Chaps,

This is a great offer and I promoted the two tier pricing system a while back and have kept with it and can boast 100% success. Lions in Zambia are going at a ridiculous price and I have sold mine on success.

The beauty of this pricing is that when the hunter pulls the trigger he knows that this is the cat of his dreams and is fully prepared to pay the full price.

Just ask Frosbit.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
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.

Mike, I tread lightly into this discussion with you knowing that I was the second hunter that came along and successfully shot the lion you hunted prior to my safari back in 2012 and seeing it isn't your first commentary on the subject, I'm not sure if said commentaries are general or specific in nature. I would place money on it being general.

But I'd say the flaw in your logic is that although the outfitter profited from your daily rate and mine, he also put out the effort / assets / expenditures twice as well. He only profited on the TF portion once (if at all in my case). The daily rate portion was paid for two separate safaris that incurred two separate sets of expenses and the outfitter cannot be expected to take two guys out on safari to make a profit on one while just covering expenses on the second. His time and resources are being expended in order to make a profit. He makes a larger profit if the hunter is successful by also sharing in the TF. My comments on the matter are specific to our shared outfitter as I think we both agree they are 100% on the up and up. That's not to say the scenario hasn't been abused by other outfitters and I can't imagine the frustration one would experience if "taken for the ride" with no intention of being allowed to shoot a cat so that a later hunter could.

But in my case, I didn't pay an "exaggerated" trophy fee upon shooting the lion. I paid a "reduced" trophy fee, probably just enough to cover the cost of the governmental fee so that it wasn't wasted. I also paid a "reduced" additional daily rate on top of the DR for the safari I already had booked, mainly to cover the added cost / workload of conducting a lion hunt instead of a buffalo / tuskless (as I stated earlier, cat hunts are much more involved regarding work and expenditures required over and above a simple PG hunt).

All that said, I hate to see what happened to Glenn's offering here. As you pointed out, he attempted to shift some of the risk of a cat hunt onto himself to the benefit of the hunter and got raked over the coals for it. But let's be straight, Shootaway is the one that flung the first pile of dung ... as is so often the case.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Chaps,

This is a great offer and I promoted the two tier pricing system a while back and have kept with it and can boast 100% success. Lions in Zambia are going at a ridiculous price and I have sold mine on success.

The beauty of this pricing is that when the hunter pulls the trigger he knows that this is the cat of his dreams and is fully prepared to pay the full price.

Just ask Frosbit.

$25,000 when I pulled the trigger on that Lion. I never regretted it and still don't.

Perhaps success is measured by a dead animal. For me success came long before that Lion died. Joyce and I experienced an amazing close blind encounter with a young lion that would only have been killed in self defense and later the mature Lion was shot face to face over no bait with a walk up outside camp.

If it's only about the dollars then we are all cutting ourselves short. At least in my definition.

If Joyce and I had been unsuccessful on that hunt concerning getting a lion, Andrew would have had others fill that tag later. With that I certainly would not have deemed that hunt unsuccessful, nor would I resent Andrew selling a later hunt for the same quarry. There were far too may other priceless moments.

Cheers
Jim

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.

Great, if we followed your plan.... now we have the guys on one side saying, your Lion has to be 5 or 6 years old and now you saying, if I don't like the look, angle of the shot or whatever of this 5/6 year old lion, then I'm on the hook for a trophy fee. What ever happened to letting the customer (hunter) decide what he wanted to do. I applaud the guys who are attempting to offer a new business model for hunting. I truely hope it is successful for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

All that said, I hate to see what happened to Glenn's offering here. As you pointed out, he attempted to shift some of the risk of a cat hunt onto himself to the benefit of the hunter and got raked over the coals for it.

I don't know that he has been raked over the coals at all. Rather I think his offer has sparked some interesting dialogue about cat pricing that will become more and more important as prices continue to rise on leopard and lion in particular. I really don't see a lot of people continuing to be content with $1500-$2000 a day rates on Leopard. Outfitters who price more in Glenn's way will benefit...but ultimately people need to understand why and how this pricing works for everyone.

Think about it this way....figure a quota of two cats with an average success rate of 50%. So, the options for the outfitter needing a profit of $x in a year are generally....

1) The current system where a guy sells an average of four 14 day hunts at $1500 a day and a $6000 trophy fee....but, if he's honest, he doesn't sell all four in advance but limps through the year maybe selling the second cat at a hefty discount late in the season. Clearly not ideal given the uncertainty involved. So, that's $84,000 in daily rates and $12K in trophy fees. Expected revenue then is a maximum of $96,000 to pay the bills (assuming no late season discounting).

Or...

2) An outfitter can be up-front and sell four hunts at $500 per day generating $28,000 in revenue and charge a $34K trophy fee for each cat (or a bit more in case it's sometimes (or even regularly) the first two guys who get their cats).

On average, over the long term, the expected revenue is the same from the outfitters perspective. The outfitter could even be 100% straight up with all clients, and I suspect they would appreciate it, by saying..."OK, we are selling four of these RIGHT NOW for a quota of only two cats. If the quota is taken by the first two cat hunters, then the two remaining clients have the option of delaying and then being the #1 and #2 guys on the hunt for next years quota or can come now for plains game at the same daily rate". The outfitter could even increase the trophy fee a bit on the successful cat hunters to compensate the clients who don't get to hunt that year (due to shot quota) for their purchase of trip insurance or their incurred cost of cancelled air tickets. I really think most clients would appreciate the transparent nature of such an arrangement! As mentioned above, the more I think about it, it probably would also be wise to impose a hefty penalty if a hunter passed on (or missed) a cat...but only if he didn't get a cat later in the same hunt and especially if that hunter were one of the second two to shoot quota later in the season due to the (no fault) failure of one or two previous hunters.

Further, in the first case above, the guys who get their cats are effectively subsidized by those who do not whereas in the latter case the payments to the outfitter are more fair and "results based" which I suspect most clients (in spite of all the jawboning about "I pay to hunt, not kill") would actually prefer.


JMHO

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
What ever happened to letting the customer (hunter) decide what he wanted to do.

You can have that...but I don't think we should think of it as being "free" because it really is not. In order to get that flexibility to "pass", we are paying an inflated daily rate. If we all wanted a "fair" hunt in which we only paid for what we got (assuming success is the desired outcome here) then we would have to pay a theoretical price to avoid the situation I described above...where the unsuccessful guys are subsidizing the guys who connect. That price is found in a potential charge if we muck it up or pass for some stupid reason.

I personally believe that the outfitter with a good rep on not being full of BS, like Glen, should be accepted at face value. Personally I am very very pro this type of deal, low daily and high trophy. It places the onus on us to produce for the client. Having discussed this with two operators/outfitters only last week, the fear was abuse from the hunters side!!! I know that there are people out there who would take advantage of this from both sides. Our discussion revolved around an unsold lion tag. There are two real nice lion that I am convinced could be taken, so why not put my cock on the block for it and offer it for low daily/high trophy.

I do like it when the risk is clearly identified and both parties understands how it works - so full respect for the offer tabled by Glen.
Christopher Moore, you write that the "fear was abused from the hunters side" - I'm somehow lost here, how did that happen ?

The guys were concerned that clients would take advantage of the low trophy fees, ie plains game rates with no intention of ever pulling the trigger on a 30k lion. Personally, I believe that this can be mitigated by a referral type arrangement, ie from repeat clients on AR. I feel that I could find a nice dagga boy for you and am willing to put my cock on the block for it, as I would lion, croc, hippo, bushbuck at this time. So by me offering a break even daily rate, I would hope this would show my absolute faith that I can produce for you. I have been following this with interest!

Bad grammar involved there to huntfish!!! My apologies!!!

Christopher, got it now. Guess I'm a naïve bugger. I hunt and I enjoy the pursuit, the whole experience and the taking of game. Why would anyone not take it all the way to complete the circle.
But then, I only book hunts I can afford and make sure I carry the dough to pay me bills.
I really do hope Glen sells this one to someone that will reach out and shake hand on a good deal.

100%!!!