Quality vs Costs - Your African Safari

[Art Lambart II]

Above average trophies and above average accommodations are great but without great service the clients experience will suffer. In my opinion service is what separates great business from good ones. If I go to a high end restaurant and have a great meal but the service is bad that’s probably the last time I eat there on the other hand if I have a good meal at the same restaurant but get great service I’ll eat their again.

If above average accommodations includes above average service I’m all in.

 

[bilmcc]

Cost limits what is available to me. All those factors you said to hold equal are aspects of quality. If I am worried about paying the bill, that would reduce quality. A bad hunt is not worth anything, except in lessons learned.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I hate pay by the inch, there was one outfit, I forget who, but told me a kudu is 2500 unless above 60 then it is 6000...That was quite a jump. The European system of kg and cic points confuses the hell out of me as well. Where 10 cic points made a big difference and hell if I could see it in the sample pictures sent to me. Give me a rate and let's hunt.

 

[BRICKBURN]

I hate pay by the inch, ......... Give me a rate and let's hunt.

I echo that sentiment.

I changed my vote to #3.

 

[JGRaider]

I echo that sentiment.

I changed my vote to #3.

I won't do it here in the USA, or anywhere else.

 

[BRICKBURN]

I won't do it here in the USA, or anywhere else.

Hunt by the inch??

 

[Wheels]

My vote was changed to 3 .

 

[JGRaider]

Hunt by the inch??

Correct.

 

[jeff]

I would also change my vote to #3 as I see the price difference is now worded SLIGHTLY higher, that is a important consideration for me.

 

[Ragman]

I would also change my vote to #3 as I see the price difference is now worded SLIGHTLY higher, that is a important consideration for me.

Ok ok, I agree with this and changed my vote to #3 as well. I'd be happy with better than average animals for sure, but this redneck doesn't need to get pampered with fancy schmancy digs!

 

[jeff]

Hunt by the inch??

Here in the North America we pay by size without realizing it all the time. That's why Illinois, Kansas and Iowa whitetail hunts are more than Pennsylvania or New York, bull elk in Arizona ,New Mexico or Utah cost more than most other states, why, because the horns are bigger. Same way with elephant areas where you can expect # 30-40 bulls are cheaper than places where #50-60 are the norm. One way or another we pay by size in many instances with out even knowing or at least admitting it.

 

[cpr0312]

Based on the new scenario, I changed from #1 to #3

 

[wipartimer]

I'm still at #2. I have no friends with money and will never care if I do meet people that have larger trophies than I. If It's too small, I have the option to not pull the trigger. If have pulled the trigger, and decide to have it mounted, the mount or picture is just a reminder of a memory that I will always treasure, not a competition to see if "mines bigger than yours" or anything like that. I have been blessed to be able to go on a few hunts, but budget, by necessity, is one of my original considerations. Once I'm emotionally comfortable with the budget and book the hunt, I consider my attitude and outlook to be just as important, if not more important, as those of the PH , outfitter or style of lodging in contributing to my enjoyment of the experience. Of course, i hold no animosity to those that place more emphasis on accommodations or trophy quality/size- different people have different priorities. I would never expect anyone else to hold my exact same values any more than I would allow them to push theirs upon me. My best friend has around 20 HUGE whitetail mounts in his house that he is very proud of, and rightfully so, I have killed many,many whitetails myself, eaten everyone of them and enjoyed every hunt, but have never killed one big enough to mount. We don't judge each other at all, we just have different priorities.

 

[Royal27]

Changed mine to three

Here in the North America we pay by size without realizing it all the time. That's why Illinois, Kansas and Iowa whitetail hunts are more than Pennsylvania or New York, bull elk in Arizona ,New Mexico or Utah cost more than most other states, why, because the horns are bigger. Same way with elephant areas where you can expect # 30-40 bulls are cheaper than places where #50-60 are the norm. One way or another we pay by size in many instances with out even knowing or at least admitting it.

I have a different perspective on this. To me, that's paying for opportunity for a bigger animal, not the animal itself. I could still not come away with a great animal while hunting a more expensive area, so it isn't paying but the inch for the "better" animal.

To me, there is a big difference between paying more up front for the opportunity, as opposed to shooting an animal then pulling out the tape measure to find out how much the hunt cost.

 

[Matt Perchick]

Changed to option #3 as well

 

[jeff]

Changed mine to three



I have a different perspective on this. To me, that's paying for opportunity for a bigger animal, not the animal itself. I could still not come away with a great animal while hunting a more expensive area, so it isn't paying but the inch for the "better" animal.

To me, there is a big difference between paying more up front for the opportunity, as opposed to shooting an animal then pulling out the tape measure to find out how much the hunt cost.

Your right there is a difference but we're still paying more for the probability of bigger animals, bigger animals mean higher costs for premium tags. Two hunts can have the same difficulty, enjoyment and accommodations and both areas be full of game but if you want to hunt the one with a high probability of taking a large animal you'll pay more, in effect were paying more because we want more inches. It's kind of a back door approach to paying for size.

 

[RogerHeintzman]

I knew a can of worms would be opened.
My First choice was #3 and I see many have changed their vote to #3.
This survey plays well with a previous post with telling your outfitter/PH quality (size) of trophy you are looking for before booking.
Times must be tough in the SA hunting industry.

 

[Royal27]

Your right there is a difference but we're still paying more for the probability of bigger animals, bigger animals mean higher costs for premium tags. Two hunts can have the same difficulty, enjoyment and accommodations and both areas be full of game but if you want to hunt the one with a high probability of taking a large animal you'll pay more, in effect were paying more because we want more inches. It's kind of a back door approach to paying for size.

By that logic any paid hunt is paid by the inch. Only free hunts aren't paid by the inch. Even then I guess you're paying by the inch if you use upgraded bullets as they cost more.

So.... The only true way to have a hunt where you don't pay by the inch is a DIY hunt, using Hornady ammunition.

In all seriousness, I get what you're saying, but I just don't agree with it as there is no tape measure involved in paying more for an area as opposed to an animal.

 

[IdaRam]

So.... The only true way to have a hunt where you don't pay by the inch is a DIY hunt, using Hornady ammunition.

 

[KMG Hunting Safaris]

Ok ok, I agree with this and changed my vote to #3 as well. I'd be happy with better than average animals for sure, but this redneck doesn't need to get pampered with fancy schmancy digs!

Good, ‘cause you sleeping on the deck.