As a construction contractor I have some experience re: contracting goods and services. Contracts tendered for signature are often so one sided as to be laughable. It is to be an agreement between 2 parties not a take it or leave it. A sentence or paragraph that you don't agree with can be crossed out and initialed w/date prior to signing and it's legally out of the agreement.
With increased costs and softening demand the Agent(contractor), ph(subcontractor) are hardpressed to maintain a decent profit margin.
Welcome to the club.
My one experience w/african hunting in'05 was a dream come true. I don't remember signing anything, it was face to face and a handshake.
With the Allgone hunt it appears that the agent(ACS) took a % of the fee, the sub(jimbah) took a % and the ph got what was left. How much may be indicative of his lackluster efforts.
The top companies, although expensive, look to be the better value. Do THEY need an agent? No.
How many times in the past has a hunter reported an unsatisfactory hunt to be vilified by the AR glitterati? Of those, how many were part of the industry?
And why do we (hunter/clients) allow agents to define the industry?
No apology for the rant. The allgone hunt has me seriously po'd.

First post,
Scott

quote:

Originally posted by Scott Leonard:
As a construction contractor I have some experience re: contracting goods and services. Contracts tendered for signature are often so one sided as to be laughable. It is to be an agreement between 2 parties not a take it or leave it. A sentence or paragraph that you don't agree with can be crossed out and initialed w/date prior to signing and it's legally out of the agreement.
With increased costs and softening demand the Agent(contractor), ph(subcontractor) are hardpressed to maintain a decent profit margin.
Welcome to the club.
My one experience w/african hunting in'05 was a dream come true. I don't remember signing anything, it was face to face and a handshake.
With the Allgone hunt it appears that the agent(ACS) took a % of the fee, the sub(jimbah) took a % and the ph got what was left. How much may be indicative of his lackluster efforts.
The top companies, although expensive, look to be the better value. Do THEY need an agent? No.
How many times in the past has a hunter reported an unsatisfactory hunt to be vilified by the AR glitterati? Of those, how many were part of the industry?
And why do we (hunter/clients) allow agents to define the industry?
No apology for the rant. The allgone hunt has me seriously po'd.

First post,
Scott

Scott:

The only PH who makes any serious money is the one who is an outfitter and PH within his own company.

PHs who are subcontracted by outfitters are on a daily wage x number of hunting days - wages vary from country to country.

PHs who act as 'briefcase booking agents' will normally be paid a commission from the outfitter, basically the same as an official booking agent - difference being the PH would be more likely secure more clients through reputation (if he's good) and to broker a better deal as a confirmed hunt will secure him the hunting days and earn more in the long run.

Some official booking agents have been known to get greedy by adding a few more bucks on the selling rate causing an outfitter to lose potential clients.

Its a wicked world!

Scott:

It's the same as it's always been.

A true agency relationship connotes an association of confidence and trust, a fiduciary undertaking, and a situation where the agent's interests are ALWAYS subordinate to the client's. In fact, it would be a breach of a true agency relationship for the agent to have a financial interest in the matters the client has entrusted to the agent.

Booking agents, no matter how trusted, ethical, and well known they may be, are not true agents. Rather, they are salesmen selling a commodity for a commission. Do they sometimes help work out disputes . . . sure. Do they sometimes hold money until the safari ends . . . yes. Can they be helpful . . . absolutely. They are not, however, fiduciaries in the true sense of the word. The do not represent the hunter's interests to the exclusion of their own financial interests and neither do they represent the outfitter's interests to the exclusion of their own financial interests.

An agent does not get to ride the fence, get both sides of the story, sort it out, etc. etc. etc. Rather, an agent follows his client's lawful instructions (ie, refund my elephant TF, don't pay the PH for the elephant, etc) because the law requires that he do so. If the agent is "an agent" he has no option but to follow the client's instructions on paying money to the suppliers because his relationship is with and his loyalties are to the client and only the client.

Foreign supplier - domestic broker - domestic buyer better describes the positions of the parties.

IMHO, this is a golden opportunity for ACST to demonstrate why it is beneficial for the tourist hunter to utilize the services of their company.

quote:

Originally posted by safari-lawyer:



IMHO, this is a golden opportunity for ACST to demonstrate why it is beneficial for the tourist hunter to utilize the services of their company.

Or any company. What am I paying for if not to have some type of recourse with a "local" who I can contact easily in the US and not have to deal with the hassle of arguing with someone in Africa. Really what are we paying for? a travel agent?

Agreed

safari-lawyer makes good points regarding agency law. He is right-they are not "real" agents. But if they were, they would be the representatives or agents of the safari company. It is the safari companies who pay the commissions and who make the contracts. Scott Leonard is correct-we should change any part or delete any part we do not agree with and initial and date them. Once accepted, there is a new contract acceptable to both parties. But as Brett said in another thread, only FULL disclosure will prevent bad deals like the one All Gone went though.

Tom

quote:

Originally posted by safari-lawyer:
The do not represent the hunter's interests to the exclusion of their own financial interests and neither do they represent the outfitter's interests to the exclusion of their own financial interests.

Sounds like a Bookie!!

reminds of two old sayings...

1. "It's all about the money..."

2. if someone says "It's not about the money; it definitely is ALL about the money..."

I have only made two trips to Africa, so this reflects ONLY my experiences.

Both times I booked with a PH on the recommendation of someone I knew.

In November of 2008 Mike Jines highly recommended CM Safaris and Zimbabwe for a late Cape Buffalo hunt. I had retired, so I went on eleven or twelve days notice. I had a fantastic time, got a nice Buff, and enjoyed the classic 1950's era tent safari. I highly recommend them, especially for DG.

Last April (2010) I went Plains Game hunting in RSA with a new PH Company, African Barefoot Safaris; on the recommendation of a good friend here in town. It was a small lodge, and a great hunting experience as well.
I have booked a second hunt with them as well, for April of 2012.

It would appear that the safest way to go is on recommendation of someone you know and trust. It's a lot of $$$ to me to risk, otherwise. Once you are on the plane, a written contract may not be worth much more than butt-wipe; and I chafe pretty easy.

Rich

I've been hunting africa for many years and, after many safaris in different countries with various outfitters, was finally convinced by them to act as an "African hunting consultant". I did so for a few years until things began to change with client attitudes in ways I did not like, so I stopped booking for anyone except friends. But I continue to hunt Africa.

There is a very simple fact that essentially negates what has been said here, and that is:
things and people change.
I have known more than a few very good outfitters and PHs who have died over the years and whose businesses have continued with new operators. That has not always worked out well. I also have first hand experience with well respected PHs and outfitters who have "gone bad" for some reason - politics, economics, family, whatever.

All the above has led me to be somewhat skeptical of everyone in the safari business and to take anything said or claimed with a grain of salt. Just because someone once won an award as outfitter or PH of the year, does not mean they are still that person. We have enough anecdotal evidence here on AR over the past few years to account for numerous unkept and misleading promises made by supposedly reputable persons in the safari business, both here and in Africa.

There is currently a dust-up with an adolescent Elephant killed by Allgone, who apparently booked with Adam Clements Safaris. Anyone who has seen the pics knows something went drastically wrong. While this incident may work out well for Allgone in the end - and I certainly hope it does - that will not return the Elephant calf to life nor replace the time, dreams and grief the incident has impacted.

I never booked for any outfitter with whom I had not personally done safari, i.e. stayed in their camps, hunted there concessions/ranches with their PHs, ate their food and drank their water. I will continue to urge all safari clients to do their own due diligence, even when returning to hunt with a "friend". As I've said before, never consider yourself to be your PHs new best friend, because you're not. You are a paying client he hopes will tip well and return time after time. That's all OK, as long as the client understands this is a business arrangement.

Well said.

Yup

Lion hunter,
By clients' attitude changing. Do you mean your outfitter clients or hunting clients?

an honest man is honest
a dishonest man is dishonest
all the paper in the world is not going to change either

quote:

I never booked for any outfitter with whom I had not personally done safari, i.e. stayed in their camps, hunted there concessions/ranches with their PHs, ate their food and drank their water. I will continue to urge all safari clients to do their own due diligence, even when returning to hunt with a "friend". As I've said before, never consider yourself to be your PHs new best friend, because you're not. You are a paying client he hopes will tip well and return time after time. That's all OK, as long as the client understands this is a business arrangement.

Mike

I beg to differ (albeit slightly) Mike and there are many who post favourable and detailed reports here and often of the same outfitter or PH. For example Zambezi Hunters in Zimbabwe and if my PH was to be Mr Labat I would not hesitate to book. I do agree that much of the PH's work is PR and that the client often misrepresents this as pure friendship, however many of us are just friendly people who ultimately share the same passions.

I in my time have made many good friends in hunting and have had the pleasure of meeting some very fine characters indeed. I am for the most in constant contact with these individuals and they are more than simply pen pals.

Cheers

Andrew

Andrew -

You have misinterpreted what I said, or more correctly, did not say.

I have many good friends throughout Africa, including PHs and outfitters and I see as many as possible when I attend SCI every year. Nothing wrong with repeat hunting with a good PH/outfitter, but I really prefer a new experience in a new area and always learn something from doing so. I've had a couple poor PHs over the years, some good and, frankly, most very good. But two repeat hunts is my limit.

I have hunted in eight different sub-saharan countries, because I like a new challenge and also want to hunt different game for my collection. I do know from our commo exchange over the past years that we would likely have a grand time together. And since I still need a Roan to complete my African 29, we might need to do it, although I've been thinking another Ele next year, I really do need to get that Roan.

I agree with most of the comments on agents. Most agents are just that - agents with no skin in the game.

It is the person behind the "name" that matters. No amount of contract language or legal work can completely protect you. There is always a problem working outside the US with a company represented by an agent. There are no guarantees of performance and no financial committments should someone go bankrupt or decides not to honor a contract.

Good luck in pursuing any sort of legal avenue unless you live in the country and are a citizen of the country where the problem occurred.

All of that said, I have used a couple of agents. I have booked directly. I have been hosed by one that I booked directly with. My agent was hosed by an outfit he represented. My agent refunded money that the safari company would not refund. The agent was Jeff Neal and the safari company was operated by Fico Vidale in Zambia.

Jeff ate a big loss to make things right for me.

When I had a problem with the outfit I booked with in Zambia, via another safari outfit there, he (Pete Fisher owner of Nchila Safaris) ended up getting hosed. I shared in the grief but in the end, the owner of Baobab Safari's, a guy named Rahseed, did the damage to us. It is a long story, but realize that problems happen. Honest people do the right thing and dishonest people do not.

Know who you are dealing with, get things in writing, use a reputable/honest agent, and hope it all works out.

There are no garauntees out there.

If you have any question about whom the outfitter represents, read the proposed contract very carefully. It'll be pretty obvious.

I was on the cusp of booking a multiple person, fairly expensive (including multiple DG) hunt relatively recently. Once I got the contract, I could not in good conscience ask my group to sign the documents. The contract was voluminous, wordy, and wholly one-sided. When we asked for a simple series of changes to spread the risk somewhat more equally (not shift it off totally to the other party), it was suggested that I had trust issues and that nobody else ever complained.

Understand that I'm not complaining about the "agent" - I found him well-informed and a nice enough fellow - but the outfitter's resistance to making equitable concessions and the fact I was sent an approximately 20 page contract (for each hunter) was ridiculous, especially considering I was told to simply trust the company. If the outfitter, who'll be holding all the money, needs 20 pages of contract protections, it's simply not too much to ask to be fairly treated in writing as well.

It wasn't a huge problem but a lot of time (on both sides) went into working out the major hunt details, and it was a shame the contract blew it all up. It's back to the drawing board for now, but someone will take us up on our terms (which won't be unreasonable) - I'll make it back to Africa, and they'll make plenty of money off the deal.

quote:

When we asked for a simple series of changes to spread the risk somewhat more equally (not shift it off totally to the other party), it was suggested that I had trust issues and that nobody else ever complained.

Trust issues go both ways........Weighted contracts lead to trust issues!


.

Agreed but considering we're the ones handing over substantial sums of money before ever boarding an airplane (and often a year or more in advance), we should all expect significant cooperation from the other parties. The safari business is hardly limited to a one or two outfitters. If we all refuse to sign 20 page BS contracts, then I suspect that magically, those contracts will shrink and become more equitable.