Hi Folks

After a long period we have our quota and permits for the Senuko hunting area in the Save Valley Conservancy, this is in partnership with our nieghbouring community. As the area has not been hunted for leopard for the past four years and what we see on the ground we believe this will be a succesfull hunt, however as most of you know with leopard hunting, it can be tricky so we are offering a shared risk hunt. This means that you pay a reduced daily rate and if unsuccesfull you save just under seven thousand dollars, however if successful then the remaining daily rate is attached to the trophy fee as below.

Leopard/Plainsgame Hunt
14 days @ $714 = $9996
Trophy fee = $13234
Impala baits = $150 each (Usually up to 5 needed)
2% Government levy - $200 (Daily rate)
4% Government levy - $530 (Trophy fee)
Conservation levy - $280 ($20/day)
CITIES Tag - $150
Trophy prep and documentation - $250

Charter - Harare - Senuko - $1310 (206) Each way.
Transfer - $1500 round trip
Please send me an email for trophy fees on plains game.

Shangaan Hunters
Glenn Stockil
+263 772 272177
glenns@senuko.com
Zimbabwe

I LOVE IT when outfitters have skin in the game. Great pricing strategy!

glen this is frank
send me your email

frank_stradling@yahoo.com

time we got back in the bush

quote:

frank_stradling@yahoo.com

Frank, good to hear from you sir, yes agreed the bush is calling. Email sent. All the best.

I do not agree with this kind of pricing.
IMO,for there to be doubt on the outfitters side as to the client getting his leopard there is a good chance that past clients were unsuccessful.So we can safely say that it is uncertain if the client will shoot a leopard.
The way I see it is that the outfitter is using the leopard to sell a less attractive hunt at high dollar.
Why not treat each hunt separately?
I would think it better for the client to do a separate plains game hunt or a buff hunt and should he have time left or be successful in shooting a leopard during the buff hunt then he pay an amount agreed upon prior to.In other words he pays only if he shoots the leopard.
I think this way is the fairest.

George, George, George . . . an exaggerated trophy fee with a reduced daily rate is the way I would like to see all hunts priced. It aligns the incentives of both parties. The traditional pricing structure, particularly for cats, is not just subject to abuse, but I believe it is in fact abused. I think there are outfitters that oversell their quota knowing that some percentage of cat hunts will be unsuccessful. I also know there are outfitters that resell the quota from an unsuccessful hunt and make money on both the original unsuccessful and the subsequent successful hunt. If someone offered me a deal that was, you pay no daily rate, just an exaggerated trophy fee, that would be the perfect deal from my standpoint. Our incentives are aligned and I know that the outfitter is confident we are likely to be successful. You have it exactly backwards . . . offering a discounted daily rate and an exaggerated trophy fee suggests to me that the outfitter is more confident in the the success of the hunt, not less.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
George, George, George . . . an exaggerated trophy fee with a reduced daily rate is the way I would like to see all hunts priced. It aligns the incentives of both parties. The traditional pricing structure, particularly for cats, is not just subject to abuse, but I believe it is in fact abused. I think there are outfitters that oversell their quota knowing that some percentage of cat hunts will be unsuccessful. I also know there are outfitters that resell the quota from an unsuccessful hunt and make money on both the original unsuccessful and the subsequent successful hunt. If someone offered me a deal that was, you pay no daily rate, just an exaggerated trophy fee, that would be the perfect deal from my standpoint. Our incentives are aligned and I know that the outfitter is confident we are likely to be successful. You have it exactly backwards . . . offering a discounted daily rate and an exaggerated trophy fee suggests to me that the outfitter is more confident in the the success of the hunt, not less.

+1

This is a rare occasion where I can actually see what George is saying. This turns into a $700 a day PG hunt with no cat. That is not ideal either. An ideal price system, fair to both parties, would be PG daily rates and then a cat TF that even provided a significant bonus for the outfitter beyond the current pricing above. I think most guys would be happy with that. Hell, make the TF outrageous and I suspect most guys would not care with the big cat on their shoulder. Still, it is very nice to see this ad and outfitters thinking about pricing in this way!

. . . but it was not a $700/day plainsgame hunt, it was a leopard hunt that was unsuccessful. I say kudos to Glenn for making the offer.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:
This is a rare occasion where I can actually see what George is saying. This turns into a $700 a day PG hunt with no cat. That is not ideal either. An ideal price system, fair to both parties, would be PG daily rates and then a cat TF that even provided a significant bonus for the outfitter beyond the current pricing above. I think most guys would be happy with that. Hell, make the TF outrageous and I suspect most guys would not care with the big cat on their shoulder. Still, it is very nice to see this ad and outfitters thinking about pricing in this way!

Completely disagree! A leopard hunt is NOT simply an expensive PG hunt with a possible opportunity to shoot a cat, and then pay extra. True, a leopard hunt does involve shooting some plains game for bait, which appears to be the same as any other PG hunt, but with the added time, effort, and expense of covering miles and miles, hour after hour, of hanging those baits, preparing shooting lanes, driving every day checking those baits, etc.

George shot his leopard on day 2 ... and bitched about that!! My first leopard involved 6 days effort and my second involved 13 days of a 14 day hunt. Lots of bait sites prepared and miles covered checking them as we had 11 active baits spread over 106km that had to be checked every day once they were set up.

NOT just an expensive PG hunt. Lots of added effort involved here.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
George, George, George . . . an exaggerated trophy fee with a reduced daily rate is the way I would like to see all hunts priced. It aligns the incentives of both parties. The traditional pricing structure, particularly for cats, is not just subject to abuse, but I believe it is in fact abused. I think there are outfitters that oversell their quota knowing that some percentage of cat hunts will be unsuccessful. I also know there are outfitters that resell the quota from an unsuccessful hunt and make money on both the original unsuccessful and the subsequent successful hunt. If someone offered me a deal that was, you pay no daily rate, just an exaggerated trophy fee, that would be the perfect deal from my standpoint. Our incentives are aligned and I know that the outfitter is confident we are likely to be successful. You have it exactly backwards . . . offering a discounted daily rate and an exaggerated trophy fee suggests to me that the outfitter is more confident in the the success of the hunt, not less.

+1

I have serious issues with the way the whole high dollar price cat hunts work. The hunter is often the patsy at that poker table the minute some of those hunts are sold.

This is the right way too do high dollar wild cat hunts. Hope we see more outfitters adopting this approach.

Mike

My comment here is not about the pricing, however is seems pretty fair to me!

I will say this though, as I have some experience with Glenn/Senuko. Several years ago I took my stepson with me (his high school grad present) on a 16 day hunt with Glenn at Senuko. We were not hunting leopard, instead we were hunting lion/buffalo and PG. I took a great lion, a fine Dagga boy and Cason took numerous PG species. Everything was AWESEOME, and Glenn is a pleasure to hunt with!

I did in fact see numerous leopard tracks, but Glenn had no leopards left to sell me - so hunting one just wasn't possible. I feel confident we would have got one, could we have hunted "spots".

Lots of luck here Glenn, and I am glad you are getting Senuko sorted out.

I have hunted the bordering properties. Lots of game.

My advice would be to go before it gets too hot. Baits do not last long in extreme heat.

isn't it called hunting?
Nothing will ever be satisfactory to everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Completely disagree! A leopard hunt is NOT simply an expensive PG hunt with a possible opportunity to shoot a cat, and then pay extra. True, a leopard hunt does involve shooting some plains game for bait, which appears to be the same as any other PG hunt, but with the added time, effort, and expense of covering miles and miles, hour after hour, of hanging those baits, preparing shooting lanes, driving every day checking those baits, etc...NOT just an expensive PG hunt. Lots of added effort involved here.

I am not saying I agree with George (God forbid!), just that I get what he may be saying. Sometimes (particularly in Namibia, it seems) I think they do often offer Leopard as a "come on" to sell PG hunts knowing full well that the chances of a cat are very very low (or even non-existent). In a situation like that, assuming I knew what was up and was not a greenhorn, I would want to see legit (like $450, not $750 or $850) PG daily rates and a $15,000-$20,000+ trophy fee on the cat. I want the outfitter to have a BIG incentive to see me succeed...not to get paid big money no matter what. I am not saying that this sort of "come on" is what is happening here with the OP, just that this is POSSIBLY the way George is thinking. If this hunt were in Namibia, and with an outfitter of unknown track record on cats, I would be much more suspicious.

In reality, the deal posted above is FAR better than MANY other leopard offers on AR where the outfitters make you pay $1200 or more per day and then some measly $5,000-$6000 trophy fee on the cat that, as we all know, might be unlikely to appear. As an economist, I see that pricing scheme generating all sorts of screwed up incentives not the least of which is the potential selling of one "opportunity" to five different guys! The reality is that there are many ways to skin a cat (screw over a client) and it's obviously possible with either pricing strategy. Of course, if I am going to be cheated, I prefer it be at a lower daily rate in an area with killer plains game.

On another front, I don't really buy that a Leopard hunt is "a lot more work" and deserving such a premium over PG rates. In fact, I think this "high daily rate" way of pricing Leopard is a pretty recent phenomenon. I recall a decade or more ago leopard hunts were maybe (at most) 50-100% higher in daily rate (particularly in RSA) than PG and had a t-fee of maybe $4000. Today, relative to then, we have seen trophy fees increase by maybe 50-100% but daily rates increase by 400-500%! Thus, the incentive structure has severely shifted and NOT in the client's favor! Frankly, it may be "more work" to hunt leopard, but it is certainly not 3-4x more work and isn't really more dangerous until the cat appears or is shot which should therefore be compensated in the trophy fee, not the daily rates.

Finally, understand that I am not bitching and moaning...I realize we have to pay to play.... but I am just saying that (even with the money in the bank) I would NEVER book a hunt where the outfitter has no real incentive to see me succeed and may well have a strong financial interest in my failure!

Gents

Thanks for all the comments, this is an idea I have had for a long time know especially when it comes to leopard. We very rarely fail on a leopard so this is a genuine offer. I have spent many a night around the camp fire speaking to hunters who have failed on leopard, one gentleman had been out five times in different areas and still not shot a leopard - add that up. I doubt this is a concept that will grow roots from an industry level for many reasons but having these comments on AR may get other ideas about pricing flowing. Might be a good topic for debate on another forum?

Aaron, thank you. All the best to you.

Glenn this is a great deal and i like this format where the emphasis is on the trophy fee.Some may question the $750.00 per day and why not a plains game fee of $550.00 per day.

Senuko has over heads and is obligated to Zim parks concession fees and trophy fees so naturally the fees will be a higher than Namibia.Good deal and have no doubt you will move this soon.

I applaud the outfitter for putting this out there this way and I think the hunter can't go wrong with this format. When the trophy fee gets north of 20-25k, such as on a lion, I believe the shooter will really think before he pulls the trigger and it may be counter productive for the outfitter.

quote:

Originally posted by Webster:
When the trophy fee gets north of 20-25k, such as on a lion, I believe the shooter will really think before he pulls the trigger and it may be counter productive for the outfitter.

I seriously doubt that, but the solution to the problem is pretty easy. If the hunter passes on a shootable male on bait, then he/she is liable for the trophy fee that is already on deposit with the agent. Done.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:
If the hunter passes on a shootable male on bait, then he/she is liable for the trophy fee that is already on deposit with the agent. Done.

Sounds awful to me. If you draw blood, it's yours. If not, it's not. You're already in for daily rates and baits, so little incentive not to shoot a nice lion if it's on bait. But reasonable minds can disagree on an acceptable lion and on what is an acceptable shot.

quote:

Originally posted by tygersman:
Sounds awful to me. If you draw blood, it's yours. If not, it's not. You're already in for daily rates and baits, so little incentive not to shoot a nice lion if it's on bait. But reasonable minds can disagree on an acceptable lion and on what is an acceptable shot.

The solution was presented not because I agree with it necessarily, but because of the theoretical possibility that (if someone was on the hook for only PG daily rates) he MIGHT pass on shootable cats to save the money. I find this very unlikely, but one solution (and probably the only one) is to impose a restriction like the above. The more I think about it, it might be fair to both outfitter and client in a world where clients demand very low daily rates on cat hunts to keep the outfitter honest about the chances of success on leopard and lion. Something vaguely similar is sometimes seen in Europe where people are charged not only for wounded game but also fined (say $200-300) for missed shots. I know if I were an outfitter, I would be annoyed if my client showed up and either could not shoot or refused to shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:

quote:

Originally posted by tygersman:
Sounds awful to me. If you draw blood, it's yours. If not, it's not. You're already in for daily rates and baits, so little incentive not to shoot a nice lion if it's on bait. But reasonable minds can disagree on an acceptable lion and on what is an acceptable shot.

The solution was presented not because I agree with it necessarily, but because of the theoretical possibility that (if someone was on the hook for only PG daily rates) he MIGHT pass on shootable cats to save the money. I find this very unlikely, but one solution (and probably the only one) is to impose a restriction like the above. The more I think about it, it might be fair to both outfitter and client in a world where clients demand very low daily rates on cat hunts to keep the outfitter honest about the chances of success on leopard and lion. Something vaguely similar is sometimes seen in Europe where people are charged not only for wounded game but also fined (say $200-300) for missed shots. I know if I were an outfitter, I would be annoyed if my client showed up and either could not shoot or refused to shoot.

How long do you think a fine system would last in Africa? Why not fine the client for being old, overweight or lazy.

No one pays $1k a day daily rates and ph working 25-50 percent on tips for net comp to be subject to a fine structure. It would make for terrible sundowner conversation - sorry old chap I had to fine you for being a bad shot or fat or lazy. Hope my tip is still same.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Why not fine the client for being old, overweight or lazy.

We are talking about cats here. How does an overweight or old or lazy client influence his/her ability to place one shot out of a blind on a stationary target? Sorry if my idea pissed you off but it is really quite unfair for clients to theoretically expect very low daily rates on something like a leopard hunt, thus placing VERY high value on the client actually shooting the cat, without then expecting that the outfitter will want some form of assurance that the client will actually shoot when the time comes. I would really prefer this to a $1500 per day, $6000 trophy fee leopard hunt any day of the week.

Valid points made by all but the bottom line is that you should do whatever you want with your own money!

Personally, I wouldn't hunt with anyone who charges me for a miss but that's me.

quote:

Originally posted by Leopardtrack:
Personally, I wouldn't hunt with anyone who charges me for a miss but that's me.

I might not either, but if a guy were offering leopard at PG daily rates, I sure might understand why a he might even charge full TF for a miss or certainly charge for a "pass" on the part of the client.

As usual, I agree with MIke Jines and disagree with some others. Then again, I go to Africa to hunt game......not to shoot game.....and for those who do not understand the difference, nothing I can say will convince you these two mindsets are worlds apart.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:

quote:

Originally posted by Leopardtrack:
Personally, I wouldn't hunt with anyone who charges me for a miss but that's me.

I might not either, but if a guy were offering leopard at PG daily rates, I sure might understand why a he might even charge full TF for a miss or certainly charge for a "pass" on the part of the client.

Murky waters we are swimming in now.....with a few grey areas thrown in too

What constitutes a shot opportunity?? Does a Leopard bolting from the tree as the light goes count....maybe the PH will say you had a shot but you do t agree??
Does he call hairs at the shot sight a hit or do you need to see blood?

I can agree that the client should pay if the PH puts a shoot-able male in front of you but you pass for a bigger one but a miss??

I think that the solution is that every scenario should be worked out and agreed upon before paying the deposit.

A dark blind in the bush is not it!

We are not hunting Africa in the 40's 50's and 60's when game was abundant.Today most areas are shot out or near.If that was the case-hunting back then, I see no issue in someone not shooting his animal.However if an outfitter is selling hunts on a daily rate on animals that might not exist to me that is a whole different game.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
However if an outfitter is selling hunts on a daily rate on animals that might not exist to me that is a whole different game.

I absolutely agree with the above statement. What is being inferred here (I think) is that there are some Safari Companies who are less than honest when advertising their hunts. This is why doing your research and due diligence in selecting your Safari Company, PH, and hunt area are so important. I personally know of one hunt last year offered under a similar "share the risk" strategy. The Safari Company and PH had impeccable reputations, and up front, the hunter was told it was a low probability of success leopard hunt. He was also told that the conditions (Zimbabwe in December) would be horrific with heat, bugs, scorpions etc, but the game was there, and it would be up to the PH to produce. My friend ended up with a huge leopard, a 44" buffalo, some nice plains game and two lionesses. He said the conditions were indeed miserable. He pulled numerous ticks off of his body every day, and he had a couple of close calls with scorpions. In the end, he felt the outfitter had been completely honest in managing his expectations, and he had the hunt of a lifetime. So, do your homework, do your due diligence, check out references, and get out there and have a great hunt.

I normally don't chime in but when I look at a hunt. I look at what it is going to cost in total,my money! If you add it all up (fees) your cost to be standing in his camp it is over 50% of TF. As far as all the variables as to whether hunter should be charged TF. It should be very well defined what triggers that cost UP FRONT and in writing. As mentioned above, I am not going to get into a negotiation in the bush where all I have is my opinion. I am a huge proponent of incentives, you get better sausage. I think it's just another shade of lipstick. As always, "You never get what you deserve, only what you negotiate".

Gosh, poor Glenn's thread has been thoroughly and completely hijacked. That said, perhaps the comments will encourage someone to see this for the great deal that it is and snatch this hunt up pronto.

Now, on with the hijack. This issue is not that hard in my view. To me you can think of trophy hunting as having two extreme bookends to the continuum. On the one end is a hunt where the hunter pays absolutely nothing up front, all he pays for are trophies he takes and the trophy fees cover all costs. On the other end everything is paid up front including trophy fees on a non-refundable basis. Seems to me that the former clearly favors the client and the latter clearly favors the outfitter. The former gives the outfitter a tremendous incentive to produce (perhaps even too much incentive to produce), the latter gives the outfitter no incentive to produce. The closer a hunt is structured to resemble the former, the more I like it and Glenn's hunt is a move in that direction. Particularly on cat hunts where success can sometimes be iffy.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Gosh, poor Glenn's thread has been thoroughly and completely hijacked. That said, perhaps the comments will encourage someone to see this for the great deal that it is and snatch this hunt up pronto.

Now, on with the hijack. This issue is not that hard in my view. To me you can think of trophy hunting as having two extreme bookends to the continuum. On the one end is a hunt where the hunter pays absolutely nothing up front, all he pays for are trophies he takes and the trophy fees cover all costs. On the other end everything is paid up front including trophy fees on a non-refundable basis. Seems to me that the former clearly favors the client and the latter clearly favors the outfitter. The former gives the outfitter a tremendous incentive to produce (perhaps even too much incentive to produce), the latter gives the outfitter no incentive to produce. The closer a hunt is structured to resemble the former, the more I like it and Glenn's hunt is a move in that direction. Particularly on cat hunts where success can sometimes be iffy.

+1

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
On the one end is a hunt where the hunter pays absolutely nothing up front, all he pays for are trophies he takes and the trophy fees cover all costs.

Except there is no way an outfitter with half a brain does this (or even anything close) without some assurance the client actually shoots something. Especially on cats, this would be a very confident pricing strategy, but you just know some idiot client would see it as a free vacation and pass on the cat.

I understand that. My point was simply that those two options represent the extremes and I would prefer pricing structures closer to the one extreme than the other.

Agree....and my point is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. As we move along that spectrum, assurances and adjustments will have to be made to keep the change viable.

This thread has brought up a number of points but two points jumped out at me. Generally I agree with Mike Jines on most things as he usually presents a well thought out and intelligent point of view. In this case of reselling a hunt I completely disagree that it is somehow unethical or dishonest to resell a hunt that was unsuccessful. If a safari operator has four leopards on quota and sells 4 leopard hunts 3 of which are successful he still has one leopard left on quota. Why should he not sell it? It's not like the guy had 4 Chevys to sell, sold them and one was returned after 100,000 miles and was resold as a new car. The resold hunt is a brand new hunt and every bit as good a hunt as the initial offerings. Having shot a few cats and that is what we are talking about here I can say in all honesty that if I knew my hunt was a resold one I would give it no thought at all. Actually it might work to my advantage as the PH would know from first hand experience that season where the big cats where.

The second point is if you pay everything up front there is little motivation for the PH/guide to put out a full blown effort on your part. Given that type of thinking you would then assume that most NA guides are not motivated on the hunter's behalf and that in my opinion is just wrong. NA guides stay in business because of success. If their guides are lazy they don't succeed long term and I think that could apply to Africa also.

Happy Father's Day!

Mark

My point on reselling an unsuccessful hunt is not that the outfitter should not try to fully utilize the allotted quota but that, assuming the subsequent hunt is successful, the outfitter ought to make some financial concession to the first unsuccessful hunter.

Let's assume that the outfitter charges $1000/day for a ten-day leopard hunt. If the first hunter goes and is successful the outfitter gets the profit component of the $10,000 in daily rates. If the first hunter goes and is unsuccessful, the outfitter gets exactly the same amount. Then the outfitter resells the hunt. If he sells the hunt for same daily rate, he profits twice on the same quota or if he sells the hunt at an exaggerated trophy fee and the second hunter is successful he get the profit piece in the exaggerated trophy fee. Why should the outfitter profit twice on the same quota at the original unsuccessful hunter's expense so to speak?

That is if the outfitter resells an unsuccessful hunt. If the outfitter is overselling his quota expecting someone to come up short (or perhaps even ensuring that someone will come up short), that is just flat wrong to me.

I hunted With Glenn 5 years ago. I would hunt Leopard with him any time. I love this pricing idea, and applaud Glenn for offering it.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
If he sells the hunt for same daily rate, he profits twice on the same quota

The reality, assuming we have an honest outfitter who does not intentionally ensure a hunter's failure to re-sell quota, is that his/her ability to exist is financially built upon this normally expected profit derived from some hunters failure and hunt re-selling (even on a last minute, low-cost basis). If we lived in a perfect world where all leopard hunts were 100% successful (which would probably make quota management a great deal easier, by the way) or if outfitters could not re-sell quota the reality is that outfitters (if they wanted to survive as now) would have to dramatically increase the price of all hunts to make up the lost revenue. The economics is interesting really. By definition then, given the present reality, a guy who is successful on a 50% success leopard hunt (where the un-shot quota is re-sold twice afterward) has gotten quite a financial bargain relative to what he would have to pay for in a world where all hunts were an ensured success and relative to what he would have to pay in a theoretical world of lower success and NO quota re-selling. These hypothetical scenarios are probably more honest, but I wonder how many guys would prefer to pay $60K for a 100% successful leopard hunt or the same amount for a 30% successful one with no quota-reselling vs. $30K for one that is 30% successful with re-sold quota. The rational numbers would favor buying the "honest hunt", but I think most hunters are "bargain hunters" and really gamblers who may be more happy with the latter.

Senuko.

2010.

SCI says he's # 44 in the world.

Go hunt with Glenn.