Original von pippa
and carsten, if you frequent camps in kenia 500€/day/2 pax is quite favourable!

With 300-500 euro I assume the best case. Sure you can easily spend more - if you have

I can't help but wonder if the government deriding the Maasai for the extremely poor road conditions during the flooding and the length of time it took to get people "unstuck" has something to do with this. The government said in no uncertain terms that the Maasai must "fix it". Thus they are probably figuring the cost of improvement plus lining their pockets into the new rate. You know that some people in the Council made a lot of money in the past, and will make a lot more in the future. Again, it never seems to trickle down to the people who really need it.

It will be interesting to see if the roads are really improved and the reserve cleaned up.

I want to look at it from another angle, something I hinted to in my previous post, but, perhaps not clearly enough; I don´t see the problem as being the $80 park fee. I would gladly pay that amount to visit a wildlife paradise. I would immagine most others would to. Pippa, citizen park fees are much, much lower - I think Sh 100 or something so it should not affect the citizens much. The problem seems to be more on the issue of affordable accommodation. All camps and lodges are aimed at the higher end of the income bracket. If there was a camp that charged $30 - $50 per night then the overall daily cost would be affordable.

But when a basic tent with ensuite bathroom, 2 beds with linen, a table and 2 camping chairs fetches close to $150 -$200 per person, making that the benchmark, how basic must a $30 per peson facility be? Matress on the floor with no linen? Bread and butter for meals? Not sure if I´m making my point..............

Original von bwanamich
Pippa, citizen park fees are much, much lower - I think Sh 100 or something so it should not affect the citizens much.

I guess, pippa mentioned the salary in connection with the expenses of those looking after the park or reserve, not whether they can afford to visit the park.

Make a simple equation: A One Day Ticket for one person covers the monthly salary of a ranger, right? How many tourists visit the park per year? and hence, how many rangers could be employed for that? Enough to provide every elephant and every rhino it's personal guard!! Not to mention how intact the roads could be.

But when a basic tent with ensuite bathroom, 2 beds with linen, a table and 2 camping chairs fetches close to $150 -$200 per person, making that the benchmark, how basic must a $30 per peson facility be? Matress on the floor with no linen? Bread and butter for meals? Not sure if I´m making my point..............

I think, this is the wrong approach. The price of the camp is not due to the expenses they have, but because there is a market for it.

If the council (or whoever is in charge of the park/reserve) needs more money to maintain it, I suggest they ask a higher commission or license fee from the camp owners, and not raise the entrance fee.

This way they can also sort out the problem of too many camps in the park. If the license becomes so expensive that profit becomes little, many would reconsider opening or running a camp. They know that they can't go up much more with their prices.

bwanamich,
the salary was meant in comparison to the rate wich has to be paid by a traveller: highseason
300US/camp night/pax
up to 160US$ park fees if you cross through 4 districts (which is absolutely outragous)
10US/pax/da tipp for the guide
05 US/pax/day for tent steward
05 US/pax/day for the waiters and staff behind the scene
plus flights or car with driver
= no wonder that the servants think that visitors to kenya must be all millionaires
and even more important when it comes to market the destination:
kenya is a mass market and won't get rid of that label.
botswana still has that "exclusive" label but the camp night plus expenses is not more expensive than kenya's!!!
guess which country is going to be preferrd by safari enthusiasts means easier to market?

carsten,
that's right. it's all about offer and demand which regulates the price!

for example the camps north of the reserve charge you extra fees because these fees - at least i was told so! - go to the masai community "next dor" to keep their cattle out of that particular space which they have agreed on. BUT it's in the genuine interest of the camp owners that the masai keep their cattle out because gamedrives in between lifestock won't be too attraktive therefore i think it's the camp owners business to pay the masai because it's in his very own interest! but reality is that the camp guests pay for not being confronted with lifestock. okay they can hide it by showing the rate incl. this additional fee but then they wouldn't stand a comparison with botswana at all! therefore they declare it conservation fee!
quite frankly: everybody who pays this additional fee is fooled by the camp owners - not by the masai!

Carsten wrote: I think, this is the wrong approach. The price of the camp is not due to the expenses they have, but because there is a market for it.

I agree that there is a demand to visit the Mara. Would there not be a demand for a $50 p.p.p.d. camp in the Mara? The current camps can charge $200 - $300 because there is no alternative for someone wanting to visit the area. A tourist can choose between 2 dozen $200 to $300 a night camps and that´s all! If there were a dozen camps charging $50 - §100, the demand for these would outweigh the demand for the expensive camps, IMO.