I hunted Zimbabwe last year even though I couldn't really afford it, because I predicted costs would skyrocket soon ie when the Mugabe mess ends prices in Zimbabwe will go way up, and due to the lack of competition from Zimbabwe, so would prices in Tanz etc.

Tanzania is largely out of my price range already, and even if lesser but still large increases happen well I will never go there.

Just my personal problem hey?

The downside for hunting in general is when the numbers of international hunters shrinks more and more, there is less support in the West for hunting in general and African hunting in particular. Less support to combat the idiot greenie mov'ts. Less people to defend eg the Kenyan demand for the ivory ban etc. When international hunting is just a bunch of very rich guys, it will die out.

Same thing happened in India. Hunting was seen by the common man as being only for the extremely rich and for foreignors. Now there is no hunting there, and incredible public opposition to it. And game and wildlife numbers decrease continually.

Hopefully Tanzania does not do a Botswana and only aim for the very rich but also very small market. We would see the number of outfitters decrease dramatically with these prices (if they happen) too I think.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:

Government trophy fees - All operators pay the government the same amount for the trophies killed or wounded. I posted some prices, Mrlexma posted a list of gov trophy fees for the Selous.

...


The concession holder makes his money by ... and any profit he wants to add to the trophy fees.

Wendell

I was told by a PH hunting in Tanzania that it is actually technically illegal for an outfitter to add a margin to a gov't trophy fee? Therefore my earlier comment.

I asked this question once before on AR and no one answered.

Maybe the PH was wrong?

The article posted above also seems to make a point that the gov't possibly considers its "percentage" to be too low from the overall "retail" sales prices to international hunters. Therefore the gov't fee increases.

Certainly most successful outfitters do not seem to be lacking. I know one who has purchased seven houses as investments in Australia.

I do not think it is automatic that outfitters should be able to pass on all gov't price increases, especially if they quote in contracts an 'all-up' (including grossed up margins) trophy fee/fees, rather than split the fees into gov't fees plus margins.

Once again, the Gov has been ill informed. When the Ministry set up a private commitee to review the Hunting industry and make recommendations, the committee members were made up of individuals that had very little knowledge of how the industry works. Visits to Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia to compare industries and gather information confused the issue even further. The report that was prepared with the recommendations often compared apples with oranges.

Industry statistics and figures that were used to compare the different industry performances in the report were mis-construed by the committee. The biggest problem is that it made Tanzania look like it was lagging way behind in terms of Gov revenue accrued form Tourist hunting. Unfortunately, no one of the outfitters took that report too seriously.

The result is this mess we are witnessing. Some operators have been refused hunting licenses until the Gov has received full payment of balance of block fees! TAHOA is still pushing for a full court injunction of all the directives of price increases. With the weekend coming up it might be until next week that a positive outcome is realised. In the meantime, outfitters have a sharp knife at their throats i.e. equivalent to "blackmail".

The way the Gov has gone about this is against the MoU with TAHOA members that protects stakeholders with regards Gov fee increases. How their legal department could have approved such a move is unthinkable.

This is going to cause a lot of damage in a short time even if it is resolved in favor of the outfitters. Current safaris and those that are about to start will be affected most as issuing of hunting licenses will be subjecte to the outfitter in question having paid the "top-up" concession fee. For those that have just one concession, this may be acceptable although they need to come up with between $30,000 or $40,000 immeadiately depending on the category of their concession. For small operators, where the safari fees have just about been used up in pre-season logistics this could be impossible on short notice. Those operators that have multiple blocks, well, how can you pay $600K.... NOW???

To clarify on a couple of statements posted so far:

1- It is ILLEGAL to sub-lease a concession.
2- The previous hunting block fees were $10,000 for the period 1st July to 31st Dec irrespective of block. Thereafter $3000 if the concession was to be used for photographic activities between 1st Jan and 30th June. Those that were paying $7,500 were underpaying as that was the fee until 2004 or 2005.
3- Gov trophy fees are payable to the Gov. Most operators charge a 10 - 20% top-up that is used to finance Anti-poaching and community development efforts which is compulsory for every concession holder. These top-up are not payable to the Gov but are funneled to sponsor those objectives. Some outfitters include this in their daily fees and leave Trophy fees as is.

Most of the trophy fee increases are acceptable, some are unchanged, some are a bit too high and a very few are downright stupid, IMHO. see below. PLS note not all species are listed in the sheet below. Of importance, Elephant is now $15,000.



The majority of the blocks are owned by influential former politicians, Gov officials, Army brass and they will be making as much noise as the others. The Game dpt has taken a "come and get us" approach which doesn't help.

Nitrox,
"Technically" it might be true. However it is not illegal to charge a "top-up" - whether based as a percentage or lump sum figure of the Gov trophy fee - earmarked to cover overheads or activities such as anti-poaching and community development. As stated, some operators include these costs in their daily rates or "conservation fees" or "area fees", etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
Nitrox,
"Technically" it might be true. However it is not illegal to charge a "top-up" - whether based as a percentage or lump sum figure of the Gov trophy fee - earmarked to cover overheads or activities such as anti-poaching and community development. As stated, some operators include these costs in their daily rates or "conservation fees" or "area fees", etc.

Thanks Mich.

But clear as a muddy African river.

So then "technically" an outfitter should quote the gov't trophy fee separately and THEN quote the additional trophy fee (whatever it is named)?

ie not create a "lump sum" fee.

I have certainly seen quotations like this.

***

Thanks for your informative posts.

I saw lion prices go up. But with so many guys booking lion hunts, and so few actually taking lions, if the REAL lion success rate is improved it might make the whole process a little more "honest" ie lesser numbers of hunt, but higher success ratios.

Same with elephant, if these tiny tuskers are being taken less often.

As I said it won't affect me anyway.

$12,000 for leopard though !!!

"Most of the trophy fee increases are acceptable ..."

The lowest increase in your list is 25%, and most are 50% or more and many 100% or more!

Bwanamitch

quote:

Most of the trophy fee increases are acceptable, some are unchanged, some are a bit too high and a very few are downright stupid, IMHO.

Thats very True

Seloushunter

I apologise, the list I posted is incorrect as it was an old version. The "old gov fees" shown on it are pre-2005. I will post the correct one soon.

This is the correct revised 2007 trophy fee

Thanks Bwanamich, very good info.

As I am reviewing this new trophy fee list, I can see government revenue remaining the same or decreasing over this.

I am thinking about my clients, what they can afford, what they are willing to pay etc. Not just the 7 day hunters, but the 14 ad 21 day license hunters as well.

Most guys have a trophy fee budget and will squeeze all the animals they can into the budget. Yes, it is a bit flexible, depending on the client, but not open ended as the government seems to think.

Most guys doing a 7 day hunt would shoot two Buffalo generating $1650 for the gov. With these prices, I can easily see a lot of these guys just shooting one. Generating only $1500.

I can see the Leopard benefitting from this new fee as well!

Even if they do not up the block fee, this is not going to generate the governemt any more money.

This is BASIC HIGH SCHOOL economics. This is a simple mistake of not recognizing supply and demand.

I do not know why this shocks me.

It seems the Tanzania govt feels it has been ripped off by many safari operators for many years. This little episode may be only the beginning. The reasignment of concessions in 09 could be very interesting.

Also kind of weird that they reduced Civet fees from $340 to $200 and Duiker from $435 to $250. Any explanation or logic (I know... a long shot going by the rest of the fee changes) behind this?

quote:

Originally posted by studdog:
It seems the Tanzania govt feels it has been ripped off by many safari operators for many years. This little episode may be only the beginning. The reasignment of concessions in 09 could be very interesting.

You are probably right. However, this was certainly brought about by the fact that it is public knowledge that certain concession holders were sub-leasing their concession to 3rd parties at more than 4 x times the annual concession fee. So some bright light in the ministry figured well....we can get that money.

Concessions are scheduled to be re-assigned in 2010. 2009 allocation remains as is. however, if this new ruling sticks, then we presume that several concessions will become vacant as a result of default in paying the outstanding amount requested. I suspect the first ones to be returned to the dpt/ will be the "poorer" blocks.

If your outfitter looses a block, you re-negotiate with him for the new itinerary involving whichever block he offers in replacement. A booking is with an outfitter not a block.

I suspect the lowered rates on civet and duiker are a result of trying to rectify a "slip" when they were increased ridiculously the first time around.

I don't know much about TZ but it seems to me that this is a simple case of the Govt seeing what the outfitters charge and just wanting a piece of the action. Is there something wrong with this? Why do we think they are stupid. They may be smarter than we are! Just seeing what the market will bear is something that US companies do all the time.
Peter.

quote:

Just seeing what the market will bear is something that US companies do all the time.

Incrementally, not 100% increase after contracts are signed.

If they want to see what the market will bear, this is a great way to do it. They will find out real fast what hunters are willing to pay, or more importantly, what they are not willing to pay.

Oh My! There goes one more dream out the window. I guess the rigorous application of the "law of supply and demand" would suggest that if you can get the same return from a much smaller group that is a good thing. Just hate to be part of the economically excluded group and suspect there will be some unintended consequences.

One of the challenges of growing old is that it tends to be a time of decreasing expectations when the rest of life has been the other way. Just another example. ... Sigh ...

Wendell
This is going to hurt me for 09 buffalo. I guess I will be going elseware to hunt. I am glad I have you guys to keep us up to date on issues like this. It will help plan for the future.

I just sent an email to the Tanzania Director of Wildlife along the lines that the new prices would actually cause a loss of revenue in terms of fewer hunting clients every year. I think it might be a good idea if he were to hear the thoughts of some of you who have a hunt booked, or are considering booking a hunt to Tanzania.

The email address is director@wildlife.go.tz

Sincerely,
John Barth

quote:

Originally posted by jcbarth:
I just sent an email to the Tanzania Director of Wildlife along the lines that the new prices would actually cause a loss of revenue in terms of fewer hunting clients every year. I think it might be a good idea if he were to hear the thoughts of some of you who have a hunt booked, or are considering booking a hunt to Tanzania.

The email address is director@wildlife.go.tz

Email sent!

Click here to email: director@wildlife.go.tz

Ditto

why is it that whenever anybody wants to raise hell out of the prices they always comnpare and say well his prices are higher, rather than saying well why doesn't he bring his prices down?? seems like this will be another oil company type thing, raise hell out of them at first and then bring them down just a little to shut everybody up

Well I guess I better work more and visit AR less if I expect to hunt Tanz.

John,
That was a good idea. They now also have a letter from me.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Well I guess I better work more and visit AR less if I expect to hunt Tanz.

Or sell more rifles!

How do you think I will fare...I'm booked into the Selous L1 August 1? My contract states among other things.... trophy fees paid on 2 buffalo. Also all additional Gov't fees paid in full is in the same paragraph.
My trip is paid in full an except for the rifles that I will be shooting tomorrow so are my bags.
I booked thru McCarthy Adventures Harrisburg, Pa.

I wouldn't be opposed to the fee increases if the additional money were spent on wildlife management and habitat. The TZ Gov't fees were way too low relative to the market value of the concessions and the market price of the animals charged by the outfitters. The outfitters will be feeling the pinch if these increases go through.

The price of a Lion SHOULD be $12,000 or more. They are that valuable and all of us plainsgame and buffalo hunters should applaud an increase in the price of lions. Lions require a lot of real estate and if they pay the overhead for that real estate then the rest of the animals (and we hunters) benefit.

I've said before that we've seen the true golden age of African hunting but sadly that period is coming to a close. The period of cheap transportation (cheap oil), a strong U.S. Dollar, and low safari rates is over...actually it's been over for a couple of years now. It'll take a recession here to reset the cycle.

I'm with Skyline in that it has never been priced for the working guy. There becomes a point though that even if I could afford it I would likely go some place else and get more bang for my buck. I'm just thankful I hunted Zim. and S.A. when I did. The whole damn continent could be out of my reach five years from now.

Mike

Mike

Forrest,

I'm struggleing to understand the new pricing structure from the customers point of view.

Tanzania has always been expensive relative to other parts of Africa. The lowish trophy fees were more than offset by the high daily rates and various fees.

I can see the increase for lion and elephant mostly because populations are declining. Most of the plains game prices are higher but probably palletable.

Leopard at $12K on top of at lowest $35K in day rate and fees is just too much (espically in the Selous). A $50K leopard hunt is not justified when compaired to offerings in other countries.

My 2c.

Brett

ForrestB, I hear you, and I agree with you, but this is not about the government trying to better the lot of the nation's wildlife.

I am truly sorry to have to say this, but I have no doubt whatsoever that this entire exercise is all about corrupt officials trying to finagle a new way to fleece the hunting industry.

They may finally have figured out, like the mob did in Vegas, that "top of the table" skimming before reporting can often be easier and more lucrative than "under the table" solicitation or strong-arming of bribes or protection money. Books can be "cooked" very easily where there is virtually no oversight.

At least under the present but perhaps soon be former system, long term operators (as opposed to suitcase PHs) have had a vested interest in maintaining the long term sustainability of the wildlife on which their livelihoods depend. Quotas have often been vastly underutilized and the game animals have benefited.

That will not be true if the blocks are reallocated to a variety of new users for much higher prices. They will all be in it for the quick buck and short term gain, and the last to benefit from any of this will be the wildlife. The overshooting of quotas in some if not most sublet blocks is widely known and has been going on for years.

Of course this maneuver may sicken or kill the golden egg laying goose, too, and I do not discount that possibility. Brains are in short supply in certain circles, especially African government circles.

That is not cynicism. That's just the way it is and will be if this goes through. But I am talking out of school and should probably shut up.

True the govt wants their cut. Concession holders are making alot of money off of a miniscule fee. Should concession holders/safari operators make less? Maybe. Not gonna happen tho. It will get passed on.

MR,

Had the increases been announced in the off-season and phased in over, say, two years things might have went on as normal.

It is possible that the market will accept the new prices, higher daily rates to accomodate the increased block fees and the higher trophy fees.

The question is; will the higher prices kill or dammage the hunting industry? And, how can Tanzania increase it's revenue from hunting without dammaging said?

They should maximize revenues for the people of Tanzania, after all most citizens cannot even enjoy the vast hunting set-aside areas like the Selous.

Brett

Brett,

That is not the modus operandi of the Tanzanian ministry in charge of hunting. They use scare tactics. That stimulates a response and sets the public and private negotiations in motion.

As for the industry, no it probably won't damage it long term, although in the short term it could be very disruptive owing to cancellations by those who are only marginally well off and able to afford to play in the game.

Long term, the really rich will more than make up for the loss of the marginally well off. After all, in the lifetimes of all of us now living, the rich have never been richer. The overhunting of the wildlife by those in it for short term profits may, however, become a real problem.

To some (and I know of some who have booked the entirety of multiple blocks for the entire season, at a cost that ran into seven figures), these increases are a non-event.

This is F*%$ing great! My 2 week safari with a 21 day license just got reduced by 1 leopard, 2 buffalo, and a number of other animals. I guess they just saved me a bundle on taxidermy and shipping!

Does anyone know if bowhunters will still be required to pay twice the trophy fee under the new price structure?

MR,

Given that there must be at least tacit approval at the highest levels what do you think the actual end game will look like?

I am interested as one of those characters at the margin

Brett

Brett, I am afraid they are just culling out the hunters among us without really big pockets. I am with you. It looks like I am just another cull.

quote:

Originally posted by Kathi:
Does anyone know if bowhunters will still be required to pay twice the trophy fee under the new price structure?

Yes it remains double

Let me tell you, these increases, if they stick, will be devastating for the industry! There are a handful of operators that could survive these new regulations. The majority of them would quickly sink to the bottom. Ongoing safaris and those that are to commence imminently are at most risk of dissapointment;

1- Clients currently on safari will be told they have to pay for the new trophy fees. Most operators will hopefully simply charge the Net Gov fee without any "top-up" they may have been charging beforehand. The client will suddenly be way over budget and many may decide to abandon their trophies here to make up in shipping and taxidermy costs. Outfitters will potentially loose revenue that would have been earmarked for anti-poaching and community development. No money no action and no action on the latter could possibly mean loss of hunting concession at season end.
2- Those clients that are due to start their hunt soon will be reliant on their outfitter paying the balance of the block fees in order to get a hunting license. Majority will not have that money available immeadiately. No money, no permits = no hunting! Clients will sit in camp twidling their fingers.

Both scenarios are not good for the game dept coffers but of course they don't see it! All they had to do was announce these figures from next year and give everyone a chance to "make a plan".

Another example of their total dis-interest and lack of common sense is that the 2007 season quota was issued to everyone YESTERDAY!!!!

Another angle, amongst the others, is that many small and/or undesirable operators are being squeezed out.

This season's quota was only announced yesterday? That's ridiculous.