375Fox
AH ambassador
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
- Messages
- 6,267
- Reaction score
- 21,710
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Media
- 173
- Hunted
- Zambia, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Tanzania
How eager would you be to cut prices for work you do? If you were running business would you rather have 10 very good clients that simply pay their bill or 20 clients looking for the best deal? How many part time guides (with their own set of problems) and other staff would you like to employ? How well do you know their skills and how they are with clients? I think the goal of every business is to maximize profit, but there is also a cost to put on frustration. Smaller is easier to manage and can better focus on quality. The outfitter’s catering to more serious hunters likely have a lot less cancellations. The outfitter’s trying to get business by offering a better deal than their competition have a lot less loyal client base and less loyal employees.When costs of the hunts themselves go up I wonder what some of the reasons are. Obviously there’s travel, government fees, etc that are a different matter. There are certain things that will obviously make operating costs go up, such as fuel prices, inflation and so forth. But when prices are going up “because people will pay them” I feel like it’s not only bad for the community but it can’t be that much better for the outfitters themselves.
In a thread I saw a few days ago it was mentioned that an Alaskan outfitters never raised prices because it wasn’t necessary, but was eventually convinced by other outfitters to raise them because he could. The thought process being that instead of booking 20 hunters you could make the same amount of money booking 5 who would pay the insane amount.
Is it not better for outfitters to have a larger clientele to cater to? If 1 out of 20 cancels, that’s a lot larger hit than if 1 out of 5 cancels. And someone spending $100k on a hunt probably isn’t in a financial situation where losing a deposit affects him.
With the attack on hunters in American media, it’s always highlighted about the cost of the trip and that the guy was wealthy in an attempt to dehumanize whoever is being highlighted in the article. It’s not seen as Average Joe on trip of a lifetime, it’s portrayed as some rich asshole who loves slaughtering animals because he’s wealthy (which to be fair is another problem altogether).
It seems to me that there has to be a happy medium where outfits are still profitable but the prices don’t exclude guys who are passionate about hunting and conservation. Maybe a few big name outfits and taxidermy studios try to set an example and drop prices. Airlines and governments aren’t gonna make it easier on hunters, so we have to help ourselves.
I could be missing something, but there’s got to be some way to save it for ourselves and future generations