quote:

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?

As a lawyer did you apply this theory to your clients?

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

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?

As a lawyer did you apply this theory to your clients?

. . . are you suggesting that outfitters and agents are no better than attorneys? You might be on to something.

How many times do you think an outfitter ought to be able to profit on a single tag, once, twice, three times, other?

We are not hunting wild africa in the early 1900's-where it was no big deal if you did not shoot 5 lions on your safari but shot four instead.This is 2017 and a whole different ballgame.If you go on a lion hunt today and don't see a lion I think you got the royal shaft.A shaft like that can make you never return or book another similar hunt and in 2017 I don't think the outfitter or anyone else will give a shit.

I like Mike's idea. When I screw up a shot and wound something, I definitely should be reimbursed for my poor shooting by the outfitter if a better shot kills my screw up....NOT!!!

. . . reading comprehension is not a strong suit of many on AR apparently.

PH does his job and puts hunter on quarry. Hunter messes up the shot. He pays his fees.

Next year PH does his job and puts hunter on quarry.Hunter makes a good shot on same cat. and Pays his fee.

It is about being and honourable individual and assuming responsibility for ones actions.

Not wanting to speak out of turn but I never agreed with the rule it is the hunter who drew first bloodthat is who the animal belongs to.

I know the gentleman standard is first to blood claims the animal. If I was hunting with an outfit or camp that followed that custom I would honor it. But I would seek to avoid it.

He drew his blood, he paid the fee per the regulation or contractual term. Sometimes it does not come together. You have to be willing to accept that before you step foot off the plane. The game reset and another hunter shot better.

With a lion shot too far back, I would mark it done to grace no one got hurt, the animal was able to recover, and call it good.

The reason the blood equals fee reg exist is because animals are a limited resource. If you draw blood the animal's monetary value is required to justify the expense of providing habit and protection for the larger number of animals. This lion could have easily died off complications from his wound. His monetary value must be realized. You need a uniform policy for the most likely scenario, the animal dying unrecoverd, not the once in a lifetime chance of survival and being shot down the road. The quota represents a sustainable yield for that area in a given season. The next season the quota resets. The next hunter shot better.

I read Mjines post as risk allocation between outfitter/operator and client. In that it puts skin in the game for the outfitter and balances out the equity of my hunt being resold and profit made on failure.
We just had a long running post in part about how to shift bargaining power or more protection to clients from outfitters (I am referring to a Martin Peters thread). Mr. Mjines idea is reasonable.

I am a pessimist by nature. I never expect to bag anything, and as such does not hurt my feelings if the Outfitter resales, but I am not dropping what 60k for a lion today either. Now, I do not think an outfitter should ever be required to reimburse a prorated amount of the daily rate just because I missed up the shot. That is not what Mr. Jines suggested.

Mr. Jines: if I did not comprehend your position accurately, then I apologize. Tell me and I will edit my commentary to remove my musings on your position.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . reading comprehension is not a strong suit of many on AR apparently.

You mean like comparing lawyers with hunting outfitters??

There is the odd crook in the hunting industry, while in lawyers, one has to look hard and to fine one that is NOT

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
I like Mike's idea. When I screw up a shot and wound something, I definitely should be reimbursed for my poor shooting by the outfitter if a better shot kills my screw up....NOT!!!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . reading comprehension is not a strong suit of many on AR apparently.

I think some have Mikes posts wrong! I think what he is saying is when a lion is hunted but not found he thinks the daily fee should be discounted a bit. That doesn’t apply when the client has the lion in his sights, and wounds but the lion is not found. IMO the PH has done his job in supplying a lion hunt, and the client is going home with out a lion by no fault of the PH! Now by law the lion license is endorsed, as TAKEN, and cannot be legally used for another lion.

Maybe my reading is flawed, but that is my understanding of what Mike is saying!

……………………………………………..................................................... .

LIons cover a lot of country, I'd like to see a Lawyer or PH prove its the same Lion, they may think its the same Lion, but proving it is impossible without an autopsy to recover a bullet..UNLESS it was under a high fence, in which case who gives a fat rats ass what the outcome is.

One of the least informative threads Ive ever seen as I can't believe it ever happened in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
LIons cover a lot of country, I'd like to see a Lawyer or PH prove its the same Lion, they may think its the same Lion, but proving it is impossible without an autopsy to recover a bullet..UNLESS it was under a high fence, in which case who gives a fat rats ass what the outcome is.

One of the least informative threads Ive ever seen as I can't believe it ever happened in the first place.

The lion was video taped on two days along with quite a few pics from game camera. This was a free range lion hunt.
Everyone including PH's agreeed this was the same lion that was wounded. There was a scar where the bullet had entered. Can't remember if bullet was recovered or it was a pass through.
Who ever said this was supposed to be an informative thread???

quote:

Originally posted by samir:
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?

No he should not get anything!

He shot it and wounded it. End of story.

The second hunter who shot it the year after pays a normal trophy fee.

What is so complicated about that?

This system has been working for donkey's years, why mess up with it?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

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?

When I shot an add-on buffalo with that same Outfitter, I didn't pay another 7-day Daily rate because I was still hunting on the 14-days I had already paid for.
I would think the same thing would/should apply to an "add-on" elephant.

As explained to me by the PH, we were hunting communal lands. The outfitter bought each tag from the tribe at a certain price prior to the hunting season.
He then sold as many hunts as he had tags for (or maybe more??). He made his profit off the daily rates and trophy fees he made off of hunts. If he had
any tags left over at the end of the season due to lack of hunters or just not being able to fill a tag, then the animals went back to the tribe and he just
ate the monies he paid for those animals. Since he still had an elephant tag available, I would think he would be happy to just take the profit off the
trophy fee, rather than take a loss on the price he paid for the tag.

Why should a hunter pay for 28 days of daily rate (at more than 1K USD a day), when he only hunted for a total of 5 days???

JMO.

BH63

quote:

Originally posted by BuffHunter63:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

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?

When I shot an add-on buffalo with that same Outfitter, I didn't pay another 7-day Daily rate because I was still hunting on the 14-days I had already paid for.
I would think the same thing would/should apply to an "add-on" elephant.

As explained to me by the PH, we were hunting communal lands. The outfitter bought each tag from the tribe at a certain price prior to the hunting season.
He then sold as many hunts as he had tags for (or maybe more??). He made his profit off the daily rates and trophy fees he made off of hunts. If he had
any tags left over at the end of the season due to lack of hunters or just not being able to fill a tag, then the animals went back to the tribe and he just
ate the monies he paid for those animals. Since he still had an elephant tag available, I would think he would be happy to just take the profit off the
trophy fee, rather than take a loss on the price he paid for the tag.

Why should a hunter pay for 28 days of daily rate (at more than 1K USD a day), when he only hunted for a total of 5 days???

JMO.

BH63

Say he got eight tags before the season. He's going to figure his season at 16 weeks of daily fees off elephant, and budget and plan accordingly. If he just gives your friend a tag he just pissed away 14 days worth of top-dollar daily fees, maybe $20,000?
I suspect that would impact his bottom line for the season.
I'll bet actual dollars that your friend would have been welcome to stay in camp those extra days.

quote:

Why should a hunter pay for 28 days of daily rate (at more than 1K USD a day), when he only hunted for a total of 5 days???

Because those are the number of days which are considered sufficient in getting what you booked for and you paid the going rate for an Elephant hunt.
So you were fortunate to have got it in 5 where others probably got theirs halfway through or towards the end or, some may have lost out all together.

Would it be more appropriate and gratifying to the hunter to be led on a merry chase for 25 days and eventually score at the 11th hour or at worst not score at all?

How about taking into account that the 28 days booked and paid for would be days lost to the outfitter if he were to refund you the balance ... 23 days that he won't be able to sell to anyone on a moment's notice?

Next time round just book a 7 day Elephant hunt but don't complain later that the outfitter refused to extend because you thought it was too short a time span and you failed in your quest.

More importantly, with 23 days in hand it would have been your choice and privilege to remain in camp doing whatever and had you been kicked out, would have been reason for complaint and demand of a refund.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

Why should a hunter pay for 28 days of daily rate (at more than 1K USD a day), when he only hunted for a total of 5 days???

Because those are the number of days which are considered sufficient in getting what you booked for and you paid the going rate for an Elephant hunt.
So you were fortunate to have got it in 5 where others probably got theirs halfway through or towards the end or, some may have lost out all together.

Would it be more appropriate and gratifying to the hunter to be led on a merry chase for 25 days and eventually score at the 11th hour or at worst not score at all?

How about taking into account that the 28 days booked and paid for would be days lost to the outfitter if he were to refund you the balance ... 23 days that he won't be able to sell to anyone on a moment's notice?

Next time round just book a 7 day Elephant hunt but don't complain later that the outfitter refused to extend because you thought it was too short a time span and you failed in your quest.

More importantly, with 23 days in hand it would have been your choice and privilege to remain in camp doing whatever and had you been kicked out, would have been reason for complaint and demand of a refund.

I think the modern mentality of getting something for nothing has come to the hunting industry.

If I pay for 28 days, I would bloody well STAY on safari for 28 days.

\our 21 day safaris seem to go like 3 days, hunting or not.

May be some people tend to go to Africa with a shopping list, once that list is filled, they have no reason to stay there any more.

How bloody sad!

quote:

May be some people tend to go to Africa with a shopping list, once that list is filled, they have no reason to stay there any more.

Yup, most "modern" hunters do not appreciate the true meaning and understanding of a real African hunting adventure; theirs is the typical 10 Star Ranch accommodation with a "Pick n Pay" style of hunting behind a fence.

The Boeties have certainly sussed that bunch out and good for them - at the end of the day its the money what counts.

No, that's just life. Things don't always go as planned and you just have to live with it.

quote:

Originally posted by BuffHunter63:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jefffive:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BuffHunter63:
Why should a hunter pay for 28 days of daily rate (at more than 1K USD a day), when he only hunted for a total of 5 days???

JMO.

BH63

No disrespect intended sir but you do not understand the business. These companies make their living selling hunts of X days for a certain species. They need those days for many things including things such as paying the salaries of the staff, the fees for the area, the vehicles, insurance, etc. If they basically sell the tag only, they have no ability to sell those days and they are in the hole. There might be times when a deal can be obtained, usually near the end of the year.

I have gone many times for multiple buff or multiple elephants. I may have gone for say 15 days. Regardless, I paid the full daily rates for the hunt for each of the animals I hunted. I might have hunted 15 days yet paid for 30 days or more of hunting. That is just the way it works.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

Why should a hunter pay for 28 days of daily rate (at more than 1K USD a day), when he only hunted for a total of 5 days???

Because those are the number of days which are considered sufficient in getting what you booked for and you paid the going rate for an Elephant hunt.
So you were fortunate to have got it in 5 where others probably got theirs halfway through or towards the end or, some may have lost out all together.

Would it be more appropriate and gratifying to the hunter to be led on a merry chase for 25 days and eventually score at the 11th hour or at worst not score at all?

How about taking into account that the 28 days booked and paid for would be days lost to the outfitter if he were to refund you the balance ... 23 days that he won't be able to sell to anyone on a moment's notice?

Next time round just book a 7 day Elephant hunt but don't complain later that the outfitter refused to extend because you thought it was too short a time span and you failed in your quest.

More importantly, with 23 days in hand it would have been your choice and privilege to remain in camp doing whatever and had you been kicked out, would have been reason for complaint and demand of a refund.

I think the modern mentality of getting something for nothing has come to the hunting industry.

If I pay for 28 days, I would bloody well STAY on safari for 28 days.

\our 21 day safaris seem to go like 3 days, hunting or not.

May be some people tend to go to Africa with a shopping list, once that list is filled, they have no reason to stay there any more.

How bloody sad!

I am guilty of doing this very thing. However, it is not quite as it seems on the surface.

I have a business to run. The business does far better with me here than without me here. Clients do not tolerate being out of touch too long. I generate money based upon an hourly rate I charge my clients. While I am off in the bush, I am not generating money. I have a wife, kids and grandkids. While I am working, I do not get to see them as much as I like as I often work extreme hours and I travel a lot.

The way I see it, the sooner I get home, the sooner I am able to go again. Plus the family is happier. Why not go home earlier?

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I am guilty of doing this very thing. However, it is not quite as it seems on the surface.

I have a business to run. The business does far better with me here than without me here. Clients do not tolerate being out of touch too long. I generate money based upon an hourly rate I charge my clients. While I am off in the bush, I am not generating money. I have a wife, kids and grandkids. While I am working, I do not get to see them as much as I like as I often work extreme hours and I travel a lot.

The way I see it, the sooner I get home, the sooner I am able to go again. Plus the family is happier. Why not go home earlier?

I too, would and have done the same thing if I were running a business that required my presents to generate income or for any other reason that was my choice and not the fault of the safari company. However especially if I had my main target for the safari, I would not expect the outfitter to reimburse me for the days I left behind. That has been and was my personal and as you admit, your choice.

.....................................................

This thread is being shared on Facebook and has received a lot of attention (hate)...from the "Cecil the Lion" followers.

We may all be famous

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

In Botswana we worked on this same principle , there were x number of elephant each elephant was a individual hunt irrespective of actual days . There was a well known hunter who would buy up to 20 tags a year - he would have to pay for 20 hunts even though he stayed for 2 weeks . In the golden years quota allowed for more than one trophy to be taken on a hunt , these days quotas are to low so each animal has to be sold on its own hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by Buglemintoday:
This thread is being shared on Facebook and has received a lot of attention (hate)...from the "Cecil the Lion" followers.

We may all be famous

Really? Where?