Would like to hear some points of view from clients and operators on the following subject. I understand that cashflow is the life blood of any business, however, there seems to be a history of abuse/misallocation of trust funds given to some of the above companies.
Would you be as quick to give hefty deposits for a future hunt to one of the above if you knew that those funds were being used to operate today rather than being put towards your hunt tomorrow?
It seems that when we have an economic slowdown or something tragic/unexpected helps change the structure of one of these companies, some clients get screwed in the wash. Suddenly, deposits trusted to these people today, turn out to be spent on other things rather than going to the concessions, governments, etc..
I would particularly like to hear from the professional side as to whether they practice this in their business and why? It seems our entire society has become based upon living today off of tomorrows revenues......

505:

I would be inclined to think that outfitters who have past credentials as being financially sound and of untarnished upstanding have no need to finance their current day operation from advance booking funds.
One would need to watch their step on totally obscure companies that have germinated overnight.

I have a clean slate mate. Paid back my deposits and am not receiving safari money until Zambia gets it's shit together.

For 2014 I am working on a first come first served basis without the financial obligation. Then again I am what is called a small operator.

I NEVER send over funds for a hunters safari until a week before the trip or at the conclusion of the safari, depending on what they are hunting (package plains game vs. DG hunt).

I think wiring funds over significantly before the hunt starts is a recipe for disaster. As much as I am representing the outfitter, I am also caring for my client's money. I take it seriously.

This is why reputation is sooo important in the international hunting community

You can not expect an outfitter to hold major dates and animals without money on the table. Everyone talks about it when the shit hits the fan and the clients get burnt. I can tell you from having so many friends in the industry it is almost always the other way around. I am not saying that it is anyone's fault often when things go south. It is how they handle it that makes or breaks reputations. Like Fairgame said, he made it all right moneywise when the govt threw a wrench into the machinery. Hmmm, new meaning to monkey wrench I think. At any rate reputation means a lot but even that isn't a guarantee. To be honest your money isn't any safer with a booking agent or an outfitter. What does matter is the man's integrity. People like Andrew have great reputations because of their integrity. No contract or other arrangement can make up for that. In the end you have to rely on your personal judgment and that of people you trust. It is also why a place like AR is such a good place to hang out and gather information. Due diligence! It isn't really so much about funding the operations as guaranteeing they (ph/outfitter) do not get screwed as well. I have seen so many people walk away when there is no money on the table. Guess who it is that then gets stuck for all the costs for the pre-hunt arrangements?

There is a big difference between wiring funds over significantly before the hunt starts and the opening question.

quote:

Would you be as quick to give hefty deposits for a future hunt to one of the above if you knew that those funds were being used to operate today rather than being put towards your hunt tomorrow?

No unless I know the outfitter is trustworthy.

UEG,

You mean that Sadie and I can't take that trip to the Bahamas on the deposits from you and Bwanna? Damn!

Mark

It's a terrible thing when funds "paid in trust" are misused......and people are left "holding the bag" and the bag is empty....



Not the way I do business!


.

Mark: LOL! I know where you live!

Global Adventure Outfitters Ceases Operations
The Hunting Report has just learned that Global Adventure Outfitters (GAO) has ceased operations due to the death of its principal Greg Rodriguez. It is unclear at this time whether the shut down also affects Rodriguez' production company One Shot Multimedia (OSMM), Inc, producers of the Sportsman Channel television show A Rifleman's Journal.

You will recall the March 8 Email Extra Bulletin we sent you regarding the murder of Rodriguez during a domestic dispute between a friend and her husband. Only days later GAO Operations Manager James Jeffrey said in a statement he issued, "While we can never return to business as usual after our tragic loss, GAO and OSMM will continue to operate at their fullest. Our clients and their goals remain our top priority." This weekend, the Rodriguez family, with the aid of legal and financial advisors, decided to close the company instead. The reasons provided were that without Rodriguez' guidance and leadership, the company could not continue, and they immediately ceased operations.

Although Jeffrey is no longer employed by GAO, he is willing to provide whatever assistance he can to clients with pending hunts. However, clients who submitted deposits or balances that were not forwarded to their outfitters are likely to find Jeffrey unable to help them with those funds. The Hunting Report has placed a call to the attorney handling GAO's affairs but had not received a response as this bulletin was written on the afternoon of Monday, March 25, 2013. We hope to have more information soon for subscribers affected by the company shutdown. If you are among those, please contact Editor Barbara Crown at Barbara@huntingreport.com or 305-253-5301.

Is any company in the world immune to financial difficulty or loss? Nope, not that I am aware of.

Travel insurance is your best bet against financial loss whether it's fraud, or inability to fulfill your own responsibility of going on the hunt.

Buffalo hunt will run $15k-$20k in Zim, Moz, Zambia. $30k in Tanzania. If you bought a used truck for $15k-$20k, would you say, "No, I'm not going to spend the money to insure this against theft or accident. It's just too expensive."

On the subject of financial responsibility, isn't it also the clients responsibility to insure your investment? What if you get sick, fall and break a leg, or have emergency surgery. Is the outfitter supposed to refund your money because you didn't prepare for the unexpected?

Unfortunately, some think it is not their responsibility to protect themselves. Sure, on a plainsgame hunt, I would be a bit disappointed to see an outfitter not attempt to work with the client, but on some dangerous game hunts, Elephant in particular, the outfitter can't always take the hit. Especially if it's a late season hunt with little chance to fill the spot.

Financial responsibility is a two way street. When everything goes as it should, there are not any problems, but things don't always work like we want.

Exactly. I know one or two of the guys will refund or reschedule in case of the death of an immediate family member. Even then they want to see a copy of the death certificate. Wendell is right about trip insurance it isn't an option it is a must unless you are personally able to take the financial hit. There needs to be trust on both sides as well as being prepared for unforeseen problems. You should not expect an outfiiter/ph to take the hit any more than they should expect you to take it. We need to think of this more as a team approach rather than adversarial.

I totally agree with Wendell. Having said that, I took a look at all of the trips I have booked in my life. I looked at the number that I couldn't make for whatever reason. I couldn't make an ibex hunt in Spain one time due to shoulder surgery. That is it. I decided to take the risk personally.I haven't bought the insurance since.

Caracal you are right. If that was the normal practice I would have a problem with it. Now if it was a one time thing because a client burned them it would be different. Again it all comes down to trust. Too bad there isn't some sort of insurance an outfitter could buy to protect them as well. there might be but I am sure it is outside the range of the normal ph unless you run a very large operation. in that case there are probably enough resources to do it on your own for less anyway.

I have not read the policies lately, but the last time I thought about travel insurance, I read the recommended policy very closely. Pretty much anything that I would use the policy for was "excluded."

Now I realize that the insurance is there to protect you, but really it seems to take money and not pay back. As I recall, fraud, bankruptcy, and governmental dissolution of hunting were not covered. Civil unrest or war were not covered. About the only thing that was covered was my own health or close family illness.

Also, whoever sells this stuff to you gets a commission, so the recommendation for it is in my mind, needing a grain of salt. My mixed bag hunt in Tanzania they wanted close to 10 grand to cover it.

If you want to cover for the relatively small risk by paying a little more than 10% value, that is up to you.

For me, travel insurance over the last 6 years would have cost me my elephant hunt this year.

No thanks.

Some people can afford to risk loosing their day rate or half their day rate. For them, insurance may not be something they consider.

Some people can not afford to loose though. Those are the guys who need to consider it the most.

I have many guys come to me with their "once in a lifetime" shot at what they have saved for and dreamed of for most of their lives. Unfortunately, for some, there is no room in there for insurance. These make me extremely nervous as a sickness or accident will wipe out a lot of what they saved. Those guys, more than anything need to consider it.

Crbutler, I wonder who you were looking at insurance through? If you are paying a heavy premium for insurance, it needs to be very inclusive. If I remember about 4.5-7% (depending on age) of the amount you want covered is about the premium for Travelguard. They have a fairly broad coverage, they have not given any of my clients any problems that I know of on claims. Of course, they were legitimate claims.

Remember, you don't have to insure everything. Most of your airfare is usually refundable, less $400 or so (on most tickets, check to be sure) trophy fees and charter fees do not need to be covered. So a $40k Elephant hunt really only needs about $20k-$25k of coverage. Anyone who is selling you coverage for more than you really need is taking advantage of you, or doesn't know what they are doing ... or both. I talk with my clients and figure what is actually necessary, I don't want them under or over insured.

Yes, Booking agents and travel agents make a commission on the travel insurance. It's certainly not enough for me to worry over though. I don't offer it because I want to make a small commission. I offer it because someone has entrusted me with planning their hunt. This is the responsible part of the planning.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Global Adventure Outfitters Ceases Operations
The Hunting Report has just learned that Global Adventure Outfitters (GAO) has ceased operations due to the death of its principal Greg Rodriguez. It is unclear at this time whether the shut down also affects Rodriguez' production company One Shot Multimedia (OSMM), Inc, producers of the Sportsman Channel television show A Rifleman's Journal.

You will recall the March 8 Email Extra Bulletin we sent you regarding the murder of Rodriguez during a domestic dispute between a friend and her husband. Only days later GAO Operations Manager James Jeffrey said in a statement he issued, "While we can never return to business as usual after our tragic loss, GAO and OSMM will continue to operate at their fullest. Our clients and their goals remain our top priority." This weekend, the Rodriguez family, with the aid of legal and financial advisors, decided to close the company instead. The reasons provided were that without Rodriguez' guidance and leadership, the company could not continue, and they immediately ceased operations.

Although Jeffrey is no longer employed by GAO, he is willing to provide whatever assistance he can to clients with pending hunts. However, clients who submitted deposits or balances that were not forwarded to their outfitters are likely to find Jeffrey unable to help them with those funds. The Hunting Report has placed a call to the attorney handling GAO's affairs but had not received a response as this bulletin was written on the afternoon of Monday, March 25, 2013. We hope to have more information soon for subscribers affected by the company shutdown. If you are among those, please contact Editor Barbara Crown at Barbara@huntingreport.com or 305-253-5301.

Sounds like Greg didn't bother with a "open this if I die" envelope.

Any well run business will not fold within four weeks of the founder's death.

I have a pretty good track record of stating bankruptcy of a booking agent or outfitter is a real risk that is rarely considered by hunters.

It is obvious to me and others in the industry that GAO had to shut down. No Greg, no GAO.

I am sure the attorneys shut everything down and put the brakes on until they sort through all the financials. This doesn't shock me. If I had a hunt booked with him, I wouldn't let this article get me to worked up.

Wendell, the insurance was offered by Gracy Travel.

The total trip coverage was for something like $98K, for 3 years in advance of the trip.

Yes, the lower amounts and less time give lower premiums.

Fortunately I am in a place where I can take the small risk for what they do cover happening.

The bigger point is that travel insurance does not cover all causes of loss of trip, and in fact in my opinion, it doesn't cover much at all. Illness is about it. Now, for some of us, that is a major concern. Personally, if I have an illness that would stop one of my hunting trips, I have something a lot more to worry about than the cost of the trip...

Who are "one of the above"?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Wendell, the insurance was offered by Gracy Travel.

The total trip coverage was for something like $98K, for 3 years in advance of the trip.

Yes, the lower amounts and less time give lower premiums.

Fortunately I am in a place where I can take the small risk for what they do cover happening.

The bigger point is that travel insurance does not cover all causes of loss of trip, and in fact in my opinion, it doesn't cover much at all. Illness is about it. Now, for some of us, that is a major concern. Personally, if I have an illness that would stop one of my hunting trips, I have something a lot more to worry about than the cost of the trip...

Wendell is talking about a more comprehensive Trip Cancellation insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Wendell, the insurance was offered by Gracy Travel.

The total trip coverage was for something like $98K, for 3 years in advance of the trip.

Yes, the lower amounts and less time give lower premiums.

Fortunately I am in a place where I can take the small risk for what they do cover happening.

The bigger point is that travel insurance does not cover all causes of loss of trip, and in fact in my opinion, it doesn't cover much at all. Illness is about it. Now, for some of us, that is a major concern. Personally, if I have an illness that would stop one of my hunting trips, I have something a lot more to worry about than the cost of the trip...

Wendell is talking about a more comprehensive Trip Cancellation insurance.

In any insurance contract, one needs to know what is excluded. Many people get surprised when they think they have a claim.

I find it interesting that the tone of this conversation seems to lean toward clients needing to insulate themselves against risk. Just a few months ago, people were getting a bit testy at the mere suggestion that PHs insure themselves against accidents on safari.

There seems to me a big difference between these circumstances and these differences make the prevailing attitudes on this thread somewhat contradictory. While a client should absolutely insure him/herself against "cancellation" for health reasons and such, are we really expected to also insure against booking agent fraud or incompetence as well? That is like asking a PH to not only insure against an accident, but also against an INTENTIONAL shooting by a client.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
It is obvious to me and others in the industry that GAO had to shut down. No Greg, no GAO.

I am sure the attorneys shut everything down and put the brakes on until they sort through all the financials. This doesn't shock me. If I had a hunt booked with him, I wouldn't let this article get me to worked up.

Wendell:

Well, if it is an orderly shutdown with no loss of client funds, so be it. One advantage of a bigger outfit is that if the guy running the show gets hit by a bus, someone else can take over. Of course, some of the "big boys" aren't very good at accepting criticism, and therefore guys like me book with guys like you and take our chances.

As far as insurance, you only need to insure your cash output, ie, your daily rate.

Tendrams: good points.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:
I find it interesting that the tone of this conversation seems to lean toward clients needing to insulate themselves against risk. Just a few months ago, people were getting a bit testy at the mere suggestion that PHs insure themselves against accidents on safari.

There seems to me a big difference between these circumstances and these differences make the prevailing attitudes on this thread somewhat contradictory. While a client should absolutely insure him/herself against "cancellation" for health reasons and such, are we really expected to also insure against booking agent fraud or incompetence as well? That is like asking a PH to not only insure against an accident, but also against an INTENTIONAL shooting by a client.

I don't think it is about insuring against fraud or incompetence... It is about insuring against the 101 different things that could go wrong to prevent your international hunt from taking place. Some of these are listed above.

One of the advantages to the internet is that you can deal with the PH/hunting company much easier now.

I booked with a small operator last November for a hunt in September of this year. I've offered to pay a deposit from day one but have been told to just pay for the hunt when I get there. All the PH/owner has asked me to do is send him a copy of the confirmation for the airline tickets, which I have done.

The fact that both of us involved with this deal are members here and I've been to Africa a couple of times, the PH/owner probably feels comfortable enough to deal with me this way.

No matter what you insure against you always wonder after the fact why in the heck you spent the money.

Then when your car gets rammed by a runaway 3 horse power donkey cart with no reflectors you always think: man am I happy I kept my insurance up to date.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
I am sure the attorneys shut everything down and put the brakes on until they sort through all the financials. This doesn't shock me. If I had a hunt booked with him, I wouldn't let this article get me to worked up.

Even though the hunting report newsletter has what is probably well a deserved rep for being the National Enquirer of the hunting world I probably would get worked up...and absolutely would if the hunt was costing big money! Sure, the chances are decent that you will get your deposit back after several months of accounting reveals that you are due said monies. Better than 50/50? I am not so sure. Another question...What happens if your hunt is in a month or two and nothing is sorted out legally before you depart? Is the outfitter just going to trust that he gets his money from GAO lawyers or are you going to get stuck paying the deposit twice and just hope you get your money back from GAO lawyers after the fact? Not a position I want to be in. Of course, the chances are also decent that your deposit might have already been forwarded to the outfitter. That said, what is to keep a dishonest outfitter from claiming he never got it? How many months will that take to sort it out with the he said/she said going on between Africa and GAO's lawyer? Perhaps worst of all from a client perspective...you can add to this the reality that any client is going to feel like a truly selfish jerk being overtly concerned about these things when a business and family has just been torn apart! Again, not a position I want to be in and one that is full of pitfalls all over the place. As I mentioned above, it's one thing if we're talking a $2000 deposit on plains game...quite another if a $50,000 deposit for a full bag Tanzania extravaganza.

JMHO

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:...JMHO

And a very realistic one at that. I suspect tendrams that you have a bit of a business background.

First I want to clarify that I am not speculating about GAO or Greg specifically. I, perhaps unfairly, was using GAO as an example of what COULD happen with MANY agents, MANY safari companies, and probably MANY individual PHs. There are undoubtedly plenty of each of them borrowing from Peter to pay Paul hoping that the music keeps playing and that no one needs to scramble for a financial chair! I have no real business background Bill...probably because I am too cautious. I am just an economist who has learned to be very VERY careful with the money he earns. I have therefore come to realize a few things in my life. 1) Pay as little up front as possible and the rest only when the work is confirmed to be done. 2) Tip or overpay when you can and if the work warrants it. 3) That one's ability to get his or her money back once paid, even when contractually stipulated, decreases dramatically with the amount of time that passes. 4) The likelihood of a forthcoming refund decreases as the physical distance between the two parties to a transaction increases. And 5) The likelihood of a just refund probably gets cut in half with every additional party added to the transaction as an intermediary. To me, when it comes to booking an African safari, this means you gotta balance rules 4 and 5. Use a US agent that adds a complicating element to the whole financial transaction...but he's local...or risk the distance between you and the PH or safari company. Not always an easy choice!

Again, JMHO.

Hard to argue with that kind of thinking. Many of those rules have served many successful people well.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
If I had a hunt booked with him, I wouldn't let this article get me to worked up.

Just to be clear, I didn't say I wouldn't be concerned. I just wouldn't overreact ... then again, I don't have any money with Greg, so it's pretty easy for me to say that from the sidelines.

Tendrams rule #5 unfortunately may come into play here.

quote:

Tendrams rule #5 unfortunately may come into play here.

You are probably correct. The sentence above takes me back to high school science classes...

Fujo,
No doubt there are still a few operators out there who run their business the way you describe. However, the pessimist in me suspects they are few and far between these days.

Andrew,
As stated above, I suspect you are a rare breed.

Larry,
Ironic how that example popped up so quickly, prayers for James, he has been handed a shit sandwich, I hope he doesn't have to take a bite.

AZWriter,
I would venture that your statement referring to a well managed business not being shut down in 4 weeks will soon be validated.

Tendrams,
Your final post rings true as well, your statement about "businesses" robbing Peter to Pay Paul is exactly what spurred this post as I feel this practice is rampant in most industries. many of the companies we trust are in all actuality a bug in search of a windshield due to under capitalization, abuse or neglect.

p.s.
For those who eye those quick to raise their hand and say they can be trusted with suspicion, I personally can vouch for Andrew Baldry as we had some financial dealings (not hunting related), He is a man of his word and your money is safe in his hands.

Tendrams

quote:

Even though the hunting report newsletter has what is probably well a deserved rep for being the National Enquirer of the hunting world

......

Is there anything in the Hunting Report (posted by larryshores)statement that is not true or exaggerated ? What about articles in the in the past, say the last 2 or so years? I am not a subscriber to the report but would like to know.

quote:

Originally posted by Elton Rambin:

Is there anything in the Hunting Report (posted by larryshores)statement that is not true or exaggerated ? What about articles in the in the past, say the last 2 or so years?

The statement, "clients who submitted deposits or balances that were not forwarded to their outfitters are likely to find Jeffrey unable to help them with those funds" is very typical of the hunt report. This is not real journalism and gives the immediate and perhaps unjust impression that clients are screwed. I don't think clients would be expecting money from Jeffery, but at most guidance and insight into the current state of any refunds. Would I be concerned if I were a client? Yes, but I am not sure fanning the fires helps any. Any decent reporter would not speculate like that or give that impression without getting the hard facts and noting FROM A VALID SOURCE whether or not clients could get help from James Jeffrey or if they could reasonably expect a refund from GAO lawyers. If they really wanted to be productive, they would offer the attorneys' contact information for clients to make contact with them directly. Offering the statement they did and then saying, "We contacted the lawyers and they didn't call us back yet" gives the impression of "dirty dealing" when it MIGHT not be deserved. Frankly, if I were the lawyer, I doubt very seriously I would respond to anyone outside the group of clients or principals of GAO. That is a sign of professionalism not worthy of the kind of suspicion the Hunting Report tends to foster. Might they be right? Sure, but the point is they don't know if they are and still reported it the way they did.

I could offer other examples outside of the GAO situation but don't really want to stir the pot in such a specific way. Generally however, it seems to me that the Hunt Report has a way of fanning conspiracy theories and sometimes jumping the gun. For example, they tend to do this when they report, "Oh, this area is open!" when it is actually still in the process of opening. They also tend to do this sort of thing when seizures of trophies take place for various reasons. If USFWS seizes a trophy for a paperwork problem, The Hunt Report tends to report it as though it is evidence of a vast conspiracy to grab everyone's leopards or elephant tusks when it is really just a SNAFU that characterizes Africa in general. This is just my vague opinion and nothing more at this point. Can their reporting be valuable? OF COURSE, but you gotta be willing to read with a critical eye and separate the wheat from the chaff.

JMHO

Tendrams advises to pay as little up front as possible and the rest when services are completed. When we first hunted Africa that was the standard but evolved to one-half at contract, one-half prior to hunt beginning. Does anyone know for sure why the risk got shifted to the hunter?

We have had no problem with the latter arrangement but it is an elevated risk, especially since we reside where the rule of law prevails (no guarantee of professional hunter getting paid) rather than some of the better hunting locations where judicial processes are sketchy.

What category is Mark Sullivan in?

quote:

Originally posted by armorer:
Does anyone know for sure why the risk got shifted to the hunter?

Both parties are taking a risk. Outfitter, that the client will follow through. Client, that the outfitter will provide the services agreed on.

Outfitter reserves a perishable commodity (dates). If the hunter has 50% of day rate down on an Elephant, the outfitter is risking a lot, since in most hunting areas, he must pay for the Elephant if it is shot or not.