Do You Travel?

PAT said:
...I always wonder why people from Europe (and America to a degree) don't travel more...one example is a friend who came to Melbourne on exchange from Liverpool and had never been out of England or even been to London...
Click to expand...

European travel by train is so easy, it boggles my mind too. I mean I read UK ZooChat members who say they have never been out of the UK. It is a straight two and half hour ride on the Eurostar from London to Paris (and not all that expensive if you book ahead). Of course if you are a teenager I understand, but otherwise???
 
Arizona Docent said:
European travel by train is so easy, it boggles my mind too. I mean I read UK ZooChat members who say they have never been out of the UK. It is a straight two and half hour ride on the Eurostar from London to Paris (and not all that expensive if you book ahead). Of course if you are a teenager I understand, but otherwise???
Click to expand...

Buses are also a great option. I caught one from London to Brussels because it was the cheapest way to get a ferry ticket. Obviously it takes longer and isn't quite as comfortable but, if I remember correctly, it cost me about £20.
 
Arizona Docent said:
European travel by train is so easy, it boggles my mind too. I mean I read UK ZooChat members who say they have never been out of the UK. It is a straight two and half hour ride on the Eurostar from London to Paris (and not all that expensive if you book ahead). Of course if you are a teenager I understand, but otherwise???
Click to expand...

True but there may be many factors involved here.

Although it's a 2.5hr Eurostar train ride away, the tickets aren't cheap, and neither is Paris/accommodation. So cost, I guess, is a very valid factor, especially if you have to multiple by 4 for yourself, a wife and two kids.

In addition, maybe they simply aren't interested in travelling. I lived for 7yrs in London, and people back home would always ask "why don't you got to Wimbledon tennis?" or "why don't you go to an opera?" etc. The answer was that these things never interested me, and I don't feel like I missed out.
 
nanoboy said:
True but there may be many factors involved here.

Although it's a 2.5hr Eurostar train ride away, the tickets aren't cheap, and neither is Paris/accommodation. So cost, I guess, is a very valid factor, especially if you have to multiple by 4 for yourself, a wife and two kids.

In addition, maybe they simply aren't interested in travelling. I lived for 7yrs in London, and people back home would always ask "why don't you got to Wimbledon tennis?" or "why don't you go to an opera?" etc. The answer was that these things never interested me, and I don't feel like I missed out.
Click to expand...

Yes, but France is home to Le Parc Des Felins. Surely you are not suggesting there is anyone in Europe (or the world for that matter) who would not be interested in wild cats??? :eek::eek::eek:
 
nanoboy said:
Although it's a 2.5hr Eurostar train ride away, the tickets aren't cheap, and neither is Paris/accommodation. So cost, I guess, is a very valid factor, especially if you have to multiple by 4 for yourself, a wife and two kids.
Click to expand...

Paris isn't cheap, but the Brits still have a favorable exchange rate. And while the City of Lights has some of the most expensive hotels in the world, it also has some of the cheapest. A lot of rooms can be had for less than eighty euros a night. I've even had rooms for around fifty euros.

Not discounting costs for some people, but with some efoort they can be mitigated.
 
I travel a bit, but only ever to European countries and only within the last 18 months. Would love to travel more and go on some more exotic wildlife holidays, but looking online you can't do wildlife watching cheaply like you can weekend breaks. I do wish I had the willpower to save up, in particular I would like to see the okavango delta, the Galápagos Islands, California and Australia, but I couldn't go more than a year without some sort of zooing trip, they keep me sane(ish)
 
Javan Rhino said:
Would love to travel more and go on some more exotic wildlife holidays, but looking online you can't do wildlife watching cheaply like you can weekend breaks. I do wish I had the willpower to save up, in particular I would like to see the okavango delta, the Galápagos Islands, California and Australia, but I couldn't go more than a year without some sort of zooing trip, they keep me sane(ish)
Click to expand...

As soon as you can go to one of those places and see wildlife in the wild. It will change the way you look at them in zoos.

:p

Hix
 
Hix said:
As soon as you can go to one of those places and see wildlife in the wild. It will change the way you look at them in zoos.

:p

Hix
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point of view.

I think the experience of seeing wildlife in the wild is a wholly different one to that of seeing it in captivity. Not better, not worse, just different.

There are plenty of analogous comparisons: the difference between seeing a sports event in the flesh, or on TV; watching a film or seeing a play; listening to a CD or seeing a band in concert.... and so on.

I think in all instances there is, perhaps, a belief that one choice - the wild, in the flesh, the play, the concert - is, somehow, 'better', or truer.

I would disagree, however. I don't think either is better - but they offer very different experiences. When I go to see Portsmouth play Carlisle later today, I will see less than I would on television, and possibly get a less good reading of the ebb and flow of the match, but I will gain in other ways: atmosphere, flavour, possibly even personal involvement.

Amongst my very best animal experiences have been in the wild. But spending several hours looking for a rare primate, and, at the end of that quest, being rewarded with a 45 second view before the animal in question bounds off into the forest, will never replace the thrill of seeing the same animals, or others, very close, and with ease, in a good and well-designed zoo.
 
Hix said:
As soon as you can go to one of those places and see wildlife in the wild. It will change the way you look at them in zoos.

:p

Hix
Click to expand...

I must say that I completely agree with Hix. Whilst sooty mangabey's points are valid and debatable, for me, I completely believe that seeing wildlife in the wild is an experience that cannot be matched. When I visit zoos I look at the species that I have seen wild completely differently from those that I haven't and whilst I still enjoy seeing all animals in zoos I believe that once you have seen the animal in their natural habitats it changes your view on that species. :)

Apologies for the thoughtful explanation :p I am open to any other opinions :cool:
 
Are there many "wild" areas left? Are "game reserves" in Africa really wild? What about the managed national parks surrounded by suburbia that are heavily managed by park officials? The "wild" birds of suburbia (or critically endangered species around the world) that benefit from feeding stations?
 
My comment appears to have had a hidden implication. I was not suggesting that seeing animals in the wild is better than zoos. I agree that the experience is best categorised as different (and I've said that before in other threads previously).

What I was suggesting was that when you see them in the wild you get a better understanding of their habitat and how they behave/survive in that habitat. For instance, many of the birds I saw just recently in Tanzania were perching in thorn bushes - you don't often see thorn bushes in aviaries (cause they are painful to manage). But the birds perched with their feet on or between the thorns. And other birds fly in a very distinctive way (hornbills come to mind) which you won't see in captivity unless the birds are in an enormous aviary.

And that is what I meant in my previous post - when you see a captive animal of a species you have seen in the wild, even if it is doing nothing or sleeping, you'll know what it is like/capable of/how it behaves because of your experiences.

Seeing animals in the wild is different than seeing them in captivity. Whether one is better than the other depends upon the individual.

As for the question about wild areas, and whether animals are wild if they are managed, then the answer is a resounding Yes to both. Go there and see for yourself.

:p

Hix
 
toto98 said:
Has anyone ever backpacked for long periods of time?
Click to expand...

I have backpacked around Europe with my partner for 5 months, which was awesome and you can read a bit about it here: http://www.zoochat.com/2/my-most-awesome-world-zoo-tour-235130/

Chlidonias has backpacked around Asia a few times, although for much longer and with a far smaller backpack! His thread about his most recent trip is here: http://www.zoochat.com/19/chlidonias-goes-asia-part-3-2013-a-328982/ (the first post contains links to previous exploits).
 
You Australians and New Zealanders are so lucky to be close to Asia. Then again you probably aren't as close as I think of you as being, as you probably need quite a plane ride still to get there. However your plane ride is most definitely shorter than the one I hope to someday take unless the end of the world as we know it comes and that type of travel becomes impossible and/or difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top