Gents,

I start this thread with some trepidation as I'm not wanting to stir up a pot of doo-doo stew. It is indeed inspired by recent threads of hunts gone bad, but is not intended to be a "Part 2" of those threads. I am writing this for my own education. The scenario I'm going to describe is completely hypothetical and as they say on t.v. if it bears any resemblance to any real life scenario it is purely coincidental.

So here goes...

A hunter books a hunt in an African country through a booking agent. The booking agent is not an employee of the outfitter but is acting as an independent contractor if you will. The client pays the booking agent's commission directly to the agent. The remaining balance for the hunt is paid directly to the outfitter by the client. The booking agent does not handle any other money outside of his commission and therefore controls only that portion of the total hunt cost. The agent handles all questions/concerns and does his job appropriately in helping his client to have a good hunt and off the hunter goes.

Unfortunately something goes wrong, really wrong and the hunter is unhappy with his experience. Upon returning home the hunter contacts his booking agent to express his dissatisfaction. After exploring what happened the booking agent concludes that what went wrong falls completely on the outfitter and the client agrees. They, the client and booking agent also agree that a full refund is in order. But here's the rub, the outfitter disagrees with giving a full refund and is unwilling to give any sort of refund. The booking agent discusses this multiple times with the outfitter but cannot convince the outfitter he is at fault and some sort of recourse is in order. The booking agent refunds the client his full commission however and thus has not realized any profit for the time and effort he has put into setting up this safari.

So here's my question for the AR community. Do you feel like the booking agent has fulfilled any legal or implied obligations? Or do you feel (or know for fact) the booking agent bears additional liability?

If this happened to me, I would feel like the booking agent has done all that he could. While his commission refund represents only a small portion of what I spent, it's more than what I would have received if I had booked directly with the outfitter. That said, I wouldn't have started this thread if I wasn't open to the idea that I may be wrong. So I welcome any and all responses. I'm expecting opinions which likely means some of those will be in conflict. If you disagree with my opinion that's fine, just explain to me why. As stated the purpose of this thread is my education and I value the experience of the AR community.

I booked a hunt through Safari Consultants with Chifuti Safaris. I had absolutely NO problems. Had I had any problems, I would not hesitate to contact Dave Fulson or the very nice lady I talked with throughout the whole process, Tamela and complain. I would not expect them to compensate me but would chalk it up to experience. The booking agent does not have any control over what goes on 8000 miles away but if you choose a good booking agent, they will not steer you wrong. Had a wonderful time and will hunt with them again.

quote:

The client pays the booking agent's commission directly to the agent.

The remaining balance for the hunt is paid directly to the outfitter by the client.

The booking agent does not handle any other money outside of his commission and therefore controls only that portion of the total hunt cost

Something not quite right with the above statements. The agent is being depicted a glorified travel agent.

The way I know it, the agent collects all dues, the commission factor is something worked out between agent and outfitter; agent holds hunt and trophy fees (varies from country to country but is now becoming the trend).

Agent releases funds to outfitter in installments and closes accounts with outfitter once the hunt is over.

Anything negative about the hunt should reach your agent asap and prevent the remaining funds from being dispatched until matters get ironed out.

There are several well known, A-Class gentlemen on this forum who could give you the full breakdown.

From my limited experience all an agent has is his reputation. I would be satisfied with your scenario. The black mark on his record would be far worse than refunding the commision.

Fulvio is correct.

On every hunt I ever booked through an agent, I paid the full cost(other than trophy fees) of the hunt directly to the agent. The agent in turn remits funds to the hunting company net of commission.

As far as trophy fees go, there have been times when those were paid to the agent and other times when they were paid directly to the hunting company. Many times if not most times, there has been no requirement for me to place a deposit for trophy fees. This may be because of my long history with the agent and sometimes the hunting company.

Depending on what the problem was, I may or may not want the commission returned. I do not think it is reasonable to expect the agent to return more than their commission.

Situations like this are what scare me about booking any international hunt either direct or thru a booking agent. What recourse do you really have if things go bad?
With regards to a booking agents liability I believe he/she should be 100% responsible. After all, that’s who I stroked the check to. Here’s my reasoning behind that statement.
I work for a huge international construction company. Greatly simplified, we are not unlike a booking agent in that: 1. We have services to sell like a booking agent. 2. We don’t actually build anything with our own people. We sub-contract it all out to various subcontractors depending on the scope of the project. Similar to what an agent does with the various outfitters he/she works with. 3. We manage the project from start to finish for the Owner. Again, much like the booking agent does for the hunter.

My company prides itself on quality and the fact that 75% of our work is from repeat clients. This is pretty remarkable for the construction industry and shows our dedication to providing a good service. Though very seldom, things sometimes go bad: Schedules get delayed; quality is off, staff problems, budgets get blown…whatever. Who do you think the Owner looks to when that happens? Do you think it is the sub-contractor who put up shoddy work or that is delaying the job because of manpower issues? Of course not, he comes to me. Because I am the guy he hired, the guy he put his faith and money in to make his dream a reality, I’m the guy that said I could do it and finally I’m the guy cashing his checks. It matters not that the problem was really with a subcontractor who talked a good game in the beginning but fell flat on his face on this job or the fact I have had great projects with said sub-contractor in the past. I brought that guy on board. It matters not if I the agreement signed between the Owner and I has me holding all the sub-contracts or the Owner holding them. I'm the guy that sold it, it is my responsibiity and he is still coming to me to make it right. And he should!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by adamhunter:
Situations like this are what scare me about booking any international hunt either direct or thru a booking agent. What recourse do you really have if things go bad?
With regards to a booking agents liability I believe he/she should be 100% responsible. After all, that’s who I stroked the check to. Here’s my reasoning behind that statement.
I work for a huge international construction company. Greatly simplified, we are not unlike a booking agent in that: 1. We have services to sell like a booking agent. 2. We don’t actually build anything with our own people. We sub-contract it all out to various subcontractors depending on the scope of the project. Similar to what an agent does with the various outfitters he/she works with. 3. We manage the project from start to finish for the Owner. Again, much like the booking agent does for the hunter.

My company prides itself on quality and the fact that 75% of our work is from repeat clients. This is pretty remarkable for the construction industry and shows our dedication to providing a good service. Though very seldom, things sometimes go bad: Schedules get delayed; quality is off, staff problems, budgets get blown…whatever. Who do you think the Owner looks to when that happens? Do you think it is the sub-contractor who put up shoddy work or that is delaying the job because of manpower issues? Of course not, he comes to me. Because I am the guy he hired, the guy he put his faith and money in to make his dream a reality, I’m the guy that said I could do it and finally I’m the guy cashing his checks. It matters not that the problem was really with a subcontractor who talked a good game in the beginning but fell flat on his face on this job or the fact I have had great projects with said sub-contractor in the past. I brought that guy on board. It matters not if I the agreement signed between the Owner and I has me holding all the sub-contracts or the Owner holding them. I'm the guy that sold it, it is my responsibiity and he is still coming to me to make it right. And he should!!!!

Adamhunter, I think I side with you on this one. The booking agent has to bring more to the party than just "booking" the hunt, especially if he is handling all the monies (bar the trophy fees).
JCHB

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by adamhunter:
Situations like this are what scare me about booking any international hunt either direct or thru a booking agent. What recourse do you really have if things go bad?
With regards to a booking agents liability I believe he/she should be 100% responsible. After all, that’s who I stroked the check to. Here’s my reasoning behind that statement.
I work for a huge international construction company. Greatly simplified, we are not unlike a booking agent in that: 1. We have services to sell like a booking agent. 2. We don’t actually build anything with our own people. We sub-contract it all out to various subcontractors depending on the scope of the project. Similar to what an agent does with the various outfitters he/she works with. 3. We manage the project from start to finish for the Owner. Again, much like the booking agent does for the hunter.

My company prides itself on quality and the fact that 75% of our work is from repeat clients. This is pretty remarkable for the construction industry and shows our dedication to providing a good service. Though very seldom, things sometimes go bad: Schedules get delayed; quality is off, staff problems, budgets get blown…whatever. Who do you think the Owner looks to when that happens? Do you think it is the sub-contractor who put up shoddy work or that is delaying the job because of manpower issues? Of course not, he comes to me. Because I am the guy he hired, the guy he put his faith and money in to make his dream a reality, I’m the guy that said I could do it and finally I’m the guy cashing his checks. It matters not that the problem was really with a subcontractor who talked a good game in the beginning but fell flat on his face on this job or the fact I have had great projects with said sub-contractor in the past. I brought that guy on board. It matters not if I the agreement signed between the Owner and I has me holding all the sub-contracts or the Owner holding them. I'm the guy that sold it, it is my responsibiity and he is still coming to me to make it right. And he should!!!!


Adamhunter, I think I side with you on this one. The booking agent has to bring more to the party than just "booking" the hunt, especially if he is handling all the monies (bar the trophy fees).
JCHB

I have to agree with this also.


.

Couldn't agree more with Adamhunter - he's given a classic example of what the role of an agent should be - that is the reason why one should ask around and determine whom to book through; as I have already suggested there are quite a few "no bullshit" agents on this forum to whom you could sign off a blank check to, outfitters included; its just a matter of getting to know "who's who".

So here is a question ?
Agent needs to sell the hunt to get commission to survive!
Operator needs to sell the hunt to shoot the animals that he has paid for.. to survive !
PH needs to conduct the hunt, shoot the animals the client requested to better his name in the Industry and survive !
Now who do you book with.........?

Has anyone thought about posing these same questions to the American Association of International Professional Hunting and Fishing Agents?

Don't know if any member of that group posts on AR, but it is the only trade association with ethical, financial and tenure-in-business requirements for hunting/fishing agents that I know of.

It should be safe to say that it already has determined the role and responsibilities of its members.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
Has anyone thought about posing these same questions to the American Association of International Professional Hunting and Fishing Agents?

Don't know if any member of that group posts on AR, but it is the only trade association with ethical, financial and tenure-in-business requirements for hunting/fishing agents that I know of.

It should be safe to say that it already has determined the role and responsibilities of its members.

Bill Quimby

I can only answer your question for myself and that answer would be a firm NO. Forgive my ignorance, but this is the first time I've heard of this organization. Thank you for sharing, I will look it up.

I disagree with Adamhunter. I am also in the Construction business as a general contractor. The role of the GC and that of a booking agent cannot be compared for the simple reasons of cost and control of the situation.

As a general contractor, we are held 100% responsible by the owner, just as you say, however we are also being paid to be on site for the entire project.

I believe that if we paid the agents to come with us and oversee the hunt from start to finish, only then can we hold them 100% accountable for the result.

Of course, no one would hire an agent to do that because the cost would be too great, so i do think they are basically a glorified travel agent. If the business of being a booking agent was as risky as construction, then we would definitely see agencies that demanded they be paid to accompany in order to provide assurance on the trips success.

We all take a risk whether we book a hunt with an agent or book directly with an outfitter. I believe that overall those that book with an agent (especially first timers) have a reduced risk. If this was not the case, agents would probably not exist. We are paying for a reduced risk via agent commission.

This is what i expect from an agent:

1) you have hunted the area before at least once in the last few years.
2) you keep in constant contact with the outfitter to track any changes in game numbers, game quality, camp conditions, PH changes.
3) you keep up to date with air lines and know the latest on any policy changes.
4) you keep up to date on country customs changes, visa requirements and such
5) any promises made are upheld
6) any and all issues pertaining to these items are dealt with in a timely manner.
7) there are no issues with payments to outfitter on the hunters behalf.

Without going on and on all i can say is read the agents contract. If you have problems with the terms than either discuss with the agent before you sign, or don't sign it and look for another agent or book the hunt yourself....

I agree with Adamhunter. I think the booking agent should have more liability than just refunding his fee if something goes terribly wrong on a safari. After all, he is the one responsible for booking the client with a competent safari company. Basically, he's holding the client's dreams in his hands.

pagosawingnut - I'm not picking on you, but you said two things that I disagree with.

First, you said, "The booking agent does not have any control over what goes on 8000 miles away but if you choose a good booking agent, they will not steer you wrong." In other words, if you choose a good booking agent, no worries? Well, a hunter on AR who went to Zimbabwe DID choose a good booking agent, one who is well known and respected on this forum, and things STILL went terribly wrong. So it's just not as simple as you imply.

Second, you said you would not expect the booking agent to compensate you, but would chalk it up to "experience". Yes, a lot of guys on this forum say that. They basically say, "Stop crying and move forward and save up your money for another DG hunt where you will hopefully have better luck, and just chalk this one up to experience." Well, what if that hunt you just spent $30,000 on was the only DG hunt you will ever be able to afford? What if you won't ever have the money to make another DG hunt in the future? There are a lot of guys on this forum who have the bucks to go on a big exspensive hunt every year, or every other year. But there are a lot more of us on this website who are working class stiffs to whom $30,000 is a LOT of money. So what do you say to those guys - better luck next time? That just doesn't seem right to me. What if there IS no next time? There has to be more liability on the booking agent than to just say, "Sorry, I'll refund my booking fee, and the rest of your money is gone. Too bad."

I also disagree with Adamhunter.

A GC contracts with an owner to build something. A booking agent is not in the business of providing safaris. They are in the business of selling other peoples safaris.

I have to disagree with Adamhunter, the booking agent is not like a general contractor, he is more akin to a sales rep. He does not provide the service, rather he facilitates your access to it. If something goes wrong with the product I do not expect the sales rep to assume the liability, I expect the manufacturer, or supplier to assume that liability. I expect the outfitter to bear liability for the hunt. The agent does not control what happens in Africa, the outfitter does. I expect the agent to provide a truthful representation of what the outfitter is contracting to provide, personal knowledge of the outfitters operation and area of operation, and advice on what to take, what to expect, help with documents (ie SAPS form) and emotional support. From the outfitter I expect the hunt that I contracted for.

Fujutupu, are you saying that as a PH yourself that if or when you make a mistake with a client in the bush and the client is not happy, that you are going to tell him it is the agents fault that you messed up and he should get with the agent to sort out your mistake and it is not your fault or your employers fault?

Would a travel agent be held responsible for an airline problem or mistake? I have had many problems with airlines from delays and missing other flights, to damaged luggage etc., but I do not blame the travel agent for booking me on those flights.

I agree with Bryce on this one and no way any agent can have full control unless they are physically there on safari, and even then things can go wrong.

Just like in any business dealings, you have to work with honest people who you know will do their job and if and when problems arise they will do everything they can to help with the problem or issue and that is all you can hope for in any business dealings.

If one used adamhunters's line of thinking applied to other transactions, it produces some interesting things.

Take a real estate agent for example. Would one hold them responsible for every problem with a house they sold? I think not. They are the sales agent NOT the person providing the house. A booking agent is no different.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:
I disagree with Adamhunter. I am also in the Construction business as a general contractor. The role of the GC and that of a booking agent cannot be compared for the simple reasons of cost and control of the situation.

As a general contractor, we are held 100% responsible by the owner, just as you say, however we are also being paid to be on site for the entire project.

I believe that if we paid the agents to come with us and oversee the hunt from start to finish, only then can we hold them 100% accountable for the result.

Of course, no one would hire an agent to do that because the cost would be too great, so i do think they are basically a glorified travel agent. If the business of being a booking agent was as risky as construction, then we would definitely see agencies that demanded they be paid to accompany in order to provide assurance on the trips success.

We all take a risk whether we book a hunt with an agent or book directly with an outfitter. I believe that overall those that book with an agent (especially first timers) have a reduced risk. If this was not the case, agents would probably not exist. We are paying for a reduced risk via agent commission.

This is what i expect from an agent:

1) you have hunted the area before at least once in the last few years.
2) you keep in constant contact with the outfitter to track any changes in game numbers, game quality, camp conditions, PH changes.
3) you keep up to date with air lines and know the latest on any policy changes.
4) you keep up to date on country customs changes, visa requirements and such
5) any promises made are upheld
6) any and all issues pertaining to these items are dealt with in a timely manner.
7) there are no issues with payments to outfitter on the hunters behalf.

Without going on and on all i can say is read the agents contract. If you have problems with the terms than either discuss with the agent before you sign, or don't sign it and look for another agent or book the hunt yourself....

I'm with you Bryce. I am also a GC. How long do you think we would stay in business if we went to our clients and told them their hospital was not going to get finished because I hired a crappy mechanical who walked off the job, but it was not my fault, all I did was hire them?

That is what amazes me every time one of these things goes bad and the agent starts pointing the finger at the outfitter, when in my mind it says a lot more about the booking agent than it does about the outfitter, because most of the time when research is done, everyone knew the outfitter was a piece of crap to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
If one used adamhunters's line of thinking applied to other transactions, it produces some interesting things.

Take a real estate agent for example. Would one hold them responsible for every problem with a house they sold? I think not. They are the sales agent NOT the person providing the house. A booking agent is no different.

I do believe they are bound by law to disclose all known problems with the house before the sale to the prospective buyer.

I would absolutely agree with that.

I have been on great trips booked direct, great trips booked through an agent, I have been on really bad ones both ways, so I think I have felt the pain and reaped the benefits all around. I have also set up quite a few hunts for others. In my opinion, and I know it isn't worth much, TerryR sums it up concisely and accurately .

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
If one used adamhunters's line of thinking applied to other transactions, it produces some interesting things.

Take a real estate agent for example. Would one hold them responsible for every problem with a house they sold? I think not. They are the sales agent NOT the person providing the house. A booking agent is no different.

I do believe they are bound by law to disclose all known problems with the house before the sale to the prospective buyer.

Interesting analogy to real estate that is also timely. The house next door to me was originally owned by a gent who also happened to work as a sales agent for the company that built our neighborhood. Shortly after moving in, the neigbor discovered a problem with his basement leaking. Over the course of the next three years he fought with the builder, his employer, to get them to fix the problem.

Now several months ago, he moved out and put the home up for sale. Not long afterwards it was sold. But the new owners have yet to move in. Somehow after the closing, they found out about the basement issue which the homeowner failed to disclose.

From what I gather, the new owners are suing the previous owner and the builder. The real estate agents aren't a party in the suit. That makes sense to me, after if neither the selling or buying real estate agent knew about the problem, how were they to prevent it?

quote:

Originally posted by TexLonghorn:
Fujutupu, are you saying that as a PH yourself that if or when you make a mistake with a client in the bush and the client is not happy, that you are going to tell him it is the agents fault that you messed up and he should get with the agent to sort out your mistake and it is not your fault or your employers fault?

Would a travel agent be held responsible for an airline problem or mistake? I have had many problems with airlines from delays and missing other flights, to damaged luggage etc., but I do not blame the travel agent for booking me on those flights.

I agree with Bryce on this one and no way any agent can have full control unless they are physically there on safari, and even then things can go wrong.

Just like in any business dealings, you have to work with honest people who you know will do their job and if and when problems arise they will do everything they can to help with the problem or issue and that is all you can hope for in any business dealings.

TL:

Anyone who provides a service cannot (IMO) be held responsible for any disruptions related to force majeur.

In the event of a balls up in the field I would not hold the agent responsible. The majority of PHs are "employees" and the outfitter who hired that PH would be ultimately responsible to the client for any of his misdeeds, with whom he would later sort matters out.

Official complaints for any mishaps during the hunt(within reason) should be directed to the agent who should immediately make them known to the outfitter to rectify.

I have also said that choosing the right agent or outfitter is the road to take and your closing sentence sums it up.

In response to those making the analogy of a booking agent to a general contractor, I don't entirely disagree with you and you make good points. But there are a few differences that make this analogy a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

As someone else noted, a GC can be at the work site and in fact should be there to make sure the job is getting done correctly and on time. This is what he gets paid to do. A safari booking agent does not get paid to be on the safari. It just wouldn't be feasible or practical to expect the agent to be there to ensure all goes well.

The second problem I see with the GC comparison is the ability of the contractor to replace his subcontractors fairly quickly. I'm not saying this doesn't have it's challenges, but I'm sure it's done. A booking agent who has booked a hunter on a lion safari somewhere in the middle of the bush is going to have a heck of a challenge rebooking the hunter with another safari company mid-way through the safari.

The third problem I see, and I may be wrong about this, but I don't think general contractors pay their sub's until the job is complete. Or, they pay them in partial sums of the whole after certain stages in the job are completed. I can't imagine a safari operator not receiving a big chunk of the safari cost prior to the safari taking place. Again, I could be wrong about that. Certainly trophy fees could be held in some sort of escrow until the animals are taken, but I would expect the operator to want to be paid some portion to ensure his costs for preparing the camp are covered.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:
I disagree with Adamhunter. I am also in the Construction business as a general contractor. The role of the GC and that of a booking agent cannot be compared for the simple reasons of cost and control of the situation.

As a general contractor, we are held 100% responsible by the owner, just as you say, however we are also being paid to be on site for the entire project.

I believe that if we paid the agents to come with us and oversee the hunt from start to finish, only then can we hold them 100% accountable for the result.

Of course, no one would hire an agent to do that because the cost would be too great, so i do think they are basically a glorified travel agent. If the business of being a booking agent was as risky as construction, then we would definitely see agencies that demanded they be paid to accompany in order to provide assurance on the trips success.

We all take a risk whether we book a hunt with an agent or book directly with an outfitter. I believe that overall those that book with an agent (especially first timers) have a reduced risk. If this was not the case, agents would probably not exist. We are paying for a reduced risk via agent commission.

This is what i expect from an agent:

1) you have hunted the area before at least once in the last few years.
2) you keep in constant contact with the outfitter to track any changes in game numbers, game quality, camp conditions, PH changes.
3) you keep up to date with air lines and know the latest on any policy changes.
4) you keep up to date on country customs changes, visa requirements and such
5) any promises made are upheld
6) any and all issues pertaining to these items are dealt with in a timely manner.
7) there are no issues with payments to outfitter on the hunters behalf.

Without going on and on all i can say is read the agents contract. If you have problems with the terms than either discuss with the agent before you sign, or don't sign it and look for another agent or book the hunt yourself....

I think it is safe to say that 99% of booking agents do NOT meet the above criteria.

May be even 100%.

In today's age of communication I think that the role of the booking agent is fading.

If hunters pay a fair price and deal with recommended outfits directly there will be little chance of things like this happening.
Dealing directly with the outfit the hunter will ask his questions prior to paying and get an answer from the horses mouth. It is then up to him to ensure that his purchase is what he wanted. There is no blaming it on anyone else after the fact.

Forums like this one and the hunting report as well as a few calls to the references that should be available are more than enough guidance to pick a dependable operator.
If you choose to take a chance with a less well known operation it is your choice to do so. Hence the risk or reward is yours to take.

The old adage holds true in all cases, "if its too good to be true, then it probably is"

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:
I disagree with Adamhunter. I am also in the Construction business as a general contractor. The role of the GC and that of a booking agent cannot be compared for the simple reasons of cost and control of the situation.

As a general contractor, we are held 100% responsible by the owner, just as you say, however we are also being paid to be on site for the entire project.

I believe that if we paid the agents to come with us and oversee the hunt from start to finish, only then can we hold them 100% accountable for the result.

Of course, no one would hire an agent to do that because the cost would be too great, so i do think they are basically a glorified travel agent. If the business of being a booking agent was as risky as construction, then we would definitely see agencies that demanded they be paid to accompany in order to provide assurance on the trips success.

We all take a risk whether we book a hunt with an agent or book directly with an outfitter. I believe that overall those that book with an agent (especially first timers) have a reduced risk. If this was not the case, agents would probably not exist. We are paying for a reduced risk via agent commission.

This is what i expect from an agent:

1) you have hunted the area before at least once in the last few years.
2) you keep in constant contact with the outfitter to track any changes in game numbers, game quality, camp conditions, PH changes.
3) you keep up to date with air lines and know the latest on any policy changes.
4) you keep up to date on country customs changes, visa requirements and such
5) any promises made are upheld
6) any and all issues pertaining to these items are dealt with in a timely manner.
7) there are no issues with payments to outfitter on the hunters behalf.

Without going on and on all i can say is read the agents contract. If you have problems with the terms than either discuss with the agent before you sign, or don't sign it and look for another agent or book the hunt yourself....

I think it is safe to say that 99% of booking agents do NOT meet the above criteria.

May be even 100%.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by African Hunters Quest:
In today's age of communication I think that the role of the booking agent is fading.

If hunters pay a fair price and deal with recommended outfits directly there will be little chance of things like this happening.
Dealing directly with the outfit the hunter will ask his questions prior to paying and get an answer from the horses mouth. It is then up to him to ensure that his purchase is what he wanted. There is no blaming it on anyone else after the fact.

Forums like this one and the hunting report as well as a few calls to the references that should be available are more than enough guidance to pick a dependable operator.
If you choose to take a chance with a less well known operation it is your choice to do so. Hence the risk or reward is yours to take.

The old adage holds true in all cases, "if its too good to be true, then it probably is"

I always felt the benefit I got from a booking agent was the ability to leave the money to cover the trophy fees here in the states so I did not have to travel with a small fortune in Africa.

When dealing directly with the outfitter how do you see that problem being handled?

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:
In response to those making the analogy of a booking agent to a general contractor, I don't entirely disagree with you and you make good points. But there are a few differences that make this analogy a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

As someone else noted, a GC can be at the work site and in fact should be there to make sure the job is getting done correctly and on time. This is what he gets paid to do. A safari booking agent does not get paid to be on the safari. It just wouldn't be feasible or practical to expect the agent to be there to ensure all goes well.

The second problem I see with the GC comparison is the ability of the contractor to replace his subcontractors fairly quickly. I'm not saying this doesn't have it's challenges, but I'm sure it's done. A booking agent who has booked a hunter on a lion safari somewhere in the middle of the bush is going to have a heck of a challenge rebooking the hunter with another safari company mid-way through the safari.

The third problem I see, and I may be wrong about this, but I don't think general contractors pay their sub's until the job is complete. Or, they pay them in partial sums of the whole after certain stages in the job are completed. I can't imagine a safari operator not receiving a big chunk of the safari cost prior to the safari taking place. Again, I could be wrong about that. Certainly trophy fees could be held in some sort of escrow until the animals are taken, but I would expect the operator to want to be paid some portion to ensure his costs for preparing the camp are covered.

Yes, I agree that they are not exactly alike. In fact, the only meaningful comparison would be that there are subcontractors involved and the customer in both cases is counting on the GC or booking agent to do the due diligence, otherwise why would anyone use a GC or a booking agent. My poorly made point was this: when a booking agent comes on AR whining about it all being the outfitters fault, they are making a great argument for not using a booking agent; just like when some GC goes to the client and blames it all on the subcontractor, the client's response should be, "You hired them, so why did I hire you if that is the best you can do."

I should also add, I am not against using a booking agent; I have used Wendell Reich and others and I would not hesitate to do so again, because I believe a good booking agent, like a good GC provides a lot of value.

quote:

Originally posted by TerryR:
... the booking agent is not like a general contractor, he is more akin to a sales rep. He does not provide the service, rather he facilitates your access to it. If something goes wrong with the product I do not expect the sales rep to assume the liability, I expect the manufacturer, or supplier to assume that liability. I expect the outfitter to bear liability for the hunt. The agent does not control what happens in Africa, the outfitter does. I expect the agent to provide a truthful representation of what the outfitter is contracting to provide, personal knowledge of the outfitters operation and area of operation, and advice on what to take, what to expect, help with documents (ie SAPS form) and emotional support. From the outfitter I expect the hunt that I contracted for.

That is the most accurate description I have seen here. Others do have very good points, but you sum it up nicely.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by African Hunters Quest:
In today's age of communication I think that the role of the booking agent is fading.

If hunters pay a fair price and deal with recommended outfits directly there will be little chance of things like this happening.
Dealing directly with the outfit the hunter will ask his questions prior to paying and get an answer from the horses mouth. It is then up to him to ensure that his purchase is what he wanted. There is no blaming it on anyone else after the fact.

Forums like this one and the hunting report as well as a few calls to the references that should be available are more than enough guidance to pick a dependable operator.
If you choose to take a chance with a less well known operation it is your choice to do so. Hence the risk or reward is yours to take.

The old adage holds true in all cases, "if its too good to be true, then it probably is"

I always felt the benefit I got from a booking agent was the ability to leave the money to cover the trophy fees here in the states so I did not have to travel with a small fortune in Africa.

When dealing directly with the outfitter how do you see that problem being handled?

There are some outfitters who have a U.S. bank account, and you just transfer the funds into it. I have done this. No booking agent involved, and everything went very smoothly.

Bryce Dillabough,

You have some good points. Let me expand on it please and offer explanations where I disagree.

1) you have hunted the area before at least once in the last few years.

It is extremely helpful to have done this and is the first step in being able to accurately describe the area. But, unless you have an unlimited bank account, or you only rep a couple operations, it is just not reasonable to expect repeat visits to the same area. It is just not possible, or even necessary.

Once I have hunted it, and start sending people there, I get constant feedback from returning clients on changes, which leads to #2.


2) you keep in constant contact with the outfitter to track any changes in game numbers, game quality, camp conditions, PH changes.

This is important. Areas change (rain, drought, poaching, etc). PH's change (they are people, so they are subject to all kinds of issues, divorce, bankruptcy, alcohol and even drug abuse ... yep, seen it.) I use Updated info on the areas from the ph, and more info comes from the returning clients. (Sometimes clients will tell you things the operators don't want to!) This is what I use to stay on top off changes. None of us who do this for a living make numerous repeat visits to the areas.

3) you keep up to date with air lines and know the latest on any policy changes.

Only to a limited extent simply because it is just not possible. I know the routes, schedules and basic rules. It would be irresponsible of me to attempt to advise on something that I do not do. I am not in the travel industry. I am in the hunting industry. I advise clients to use one of a few very experienced travel agents. They do this every day, they know the rules, they are the first to be notified of rule changes.

Leave the ever changing rules of the travel industry to the professionals.

4) you keep up to date on country customs changes, visa requirements and such.

Yes, to the extent that they pertain to hunting, firearm import, etc. Major rule changes, basic requirements, etc. This also is the travel professionals arena. Things change ... travel agents will know about it before I will.

I'll say again, it is irresponsible of me to try to play travel agent. I do not work in the air travel industry. I trust a small hand full of Travel agents to keep my clients on the right path with all the correct travel information they need.

5) any promises made are upheld.

Agreed. Don't make a promise you can't keep. Some agents fall into this trap.

6) any and all issues pertaining to these items are dealt with in a timely manner.
A very reasonable expectation.

7) there are no issues with payments to outfitter on the hunters behalf.
A very reasonable expectation.

If a serious problem arose with a safari company, I would expect the agent to try to get me the best deal possible from the safari co. Failing that, I would expect the agent to drop that company from his list of companies he represents. I would also expect the agent to inform me of that decision.

465H&H

Wendell,

I agree with your analysis of my points. You are right about the Travel Agent 'type' expectations. There is definitely a line between the Travel and Hunting agencies that needs to be definitive.

My 3 brothers and i booked a hunt through a hunting agent, because we were tired of swimming through what seemed to be an endless sea of outfitters. We were having trouble finding what we wanted on our own and an agent made that process much easier for us.

QUOTE]Originally posted by JCHB:

Adamhunter, I think I side with you on this one. The booking agent has to bring more to the party than just "booking" the hunt, especially if he is handling all the monies (bar the trophy fees).
JCHB[/QUOTE]

Gentlemen – JCHB’s post is exactly the point I was trying to make with my GC/Booking agent correlation. Of course comparing the two is not apples to apples. My intent was to show that clients pay me to be build a building for them even though the work is performed by sub-contractors, they still hold me accountable. So I look at it as me being the client, the agent as being the GC and the Outfitters he represents being the subs. I realize that his commission comes by the outfitters but that has nothing to do with me. Again, if the agent is the guy I pay, he is accountable. If I pay the outfitter direct then that is a different story.
This whole thing that I have seen where booking agents say "Sorry I booked you with a crook and that your safari was a big pig f***k, here's my 10% back but that’s all I can do" or “I’m sorry to say your sheep guide ran off with the $70K that you paid me for this hunt, that’s how it goes sometimes” junk just doesn't fly with me. If I come to you looking to buy a hunt from an outfitter you represent and I pay my fees to you, then you work for that outfitter, not me. And thereby you are liable for your outfitters failure not just 10% of it.
I have nothing at all against booking agents and would not hesitate to use one. Of course there are things that are beyond the control of the booking agent; airlines, weather, governments, etc. That is a risk we all take and frankly there is very little we can do about it and I certainly view that as being beyond the agents scope. You can be sure that if I am writing a check to the agent, then I am going to amend any contract articles that indemnify him as not being responsible if he sold me X and I got Y.