I would like some opinions on a policy change among many South African outfitters regarding lost game.

Over the last year this topic has come up with many concession owners, outfitters, and landowners. Many PH’s have also been involved as they are usually also an Outfitter or landowner. The issue is trying to offer the most attractive and cost effective hunt to be competitive. We all try to get hunters into camp with the best price. Most camps are at a level of service and luxury that are very close in value. The marketable difference is the PH’s you hunt with, the quality of game, and the service. The hardware, so to speak including the camp, food, vehicles, etc. is pretty standard fare for most camps.

This means we have to barter with the trophy fees as the most flexible area of pricing. When the trophy fees are reduced to minimal levels in the summer before you book, making the prices competitive, and then the exchange rate is poor the next year when you actually hunt, the profits can be so low as to break even at times. This is clearly unacceptable for a business.

The problem is compounded when a hunter shoots an animal ( or several) poorly and it’s lost. The sale of the meat from game like Kudu Eland, Wildebeest etc. offsets many of the low prices charged for the trophy fees. Then when an animal is shot and lost the hunter pays the trophy fee but the landowner/ outfitter cannot sell the meat either.

Some talk has been brewing about charging an additional 100.00USD for some species of game when it’s shot and lost. Not all game has a functional meat value. However some game like Eland is significant.

These bottom dollar hunts cannot be a loss for outfitters, who then get an additional loss from game that is wounded and cannot be sold for the meat value. This may or may not become a more normal charge for hunters in the coming years. On the other hand it may be a fee added to some game at the start and then refunded if the game is not lost? I’m not sure where this is going yet, but I know I have a lot of hunters from this site and wanted to solicit the input from the members interested in this.

I guess in the big scheme of things it’s absolutely not an issue at all if you shoot good! I know in a recent thread about how tough African game is many of you spoke about how all species regardless of American or Africa die just the same. For those folks who believe that, this should be a non-issue.

So what do you think about a 100.00 penalty charge for game shot and lost? Is that a fair charge for this? The meat value can be much more then that, or somewhat less depending upon the species. Some would have no charge at all. I think knowing this up front is paramount to an honest hunt price. I also think when an inexpensive package price is put together some protection must be in place to cover the loss of meat value to the business owner.

Your thoughts?

Dear Mr. Hack, I have only hunted a couple of times in South Africa so forgive me if the following questions reveal incredible ignorance.

1) Most game shot in South Africa is taken on fenced properties, some very large, others not so. How often, say as a percentage, is wounded game never found?

2) If a hunter wounds an animal on the last day of his safari and it is not found until the day after he has left, what is common practice? Do you contact the hunter and say, "We have found your animal and I will send the trophy to your taxidermist."?

3) It is my understanding that the meat may be split different ways depending on the arrangement between the landowner and the PH. Since this is variable, how will you construct a one time rule for all situations?

4) If a wounded animal is not found during a safari (and the hunter is charged for it) and on the following safari a different hunter takes it, do you tell the secong hunter, "I've already collected the fee on this animal once so it's free to you."?

Just wondering how these situations are dealt with.

I do not think you will get a very positive response to the $100 penalty due to 1.In RSA the hunts are behind fences, nothing wrong with this IMO, as this means to a lot of people that if the animal is dead is should be found by the trackers. 2. When a hunter hears about the meat being sold, he may start asking for a discount in the trophy fee. 3.The trophy is stated upfront and hunters do not care for so-called penalties nickel and diming them to death considering how much they are spending in the first place for the trip.

The properties I use are huge and lost game can be an issue. Two years ago just as an example I had a hunter that shot and lost five of his six animals. He was a pathetic shot and had no concern at all over this. He was a disgusting and annoying human being, clearly the exception to the normal guys I have. When you hunt on 10-50 square miles of bush losing game is not unusual when the shot is poor.

When an animal is shot and found some time later it's always sent on to the hunter who lost it. That is standard policy for most of us in this business.

The way meat value is split/ or not split is not releevent to the loss. There is still a loss of income regardless of the way the loss is split up. The value should be covered and the split if any would be between those involved, not the hunter.

Your question 4 is not a typical situation. Wounded game is usually dead shortly after it's hit, or it's sick and not typical behaviour of a hunted animal. I would, or one of my PH's would shoot that animal if it were sick and dying. Not a hunter. I have seen game in the skinning shed with old bullets in the skin, healed over. Some of these looked to be very old. No way of knowing who would have shot them or when by the looks of the recovered bullets. Your scenrio is possible but would be a very rare situation in my 15 years of experience and 1000's of animals shot now.

When you find one of these animals with an old bullet there is also no way of knowing if blood was ever present at the time of the original shot. Maybe it was determined to be a miss, and was actually a hit? Way to many unknowns.

We have started to utilize a blood tracking dog in our camp. The loss of game is near zero now for us. Of the 128 animals shot this year we lost only one Blue wildebest. When using the tracking dog, the recovery of lost game is minimal.

However when using the dog, 99% of the time the PH will make the final shot if the game is still "active". Few hunters will keep up with the PH flying through the bush when the animal is bayed up and charging at the dog. The protection of a good blood tracking dog is vital to saving other game. If the hunter does not like this idea then the dog will not be used. We cannot risk the life of the dog to a hunter who cannot perform in this capacity.

After losing two dogs now, one to a warthog, and another to a gemsbok we have to mke this policy clear that we will use the dog but the PH will be shooting when the game is stopped by the dog. As you know running and travelling through the thorny bush is not easy work and can poke your eyes out and rip at your clothes and skin.

Not every camp has a good dog, so the results of lost game will vary from one location and safari company to another.

these are very interesting questions. This whole issue is going to get more accute as the Dollar will continue to weaken rapidly. That loss of value of the dollar is going to squeeze every one including the people in the U.S.

I don't think a policy change is a good thing.

To date (3 safaris) I have not shot and lost any animal (knock on wood), but I have shot a Cape Buff twice - the first shot was at 7 in the morning, and the finishing shot was at 12:30. 5 1/2 hours of tracking gives you lots of time to contemplate shot placement. I went over the first shot (which took out a lung) at least 1000 times in my mind. I was fully prepared to pay the trophy fee if we didn't find it, but having an additional fee would have added insult to injury.

In Zimbabwe, I have shot 2 animals that have had snares around their feet. One I paid a trophy fee on, one was to put it out of it's misery. Both were sold as meat by the outfitter. The first was a wildebeest that had a wounded front hoof that was 5-6 times bigger than the other foot from festering. This wildebeest had a horrible hobble. It was huge, and easily made the book, so I didn't mind paying a trophy fee, but to see an animal like this suffering, I would have shot it anyway. The other one was a young kudu with one curl. Both times the outfitter got $$ for selling the meat even though a trophy fee wasn't involved.

Exchange rates work both ways. Sometimes, you win, sometimes you lose. you are well aware that if one hunter draws one spot of blood and the animal recovers and is shot by another hunter that you collect two trophy fees for the same animal. I don't have a problem with this, as the first hunter should have anchored it.

I always tell my PH at the beginning of a hunt that I'm not comfortable taking any shot longer than 150 yards. I figure that its his job to get me that close. After all, I am hunting not target shooting. Last May, I made the luckiest shot of my life (and I knew it) at a full-tilt running steinbuck at about 125 yards. (My first shot on this safari). After this, the PH said "you shoot good, you should be able to shoot hartebeest and orynx out to 300 yards, no problem." This was 15 minutes after I told him I wasn't comfortable over 150 yards for anything. So I had to go thru the whole speil again. He got me within 125 yards of everything - imagine that. I know my limitations - I could have wounded animals at longer distances and it would have been my fault - I pulled the trigger.

Paying if you draw blood is fair - a penalty for a bad shot is not. Just my opinion.

Jeff

Personaly, I have no problem with an extra charge of $100.00 US for a wounded and lost animal. It might make the hunters a little more careful of their shooting.

465H&H

In my own opinion, this is a bad policy.
I would go hunt somewhere else if I saw this as a condition of the hunt.

New to the safari biz, but it seems all issues like this should be taken into account when doing a financial model of the business. If competitive pressures force out some marginal players so be it. Survival of the fittest? I suspect most safari hunters would prefer a packaged approach to pricing rather than being nickeled and dimed to death.Just my opinion and I could be wrong.

I think it is a very reasonable idea. It's like a penalty on something that should be penalized. And it keeps trophy fees from going up for the people who can shoot straight.

The reality is that the market always sets the price of any commodity. Fair doesn't enter into the equation, only market perception and what your competitors are offerring.
Go ahead and charge whatever you want, if the market considers what you supply to be a value for the price, you will prosper, if not your competitors will.

I am tired of hearing about exchange rates. Yes it as fact that effects your bottom dollar, but I can not remember anyone lowering there prices quite a bit when it was 12 to 1 a couple years ago.

I would not pay the $100 extra fee. and hunt somewhere else.

After missing one animal and being told of a penalty, a bad shooting hunter might simply request to be guided to within 25 yards before taking the next shot. Since that might not be possible due to circumstances, less animals shot equals less trophy fees collected and the hunter doesn't think as highly of the PH eventhough bad shooting is the problem. If it is a package hunt the bad shooting hunter might request a refund of animals not taken worsening matters.

Well, do what you want, it's your busines, but I for one wouldn't take part.
I've heard this exchange rate BS for over 40 years of foreign hunts. I've never seen any reductions when the dollar was strong, but always increases on a weakness. It seems it is a one way street!

JJ, I posted this at the campfire as well, but wanted to relay here as well. These are just some thoughts of my personal opinion and I hope they are taken constructively, I mean no ill intentions...

I think this proposal leaves a bad impression for the visiting hunter. One it leaves the impression he is hunting livestock instead of wild animals (perception is key). Two, it leaves the impression the outfitter is out to nickel and dime the hunters for everything they can. You post about the American hunters wanting to pay for everything in a lump sum, versus pay as you go for food, laundry, etc... is a good analogy. How many times do we hear about people terrified of "hidden" costs? Maybe its because they have done all the research, but adding additional costs for unrecovered game on top of the trophy fee will likely make that worse. I really don't think this is a good idea from the marketing standpoint...

You have also put a solid number of dollars on each animal not recovered. Kind of a one size fits all. Is there an additional $100 worth of meat on a warthog above the trophy fee? Impala? I'm sure there is on Eland, but blesbok? If you are going to add an additional cost on animals not recovered above the trophy fee to cover the cost of the loss of income of the meat sold, then it should probably be figured out much the way the trophy fee is. Would you do the same for non-salable game (honeybadger, hyena, civet, etc...)? One thing you could do, if you have kept data to support it, is to see how much each property has lost in all the years you have PH'd there and figure the average loss for a year for each property and adjust the trophy fees to compensate for that. If the individual years don't fit a normal curve, you may have to apply other statistical methods to figure out what that increase should be.

Bison hunts here in the USA have a reputation for not being hunts at all, more of a livestock kill to fill the freezer. South Africa, in general, has also taken some bad press in the past few years for "canned" type hunts, deserved or not. I think your proposal would reinforce that impression. More of livestock that someone is going to shoot for you to sale at the market. Not so much a hunting property as farmed wildlife for meat. I think these landowners need to figure out what they are really wanting to do. Do they want to farm and sell meat to the stores, or do they want to have hunting properties? If the loss of income on wounded game is enough that they have found themselves questioning the profitability of their land, they may need to revisit their business plan. If they can make more by raising impala and killing them for market, maybe they should do just that.

You may not hear any arguments to convince you not to add an additional fee for unrecovered wounded game, though I suspect it might result in people booking with someone else.

The perception I get is that this isn't a true hunting property as much as it is having people to visit and pay you to shoot animals for your farm to sale at market. That is a bad image for a hunting property, I think.

I think such a fee would probably be counter productive for the business; as already stated here, prospective hunters would will simply book else where, some on principle, not because they can't afford the fee...

Peronally, I think if such loses are having a significan't impact on the business, you need to re address your price structure and average out the losses over the season....

Regards,

Pete

JJHACK,

Here's my opinion with a few comments.

I think it's a bad idea to charge 'extra' beyond the trophy fee for a lost animal. I had the pleasure of my first African safari this past May, and as I'm not 'rich', it was already a bit intimidating to know if I made a bad shot on a Kudu, I would be out $1800. With decent shooting and some luck, I didn't lose any animals. I never got that Kudu either, but that's another story.

From a hunter's perspective, there is already a great incentive to shoot carefully. You can be out anywhere from $400 to $2000 for a single bad shot on 'normal' plains game. If I make a bad shot and pay the trophy fee, sure you're out a bit for meat. Let's go with your figure of $100 for an 'average'. You're out $100, I'm out $400 - $2000. Who's hurting more?

Another thing is that you mention that it's rare to have a lost animal. That's good news. It doesn't happen often, so it's not a huge issue. As others have mentioned, sometimes you may have a wounded animal taken by another hunter and collect the trophy fee twice AND sell the meat. I know this is rare also, but it does happen. Sometimes that single drop of blood was from a very poor shot, and the animal has not much more than a flesh wound. It's times like this that you'll be able to collect the trophy fee twice to offset the rare occasion where one is lost.

Again, just my opinion. It sounds like you're already reducing the number of lost animals by using dogs. I think that's a smart move on your part. You're able to find more animals that might have been lost, benefitting both you and the hunter.

While $100 on a $1750 eland (for example) is perhaps inconsequential given the cost of the trophy fee, it does add insult to injury. I'd already be pissed enough at myself, and a perceived $100 "penalty fee" would only get me to thinking about what roll the PH might have played in it, professional liability, etc.

My vote is - bad idea.

I would have no problem with requiring payment of an extra $100 (or even more, depending on the animal) for any wounded and lost big game animal. But not because I am concerned about your profit margins.

I like a different consequence. Such a policy would be a strong incentive to some hunters, and in particular to those who need it, to practice before leaving home and to limit themselves to sensible shots when in the field.

On the other hand, I find your policy of only allowing the PH to follow up and finish a wounded animal to be highly objectionable. I would not hunt with any outfitter who imposed such a policy.

I guess people will swallow the extra $100US because it's pretty small in the whole scheme of things, but frankly I’m still a little surprised that paying for wounded game goes over as well as it does to the general market.

The outfitters in my area could never get away with that. The market I deal with seems to want money back for the entire hunt even if they get several shot opportunities (I blame it on the no kill – no pay concept that game ranches have fostered, but maybe it’s just poor values).

It seems like very few hunters that aren’t familiar with international hunting have even heard of paying for lost game. I feel it’s a good policy primarily to hopefully get people to take more responsible shots or (God forbid) practice with their equipment before a hunt. Maybe it straights people out, if not for ethical reasons at least to protect their bank account.

I remember two clients on one hunt each wounding pigs with poor shots at close range and I had to argue with them to even let me take their valuable time to follow the animals. There would have been a gun battle if they were charged for wounded animals on top of it. Thank goodness that isn’t the average attitude of hunters.

I feel the biggest issue will be how thoroughly and skillfully the search was for the wounded animal. I’m sure most PH’s do their best to locate wounded game but it may be tempting for less ethical people to not do their best searching if it means an INCREASE in pay. As prices go up for wounded game, right or wrong, I would think the clients criticism of the tracking job would go up as well.

For example: A hunting partner of mine wounded a Mtn. zebra on a large ranch in Namibia a few years ago. He had made 11 one shot kills on that trip so it wasn’t like he was flinging bullets all around the countryside. Although we never found that stallion we looked for 2 days, but the PH just had one or two "ranch hands" riding around on four wheelers following it. They seemed like okay trackers but not all trackers have the same experience, skill level and patience. While I lost the tracks several times, I’m sure some of the trackers I’ve hunted with in Zim. would have found that zebra.... and probably the first day.

Kyler

Having wounded and not found game in Zimbabwe I know what it feels like to pay for something you didn't get. I personally would under no circumstance pay a surcharge on lost game. If the trophy fee is not set properly then set it properly and let the hunter make the decision to hunt or not. I have absolutely no personal control of the exchange rate so it has absolutely no bearing on my decision to hunt or not. If I can't afford it I don't do it which is why I will probably not get to Africa again in my lifetime.

Paying for a wounded animal is fair but it already seems like a penalty. To add an additional $100 penalty to that would be adding an insult to the injury.

Sometimes a wounded animal is the result of a miscommunication or other reasons where the shooter rightly or wrongly may feel it is not all his fault.

I definately would not knowingly hunt with someone who charged a double penalty for wounding an animal.

If he did, I would take it out of the tips I had planned to leave and not come back.

JJ,

Well Ive only got 1 safari behind me and unfortuantley I did lose a wounded gemsbok on about the 4th day inspite of what I thought were incredible tracking efforts AND the use of TWO dogs to try and help find the wounded animal (good blood was found at the site of the shot too). I did end up getting another gemsbok on that trip, so I payed the trophy fee twice. If I would have had to pay and additional "lost value of the meat fee" on top of the loss and trophy fee for that first one, I doubt that I would have tried again for another gemsbok and maybe not anymore animals for not only fear of losing another animal, paying its trophy fee and then more of these meat loss fees. I know all the ph's and outfitters have to make money, thats there business, but eventually the safari industry is liable to price itself out of readch of the "average" hunter, tho Im not sure at what monetary level the average guy fits in.

My vote on this = BAD idea!!

Bad idea. the meat is supposed to be a bonus anyway, not part of the planned mark-up. (Will you then charge extra if the hunter has to take a Texas/ Freetstate heartshot to anchor an animal also?) Also, a true hunter will feel bad enough leaving something wounded, no need to keep him reminded. In Namibia and RSA, 15% (SA 14%) VAT is actually payable on an animal hunted and not recovered, in other words, wounded. Very few outfitters I know will actually charge for this.

Well, guys I'm not surprised by the majority of comments here and it's likely why this has not become a policy typical of the Safari business to date.

It is however being talked about by lots of outfitters now and each year it seems more are thinking about this situation.

It was not my idea, nor is it my intent to do this. Just conversations with many people in my business who are discussing these kinds of charges. I've read here that if the price is not set proper to begin with then just raise the price. That actually works out way better for me because We don't lose much game here. Unfortunately that creates a subsidy for the poor shooter having his skills paid for by everyone else with a higher price. In other words raising the price for all to cover the poor shot by a couple.

The opinions of some outfitters are that the guy who wounded the game should cover the cost, not everyone who shot good.

Remember I'm just the messenger here it's not my policy or intent to do this. It's just something brewing and I wondered how you guys would think about such a policy.

There are Outfitters who also started a fee for each shot too if you remember back a year or so ago that was in another thread. I don't recall who started that but if I recall properly there was a guy posting that the meat damage was so excessive by some hunters shooting the heck out of the animals that they had no usable meat remaining.

That did not fly very well either!

Karl, the VAT is an excellent point you raise. We don't charge that either, however if it were charged it would be no benifit to the landowner as it goes to the governement anyway.

As far as the meat being a "bonus" that may be with some landowners but there are certainly others who have it figured into the total price.

Financially, it makes sense, until you add in the human factor of the equation.

How much business would you loose because someone says, "Look, this guy is actually charging more if you wound and loose an animal. I think I will book with someone else. Somebody whose charges are more in line with the industry standard."

Theoretically a good idea. In reality, it might go over like a terd in a punch bowl.

My opinion is that the trophy fee is enough penalty and I would oppose an additional $100 fee.If it were me I think I would pay attention to the shooting ability of the client at varying distances to get an idea of how close you need to get. If someone is wounding everything they shoot at maybe 75yds would be maximum range. The point is that the extra fee approach is flawed in my view.

Questions:

For a representative sample we will use your concession.

How many hunters do you take hunting in an average year?

How many animals are lost each year from these hunters?

What would be the value of the meat lost in an average year?

Divide the value of the meat by the number of hunters.

This would give you the approximate extra cost to pay for the meat lost.

Now you would have the good shots subsidizing the bad shots but I bet it would not cost an extra $20/hunter. It would be a hidden cost; somewhat like a normal price increase. I am not in the business but I wonder if any landowner's profit margin is so tight that they lost their ass from lost game that was not sold to the butchery.

If you have a extra cost for a lost animal in addition to a trophy fee the ill will would probably lose more business than the extra lost animal fee would bring in.

This is so much more disingenuous crap.

Does the client get a $100 when the PH tells the unsuspecting client to "SHOOT" when the animal is mostly hidden by brush, and the bullet hits it in the hoof?

In reality the animals are dirt cheap in SA if hunted without the PH. It is only the PH and fancy camps that runs the cost up. Do I need a PH to shoot an impala?

Intresting concept Karl bring up about shot placement and meat damage. I rarely shoot any animals in the heart or lungs, as I prefer bone or frame shots to anchor the animal,that includes texas heartshots. And yes with soft points these types of shots often destroy prime meat. I as a paying trophy hunter don't care about steaks as they are not mine, but absolutely care about losing an animal. Also any hunter may have to take multiple shots anywhere on the critter if the first shot is not perfect. I would think this extra money could easily be figured into the original trophy fees from the Ph's perspective.BTW even at home we get 12 deer tags per year, so meat damage is no longer an issue,in other words you will have way more than you can eat or give away.

Haven't taken the time to wade through all the replies so I hope this isn't redundent.

To answer the question "is it fair to charge a penalty fee for lost game?" In my opinion NO!

I see this as an invitation for corruption. Usually the hunter is dependant on the PH & trackers to determine if the animal is recoverable. 99% of the time they will do all they can to recover it, frequently beyond what would be done elsewhere. As seen in Saeeds buffalo in his report post, bad hits even happen to experienced hunters! Shit happens!

In my humble opinion the only fair approach is to (gulp!) increase trophy fees to a realistic price and reimburse the client the "meat price" if successful. Explain this fully up front and there is no arguement when things go awry. The kickback for being successful could easily end up in the PH's tip at the end of the hunt!

quote:

There are Outfitters who also started a fee for each shot too if you remember back a year or so ago that was in another thread. I don't recall who started that but if I recall properly there was a guy posting that the meat damage was so excessive by some hunters shooting the heck out of the animals that they had no usable meat remaining.

That did not fly very well either!

I guess I missed that one! Damn right it won't fly! I am hunting trophies and could care less about his meat. If he needs meat, then hunt meat not trophies. I have only lost two animals in over 40 years of foreign hunting, but I am going to shoot until the animal is down, dead. None of this "don't shoot again, you hit him good" for me. If I am paying I am shooting until I am satisfied, to the heck with his meat. I am paying the fee, if he gets a steak fine, if he don't that's fine with me too.
What about hunts in wild remote areas where the only meat that gets out is whatever biltong the staff may spoil in the wind? Would you expect to surchange that too? How about paying me if they don't properly handle the meat? What about bait animals, he gets no meat off of them? Or does he act like a poacher and go around and cut down your baits to get some meat to sell. I think those that think this is a good idea need to forget hunting and hire cullers to put their meat on the market.
I don't know anyone that intends to wound any animal, but things happen. The older I get the more grumpy I get, but this deal of a drop of blood and you pay seems to have developed from game "farming" or ranching or what ever you call it, but it was never an issue in the countries I hunted in the '70's. Rules may have been there, but never lost anthing, so never heard of them like you do today. General licenses covered a lot of animals and if one was lost there was maybe more on license, now it's dollar you to death on every animal.

Read all this again, stick by my first reply, BAD idea. Gotta raise prices if not making ends meet/profit, but come on, keep adding fees and the average folks will stop coming cause its to costly. Africa is suppose to be a better deal than some high dollar USA/Canada hunts but additional fees aren't gonna help this issue. As it is safari normal costs seem to go up every year, and perhaps rightly so, but in some cases wheer the landowners are their own PHs and already own the animal, its getting to high, at least for me, and overall costs (daily rates and trophy fees) certainly play a big part in my anticipated safari planning for the future. Make it to costly, I simply won't go and then NO ONE gets any money.

I concur with the "nay" votes above. As to the human factor and economics, don't forget about one of the other frequent thread topics here....the tip. If I'm pissed off about the fairness of a nickle and dime fee the only thing that matters is my perception of it and I for darn sure am less likely to have a warm fuzzy feeling when it is time to settle up.
Gary

Count me as a NAY vote as well.

The assumption here is 100% of all wounded game dies. I don't think that is truly realistic. If only 10% manages to survive, those animals will eventually garner two trophy fees for the outfitter. At that point, is there any real loss for the outfitter?

I cannot follow the logic that an added $100 fee will make a poor shooter better. If paying an $1800 trophy fee in addition to all the expenses of getting to Africa and booking the hunt are not sufficient monetary incentive, I can't see how another fee will affect them. I can say that many folks would just deduct that "fee" out of the tips. Just seems like poor public relations to me.

I really think that you answered your own question way back when you admitted that recovery of wounded animals with your outfit was nearly 100%. Moreover, the fact that the shot may have been due to inadequate or erroneous instructions from the PH and many other variables, including bullet failure, just makes this nothing more than a silly consideration, and a potential argument between the PH and the hunter. Who wants to go there? Certainly a PH would be throwing all public relations to the wind in that regard, unless he wants to just piss off his client big time. I agree, that in the end, the hunter will make up for it by reducing the tip. And, in the end, if the hunter is dissatisfied and feels that he is being nickeled and dimed, then forget future business or referrals. There's too many outfits looking to squeeze every penny they can from American hunters in any way possible, believing that we all own personal gold mines or have an orchard of
USD trees. Things like this do not go unnoticed as you might want to believe. In any event, I am also with those who have wondered why prices don't drop when the Rand loses against the dollar. They ALWAYS have a way of increasing, but never decrease.

I would bring up one point against your additional fee. Leopard baits are generally non-trophy animals and are usually discounted however that meat is 100% lost.

Lion baits are even more wasteful as a rule.

If you need more money add it within the existing framework of fees otherwise your fee will stick out like a sore thumb.

Governments can nickel and dime their citizens without consequence not private service organizations.

Wow 37 replies! Thanks for the honest feedback on this.

I think I was as clear as can be on this topic to the point we are at. But if there is any doubt, let me be sure to clear this up right now.

This is not my idea, policy, or intent. It's simply the "chit chat" around the water hole these days. It's been a long standing issue for many hunting operations that end up with wounded game each year.

I have no intention of implimenting this policy or "pushing" it for others to follow.

It was simply a thread posted to share some of the inside ideas and thoughts of plenty of Safari operations in Africa. I don't know this will ever gain any traction futher then it has now. It was only for conversational interst not as a matter of actual practice that I know of anyplace..........yet!

I think that the 37 replies reveals how passionate we African hunters are about this and other issues that impact on hunting Africa. Please make sure that you share all of our concerns around the water hole with all of the others who have been discussing the issue. After all, IMO there isn't a better sounding board on African Hunting issues in the entire world than on AR, and anyone would be wise to sit up and take notice of reasonable comments made here.