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

[Warbird782]

I like Brushmore had no issues with what was quoted and what I paid for. Everything was up front and in writing with no confusion.
My first hunt with another outfitter in the EC I had a scenario similar to your blue duiker. I hit an impala and it ran off. We tracked it with a dog and the dog lost interest. No blood was found and my PH called the search off. I disagreed and refused to leave the area. I found blood and the search was back on. My PH rolled his eyes when I showed him the blood. I kept saying that I know I hit it and did not want to leave the track. He set the dog loose again and this time the dog took us to a dense patch of cover. The impala was dead in the thicket. This very good PH and his dog both made a mistake! It was my persistence that led us to the impala. In your shoes Royal, if it was deemed a hit based on reaction of animal why did you give up on it? It is your money and the uncertainty of an animals life. By walking away and agreeing to pay you shot yourself in the foot on that one. Questioning it a month later publicly is not the answer. That should have taken place right after the shot and demanding to follow up on the animals condition. They made a mistake but so did you. You are the one who pulled the trigger and are ultimately responsible for the outcome.

As for the day fees and swag, all I can say was I got what I paid for. Loodt was honest and there were no hidden charges. In fact the three others in camp did not have any issues with their bill as well.

 

[billc]

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

You know because normally you have two other set of eyes watching the animal. The blue wildebeest I was talking about that my friend hit was clear as day to me it was hit. I just don't find it as cut and dry as some I guess.
As for policy making hunters take better shoots well I have seen plenty of broadside animals hit bad because of things happening. I know we all like things to be spelled out but there must be good judgement used also as all rules are not perfect.

 

[billc]

I like Brushmore had no issues with what was quoted and what I paid for. Everything was up front and in writing with no confusion.
My first hunt with another outfitter in the EC I had a scenario similar to your blue duiker. I hit an impala and it ran off. We tracked it with a dog and the dog lost interest. No blood was found and my PH called the search off. I disagreed and refused to leave the area. I found blood and the search was back on. My PH rolled his eyes when I showed him the blood. I kept saying that I know I hit it and did not want to leave the track. He set the dog loose again and this time the dog took us to a dense patch of cover. The impala was dead in the thicket. This very good PH and his dog both made a mistake! It was my persistence that led us to the impala. In your shoes Royal, if it was deemed a hit based on reaction of animal why did you give up on it? It is your money and the uncertainty of an animals life. By walking away and agreeing to pay you shot yourself in the foot on that one. Questioning it a month later publicly is not the answer. That should have taken place right after the shot and demanding to follow up on the animals condition. They made a mistake but so did you. You are the one who pulled the trigger and are ultimately responsible for the outcome.

As for the day fees and swag, all I can say was I got what I paid for. Loodt was honest and there were no hidden charges. In fact the three others in camp did not have any issues with their bill as well.

Dave I think your points are good but royal feels different. You may think all was followed but depending on if you use the blood or not to decide on hit or not depends on how you look at this. Certain things could not be talked about there because they did not come up till he was home. As you know I am one of loodts biggest supporters but you cant be blind because of a friendship. Royal made mistakes as well as loodt and friendship caused some of them. Royal thought he was doing right by paying with some of that based on the friendship they built. The whole thing was handle wrong by both partys. I have told royal that and will being tell loodt the same thing when we talk next week.

I can tell you royal took no pleasure of writing what he did and did it more for others to learn from his mistake. This another learning step for loodt and one of the other reason royal did what he did.

 

[TokkieM]

As you know I am one of loodts biggest supporters but you cant be blind because of a friendship

Well put Billc and standing up for a friend is always admirable,knowing when a friend is completely wrong and setting him right is even more so.
Many folks here sideing with Loodt because they hunted with him or have booked with him. Nice guys make mistakes and nice guys make money.

If this was a unknown Outfitter I believe the comments would read otherwise. Many new guys start with a bang and then drift off line due to volume and pressure,some never get back inline others do. Would have liked to see Loodt reply already,but that's his prerogative to formulate a response to protect his interest and integraty in a timely manner.

 

[Diamondhitch]

Shot fired, blood found, you pay, that part is straight forward enough. Whether or not that animal actually dies is anyones guess and likely offset by the ones that do not drop blood that end up dying.

Shot fired, no blood found, by the contract is simple as well. You are not required to pay regardless of anyones opinion, hunch or feeling about the shot. (yours or anyone else present since you are all equally entitled to be wrong)

Now the gray area... If the surge of videoing hunts has taught us anything it is that often shots we feel were perfect or animals we were sure we hit are often unscathed, as evidenced by actual bullet strike footage which is undisputable. Judging reactions at the time of the shot is an educated guess at best. Now, lets say you shoot and no blood is found but the animal is seen showing obvious signs of injury after its initial reaction to the shot (ie while tracking or otherwise being observed when not being shot at). In this situation, as per the contract, you have no legal obligation to pay but ethics and fair play should supersede and you should choose to pay. Not paying in this situation is akin to padding the bill and just as unethical.

 

[Nyati]

No blood, no pay.
Additional observer days, it should be easy to count days.
Unsolicited promotional merchandise charged. Well that is a new one, I´ve been given all types of gifts, caps, shirts, fleece jackets, totally free of charge, and when I´ve asked for an extra cap, I´ve never been charged for it.

 

[Brent in Az]

This is not my business, but did you address these issues privately with Tootabi?

 

[accipiter]

No blood, no pay.
Additional observer days, it should be easy to count days.
Unsolicited promotional merchandise charged. Well that is a new one, I´ve been given all types of gifts, caps, shirts, fleece jackets, totally free of charge, and when I´ve asked for an extra cap, I´ve never been charged for it.

On my first safari, there was a baseball cap and a water bottle sitting on my bed (both with the outfitter's logo). I was not charged for those items.

This is the first case that I heard of someone being charged for that stuff.

 

[tarbe]

I told myself I would not post in this thread....

I call both Loodt and Royal friend and brother. I would trust either of them with my wallet or my wife.

I trust they will be able to deal with any lingering issues between themselves.

Now that the issues are public, I hope we all learn from the errors made on both sides, and we all move forward, better than we were.

Friends should hold friends to a high standard. I expect nothing less in this instance from Loodt and Royal.



Tim

 

[CAustin]

Ok my 2 cents worth. No blood no pay. Blood on the ground Mr PH and tracker go find him! On my first safari my son, Bryson, shot his warthog. Blood and meat found at the site. Tracker, PH and Bryson tracked that animal for a mile and a half and crossed the elands river twice. Second crossing no more tracks or blood. Animal must have gone under. The PH was not going to have me pay! I said no that animal is no doubt dead....we pay. Had there been no blood I would have said find the kid another hog!

Caps and shirts from an outfitter are marketing gifts! Period! If they want me to wear it stateside and perhaps get them some business....well OK but I'm not paying for the privilege of advertising for an outfitter. When I buy a new car or truck the first thing that happens is I pull the dealer stickers off and those stupid plate holders with the dealers sales slogan around them go in the trash. When I took delivery of my wife's BMW I had the salesman take that crap off. Again not paying you to advertise for you!

First safari we came to the outfitters office and the Bill was presented. It had a mistake. I had been charged $200 for rifle use! I brought my own rifles says I. PH speaks up yes that's right he used his rifles. Office girl who made up Bill says sorry I thought you used ours my mistake. Bill fixed.
Could be clerical error on the observer fees. Royal caught it and the shirt cap charges and the Bill was fixed.....fair enough!
I wouldn't think Loodt would try to pull that kinda crap intentionally. The bad press here could really hurt his business.

To be clear everyone has to know what their deal says and stick to it. I carry with me copies of every email I have exchanged with an outfitter. If there is a disagreement then we both will have the reference material to arrive at the best solution!

 

[Biddleman]

I have to say the merchandise situation has me scratching my head. I just don't get that one. Even if a client asks to have another hat or shirt, it should never be billed. Now if it's a dozen hats, than a discussion might be needed.

I can see scenarios when the extra days might be "accidently" added. Maybe if you were sharing a camp with another party, and the amount of days they were hunting got mixed up with yours. Something along those lines. But those type of details need to be certain before presenting an invoice to a client, no matter what business you're in.

To be clear everyone has to know what their deal says and stick to it.

and this for the contract situation.

 

[Diamondhitch]

...I call both Loodt and Royal friend and brother. I would trust either of them with my wallet or my wife...

Not at the same time I hope...

 

[UKHunter]

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!).



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,

Thank you for your informative reply.

I guess we are lucky here in the UK and we can target shoot on any land we have permission to shoot on, kneeling, standing, off sticks, etc.

I fully agree with what you described with different types of approaches to hunting, we arn't perfect as a country and also have these 'cowboy' stalkers who claim they can do it all and head shoot a Muntjac at 300 yards off sticks or gut shoot a deer and don't follow it up. Luckily they seem to be far and few between over here.

My posts were not directly aimed at the original post, and were merely my opinion on how we as hunters should ethically pursue our quarry. Far to many people chance shots thinking if I hit it I hit it, If i dont I dont. Im sure these types are in every stream of field sports.

It is interesting to read that you are not allowed to sell on any game animal, I was not aware of that. I should note that to do it in this country does require you to sit and pass a large game meat handling course. The post was merely a point that it helps to promote ethical and better shooting from the hunter.

 

[UKHunter]

I dont believe this thread was started to slander an outfit. I have read many good reports about Loodt and his operation and from peoples reactions on here Royal seems like a respectable person and was merely expressing an issue he had encountered. He posted this to try and educate so that this scenario doesn't play out again, no matter who the outfitter is.

I am sure the two are in contact privately to resolve this and I'm sure both party's will come to a reasonable and happy solution. Mistakes can happen, everyone on here has made one at some point.

I hope this thread is viewed with its intention, as to education and advise on a very important topic. I'm glad no fingers are being pointed and assumptions made as trial by forum does no good for anyone involved.

I would go as far to say that if this resolved with both party's happy then it would only further Loodts reputation as an outfitter. Everyone makes mistakes, has unhappy clients or has issues raised but its how they are dealt with that counts.

 

[TokkieM]

If Royal and Loodt had tried to sort this out in private my guess is it would not be a topic of discussion. Fingers are being pointed and as always some have passed judgement,which they have a right to do.

No matter how good a Outfitter or PH is he will always be judged on his last hunt.
A successful safari is one were the client walks away happy and stays that way,same for the Outfitter.

 

[UKHunter]

If Royal and Loodt had tried to sort this out in private my guess is it would not be a topic of discussion. Fingers are being pointed and as always some have passed judgement,which they have a right to do.

No matter how good a Outfitter or PH is he will always be judged on his last hunt.
A successful safari is one were the client walks away happy and stays that way,same for the Outfitter.

They do have a right to pass judgement and Royal and Loodt may have been in contact. However, we have been placed with only one side of a scenario, be it right or wrong. To start trial by forum does no good what so ever and is all guess work based upon peoples interpretation. I would be wary to start pointing fingers and pass judgment with only one persons side of the event, only Royal and Loodt were there. It is between them to come to a satisfactory arrangement and not for us to start playing the judge, jury and executioner. I will be interested to hear from Loodt and his response in this thread, but if I don't its none of my business on how they settle it. I will interpret this thread as an education as I hope others do.

I believe this thread was started with the intention to educate and inform on a topic that I believe many people over look as an event they don't believe will happen to them, I certainly did on my first safari.

I agree outfitters are judged on recent success and reputation, and so pointing fingers and making judgments on something we as members of the forum who weren't there and know no facts about should not be condemning either party. You don't enter a court room, only hear one side of a story and give a sentence.

 

[Diamondhitch]

... You don't enter a court room, only hear one side of a story and give a sentence.

Depends which country you are in.

 

[Bobpuckett]

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.

I agree Phil I myself have shot at many squirrels with a shotgun and they reacted to the shot they ran off unwounded and I ain't got no squirrel for supper the boom scared the shit out of them. In the same line of thought I have shot many rabbits with a shotgun and never any blood but the dogs found the rabbit dead. If the dogs did not find it and there was no blood then its a give me no cost no Duiker.

 

[enysse]

No blood...no pay. I must admit I was puzzled when he agreed to pay the duiker fees with no blood. But then again, it was not my call. I have seen Jim Shockey miss duikers on TV at point blank range and know even the professionals miss. Very understandable too, there is a lot of excitement in a hunt and anything can and does happen. I think the outfitter is responsible to have dogs to track game down.
Again if blood is found, then by contract the animal is yours.

 

[Bobpuckett]

Ok I'm not going to get into the mud slinging thing! billc Good on you for stepping up to the bat and stating your piece. Loodt I'm a little disappointed in 3 pages you haven't stated your piece. Royal27 I am sorry that you didn't get your Blue Duiker I know its high on my list as well. this is why I recommend hunting Blue duiker over bait you get to choose what you shoot at, with dogs it may be male or female and the price is the same. But not hearing the other side a refund is coming to Royal27 . Loodt feel free to PM me and I will give you my views no charge.