This brings up another item that is the 'norm' in a lot of African hunting, expecially southern Africa, and that is the dependance on profits from jacked up trophy fees. The landowner sets a list of fees for game that the safari operator has to pay for each animal his clients kill and then the operator tacks on an extra percentage for profit over and above the daily rates being charged. Lets face it, operators are happiest with clients that want to take a lot of game as it boosts profits. This is not the norm with most North American hunting. The hunt cost is the price of the hunt. Period.
SKYLINE I must respectfully disagree on the basis of North America, and Africa are two different places with costs for each that are not exactly the same. You are correct that RSA, and TEXAS have some similarities, and because the game is owned, it has a price no matter if you hunt it or buy it, and a profit is indicated to the owner of that livestock, and the PH he sells it to is intitaled to a profit on what he buys in your behalf as well. Not all of Africa is the same, but all animals in Africa belong to someone, be it the land owner or the government who sells the quotas to the outfitters.
Many of the safaris I've been on do not charge for things like Jackel, but it is not because they don't want to make money, but because the jackels do a lot of damage in their areas where their clients do a lot of bird hunting, or where their concessions have large populations of deiker and dik dik which is a cash crop for their business. Then there is another reason they don't charge for the jackels, the same as the reason a lot of ranchers don't charge for Coyotes, the mistaken idea that somehow these animals have no value to the invironment and/or they simply don't like them.
few exceptions exist with some hunts such as grizzly, where some outfitters offer split hunt price......a set fee for the hunt itself, followed by a harvest fee when successful, as opposed to charging the full amount up front successful or not. Texas is another exception but then there are a lot of parallels on how things function in Texas and southern Africa with the proliferation of high-fenced operations.
What is the difference between booking a hunt for Griz, and only chargeing more if a bear is taken, and charging one flat fee that covers your cost and profit, whether the client gets a bear or not?
Charging the full price for Griz hunt regardless of bag, seems more price gouging than the guy that covers his expences, and wear and tear on his equipment, and only charges the client full price if he bags. sounds like a deal to me.
Personally I like the African way because you know what the cost of the hunt is, and the trophy fees are paid only if you bag that particular animal. In the High fence operations, the game is owned, and is no different from his cattle, if you get one you are going to pay for it, if you don't get one you don't. Even in the other areas than RSA where the hunting is done on open range, where the animals belong to the government, the quotas are not free to the outfitter, he buys those permits at auction, and pays for his right to hunt certain areas. He has to set daily rates to cover his expences of running camps, and supplies, and Gas for his vehicles, whether you collect even one animal or not. NOW, when you use up one of his permits it is gone, and he can't use it again, but he has already paid for that permit. Certainly he will stack on a profit on each permit. This is no different from a store owner chargeing a prifit for his stock, that is how he makes his living!
The other thing is in North America, the client rarely hunts more than one animal on a guided hunt, so all resourses can be utilized in the effort in collecting that one animal. The African outfitter has to work in a different way for each animal you want. His costs are usually including YOUR license, and Gun permits, and the procurement of all permits, and licenses tying up his funds for as much as a yrs before you show up. In North America, the client is responcible for his license, and getting his guns into your country if he is alian. The not paying for a trophy till you take it, is an incentive to find that trophy, where in North America the outfitter has his money no matter how hard. or how little he works, or whether the client gets a shot, or even a sighting of the "ONE" animal he has booked for.
I think there is something to be said for both systems, and the nearest thing we have to the African game department wise,system is ALASKA, where you may take any animal of equal value, or less on any type of Non resident license! As you said Texas, and many other states have the OWNED animals which are sold as killed. It all depends on what you want, if you consider a trophy fee too high, then simply forgo that animal as being too expensive! IMO, if a client considers the total safari or a Bear hunt value for money, who cares where the money goes?