3 Hunters x 1 PH

[JackHobart]

Curious if safaris allow 3 hunters to 1 PH so they can all hunt together. Or is it only 2 with one PH and then the other guy with 1 PH. Even if one or two were observers for that day could you still hunt all together. Thanks

 

[jbaker1]

Is this Battle Creek Bart?

 

[JackHobart]

Sadly no, my friend.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Curious if safaris allow 3 hunters to 1 PH so they can all hunt together. Or is it only 2 with one PH and then the other guy with 1 PH. Even if one or two were observers for that day could you still hunt all together. Thanks

Typically, 2x1 for hunters. (Different countries, different laws)

If you all want to go for a stroll to watch the hunter(s) have at it. The success rate might be dropping like a stone if your entire entourage is crunching along in the bush.

I have always loved going along and assisting other hunters, sharing in the hunt.

 

[mark-hunter]

If three hunters are highly motivated to complete their bag, in limited time, they would be getting in the way of each other, with 1 PH. I dont see how this can work.
Two is good, three is crowd.
Standard industry practice is 2:1, or 1:1.

Even 2:1 can be reduced to 1:1 PH + 1:1 tracker, during short stalks.

Imagine 3 hunters in a 4wd bakkie, each of them to collect 5 animals, in one week, with one PH?

For the local rules and regulations, I dont know.

 

[cal]

I’ve hunted 3:1 a few times and ever 4:1 where the PH is also a friend but these are more casual hunts with friends where it’s more about the fun we have together as mates rather than hard hunting for top quality trophies. We all tag along on the stalks and it is a lot of fun having your friends there. Don’t get me wrong, we do still hunt hard and take the actual hunting seriously when you’re on the gun but not as hard as 1:1. But I live here and can go hunting often. If I was making one trip a year I’d want to limit it to max 2:1. Or 1:1 with a few PH’s in camp. It depends what is more important to you, max number of best for area trophies or fun with friends and some hunting. Remember you won’t only get less animals each but your ph will be under pressure to get opportunities for everyone so he may decide to go for animals he’d otherwise have passed up so trophy quality will drop too. Still old animals but less inches etc. it’s not an easy decision. The banter on the back of the cruiser on a hunt is always great!

 

[Ryan]

Is this just because you all want to hunt together or is the thought of saving money included in that? If it's strictly because you really like to hunt together, possibly, talk with outfitters. If it's the latter, don't.
Realize, in either case you are dividing the PH's attention and time. At the end of a hunt the number of animals hunted will not change much between 1:1 and 2 or 3:1, but now the number taken per hunter decreases. If each person has a few animals they want to hunt you'll need more time, and time is money.

 

[IvW]

2 on 1 max while hunting so if only 2 of 3 are hunting all 3 can go...nobody checks anyway...

Would be a dumb idea to try and hunt 3 on 1 anyway, but that again would depend what all 3 where hunting.....

 

[Justbryan]

A cull hunt might work in this situation and would be a blast (pun intended). Lots of great cull hunts on this cite, look in the deals. Some will let you bring back hides and some allow limited male trophies.

 

[enysse]

Welcome to AH, Jack! I prefer 1x1 hunting but have done plenty of 2x1 hunts. Any more and the quality of the hunt usually goes down.

 

[IvW]

Just not a VC I know of two now with chamber size issues 375 Flanged Magnum and a 450/400 3" and the after sales service seems to be non existant.....

 

[Tbitty]

On my safari, we had 3 hunters (me, my brother, and our step father) and 2 PH in camp. We spent our 5 hunting days splitting time hunting 1:1 and 2:1 getting both the comraderie of hunting with the others plus chances to go for our own trophies. On the final afternoon, we even went to a watering hole blind and sat 3:1 but with specific game in mind so there was no competition of who would shoot or busting animals with too many trying to stalk.

As many have said, 1:1 is the best for trophy hunting, 2:1 is better for hunting with a partner and sharing the experience plus maintaining good stalking or trophy opportunities. 3:1, where allowed, would likely be ideal for lowering total cost, for long trips or groups with short lists, or for the purpose of hunting together.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here, as long as you understand the pros/cons of options and it suits your style. The last thing anyone would want is to have an unsuccessful hunt or feel like they "wasted" money on a trip that didn't meet expectations.

 

[Tanks]

My take in this is that if one is going across the world to hunt it really should be 1:1 not even 2:1 or worse 3:1. Otherwise one is cheating himself. Plenty of time to socialize in the camp or if one finishes their hunt sooner then can tag along with the friend.

One is cutting down the hunting time considerably if one shares a PH.

 

[Tbitty]

My take in this is that if one is going across the world to hunt it really should be 1:1 not even 2:1 or worse 3:1. Otherwise one is cheating himself. Plenty of time to socialize in the camp or if one finishes their hunt sooner then can tag along with the friend.

One is cutting down the hunting time considerably if one shares a PH.

I'd debate this as a matter of situation... for example, The best hunt I had while on safari was with my brother 2:1. With a herd of Blesbok (I was after) and a couple good Black Wildebeest (brothers quarry), we traveled the better part of a mile chasing one then the other until a shot finally presented itself. While the blesbok was not a "priority" trophy to chase on my list, it is among my all time favorite experiences because of the story that goes with it and how my brother was along to share in the adventure.

However, if my goal was to hunt for a specific trophy (however you wish to define that) or maximize my own opportunities to pull the trigger, I 100% agree that 1:1 will provide the best experience to that goal.

It's all a matter of perspective, IMHO.

 

[Tanks]

I think it also depends whether one is at a game farm where the opportunity to take a shot is more or less guaranteed versus hunting in a free range country where one might go days without seeing a shootable animal.

 

[Tally-Ho HUNTING SAFARIS]

Hi all

Law in SA is
2 international clients max per ph for game hunting
Bird hunt with shotguns is as many as you can safely handle

Regards

 

[Tbitty]

I think it also depends whether one is at a game farm where the opportunity to take a shot is more or less guaranteed versus hunting in a free range country where one might go days without seeing a shootable animal.

Excellent point

 

[375Fox]

My take in this is that if one is going across the world to hunt it really should be 1:1 not even 2:1 or worse 3:1. Otherwise one is cheating himself. Plenty of time to socialize in the camp or if one finishes their hunt sooner then can tag along with the friend.

One is cutting down the hunting time considerably if one shares a PH.

For my own hunting and budget I fully agree with you. However, if someone is on a very limited budget, I think they would enjoy 10 days 2:1 much more than 7 days 1:1 and have a better experience with the added days.

 

[C.W. Richter]

'heard of a 3:1 hunt conducted against the PH's will when the booking agent over-sold the hunt to complete strangers. it was a disaster, for all of the above-mentioned reasons (and more in this case.) that said, it's probably do-able on elephant and hippo (with lots of backup shooters on-hand.) perhaps not the safest move, either, which is likely factored into the law.