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

I don’t take making this post lightly and have put much time and thought into it before deciding to do so. At the end of the day though, I’ve decided that this is information that should be shared and hope that it can help others, both client and outfitter, in the future.

So as anyone who read my Tootabi hunt report is aware I hunted blue duiker while there, in post 36 (Day Six) I reported wounding a blue duiker, but without blood being found.

http://www.africahunting.com/threads/south-africa-tootabi-with-the-wife-a-family-affair.22604/page-2

Tootabi’s wounded animal policy is very clear and stated below:

Wounded/Harvested Trophies

Any animal wounded/hit (where blood is drawn) and found OR lost will be deemed as taken. The full trophy fee will apply.

In the case of the blue duiker this policy was not followed by Tootabi, but rather a judgment call was made by the PH and dog man based solely on the animal’s reaction, as no blood was found. I agree fully that the duiker reacted to something upon the shot. That is not the issue. The issue is that under the contract I did not wound the animal, regardless of how it reacted.

In retrospect, I should have fallen back to the contract to decide whether or not the animal was wounded. I wasn’t thinking clearly and told Loodt afterward that I would pay the trophy fee as charged based on the judgment call. This is where I personally made a mistake. I should not have told Loodt I would pay the fee. Loodt is aware that if I had it all to do over again I wouldn’t have agreed to the trophy fee and would have used the wounded rule within the Tootabi Contract to make this determination. That is after all why the rule is there. But, I told Loodt I would pay the fee and felt (and still feel) obligated based upon that alone. So I have paid the fee in full.

As a client though, it bothers me that rules were used by the outfitter during the hunt that directly conflicted with the written contract. If different wounded rules had been discussed and disclosed for blue duiker due to the size of the animal and a shotgun being used that would be different, but they weren’t. In my opinion this is where Loodt didn’t act as I would expect a premier outfitter to act. Loodt should have followed his own contract, or at least suggested a discount due to the lack of information given on his part. Instead, I was still charged the full trophy fee and Tootabi still made full profit from it.

The second issue I had was when it came to the bill. Extra charges had been added, including additional observer days and Tootabi merchandise. Both of these were removed upon dispute, but never should have been there in the first place. We had agreed upon the days and rates as part of the preliminary invoice and no dates changed, but extra days were still added after the fact. Fortunately I kept the pre-hunt invoice and had it for comparison. I was given the merchandise for which I was charged upon arrival. I didn’t ask for it, or expect it. Had Loodt told me there was going to be a charge I would not have accepted, nor worn the merchandise. I understand that billing mistakes can be made. I don’t however; believe that a mistake was made in this particular case as everything had to be added to the bill after the fact.

I’ve tried to lay out the facts here as I believe them to be, and invite @Tootabi Hunting Safaris to tell the story from his side. Then each individual can draw their own conclusions as to what happened, or should have happened.

Moral of the story from my point of view:

1. Don’t agree to things outside of a contract in the heat of the moment. Give yourself some time, or it could cost you money, or more.

2. Know the contract and ensure that you stick to it. Only you can protect you, others may not.

3. Always check your bill closely even if it should be straightforward. Not doing so can again cost you money.



Royal

Could not agree more on the merchandize. Not sure I understand the extra observer days issue. The observer was either there or not?

With respect to the duiker, you agreed you wounded it. I would urge you to try and let that one go. Every outfitter handles that sort of thing differently. Several years ago I made a high neck shot on an oryx. He dropped instantly, but scrambled up and was away as we started down the ridge. No chance for a follow-up shot. My PH (Nick Nolte) refused to charge me for the animal - I even argued with him. Blamed himself for not letting me cover it longer before we started off the ridge. Over time those things have a way of evening out.

Here is my take on this blue duiker. Blood not drawn but looked hit with weapon being shotgun. Good chance there maybe no blood drawn but animal could die or live. If you and the others thought it was hit good chance he was.One of those rules that makes it very unclear really to me. Many animals get hit but never bleed. On my trip my friend lenny hit a blue wildebeest back in the liver. He never bleed a drop in a mile of tracking but was found stone dead. We knew it was hit and would of paid trophy fees with no blood on the ground at all if not found. Same hunt I hit an impala and no blood but blow a chunk of meat off it back leg. Hit is a hit blood or not in my eyes. I paid Pieter for that impala as no chance he was going to make it in my mind.
The extra obs fee would need to see if extra days were added to package to decide on that one. As for charging for shirts or hats I would be having a chat with him.

I remember my first hunt with Jacques at hartzview and thinking of this happening. Dakota took a shot at a kudu and we could not tell if it was hit or not. I was really worried about it and did not know what would happen. We searched looked found no blood then he brought bullet the wonder dog in. Bullet ran around and at the time I have no idea what was going on. Bullet ran back to Jacques he picked him up went back to the truck. I ask what do we do now and the answer was go hunt another kudu. He said it was a clean miss no problem at all. I was like how are you so sure he said bullet would let him know if it was hit just by the scent off his track.

Deciding is all on the guys that are there and this should have be done then or as soon as all who make this call were around. I myself see mistakes made by you and loodt.

First off, thanks for bringing it up.

Royal27 said:

.................
As a client though, it bothers me that rules were used by the outfitter during the hunt that directly conflicted with the written contract. ..........................l

Click to expand...

When you reference the "Outfitter" here are you referring to Loodt? or someone else?
i.e. the PH and the Dog Guy make some call

Is changing the trophy fee or day rate acceptable?
Modifying "the rules" or terms of engagement mid stream is not acceptable.

Royal27 said:

..............

Moral of the story from my point of view:

1. Don’t agree to things outside of a contract in the heat of the moment. Give yourself some time, .......................

2. Know the contract and ensure that you stick to it. ...................

3. Always check your bill closely even if it should be straightforward. ..........................

Click to expand...

Good advice.

With regard to #1, If you have taken time to think it through, please do agree to terms that are mutually acceptable.

There is pressure to shoot, as you noted in your report.
This is one place where an assertiveness course will come in handy.
If you do not feel safe or don't know which animal or are unclear in any way.
Don't succumb to; "Shoot! SHOOOT!"


There is pressure to be buddies to.
However, at the end of the day or hunt, money will be expected and during the hunt performance will be expected of the Outfitter and PH.
If all those expectations are not met, someone is not going to be happy.

"cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."

The bill:
Honest mistakes can occur. However, Padding the bill also happens.
I have witnessed it personally and heard others complain of these encounters .
If someone catches it; "Oops", we'll just change that.
If the question never arises because the person does not read the bill. No issue.
It often relies on the clients arrogance and ego to really be taken advantage of.

billc said:

I remember my first hunt with Jacques at hartzview and thinking of this happening. Dakota took a shot at a kudu and we could not tell if it was hit or not. I was really worried about it and did not know what would happen. We searched looked found no blood then he brought bullet the wonder dog in. Bullet ran around and at the time I have no idea what was going on. Bullet ran back to Jacques he picked him up went back to the truck. I ask what do we do now and the answer was go hunt another kudu. He said it was a clean miss no problem at all. I was like how are you so sure he said bullet would let him know if it was hit just by the scent off his track.

Deciding is all on the guys that are there and this should have be done then or as soon as all who make this call were around. I myself see mistakes made by you and loodt.

Click to expand...

Bill, it is a testament of training and trust that a PH and Outfitter has such a good dog that they trust it implicitly with very expensive decisions.
"Bullet" showed up, was placed on the track and came back. That is certainly a sign of no blood.
If the dog can not find scent I am with Jacques.
Glad he had that ability to settle it in a definitive manner.

Red Leg said:

Not sure I understand the extra observer days issue. The observer was either there or not?

Click to expand...

The observer was there, myself included for the last few days. My point was that more days were included on the final bill than we were there for, or agreed to.

billc said:

I myself see mistakes made by you and loodt.

Click to expand...

I agree Bill. No argument here.

BRICKBURN said:

When you reference the "Outfitter" here are you referring to Loodt? or someone else?
i.e. the PH and the Dog Guy make some call

Is changing the trophy fee or day rate acceptable?
Modifying "the rules" or terms of engagement mid stream is not acceptable.

Click to expand...

I mean Loodt as he was the person I had the agreement with and I felt the rules of engagement were modified mid stream.

Royal

Now you have been having a and want to have an open forum discussion.

When you indicated that the animal was wounded, that ended that topic in my mind. Plus, You agreed to pay the trophy fee, therefor it was a done deal.

Changes to observer charges should have been outlined or covered in your contract. Any changes would need to be talked about at the time, and not after you left.

Anyway have fun...fanning the flames....

It seems to me that if the duiker was hit the dogs would have been able to catch him as just a few pellets would make a big difference. I know I don't want any "gifts" that I will be charged for!

Would you mind sharing the fee for the blue duiker? Just curious.

Hmm, I may be a bit confused. Some of you who have posted seem to believe @Royal27 has said he believed the animal was wounded. Re-reading his original post, I don't see that. What I read was, and I realize this may be splitting hairs, "I agree fully that the duiker reacted to something upon the shot." Not sure exactly what Royal means here, but the animal simply running away unharmed could be reacting to the shot. It seems Royal is in fact disputing if the animal was wounded and per the contract definition.

Just wanting to make sure things are clear here.

No blood no money,especially if there was a dog available,they would pick up blood in a heartbeat. I understand why you paid,but there should have been no discussion as blood was not found. We have had Blue Duiker drop with one pellet in it.

The extra days could have been a honest mistake ( I hope so).
Charging for merchandise given to you is a no go in my book,if you asked for extra caps or shirts diffrent story.

Royal,

You took plenty of time to think this over since your trip. This obviously bothered you to bring up.


Here are a couple of thoughts from a demented age warped mind:

1. Merchandise - An outfitter should never charge for merchandise unless the hunter requests it. If a hunter wears outfitter merchandise in daily life or in a hunting report, the outfitter should consider it marketing material well spent. Otherwise it should be considered a gift from the outfitter to the hunter and the price considered a cost of doing business and hidden in the daily rates if need be.

2. Extra days - Hopefully an accident. When coupled with other ad on's ......

3. Diker - If you are paying for a dogman to have a hunting dog for diker, the dog should be good enough to follow up an animal that is wounded hard enough to die IMHO. billc brought up Bullet. I have been fortunate to see Bullet work and he is top notch. In your report you state that a tracker followed the diker further than the dog. If that is the case, you had a pathetic dog (or unwounded diker) and Loodt should take that into consideration when it comes to fees.

If you wound an animal, you owe the fee IMHO. If there is no blood per the contract, Loodt should consider negotiating the fee down if you press the situation or waive the fee per the contract. The fact that you had a dog that couldn't follow the diker further than a tracker reflects poorly on the outfitter. (Provided the diker was wounded. ) If a good dog was with you on the hunt......

I feel for African outfitters that have to hunt multiple farms. They are stuck with one price and set of rules for the hunter but if they are trying to get the hunter the best animal, they have to negotiate side deals with other landowners to try to make things work. These side deals may be in direct conflict with their contract. (drawing blood) Not sure if this was the case or not.

Glad you are able to get this off your chest. Also glad you brought the topic up. Hopefully it will help others in the future!

All the best.

BRICKBURN said:

The bill:
Honest mistakes can occur. However, Padding the bill also happens.
I have witnessed it personally and heard others complain of these encounters .
If someone catches it; "Oops", we'll just change that.
If the question never arises because the person does not read the bill. No issue.
It often relies on the clients arrogance and ego to really be taken advantage of.

Click to expand...

+1

billc said:

Here is my take on this blue duiker. Blood not drawn but looked hit with weapon being shotgun. Good chance there maybe no blood drawn but animal could die or live. If you and the others thought it was hit good chance he was.One of those rules that makes it very unclear really to me. Many animals get hit but never bleed.

Click to expand...

totally agree there!

ive taken many many fox and coyote with a shotgun. some even at ten feet! no joke there. and quite often, maybe just under half the time there is no visible blood from my shot which is only 4buck.

another instance I had was while in the Limpopo, I arrowed a baboon and it was a definite clean hit! never found the sucker and he never bled! it was not a pass through and I did only recover the last maybe 5 inches of my arrow...

hunthardsafaris said:

No blood no money,...............

Click to expand...

That is easy to understand and clear.

1. A friend wounded a Blue Wildebeest last trip. It took off like it was not even hit.
The tracker went to the spot where it was shot and picked up a piece of red fat had the size of a dime and kept it on his thumb to show the hunter when he came back down the mountain.
It was proof.
Shortly after the beest hit a road it became quite apparent that there was a trophy fee being paid.
Recovery took some time but it was done.
Nice when it is clear.


2. I had a discussion with a PH about wounding and the policy on the property mid hunt, just to be clear. Sometimes he did not charge if it was a flesh would by a Broadhead, in his estimation most of the time the animal recovered. (News to me) Otherwise, it bleeds you bought it.

Shortly after this discussion I happened to take a shot at a Impala Ewe.
I have zero idea how I missed. Well, it turned out I did not miss.
There was a small piece of skin and a minuscule piece of meat attached. Think less than half the end of a .22 bullet diameter.
There was zero blood trail, but that little piece at the point of impact was the proof I had hit it.
I just looked at the PH, shook my head at my shooting, and said "add that one to the account".
I had discussed the policy agreed to it by shooting and hitting the critter.

Now, Royal you can imagine the difference in the pain from the fee for a Ewe Impala vs Blue Duiker Trophy.

I wish they were all so clear.

billc said:

. We searched looked found no blood then he brought bullet the wonder dog in. Bullet ran around and at the time I have no idea what was going on. Bullet ran back to Jacques he picked him up went back to the truck. I ask what do we do now and the answer was go hunt another kudu. He said it was a clean miss no problem at all. I was like how are you so sure he said bullet would let him know if it was hit just by the scent off his track.
.

Click to expand...

Bullet on the right. Roxie on the left.

Great hunters in a small package.

no to get of topic but pictures I just love to share. That dam dog is amazing is all I can say. No blood needed to track does it by the scent a wounded animal puts out through the hoof. I never even heard of that but seen first hand how bullet did it with no blood with dozen of animals around also tracked the wounded animal. .

So to be clear. I don't know if the duiker was wounded, or not. It was running at the shot and ducked down a bit as it was running. Could of it have been hit? Yes. Could have it been the wind whistling by its ear, pellet's hitting the ground, or the result of most of the load hitting a tree just behind it causing the reaction? Yes. I've totally missed animals before and had them duck, this wouldn't be the first time.

I completely agree with those who say if I know i wounded the animal that it is the end of the story. I didn't know though. I went on someone else's judgment, not my own. I shouldn't have and that was a mistake I now will live with. This is all a principal issue for me.... I would not have brought this up had there been a drop of blood, a piece of hide, or even verbal conversation before hand that any type of physical reaction would be a wound, regardless of blood, but none of that happened.

On my first safari it was clearly stated that any of the aquatics would be considered hit if the trigger was pulled as you obviously couldn't find blood in the water. The expectations were clear, although different from an animal on land. Regardless of what you think of that policy it is very clear.

As far as the dogs went they didn't really follow the duiker past where I shot. The tracker literally followed tracks further than the dogs did scent and I'must guessing he followed 50 yards or so? The dogs did nothing and certainly never got excited or acted like they had found anything.

I don't know that I will respond here much after this. I think with this last post I've made my side of the story and my belief pretty clear now. I have no intention of trying to get anyone to feel sorry for me, to agree with me, nor do I want any money back. That is not what this is about.

No blood, no trophy fee. Reaction to a shot is subject to one's interpretation and can cause disputes among parties. When there is a contract in place and money at stake, there must be a clear line drawn.
That line is blood.