SOUTH AFRICA: Tootabi Hunting Safaris What Is The Wounded Policy And Billing Issues

[ChasingHemingway]

I understand the need for contracts, but love when I can do business with people I trust with a handshake and both parties do what is right. This is why I only hunt by word of mouth from trusted references.

Wishing you the best in this matter.

dt

 

[sestoppelman]

This is tough for sure. I don't think you should have been charged for the duiker based on your report. The gift charge is a no brainer, shouldn't happen. Nor the extra added days, unless they were actually used.

A couple of times on safari it appeared that I had hit critters that ran off seemingly unscathed. But no blood, no fee as it should be. However I did wound a waterbuck in RSA in '09 that did a backflip at the shot, stood around waiting for me to shoot again while he stood by and bled a quart, then ran off. I thought it was another buck. My PH patiently walked me down to where it stood and showed me the blood on each side of where he stood, bleeding from a very high, but just under the spine shot. He ran off and was never heard from again. We searched for some time next day as this happened near dusk. It hurt, but I paid the fee, some $1600 at that time.

 

[spike.t]

logo cap and shirt are a hello gift . no blood no pay.

 

[daved]

Blood / hair / bone on the ground can indicate a wounded animal.
A blue duiker , the size of a small bread loaf , with a shot gun will definitely show / leave some sign of being hit.
Have to agree with Mike, no blood ,no pay.
Best regards
Dave

 

[lcq]

Both places I hunted had a clear policy, blood found and "shown to the client" you pay. This was made clear before the hunt started

 

[brushmore]

I won't comment on any of your issues but I know from my experiences Loodt is a very straight forward and stand up guy. Sometimes mistakes happen so I wouldn't let this leave a bad taste in your mouth. At least for me, Loodt always took care of things very fairly.

 

[billc]

I must say this really sucks that this happened like it did. I myself hate this policy as it is unfair to both hunters and outfitters. Based on what a lot of guys think with the blood or not. A flesh wound that the animal could still live from could end up costing a hunter some money but then a solid hit animal that takes the bullet and bleeds inside may cost the outfitter. I myself have seen to many animals that have lived with bullets or broadheads in them here in the states to realize blood drawn does not mean a dead animal. Have also seen and been around animals found dead that never bleed at all.

So for all who think the policy is that simple and right I do believe myself it is not perfect in any way.

It is something for also all to learn from and we must realize business can have things like this happen. There would have been some better ways to handle this all by both sides. Hope we can all learn from this and that none of us will have to deal with this in the future.

 

[sestoppelman]

I don't think anyone said no blood, no pay was perfect. Obviously it is not. There is NO perfect solution. But considering what we are talking about, some standard has to be set to determine who pays in the case of an apparent wound. How else could it be done that's better or more fair?

 

[BRICKBURN]

............. I myself hate this policy as it is unfair to both hunters and outfitters. .............

Unfair? Not really.
As a hunter, understand what you have agreed to.

If you damage someones property (game animal) you are liable. Very clear.
(Did your mom never tell you not to touch things in the store as a kid?)
The Outfitter chooses to let you off the hook because he feels that you did not damage his property that badly/significantly, great for you. Otherwise, pay up.
The Outfitter choosing to release you from your liability for the damage is solely up to them.

The method by which the Outfitter proves/demonstrates that damage is what is at dispute.
Blood, etc. being shown to the hunter is the gold standard in Africa. Not, the animal "reacted to the shot".

It appears Royal made a booboo by choosing to modify the method he would accept for the demonstration of damage to the property. The Duiker "reacted" to the shot.

In my mind that "reaction" is basis to investigate the area and to determine if the animal was damaged. Find the proof of damage and determine if payment is required.

There are risks and chance involved in hunting. This is not target shooting at stationary paper targets.
An Outfitter had best have calculated that into his business plan.

Note, everyone has to show up at the rifle range and shoot at a target. Not just checking the rifle. It is checking the hunter. If the hunter can't hit the broadside of a barn, the PH and Outfitter know what they are in for.

If you as a hunter need something to be risk free and "perfect" you had better stay home.

 

[billc]

I don't think anyone said no blood, no pay was perfect. Obviously it is not. There is NO perfect solution. But considering what we are talking about, some standard has to be set to determine who pays in the case of an apparent wound. How else could it be done that's better or more fair?

No but a few are saying it is like a set in stone policy and all that matters. I am saying it is bad way all around.

Would the same people be saying no blood no pay if they watched the animal say at 100yds take the bullet in the guts run off and not bleed but not be found. With the hard stance from those who say no blood no pay that would be an animal not paid for no blood but known to be hit. Like I said had it happen last trip and lucky for us the tracker knew how to track and found it a mile later. Never one drop of blood and it could have ended up totally different for us. We knew it was hit and if we had a lazy tracker or ph it may not have been found. So my friend could have just said I am not paying it did not bleed even knowing it was hit and by the comments no blood no pay period been right to do so. Sometimes common sense goes a long way and better then what gets wrote down in some contract is what I mean.

I myself would pay for an animal I knew I hit and was going to die. But I would also be pissed if I hit an animal that may have bleed a drop but was in no way in any danger of dying from that wound.

 

[billc]

Brickburn for me I just don't need a piece of paper to tell me right from wrong I guess. I always know what I sign up for but also believe common sense should still be used over that piece of paper when needed. As for risk and perfect I think I will take way more chances on things then 99% of the guys on here. My record on hunts I booked and done is pretty good and any problems that have come up have been handled very easily. For the record I have never had signed contract on any of them period.

Because it has been the gold standard in Africa for years that means it should not be tried to be improved on if it can. Hunting in Africa has changed a bunch in the last 10 years as more people go so just saying rules used are still all ok is not smart IMO.

I remember when I start hunting out west. I was in camps and guys would hit a deer or elk and not find it. They would be right out the next day hunting again with no extra fees. You check know a lot of outfitter put in place your hunt is over if you draw blood. Things change and that change was for the better.

 

[UKHunter]

I must say this really sucks that this happened like it did. I myself hate this policy as it is unfair to both hunters and outfitters. Based on what a lot of guys think with the blood or not. A flesh wound that the animal could still live from could end up costing a hunter some money but then a solid hit animal that takes the bullet and bleeds inside may cost the outfitter. I myself have seen to many animals that have lived with bullets or broadheads in them here in the states to realize blood drawn does not mean a dead animal. Have also seen and been around animals found dead that never bleed at all.

So for all who think the policy is that simple and right I do believe myself it is not perfect in any way.

It is something for also all to learn from and we must realize business can have things like this happen. There would have been some better ways to handle this all by both sides. Hope we can all learn from this and that none of us will have to deal with this in the future.

I myself don't have a problem with this policy at all. It promotes clean and ethical shots at which the hunter and his rifle are competent at. Not necessarily confident at, as these two are not always interlinked.

I see a lot of videos on YouTube, etc of hunters taking shots at animals that they are not competent at but feel they can 'make it' or it is a there only chance at it. This is not ethical hunting. There should be as much joy in stalking in close to your quarry to allow a shot you are competent at, as much as culling a beast.

I agree that animals are incredibly tough and resilient and are able to recover from some horrific injuries. However, how are you able to make that judgement call in the field? The shot hasn't gone where you wanted it to and you most likely have no clue where you hit. There has to be a clear line, along the lines of 'you hit it, you pay for it' other wise it just leads to more judgement calls and people's own interpretation of what has happened, and everyone will have their own interpretation. A ' you hit it, you pay for it' scenario leaves both the client and the hunter in a black and white situation where they both know where they stand. It may not be perfect but I fail to see a better method that doesn't lead to more conflict over events and judgement.

Yes, there is not always sign that the animal is hit. There may be no reaction, no blood or hair on the ground but that animal should still be followed up to make sure. This is ethical hunting 'best practice'. A good tracking dog is also key and all PH's should have a capable dog available.

I also believe that we chose a certain outfit and PH to guide our hunts and trust our money into them, from finding animals to ensuring our saftey, etc and we should also keep the same trust in them as to whether or not they think the animal has been hit. To me the PH's call is final. You bought into him and his ability, if he says its hit, its hit. PH's who try and pull one over on a client will soon be found out in this day and age of social media, etc so it would not be in his/her best interest to pull one over on a client and risk their reputation.

This is not all aimed at your comment billc, nor the original post so I hope I have not offended anyone. It is just my opinion on such matters.

 

[Sand Rat]

Here is an example of one the previous client got away with. I shot this black wildebeest last year that had a non life threatening bullet hole through the top of his neck. The PH thought it was a clean miss (no blood) and they later took another bull from the same herd. Point is if every animal that flinches or leaves a drop of blood is charged to the client then the outfitter is making money by reselling the same animal on numerous occasions. There has to be a line drawn somewhere or it's the client who is always on the short end of the stick.
On the subject of the arrival gifts being charged to the client, I hope this was a honest mistake or someone's integrity just went down the drain.

 

[UKHunter]

Here is an example of one the previous client got away with. I shot this black wildebeest last year that had a non life threatening bullet hole through the top of his neck. The PH thought it was a clean miss (no blood) and they later took another bull from the same herd. Point is if every animal that flinches or leaves a drop of blood is charged to the client then the outfitter is making money by reselling the same animal on numerous occasions. There has to be a line drawn somewhere or it's the client who is always on the short end of the stick.
On the subject of the arrival gifts being charged to the client, I hope this was a honest mistake or someone's integrity just went down the drain.

View attachment 43312

I don't understand the issue with paying for wounded animals. As hunters we should practice and be proficient at shooting from different ranges and positions. Missing and wounding animals should not be a common occurrence! If people are not capable of shooting their rifle competently then they should not be hunting animals and should learn how to shoot on the range. I understand anyone can pull a shot or mess one up, but this should not be as common as it seems to be on here.

Stick to shooting at ranges that you are competent at making a clean kill at or dont shoot and get closer. Im not trying to sound high all mighty here, and I have wounded and lost animals but I wouldn't need all my fingers on one hand to count them and I shoot around 80 + animals a year.

Practice, practice, practice and you should have no issues.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

I myself would pay for an animal I knew I hit and was going to die. But I would also be pissed if I hit an animal that may have bleed a drop but was in no way in any danger of dying from that wound.

And just how, pray tell, do you determine this? On Paw print safaris website, they talk of a wildebeest that was shot on three separate occasions. I'm sure that the first two times, they (the hunters) felt that the animal succumbed to it's wounds, and paid for it......yet it didn't die. Should the money for the trophy feeds be refunded to the first two hunters that shot at it, since it didn't die from the wounds?

Another example: My Uncle's boss was hunting his (my Uncle's) property and shot at a small buck, which took off. He found blood and hair, and started tracking it. A short while later, he heard a gun shot and found one of his other employees standing over the carcass of his deer, which he ran up and claimed. He said he fired a 'mortal shot' and the deer was his. The employee called bullshit, and said that the deer was moving just fine and gave no indication of a mortal hit. The boss argued that, by law, the deer was his as he fired a mortal shot. So they looked for the bullet entrance of the "mortal shot". What they found was a deer with two freshly pierced ears! The bullet had gone through the ears, left some blood and hair, but certainly not a 'mortal' hit!

So there is no way that you can say, based on an animals reaction, that it is "going to die", just like you can't say that if you find blood, theanimal is dead. All you can do is come up with some agreed upon terms, and have it contractually written.......and then abide by it.

I've shot at enough critters, big and small, with shotguns to know that there can be gaps in the pattern and every frickin' shot pellet will miss the mark........and I've seen it happen with squirrels where they drop to the ground and twist and turn like they are going to expire any second and then just as quickly jump on the nearest tree and scurry up to scold you and sit there, out of range, as if to give you the finger, for the rest of the morning.

Since I don't know either of the individuals involved in this, or the particulars as to shotgun gauge, load, choke, range, etc, etc, I won't comment on who is right or wrong....because, frankly, I wasn't there. If you feel that you hit the animal and made a mortal hit, and feel responsible enough to pay for it, then bully for you!!! But if the contract says "no blood/no pay", then I feel your off the hook. If even the smallest amount of blood was found, however, then you are required to pay.

 

[UKHunter]

Just to add further to what seems to be an interesting debate on a key issue.

In Europe if you badly shoot an animal, eg shot in the spine, guts or haunch then you have to pay a damage fee for the condition of the carcass. In the UK a gut shot deer is not allowed to be sold into the food chain, so if client A shoot a Roe buck through the guts, the outfitter cannot sell that venison on and is at a loss as a result of poor shooting from the client. Client A then has to pay the rate the outffiter would have gotten for the selling the carcass.

I have no issue with this policy as it helps to promote ethical shots.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Not going to argue with the last series of posts, but lets take a moment and think about this situation again. The vast majority of hits versus clean misses for me have been quite evident right at the shot. Animal reaction and that "thwap" sound of a bullet hitting something greatly made up of fluid tells the story immediately in most situations. The continuing echo of a shot as the bullet continues to travel is usually a sure sign of a miss.

But certainly this doesn't apply in all situations. In this case we're talking a very small animal hunted with a shotgun at obviously close range. So no hit sound to be certain. The animal apparently ducked a bit and took off running but no blood was found. So who makes the call in this non-obvious situation and what is the written standard by which to make the call? That is the problem here folks.

Some standard understood by both PH and client needs to be applied in these questionable scenarios. Is no blood / no pay perfect and always fair? No, but I'd rather have that then some sort of floating around criteria, at least I know where I stand with the no blood / no pay rule.

 

[TokkieM]

NO BLOOD NO MONEY!!! Fair on the Outfitter or fair to the client is not the issue here. Loodt and Royal agreed and it was in the contract no blood no money, that is the issue and I think Royal has been shortchanged. The other extra charges also does not sit well with me,3 mistakes one invoice is not exactly a common mistake.

I have had a client miss a Springbuck,the shot went about 2 meters short hit some rock (not hard to do in the EC) rock blew up and nicked the Springbuck,superficial cuts on the leg showed clear blood at that distance, animal was followed up and killed. Client paid without questions.
Every animal reacts at the shot ( only dead ones don't) not every shot is a hit in Africa unless you want to make a quick "buck".
Outfitters/PH's are in the business by choice and deliver a service,one would be to confirm a hit or a miss and they should be "bloody" good at it as it's their bread and butter. Having no dog that can track blood,bone,gut shots etc is a choice. Just like "stacking" a invoice.

Mistakes can be made by both hunter and Outfitter,it's called school fees,in this case the wrong guy paid.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

I don't understand the issue with paying for wounded animals. As hunters we should practice and be proficient at shooting from different ranges and positions. Missing and wounding animals should not be a common occurrence! If people are not capable of shooting their rifle competently then they should not be hunting animals and should learn how to shoot on the range. I understand anyone can pull a shot or mess one up, but this should not be as common as it seems to be on here.

Stick to shooting at ranges that you are competent at making a clean kill at or dont shoot and get closer. Im not trying to sound high all mighty here, and I have wounded and lost animals but I wouldn't need all my fingers on one hand to count them and I shoot around 80 + animals a year.

Practice, practice, practice and you should have no issues.

UKHunter;
I don't think that it's "common", but it does happen. Yes, we as hunters should practice our marksmanship.....however, the range that I shoot at only allows shooting "off the bench", i.e. sandbags, etc. No off hand, kneeling, sitting, prone, etc. Better than nothing, but hardly perfect.
The other thing to remember is that not everyone who hunts (esp. here in the States) does so ethically. There are those who blast away at a target 100 yards away, and if the hit anywhere on the paper, say "Ah, that's close enough", case their gun and go home. Then there are the group who have seen too many sniper movies, and feel that shooting at anything visible is doable, because they saw someone do it on a TV show or in a movie one time, and dammit.....if he can do it, so can I. And then he has something to brag about....whether he hit it or not. And the firearms makers feed into this by bringing out 4,00000000x scopes and cartridges that the claim will circumvent gravity and shoot bullets at the speed of light.
When I grew up, hunting used to be about getting close, without being noticed by your quarry, whether it was game or your cousins (we used to have pine cone wars when I was a kid). At any rate, all that has changed, and since American hunters don't have to 'pay' for their animals like African or European hunters do, if you make a bad hit, you just chalk it up to experience and go find another........sad, but true.

I try to encourage others to look at how game management/hunting are in the U.K., Europe, and Africa, but by the reaction I get, you'd think I was married to Ingrid Newkirk (yuck!).

Just to add further to what seems to be an interesting debate on a key issue.

In Europe if you badly shoot an animal, eg shot in the spine, guts or haunch then you have to pay a damage fee for the condition of the carcass. In the UK a gut shot deer is not allowed to be sold into the food chain, so if client A shoot a Roe buck through the guts, the outfitter cannot sell that venison on and is at a loss as a result of poor shooting from the client. Client A then has to pay the rate the outffiter would have gotten for the selling the carcass.

I have no issue with this policy as it helps to promote ethical shots.

In the states, it is illegal to sell any game animal after it has been taken for food. These are laws that were enacted near the turn of the last century to correct the devastation that market hunt caused, primarily to waterfowl populations, but to wild life in general. There is also a poaching side of things, where deer a shot just for their antlers, so some A-hole can put them on the wall and tell everyone that he shot that big buck........lots of illegal money changing hands that way.......I told it's second only to drug dealing.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

Would the same people be saying no blood no pay if they watched the animal say at 100yds take the bullet in the guts run off and not bleed but not be found.

Again, I ask the question: If you found no blood, and didn't find the animal, how do you know it was hit? How do you know that that animal "took a bullet in the guts"?? How do you know it didn't hunch up or jerk or move for some reason other than being struck by a bullet? Maybe the bullet passed underneith the animal, or it reacted the way it did because it stumbled on a snake or something else that spooked it as you pulled the trigger??

Again, I say you can't.................