Would you hunt in an area in Africa that used a sliding scale for fees?

[Mountaineer]

I have hunted management buffalo that needed to be under a certain size (less than 38 inches) free range, but I would not hunt by the inch.

 

[grand veneur]

You all have to accept this in the future. The outfitters want not be able to bear the costs in time without introducing something like a sliding scale for fees.

 

[mark-hunter]

If the question is would I hunt in such areas?
Yes, for low end specimens. So, please do not invest in gene pool for me!

 

[Paul K]

An absolute no for me.

 

[Russ16]

This is achieved with a scale of fees. Animals with big trophies are rarely very old animals and are shot for higher fees.

We should not idealize too much hunting in Africa. It is above all a trophy hunting and many just want to harvesting a nice Trophy. There is a risk that at some point, we will have to paid more for it. However, this will in my opinion not reduce the number of interested hunters.

My issue is I think some people view the higher fee as the more desirable animal. So we are reinforcing that a young animal with big horns is a good trophy. I guess I don’t have a solution but I think it sends the wrong message.

 

[grand veneur]

My issue is I think some people view the higher fee as the more desirable animal. So we are reinforcing that a young animal with big horns is a good trophy. I guess I don’t have a solution but I think it sends the wrong message.

Unfortunately, that's how it is. Those who focus primarily on the trophy don't always see what lies below. Many pictures of buffalo kills on the Forum show relatively younger animals, but the hunter's facial expression clearly indicates his satisfaction with the outcome of his hunt. Some dreams and live in an unreal world while hunting in Africa, but for the outfitters it is just a business. We can discuss this very longer, but if the dream from some becomes financially unsustainable, the next steps must be considered, including the sliding scale for fees .

 

[Elkeater]

Here is my theory, as a client. My cousin owns a ranch in Wyoming he is thinking about opening up hunts on. We have that conversation about once a week. He is also a fairly accomplished international hunter, with more of an unlimited budget. But oilfield company money does that.

I personally hate the sliding scale. I deal with it every day. I love trophy fees, and I hate hunts that are flat rate without trophy fees.

Trophy fees inspire guide performance. To me more than anything else.

I'd like to see more of a turn to a trophy fee model in North America.

Sheep, Goats, Elk, Deer, Caribou, Moose and Bears all. Will never happen, but man I would love to see that.

Consider those $25,000 elk hunts in Utah. You sign up thinking you are going after a 380 plus type free range bull. What happens if you have bad weather for 4 days and shoot a 300 inch bull on day 5?

Or worse stone sheep hunts, $100,000 invested in a 14 day camping trip and weather and wolves ruin the trip. Happens.

My two counters to this on these super expensive hunts are:

1. Most of the people doing these $100,000 sheep hunts an $25,000 elk hunts are in a financial bracket where that money doesn't mean as much. So maybe this isn't a problem.

2. Canadian outfitters would figure out a way to take a hell of a lot of guys on a 14 day camping trip without producing a stone sheep for $50,000, with a $80,000 trophy fee on top of it.

For most standard hunts a $2000 5 day hunt fee and standard mule deer for $2500 and any buck over 170 is $2500 more, and any buck over 180 is $5000 more. This wouldn't be the end of the world.

I'd rather pay $5000 for a 165 mule deer than $15,000 for a 165 mule deer that I had to shoot on day 5 because of weather or the rut was off.

These are just my examples.

My cousin wants to do manage his ranch like a south Texas deer place, even though he lives in Wyoming and doesn't have the ability to manage deer like livestock.

Not sure there is a right answer.

I think he could manage his place a little like Texas. It won’t work exactly the same but viable I would think. First question would be is he doing trespass fee or fully outfitted hunts? Assuming fully outfitted I would say a daily rate (set to cover costs but not necessarily profit) would be charged. Then a fixed trophy fee if an animal is taken which is what would cover profit. Since he can’t actually guarantee any specific size animal (or any animals at all) will be available since he doesn’t own the animals I would feel like a sliding scale wouldn’t work well. Just my opinion though. This model does ensure costs are covered while also incentivizing guide performance and hopefully customer satisfaction. To me this system would protect both the outfitter and client. The outfitter ensures his costs are covered so he won’t loose money (especially if it’s because of something like a client who is out of shape and can’t really hunt) and the client doesn’t get taken on a expensive camping trip with no incentive for the outfitter to not make a good attempt at getting the client on an animal.

 

[Beauceron]

Do we really want another Texas?
Just look at what’s happening there with the white-tailed deer — it’s hard to believe this is still called nature. It honestly makes me uneasy to see what’s become of it: inch after inch after inch of antlers, bred and manipulated for size and status.
And now the same thing is quietly spreading to fenced hunting areas in South Africa. We should ask ourselves — where is this heading? What are we turning hunting into? Because this has nothing to do with real hunting anymore. It’s not about respect for wildlife or the experience itself; it’s about trophies and appearances.
When you step into some of these “trophy rooms,” everything looks too perfect, too polished — animals that seem almost artificial, like decorations instead of living beings that once roamed freely. It makes you wonder: where are the real stories? The memories, the friendship, the moments shared in nature?
Instead, we see people shooting antelopes that just days before had plastic tubes on their horns so they wouldn’t wear down — all for the sake of growing a few more inches. Then come the photos, the titles, the medals. And by the afternoon, another animal is being chased behind a high fence.
Maybe it’s time we pause and reflect. Because this isn’t the heart of hunting — it’s something else entirely.

 

[mark-hunter]

Do we really want another Texas?

The difference is:
Texas is expensive.
You can still hunt economically in South Africa.
No fence? Economy plains game?
Namibia
Botswana
etc
You must only ask outfitter to provide you the list of unfenced game to hunt.

However, there are many benefits in South African systems.
From overall census of animals in South Africa, some 40 years ago which was 500.000 heads of all species with some being on the path of extinction, they climbed up in this system to overall census of 20.000.000 heads of all species. (official numbers from authorized literature)
White rhino, amongst them, saved from extinction.

Thats why it is called conservation success story.
All this is because the fences provided investment return. And hunters provided cash.
There is no similar comparable numbers anywhere in the world, I believe. Namibia follows, but they still have large free range areas unfenced on farm land that provides true unfenced hunting.

If we want to project the harsh truth in the future, this way of management in 100, 200 years may be the only one that is left. And not only in South Africa.

 

[skydiver386]

An old Farmers saying

"If you want nice fresh tasty oats, you have to be willing to pay a fair market price. Oats that have already been through the horse come a little cheaper."

For most species of average size, a fixed price is what the market should strive for, because that's what the majority of clients are happy with. If the client insists on only shooting a 60+ inch Kudu, or a 70+ pound Elephant, then it's entirely fair for the PH to charge a premium price.

Market forces of supply and demand are going to decide the issue.

 

[Beauceron]

The difference is:
Texas is expensive.
You can still hunt economically in South Africa.
No fence? Economy plains game?
Namibia
Botswana
etc
You must only ask outfitter to provide you the list of unfenced game to hunt.

However, there are many benefits in South African systems.
From overall census of animals in South Africa, some 40 years ago which was 500.000 heads of all species with some being on the path of extinction, they climbed up in this system to overall census of 20.000.000 heads of all species. (official numbers from authorized literature)
White rhino, amongst them, saved from extinction.

Thats why it is called conservation success story.
All this is because the fences provided investment return. And hunters provided cash.
There is no similar comparable numbers anywhere in the world, I believe. Namibia follows, but they still have large free range areas unfenced on farm land that provides true unfenced hunting.

If we want to project the harsh truth in the future, this way of management in 100, 200 years may be the only one that is left. And not only in South Africa.

Yes, of course, all of this exists.
I’ve seen it, I’ve tried most of it myself.
And I understand — sometimes, high fences are necessary.
I just hope that in the end, we won’t be left with only high-fence hunting.
I know that in some cases, it’s about conserving certain animal species.
And of course, it’s also about the landowner’s livelihood — I get that.
But what I really can’t understand is why anyone needs to put plastic tubes on the horns of a sable antelope, just so they don’t wear down and end up two inches longer for the photo.
Or those deer in New Zealand — what does any of that have to do with real hunting?
Absolutely nothing. Those are freak shows, nothing more.

 

[wesheltonj]

The difference is:
Texas is expensive.
You can still hunt economically in South Africa.
No fence? Economy plains game?
Namibia
Botswana
etc
You must only ask outfitter to provide you the list of unfenced game to hunt.

However, there are many benefits in South African systems.
From overall census of animals in South Africa, some 40 years ago which was 500.000 heads of all species with some being on the path of extinction, they climbed up in this system to overall census of 20.000.000 heads of all species. (official numbers from authorized literature)
White rhino, amongst them, saved from extinction.

Thats why it is called conservation success story.
All this is because the fences provided investment return. And hunters provided cash.
There is no similar comparable numbers anywhere in the world, I believe. Namibia follows, but they still have large free range areas unfenced on farm land that provides true unfenced hunting.

If we want to project the harsh truth in the future, this way of management in 100, 200 years may be the only one that is left. And not only in South Africa.

In Texas you have two man choices. (1) The expensive high fence operation, where it’s by the inch. (2) a lease by “the gun” where you pay a lease fee.

 

[Hunt anything]

Unfortunately it’s not just Texas, “super” deer breeding is leaching into other states as well.
There’s even a TV show dedicated to “deer farming” which I refuse to watch.

 

[375Fox]

Yes, of course, all of this exists.
I’ve seen it, I’ve tried most of it myself.
And I understand — sometimes, high fences are necessary.
I just hope that in the end, we won’t be left with only high-fence hunting.
I know that in some cases, it’s about conserving certain animal species.
And of course, it’s also about the landowner’s livelihood — I get that.
But what I really can’t understand is why anyone needs to put plastic tubes on the horns of a sable antelope, just so they don’t wear down and end up two inches longer for the photo.
Or those deer in New Zealand — what does any of that have to do with real hunting?
Absolutely nothing. Those are freak shows, nothing more.

I really oppose many of the practices in South Africa. A lot of it is no longer conservation and simply intensive commercial farming. It doesn’t need to be that way though. You can look at something like bubye valley in Zimbabwe. I think 40% of buffalo quota is set aside for “trophy” animals and 60% of quota is set aside for “non-trophy” animals with lesser genetics. I don’t see anything wrong with that model. It protects the genetics and makes a more natural off take instead of everyone searching for the largest trophies. Hunting greater Kruger is similar where the permit will stipulate the category of buffalo you can take based on combination of size and age. I don’t see anything offensive about that model.