I've seen this term come up now and then on some threads. Has anyone really been to a concession, could be anywhere in any African country, where it was truly 'shot out'?

If so, what were you hunting, the duration of your hunt and what did you see?

What do the PH's on board do to ensure they are not buying into a 'shot out' concession? Have any of you got into a concession and run into such a situation with a client?

I understand that Steve "Shakari" Robinson knows something about this in the Selous.

Most of the places I have hunted in Zim have been poached out, not shot out. My PH was honest with me up front that there was little plains game left. We were hunting Buffalo, Leopard, or Elephant...poachers have a harder time with these although we did find one large buffalo bull with a snare on its neck.

500 grains,

Why would I have any specific experience of a "shot out" area in the Selous?

The Selous is 5 million acres with a further buffer zone. It is totally unfenced and the game is free to roam at will and to follow available water and grazing, - and that of course is exactly what it does.

Any single concession may have lower or higher game populations at a particular time due to local conditions. The local game populations in any particular area in the Selous can and will change from day to day, let alone week to week or year to year........

The quota system in the Selous (proper) prevents game populations being overshot by hunters and poaching is minimal.

Devil's Gorge in Zim. There is nothing in this area. Any tribal area regarding general plains game or lion but specifically the Deve or Magunge area of Zim for anything other than elephant.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
500 grains,

Why would I have any specific experience of a "shot out" area in the Selous?

In reference to a recent hunt you conducted.

Ann

I hunted buffalo in a mostly "shot-out" or "poached-out" (I don't know which) for seven days in 2002. I did get an opportunity at two buffalo (at the same time) and took one which satisfied me for the moment. I did want a second if available.

We hunted hard and basically never saw another male of basically any species worth shooting (other than those two buffalo) for the seven days.

I did get to hunt another property near to the concession but after hunting there for half a day and shooting one zebra, declined to return the next day as the game was tame there as a result from being fed food-pellets from the back of hunting vehicles. The PH only learned this himself that evening and being reputable informed me and gave me the choice (I had noticed a lot of stock pellet sacks lying around BTW).

I did not blame the PH at all as it was an unusual and last minute fix to a problem outside his control. You know the details of that hunt pretty well I think!

I've never hunted or conducted a hunt in a 'shot out' area in my life. I've occasionally conducted hunts in areas where it has been difficult to locate the game due to an extreme lack of good grass for grazing species.

Even then the clients were able to take their primary quarry species plus other animals.

its not troll time again is it??

It seems there is a huge range of how concession holders in Tanz. manage their quotas. Some shoot the entire quota, often using subcontracting to accomplish the objective. At the other extreme are operators who are shooting UNDER their quotas in order to build or maintain quality. "Suitcase" Phs rarely are granted access to the later example.From the reports here and elsewhere it seems that there is a big varience in quality in concessions that share common boundaries. Pressure or lack of same could be a reasonable explanation.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shakari:
500 grains,

Why would I have any specific experience of a "shot out" area in the Selous?

Steve Robinson, you are a seriously bad liar, and and a poor apology for a PH.
You will be exposed.
Jezz.

Ann has asked some specific questions and is looking for factual information.

If you guys that are dropping hints and calling names have something to say, let's hear it. If not quit cluttering up the string with your agendas.

Les

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Jezzard:

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shakari:
500 grains,

Why would I have any specific experience of a "shot out" area in the Selous?

Steve Robinson, you are a seriously bad liar, and and a poor apology for a PH.
You will be exposed.
Jezz.

This F'ing web sight is sarting to remind me of the Salem witch hunts. All we need are some pointy hats, funny shoes and a match!

Surestrike,

I understand that there is some very serious substance with regard to what you saw implied in this thread, and that it will be reported and published through proper channels. However, as it was not my hunt it is not for me to make the public disclosure. If the PH were legitimate and not a con artist, he would address the issue directly instead of just issuing a blanket denial. When I make a screwup, I try to say "I was wrong..." or "I misjudged..." and "Here's something I can do to try to fix it..." But some guys prefer to say, "That's life, too bad."

Point of information:

How do PH's get concessions? Do they have any responsibility for management of game in concessions -- or are they simply cooperating with other authorities (game keepers)? I had the impression that the hunter hired a PH and a game keeper went along to determine what and how many of what could be taken and charged for, that it wasn't all up to the PH... or is this variable from country to country, with multiple arrangements according to the peculiarities of how a PH obtained rights to an area?

Second level: how much control does a PH have over the quality of concessions that come under their control? How much lattitude do they have in managing poaching? How much cooperation in dealing with such problems?

From the standpoint of a PH and/or his client, is there any difference whether an area was "shot out" by mismanagement of prior PH's, prior management by this PH, or by poaching?

In NY State, near the turn of the century, logging companies would buy forrests in the Adirondacks cheap, clear-cut it, and let the state take the land and slash in lieu of taxes. The way the system was set up, resource management was punished. Only a few folks, who intended to keep their land, experimented with scientific management of their silviculture -- such as William Seward Webb who hired Gifford Pinchot -- who later went on to be one of the leading proponents of scientific forestry management, and one of the first (if not the first) director of the US Forest service.

Point is -- it sounds more and more like the system is set up to guarantee poor management of wildlife. Is that what's happening here?

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:.......

If the PH were legitimate and not a con artist, he would address the issue directly instead of just issuing a blanket denial.

500Grains

If 'Harry Jezzard' were legitimate he would either put up or shut up. Playing I've got a secret like a 10 year old girl is not becoming to an honest person.

Either is relying on Pano Calverius's veracity or reputation for honesty.

Harry

Shite or get off the pot.

LHowell: I don't have a hidden agenda but I apologise if this thread has been hijacked by people who do.

Surestrike: I couldn't agree more....

.500grains: Quite honestly I fail to see what this has to do with you. As you say, it's not for you to make public disclosure....

Harry Jezzard (which is not his real name) had a dispute with us which we currently consider closed. If he feels it should be pursued further then that is his perogative. - But I won't respond to innuendo or other baiting....

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
LHowell: I don't have a hidden agenda but I apologise if this thread has been hijacked by people who do.

Surestrike: I couldn't agree more....

.500grains: Quite honestly I fail to see what this has to do with you. As you say, it's not for you to make public disclosure....

Harry Jezzard (which is not his real name) had a dispute with us which we currently consider closed. If he feels it should be pursued further then that is his perogative. - But I won't respond to innuendo or other baiting....

How does anyone client know if an area is "shot out" or not?

Wouldn't proof of this have to be done in the form of some sort of game survey via helicopter, like the way surveys of whitetail ranches are conducted?

If a hunter doesn't get his desired bag I wouldn't consider that qualification to deem an area as being shot out. Weather, season, drought, grazing conditions and other factors could cause temporary animal migration or less animal population.

Unless the area is seasonal and drought continually occurs in the region the same time of year every year, (like sheephunter's problem), why does a PH not book his area a year in advance. He surely can't predict the migrations or condition problems.

Again this is only a valid question in area where animal migration and drought are not patterned on a seasonal basis. There I believe it to be the outfitter and booking agents responsiblity to disclose such conditions in advance of booking.

But in area where this is not true. Shit really does happen in hunting.

quote:

Steve Robinson, you are a seriously bad liar, and and a poor apology for a PH.
You will be exposed.
Jezz.

Harry,

Welcome to the forum.

If you wish to be taken seriously, post all the details, not just one-liner accusations.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Jezzard:

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shakari:
500 grains,

Why would I have any specific experience of a "shot out" area in the Selous?

Steve Robinson, you are a seriously bad liar, and and a poor apology for a PH.
You will be exposed.
Jezz.

Harry,

All of your accusations towards Steve, and suggestions of having some sort of secret info is getting a bit boring. I suggest you put up or shut up...

Or apologize to Steve.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

.500grains: Quite honestly I fail to see what this has to do with you. As you say, it's not for you to make public disclosure....

Harry Jezzard (which is not his real name) had a dispute with us which we currently consider closed. If he feels it should be pursued further then that is his perogative.

It surprises me that someone concerned with building a reputation would want to let unflattering rumors float about rather than addressing the substance. Just a few whisperings like, "I had a lousy hunt with that company, and I feel they misled me about the concession" can have a long term impact on reputation, business volume and the type of clientele attracted in the future.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It looks to me that some people start off with a shopping list for animals, and if for any reason they are unable to get them, then they complain!

That is the saddest excuse for going on an African safari.

I have never hunted what might be considered a "shot out" area, neither have I ever managed to find all the animals we were after.

Reasons for this have been many.

One year we did not shoot any warthogs because they had a bad year, and my PH said he did not offer any to his client that year.

On several safaris we never managed to even see a lion or leopard, despite all of our efforts of baiting.

The last 3 years we never saw a single elephant bull that we could shoot.

On two hunts in the Selous, we found that there were not many mature buffalo bulls.

On several hunts we had the chance of shooting left over quota of animals, as previous hunters were NOT able to walk to find them.

I suppose if they had the chance at the time of posting on sites like AR they would have complained that "they never saw any" of the animals they wanted.

I think people should take hunting for what it is.

This reminds me of the silly "inner circles" that SCI has.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

.500grains: Quite honestly I fail to see what this has to do with you. As you say, it's not for you to make public disclosure....

Harry Jezzard (which is not his real name) had a dispute with us which we currently consider closed. If he feels it should be pursued further then that is his perogative.

It surprises me that someone concerned with building a reputation would want to let unflattering rumors float about rather than addressing the substance. Just a few whisperings like, "I had a lousy hunt with that company, and I feel they misled me about the concession" can have a long term impact on reputation, business volume and the type of clientele attracted in the future.

500,

I don't understand. Does this hunt have anything to do with you.

As much as I agreed with SH thread, because facts that we had from Ray's own post, I don't understand what you are trying to imply or start here.

With all respect that can be given, do you have an agenda with outfitters on this site? Do you feel this site is full of dishonest people selling hunts?

I agreed with alot of your post on SH thread, but this is begining to sound like you are deposing a witness.

Lightning,

If I may chirp in here.The way I read 550grains posts and contribution is that he feels and recommends that a broker and PH that relies on future customers would do better for himself, if he is able to disarm any bad or questionable "report" or opinion about him.
This forum is not a court in a legal sense,but it is a public open mirror of how agents deal with clients and situations.
When Shakari states : which we currently consider closed ,he reflects on his ( legal ) opinion.But some client alludes to it,thereby possibly raising questions about the outfitter.

The outfitter can of course elect to keep mum about it,thta is his choice.But as I said,this is public perception.It is natural in a world where problems occur( maybe frequently) for a future client to give a wide berth to any agent or PH that has questionable reports.

It is therefore in the interest of the PH to leave no such innuendos,even if they are false.
IfI were wrongfully accused,particularily as a business man,I would want the truth to come out,because otherwise people will grade me negatively.

That is of course,if I have nothing to hide.
On the other hand if there is valid negative past,show the public how I dealt with the issue.

As I said before,things happen,we all understand,in cases like that,the future client likes to see "how it was dealt with"

All the above is the reality of a public forum,whether anyone likes it or not.
It is also one of the greatest values of a public forum.

500grain - I think - eludes to this and encourages shakari to come to grips with this fact.He does not want to be an accuser.

Lightning, if people were talking behind your back, would you want a chance to put an end to it? I would.

I guess I don't know what the hell is going on.

The guy that had the hunt needs to report the hunt or STFU!

All this code bullshit I can't follow.

quote:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It looks to me that some people start off with a shopping list for animals, and if for any reason they are unable to get them, then they complain!

That is the saddest excuse for going on an African safari.

Saeed, your personal opinion on how YOU approach a hunt, how you evaluate its success and what you like to experience is well documented.
You keep bringing up the same again.As I tried before I shall add to your opinion,that OTHERS, including ,yes, myself, dont share your approach for a variety of reasons.
see the previous thread:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1411043/m/283106073
quote:

This is what I call hunting. And those with a "shopping list" of grand trophies, better accept this fact, or go hunt on a fenced farm in South Africa .

It is wonderful that you enjoyed each and every hunt that you hired,and I have absolutely no qualms about it.

What I take issue with is your critization of any other person/client that doesnt quite see it the way you do.

When a client hires a hunt with a specified goal of a clearly described trophy or group of trophies, in name and quality, yes both, and this goal is clearly understood and accepted by the outfitter,who then agrees to furnish the hunt.

It is now up to the outfitter to deliver the opportunity that he sold.He is not responsible for missed shots,unwillingness to hunt on part of the client etc,he is responsible to furnish the opportunity that was sold - nothing else.

IF the goal is so tenous that it cannot be found,it should be stated by both parties before the hunt that this is a rare,lucky event or something to that effect.

I understand ,as we all do,that a hunt - in the wild - is not entirely predictable.We have to use common sense.

What we like to avoid is the opposite:
a outfitter sells for good money a "hunt" in a subpar area ,possibly in a bad timeslot ,yes to make an income.

The excuse is than used that a hunt is not predictable and we have to take whatever comes,even nothing, and "enjoy" the good company : )

Hopefully the truth lies somewhere in between,we of course want to enjoy the good company,but we also want to encounter what we bought: a chance for our goals within stated odds.

If this is not reasonable,agents and outfitters should NOT sell hunts with specified goals but rather trips into the wild.

This forum is full of successful hunts for specified game if conducted by reputable outfitters that have the game on their concession,have an experienced PH to conduct the hunt and selected the proper timeslot for the hunt.

quote:

I've never hunted or conducted a hunt in a 'shot out' area in my life. I've occasionally conducted hunts in areas where it has been difficult to locate the game due to an extreme lack of good grass for grazing species

Sounds to me like shakari answered the spineless accusation. Why don't the rest of you fucking sheep either put up specifics or take a valium.

Leaving aside the obscenities, on the Sheephunter thread the specifics were posted and the booking agent ignored them, tried bluster, then fled. He was, however, presented with a set of specific circumstances. That doesn't seem to apply here. I'm not connected, so the only rumours I've heard are right here.

What's more reasonable? "There are rumours out there - what's your story?" Or, "Here are some rumours - what's your position on them?"

Jaywalker

This is a classic hijacking. Could we please get back to Ann's question and the forum members knowledge about how these concessions are managed ? Are some of them over harvested and why. Who is shooting under quota- Tanz, Zim and elsewhere? How would these different management schemes tranlate to the hunter's expense? Or lack thereof ?

We all approach hunting from a different and personal perspective. None of our perspectives, or even that of Kuvu as an anti-hunter, is wrong. What is off-putting is when we become so wrapped up in our point of view that we can no longer recognize or appreciate that there are other points of view.

Just because it is listed on license on a contract for a hunt in Africa does not mean you will get a chance to hunt it. For that matter, just because the government gave the concession holder a quota for the animal does not mean there has been one seen on the concession in the memory of living men.

The quotas established by the government are considered by some to be too generous, and by others not generous enough. They are kinda like alimony awards, for ex-wives they aren't enough and for ex-husbands they are too much.

Some concession holders want to realize the full financial benefit of having every quota filled during the season. Others recognize that shoting fewer animals can result in better trophies, and better quality trophies can result in more demand, and demand in higher prices. However, the possibility of losing a concession mitigates against concession holder taking the high road. Of course, those individuals booking bargain hunts are not going to pay the premium demanded by the concession holders who have "undershot" their quota, the concession holder is not going to let others come in and hunt, and the bargain hunters are going to get what they paid for, ie, a trip to a spot with fewer animals or lower quality.

Regarding the efforts to turn this tread into a mirror image of the debacle being played out on Hunting Reports over SH's hunt, I respect that Steve has merely alerted us to the fact that Jezz has a personal issue with Steve's company. I hope neither he nor Jezz see fit to burden us with the details of their dispute.

I greatly fear that the posting of so many successful hunts has raised expectations to an unrealistic level, and that too many individuals booking very expensive hunts, particularly for cats, will be disappointed.

When one books one of these hunts, one had better be very realistic about one's chances. Not everyone who books gets a leopard or lion. A lion and leopard hunt is one tough combo even for a 21 day hunt. Be realistic.

If things begin to drift from the written terms of the contract, be ready to contact your agent and demand performance to the letter of the contract, and be ready to walk with all that entails. Accepting a renovation of the contract, and then expressing you unhappiness over not getting what you had originally contracted for does not get you anywhere.

For example, in SH's case, he had a right to a refund, reimbursement of his legitimate expenses (re-booking fees on the airline,etc), and potentially lost opportunity costs if the terms of the original contract were breached.

Once SH accepted the change in the contract, however, his success must be judged solely in terms of the new contract. There are many here who have not understood this distinction and, therefore, the discussion of whether PVT booked Kigosi. That is no longer relevant because SH accepted the shift to the secondary location.

Saeed is right on in his comments about client expectations, about the SCI inner circle, and where all this is taking us. Making a list of animals and judging the success of your hunt soley on whether you took all of them is a recipe for disappointment in concession hunting. This is particularly true about cat hunts.

Please understand that my comments are not meant to put down SH, defend Ray or Steve, or Saeed. They are intended solely to alert readers to the realities of big-time, big game hunting. You must enjoy the thrill of the hunt, the ambiance of the experience, and be able to accept the possibility of an empty bag. It is like going to Vegas. If you can't accept the fact that you might loose a bundle, you might want to reconsider your plans.

Personally, I find the quota system as applied in Africa unfortunate because I do believe the quotas are too generous for some animals, and irrational in other instances. For example, lion quotas in Tanz and not shooting elephants in Kruger. Further, from a consummer's point of view, the fact that a concession holder got five lions on quota does not restrict him from selling ten lion hunts. How will you know how many hunts he sold with hunts being sold in Europe, Australia, South America and US? Could you tell if the ph was waltzing you around and telling you not to shoot a "shootable" lion? We have seen the photos of great looking lions posted here and seen the comments pro and con about whether they are old enough. And that is but one way to "avoid" taking a lion.

I believe that ultimately a system which lets hunters participate in a drawing for animals on quota will be necessary, and that, having obtained a license, the successful hunter would contract for services to conduct his hunt. Given the graft in most countries, these would have to be conducted by an independent financial organization.

Those concession holders with the best trophy quality, the best accommodations and the best success rate could demand a premium for their services. It would be very difficult to cheat, the government would get its trophy fees directly from the hunter, and this would improve every aspect of game management.

I expect that this won't happen because under this system, a poor man would have as good a chance to draw a lion as a rich man. Kudude

quote:

I expect that this won't happen because under this system, a poor man would have as good a chance to draw a lion as a rich man. Kudude

I learned about the facts of life when I booked a hunt at Jake 'n Norb's Goose Club in southern Illinois in 1986 for myself and my dad. Even though we were the ones with the valid reservation, the manager slid a couple of his better heeled sports in ahead of us. We never did get out to the blind, and had a long three hour drive home. In 1995 dad was getting 'et up with cancer, so I called a former squadron mate who now owned the club. He made sure there was no misunderstanding this time. We went out and shot our two geese apiece by 09:30. There weren't many birds flying, but the old man knew it would be his last goose hunt, and didn't miss.
As we were leaving I gave the guide/manager (same guy as in 1986) a $100.00 tip, and thanked him for letting us call. He said, "good shooting" and then, "you guys look familiar". I said "we were the guys you shut out back in '86." He laughed, held up the $100.00 dollar bill and said, "well, now it's your turn at the front of the line."

LD

Also with a slight attempt at hijacking -- well, actually I just wanted to widen the scope of Ann's question.

Seems to me areas that produced well for several years can change quickly... especially when politics and economics produce multiple radical changes in the environment... not to mention simple variability in the weather.

So -- I've wondered how much control a PH can have over "his/her" concession? Any control? Any chance to try to manage the wildlife on the land they have a privilage to hunt? Do the quotas serve to improve animal populations?

I'm actually curious how a PH "gets" a concession, and how much responsibility/control do they have to assume once they have it? Can they even figure out whether the area has become depleted of some species? or if the trophy quality has gone downhill (1.5 yrs ahead when they have to promise)?

Dan

Dan,
A ph generally does not have any control over a concession. Concessions are leased from the gov't and in the control of the concessionaire. The ph is an employee of the concessionaire or is a person who subleases the rights to hunt the concession.

As a subleasee, the ph has no control whatsoever over the lease. As the employee of the concessionaire, the ph has no control over the lease. Control over the conditions of the hunt rest solely with the concessionaire.

They know its depleted when they don't see any of those animals on the concession or they don't see any trophy grade animals of that specie on the concession.

Generally speaking on a concession that does not have a renewing resource from an adjoining park, the trophy quality will diminish over time. Each year, the size of the trophies will decrease on average.

Having made the foregoing comments, the ph is the one who holds the cards and he can make things happen or keep them from happening. How good a ph is, is really dependent upon whether he can make it not happen, keep the client happy or at least not unhappy, and make money for the concessionaire and the ph. If he can do all that, he is that rare, 24K professional.
Kudude

KUDUDE

I echo your concerns. It appears to me that we are seeing more and more posters asserting that a PH has an obligation to produce the animals on license. Absent a high fence, canned hunt situation, this is complete nonsense. I hunted a concession this summer for the third time. It is in the Okavango delta bordering the moremi game reserve. In the past my Sons and I have taken 3 good Kudu there. This year I saw none. was it shot out? No, frankly the quota for that area isn't high enough for it to be shot out. On my last trip we took two Kudu and then the weather changed and we didn't see any for the rest of the trip. Changes in the environment have an impact on the wildlife and that can have an impact on your hunt. On my prior two hunts I saw a lot of Lion and at least two shootable males on each hunt. This time I saw none. Lions were closed in Botswana for the last few years and this years quota was one, hardly enough to eradicate the Lion population. If you book a hunt, you as a client have the right to a consession that has a legitimate population of the animals that are on license, you don't have the right to assume that the PH will automatically produce them. They my be there, but sometimes even the best of PH's won't be able to find them. That's hunting.

TerryR

Getting back to the topic of "shot out" concessions.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

The last 3 years we never saw a single elephant bull that we could shoot.

On two hunts in the Selous, we found that there were not many mature buffalo bulls.

If a client booked a 21 day safari and communicated their STRONG desire to hunt an elephant bull and mature strong bossed and representative buffalo bulls (representative - lets say around 37-38" - but many Tanzanian outfitters claims larger is possible in Tanzania and charge an accordingly higher fee).

If the outfitter sells a 21 day hunt on that basis and a single shootable elephant bull can not be found during the hunt or even the year, perhaps ALL the two or three years the outfitter has the concession and most buffalo shot are SOFT bossed, would that classify as a SHOT OUT concession for this client?

If it was my money it surely would!

I know if I bought a 21 day safari, trophy elephant would be no.1, plus a couple of strong bosses mature buffs a must. Lion always seems to be hit and miss though.

Stuff all the minor grass eaters, they are just extras.

Kudude- Are you aware of the policy/procedure for quota on the Tanz concessions? I herd it something like this: A concession holder is requied to shoot a percentage of quota. The number I was quoted was 40%. After that 40 it is up to the holder as to how much they shoot, up to the 100%. If you do not shoot 100% "points" may be obtained through community developement projects. The Gov does require compensation on allocated quota. Could Kudude or anyone else clue us in as to the EXACT system? Bwanamich? I suspect that this info is a matter of record somewhere. That information, if availible, would be of great interest to the forum.

Kudude, Crane -- thanks... It gives me a picture of a PH who is between a rock and a hard place -- but not holding all the cards. Just the ones he's dealt. Problem is, it looks like a PH may be in the unenviable position of having to have placed his bets on the hand a year or two before its actually dealt.. and the gov't may still hold him accountable regardless of the impact of poachers and drought.

Dan

In most instances the ph is an employee of the concessionaire and hunts are arranged through an agent of the concessionaire.

But you are right that everyone is "betting" on what the conditions will be when the hunt is taken. The person who is actually betting is the client. The ph will get his daily rate from the concessionaire regardless. The concessionaire will get his daily rate and the agent his cut.

The government looks to the concessionaire for the fees. This is why when sublessees don't tender the trophy fee payment, the trophies are not released by the government. Kudude

quote:

Originally posted by crane:
Kudude- Are you aware of the policy/procedure for quota on the Tanz concessions? I herd it something like this: A concession holder is requied to shoot a percentage of quota. The number I was quoted was 40%. After that 40 it is up to the holder as to how much they shoot, up to the 100%. If you do not shoot 100% "points" may be obtained through community developement projects. The Gov does require compensation on allocated quota. Could Kudude or anyone else clue us in as to the EXACT system? Bwanamich? I suspect that this info is a matter of record somewhere. That information, if availible, would be of great interest to the forum.

In Tz, it goes something like this:

The concession holder is obligated to "utilise" (Shoot) 40% of the total value of "KEY" species allocated on his quota. In addition, if he fails in achieving 20% of this figure then he automatically loses his concession at the end of the year - i.e. unless he can "grease" the right hands

If he achieves more than 20% BUT less than 40% of his KEY species quota, then he has to pay for the difference in fees. If he does it regularly, then he will be pressurised to increase his performance.

One of the problems with this is that very often the quota is set haphazardly and not updated with time. For example, some concessions still have a quota of crocodile where there are none! In order for a concessionaire to ammend his quota he should present his requests backed up by a scientific study (game count, etc) that was conducted by TAWIRI (Tanzania Wildlife Research institute) and paid for by the concessionaire - not many can afford this. Generally, the obvious ones (like the croc example above)are generally accepted with an endorsement by the Chief Warden of the area.

Its a messy situation indeed. Many outfitters do not pay too much attention about the quota and just try to maximize - this especially true of those that sub-lease.