I have a friend that shot a black mane lion in Zambia about 10 years ago. He shot the lion a little far back, wounding and not recovering it. The following year another hunter shot the same lion who obviously recovered from his previous year wound.

Do you think hunter who wounded the lion should get reimbursed or partial reimbursement for his trophy fee?
I was thinking partially but then thought about quota and that I would assume most of trophy fee went to gov.
What do you say?

Really?

Of course not. Draw blood - pay the fee!

Absolutely not

Made a mistake. The wounded lion was shot the same year. So let's say they had two lions on quota, now they would be able to conduct 3 lion hunts at a daily rate of about $2500 a day. Not sure if that changes anything. Just putting it out there for discussion not a pissing match.

The first hunter should pay the trophy fee again for the second hunter.

To teach him a lesson to shoot properly

I have less of a concern about the trophy fee in a situation where an animal is wounded and then subsequently taken than I do with the daily rate issue. I do believe that a good outfitter should consider returning to a failed cat hunter a portion of the daily rate paid when the outfitter is able to successfully rebook the hunt. In other words, I wonder about the propriety of an outfitter having one lion on quota and selling that hunt, then reselling the hunt in the event the first hunt is unsuccessful and so on and not making some allowance for the fact that they have been able to sell the hunt twice (or in some cases more than a couple of times). It is one thing if the outfitter is unable to rebook, but another in my mind for the outfitter to profit twice (or more) on the same quota. Seems to be particularly an issue with cat hunts since those are often unsuccessful.

quote:

Originally posted by samir:
Made a mistake. The wounded lion was shot the same year. So let's say they had two lions on quota, now they would be able to conduct 3 lion hunts at a daily rate of about $2500 a day. Not sure if that changes anything. Just putting it out there for discussion not a pissing match.

Samir,

In Zambia it is law to endorse the animal license when wounded and lost. Therefore this tag cannot be sold again.

The license was issued for another lion a year later the way I understand it.

Kind of a ridiculous question IMO. Kind of thing a personal injury/defense lawyer might come up with.

I heard about this scenario from a PH, and it caused me to pass up an opportunity to hunt with the same outfitter many years later.

"A guy was hunting elephant on a 14-day hunt. He killed an elephant early on, but wasn't happy with the tusks (not sure why). So he contacted the outfitter and asked if he could had another elephant tag available. The outfitter did, but stated that the hunter would have to book another 14-day hunt in addition to the extra trophy fee.
The hunter agreed, and eventually shot another elephant which he was more happy with."

So he wound up paying a double daily rate, since he shot the second elephant within a few days of the first.

Since the hunter still had 10 or more days on the original 14-day hunt, I thought that was just a little too greedy IMO.

Based upon that I decided not to book a buff hunt with that firm.

JMO.

BH63

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by samir:
Made a mistake. The wounded lion was shot the same year. So let's say they had two lions on quota, now they would be able to conduct 3 lion hunts at a daily rate of about $2500 a day. Not sure if that changes anything. Just putting it out there for discussion not a pissing match.

Samir,

In Zambia it is law to endorse the animal license when wounded and lost. Therefore this tag cannot be sold again.

I guess the question then would be was the tag endorsed. If it was endorsed then 110% there shouldn't be any type of reimbursement.
The way I look at it is if I owned a hunting operation and this same senario happend, I would reimburse a portion of daily rate and all of what I tacked on to the trophy fee(if any was tacked on). You are still booking an extra full on lion hunt plus there is a good chance you would get return business from the client.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The license was issued for another lion a year later the way I understand it.

Saeed
Look at my second post. I made a correction.
Sam

quote:

Originally posted by samir:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by samir:
Made a mistake. The wounded lion was shot the same year. So let's say they had two lions on quota, now they would be able to conduct 3 lion hunts at a daily rate of about $2500 a day. Not sure if that changes anything. Just putting it out there for discussion not a pissing match.

Samir,

In Zambia it is law to endorse the animal license when wounded and lost. Therefore this tag cannot be sold again.

I guess the question then would be was the tag endorsed. If it was endorsed then 110% there shouldn't be any type of reimbursement.
The way I look at it is if I owned a hunting operation and this same senario happend, I would reimburse a portion of daily rate and all of what I tacked on to the trophy fee(if any was tacked on). You are still booking an extra full on lion hunt plus there is a good chance you would get return business from the client.

Not if it was wounded. If there were no shot opportunities during the safari then yes you could present a case to the operator.

I sell my Lion in the Kafue on a two tier price and have convinced a couple of Luangwa operators to do the same. Lower daily rates and high trophy fee.

quote:

In other words, I wonder about the propriety of an outfitter having one lion on quota and selling that hunt, then reselling the hunt in the event the first hunt is unsuccessful and so on and not making some allowance for the fact that they have been able to sell the hunt twice (or in some cases more than a couple of times). It is one thing if the outfitter is unable to rebook, but another in my mind for the outfitter to profit twice (or more) on the same quota. Seems to be particularly an issue with cat hunts since those are often unsuccessful.

Mike, I think this happens fairly often, and deliberately--especially in Tanzania in recent years.

quote:

Originally posted by sandyhunter:

quote:

In other words, I wonder about the propriety of an outfitter having one lion on quota and selling that hunt, then reselling the hunt in the event the first hunt is unsuccessful and so on and not making some allowance for the fact that they have been able to sell the hunt twice (or in some cases more than a couple of times). It is one thing if the outfitter is unable to rebook, but another in my mind for the outfitter to profit twice (or more) on the same quota. Seems to be particularly an issue with cat hunts since those are often unsuccessful.

Mike, I think this happens fairly often, and deliberately--especially in Tanzania in recent years.

Brother, I doubt seriously its happening much in Tanzania or elsewhere. Outfitters in TZ aren't selling their lions hunts out as it is, much less double selling them.

Years ago I had that happen with a cape buffalo hunt in the Zambezi Valley. Two buffalo on quota and I shot two, but we only recovered one, in spite of days of efforts in trying to recover the second bull. The next week, another hunter came in and shot the unrecovered buffalo. I paid the trophy fees on the two buffalo and he paid his trophy fee on the one. Just so happened that the buffalo that he shot was the one that we didn't recover. Different story than issuing two lion permits however, or is it? I didn't get the bull that he shot-he did-and he paid the same trophy fee.

quote:

Brother, I doubt seriously its happening much in Tanzania or elsewhere. Outfitters in TZ aren't selling their lions hunts out as it is, much less double selling them.

Good point, Aaron. I'm sure you're right about the present day. Before the import issue, though, I do think it was happening. The stories I heard from PH friends lined up far too well with conversations I had with people who came up empty on their lion hunts, having never seen a cat that the PH deemed a shooter (but not suspecting a thing). The increase in concern over lion age made the situation all too easy for unscrupulous outfitters. It's a great example of why guys like you are so important in helping clients choose whom to hunt with.

quote:

Originally posted by BuffHunter63:
Kind of a ridiculous question IMO. Kind of thing a personal injury/defense lawyer might come up with.

I heard about this scenario from a PH, and it caused me to pass up an opportunity to hunt with the same outfitter many years later.

"A guy was hunting elephant on a 14-day hunt. He killed an elephant early on, but wasn't happy with the tusks (not sure why). So he contacted the outfitter and asked if he could had another elephant tag available. The outfitter did, but stated that the hunter would have to book another 14-day hunt in addition to the extra trophy fee.
The hunter agreed, and eventually shot another elephant which he was more happy with."

So he wound up paying a double daily rate, since he shot the second elephant within a few days of the first.

Since the hunter still had 10 or more days on the original 14-day hunt, I thought that was just a little too greedy IMO.

Based upon that I decided not to book a buff hunt with that firm.

JMO.

BH63

Why should the outfitter have just eaten the opportunity to book a 14-day hunt that tag represented?

Exactly!

If you wound an animal you pay for it. Check the contract?

quote:

Originally posted by sandyhunter:

quote:

In other words, I wonder about the propriety of an outfitter having one lion on quota and selling that hunt, then reselling the hunt in the event the first hunt is unsuccessful and so on and not making some allowance for the fact that they have been able to sell the hunt twice (or in some cases more than a couple of times). It is one thing if the outfitter is unable to rebook, but another in my mind for the outfitter to profit twice (or more) on the same quota. Seems to be particularly an issue with cat hunts since those are often unsuccessful.

Mike, I think this happens fairly often, and deliberately--especially in Tanzania in recent years.

Crap!

If an animal is wounded and lost, be it a Duiker or an Elephant, that animal is paid for in full and goes against the allocated Quota.

Should that same animal survive and get shot (this time killed) for a second time, it comes off the remaining quota and there is therefore no question of a double or free kill in favour of the outfitter.

The only one who really benefits is the government as there is still a "walking dead" animal which was paid for.

. . . you need to reread the posts given that the posts you quoted had nothing to do with a wounded animal but rather pertained to unsuccessful hunts where the quota is resold.

I have found from personal experience time and time again that all these problem start when a hunter can't shoot straight! Bad mood in camp, blaming the lion, blaming the buffalo, blaming everyone but himself and finally seeking restitution and threatening the outfitter and booking agent with hell and damnation and a 10 page story on AR unless things are somehow made right! That he could not see the big buffalo standing broadside at 30 paces for a full 5 minutes before gut shooting it, or shooting the cow instead of the bull, is certainly not his fault!!

A lot of people who can afford to write a check to go on big hunts really have no right going on them as they just do not have the necessary experience and maturity to take on a big hunt. And a big part of this learning experience is to come to realize that when you book a hunt you may not come home with your desired trophy despite everyone's best efforts.

Let's not just blame the other side folks. Every season most PHs have to deal with these issues. But they don't come on here and start bashing clients, it wouldn't be too good for their business I imagine!

This is a big reason why canned hunting has such appeal. And if that's all you have been exposed to as many so called hunters are these days, what motivation is there to tramp around for 21 days and pay 100k for a lion which you may not even see, when you can come home 110% with that big maned lion in 3 days if you stretched out your hunt

You book hunt not stationary target
Nothing is guaranteed
Deal with it
That's how is done here in States
Africa is no different

Since every hunt I have been on in Africa was very clear that you pay for any animal killed or wounded I don't see why there is even a question to be asked.

Amen. +1

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Of course not. Draw blood - pay the fee!

....................Absolutely!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . you need to reread the posts given that the posts you quoted had nothing to do with a wounded animal but rather pertained to unsuccessful hunts where the quota is resold.

"Should that same animal survive and get shot (this time killed) for a second time".

Is the same as an unsuccessful hunt or is it not? ..... only difference being not paying the trophy fee if you fail to see, or shoot, wound/lose.

If a target animal is not killed, why should it not be resold? ..... its not the outfitter's fault and furthermore, in some places (like TZ) where the game does NOT belong to the outfitter, if you do not utilize the quota allocated you may likely get a reduction on that particular species the following year, especially the cats.

The outfitter's costs don't change whether you shoot a cat or whether you decide you don't want to shoot a cat. He will not charge you more nor will he charge you less as the license class automatically grants you the privilege to hunt and kill any and all animals listed thereon on a "shoot first, pay later basis".

A "farmed" lion in Zumaland is a different ball game but I much doubt the owner would discount the tag for a lion that survived a wounding.

And further to that, the post I quoted as reference theoretically has bugger all to do with with the original question presented by the OP.

quote:

..... its not the outfitter's fault .....

. . . maybe, maybe not . . .

quote:

The outfitter's costs don't change whether you shoot a cat .....

. . . his costs do not change but his profit certainly does if he resells the hunt . . .

quote:

. . . his costs do not change but his profit certainly does if he resells the hunt . . .

Anything wrong with that? ..... there are good days and there are bad days. Wouldn't you agree that he should be entitled to the odd one?

Would there be any difference if instead of a Lion it were a Sable, Roan or whatever that some client missed out on and the hunt was resold?

You haven't made a comment on the farmed Lion though but I guess that would be OK because the farmer had to feed the damned cat before he put it up for sale.

. . . seems that any time there is a disconnect between the incentive to profit and the incentive for success there is the potential for mischief. If the outfitter was expecting a profit of $XXXX on the cat hunt and he makes that profit on the unsuccessful hunter, then he resells the hunt with the expectation of making another $XXXX profit, what is inequitable about the outfitter sharing a portion of that unexpected gain with the first unsuccessful hunter? The outfitter is whole, no? How many times should the outfitter be able to resell the hunt and make an additional profit?

In most countries the tag is endorsed when the animal is wounded. So no resell of this tag. Therefor you draw blood - you pay the fee!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . seems that any time there is a disconnect between the incentive to profit and the incentive for success there is the potential for mischief. If the outfitter was expecting a profit of $XXXX on the cat hunt and he makes that profit on the unsuccessful hunter, then he resells the hunt with the expectation of making another $XXXX profit, what is inequitable about the outfitter sharing a portion of that unexpected gain with the first unsuccessful hunter? The outfitter is whole, no?

I just love it when a lawyer tries to make a point of what is fair

In hunting, you draw blood, you pay.

It has always been like that, and that is how it should be.

quote:

Originally posted by Caracal:

Therefor you draw blood - you pay the fee!

. . . I never said otherwise.

quote:

Anything wrong with that? ..... there are good days and there are bad days. Wouldn't you agree that he should be entitled to the odd one?

My comments weren't about wounded animals, as noted. I understand that the conversation started out that way, though.

Fulvio, what you say about bad days only makes sense when the bad days aren't deliberate. Before the relationship between supply and demand flipped on lions, I understand that there were deliberate bad days happening in at least some cases, with "whale" clients getting more good days than chance alone should result in.

I have personally shot a number of animals, which had been wounded, and paid for, a year or more before by other hunters.

These are the "cash cows" of the safari industry.

Getting double payments

Wow I need to think
Lemme think. Uuum NO!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . seems that any time there is a disconnect between the incentive to profit and the incentive for success there is the potential for mischief. If the outfitter was expecting a profit of $XXXX on the cat hunt and he makes that profit on the unsuccessful hunter, then he resells the hunt with the expectation of making another $XXXX profit, what is inequitable about the outfitter sharing a portion of that unexpected gain with the first unsuccessful hunter? The outfitter is whole, no? How many times should the outfitter be able to resell the hunt and make an additional profit?

Mike I think you are trying to say that an outfitter should not be allowed to sell a tag again in the event he was unsuccessful the first time as a crooked outfitter can sell the same lion / unicorn 6 times! Market conditions today make it difficult to sell one's whole quota once leave alone a second time around as Aaron also pointed out. Secondly an outfitter wants the client to be successful to build his name and reputation! I don't think you would be too keen to book a hunt with someone who happily claimed he failed on all his lion hunts the previous year!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . seems that any time there is a disconnect between the incentive to profit and the incentive for success there is the potential for mischief. If the outfitter was expecting a profit of $XXXX on the cat hunt and he makes that profit on the unsuccessful hunter, then he resells the hunt with the expectation of making another $XXXX profit, what is inequitable about the outfitter sharing a portion of that unexpected gain with the first unsuccessful hunter? The outfitter is whole, no?

I just love it when a lawyer tries to make a point of what is fair

In hunting, you draw blood, you pay.

It has always been like that, and that is how it should be.

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . seems that any time there is a disconnect between the incentive to profit and the incentive for success there is the potential for mischief. If the outfitter was expecting a profit of $XXXX on the cat hunt and he makes that profit on the unsuccessful hunter, then he resells the hunt with the expectation of making another $XXXX profit, what is inequitable about the outfitter sharing a portion of that unexpected gain with the first unsuccessful hunter? The outfitter is whole, no? How many times should the outfitter be able to resell the hunt and make an additional profit?

Mike I think you are trying to say that an outfitter should not be allowed to sell a tag again in the event he was unsuccessful the first time as a crooked outfitter can sell the same lion / unicorn 6 times! Market conditions today make it difficult to sell one's whole quota once leave alone a second time around as Aaron also pointed out. Secondly an outfitter wants the client to be successful to build his name and reputation! I don't think you would be too keen to book a hunt with someone who happily claimed he failed on all his lion hunts the previous year!!!

. . . not my point exactly although I agree that such abuses are not just possible but I would be highly certain that some outfitters have done precisely what is suggested. I have even heard of booking agents/outfitters that have told a client that their primary animal (in the particular case I am referring to, a buffalo) was wounded and lost, knowing that the animal was not in fact lost, then tried to sell the client additional buffalo quota at an exaggerated trophy fee.

My point, however, was if the outfitter is able to rebook an unsuccessful hunt, why would he not refund to the first unsuccessful hunter a portion of the profit he makes on the second hunt given that he has already profited fully on the first hunt? Should the outfitter be able to rebook two, three times profiting each time and would it more equitable to take a portion of that profit and offset the unsuccessful hunt cost?