The Problem: There is no organization which can hear, consider and resolve conflicts which arise in the international hunting business. This leaves providers and clients slowly twisting in the wind when one or the other or both do not perform to the other's expectation. There is also no agency for escrowing the increasingly large amounts that are involved in hunts for trophy fees.

Solution: I would propose that the professional hunting associations of the various countries provide escrow ageny and mediation services to providers and clients. I suggest that participation be voluntary but that those who participate be permitted to advertise their participation and compliance with this program.

The following are standards and conditions that providers would agree to:

1. All services will be provided only upon a written contract between the provider and client which states the services, conditions and costs of services, permits and fees. All controversies between the provider and client will be governed by the terms of said contract and conflicts will be mediated upon the request of either party to the contract upon payment of $--------- or 1% of the amount in controversy whichever is the greater.

2. The provider will provide (a) clean, sanitary dwelling(s) for the use of the client during the hunt, and clearly describe the nature of the dwelling(s) in the contract. Tents must be double roofed. In suite bathing and toileting facilities must be provided. Bug proof sleeping accommodations must be provided. Bedding must be clean and sanitary.

3. Not less than 5 gallons of water must be provided per client for bathing. Absence of hot water must be clearly stated in the contract. Not less than 1 gallon of clean drinking water must be provided per day. If water is not from a certified municipal source or certified well, commercially bottle water may be substituted. Where certified water is available from a municipal source or well, client payment for bottled water must be clearly provided in the contract along with the price.

4. All vehicles and equipment to be used must be serviceable and available. More than one hour lost to vehicular break down or non-availability, not including flat tires if adequate spares have been provided, in a three-day period will be refunded to the client based upon an hourly rate arrived at by dividing the daily rate by 10. In contracts in which a number of animals is to be hunted for a stated number of days for a fixed cost, if the daily rate cannot be determined from the language of the contract, the total of number of animals which can be taken will be compared against average trophies fees for the animals which can be taken with the presumption that the animals will be taken from the most expensive to the least expensive. The total value of the trophy fees will be deducted from the total cost of the hunt, and the remainder will be deemed the total daily rate for the hunt which will then be divided by the total number of days to arrive at the daily rate.

5. All personnel necessary to conduct the hunt must be present between the hours of sunrise and sunset. If the hunt cannot be conducted because of the non-availability of a member of the team, to include the government game scout, the hours lost will not be charge as hunt time and will be refund to the near hour. Similarly, if the client has paid for X number of days of hunting, and the the license was obtained for X-y days of hunting, the client will not be charged for y days of hunting.

6. Not less than three meals will be made available to the client per day. At least one of these meals is expected to hot unless the exigencies of the hunt preclude service of a hot meal. When such service is interrupted, every effort will be made to double up the hot meals on the following day. Meals are expected to be composed of meats and cuts of meat general acceptable to a western diet with adequate quantities of fruit and vegetables which are free from bacteria and parasites that would cause illness. Canned items and venison are acceptable. The total number of food calories available per day should be not less than 2000 calories.

7. Food, water, accommodations and vehicles are to be included in the quoted daily rate for the hunt. The contract will state whether modest amounts of soda pop, beer and other alcoholic beverages may be provided by the provider in the daily rate. If it is not provided within the daily rate, the client will be provided the option to have the provider provide such items at no more than the provider’s costs to include transportation costs. The client should be offered a list of items with costs from which to choose. The provider or ph has the right to limit consumption of alcoholic beverages to non-hunting times.

8. All animals listed on the contract and license must be available in huntable numbers and trophy quality at the location of the proposed hunt.

9. The client will have the right to have any taxidermist process his trophies and the provider may not impose any financial penalty or incentive based upon the client's choice of taxidermist. This is not intended to prevent the provider from recommending or "touting" a particular taxidermist; however, it would prohibit penalizing the client for his/her choice.

10. The professional hunting organization (together with the professional taxidermy organization of the country will provide a bonded escrow service for providers.) The aim is to have all monies run through this escrow service, which will act as the disbursing, administrative servicing and coordinating agent for the provider, government, taxidermist and shipper. Conceptually, these professional organizations would establish a working relationship, ideally in one office, with the game departments and taxing agency of the country to facility the processing of the paperwork necessary to transfer, prepare and ship trophies and to insure that the provider, the taxidermist, government and client, in the event of refunds, all receive the monies due them. It provides the opportunity to utilize the increased volume of shipments to arranget the lowest possible rates using the consolidate buying power of the group.

11. Upon receipt of a deposit, the escrow agent would pay 50% of the daily rate and any government permit or license fees to the provider and/or governmental agency. Upon completion of the hunt, the escrow agent in coordination with the representative of the game department and taxing authority would make facilitate and expedite the processing of the paperwork and distribution of funds to the various entities. Twenty-five percent of the daily rates would be retained until the trophies were shipped to the client.

12. The escrow operation would be, as mentioned, bonded and audited by an independent body (SCI would be a natural) to determine if they are providing the services in a timely and cost efficient manner consistent with market conditions.

13. As mentioned, this body would be means of resolving complaints against a provider, hunting or taxidermist. This body would be permitted to charge a percentage of the amount of money being escrowed in return for its services (hunt, taxidermy and shipping.)

I realize that this would make the financial arrangements of the business more open which many might not like, but I truly believe that it would work to the benefit of the industry, reduce shipping time and costs, and give the associations a basis for working with the government to streamline the existing paper shuffling. Kudude

Kudude

What you propose sounds reasonable, but I believe a lot of your requirements/services mentioned are already covered in general terms within the existing PH organisations within each of the key Southern Africa hunting organisations.

I dont believe that adding another separate independant body (level of bureaucracy ) would assist the hunters in any useful or truly meaningful way, and I cant image how it could be set up to be totally independant.

We already have (SCI internationally) for the major breaches of ethics, maybe the local (individual country PH organistaions) just need to be a bit more streamlined to serve the hunters.

I dont believe any other third party (escrow account) is the way to go at all, as how much safer would your money be with them than with the oufitter.

Much better IMHO to rather get your hunting outfitter or representitive whom you consider booking with to always provide a reasonable watertight written basic contract, but more importantly, ONLY deal/book with those whom are tried and trusted names within the industry.

In a perfect world your ideas are good but I dont think it would work, unless it was incorporated into the existing hunting agencies within each country.

It's a bit like trying getting the UN to work in the very best interests of each country, local alliances and dictators seem to be the power, not the organisation itself

Cheers, Peter

Ain't going to work.

There will ALWAYS be some crooks, on either side, and no amount of rules and regulations is going to stop them.

I have been hunting in Africa since 1982.
I have never had any bad experience.
I have never had any contract, written or otherwise.
I have never asked for any references.
I have dealt with people I have never met, or known, and all have become my close friends.
I am realistic in what to expect on my hunts.
I don't have a shopping list for animals before my hunt, and get upset if this shopping list is not complete at the end of it.
On some hunts, I have paid 100% of the cost months in advance.
On others I have paid after the hunt is finished and I was home.
On others I have paid part before, and part after my return.

There never was any question of either party screwing the other.

As was mentioned in one of the threads here. "one should try NOT to be part of the problem".

quote:

Posted 03 June 2008 09:42 Hide Post
Ain't going to work.

There will ALWAYS be some crooks, on either side, and no amount of rules and regulations is going to stop them.

exactly correct. if a man is dishonest he is going to be so whether or not there are rules, written contracts etc.

More F*cking red tape and big brother looking out for us. Man do your home work! Use your brains!

Doesn't SCI do some of this?

I respectfully demur. It has been my experience that in human dealings most controversies arise from miscommunications and the resulting failure of one party to meet the expectations of the other. You are absolutely right about a contract not protecting you from an outright crook; however, you are equally wrong about being protected by doing your homework, using your brains, and regulations not stopping un-professional conduct.

The purpose of the written contract and the stated minimum standards is to establish a base line of mutual understanding. Believe me when I tell you that items 2 thru 9 are not established by custom or rule. See Stephan Palos' cite to PHASA code of conduct in the companion thread which is directed to hunting ethics not business practice.

Further, in 10 safaris I have had issues with one or more of the items 2 thru 9 with the exceptions of food (I'll eat almost anything that won't eat me first) and sanitary bedding, and I have done my due diligence, booked thru some of the best names in the business and services were to be provided by some of the best in the business. (No, I am not going to name names and tell all. Sorry, tough if you don't like it.) The only reason I have not been ugly about these failures is the incredible success that I have enjoyed on these hunts.

I have received an apology from one provider for issues regarding water. For the rest, I did not even get an apology. My experience is that once the money has changed hands, tough! I have had the same experience with taxidermists regarding timely preparation.

No one has a handle on the shipping business. They do what they want, when they want, and you will get it when you get it along with the bill. However, I'd be willing to bet that because the business is conducted in this country and probably controlled by UCC, you'd get more relief in dealing with a shipping issue than any of the foregoing.)

I would be the first to admit that my proposal is a big pill to swallow, but remember you are starting with NOTHING. There are no standards. There are no accepted customs of the trade. You are at the mercy of the provider and there is no way to litigate the issues meaningfully.

You can complain, as I have, to a professional hunting body and not get any real assistance because there isn't a common set of business practices, customs in the trade or code of business conduct! It was when I learned this that the scales fell from my eyes. If the professional association brought charges, what would they charge him with violating? If some adjudicatory power ruled the client was entitled to compensation or refund, there is no pot of money from which to recover the money.

These are the facts as they exist. In sum, it is Caveat Emptor! BIG time. That is why, I believe that SCI and the hunting fraternity should demand that the professional hunting associations adopt items 2 thru 9, and require that all services be provided pursuant to a written contract which states that it is the complete and total expression of the intent of the parties. They should also demand that the associations discipline members who violate the rules. The escrow provisions would be nice, but the items above need to be done yesterday. Let is start here. Kudude

quote:

Picture of JohnHunt

Posted 03 June 2008 19:27 Hide Post
Doesn't SCI do some of this?

yeah sure - just like they do to out of africa

Interesting idea, doubt it would ever come to pass; and then there are those PH's out there who are liscensced but don't belong to their countries professional organizations.

I think a little change in the wording of #8 would be in order. I think something along the lines of "reasonable expectation of the game being present" because an area may be great one year and hardly have any game the next.

quote:

I don't have a shopping list for animals before my hunt, and get upset if this shopping list is not complete at the end of it.

Seloushunter

Never going to happen. Like Saeed, I've never had a problem hunting in Africa, or anywhere else for that matter.

There is a thread about a 21 day Tanz hunt right now. One of the issues is language in presenting the facts about the hunt. How nice it would be to sum up the important details by referring to the standards of the Tanzanian Professional Hunting Association. Everybody knows what is expected when you have a common place from which to start. Kudude

Cable,
I bet you'd feel differently if you paid 10K for a buffalo hunt and there were no buffalo particularly if the outfitter knew that because of predictable conditions they would have moved on by the time of your hunt. And how would you know?? And this happens. Kudude

Kudude, I'm with you on this. Excellent post! It seems to me (and I have just skimmed your post, it deserves a longer look) that even if "membership" is voluntary, that IS a selling point. Kind of like the Better Business Bureau, it is a minimum standard. You should watch people wriggle when one asks them if they are members. So, to the naysayers, if your outfitter, agent etc. does not subscribe and you choose to do business with them, that's fine. Some of us (and I include myself) would certainly want the additional security that this "code" provides. At least, it's better than the current "system".
Thanks Kudude, this is certainly thinking outside the box.
Peter.

I'm not disagreeing with the concept, but not everything is under the outfitters control.

Many hunts are set up a year or more in advance. Rains may come late, or a lot less than usual. That's why I said "reasonable expectation".

Setting up a hunt in an area where the buffalo are not expected to be because of "predictable conditions" would not fall under what I would call "reasonable expectation"; however going to an area that is crawling with buff most years, but has a whole lot less because of a bad year would be. (I would also hope that the outfitter has another area available with better conditions as a backup> )

Part of the beauty of hunting is the freedom of choices. More regulations and written promises turn me off.

While you're at it let's require helmets for all hunters in case they fall down. Definitely, we'll need an African hunter safety course for everyone born after the year 1900 before they are allowed to go to Africa. Oh, and let's ban the killing of game and the use of high pwoered rifles. Let's use air guns and shoot a rose with a small barb perhaps so we can practice catch (tag) and release, or at least for God's sake have a slot-limit ensuring that we only kill the ones in the middle.

Kensco,
If you want the freedom to get "skinnt," go for it. This isn't about safety; this isn't about hunting ethics; this isn't about return to nature. It is about business practices. There are plenty of rules, codes, etc. to cover the aforementioned. There isn't anything regarding business practice.

Cable,
You hypothetical raises an interesting question: does the outfitter have an obligation, if the "contract" is silent regarding the area to be hunted, to make alternative arrangements if the area in which he intended to conduct the hunt does not have trophy quality animals in huntable quantities?

You contract is to hunt buffalo; it is the principal animal on the license; everyone understands that it is the "raison d'etre" for the hunt. Because of conditions beyond the control of the outfitter which exist prior to your commencing your hunt, does he have a legal duty to make alternative arrangements? Does he have a moral obligation?

Does he have a legal obligation to advise you that the buffalo are not (will not be) prior to your final payment on the hunt so that you can minimize your loses (final payment, air fare, etc)?

These are the kinds of issues that can and do arise in the industry, and I can assure you that there is no standard in the industry on how the outfitter should respond. I fear that in most instances, you would not be advised your chances were nil at any point in the process; you would show up for the hunt; be waltzed around for 10 days and go home with fond memories of beautiful sunsets and 10K lighter. Kudude

quote:

There is no organization which can hear, consider and resolve conflicts which arise in the international hunting business. This leaves providers and clients slowly twisting in the wind when one or the other or both do not perform to the other's expectation. There is also no agency for escrowing the increasingly large amounts that are involved in hunts for trophy fees.

This was the original statement.
Here is the answer from Kensco:
While you're at it let's require helmets for all hunters in case they fall down. Definitely, we'll need an African hunter safety course for everyone born after the year 1900 before they are allowed to go to Africa. Oh, and let's ban the killing of game and the use of high pwoered rifles. Let's use air guns and shoot a rose with a small barb perhaps so we can practice catch (tag) and release, or at least for God's sake have a slot-limit ensuring that we only kill the ones in the middle
Does anyone ever read the post before responding?
Peter.

In that situation, moral obligation is easy, notify the client ahead of time. Legal obligation depends on what is written on paper.

I view this as a good reason to go with an outfit rather than an individual. Seems like most companies have more than one area and can make arrangements for other areas if needed.

In general I think most companies/PH's would be smart enough to do whatever they could to get someone some game so they would have trophy fees on top of day rates instead of just day rates alone.

Bottom line is that the only way one can guarantee game will be in an area at any point in time is if it is behind a fence. That's why I said "reasonable expectation".

The post and comments are very interesting and worthy of good debate ...

The big problem is it seems that we might be wanting a water tight perfect situation in an imperfect world, and in particular the hunting world.

In a semi-perfect world I would equate the analogy as follows.

When we walk into one of the major supermarket chains to purchase food we have a choice of size, quality and price to suit our budget as applicable, we then pick the item/s go to checkout and pay for what we have chosen, GREAT ...

The problem with hunting, or with most hunting (excluding canned) is that we can dream of a certain trophy conditions and to a lesser extent price ... BUT in reality we get what might present itself in the bushveld, and that is the challenge, as soon as someone starts to guarantee things like numbers prices and quality in some (fandangled legally detailed contract) then it is almost impossible to produce the goods as shown to meet all expectations.

Hunting is NOT an exact science, it is an individual challenge against the elements, nature, human expertice, technology and luck as well, then throw in money and you have a receipe for conflict if you want a contract that covers everything that you could ever think of

I am not saying dont tighten up things where possible or practicle BUT you cant equate hunting with some tight performance chart that is not possible to meet in all aspects.

I still maintain that if someone feels they might be shortchanged then the INDIVIDUAL local country PH hunting organisation are the place to start, as they profess to be the guardians of the industry. They are best placed to lobby if there are failing in the rules and regs.

Then as a lot of others before me have have said .... USE a TRIED & TRUSTED outfit before you part with your deposit.

I believe Saeed has done it correct and his personal experience is worth noting very carefully.

Cheers, Peter

Although I have never used a contract per say I have made verbal agreements between myself and outfitters or phs. I bascially discuss everything I can think of, even more that I dont that comes from them. Good communication of what you want against what they can and are willing to supply. Dont forget to discuss expetations from both sides both good and bad. It is knowing how something will be dealt with if things go wrong even when no one is at fault. It dosnt take 10 pages of legal doccuments just a handshake, a drink and some honest discussion from all parties. Any contract is only as good as the person who stands behind it. So think about not only your needs but those of the ph as well. Will both of you consider the other a stand up guy who is a pleasure to deal with? It is how things are approached that often sets the tone of how they are resolved. All to often I see a bunch of demanding asses on both sides doing nothing but saying how great and right they are and how wrong and lack of character the other guy is. My ramble is to point out one simple thing.
1 Be Polite
2 Be Concise and clear
3 be polite
4 Listen to the other side. Try to put yourself in their shoes under what ever the current situation is
5 Offer suggesstions and compromise
6 Be polite
7 work together not against each other
8 all else fails go back to the beginning and start to communicte again

You will find most people to deal with in this buisness are of fine moral cahracter and a lot like you.

I personally don't think we need any more "world courts" or any more bureaucratic
groups. I think this is and should stay in the realm of personal responsibility. Do your homework. If problems come up, handle them professionaly. I always grab my wallet and my rights whenever some group or government wants to "help" me.

Peter if there was ever a thought or proposal that was INSIDE THE BOX it is Kudude's. Bob in Tx has it right. This appears to be - The world and everything in it needs a safety net! Turn the whole thing over to Obama as I am sure he has BIG BROTHERS solution, yes this is getting political. It is basically a liberal vs conservative view point. JMO

Let me make my self perfectly clear: this isn't about safety nets, bureaucracies, Big Brother, or eliminating the risks inherent in hunting. It is about the hypothetical that is presented above.

Cable says the legal obligation is what is in the contract. We have several people here who operate without contracts. What do they fall back on? (I'd suggest you get a pillow, because sooner or later, you will need it!)

This isn't about having a rainy season and long grass the hunt being difficult. And it isn't about the normal vagaries of hunting. This is about the provider selling you the opportunity to hunt a buffalo two years from now, and when the time comes, there are no buffalo.

How should the economic risks be apportioned?

It would be interesting to hear from our various outfitters how they would handle this situation. It is not uncommon for such things to occur. What do they do? Kudude

I hesitate to even allude to it, but one of the worst/longest blowups we have ever had here arose of a situation that started out much like this. K-d

A fact of life is that people generally get the government they deserve.....

And hunters get the "hunting associations" they deserve.....

So if 90% of the hunters will only go to an outfit registered with "abc" association, the other 10% of hunters will still go on the "bargain" safaries offered by the outfitter that has NOT registered with "abc" assoc. Net result, NO SET STANDARD.

The best you can hope for is to improve the actions taken by the existing associations, and encourage (hopefully by way of these improved services) more hunters to belong to and follow the guidelines set by these associations.

Problem is many of the associations put their own, selfish needs ahead of the greater needs of all.

The sad part is that something like this is necessacary. I think there should be open season on the crooks and no trophy fees for thier heads!

I went back and read your outlined "contract" and you can add at least 20 to 25% to the cost of a safari. The SCI does not have the ability to "audit" such escrow accounts. Who would serve as mediator? Like I said before do your homework and live with it!

Sorry Die, but I am sick and tired of bullshit political platitudes about safety nets, hammocks, big government etc. etc. Get a life (and a brain)! This started off due to a hunter reporting that his trophies had not been shipped (after 22 months), and that the outfitter had not been responding to his correspondence (until recently) for a year. I challenged kudude to come up with a positive solution, because until then people had just taken sides. Please tell me what you would do in the same circumstances? I understand that the hunt was booked through a reputable agent, and with, presumably, a reputable outfitter.
Peter

I would file suit against the booking agent if he is in the USA. I sure as Hell wouldn't look to this forum for an answer. Call it a hanging chad

Die, touche. Let me apologise first for my previous diatribe. It was uncalled for. Now, is the booking agent at fault for the fiasco with the trophies? It is not clear to me that he is. Maybe we would have fewer agants if they were liable for the actions of the outfitter!
Peter.

Peter, the good or the bad depending on your position, but one must defend himself or get a judgement against him. This may be worthless but you will cause the booking agent some headaches. I understand where people are comming from. You finally get your trophies (horns and skins) and they are F*cked up. No one will accept responsibility, my personal experience in this was a Zebra hide. When my taxidermist received it from the tannery it had a dozen or more long slices and no one would accept responsibility. Tanner blamed the processor and the processor blamed the PH or camp staff. The end result I have some expensive pillows and hat bands.

Anyone from Florida or California shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion on this subject.

If you are so naive or stupid (ignorant) that you get "skint", you deserve to get "skint". It's part of your education, part of growing up.

"Regulation" is not the cure for "Stupid".

With the exception of the Balla Balla, the professionals out there, agents, outfitters and ph's, have been real quiet.

What do you all think? How would you handle the hypothetical? Who should assume the financial risks when there are no buffalo? Or the concession is lost by governmental fiat or the local tribe is permitted to bring their cattle in to water at the bore holes you put in?

Does there need to be a more uniform "standard" of business behavior? Do the professional associations need more "teeth?" Or is the only way to get satisfaction to hang the bloomers out for all to see? Kudude

Jagter-I don't believe that implementing items 2 thru 9 would add to the costs of most safaris that I have been on. Those items, I believe, are generally within expectations of most clients, although I have had issues with many of them on occasion. I suspect that you would be very upset if there were a substantial departure from the standards expressed therein and you were paying $2500/day for your hunt.

Mike Smith-Your approach has been the one that I have used when problems have arisen. As my mother told me, "Son, you can catch more bees with honey than vinegar." There is seldom an excuse for bad manners.

Jagter-There is no practical benefit in suing your agent here in the US. It will cost you more to sue than you will ever see. And it won't even hurt his business reputation. At least hanging out the bloomers here might do that.

Steve Palos-If associations adopted standards, then clients could choose whether they want to do business with those who have chosen to be bound by those standards or those who elect not to be bound. Just as now, I am inclined to do business with those who are members of the various professional organizations including SCI. My response to one who elected to hunt with the non-affiliated provider would be along the lines of "you asked for it, you got it."

Jagter-Wouldn't have been nice to write a letter to the association and put your zebra issue before them on a res ipsa loquitur basis, i.e., either the outfitter, taxidermist or transporter was responsible for the damage, and one or all of them should be responsible to make it right because you certainly did not cause the damage.

Kensco-Are you in Jakarta avoiding prosecution for doing business in accordance with the tenor of your posts?

I'd still like to hear from the profession on this matter. Kudude

quote:

Originally posted by kudude:

Steve Palos-If associations adopted standards, then clients could choose whether they want to do business with those who have chosen to be bound by those standards or those who elect not to be bound. Just as now, I am inclined to do business with those who are members of the various professional organizations including SCI. My response to one who elected to hunt with the non-affiliated provider would be along the lines of "you asked for it, you got it."
. Kudude

Yes, my point exactly; and frankly THAT'S AS GOOD AS IT GETS!

Kensco, I think your opinion that Americans are'nt entitled to an "opinion" on this is extremely unfair. Whilst the concept of "let the buyer beware" rings very true in the international safari business, I certainly believe that as the nation with the deepest pockets, the Americans are the very ones whose opinions count. If African operators ignore the American opinion then they won't last long...

Just look at these figures off one of our provincial environment department websites:

"The hunting industry in South Africa has an annual income of ±R700 million in foreign exchange.

About 2500 American hunters visit South Africa each year after signing contract agreements with professional hunters and hunting outfitters at the Safari Club International and Dallas Safari Club conventions in America. About 1 500 hunters visit our country as a result of the European Conventions.


Now my feeling is that the vast majority of these hunts go off without the slightest problem, and that is why we don't hear about them. This forum and others like it highlight the rare bad ones, and the perception is that problems are the norm.

No African businessmen can reasonably predict the medium term future of his business, so when you book two years in advance that risk is a fact you'll have to deal with. It just does not work like that in Africa...

As the guy who held up the mirror that started this general debate, I suppose I should put in my 5c.

I am a hunter first, and I have had my share of letdowns. In Africa: charter plane has nav problems and the lights are U/S on the runway, adding 5 years to my life and a lost day; no buffalo in the area; surprise, sand grouse season isn't open yet; oops, hunt doesn't start tomorrow, so spend another day in Harare at your expense; Nature Conservation has confiscated your caracal as the guide didn't have the required special permit! no lips on the Eland; hair rubbed off another cape where it was folded. In AK, lost two days getting into camp due to "weather", another day due to "boat repairs", and been paired with a guide who was by his own admission really an outfitter, had a bad smoker's cough, and was hard of hearing due to his day job as a mechanic on a tug boat - on a bow hunt; MREs and Kool Aid while the guides had Scotch in their tent; no Caribou in the area; and surprise, other clients (Germans) in camp and they have first dibs on the boats. In Canada, guess what, the guide's brother in law is camped alongside and shoots the first moose I spot; boiling the moose head isn't included; truck blew a head gasket so back to town; guide got a divorce and wouldn't/couldn't ship the meat or even return phone calls on the subject.

So I know this is a real issue for many hunters, not just an isolated case of a hunter whining because he didn't get a 60" kudu. So what's the solution?

Back to the original thread, hunts I am familiar with sell at daily rates from $195 per day for a self-catered tented camp in Zululand, to $500 per day for a super luxury lodge in RSA or Namibia, to $1K per day for a basic "rondavel" with a shower and toilet in Zim, all the way up to $2K or more per day in Botswana and Tanzania, back to tents! It is difficult to establish a common standard for such a wide spectrum of prices across different countries. The daily rate pays not only for the camp, staff and vehicles, but also for the rental of the hunting area for the duration (amortization of lease payments and other investments by the operator). So a high daily rate doesn't always translate to a fancy camp, or vice versa.

The hotel industry deals with this issue by assigning stars that have some degree of international credibility. This would be hard to do for the hunting industry as camps are often temporary and operators and PHs change periodically. It's a fluid situation. But I suppose it could be done. However, this only provides a framework to describe accommodations and doesn't deal with the more important aspect of the quality of the hunting. How does one assign a rating to a game of chance, where mother nature throws curveballs all day long?

Hunting is further complicated by the necessity to take substantial deposits to secure dates. A no-show in a 400 room hotel is a minor event. It's a major event for a hunting operator who may only take 10 clients for the season. If the hotel is substandard, you can move out. Not so for a hunt. So there is money paid up front, sometimes a year or longer in advance. This requires a certain level of trust and leaves you very exposed.

Traditionally, the hunting industry has used contracts for high dollar hunts to provide some comfort. But in practice, which court is going to rule on a dispute? The client is going to want the courts of his home country, but the majority of operators are not going to sign such a contract as it's impractical for most of them to defend a suit brought in a foreign country and possibly in a foreign language. So these contracts are usually just a good way for the parties to spell out what they expect of each other, no more. Sometimes expectations are unrealistic, and in these cases the contract is a useful exercise even if both parties know they won't enforce it. In any case, every contract I have seen has disclaimers and "outs" in it that favor the safari co, so even if it were to be enforced, there isn't much to enforce.

In the event that there is a breach of the written, verbal or psychological contract, it's often awkward and many hunters don't articulate their issue. They just pay up and go home feeling cheated. If it's articulated, the operator may well offer a concession, usually some kind of makeup hunt. There is an unspoken incentive for the parties to work it out. For if there is no resolution, the hunter may decline to tip and/or refuse to pay some or all of the balance owed; and the operator may refuse to deliver the client to the airport or the trophies to the taxidermist if he feels he was cheated. So the parties have an incentive to sort out their differences.

The delivery of the trophies is one area where the client has hardly any leverage. Once the hunt is over and paid for, he just has to hope and pray that nothing goes wrong. The fact that there are now two more parties involved, ie the taxidermist and the shipping co. makes this messy. And sadly, too often there is a problem: wrong animal, broken skull, damaged capes, missing capes, delayed shipment etc. etc. I think this area is one that could use some work, more so than the hunting itself. There should be NO ISSUE with trophies and there is NO EXCUSE for messing up on this important aspect of the hunt. However, all too often there IS an issue. Partly because the operator has 'moved on', partly because there are now four or even five parties involved, and partly because the hunter has no way to enforce service. He must pay up and then hope for the best.

So here are some practical things a hunter can do:

1. Don't shop for a bargain. Bargains are usually inferior hunts. If the price is good, you should understand why. That is not to say that all "normally priced" hunts are high quality hunts.
2. Ask lots of questions and get the answers in writing if you really want to be clear
3. Check references. This may not be particularly useful as the operator is not going to volunteer the sour grapes.
4. If there is a material problem, speak up, don't let it fester. Don't hold the operator responsible for curveballs (it rained; the generator broke down). Hold him to the stuff he can control or his effort in dealing with curveballs.
5. If the hunt is grossly misrepresented, don't finish the hunt and then open your mouth. If all else fails, request to be taken back to town right away and your deposit refunded. This way you have a chance of getting your money back, and if you ask/call around you can usually find someone else to give it to.
6. Don't tip if you don't feel it's earned. That sends a strong message right there. If there is a major snafu, eg. lost days, then go ahead and adjust the final payment providing your logic for the adjustment.
7. Try to pay for your taxidermy/shipment by credit card. Make sure you know the costs upfront, both for any taxidermy as well as for the shipping. You control the choice of taxidermist and shipper, not the PH.
8. Complain to third parties or use the internet to expose the problem. However, if it's gotten this far, the chances are all you are going to achieve by doing this is to get some sense of vindication.

Bottom line, I don't see any organization a la BBB being able to sort out these issues. Each hunter must keep his wits about him, try to avoid problems, and if there are problems, to sort them out right away.

Russ,
Thank you so much for responding, and I hope that some of you other pro's will step up too.

Based upon my personal experience, Russ' advice is a great place to start. I would quibble with one aspect of it regarding the right of the client to pick the taxidermist and shipper.

I found out the hard way with a provider who had a taxidermist business and was in the shipping business that it isn't that cut and dried. It also is complicated by the value added tax and the need to get the trophies out of the country within a certain time frame or the provider becomes liable for the tax which is the basis for the provider's continuing interest and concern (along with his business interests.)

Our provider refused to transfer the trophies to the taxidermist of our choice notwithstanding the intervention of the professional hunting association, the professional taxidermist's association, the game department and the tax department. This is one of the reasons that I started this thread. It is not always the way even us experienced guys think it is.

I would point out that you cannot just apples and oranges, i.e., you cannot judge/compare a farm hunt in RSA against a concession hunt in Zambia. What is the going rate in Zambia might be highway robbery in RSA. You have to judge Zambia against Zambia, RSA against RSA, and Namibia against Namibia.

What Russ did not address directly was the issue raised in the hypothetical: two year out, who bears the risk of the buffalo not being there? The concession not being there? etc.

The thing that makes this issue so important is that this exactly the kind of hunt that costs big bucks and is booked way out. It is exactly the kind of hunt that is dependent upon the government not messing with the concessions and concessionaires and is dependent upon the vagaries of weather, water, and Africa.

What would pros do if the government canceled the concession? What would you do if the government radically reduced the number of buffs on quota? What would you do if the water dried up and bore hole dried up and there were no buffalo? What would you do if the rules changed and the locals could drive their cattle to and fro over your concession to you waterhole twice a day?

I look forward to more pro responses. Kudude

Russ, thanks for the post. I think that Kudude and I are like Sisyphus!Kudude, hang in there! You may make something of this yet! On my hunt in Namibia, the PH recommended Reiser's, even though someone else had given me a different name as a recommendation. On my way to the airport, I was taken to Reiser's (along with the boiled skulls (I had asked for European mounts), and the skins. So, while I paid Reiser's, I at least knew that the PH and the camp had done their part. Now, obviously I was only able to do this because I shot nothing on the last day of hunting! In retrospect, this was a good move on the part of the PH, which I did not fully appreciate at the time.
Peter.

Gentlemen,

I get the impression that sometimes people going to Africa seem to set a timetable for everything to be just perfect, or they would consider their hunt a failure.

Others seem to consider anything that happens on the hunt as part of the adventure.

Following are reasons I have heard, that were sighted as wrecking the hunt for either the client or the PH accompanying him.

1. Clients with a list of animals, and sizes, and places in the record book, of animals they wish to shoot. No matter how rediculous this list might be, if the client does not get everything he has set his sights on he goes home upset.

2. Clients who arrive at the hunting camp and immediately start telling the PH how to BE a PH! They might have hunted at home, they might have read a few books, it makes no difference. THEY want to conduct the hunt as they see fit. I have heard some of them post on Internet sites "I am a HUNTER! I am NOT going to be following some DAMN so called PH instructions on how to hunt! I will hunt the way I have always hunted"

3. Clients who arrive at camp without even having fired their newly acquired rifle. When the PH says "let us go sight in your rifles". His answer is usually "My gunsmith has already sighted in. Anyway, I don't have much ammo, as I only brought one box. I don't need any more". As the PH insists that he sights in his rifle, he fires his first shot, missing not just the target, but even the box the target is mounted on! A few more shots seem not to make that much of a difference.

4. Clients who fall for the advertising blurb of some gunmakers, and buy a rifle that is reputed to be so accurate. Forgetting that it is the man behind it that counts. This same client would arrive with a "bean field" rifle, with one box of ammo to hunt plains game. He then proceeds to wound his first animal with his first shot, gets his knickers in the twist, and fires another 8 shots more to kill that animal.

5. Clients who go on a hunt with friends, and get upset because their friends have shot bigger trophies.

6. Clients who are so unfit, they cannot walk more than 200 yards, who wish to hunt elephant and buffalo. But, when their hunting truck has a puncture, they make sure the PH gets an earfull!

7. Clients who shoot more animals than they have paid for, and promise to send the money when they get home. Conveniently forgetting this promise as soon as they get back.

8. Clients who shoot some animals, give them to a taxidermist to mount. As time goes by, these same trophies tend to get bigger, and bigger in their imagination. When they get them home from the taxidermist, they are in an upraor that their trophies have been "switched".

9. PH who might be good at hunting, but are a total disaster at making sure a camp is set up so that him and his clients are comfortable when they get back from a hunt. Fresh food is only available for the first two or three days. Drinks have to be rationed, or they would run out long before the end of the cook would be given cook books they could not read, an expected to turn out some incredible meals worthy of a 5-star chef! Instae, one ends up wth some unpalatable concoction no one can eat!

10. PH who have try to make up for their lack of knowledge by having an attitude that they scream and shout at every individual in the hunting camp, including the client.

11. The PH who promises to provide al the animals, and sizes, and record book positions, of the animals the client has on his shopping list.

12. The PH who relies on the lack of knowldge of his clients, and gets them to pay for a buffalo hunt, and then take them to an area that has not seen any buffalo for years. He would show them the tracks of the villagers cattle, telling him these were "buffao" tracks.

13. PH hunters who would bribe orgenizations like SCI, get honoured with a PH Of The Year Award. Get as many clients as possible booked, take their money, and disappear.

I could go on and on. The above examples have all happened, nothing was made up.

And there is NOTHING any rules or orgenization we that can prevent it happening again.

"Buyer beware" should be a motto for all of us, whether clients or PHs.

Saeed

Very good post indeed! Coming from an old hand at this, it means so much more ...

The bottom line is - we have 2 ears and one mouth for a reason. Listen more than you speak when doing your homework for a safari. And that goes for the outfitter too.