How do you know if your safari in a national park was “good” if the closest thing you can compare it to is a visit to the zoo?
I traveled to both Kruger National Park in South Africa and Etosha National Park in Namibia this summer, and found that they were very different. The terrain in Etosha was flat and wide open, allowing you to see all the way to the horizon. It was the exact type of landscape I expected after watching The Lion King. Easy to spot the animals, but not as much of an adventure to find them.
On the other hand, Kruger was filled with all different types of habitat and terrains, changing every fifty or so kilometers. There was shrubbery, grassland, trees, hills. For this reason, it felt like more of a safari to me. I never knew what was hiding behind the next tree or just around the corner. Whereas everything in Etosha was very arid and barren, Kruger offered more variety for different kinds of wildlife.
I would say it’s difficult to compare the parks because of the vastly different terrain and varying wildlife inhabitants, but after looking through my pictures I’ve realized just why Kruger is inching forward to claim a special place in my heart. The animals came so close to the car it felt like I could touch them, which is exciting but simultaneously terrifying. I’d be lying if I didn’t say my heart rate spiked once or twice.
So, how did I decide if my safari was “good” or not? I simply looked out my car window. These are just a few my views from Kruger National Park, and for this very reason Kruger park wins hands down over Etosha.