Why is Tanzania so expensive to hunt and is it worth it?

[mark-hunter]

So far I have 4 years of theoretical research and 2 Pg safaris in Namibia (2017, 2018).

When I started research (which really never ends, as long as someone is interested in African safari), i took the list of all hunting countries, and tried to find outfitters and their offers to compare the prices.
I did not know at the start what is expensive country, or which one is economical. I had zero knowledge.
What is hunting in blocks, coutadas, govt concesions, consevrancies, reserves, or game farming, fences, free roaming.
So I went to check, general offers, and package deals, in all/most of hunting countries. So, i contacted outfitters that I could find on web sites, per country, looking first for price lists.

Even now, I have the links noted for the oufitters web sites, per country, but only of those who had prices available on the pages. (which I check from time to time)

Im typing from my rough memory:
Roughly 80% of all African hunts are offered in RSA and Namibia.
And web site quality is from good to excellent, and very transparent.
(Some are from sponsors of this forum)

Easy to collect the offers, everybody (or most) are answering the emails politely, patiently, and most have price lists on their sights.
For RSA nad Nam, very high overall standard in PR and web site quality.

Then, maybe the rest of 20% of offered hunts is for all other (dozen or so) hunting countries.
And from there the question marks begin to multiply!

After RSA and NAM - the number of outfitters per country drops, first visible drop in Zimbabwe, and also the percentage is smaller with available prices (had to be asked for, on request).
Then Tanzania, then Mozambique....

Etc..
there are some countries that have only few oufitters, and very few prices displayed. Or none at all.

The less outfitters is available in country, the prices are generally higher as well, and less frequently publicly displayed. has to be requested. If it is not a rule, then this is at least my observation

For Tanzania, after checking my reasearch notes - (I kept noted links to web sites) - I found only one outfitter with prices given on their web site. All others kept the prices on request status.

Those are my findings.
I am not judging anybody, it is only my observation as a client looking for deal offers in good faith.

Also if prices, packages, deals, and specials are publicly offered, i will never ask if something is above my budget, thus not wasting mine or outfitters time. If the prices are not given, then time we waste.

It also may be a good reason for keeping the pricing on request in some countries (variable, uncertain financial conditions? or possbility of barganing??? ), but the fact is:

Namibia and South Africa are THE MOST approachable for foreign hunter by the standard of PR, web site interfaces, contacts, communication quality, etc... And most economical, as well. i do hope other countries could follow such example, although maybe it is not realistic to expect.

 

[Wheels]

If someone posts a request for a hunt in South Africa, Namibia or Zimbabwe (at least), there's usually a response within the hour. PM's are sent and offers of hunts abound.

Here we have a thread dealing with Tanzania, and only Tanzania. I said in an earlier post that I was contemplating a hunt in Tanzania, but was getting no responses to my emails sent through various operator's websites. A number of others suggested that in their experience, Tanzanian outfitters, or those with which they had dealt, were quite responsive. Others suggested that those outfitters who were sponsors of this site were also responsive.

Well, since the initial silence, I've had . . . wait for it . . . even more silence. Not one outfitter has seen fit to respond, and it's now been well over a month since I sent off the requests.

Gentlemen, if this is how you run your businesses, you are either doing very well indeed (so stop complaining), or if you aren't doing that well, you should perhaps look in a mirror to find the reason why. If you're out in the field hunting, you should perhaps consider having someone answer your emails so you don't lose potential business, or even have an automatic response to emails "I'm off hunting . . . will get back to you soon." But ignoring potential business? I wish I had that luxury.

Maybe it's the fact that this thread focuses on the cost of Tanzanian safaris, and perhaps this puts off Tanzanian outfitters. On the other hand, even a cursory look at the places I've hunted would tell you that I don't shy away from more expensive places. Well, so be it. The moment has passed. I'm looking elsewhere now.

Tanzania holds a special place in my heart and I hate it for the wildlife, and for you, that you are not getting any responses. Especially since the Tanzania hunting season hasn't even opened yet. There are no excuses. Last year I sent out a pm to one of the AH sponsors regarding a hunt in Mozambique for this year. I didn't hear anything and sent out another pm. Still crickets. No problem. I am now booked with one of his competitors. He still hasn't responded to me which is fine.

All the best on your future hunts!

 

[brettp]

It is honestly hard to encapsulate the difference in words. I’ve hunted Tanzania twice and also Namibia and Zim, so I’ve seen the variation from ranch (Zim) to
Communal concession (nam) to true wild concessions in Tanzania.

On my last Safari there, we hunting a contiguous area of over 2 million acres. Yes - 2,000,000 acres plus with zero human habitation, zero permanent structures and nothing but God’s wilderness.

I know that the cost is high, but I assure you the value is there. We had six leopards on our baits in the first four days with three big Toms feeding by day 4. I killed one in full daylight at 8:02am on day 5.

In a whole season, hunters Kill less than 150 animals off of that 2 million acres.

It costs a lot of money to keep that much land wild and untouched and I’m happy to pay a portion of it.

If hunting small, fenced properties maxes your budget, then go for it. It still beats most of what the world has to offer. That said, if you can afford both and you’re questioning the value, don’t.

 

[Ragman]

Tanzania for me is an absolute dream safari. To be able to see that pure African wilderness that I grew up watching on television documentaries and hunt Buffalo, Lesser Kudu, Grant's Gazelle, Gerenuk and some smaller species would be incredible beyond words. Sadly, a dream it will remain. Any safari destination where a hunt like I mentioned costs equal to or greater than my net annual income just cannot happen. I am very happy (and a tiny bit envious!) for you fellow hunters who have the means to experience the greatest adventure life offers. And I will be forever grateful for the opportunities South Africa and Namibia provide for the rest of us!

 

[JPbowhunter]

It is honestly hard to encapsulate the difference in words. I’ve hunted Tanzania twice and also Namibia and Zim, so I’ve seen the variation from ranch (Zim) to
Communal concession (nam) to true wild concessions in Tanzania.

On my last Safari there, we hunting a contiguous area of over 2 million acres. Yes - 2,000,000 acres plus with zero human habitation, zero permanent structures and nothing but God’s wilderness.

I know that the cost is high, but I assure you the value is there. We had six leopards on our baits in the first four days with three big Toms feeding by day 4. I killed one in full daylight at 8:02am on day 5.

In a whole season, hunters Kill less than 150 animals off of that 2 million acres.

It costs a lot of money to keep that much land wild and untouched and I’m happy to pay a portion of it.

If hunting small, fenced properties maxes your budget, then go for it. It still beats most of what the world has to offer. That said, if you can afford both and you’re questioning the value, don’t.

If they're taking so few animals off such a large game rich area they'd probably be better off cutting prices by a third and tripling hunter numbers. Lot of money to be made there.

 

[brettp]

Tanzania for me is an absolute dream safari. To be able to see that pure African wilderness that I grew up watching on television documentaries and hunt Buffalo, Lesser Kudu, Grant's Gazelle, Gerenuk and some smaller species would be incredible beyond words. Sadly, a dream it will remain. Any safari destination where a hunt like I mentioned costs equal to or greater than my net annual income just cannot happen. I am very happy (and a tiny bit envious!) for you fellow hunters who have the means to experience the greatest adventure life offers. And I will be forever grateful for the opportunities South Africa and Namibia provide for the rest of us!

Perfect perspective.

 

[brettp]

If they're taking so few animals off such a large game rich area they'd probably be better off cutting prices by a third and tripling hunter numbers. Lot of money to be made there.

With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. The point is to get maximum price to minimize the required impact to make enough income to sustain it.

This is about conservation which requires as little impact as possible in preserving the maximal wildness if a place like Tanzania.

 

[Wheels]

If they're taking so few animals off such a large game rich area they'd probably be better off cutting prices by a third and tripling hunter numbers. Lot of money to be made there.

Another factor to Tanzania's cost is the length of the season. Season starts on July 1. Very few concessions have access, due to the rains through the end of the year. Some only have access into part of October. Amortize your concession costs, anti-poaching, etc into a 3-5 month window. Then divide all of those costs between the 6-10 blocks of time you have for the hunts to take place. Day rates get expensive in a hurry.

What I am getting at is there may not be enough time to triple the number of hunters into the concession.

 

[brettp]

Another factor to Tanzania's cost is the length of the season. Season starts on July 1. Very few concessions have access, due to the rains through the end of the year. Some only have access into part of October. Amortize your concession costs, anti-poaching, etc into a 3-5 month window. Then divide all of those costs between the 6-10 blocks of time you have for the hunts to take place. Day rates get expensive in a hurry.

What I am getting at is there may not be enough time to triple the number of hunters into the concession.

You guys are missing the point. Tripling the number of hunters will fundamentally change the place, the wildlife and the experience.

 

[JPbowhunter]

You guys are missing the point. Tripling the number of hunters will fundamentally change the place, the wildlife and the experience.

With all due respect I find your comments a bit disingenuous. A game rich area of that size can most definitely sustain more hunting and more importantly someone's view of aesthetics is not a metric for conservation.

Not directed at you, but I do feel at times some hunters like the exclusivity of high cost places that have very few people.

Many hunters, including myself, like to talk about conservation but I'm yet to meet one who's main driver for hunting is conservation (Take that from someone who studied and pursued a career in conservation). In reality it's a great albeit coincidental aspect of hunting for most individuals.

But if you genuinely are interested in the wildlife and conservation of that area, surely you would support higher numbers of hunters at a lesser cost if that could provide the most beneficial conservation/environmental outcome?

 

[brettp]

I don’t understand how more hunters means more conservation. High prices means money for full time anti-poaching.

We caught a a poacher directly with our safari car while we were there.

The most revenue from the least impactful activity is the maximal conservation outcome.

 

[Mort Hill]

With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. The point is to get maximum price to minimize the required impact to make enough income to sustain it.

This is about conservation which requires as little impact as possible in preserving the maximal wildness if a place like Tanzania.

I would tend to agree with this stance. When I went to Tanzania to lion hunt, the concession we hunted was allocated 6 lions. The owner of the concession only sold 2 lion. The proof was in the pudding so to speak. Two old male lions taken by two hunters on day 4 and 5 respectively, and neither lion over bait(yes we baited, but opportunity just presented itself - broad daylight - 50 miles apart). You can command a premium when you produce based on this conservation model.

 

[brettp]

I would tend to agree with this stance. When I went to Tanzania to lion hunt, the concession we hunted was allocated 6 lions. The owner of the concession only sold 2 lion. The proof was in the pudding so to speak. Two old male lions taken by two hunters on day 4 and 5 respectively, and neither lion over bait(yes we baited, but opportunity just presented itself - broad daylight - 50 miles apart). You can command a premium when you produce based on this conservation model.

exactly right. It may not seem fair to those who can’t afford it, and frankly, it isn’t fair. That said, it’s the best way to maximally protect the big super-wild tracts of Africa that have been maintained in Tanzania.

 

[Wheels]

You guys are missing the point. Tripling the number of hunters will fundamentally change the place, the wildlife and the experience.

I don't think I am missing your point at all. I was just clarifying that it is probably not possible to triple the number of hunters on the concession due to the short season.

 

[brettp]

I don't think I am missing your point at all. I was just clarifying that it is probably not possible to triple the number of hunters on the concession due to the short season.

Fair enough. I’m just saying it’s also not favorable.

 

[Glenn Slaven]

You think even the title of the post would give them the opportunity to explain and use some salesmanship.

I don’t mind saving up and paying for something if it really is worth it, but I don’t like paying for just a name or status. (Except for Rolex. Lol). I’m looking at Mozambique as a more affordable alternative.

 

[brettp]

You think even the title of the post would give them the opportunity to explain and use some salesmanship.

I don’t mind saving up and paying for something if it really is worth it, but I don’t like paying for just a name or status. (Except for Rolex. Lol). I’m looking at Mozambique as a more affordable alternative.

Well, that’s fair. I’ll tell you though, it’s worth every penny. Also, check the all-in cost. THe TZ cost of entry is very high but trophy fees are are quite reasonable.

 

[Brent in Az]

The ability to take up to 3 Buffalo on a license, plus affordable trophy fees on Lion & Leopard, as well as everything else, is a big plus. Some of the prime concessions in Zimbabwe, can cost as much as $20-40k for a Lion trophy fee.
Permanent camps are not allowed in many areas of Tanzania. Camps have to be hauled in and out every season.

 

[Hank2211]

The ability to take up to 3 Buffalo on a license, plus affordable trophy fees on Lion & Leopard, as well as everything else, is a big plus. Some of the prime concessions in Zimbabwe, can cost as much as $20-40k for a Lion trophy fee.
Permanent camps are not allowed in many areas of Tanzania. Camps have to be hauled in and out every season.

You're right of course. In comparing safaris, especially if they involve different countries, you need to look at the entire package. Namibia and South Africa have - I think I can say without doubt - the lowest day rates in Africa. Day rates rise, sometimes dramatically, when you leave those two countries. But high day rates doesn't mean high trophy fees - often it's just the opposite. Thus, the more animals you take, particularly if you're taking some of those which would be more expensive in southern Africa (like buffalo, sable, roan, hippo, etc.), the better the deal is on the overall hunt. Having said that, you still need to chin yourself to a long safari, or at least paying for one.

 

[brettp]

The ability to take up to 3 Buffalo on a license, plus affordable trophy fees on Lion & Leopard, as well as everything else, is a big plus. Some of the prime concessions in Zimbabwe, can cost as much as $20-40k for a Lion trophy fee.
Permanent camps are not allowed in many areas of Tanzania. Camps have to be hauled in and out every season.

Yes. The lack of permanent structures has two impacts. One, outfitter costs are higher as they have to rebuild the entire camps each year and burn them at seasons’ end. The second thing is that it means your are in a fully tented, wild camp that lets you know just what Hemingway felt walking back to his tent at night....