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

[siml]

@BRICKBURN , my English isn't that good...could you please paint me a picture...

 

[BRICKBURN]

@BRICKBURN , my English isn't that good...could you please paint me a picture...

Call your Lawyer. He'll help you out!

 

[siml]

 

[Stocky]

Sounds like a dumb contract to me. On the outfitters part that is. Hit animals many times don't bleed, at least not enough to recover any. I shot an eland once three times in the shoulder with a .375 / 300 Barnes. He finally tipped over but there was no blood to speak of, wasn't dripping or anything. If he decided to take off, what's the verdict? Lots of examples of this.

My personal rule is if I hit him I pay for him, regardless of the outcome. 99% of the time, you know. Sometimes you can see it as they run away, sometimes there's hair and/or fluid but no blood. I guess if the contract was specific to finding blood, the landowner would be hosed?

I recently missed a monster reedbuck with the crossbow that we had been hunting three days for. My PH, a guy I've taken 50 animals with, declared "you got him" because it sure sounded like a hit when the arrow went through the high reeds he was standing in. I knew I missed him because I saw the arrow go low in the scope, plus I knew my hold was too low by misjudging his shoulder position on a small-bodied species standing chin-deep in the grass, plus we all watched the ram run off for about 3/4 of a mile with no evidence of a hit. We even went back the next morning and looked for four solid hours, no hair, no blood and couldn't find the arrow. If he was hit we'd have either seen it sticking out of the critter or laying on the ground some distance behind him in the case of a pass-thru.

The last thing I want is to be on some guys valuable property, hunting his valuable game, and argue that I missed only to have the animal be found dead a couple days later. My credibility along with the ability to hunt that property again is on the line after all.

FYI, landowner called the PH a few days later and said he just saw the critter, alive, well and unscathed, and invited us back anytime we wanted for another crack at him!

 

[Johnny7604]

Wow 21 pages and I think I have it figured out. Royal and Loodt had a n unsettled issue which seems to have been sorted. Many lessons were learned by many people. Regardless of who, what, why I think it was an interesting point and topic of discussion.

More importantly Jaco has had jumped both feet or boobs as it may on the Bruce Jenner bandwagon and now has a Rowland Ward class set of tits! Did I miss anything? I mostly skimmed the non-pictorial parts.

 

[ActionBob]

Sounds like a dumb contract to me.

I would like to offer a different perspective on this that I'm not sure has been pointed out adequately.

A good contract is one that is definitive. What is being discussed widely on this thread seems to be efforts to make such contracts subjective. As soon as you leave something subjective, you leave it up for discussion, debate, and ultimately argument, disagreement and someone feeling slighted. Bad for anyone involved and bad for business.

It is difficult or perhaps impossible in these matters to be more definitive that "draw blood and you pay the trophy fee". I believe this has been the rule in the African Trophy Hunting Industry for some time and it has served pretty well. It is simple, straight forward and not up for debate! May be only a drop but blood is blood... definitive.

It puts the onus on the PH and trackers to find blood, and hopefully thus a track to follow and make every attempt to find and finish a wounded animal. And it provides proof to the client/customer that he did indeed hit the animal. And encourages not just shooting indiscriminately, which can happen in places without such rules like in much of the USA.

Let's not be to quick to throw out what has worked better than anything else for a long time. That rule could possibly be considered an iconic part of the African hunting tradition.

 

[KWALATA SAFARIS]

I would like to offer a different perspective on this that I'm not sure has been pointed out adequately.

A good contract is one that is definitive. What is being discussed widely on this thread seems to be efforts to make such contracts subjective. As soon as you leave something subjective, you leave it up for discussion, debate, and ultimately argument, disagreement and someone feeling slighted. Bad for anyone involved and bad for business.

It is difficult or perhaps impossible in these matters to be more definitive that "draw blood and you pay the trophy fee". I believe this has been the rule in the African Trophy Hunting Industry for some time and it has served pretty well. It is simple, straight forward and not up for debate! May be only a drop but blood is blood... definitive.

It puts the onus on the PH and trackers to find blood, and hopefully thus a track to follow and make every attempt to find and finish a wounded animal. And it provides proof to the client/customer that he did indeed hit the animal. And encourages not just shooting indiscriminately, which can happen in places without such rules like in much of the USA.

Let's not be to quick to throw out what has worked better than anything else for a long time. That rule could possibly be considered an iconic part of the African hunting tradition.

100% spot on.