On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:10:07 +0900, Liz wrote:
>I have never been anywhere near Africa so have no idea what it is like, and
>apologize for my ignorance. Based on treks in other developing countries,
>and the fact that a safari in India costs about $40 a day, plus say another
>$25 for accommodation (pp), I had thought the $175 for Tanzania unreasonably
>high.
As mentioned previously, a reputable safari can be had for significantly
less, but not peanuts. The cheapest Safari's are in South Africa. I'm
not sure what the exchange rate has done but in 2001, you could do
Kruger Park for under $40/day. However, Kruger is not the Serengeti.
Time of year will significantly affect the cost and quality of your
safari.
>I think it is obvious that the wildlife will be better in Tanzania. It is
>my dream to watch giraffes on the Serengeti so I had planned to go anyway.
On the other hand, the Masai Mara really is the Serengeti. It's not
part of Serengeti National Park, but that's just a political
distinction. The animals don't recognize the border and freely migrate
between the two parks.
--
Use the From: header. Sending mail to ese002@news8.exile.org
or ese002@news7.exile.org will only result in frustration. |
