Africa Wild

How many more animals are going to pay the price because of “the ultimate bushveld experience”

Now I’m sure my regular trail dwellers will (0) me for saying, but is R3900 really worth putting an animals live at risk, just for your own pleasure?

“Trailists depend on the trail ranger for their safety and for guidance. The trail ranger should therefore be obeyed at all times. Failure to co-operate in this respect could lead to the immediate cancellation of the trail”
Poor trail rangers – no pressure! What started as a “good” idea, because of a high demand I’m sure, has now almost (not 100% sure of the outcome) cost the life of yet another rhino

NO WILDERNESS TRAILS = NO ANIMALS WILL GET HURT

It’s ridiculous to still go ahead with these trails after yet another incident this past week
But on the other hand it’s all about the money these days so how can you bite the hand that feeds you (no pun intended)
The welfare of the animals CLEARLY not the number 1 priority these days.

If you want to experience the ultimate bushveld adrenaline rush - please stay away from these trails and go watch rugby at Loftus

How do you feel?

Agree with you Twigga. Read on SP forum and see how long the debate went on about the cycling event in KTP. This event will have the same threat you talk about on a walking safari of an animall being shot due to people on foot or bicycle invading wilderness areas.

I am sure the experience will be great and its due to the love of nature that people want to walk these trails and not to hurt animals. If you want to be true to nature keep the guns back at camp and have the thrill of viewing elephants or rhinos at a distance with out the gun besides you. I wonder how many people will then want to go on a walking safari.

One of the problems of walking trails might be the fact that you do not require any experience being in the wild to go on a trail. Nervous or panicking guest may cause animals to react differently resulting in the guide to interfene. Maybe we all need to start with baby steps and rather go driving along 4x4 tracks and walk with a guide a few 100 meter away from vehicles to see some interesting sites after making sure the area is safe.

Only those with some sort of qualification on how to react towards wildlife will be allowed on longer trails. By just using age is no guarentee on how people will react.

Twigga wrote:If you want to experience the ultimate bushveld adrenaline rush - please stay away from these trails and go watch rugby at Loftus

That is exactly the point , the reason for embarking on a wilderness trails experience should not to see animals but to take in the the sounds of nature and be removed from your everyday surroundings .
There is allways a chance of an unexpected encounter with dangerous animals , as is there a chance of a encounter with dangerous people in human populated areas .
The facts are that every week dozens of animals are killed by cars in KNP , in comparison the amount of animal casualties on wilderness trails is insignificant .

I have walked in excess of 1000km in the Kruger and Umfolozi and have been privileged on a couple of occasions to see the trails ranger lead the group away from "special animal" sightings in order to avoid a possible encounter , and also to "let the animal be" - i.e. to avoid disturbing it .

According to what serval states, the casuality rate seems to depend on the competence of the ranger leading the trail as well...

Would abolishing wilderness trails also entail to stop the guided walks in the park?
I don't know about KNP, but I know that there is e.g. a morning walk offered from TR in KTP which is quite popular.
And I reckon the risk is similar?

When in comes to walking in Big Five reserves, it's been a tricky question to me and still is. Anyone who has been on these trails will praise the expierience and for some it's a "unique thrill".

But my concern is that we could lose some animals facing extinction (Black Rhino) in "mishaps" in the bush. And its reality, we have lost some. Not long after my first walk in Pilanesberg in the 90's, there was an incident in Pilanesberg on a walking trail. The guide and his guests came across a Black rhino cow and her calf and were surprised by them when stepping out of the thick bush. The guide was able to scare off the cow firing warning shots (but injured her), but the calf charged him and he shot it. But should the guide have let the rhino stomp him or the guests rahter than soot it Well, he did his job and got the guests out alive (one of them with a serious head injury).

If you join a wilderness trail you have to accept the fact that sometimes these things happen. These trails envolve not only the possibility of encountering Buffalo, Elephant, Lion and Leopard, but also Rhino. It's bad enough that the last Black Rhino continue to be target of poaching, though should these endagered animals be the target of walking tourists, too?

When we go hiking in Big Five reserves, we are encroaching the animals territory and for me it's unethical to shoot an animal that is only protecting its own territory.

As serval said, a responsible guide who knows what he is doing simply won't risk getting his guests into dangerous situations and will try to avoid encounters with Black Rhino, but there are others out there who are taking guests out specifically to give them the thrill to track Rhino.

Today I believe it's much better to watch Rhino and other dangerous megafauna from a vehicle, so you don't put the animals under too much stress and you can get out of their way more easily and quickly.

Anyway I have done the walking thing again since than, but only on walks without rifles. Why not, if you are sure no animal will be shot, decide youself if you are willing to take the (low) risk to be killed or injured by Elephant, Rhino or Buffalo. Go walking, but do it without killing an animal the chances are very high to survive and enjoy it .

An analogy

Would you dive in False Bay with the possibility of spotting white sharks as long as you had a professional diver with you carrying a speargun loaded with an explosive head to blast any white shark that threatened? Probably not, so what’s’ the difference.

If one wants to walk or swim amongst dangerous animals then one must do it at their own risk; therefore no guns and accept the consequences, or don’t do it.

For the "no guns" walk.

If you want to take that chance and respect that animal enough, then I 100% supoort these walks and you 100% deserve that experience

But I doubt that there ever will be no gun walks on offer in Kruger

Just a bit of background:

The Trails were introduced to provide visitors with the opportunity of experiencing the bush differently and as naturally as possible. Moneymaking was not an object at all, in this case!

Many "trial runs" were done by very experienced rangers with different group sizes and compositions.

The feedback from visitors was overwhelmingly positive, mostly because of the atmosphere and experiencing things you cannot do whilst in a vehicle, as serval said.

I have only done one, but remember it vividly up to this day for those reasons!

Humans have been walking about in the bush for 30 000 years, so I don't think it is invasive at all!

The benefit of getting visitors worldwide exposed to the bush and Kruger in particular in this way, and their euphoric reaction, is of extreme importance in ensuring their support for conservation in the long term.

In fact, there are quite a few accounts of previously uninterested and anti-conservation powers that be that have experienced a total change of heart after doing even a short trail....not just in the new government!!!

One or two incidents (and they are really extremely rare considering the volumes of tourists that now have the privilege of doing the walks and trails) , are acceptable in view of the above, in my opinion...although obviously tragic!

The rhino poachers should not be allowed to gain another victory be denying law-abiding citizens this privelege too, in effect?