Going on Safari

S

Shirokuma

Well-Known Member
I was talking to someone about animals and zoos and they said "You must really want to go on a safari in Africa" and I said " No, not really".

I explained that I don't like being too hot, that I like travelling but I'm not very adventurous and that for the amount it would cost I would prefer to travel around Europe for a fortnight and see lots of zoos.

I was told that this is very odd and that if I was a true animal lover I would rather see one animal in the wild than a hundred in zoos.

What do other people think? Have you been on safari? Do you want to?
 
I think that if you would rather go to zoos than Africa, that is a completely respectable choice.

However I will say that seeing giraffes, elephants, lions, hippos, flamingoes, kori bustards, weaver birds, etc. and their habitat in the wild is incredible and REALLY is worth the time, money, and effort. There really is no way that even the best zoo, Imax movie, or high-definition television documentary can capture African wildlife like seeing, hearing, smelling, and overall experiencing them in the wild can.

Safaris are relatively expensive, but I have found that this is the best example of "you get what you pay for" that I have ever experienced. Safari travel, even in tented camps, is relatively luxurious in that you are being driven around by guides who really know what they are doing and the food is generally very high quality.

Regarding arduousness, there is no getting around that roads in Kenya are very rough and that Nairobi is not a fun city, but generally tour operators are very responsible and will make special arrangements to help you get through the experience with as much comfort as possible. I frankly have found getting through and around New York and other major American cities equally or more challenging than any African city than I have experienced.

Regarding heat, it depends when you go. July in Namibia was colder than California in the winter and I was wearing a sweater much of the time. Ditto Kenya in July.

If you have specific questions or would like to chat directly about this over e-mail would be happy to do that.
 
Has anybody ever been on any of the safaris in india they look really cool. Tigers and Asiatic lions in the wild cant go wrong?
 
My experience is that both is totally different, and that I wouldn`t miss either. Seeing animals in the wild is absolutely AMAZING and breathetaking and something I highly recommend to any animal lover. Visiting zoos is a totally different experience and much cheaper and I will continue to do both (zoos a lot more often that overseas safari trips...). I personally don`t understand reasons like not being adventures enough or not wanting to get too hot because the experience of seeing wild elephants, orang utans ect. is so, SO amazing, but that is just me and the fact that I don`t mind it (and know from experience that a lot of travelling to "uncommon" countries is much less a problem then most people think).

To see wild tigers, you need a lot of luck, but if you want to try, India is the place to go. A lot of other "good" animals like elephants, buffalo, antilopes, rhinos, monkeys and lots and lots of birds are pretty much guaranteed if you go to the right places, and because of that, a trip to India is high on my list...
 
I have been fortunate enough to spend much time in various parts of Africa, and have experienced many great wildlife encounters within that continent, and there is no doubt at all that there is something wonderful about seeing animals in the wild. However, I think the comparison between zoos and the wild is a misleading one. For example, seeing a Sanje mangabey in the Udzungwa National Park in Tanzania was wonderful - but it was just a glimpse as the animal crashed away into the forest. I think its analogous to watching sport - doing so on TV, or live, is a wholly different experience, and leaves the observer gaining very different things. Neither is inherently 'better' than the other, and, for some, one will be massively preferable. For me, either is wonderful: I would love the chance to return to, say, the Ituri Reserve, in the DR Congo, but I would too be very keen to go again to the Wroclaw Zoo - knowing that each experience would be very different, but also very wonderful.
 
Is it odd to call yourself an animal-lover if you don't have the urge to go out into the wild to see them in their natural habitats? In my opinion, absolutely not.

Going to any country in Africa on a safari has been my dream since I was six or seven. I just can't imagine what it would be like to see a giraffe, leopard, elephant, small hyrax or ANY animal in the wild. I'd love to experience that feeling DavidBrown explained. Can you experience that feeling in a zoo? Undoubtedly. The two (zoos and safaris) just don't compare. As sooty mangabey stated, "-knowing that each experience would be very different, but also very wonderful-"; I believe the main thing that keeps people going on safari and to zoos is that you never know what to expect, not what's actually out there.

I myself cannot compare going to the zoo and going on safari (even though I never have gone on safari) because all I want to do is be around wildlife. Sure, an American bison coming right up to the fence at a zoo and seeing a small house sparrow perched up on my windowsill are two completely different experiences, but they're awe-inspiring because I was able to see an animal, period.

Shirokuma, no one can tell you if you are or are not an animal lover, or what being an animal lover really is. But if you find yourself being amazed by geese simply migrating in V-formation, or taking a minute to observe a little squirrel in a tree, then I think you are.
 
I do realize that was a bit off-topic, but... uh... I saw two key phrases there:

"and that if I was a true animal lover I would rather see one animal in the wild than a hundred in zoos"
and
"What do other people think?"

So I just posted how I felt. :D
 
Shirokuma said:
I was talking to someone about animals and zoos and they said "You must really want to go on a safari in Africa" and I said " No, not really".

I explained that I don't like being too hot, that I like travelling but I'm not very adventurous and that for the amount it would cost I would prefer to travel around Europe for a fortnight and see lots of zoos.

I was told that this is very odd and that if I was a true animal lover I would rather see one animal in the wild than a hundred in zoos.

What do other people think? Have you been on safari? Do you want to?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with the person you were speaking to. I've visited over 100 zoos in Europe, Asia, USA and Australia and no zoo experience has come close.

Of course you're never going to see a fraction of the more elusive species in the wild which are common in zoos and is a reason I still enjoy a trip to a good zoo.

I also disagree with Mr. Mangabey, sure sometimes you'll only get a fleeting glimpse of something but you'll also get unimpeded viewing of species which far surpasses anything a zoo can offer. For example we were incredibly fortunate to watch a Bengal tiger unsuccessfully stalk a barasingha stag from the back of an elephant in Kaziranga. At the same NP we watched a river dolphin struggle to consume a large fish no more than 5m from our small boat.

The point that I'd like to add that others in this thread haven’t is that you see animals as they "should" be. No overweight and lethargic big cats, no primates which are bored and are found in natural social groups and rhinoceros with full horns (which haven't been worn away on their enclosure walls). Plus you'll see species which will never be in captivity.
 
Everyone has different likes and dislikes, and if you don't like being too hot and would rather spend a fortnight looking at zoos in Europe than be on a safari in Africa, then that's fine as it's your choice. But I would strongly recommend you go on safari just once - just to see what it is like. You'll also have a better understanding of why everyone else in this thread loves seeing animals in the wild. I visited Zimbabwe more than 25 years ago and the memories - even brief split second ones - will remain with me until the day Alzheimer's takes them from me.

And, to be honest, the heat is just one small thing that makes it great. Experiencing different cultures is another facet. Sometimes it's not easy or comfortable to get to where you want to go (or see what you want to see), but it makes the success so much sweeter (and memorable). Watching a family of gorillas in a zoo could never compare to spending four hours hiking in the rain and fog on the slopes of the Virungas to spend 20 minutes with a wild family of Mountain Gorillas.

Having said that, I will always visit good zoos as they have their place in my life. But they don't compare to the wild.

:p

Hix
 
Dicerorhinus said:
I also disagree with Mr. Mangabey
Click to expand...

Well, there's a surprise!

Dicerorhinus said:
sure sometimes you'll only get a fleeting glimpse of something but you'll also get unimpeded viewing of species which far surpasses anything a zoo can offer.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely - there is undoubtedly something wonderful about seeing animals in the wild, whether that be something fairly local - the focus above is very much on the exotic, but there is equally something fantastic about our own native wildlife - or further afield. But I'm not sure that the word 'surpasses' is the right one - it's just different. To return to the sporting analogy I used before, if I go to see a football match I will get a wholly different experience - not better nor worse, but different - to that which I would have if I watched the same match on TV.


Dicerorhinus said:
The point that I'd like to add that others in this thread haven’t is that you see animals as they "should" be. No overweight and lethargic big cats, no primates which are bored and are found in natural social groups and rhinoceros with full horns (which haven't been worn away on their enclosure walls).
Click to expand...

Is this true? The suggestion is that all animals that one observes on the wild are in tip-top condition. Whilst this is sometimes true, I don't think it is always the case by any means. Certainly, I have seen a number of animals in their natural habitats who have been in a dreadful state, health-wise, or who have looked pretty desultory and apathetic (wild primates can look as listless as their captive counterparts).

Dicerorhinus said:
Plus you'll see species which will never be in captivity.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true - and, too, the emphasis will be different. Works the other way round, too, of course - I've never seen a wild aardvark, for example, despite being in aardvark country for quite a time. Again, a different experience...
 
sooty mangabey said:
Oh, absolutely - there is undoubtedly something wonderful about seeing animals in the wild, whether that be something fairly local - the focus above is very much on the exotic, but there is equally something fantastic about our own native wildlife - or further afield. But I'm not sure that the word 'surpasses' is the right one - it's just different. To return to the sporting analogy I used before, if I go to see a football match I will get a wholly different experience - not better nor worse, but different - to that which I would have if I watched the same match on TV.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for my own personal experiences and for the people I know who shared those experiences with me and I guess, the various others I have spoken to about making the effort (and it is an effort) to see a species in the wild. I can honestly say that for me and the people I have discussed this with, seeing wild animals was far more rewarding and enjoyable.

sooty mangabey said:
Is this true? The suggestion is that all animals that one observes on the wild are in tip-top condition. Whilst this is sometimes true, I don't think it is always the case by any means. Certainly, I have seen a number of animals in their natural habitats who have been in a dreadful state, health-wise, or who have looked pretty desultory and apathetic (wild primates can look as listless as their captive counterparts).
Click to expand...

Oh, come on now, please don’t spin what I said (typed?)! The point I was making is you “see animals as they should be”. You don’t see overweight and unfit tigers in India. If you see a primate with half a tail it’s not because some clumsy oaf has chopped it off in slide door. An “apathetic” primate is not apathetic because it’s housed in a concrete box with limited social interactions and/or “enrichment” opportunities. An animal in a “dreadful” state more often than not won’t be around too long. Everything, to me at least, just seems more alert (again I’m speaking from my experiences).
Perhaps an example? I watched a wild sun bear digging away in a decomposing fallen tree for maybe only 90 seconds before it saw my colleague and I and hastily bolted into the undergrowth. That sun bear did not exhibit the behavioral problems I have seen in the majority of these bears I have seen in zoos in Asia, Australia, Europe and the USA. It also didn’t resemble the sun bears I have become accustomed too in that it was a much leaner animal.


sooty mangabey said:
Absolutely true - and, too, the emphasis will be different. Works the other way round, too, of course - I've never seen a wild aardvark, for example, despite being in aardvark country for quite a time. Again, a different experience...
Click to expand...

Absolutely and if you had taken the time to read my post you will see that I had admitted that the chances of seeing some of the more elusive species is extremely remote**. But you know the same can be true of a trip to the zoo, how often have you been keenly anticipating seeing a species only to be disappointed to be greeted by a ball of fur curled up at the back of the enclosure or a total no show? I certainly read comments by members here saying as much on a regular basis!



Don’t get me wrong I enjoy visiting good zoos. But after having now seen a selection of species in the wild I think that is a vastly superior experience.


**I honestly believe that if you want to see species enough there are many things you can do to greatly improve your chances (I’d assume an aardvark is just a case of staking out an active burrow?). This is why I travel with “target species” in mind.
 
AnaheimZoo said:
Is it odd to call yourself an animal-lover if you don't have the urge to go out into the wild to see them in their natural habitats? In my opinion, absolutely not.

Going to any country in Africa on a safari has been my dream since I was six or seven. I just can't imagine what it would be like to see a giraffe, leopard, elephant, small hyrax or ANY animal in the wild. I'd love to experience that feeling DavidBrown explained. Can you experience that feeling in a zoo? Undoubtedly. The two (zoos and safaris) just don't compare. As sooty mangabey stated, "-knowing that each experience would be very different, but also very wonderful-"; I believe the main thing that keeps people going on safari and to zoos is that you never know what to expect, not what's actually out there.

I myself cannot compare going to the zoo and going on safari (even though I never have gone on safari) because all I want to do is be around wildlife. Sure, an American bison coming right up to the fence at a zoo and seeing a small house sparrow perched up on my windowsill are two completely different experiences, but they're awe-inspiring because I was able to see an animal, period.

Shirokuma, no one can tell you if you are or are not an animal lover, or what being an animal lover really is. But if you find yourself being amazed by geese simply migrating in V-formation, or taking a minute to observe a little squirrel in a tree, then I think you are.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Sometimes rarity doesn't generate the enjoyment. I remember being really chuffed at seeing an albinistic starling in the fields near my home, or a common lizard in the graveyard of the church in Upminster.

I'd also agree that the thrill of seeing a specimen of an animal in the wild far exceeds that of seeing an equivalent in a zoo. Avocets always look better on the "Scrape" at Minsmere than in any aviary, and seeing my first free-living Mandarin Duck in the Peak District this spring was far more exciting than seeing them at Slimbridge.

Having said that, if you visit Walsrode, Loro Parque, either Berlin collection, San Diego or Cincinnati you will see fabulous animals far more easily than in the wild and at far closer quarters.

Good zoos and the wild dovetail, IMHO.
 
IanRRobinson said:
Good zoos and the wild dovetail, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yep, very much so. It is also much more efficient and practical to go to your local zoo to see your favorite animals (if they happen to be things like giraffes and elephants) than it is to run off to Africa every time you want to see them (although if one had the means that would be nice too!).
 
Sooty mangabey feels the exact same way as I do. There is no way to compare the two, they're just, as he puts it, different. I believe that's all there is to say about it.

Here's an example:
Imagine being in Kenya and having the opportunity to see an enormous bull elephant browsing about 20 feet away. You can barely see the elephant because of the thick brush in your way, but everyone in your jeep is dead silent and excited as they snap pictures of it...
Now, imagine being at the San Diego Zoo. A polar bear is snuggled right up against the glass, separated from you by mere inches. You watch as it rolls around and puts its gigantic paws upon the window, also yawning and showing off its teeth...

I'm not sure what makes seeing animals in the wild different, but I'm positive that the majority of ZooChatters would say that seeing the elephant would've been the better experience. Even though you got to come within centimeters of a polar bear, it seems as though the elephant in Kenya would be a more memorable one. Does anyone disagree?
 
AnaheimZoo said:
Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Sorry!

Just because the two experiences are different doesn't mean that one cannot be perceived as better.

As a child I saw Polar Bears in the "pit" at Bristol Zoo, I have now seen them at Detroit Zoo which was a better experience. Next year I will try to see a wild polar bear (yup, I really do have my trips planned out that far ahead) and depending how that pans out it will likely be better experience still. Each experience is different but some are better than others.

Just saying they’re “different” doesn’t really mean anything.
 
Last edited:
AnaheimZoo said:
Sooty mangabey feels the exact same way as I do. There is no way to compare the two, they're just, as he puts it, different. I believe that's all there is to say about it.

Here's an example:
Imagine being in Kenya and having the opportunity to see an enormous bull elephant browsing about 20 feet away. You can barely see the elephant because of the thick brush in your way, but everyone in your jeep is dead silent and excited as they snap pictures of it...
Now, imagine being at the San Diego Zoo. A polar bear is snuggled right up against the glass, separated from you by mere inches. You watch as it rolls around and puts its gigantic paws upon the window, also yawning and showing off its teeth...

I'm not sure what makes seeing animals in the wild different, but I'm positive that the majority of ZooChatters would say that seeing the elephant would've been the better experience. Even though you got to come within centimeters of a polar bear, it seems as though the elephant in Kenya would be a more memorable one. Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

Interesting post, because seeing a massive bull elephant is something that is sadly a rare occurrence in zoos; but then again unless you were clinically insane you would never get that close to a wild polar bear.:)
 
AnaheimZoo said:
I'm not sure what makes seeing animals in the wild different, but I'm positive that the majority of ZooChatters would say that seeing the elephant would've been the better experience. Even though you got to come within centimeters of a polar bear, it seems as though the elephant in Kenya would be a more memorable one. Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

I've been very fortunate to have both of the experiences that you are describing here.

The difference is that you get to see the elephant where it is truly, in all respects, an elephant with no barriers or human constraints or influence on it. You are experiencing the habitat as much as the elephant. Where there is one elephant there are frequently many others. In Samburu in northern Kenya I saw perhaps a hundred elephants gathered in one area. A dominant bull came sauntering through the herds and chased off the younger males. Baby elephants were frolicking with each other. Elephants of all ages and sizes interacting with each other. At the same time a herd of reticulated giraffes came sauntering by. There were oryx and Grevy's zebras all over the place.

The polar bear experience at the San Diego Zoo was fascinating because unless you were a researcher working with a tranquilized animal, you would never be able to see the size and power of the polar bear paws. I would liken this experience to being in a really great class with a terrific demonstration of nature in a controlled setting. You are seeing something that you would likely never experience in nature, but at the same time you are seeing only a very limited aspect of what the polar bear really is. You are not seeing it at full capacity in its wild environment. I have a zookeeper friend who has seen the wild polar bears in Churchill, Canada. He said that it was truly amazing. Most of us will never be able to do that probably, so the zoo polar bear exhibit is the best representation of the real animal that we will know.
 
Add on the fact that IF the numbers who go to zoos in North America, Europe, Japan and Australasia went instead to reserves in South America, Africa and tropical Asia the latter would soon cease to function as anything approaching the wild. Anything approaching true wilderness is a contradiction in terms if subjected to mass tourism.
 
I haven't been on a real safari, but many years ago I spent a few days at a non-famous national park (Mole in the Northern Region of Ghana). It was not really a Serengeti type experience, but it was wonderful and memorable. I saw several things you can't see in a zoo
  • a bull elephant knocking down a tree (a long way away)
  • a glimpse of an oribi
  • ground hornbills in flight (conspicuous with their white primaries)
  • warthogs running with their tails in the air
  • a fairy blue flycatcher, ethereally elegant
  • an African black tit (no sniggering at the back, it does exist)

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top