I m actually OK with free daily rates as long as the trophy fees remain the same and there is no minimum. I know the “no minimum” might be difficult to swallow for some outfitters but I feel it is a way for them to show good faith toward potential clients and to also offer an option which may differentiate them in a crowded market.
I believe it can work well if there is open and honest communication between outfitter and potential clients. This type of package will not be suitable for everyone and an outfitter certainly has the right to determine to whom such an arrangement might be offered.
For example, a hunter looking for a really big Roland Ward trophy as his primary goal may not be the right fit. Same goes for a hunter looking to add a couple of “better” animals to his collection than he already has.
For a first-time hunter who is looking for a mixed bag and really has no idea what he’ll end up liking to hunt or for someone looking to shoot a good number of “representative” animals in a certain area, I think this style of package would be an attractive option.
Once both the outfitter and client have agreed that this type of hunt might work for each other is when the real communication needs to start happening. The client must be honest about what he or she wants in terms of trophy quality and also about which two or three animals are a priority. The outfitter also needs to be honest about what quality of animals are being offered by species. So, an outfitter might say, “I have a bunch of good Gemsbok, Red Hartebeest and Steenbok so we will try for excellent trophies on those species. However, my big Kudu and big Springbok and big Blue Wildebeest are fewer in number and more valuable to me. I’d prefer you be willing to settle for representative examples of these animals. Everything else is whatever you and the PH agree on.” Then, a discussion on what these terms mean can be had.
The outfitter would also be free to communicate how many animals or what monetary amount he needs at minimum for this to work for him and he could also expect a gentleman’s agreement in return that an honest effort would be made by the hunter to achieve it. The hunter would also be within his rights to get an agreement from the outfitter that the highest effort will be made to get him all the animals he wants and that the effort would be made for the entirety of his trip.
Being a first-timer myself, I would absolutely entertain the idea of hammering out a mutually-beneficial deal such as outlined above with an honest man. I’d shake his hand and buy him a whisky upon meeting him on the ground in Africa.
I don’t think of this as a gimmick or even as a move of desperation. I think it may be a viable alternative (although a niche one, at that) in a crowded and shrinking market. I also believe that for any idea, its merit can only be determined if it is tried. The model needs to be implemented, executed and measured for effectiveness before acceptance or rejection can be achieved.
Remember, things like Facebook, Instagram and YouTube were once “gimmicks” that were used by very few people. Although the jury is still clearly not in on the subject of free day fees, some deliberation on its merits is necessary before a verdict is reached.