I'm a total newB when it comes to African hunting but I'm trying to get things together for a first plains game hunt in 2011. I'm wondering what the pros & cons would be between South Africa vs. Namibia for the kind of hunt I'm looking for. I've been e-mailing back and forth with a few people I've met on the site and so far they're recommending R.S.A. I'm more interested in free-range, wide open or spot & stalk type hunting with reasonably plentiful game. I'll be hunting with my dad who is 61, but he's the kind of guy who still lives on the back of dirt bikes & snowmobiles - real mountain riding, not trail stuff. We mostly hunt mule deer & elk in Idaho and Wyoming with a little bird hunting in the Midwest. Mountains and a little uneven terrain are OK within reason. Tents and campfires would be better than 5 star hotels and swimming pools, but I'm not terribly picky as long as the hunting is great. South Africa seems to be a common recommendation for a first trip, but I'm hearing awfully good things about Namibia too. I've also noticed that trophy fees and daily rates are substantially lower on average in Namibia. Why is that? Is it a supply/demand thing? If all other things are equal (I'm sure they're not), it seems that it would be possible to take more game with less financial pressure riding on each pull of the trigger. I'm primarily after kudu, gemsbok, impala, and possibly zebra. I wouldn't mind taking smaller antelope or a warthog as the opportunity arises. Going home without one or more of these would be OK if the overall hunt was enjoyable. I'd really like to get a kudu though - doesn't have to be a monster - just something nice to put on the wall and remind me of the place. I'm sure there is no right or wrong answer here. I'm sure the quality of the hunt depends more on the PH and hunting area more than the specific country. I'm just curious which you would recommend and why.