Wendell and Matt explained this very well. Obviouosly Piet is not overcharging clients but it was a poor word choice. The hyenas that want to squeeze him out and take over his territory ( that he pioneered and opened up after the war ) are using every dirty trick they can. Those of you who are getting all worked up about this need to check out the whole story. This is a prime example of only having a small piece of the information. It is indeed the way of buisness in Africa.

One can only hope many have not pulled too many muscles whilst jumping to conclusions.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gatogordo:
I don't give a damn how you sugarcoat it, he's labeling expenses as a "government tax". That's a lie, pure and simple.
QUOTE]

That's exactly how I'm looking at it. Sounds like flat-out deceit for profit, and that sucks.

quote:

That's exactly how I'm looking at it. Sounds like flat-out deceit for profit, and that sucks.

We have all seen evidence of that here today. People get their panties in a wad because they do not know where a 16% tax goes to, when the truth of the matter is that there are more fees on this hunt than a Tanzania hunt. Piet just simplified it for the clients sake.

Origin of the 16% export tax :

When Piet first started hunting in Mozambique he had to do so under a semi-government organization. This government organization charged Piet a 16% export tax on the trophies to cover the taxes and certificate fees outlined in the next section. This was a flat fee he paid to the government organization for all the paperwork, licenses, and export documents. When he was able to operate on his own, he saw the fees that were to be paid for by this export tax and just left his brochure and pricing explanation the same.

The 16% export goes toward the following fees:
1. There is a 17% VAT on the daily rate that the hunters pay. Some include it in their daily rates, some charge it as an extra. Looking at his low daily rates, you can see he does not include it in his rates.
2. For each hunters trophies, he is charged.
a. Certificate of Origin
b. Export documents
c. Veterinary certificates
d. CITES Export certificates for Elephant, Hippo, Croc, Leopard (Yes, he does export three Elephant each year)
e. Commerce and Industry Certificate.
3. He has to fly the game Warden to his camp to inspect the trophies before export. There are other flights of paperwork, documents, and government officials for inspections to get the export approved.

All totaled up, these fees come up to more than 16% that he charges as an export tax. He picks up the balance as a part of doing business in Mozambique. Not a dime of the 16% export tax goes into Piet's pocket. On the contrary, he pays more for these government fees than you are expected to pay.

You wanted a documentation for where these charges went, here it is. There is not one government account that it goes into, there are many documents, licenses, taxes and certificates that account for the tax.

These two statements seem too be at odds with each so who do you choose to believe and why? Do you know any of the people involved? Do you know the history of the ph or the area? Do you know the outfitter or any of the clients who have hunted there? How many times have you been to Africa, ie what is your level of experience in these matters? I am not trying to put you down or belittle you. I am only trying to show it is too easy to jump to conclusions without all the facts. I am guilty of that myself at times. We have to be carefull to make sure we are not making a decision based on false information. I agree calling it a tax was not the best move but that is hardly a case for fraud.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
Those of you who are getting all worked up about this need to check out the whole story. This is a prime example of only having a small piece of the information. It is indeed the way of buisness in Africa.

Bull Sh*t.

Do you think that the person who wrote the brochure AND the person that approved the copy both speak English so poorly that they accidentally stumbled upon the phrase "16% Government Export Tax On Trophies", when what they really meant to say was that they simply needed some extra money to cover miscellaneous charges?

If an operator has line-item expenses that need to be covered by the client, then there should be no shame in the outfitter specifying those to the client, and no hesitation by the client to want to pay them.

This is like me mowing the neighbor’s yard and charging her a "8.75% STATE Sales Tax" on the services b/c I have to pay for the gasoline that goes in the lawn mower.

PS - And no, Mike Smith, I don't know ANY of the people involved. I only know that some operator is charging a "16% Government Export Tax On Trophies" (because it's in his brochure) that the government in question - whose implied to receive the "TAX" - says doesn't exist.

I am not trying to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else. What I am trying to do is show there is a lot more to this story than what was printed. I cant defend calling it a tax. I agree a stupid move. I dont agree it was fraudulent or that ir ripped anyone off and I do know the people involved. Just to clarify my position I will restate it. Piet should not have called it a tax. It is however less than the vat and other fees etc that the government is getting. As such no one is getting ripped off for profit, neither the client nor the government. Piet is absorbing a lot of the fees himself. If you look at his daily rates it is evident that the fees are not being passed on there. Kickbacks and bribes are a way of life in Africa. Anyone that has been there a few times realizes the reality of it. You dont have to like it but it is the way it is.
What this whole thing is really about is a rival interest ie ph and rival political faction lower or higher in the Mozanbique food chain see this as a lucrative opportunity. They are trying to muscle in on an operation that this particular ph has built up from the ground level and has been running very well for 20 years. It is about greed and it is about corruption, you just have vilified the wrong person. I am serious when I say do your own research and check out as many sources as you can then reach your own conclusion. Taking one or two statements from this thread and making a judgement from that is just not prudent. It is better to make sure you have all the facts and that someone isnt trying to put forth an agenda.

Sorry, Mike - I'm not attacking you. I don't know you and have nothing against you or anyone else here or anyone involved in this entire situation.

You called it a stupid move, and be that as it may, stupid moves / actions have consequences. And a "means to an end" sort of logic and "good intentions" don't right the alleged wrongdoing.

The scope of the scrutiny is focused on ONE alleged wrongdoing, specifically - and that's misleading clients into believing that they are paying a government "Tax", when the government denies that the very tax exists.

The other facts/opinions are irrelevant – maybe not irrelevant for someone to personally justify their MOTIVES for the wrongdoing, but they certainly are irrelevant when trying to justify the LEGALITY and MORALITY of the action itself.

That is what's wrong with this picture... not the politics behind the personal motives or the value of the hunt or what a good deal the hunt might be as compared to other options.

quote:

Do you think that the person who wrote the brochure AND the person that approved the copy both speak English so poorly that they accidentally stumbled upon the phrase "16% Government Export Tax On Trophies", when what they really meant to say was that they simply needed some extra money to cover miscellaneous charges?

Do you think that they'd be so stupid as to list it as a "16% gov tax" when it is very easy to find out that no such official tax exist or don't you think that they listed it as that with the knowledge that the client will enquire as to what this "tax" involves and he would then proceed to explain it as above.

Now if a client asked him to explain the "16% gov tax" and he daid it went into a gov account, now that would be a different matter.

www.transparency.org

C.

quote:

Originally posted by farktoof:
Do you think that they'd be so stupid as to list it as a "16% gov tax" when it is very easy to find out that no such official tax exist

Well, farktoof... apparently no one actually DID check with the government until last week. So what do you think the answer to your question is?

quote:

or don't you think that they listed it as that with the knowledge that the client will enquire as to what this "tax" involves and he would then proceed to explain it as above.

I'd rather not speculate on that point.

quote:

Now if a client asked him to explain the "16% gov tax" and he daid it went into a gov account, now that would be a different matter.

Now I get it!
So it's not until someone ACTUALLY ASKS about the stated "TAX" that full disclosure is required. Got it!


Kind of a "Don't ask, don't tell policy," huh?

It's not about the explanation of the tax, it's about the misrepresentation of the fee as actually being a "Tax," implied in its wording to be imposed by the "Government" for the "Exportation" of the hunters' trophies.

Is this intentionally being drug into a debate of semantics, or do you guys really not see an issue of questionable ethics in this type of situation?

I am baffled by those posting who argue this tax is OK because of legitimate various expenses. I know the old "Africa is Africa" argument as well. I'm sure his other charges [daily rate, etc.] were computed with expenses and profit goals in mind. These additional costs are probably valid and need covered for Piet to be in business. Doing it the way he has chosen is awkward at best and is enough for me to scratch him from my list of prospective outfitters. He has someone who wants his territory yet he acts in a manner that gives that competitor ammunition. He may be a great PH but he seems to be a lousy businessman!

First--impression: This guy is a dirty CROOK!

Second--thoughts: Wait a minute. The press can't EVER be trusted to get ANYTHING right! Not EVER and not ANYWHERE, much less in Africa.

Third--reaction: Don't ever accuse ANYONE of dishonesty or unethical or criminal behavior unless you give him a chance to explain and have a reasonable chance of ascertaining the facts.

Fourth--consideration: Hey, this guy has given us a pretty straightforward and entirely plausible explanation. Was this just a poor/awkward/sloppy choice of words? Seems like it to me. But he may still be out of line if anyone was hurt by it.

Fifth--reconsideration: No one seems to have been hurt. Otherwise, why haven't his clients complained about his charges? In fact, how can he have any clients at all if he (and no one else) imposes a 16% surcharge, no matter what he calls it? Answer: Because they are NOT being overcharged and are happy.

Sixth--self-examination: If I were booking a safari in Mozambique, would I compare prices and figure out ALL of the charges? Would I ask about a 16% tax that this guy charges, but no one else does? Damn right. If I did, what would I figure out?

Seventh--conclusion: This guy is not as careful as he should be in describing his fees and charges. He is apparently a good businessman, however, since he has clients enough (including a poster here and clients of another poster here) who seem to be quite happy.

So, his prices must be as low as, or at least comparable to, those charged by other Mozambican outfitters. In other words, he CANNOT be gouging people. Where there is no victim in a case like this, there can be no crime.

So, this guy is NOT a crook. Neither has he committed any ethical violation that I can see.

He has not misrepresented ANYTHING to ANYONE (meaning, he has not deceived anyone with an intent to defraud him--to steal his money--to take it under false pretenses). He has incorrectly described government and government-related charges and expenses as a "tax." While technically incorrect, I do completely understand what he did and probably why he did it.

To me, any dollar that leaves my pocket and ends up in the government's is a "tax" of some kind or other, no matter what the government or anyone else might want or choose to call it.

If you want vagueness and euphemisms, you should see some of the names they have for safari fees and charges in Tanzania!

Eighth--prescription: Would anything I have learned in this thread dissuade me from hunting with this guy? Answer: No.

quote:

It is however less than the vat and other fees etc that the government is getting.

It appears most folks think that calling this line item a tax was not the best choice of things, and I agree. There have been several folks though who have posted that this fee is less than the 17% VAT and other fees, which I would caution may not be accurate. Consider:

The daily rates at stated by Wendell ranged from a low of $575 up to $750. Using Wendells same post on trophy fee prices, buffalo were $1800, waterbuck 1200 and sable $2200. Now get out your calulators.

7 days at $575/day comes to $4025. 17%VAT would equate to $684.25. Those same 7 days at $675/day equates to $4725, and the 17%VAT would be $803.25. If during the 7 days you shot a sable, waterbuck and buffalo, your trophy fees would equal $5200. Multiplied by the 16% "tax" comes to $832.

While not a lot of difference, and while this is but a couple examples, I doubt this $30-$150 difference covers every expense, but Piet would be the only one that could answer that. For example, I doubt the warden flies in after every hunt, instead it is probably once a month or some less frequent period, so that isn't a fixed fee applicable to each hunt. Same as the Cites, which wouldn't have been applied to any of the animals in the examples. I have no idea what the other fees cost (they are not likely charged in US dollars), but let's be clear that from the facts Wendell posted, it is possible that Piet is pocketing some money. Not probable, but possible.

If you are going to change your mind and not hunt with someone over the fee description/method of charging, that is your choice. I don't like that it's called a tax, but that is me. I donbt though that most guys hunt africa and make decisions to hunt with one guy or another for a couple hundred dollars total difference.

Webster's Dictionary- Definitions.

Lie
A statement made with the intent to deceive.

Deceive
To make a person believe what is not true, Mislead

Fraud
Trickery, intentional deception

Misrepresent
To represent falsely; give an untrue idea of misrepresentation

Honest
Truthful; trustworthy, sincere, gained by fair means

quote:

Originally posted by Robert johnson:
Webster's Dictionary- Definitions.

Lie
A statement made with the intent to deceive.

Deceive
To make a person believe what is not true, Mislead

Fraud
Trickery, intentional deception

Misrepresent
To represent falsely; give an untrue idea of misrepresentation

Honest
Truthful; trustworthy, sincere, gained by fair means

Various other definitions do come to mind.

But I am afraid that this is too easy. It is an invitation I will not accept.

Gentlemen,

A few years back, I contacted a number of outfitters in South Africa and asked about prices for a planes game hunt.

Our party makes working out prices rather confusing, as some were going to hunt all the time, others might hunt some of the time, and one some might only hunt on one or two days.

The prices I got were very hard to work out, as all the outfitters had one daily arte for the hunters, and one daily rate for the non-hunters.

That is fine, but, some said the days an observer shoots anything, he has to pay the hunters daily rate.

This appeared to me to be splitting hairs, so we eventually went and hunted with the only person who gave us a flat daily rate, about 15% higher than he originally quoted for the observer rate. And everyone can shoot whatever they wished.

After working out the final prices, this price was WAY below all others, so we went and hunted with him.

From that experience, I have learnt that it is a much better idea to tell the outfitter you wish to hunt with EXACTLY what you want, and he can price it.

That way there is no unpleasant surprise with additional charges for anything.

I'd call it deceptive advertising. The charge is for "16% Government TAX on trophies," there is no tax. Words mean something.
I couldn't care less what hidden fees he has to pay for. Fees are not taxes. I couldn't care less that, Africa is Africa, after all, you know bribes and stuff.
No excuse will cover it up. He deceived customers with his advertisement. I will never book with him nor with any of the "local" outfitters who are trying to come up with feeble excuses for this.

Anybody who thinks that all "Taxes" in Africa are published by the government hasn't done much business there. It is illegal for American companies that do business abroad to pay la mordida, backsheesh, dash or whatever you want to call it, but they MUST pay the bribes as a practical matter. Takes a lot of creative accounting - but is often written off as "consulting fees" to the finance minister's cousin.

If the outfitter reckons he's got to pay a 16% total bite to get the trophies out, and passes the charges on to you UP FRONT, then you have no quible. Doesn't matter what he calls it, the cost is the same and you knew it going in.

Negotiate a total cost for your hunt, and don't worry about who gets what share of it - you really don't want to know!

When Piet first started hunting in Mozambique he had to do so under a semi-government organization. This government organization charged Piet a 16% export tax on the trophies to cover the taxes and certificate fees outlined in the next section. This was a flat fee he paid to the government organization for all the paperwork, licenses, and export documents. When he was able to operate on his own, he saw the fees that were to be paid for by this export tax and just left his brochure and pricing explanation the same.

If any of you know the history of the area and how things were after the war you will understand this. It is obvious to me there was no intent to intentionally mislead or defraud anyone. No dishonesty. He should have changed his choice of words in later years as the Mozambique government formed and grew but that is it. HE still isnt passing along all the fees that he could. the clients are not being ripped off or overcharged. The government is getting all their money. The only people who are not happy are the ones who want to take over his concession.

quote:

When Piet first started hunting in Mozambique he had to do so under a semi-government organization. This government organization charged Piet a 16% export tax on the trophies to cover the taxes and certificate fees outlined in the next section. This was a flat fee he paid to the government organization for all the paperwork, licenses, and export documents.

Do you have any proof that this tax ever existed?

Some people will not listen to reason.

Ok, stay with me.

Mozambique requires all operators to pay a 17%VAT on the daily rates they charge. If you don't believe me, do your own research ... or you can follow this link.

Mozambique Investment Policy - Setting up and operating Business in Mozambique

(Snake Lover tried to do this comparison, but he was unaware that you can not take a Sable and a Waterbuck on a 2x1 hunt on 7 days. (But I appreciate the effort "Snake Lover". Your thought process was right on. )

Ok, instead of being nice and charging a very reasonable fee to cover you TAXES and licenses, documents and hunting fees, lets just say Piet did away with his 16% export tax and charged the 17% VAT instead. Forget about the other fees his 16% export tax paid for (all of which cost money):
Certificate of Origin
Export documents
Veterinary certificates
CITES Export certificates
Commerce and Industry Certificate.
... and the cost of flying the game Warden to his camp to inspect the trophies before export.

If he charged his clients the 17% VAT on the daily rate instead of the 16% trophy fee, this is what you would pay ...

7-day Buffalo hunt ($675/day 1x1) VAT Due to Government - $803.25

Or you can pay the 16% export tax on the following animals ( more than a normal 7-day bag of animals in this area.) -

Buffalo (1800) - $288
Impala - ($250) - $40
Duiker ($250) - $40
Crocodile - ($1500) - $240
Hippo Cow - ($750) - $120
Total - ($4550) - $728

You just saved $75 on your bill by paying the 16% export tax instead of the 17% VAT. It is a tax, it goes into a tax account with the government. This 16% export tax goes to pay the taxes. (How many different ways can I say it? It is called a tax because it goes to pay the taxes.)

Sure, you can shoot more animals but the fact of the matter is that most people don't. Most people will spend about $3000-$3500 in trophy fees on this 7-day hunt. meaning they save about $250 on TAXES.

Let's look at a 10-day hunt where you are allowed more animals.

10-days 1x1 (675/day) $6750 - VAT due $1147.50

Buffalo (1800) - $288
Impala - ($250) - $40
Duiker ($250) - $40
Crocodile - ($1500) - $240
Hippo Cow - ($750) - $120
Kudu ($850) - $136
Warthog - ($250) - $40
Grysbuck ($300) - $48
Total - ($5950) - $952

Ok, you just saved yourself $195 in TAXES. Once again, most people do not shoot this much on a 10-day hunt.

We could go on, but the truth is that the gap gets larger with each hunt. The 16% export tax comes farter and farther from paying the TAXES due on these hunts.

Remember, this 16% export tax goes to pay more than just the VAT ... well actually, now that we add it up, this 16% export tax does not even cover the taxes due on the hunt.

Just like Piet told me on the phone and I posted here "Wendell, this 16% export tax does not come close to covering my taxes and government fees for these hunts."

If your sole "beef" with this is the name of the fee ... "tax" (when we see that it goes to pay the taxes due) .. .then keep arguing while the rest of us sit back and amuse ourselves with your wonderful knowledge of math and running a business ... not to mention your unfaltering grasp on Africa.

Of course, there will be people who are bold enough to still fight this argument in the face of all the proof.

Have fun.

I thought this horse was already beaten to death, but maybe not.

One question Wendell, Aren't the 17% VAT taxes already include in the price of the daily rate? I've not seen one added on. Different in Moz?

Every other country I've run into a VAT it is already included in the price of what ever you are paying for [then if you are into self abuse they allow you to try to get that tax back as you export the item from the country].

Seems to me you might be comparing apples to oranges here.

Les

It is common practice not to include the VAT as part of the daily rate. As in Namibia, for example, where this is standard.

No, the VAT is not included in the daily rate. His daily rate is already $100 below what the average might be in a similar area of Zimbabwe.

If you had to take out tax and an agent commission off $675/day 1x1 or $575/day 2x1, you would not have enough left to feed the hunter, let alone take him hunting.

As for other operations in other countries, I have seen it done both ways. FOr example, Namibia ... some will include the 15% Namibian VAT tax (Gras ranch, Namibia) some don't (Vaughan Fulton, Namibia)

I can assure you Piet does not include the 17% VAT in his already low daily rates.

Well, that is it for me. I have laid out everything needed to make up your own mind, except one thing.

We have all neglected one small detail. A bit of a profile on Piet.

Piet was a pioneer in the Mozambique hunting industry. He went to the Mozambique government DURING their civil war and said "I want a hunting concession. I want to re-open safari hunting in Mozambique."

After much discussion, they granted him permission and the option to take a concession anywhere in Mozambique that he wanted.

He searched around Mozambique, looking at different areas, and settled on the area around the Zambezi River by Lake Cahora Bassa.

He developed the area, put in roads, curbed the poaching drastically, and built his camp on the banks of the Zambezi River.

He has what many believe to be, one of the finest hunting areas in Mozambique. He has developed an area so unique, with such good game, there are many wolves at his door who would love to take this area from him.

Ironically, this was the root of this thread. A jealous ph who coveted Piets area, contacted a reporter and led the reporter to believe Piet was charging a "fictitious tax" on his trophy fees.

A sensational piece on the evils of this safari operator and his "rich tourists" was drafted and published.

A piece so sensational, that it even convinced a few of our members to prematurely convict this operator of price gouging and stealing of massive amounts of profit before anyone even asked "Where does this tax go?"

Piet has hunted Mozambique longer than any safari operation. He is a good person and a very fair man. I have personally hunted with him and done business with him and I can and do say all this, without hesitation.

Wendell,

Perhaps I missed it but who is the outfitter (jealous PH) trying to get his concession?

Ann, it was earlier in the thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:

He [Piet] said, "There is this (guy) who wants my area and he is trying to stir up trouble for me. He planted this bug in this reporters ear about this export tax to cause trouble for me. He is on the run, but if I catch him, I am going to ... " ... well, you get the picture.

"He brought a client into my camp last year and he never paid me. He snuck into camp at another time and stole the trophies that the client shot. He took them across the border into Zimbabwe illegally. There are charges against him for this."

I asked him, "Piet, who is this guy?"

"Barry Van Heerden."

I almost fell out of my chair.

quote:

then keep arguing while the rest of us sit back and amuse ourselves with your wonderful knowledge of math and running a business ... not to mention your unfaltering grasp on Africa.

No one has taken aim at you Wendell.

No need for you to take aim at us.

Thanks Charles, I had missed it.

Maybe I missed something?


Piet takes the 16% export tax so he can pay all the other government fees, taxes, bribes. But the government doesn't get a 17% VAT out of Piet or the client.

Doesn't the government miss this money?

Doesn't this mean that Piet is losing money on a continual basis?

Apparently Piet needs to raise his prices, as he is in demand, has a great concession, and will need the money to straighten out this mess.

Thanks

Minkman

quote:

Piet takes the 16% export tax so he can pay all the other government fees, taxes, bribes. But the government doesn't get a 17% VAT out of Piet or the client.

Doesn't the government miss this money?

Doesn't this mean that Piet is losing money on a continual basis?

Minkman

I believe what Wendell was trying to say, he is not increasing his daily rates for the VAT tax. That was the whole answer to the "16%" tax justification. He is instead charging an additional fee called a "16% export tax" which reportedly covers his VAT payments, and other assorted gov't fees, taxes and expenses.

The USA does not have a VAT tax system, so some notes for anyone wondering what the hell it is.

***

A VAT (or whatever it is called eg in Australia GST) is a tax on goods and services sold or supplied at each point of the sales transaction chain.

Eg if the VAT is 10%, when a farmer produces say oranges and sells them for $1000, he adds 10% making the price $1100 and pays the gov't the $100 he collects. The orange juice manufacturer then makes orange juice and sells that for $3000 plus $300 tax. He pays the gov't $300 but has a refund for the $100 he paid. Then the distributor does the same and eventually the retailer sells you a litre of orange juice for $4.40, 40c is which is VAT.

Gov'ts of course vary the rates and exempt some goods and services. Mozambique never used to have a VAT at all (as at 1998) but evidently in the meantime saw a good revenue source for gov't by applying one to safari daily rates.

Trophy rates might be quoted on the basis of eg 10 days at $500 plus 17.5 % making it $587.50 per day, or they might quote eg $500 per day including the tax, ie the net rate is $425.50

Some boring tax and accounting for you.

Wendell,

You represent yourself and Piet well. I think stress not. This thread is cancerous and soon dead.

quote:

The USA does not have a VAT tax system, so some notes for anyone wondering what the hell it is.

Actually we do have VAT, it's called sales tax here. And each state sets their own. Some goods have a combined Federal and state tax, like gasoline, booze and cigarettes, etc.

Ann

A sales taxation regime is different from a VAT system. Probably your sales taxes are levied only on the retail or perhaps the wholesale transactions. A VAT is levied every time a transaction is made.

For example you do not have to levy a VAT 9or sales tax) when you sell a hunt, nor are you paying a VAT when you buy an airline ticket (at least I think ???).

A VAT on booze would start with a tax when the farmer buys fertilizer, then on the fuel he uses, then when he sells the barley / hops, also on the glass bottles purchased, the electricity and water, all the manufacturing inputs, then when the beer is sold to the distributor, then when the hotel buys it and finally when the consumer buys it. At each stage of "value adding" to the product.

BS system hey?

Maybe I am wrong though as I do not know how the various states sales tax systems work. If you DO have it, then ignore my notes!

Enough tax talk it really sh#ts me. Some hunting please.

You guys are right. I'm so scared I think I'll book a hunt thru Wendell with Piet..........................JJ

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
Ann

A sales taxation regime is different from a VAT system. Probably your sales taxes are levied only on the retail or perhaps the wholesale transactions. A VAT is levied every time a transaction is made.

For example you do not have to levy a VAT 9or sales tax) when you sell a hunt, nor are you paying a VAT when you buy an airline ticket (at least I think ???).

A VAT on booze would start with a tax when the farmer buys fertilizer, then on the fuel he uses, then when he sells the barley / hops, also on the glass bottles purchased, the electricity and water, all the manufacturing inputs, then when the beer is sold to the distributor, then when the hotel buys it and finally when the consumer buys it. At each stage of "value adding" to the product.

BS system hey?

Maybe I am wrong though as I do not know how the various states sales tax systems work. If you DO have it, then ignore my notes!

Enough tax talk it really sh#ts me. Some hunting please.

You're right NitroX in the US system almost all of the sales taxes are only charged after the sale to the end user. In most case, if you sell something to another wholesaler or manufacturer no one pays sales tax until someone sells it to a final consumer.

The other thing is that we don't have sales tax on services, just products.

Double standard?

I am very surprised about the responses to this threat.

Piet is indeed one of the oldest, and better, operators in Mozambique today and I cannot understand why people get so excited about the 16 % export tax issue?

It is difficult for operators if not impossible in advance to know which fee is charged for what and from whom. It is never the same in Mozambique and changes on a case-to-case and day-to-day basis depending on whatever the guy feels behind the counter??
Out of experience I can assure you the actual cost to export trophies is more, add to this a lot of time and frustration, the 16% is more than fair to the client and will not always cover the actual cost to export trophies legally.

A lot of things a called “TAX†in MOZ even the annual concession lease is a tax.

There is no law regulating the selling prices for animals the operator can charge whatever he feels as long he pays the government the license and permit fees, yes you also can sell below cost.

“Piet started safaris in the area†this is correct but the Ford foundation sponsored the Tchuma Chato project and Piet only came after some confrontation with the locals to the party.
Its sure helps if some NGO’s pay some of the cost for development in your area.

I guess the wording of a 16% government export tax is misleading but I don’t think towards the client intentionally fraudulent, it was made clear that this cost have to be paid by the hunter before booking.

Smear campaigns a common occurrence in the safari industry , not only in Mozambique, and (nearly) everyone tries to back stab whoever got something he desires for himself, or for just plain jealously.

A lot of new “outfitters / PH’s†(Trash) coming to Mozambique and looking for concessions and hunting areas. According to the advertising by these new outfitters each and every square meter of land in Mozambique is exclusive owned by at least two outfitters! Shows clearly how honest they all are.
Most come with a big Bang on to the market and go Quietly. Do you think for a moment any one can start a hunting operation in a year or two, on millions of acres? Even if you got a million $ capital, it takes time and more time, and more money, and red tape, and frustration. And don’t forget the required manpower to implement it on the ground.

How much return can you make on the investment? (Please I don’t want to be reminded)

I can assure you if you hunt in a sustainable, ethical and legal way return’s a extremely slim.

I cannot understand that members complain about this 16% tax and not instead about the illegal offering of PAC hunts?? Some AR Members considering booking PAC hunts with the same company and have no quarrel?

Lots of endorsements from members a given on this forum for other safari company’s which offer illegal PAC hunts in Mozambique. If you condemn Piet for the 16 % tax non-issue why are you don’t condemn people for illegal PAC hunting and possible even participate as clients in this hunts. Maybe because is convenient or it fits in to the price bracket?

Questionable is however the offering of female buffalo and hippo? There is no mention on the website of government license fees (tag’s) which is nearly more than the trophy fees advertised?
For bait animals, female animals and trophy animals the same licenses fees applies! The license fee for any elephants is about 5500-6000$us depending on exchange rate. There are no special tariffs for tusk less elephants.

So, Piet pay’s the different out of his pocket?


2005 Quota for Impala for Tchuma Tchato
Daque Area 12
Bawana Area 0

2005 Quota for Elephant for Tchuma Tchato
Daque Area 4
Bawana Area 3
Yeah 12 impala and than you use them for bait??

7 elephant and you going to hunt tusk less for 3000$ each and pay the license fee from your pocket?

Impala Bait $50
Hippo Cow $750
Buffalo Cow $750
Tuskless Elephant $3000



This is the website for the above advertising.
http://huntersquest.com/Mozambique.html

Firstly the outfitter is responsible for his offers given to the booking agent. Secondly, any booking agent should verify his offers for PAC hunts after the legality of PAC hunts in Mozambique have been questions on this forum, and correct the situation
a.)By removing the advertisement of PAC hunts or
b.)Proofing and insuring the legality of these hunts to hunters / clients and forum members.

Every coin got two sides!

Freischutz,

I don't understand your assertion that PAC elephant hunts in Mozambique are not legal (although I think you have said it before as well). Here is a PAC hunt offered by another company:

quote:

** Mozambique – Zambezi Valley 2005 **
PAC (PROBLEM ANIMAL CONTROL) Elephant Hunts
1x1US$12500

7 Days § charter flights included
all permit fees included
1st PAC elephant licence fee included (non refundable)
1st PAC elephant trophy fee included (non refundable)
additional PAC elephants US$5000 each
other plains game available
option to hunt crocodile & cow hippo
PAC elephant trophies may NOT be exported

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Freischutz,

I don't understand your assertion that PAC elephant hunts in Mozambique are not legal (although I think you have said it before as well). Here is a PAC hunt offered by another company:

quote:

** Mozambique – Zambezi Valley 2005 **
PAC (PROBLEM ANIMAL CONTROL) Elephant Hunts
1x1US$12500

7 Days § charter flights included
all permit fees included
1st PAC elephant licence fee included (non refundable)
1st PAC elephant trophy fee included (non refundable)
additional PAC elephants US$5000 each
other plains game available
option to hunt crocodile & cow hippo
PAC elephant trophies may NOT be exported

500grains

>I don't understand your assertion that PAC elephant hunts in Mozambique are not legal<

Actually very simple. I discussed these PAC hunts in person with the National director of DNAC. Mr. Afonso Madope and the legal adviser to the minister of tourism further with senior staff at DNFFB in Maputo and all declared the hunts as illegal.
There is no provision in the law for selling PAC hunts. No license ever been issued for this hunts and the question of how you can know in advance when and where animals become a problem was asked. An investigation in to these activities is sure to follow. The wildlife law is also available to the public and can be downloaded a official translation in English is available as well.

Now this a reason to complain about “Fictitious†license and permit fees or?

1. “all permit fees includedâ€
2. “1st PAC elephant licence fee included (non refundable)â€
3. “1st PAC elephant trophy fee included (non refundable)â€

What Permits? Home made? There is no such thing as PAC permits in MOZ.
What PAC license fee? There is no such thing as PAC license fee in MOZ.
What PAC Trophy fee? There is no such thing as PAC trophy fee in MOZ.

500grains would you mind sharing the web link to above add?

Following the relevant paragraph regarding “Problem animalsâ€

ARTICLE 68
Requirements
1) The following constitute the requirements for the exercise of hunting in defence of people and goods
a) The existence of an actual or imminent attack by wild animals on persons or goods
b) The impossibility of driving away one or more animals which are persecuting or attacking people or goods. An imminent attack is considered to be when one or more wild animals are heading for or have entered property or dwelling areas with strong indications that they may attack the people and goods existing there

2) For the effect of No. 1 the impossibility to drive away animals is considered to exist when dealing with dangerous animals, or others which are not dangerous when they will not move even despite the employment of methods considered to be the norm for driving away that particular species
3) Goods is taken to mean human life, agriculture, domestic animals, dwellings, vehicles and other items of economic value or social relevance
4) The hunting referred to in this article is not subject to closed seasons nor to the limitations and restrictions defined for hunting activities

ARTICLE 69
Competent entities
1) Those competent to carry out the type of hunting referred to above in defence of people and goods are specialized brigades which should comprise inspectors or other functionaries from that sector (SPFFB), community agents assisting the inspectors, professional hunters and community hunters
2) In terms of the previous number those assisting the inspectors, the professional hunters, and community hunters may, together with the SPFFB request that they are authorized to hunt in defence of people and goods

Freischuetz

Freischuetz,

This is interesting as I've seen numerous items about PAC hunts in MOZ. It's nothing new.

How long has this been going on?

Does the MOZ Parks Dept have a current culling program? Are there any annual numbers printed on PAC animals, animal damage, and attacks?

Is there a good link on the web for MOZ hunting/park regs like you have provided? Is there a MOZ PH association?

Thanks Minkman