the "environmentally conciousness": These drivers have no education at all in view to wildlife and its treatment.
These drivers have no clue of how to undertake a thoughtful abnd sensitive game drive as far as animals are concerned.
For years on end now there are camps and their heads of guides trying to agree and invent a kind of "code of conduct". Nothing yet introduced. As long as ANYBODY which has got a car/vehicle can enter the reserves and undertake "game drives" to their liking I consider these minibuses and SUV driven by wealthy Nairobians much more dangerous to the ecosystem.
Too often we have observed SUV and minibusses interfering not only with hunts and resting animals but more so with river crossings ending in separating cows from calves and zebras from their fowls killing animals on both sides of the river - when cars are blocking the exit on the other river bank.
I would rather appreciate if Kenya does it like many reserves in South Africa: Allow only private vehicles for transfers to/from lodges and don't allow them to game drive.
Regarding the "price tags".
I don't see a huge difference when you get rates for peak season which go up to 700/800pppd PLUS reserve fess PLUS conservation fees. That comes together with the "mass tourism" image and there are not only a few people who say "I have done it once and never again - let's face on to Souhtern Africa".
Many people are reluctant to consider Kenya at all not because of any terrorism in the past - sandi is completely right here: That doesn't have a nowadays impact.
The mass tourism and the reputation of "crowded sightings" are having an major impact.
Nowadays some camps within the Massai Mara not only charge 60pppd reserve fee. No they even charge 20 or 30US$pppd on top of that for "supporting" Massai projects. Supporting these projects is on behalf of the camp owner and therefore should be part of his/her obligation and be paid out of the revenue. Charging a fortune plus letting people pay for very own interests to keep the camp running and accepted by the locals reason an impression of greediness and leaving a very bad taste.
There are even camps which charge a "dayroom" fee but people have to vacate the tent by 10am and pay of course for the additional lunch. But hey - paying a late check out fee is beyond sanity. For what? For using a beach chair?
I wish Kenya well and I love the destination for its abundance of wildlife - outstanding and even superior to Botswana, Zam and Zim.
But getting some people back and down to earth would not harm. And a major recession in the safari business would enhance that process.
But I fear the animals have to pay the price tags - as usually.
Hari
Of course you are right. But having a camp in The Massai Mara means the equivalent to a money tree in the garden and it's too tempting to give it a try. There is no better way to gain easy money. And despite the officials claimed a couple of years agon that there "won't be any more camps/lodges allowed within reserves" - as long as someone fills their pockets the license are provided.
Not without reason belongs Kenya to the most corrupt countries in Africa.
SV
Regarding the fuel consumption and # of people within a minibus you are right
I am much more concerned regarding the minibusses despite the "environmentally conciousness": These drivers have no education at all in view to wildlife and its treatment.
These drivers have no clue of how to undertake a thoughtful abnd sensitive game drive as far as animals are concerned.
For years on end now there are camps and their heads of guides trying to agree and invent a kind of "code of conduct". Nothing yet introduced. As long as ANYBODY which has got a car/vehicle can enter the reserves and undertake "game drives" to their liking I consider these minibuses and SUV driven by wealthy Nairobians much more dangerous to the ecosystem.
Too often we have observed SUV and minibusses interfering not only with hunts and resting animals but more so with river crossings ending in separating cows from calves and zebras from their fowls killing animals on both sides of the river - when cars are blocking the exit on the other river bank.
I would rather appreciate if Kenya does it like many reserves in South Africa: Allow only private vehicles for transfers to/from lodges and don't allow them to game drive.
Regarding the "price tags".
I don't see a huge difference when you get rates for peak season which go up to 700/800pppd PLUS reserve fess PLUS conservation fees. That comes together with the "mass tourism" image and there are not only a few people who say "I have done it once and never again - let's face on to Souhtern Africa".
Many people are reluctant to consider Kenya at all not because of any terrorism in the past - sandi is completely right here: That doesn't have a nowadays impact.
The mass tourism and the reputation of "crowded sightings" are having an major impact.
Nowadays some camps within the Massai Mara not only charge 60pppd reserve fee. No they even charge 20 or 30US$pppd on top of that for "supporting" Massai projects. Supporting these projects is on behalf of the camp owner and therefore should be part of his/her obligation and be paid out of the revenue. Charging a fortune plus letting people pay for very own interests to keep the camp running and accepted by the locals reason an impression of greediness and leaving a very bad taste.
There are even camps which charge a "dayroom" fee but people have to vacate the tent by 10am and pay of course for the additional lunch. But hey - paying a late check out fee is beyond sanity. For what? For using a beach chair?
I wish Kenya well and I love the destination for its abundance of wildlife - outstanding and even superior to Botswana, Zam and Zim.
But getting some people back and down to earth would not harm. And a major recession in the safari business would enhance that process.
But I fear the animals have to pay the price tags - as usually.
Hari
Of course you are right. But having a camp in The Massai Mara means the equivalent to a money tree in the garden and it's too tempting to give it a try. There is no better way to gain easy money. And despite the officials claimed a couple of years agon that there "won't be any more camps/lodges allowed within reserves" - as long as someone fills their pockets the license are provided.
Not without reason belongs Kenya to the most corrupt countries in Africa.
SV
Sep 3rd, 2009, 06:27 AM
#10
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also found it interesting that they chose to bash the budget minivans, when they are the ones using petrol resources more efficiently per visitor than the SUVs. Of course, the issues of trash need to be addressed, as well proper vehicle behavior around wildlife.
I disagree with the idea of allowing private vehicles only for transfers to and from lodges. The limitations SV speaks of occur in the private reserves, not on public land.
Are there maximum quotas on the number of vehicles allowed in the Mara or Ngorongoro per day? If not, would something like that work?
Also, are there officials that can be deployed to high-traffic sightings, to maintain order? I would imagine that the safari industry generates enough money to pay for a few of these. There's usually an official controlling traffic at the Yellowstone sightings with lots of cars present, to keep things from getting crazier than they already are.
Finally, I wanted to present one of the comments to the article that the OP mentioned:
"Besides, the idea of a safari is very dead model. Wildlife viewing in Europe and North America is free or paid nominally - outside what tourists pay for a hotel, car, meals etc. Tourists consider it a rip-off to have splendour of Alps or grizzly bears in Alaska for free, but pay 100s of bucks for zebras in Africa. Africa is no longer undeveloped and doesn't need safari type expeditions - at least not less developed than Australian outback, Argentinian Andes or Alaskan wastelands. No wonder that Europeans see safaris as over-priced and over-regulated."
I don't 100% agree with the statement above, but I do find it silly when I hear people from North America saying that they think they need to spend thousands of dollars to have a "quality wildlife/wilderness experience" when these things are close to free at home. I know I could get many more fellow animal lovers to do a safari if the price tag was A LOT lower.
I disagree with the idea of allowing private vehicles only for transfers to and from lodges. The limitations SV speaks of occur in the private reserves, not on public land.
Are there maximum quotas on the number of vehicles allowed in the Mara or Ngorongoro per day? If not, would something like that work?
Also, are there officials that can be deployed to high-traffic sightings, to maintain order? I would imagine that the safari industry generates enough money to pay for a few of these. There's usually an official controlling traffic at the Yellowstone sightings with lots of cars present, to keep things from getting crazier than they already are.
Finally, I wanted to present one of the comments to the article that the OP mentioned:
"Besides, the idea of a safari is very dead model. Wildlife viewing in Europe and North America is free or paid nominally - outside what tourists pay for a hotel, car, meals etc. Tourists consider it a rip-off to have splendour of Alps or grizzly bears in Alaska for free, but pay 100s of bucks for zebras in Africa. Africa is no longer undeveloped and doesn't need safari type expeditions - at least not less developed than Australian outback, Argentinian Andes or Alaskan wastelands. No wonder that Europeans see safaris as over-priced and over-regulated."
I don't 100% agree with the statement above, but I do find it silly when I hear people from North America saying that they think they need to spend thousands of dollars to have a "quality wildlife/wilderness experience" when these things are close to free at home. I know I could get many more fellow animal lovers to do a safari if the price tag was A LOT lower.
Sep 3rd, 2009, 06:58 AM
#11
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SV -
>>There are even camps which charge a "dayroom" fee but people have to vacate the tent by 10am and pay of course for the additional lunch. But hey - paying a late check out fee is beyond sanity. For what? For using a beach chair?<<
The day on safari commences with lunch, thru dinner and breakfast next day; check-out is 10am for the 11am flight or driving onto next destination.
For those who wish to stay and with other guests arriving, a 6-10/tent camp can't afford to have the previous client stay without partial payment; if the guest wishes to stay thru lunch and head out on the 4pm flight, lunch isn't free and the camp has to allocate one of their limited vehicles/guides to take guests to the airstrip. Camps don't have a fleet of vehicles/guides for such purposes... thus the extra fees.
I've often stayed at hotels, resorts, Nile cruise boats, etc. after official check-out time. Been assessed a fee, though able to pay for lunch/snacks directly. What these camps are doing is simply the "cost of doing business" so not at all unusual. And, yes some places do charge for lounge chairs!
>>There are even camps which charge a "dayroom" fee but people have to vacate the tent by 10am and pay of course for the additional lunch. But hey - paying a late check out fee is beyond sanity. For what? For using a beach chair?<<
The day on safari commences with lunch, thru dinner and breakfast next day; check-out is 10am for the 11am flight or driving onto next destination.
For those who wish to stay and with other guests arriving, a 6-10/tent camp can't afford to have the previous client stay without partial payment; if the guest wishes to stay thru lunch and head out on the 4pm flight, lunch isn't free and the camp has to allocate one of their limited vehicles/guides to take guests to the airstrip. Camps don't have a fleet of vehicles/guides for such purposes... thus the extra fees.
I've often stayed at hotels, resorts, Nile cruise boats, etc. after official check-out time. Been assessed a fee, though able to pay for lunch/snacks directly. What these camps are doing is simply the "cost of doing business" so not at all unusual. And, yes some places do charge for lounge chairs!
Sep 3rd, 2009, 09:19 AM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sandi
your argument has to be thought thru to the end.........and your argument I hear all the time from travel agents who sell camps and support camp's desire to sell the "extras" as a kind of necessity.
Sorry - but IF I were a Tour Operator or travel agents I would definitely not join that chorus.
A some camps charge almost 150US$ppp late check out (over Xmas it's plus the Xmas supplement! which adds up to 200US$ppp late check out!) is resulting in the same amount (or even more!) which is asked for a SUV - so that argument because of the airstrip transfers and therefore lack of vehicles is invalid.
Instead of paying for a "late check out" a couple can rather book a SUV, get that extra lunch for $$ plus packed breakfast and head out for a full day until they get dropped at the airstrip. That is even more economical than just paying for the beach chair. furthermore the vehicle most probably must go the air strip anyway in order to pick up new guests.
One can turn it in every direction but comes only to the conclusion that's nothing but about making an extra $$$$ adding to the reputation Kenya has already got.
SV
your argument has to be thought thru to the end.........and your argument I hear all the time from travel agents who sell camps and support camp's desire to sell the "extras" as a kind of necessity.
Sorry - but IF I were a Tour Operator or travel agents I would definitely not join that chorus.
A some camps charge almost 150US$ppp late check out (over Xmas it's plus the Xmas supplement! which adds up to 200US$ppp late check out!) is resulting in the same amount (or even more!) which is asked for a SUV - so that argument because of the airstrip transfers and therefore lack of vehicles is invalid.
Instead of paying for a "late check out" a couple can rather book a SUV, get that extra lunch for $$ plus packed breakfast and head out for a full day until they get dropped at the airstrip. That is even more economical than just paying for the beach chair. furthermore the vehicle most probably must go the air strip anyway in order to pick up new guests.
One can turn it in every direction but comes only to the conclusion that's nothing but about making an extra $$$$ adding to the reputation Kenya has already got.
SV
Sep 3rd, 2009, 01:15 PM
#13
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... Hey, I don't make the rules, nor prefer one camp over another and personally hate "extras." As the consumer, you have the choice to sing whatever song you wish!
Besides, there are some camps that even charge for afternoon rather than morning arrivals. Also, because they have to take a vehicle/guide out of commission to go to the airstrip when other guests would be going out on game drives or other activities.
One lays out all the options and leaves it up to the guest. Most people do not use late check-out and keep to the lunch/dinner/breakfast daily schedule. If they're heading elsewhere, most start out early by road or flights before 12N. The Mara is the only place that has an afternoon flight, all others are in the morning (oh, except from Naivasha). And, when I've been on these afternoon Mara flights to/from, very few paxs.
If a guest chooses late check-out by using the Exclusive Use of Vehicle day rate, then it's to their advantage.
Those camps that charge for late-departures/lunch, have apparently determined from experience how deviating from the regular schedule screws up their operation... thus these fees.
Nothing to disagree about, just the way it is.
Besides, there are some camps that even charge for afternoon rather than morning arrivals. Also, because they have to take a vehicle/guide out of commission to go to the airstrip when other guests would be going out on game drives or other activities.
One lays out all the options and leaves it up to the guest. Most people do not use late check-out and keep to the lunch/dinner/breakfast daily schedule. If they're heading elsewhere, most start out early by road or flights before 12N. The Mara is the only place that has an afternoon flight, all others are in the morning (oh, except from Naivasha). And, when I've been on these afternoon Mara flights to/from, very few paxs.
If a guest chooses late check-out by using the Exclusive Use of Vehicle day rate, then it's to their advantage.
Those camps that charge for late-departures/lunch, have apparently determined from experience how deviating from the regular schedule screws up their operation... thus these fees.
Nothing to disagree about, just the way it is.
Sep 3rd, 2009, 04:46 PM
#14
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SV - I have to take issue with a couple of your points of view.
"I am much more concerned regarding the minibusses despite the "environmentally conciousness": These drivers have no education at all in view to wildlife and its treatment."
This isn't always true, I have met mini bus driver/guides in other vehicles who behaved in a totally responsible manner. You can't tar the whole lot with the same brush.
"As long as ANYBODY which has got a car/vehicle can enter the reserves and undertake "game drives" to their liking I consider these minibuses and SUV driven by wealthy Nairobians much more dangerous to the ecosystem."
This is pretty elitist. My 'wealthy' Nairobi friends are highly responsible and drive their SUV with their own camping gear into game parks leaving a very small environmental footprint. In fact, on their last trip to the Mara they ended up rescuing 2 4x4 vehicles from reputable companies who had driven irresponsibly and got stuck off road where they shouldn't have been.
It is too easy to criticise one group over another without much thought, never that simple.
"I am much more concerned regarding the minibusses despite the "environmentally conciousness": These drivers have no education at all in view to wildlife and its treatment."
This isn't always true, I have met mini bus driver/guides in other vehicles who behaved in a totally responsible manner. You can't tar the whole lot with the same brush.
"As long as ANYBODY which has got a car/vehicle can enter the reserves and undertake "game drives" to their liking I consider these minibuses and SUV driven by wealthy Nairobians much more dangerous to the ecosystem."
This is pretty elitist. My 'wealthy' Nairobi friends are highly responsible and drive their SUV with their own camping gear into game parks leaving a very small environmental footprint. In fact, on their last trip to the Mara they ended up rescuing 2 4x4 vehicles from reputable companies who had driven irresponsibly and got stuck off road where they shouldn't have been.
It is too easy to criticise one group over another without much thought, never that simple.
Sep 3rd, 2009, 05:03 PM
#15
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with twaffle -- pretty silly to make sweeping statements about someone's education and skill as a driver/guide just based on the type of vehicle they drive. Often the type of vehicle a guide drives is a matter of economics, not skill or experience. I've had excellent guides in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa who drove the "dreaded" minibus, and I've also seen some bad driver/guides in all kinds of vehicles.
I don't think it's fair to say that budget tours somehow ruin the environment more than high-end tourists do -- especially if we're talking about 2 people in a private vehicle versus a group sharing a vehicle. It's the total number of vehicles in an area that matters, and beyond that it's the actions that individuals take while they're visiting an area -- guides and guests alike. That's just as true in the national parks near my home in California as it is in Africa. If we're talking about the well-being of the wildlife and the environment, limiting the total number of vehicles is probably a very good idea (but something that's not likely to happen when money is desperately needed).
I don't think it's fair to say that budget tours somehow ruin the environment more than high-end tourists do -- especially if we're talking about 2 people in a private vehicle versus a group sharing a vehicle. It's the total number of vehicles in an area that matters, and beyond that it's the actions that individuals take while they're visiting an area -- guides and guests alike. That's just as true in the national parks near my home in California as it is in Africa. If we're talking about the well-being of the wildlife and the environment, limiting the total number of vehicles is probably a very good idea (but something that's not likely to happen when money is desperately needed).
Sep 3rd, 2009, 05:40 PM
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find something ironic....
If the tented camps in the Mara are billed as ecotourism ventures (environmentally friendly, socially conscious, benefits to the local population, etc, etc)...... if that is REALLY true.... then shouldn't more and more camps be viewed as a good thing?
However, if more camps are viewed as a negative thing... then i would assume that the camp can't really claim ecotourism.
Yet.... if you look on the websites for any of the 86 lodges/camps located throughout the Mara... you will see they ALL brag about their ecotourism endeavours!!!
Something doesn't line up!
If the tented camps in the Mara are billed as ecotourism ventures (environmentally friendly, socially conscious, benefits to the local population, etc, etc)...... if that is REALLY true.... then shouldn't more and more camps be viewed as a good thing?
However, if more camps are viewed as a negative thing... then i would assume that the camp can't really claim ecotourism.
Yet.... if you look on the websites for any of the 86 lodges/camps located throughout the Mara... you will see they ALL brag about their ecotourism endeavours!!!
Something doesn't line up!
Sep 3rd, 2009, 09:02 PM
#17
Thank you, twaffle and MDK. It is both elitist and absurd (probably a redundant statement, that) to paint "minibus drivers" with such a broad brush.
Speaking of elitism (and worse), in my research on parts of Kenya I came across the following quote from ATR about Il Ngwesi Lodge near Lewa and Laikipia:
<i>Looking at the images one might get the impression that Il Ngwesi is rather similar in quality to the nearby Tassia Lodge, but this is not the case.
Whilst Tassia is superbly run by the local Maasai people in partnership with expat managers, here at Il Ngwesi the local owners choose to operate without the help of professionals from outside. Consequently the lodge has a rather flaky reputation and we feel is not reliable enough for us to fully engage with at present. </I>
And this is right on their website. Un-freaking-believable! On the other hand, at least I know exactly where they're coming from.
Speaking of elitism (and worse), in my research on parts of Kenya I came across the following quote from ATR about Il Ngwesi Lodge near Lewa and Laikipia:
<i>Looking at the images one might get the impression that Il Ngwesi is rather similar in quality to the nearby Tassia Lodge, but this is not the case.
Whilst Tassia is superbly run by the local Maasai people in partnership with expat managers, here at Il Ngwesi the local owners choose to operate without the help of professionals from outside. Consequently the lodge has a rather flaky reputation and we feel is not reliable enough for us to fully engage with at present. </I>
And this is right on their website. Un-freaking-believable! On the other hand, at least I know exactly where they're coming from.
Sep 4th, 2009, 04:25 AM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twaffle
There is ALWAYS an exception from a generalisation.
I am not speculating - I have spent weeks on end in the Mara over the last couple if years. So it's not a 2 or 3 night experience. We stay for 14 days in one camp when we visit Kenya.
I have stayed several times at camps in and outside the reserve during migration. And believe me - instead of the KWS/rangers checking tickets they should rather monitor the crossing points.
I also have witnessed more than just a couple of times SUV and minibusses circling a pride of lions completely. Camp guides then ask these guys to leave space so that animals don't feel cornered.
If that weren't the fact there wouldn't be an attempt (for several years now) to get a "code of conduct" out - initiated by heads of guides from camps. Not by KWS, nor the tourism office. It's the camp guides who have figured out that there is something terribly wrong the way many cars conduct game drives.
And yes - that's a generalisation as well because there are camp guides who also don't act professionally in a guiding sense.
Leely
It's not elitist nor redundant. It's a generalisation based on experiences. Generalisation because of incidents and numbers of these. As I have not written down the number plates I have no choice other then generalise.
Would you be reluctant to share with us your findings of the researches you did on Kenya?
These findings might extremely valuable.
Thank you.
simba
You are right. A relatively small area with 80+ lodges cannot be considered eco-friendly. But most of the camps try to minimize their impact. Some of them leave their lot in order for nature to recover during the wet season etc.
It's not so much the small camps which have between 6 and 10 tents. I am more concerned about the huge ones like Mara Safari Club etc which accommodate more than 100 pax at a time offering "decent" showers instead of buckets etc etc
SV
There is ALWAYS an exception from a generalisation.
I am not speculating - I have spent weeks on end in the Mara over the last couple if years. So it's not a 2 or 3 night experience. We stay for 14 days in one camp when we visit Kenya.
I have stayed several times at camps in and outside the reserve during migration. And believe me - instead of the KWS/rangers checking tickets they should rather monitor the crossing points.
I also have witnessed more than just a couple of times SUV and minibusses circling a pride of lions completely. Camp guides then ask these guys to leave space so that animals don't feel cornered.
If that weren't the fact there wouldn't be an attempt (for several years now) to get a "code of conduct" out - initiated by heads of guides from camps. Not by KWS, nor the tourism office. It's the camp guides who have figured out that there is something terribly wrong the way many cars conduct game drives.
And yes - that's a generalisation as well because there are camp guides who also don't act professionally in a guiding sense.
Leely
It's not elitist nor redundant. It's a generalisation based on experiences. Generalisation because of incidents and numbers of these. As I have not written down the number plates I have no choice other then generalise.
Would you be reluctant to share with us your findings of the researches you did on Kenya?
These findings might extremely valuable.
Thank you.
simba
You are right. A relatively small area with 80+ lodges cannot be considered eco-friendly. But most of the camps try to minimize their impact. Some of them leave their lot in order for nature to recover during the wet season etc.
It's not so much the small camps which have between 6 and 10 tents. I am more concerned about the huge ones like Mara Safari Club etc which accommodate more than 100 pax at a time offering "decent" showers instead of buckets etc etc
SV
Sep 4th, 2009, 07:05 AM
#19
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread .........
Yet, poaching is still a major problem in the Mara from all that I've read - despite all the commercialization, the luxury safaris, the budget mini-vans, the big cat diary etc etc.,
What's for the future then?
Yet, poaching is still a major problem in the Mara from all that I've read - despite all the commercialization, the luxury safaris, the budget mini-vans, the big cat diary etc etc.,
What's for the future then?
Sep 4th, 2009, 12:34 PM
#20
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding minibuses and their conduct I am glad I am not the only one who "generalises".
http://www.fodors.com/community/afri...from-kenya.cfm
Hari
Your question will be answered within the next 5 - 10 years at the latest I fear.
I see the lions extinct, the cheetah without any doubt as well.
When these species have gone - particularly the lion - then the ecosystem is going to collapse anyway.
It's all too sad.
What makes me sad the most is - we all know it. People in Kenya who could make a difference know it but simply neglect because these folks are money driven and as long as camp owners fill their pockets there will be more camps season after season.
I don't know whether there is a slightest reason for hope..............
SV
http://www.fodors.com/community/afri...from-kenya.cfm
Hari
Your question will be answered within the next 5 - 10 years at the latest I fear.
I see the lions extinct, the cheetah without any doubt as well.
When these species have gone - particularly the lion - then the ecosystem is going to collapse anyway.
It's all too sad.
What makes me sad the most is - we all know it. People in Kenya who could make a difference know it but simply neglect because these folks are money driven and as long as camp owners fill their pockets there will be more camps season after season.
I don't know whether there is a slightest reason for hope..............
SV
