It’s a fairly common practice for outfitters to oversell their quotas each year. Clients drop out at the last moment, clients can’t hit the broadside of a barn, weather issues, and the ill timed evaporating/invisible game syndrome. So it makes business sense to oversell a little. But how much overselling is within the lines of business ethics?

Without mentioning outfitters, a few are overselling their quotas by twice or more particularly when it comes to dangerous game. So where is the ethics line? Should an outfitter who has say 5 ele permits sell 10 hunts or more? What happens when the first five hunters get their quarry and the next 5 show up expecting their trophy experience? Hummmm...

Have you ever asked your PH how many permits they hold and how many hunters before you will be hunting under those permits? What’s the backup plan if all permits are taken before you arrive? Will they allow you to cancel your hunt and refund your deposit? Or do they have productive areas for non-dangerous game should you decide to keep your date? Will the daily rates be adjusted to reflect a plains game hunt and not a dangerous game hunt?

It would surprise many clients how often this happens and some of the horse trading that goes on behind the curtain...

In my view any outfitter who oversells his quota is just looking for trouble,

Should never be done,

JK

100 % , no descent outfitter should do that. Its not ethical. Period.
That it happens , for sure.

There is a related issue that has always bothered me. The outfitter sells a hunt and earmarks the quota for the hunter purchasing the hunt. The hunter comes and is unsuccessful. At this point the outfitter has been fully compensated for the daily rates associated with that allotted quota. Then the outfitter offers the same quota (given the first hunter's lack of success) to another hunter at an exaggerated trophy fee. Assuming the second hunter is successful the outfitter has been paid, (i) the full daily rate on the first hunt, (ii) the trophy fee on the second hunt (which I understand may be payable to the government or community whether the first or second hunter was successful), and (iii) the difference between the exaggerated trophy fee and the normal trophy fee. That has always struck me as unfair to the first hunter. Seems like the first hunter is entitled to all or some portion of Item (iii) as a rebate against the daily rates he already paid.

I think this situation happens all the time, particularly on cat hunts. The outfitter is not overselling quota in the first instance, but nevertheless is benefiting in some respect from the first hunters lack of success. I also understand the flip side that the outfitter would say if the animal is on fixed quota I am going to have to pay that animal regardless of whether any hunter actually shoots it. I get that. My objection is not to offering the quota to a subsequent hunter, it is profiting from the arrangement at the first hunter's expense if the second hunter is successful.

I have no objection to the outfitter profiting in such a situation it is a risky business to be involved in IMO and it is right.What I would object to is a hunt whose outcome is quite uncertain and to be charged full price for that hunt.

Mike, the excess quota is generally offered at a discounted fee simply because the outfitter doesn't want to get stuck with a sunk cost associated with the permit fee - these are generally paid on the front end of each season. This is why overselling has become more of a trend. It's far cheaper to offer excuses and apologies than to eat a permit fee.

Remember, you can always haggle over the pickup trophy fee. Nothing is set in stone, especially if you know how the game is played. That's why end of season hunts can be very interesting, but they can also be very disappointing if all the permits are gone...

Caveat emptor

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Mike, the excess quota is generally offered at a discounted fee simply because the outfitter doesn't want to get stuck with a sunk cost associated with the permit fee - these are generally paid on the front end of each season. This is why overselling has become more of a trend. It's far cheaper to offer excuses and apologies than to eat a permit fee.

Remember, you can always haggle over the pickup trophy fee. Nothing is set in stone, especially if you know how the game is played.

Caveat emptor

I understand that. But it is unfair to the first hunter to have him pay the fully daily rate, then in effect resell the hunt to a second hunter, and then pocket the difference without giving the first hunter some rebate. That is my $0.02. And by the way, not all animals are on fixed quota that the outfitter is committed to pay for regardless of whether the animal is taken.

The first & second hunter is paying his daily rates to be in camp and have all the associated infrastructure and staff that having a client in camp entails. I don't know the ins and outs of the high end dangerous game market and the finances of those that operate in it, but I could be fairly sure that no one in the safari industry is getting rich off of day rates.

We also all know that success on any animal is not guaranteed in fair chase hunting.

I'm paying for the chance to shoot something nothing more. If I have turned up and I feel that the outfitter has sold me a hunt and I had no chance of getting my desired quarry then perhaps I feel I am owed something but If we have hunted and not succeeded then so be it and I don't begrudge the guy that is successful down the line.

K

Let's break this down....

quote:

Originally posted by Mjines:
There is a related issue that has always bothered me. The outfitter sells a hunt and earmarks the quota for the hunter purchasing the hunt. The hunter comes and is unsuccessful. At this point the outfitter has been fully compensated for the daily rates associated with that allotted quota.
OK, just to confirm, at this point, the "outfitter" has done nothing wrong, the hunter was just unable to connect with his target?
Then the outfitter offers the same quota (given the first hunter's lack of success) to another hunter at an exaggerated trophy fee.
If the above (in red) is true, what does it matter what the trophy fee is? This is a separate transaction and the owner/outfitter can charge what the market will bare?
Assuming the second hunter is successful the outfitter has been paid, (i) the full daily rate on the first hunt, (ii) the trophy fee on the second hunt (which I understand may be payable to the government or community whether the first or second hunter was successful), and (iii) the difference between the exaggerated trophy fee and the normal trophy fee.
What is wrong with the outfitter profiting from a separate business transaction that has nothing to do with the first hunter?
That has always struck me as unfair to the first hunter. Seems like the first hunter is entitled to all or some portion of Item (iii) as a rebate against the daily rates he already paid.
How is anything "unfair to the first hunter"? He paid to come hunting, he came hunting and didn't collect his quarry. Unless the "hunter" is under some impression that he bought an animal, not a hunt, why would you think this way? Too many Safari Club meetings maybe?
I think this situation happens all the time, particularly on cat hunts. The outfitter is not overselling quota in the first instance, but nevertheless is benefiting in some respect from the first hunters lack of success. I also understand the flip side that the outfitter would say if the animal is on fixed quota I am going to have to pay that animal regardless of whether any hunter actually shoots it. I get that. My objection is not to offering the quota to a subsequent hunter, it is profiting from the arrangement at the first hunter's expense if the second hunter is successful.
Now we are getting down to the nuts and bolts of your thought process, it is bad enough that someone succeeded and you did not, so you present the premise that it was done at your "expense", ludicrous.

Mike

Damn those free markets!!!

I can see all the points, but I also profited from the fact that one PH had extra buff and ele bull permit and I was able to get them for trophy fee only as I had already my ele bull.
So I guess, it probably work both ways.
And yes, I would have a problem with getting there and being told, no more permits, as it happened to me in SA outside Kruger NP years back.

I have read all the submissions with great interest. I personally have no answer but the problem is not quite so simple as most here make it out. You meet the same problem daily in many walks of life. For example when a grocer buys x number of cans of a type of soup and he sells out in the first week. You go in the second week and want that particular item, does he have a responsility to you because he doesn't have it? An airline sells more seats on a flight than the airplane has - what is the airlines liability to you if you cannot board but have a ticket? These are common occurances of everyday life and have no easy answers as does the quota/sale problem have an easy answer for the outfitter. I worked in Information services in industry almost all my working life. I have processed many many payrolls from hundreds to thousands a week for literally millions of dollars. It was a common practice to process the payroll and get the bottom number and immediately send it to accounts payable so they could make the appropiate deposit in the bank that would pay the checks. They NEVER deposited the full amount of the payroll which actually meant that some of the checks were known to be invalid when issued as the was insufficient funds on deposit to cover them. Is this dishonest? It's a common business practice. In fact one company hired a very expensive person just to invest this funds held back from deposit to take advantage of interest on short term investment,meaning literally overnite in some cases. This is sometimes reffered to as something akin to risk/benefit analysis. Meaning you make a guess and hope you guess right. Look at the problem GM is in now with their recall. They made a poor call several years ago and it's biting them now. When all the knowledgable people on this forum come up with a real,equitable,workable cost effecttive manner to take care of the problem please copywrite the process and make a fortune. Until that time please cut the poor outfitter who has not only the client to contend with he has an African Government to also satisfy which is generally more obstacle than help.

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:
The first & second hunter is paying his daily rates to be in camp and have all the associated infrastructure and staff that having a client in camp entails. I don't know the ins and outs of the high end dangerous game market and the finances of those that operate in it, but I could be fairly sure that no one in the safari industry is getting rich off of day rates.

We also all know that success on any animal is not guaranteed in fair chase hunting.

I'm paying for the chance to shoot something nothing more. If I have turned up and I feel that the outfitter has sold me a hunt and I had no chance of getting my desired quarry then perhaps I feel I am owed something but If we have hunted and not succeeded then so be it and I don't begrudge the guy that is successful down the line.

K

What if the PH has already sold his quota, takes the unsuspecting client for 7 days of sightseeing by walking in circles in an unproductive area ensuring that they never have an opportunity at a trophy??? The PH makes excuses and apologies and offers 15% of their next hunt. Hummmm...

This scenario is not just a discussion of what-ifs or possibilities, but actual practice and not just the odd occurrence either.

as an outfitter my 2 cents:

Anny decent outfitter will never sell more hunts then the quota he has or sell more than what is sustainable off take for the area he hunts. A good outfitter would not sell or offer any species of which the client would not have a good chance of bagging!
Clients should be more worry about how many hunts are conducted per season / square kilometre per year There are now some operation that have IMO a ridiculous true put of hunters per season. Camps and roads looks more like central station then wild Africa! But then again a good outfitter would not do such a thing

Opus1

You seem to be pretty knowledgable about safari operators being a little to very unscrupulous. Perhaps you could share with us the extent of your safari experience that has brought you this knowledge.

Mark

Over selling is just another tool of the business. The outfitter is betting on years of experience and actual events that tells him that X percent of his reservations per year will not show as scheduled. Based on that percentage he is relativley safe to over book and allow for a cancellation or two without disrupting his operations. The ability to utilize overflow grounds or double booking a single area will keep him out of trouble should the odds not work in his favor. Its really no different than Quantas or Delta selling your seat twice for the flight over. This would all be completely transparent to the client, who is just showing up and doing the tourist thing as scheduled.

Never have I sold animals I do not have on quota and any excess is reserved for end of season. The selling of high cost safaris such as Lion that exceeds your allotted quota is tantamount to fraud. If by chance the Lion is not taken only then should it be re advertised after the safari.

To date I can boast 100% on most species and my quota is to advantage the hunter not my pocket.

My Lions have been sold here on a money back guarantee but I have never had to call that in.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
There is a related issue that has always bothered me. The outfitter sells a hunt and earmarks the quota for the hunter purchasing the hunt. The hunter comes and is unsuccessful. At this point the outfitter has been fully compensated for the daily rates associated with that allotted quota. Then the outfitter offers the same quota (given the first hunter's lack of success) to another hunter at an exaggerated trophy fee. Assuming the second hunter is successful the outfitter has been paid, (i) the full daily rate on the first hunt, (ii) the trophy fee on the second hunt (which I understand may be payable to the government or community whether the first or second hunter was successful), and (iii) the difference between the exaggerated trophy fee and the normal trophy fee. That has always struck me as unfair to the first hunter. Seems like the first hunter is entitled to all or some portion of Item (iii) as a rebate against the daily rates he already paid.

I think this situation happens all the time, particularly on cat hunts. The outfitter is not overselling quota in the first instance, but nevertheless is benefiting in some respect from the first hunters lack of success. I also understand the flip side that the outfitter would say if the animal is on fixed quota I am going to have to pay that animal regardless of whether any hunter actually shoots it. I get that. My objection is not to offering the quota to a subsequent hunter, it is profiting from the arrangement at the first hunter's expense if the second hunter is successful.

In Zambia there is no fixed quota and the license is circulated until endorsed?

I saw Aaron take an elephant in Zim on a whim so I presume this law applies there?

I thought the tip was supposed to motivate the PH to produce the desired outcome

But all joking aside I think it would be highly fraudulent if an outfitter does that. For a simple reason say if there are 2 lions to hunt and 4 hunts have been sold. Hell or high water the first two hunts cannot be successful. Cause in the remote random chance hunter 3 or 4 is driven around the concession bumps into a lion or a lion decides to come to a bait that is not supposed too the scam will be exposed. The PH goes from one motivated to getting a good hunt to one purposely trying not to connect with a lion.

The way I see it - the outfitter is "the house." The law of large (or more correctly larger) numbers is on his side. Over 180 hunting days he has a better chance to kill a desired animal than a hunter hunting a short 10-15-21 day window. That is fine. My issue with more hunts than quota is the outfitter is not motivated for the hunter.

I think it should be made clear what the quota is when the hunt is sold.

How many hunts are sold relative to the quota.

What is the order - are you hunter 1 or hunter 3.

Hunting wild animals involves a degree of uncertainty. The outfitter has less uncertainty cause he has more hunting days.

As someone playing against the house (the financial aspect of the hunt) I much rather have a situation in which there is a high trophy fee (variable cost) and a low fixed cost (daily rate). Most outfitters want the other situation.

Mike

Fairgame raises a good point and that is how it should be handled. I have a late season hunt next year. Other than a few targeted species, I'm flexible and the hunt depends on what is left on quota. Potentially, at least, anything is possible.

Both the client and the PH take risks on that type of deal, but it's hedging from both parties' perspective.

It's not a recommended first safari by any means. Before doing that, you want to get the species that mean the most to you. And, I would hunt with someone you trust and not be worried about them "leading you around in circles" as one poster has feared. But that's always the case, isn't it?

Wow, what an interesting set of replies!

Having played a few high stakes games in the business world, with limited supply and inelastic demand, the advantage clearly falls with the house, ie, their house, their rules, they somewhat control the outcome. Or, as one less educated individual put it - " if I keep score, I WILL win!"

My own experience has cut both ways, I prefer to go late in the season, usually September. I have been in the place, fourth day of the hunt, having shot a good elephant, and a hippo, and then being out of quota for that area. A plan was made, a plane ride was taken, and more animals were available in other areas, plus I got to see areas otherwise unplanned. Other than a couple extra charter hours for the plane, costs were not much different, truth is, about the same, we were going to have to take a day to shuttle the ladies (SWBO and SIL) back to catch their flight home anyway. The new area was on the way. Had a much more enjoyable casual hunt after the big stuff was done, and just riding and walking to see what we could find.

Other time, same late season time, there were more animals left on quota than I wanted to shoot. Literally, shot animals for the price of a cartridge, local council wanted them, PH made a good deal for us both, win/win. I got one problem ele for FREE, can't bitch a second about that. Sidebar - very exciting and up close personal hunt that was!!!

So, I think the takeway is, know your PH, if you think, even suspect, he is capable of the sort of subterfuge alleged, WHY are you hunting with him? There are many, honest, hardworking PH/outfitters around, you don't have to use the less than reputable ones. If all you care about is a cheap hunt though, then let the buyer beware..... just saying.

I used to have a purchasing agent that worked with me, usually the cheapest, skinflint type guys you ever met. I was "assigned" this guy, to "help", as I was pretty much a cowboy, working out of bounds most of the time. He came when I was out of town, when I got back I was ready to go to war against him, I'd already decided. Lucky for me, when I got to his office he was on the phone, fixing something for me. While I was waiting, I noted a sign on his wall, already hung, the rest of his boxes still packed. It said

"The man that only considers price,
Never even gets what he paid for."

Brothers, if it is true in business, it is more true on safari.

By the way, that purchasing agent and I worked together for a long time, and he was good partner in getting things done. Thanks John, miss ya, buddy!

quote:

Never have I sold animals I do not have on quota and any excess is reserved for end of season. The selling of high cost safaris such as Lion that exceeds your allotted quota is tantamount to fraud. If by chance the Lion is not taken only then should it be re advertised after the safari.

To date I can boast 100% on most species and my quota is to advantage the hunter not my pocket.

My Lions have been sold here on a money back guarantee but I have never had to call that in.

And thats how it should be.
For an activity conducted solely on land, the safari industry seems to have a hell of a lot of Sharks in it

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

Then the outfitter offers the same quota (given the first hunter's lack of success) to another hunter at an exaggerated trophy fee.
If the above (in red) is true, what does it matter what the trophy fee is? This is a separate transaction and the owner/outfitter can charge what the market will bare?

What the market will bear is how Capitalism works.
Capitalism is in essence, a form of exploitation or gaining from a situation[some view exploitation in a negative fashion, others in a positive opportunistic fashion],
If one is satisfied when agreeing to a price, what is charged to the previous or next client for the same product, is of no relevance.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:
The first & second hunter is paying his daily rates to be in camp and have all the associated infrastructure and staff that having a client in camp entails. I don't know the ins and outs of the high end dangerous game market and the finances of those that operate in it, but I could be fairly sure that no one in the safari industry is getting rich off of day rates.

We also all know that success on any animal is not guaranteed in fair chase hunting.

I'm paying for the chance to shoot something nothing more. If I have turned up and I feel that the outfitter has sold me a hunt and I had no chance of getting my desired quarry then perhaps I feel I am owed something but If we have hunted and not succeeded then so be it and I don't begrudge the guy that is successful down the line.

K

What if the PH has already sold his quota, takes the unsuspecting client for 7 days of sightseeing by walking in circles in an unproductive area ensuring that they never have an opportunity at a trophy??? The PH makes excuses and apologies and offers 15% of their next hunt. Hummmm...

This scenario is not just a discussion of what-ifs or possibilities, but actual practice and not just the odd occurrence either.

Opus, I think it is fair to say that not jus in the safari industry but any commerce in items where the outcome is uncertain, this is not acceptable.

I get approached to organise many types of hunting that I don't like to get involved in because even in fair chase situations, there are too many variables to make me feel comfortable of taking a clients money, as I don't feel the chances of a clients expectations being met are there.

If an outfitter takes a clients money, the client should know exactly what the chances of success are and the outfitter should do everything in his power to be successful. The scenario you outline is akin to me selling you tower bridge and a timeshare at buck palace.

K

Well I am sure things vary all over, but in some locations the so called quota is really a hunter quota and not game animal quota. This is the case in several Canadian provinces, including the one I operate in.

The allocation is actually the number of non-resident licenses that are issued to the outfitter annually, not a number of dead game animals. So in my case, when I have issued a black bear license to a client, that is the end of that 'allocation', successful or not. I can't re-sell that allocation if a hunter was unsuccessful.

In these instances there would obviously be no reason for an outfitter not to try their best to assure each client gets what they came for.

Personally I believe this is a better way to go when setting 'allocations' than counting on a dead animal to fill the allocation, unless there is a conservation reason to ensure the specific number of animals is actually killed. There are not many instances where that would actually be the case, as a couple of animals escaping the axe is not going to make a difference to the big picture.

Hopefully, this discussion opens a dialogue between the client and outfitter/agent. I believe when it comes to lion, leopard, buff, ele, and some of the larger plains game, it's just a good idea to enquire about the number of available permits and what happens if they're all taken before you arrive. This is especially true if you do not have an establish relationship with the PH/Outfitter and even more pertinent when dealing with an agent or third party.

On a late season hunt, speak with the PH before you leave. You might just wind up with a windfall. It pays to be informed...

A couple outfitters I hunted with had repeat clients that always took the last hunt of the year with the thought in mind of "cleaning up" unused quota. I remember distinctly a prominent Spanish hunter had trophy fees the previous year totaling over $100K. He booked a full quota hunt but hunted everything remaining on quota. I would think that is a dream situation for an outfitter.

Whoa! LJS, I wasn't planning on 100k in trophy fees. Realistically though, it could be a lot.