Billed after a safari question

[pilar]

My buddy and his wife went to Zimbabwe, and the PH put the wife on a mountain zebra @ 350 meters and said they couldn’t get a better shot, she said she was uncomfortable with the shot
with a .270wsm 130ttsx , she shot and says she missed, the tracker and PH looked for blood for 2 hours and where unsuccessful finding any .
fastfarward 2 months, he received a bill for the zebra via email , he is refusing to pay because they had no blood on the ground
who is in the right ? Hunter or safari company!

 

[Foxi]

the Safari company should be ashamed

 

[Hunting Hitman]

Hunter….all day

HH

 

[Mark Biggerstaff]

That should have been settled upon during the hunt or at the end. Not months later. If it was determined a miss no blood no evidence of hit. I would not pay.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Hunter is in the right IMO. Had they found blood and showed it to them, then they'd have the right to charge your buddy.

 

[grand veneur]

Normally wounded game and not found is considered shot, that is clear to everyone.

In this case the question arises as to whether the animal was hit and wounded, or missed. In a lot of cases, based on how the animal reacted to the shot, it can be assumed whether it was hit or not. Unfortunately, blood cannot always be found and then you have to look for other signs. That's why, at the slightest suspicion of a wounded game, we immediately use in our countries a specially trained dog for tracking the animal.

It is therefore difficult to express an opinion on this case because one would need some additional information, especially from the PH side who certainly not was looking 2 hours for this game without reason.

 

[375Fox]

The hunter is right if it was agreed at time by PH and hunter to be a miss. Two months following the safari sounds suspicious, but also sounds like some details may be missing.

 

[pilar]

the Safari company should be ashamed

He & her and I where going to return in 2024 and they are changing company I guess.
to Namibian company
also they said the PH’s would drink all the beer on the drive home to camp LOL
if that’s a problem?

everyone agreed it was a miss at the time , the PH and Ranger wanted to double check
was what wife says, I wasn’t there, but I never want to be in that situation

 

[Rem280]

My buddy and his wife went to Zimbabwe, and the PH put the wife on a mountain zebra @ 350 meters and said they couldn’t get a better shot, she said she was uncomfortable with the shot
with a .270wsm 130ttsx , she shot and says she missed, the tracker and PH looked for blood for 2 hours and where unsuccessful finding any .
fastfarward 2 months, he received a bill for the zebra via email , he is refusing to pay because they had no blood on the ground
who is in the right ? Hunter or safari company!

Maybe a mistake? Did they reach out to the outfitter?

 

[baxterb]

I would think had the hunter been told she would be paying for that lost zebra at the time she would have insisted they keep looking longer than two hours.

And if the PH is a drinker then his memory may be compromised.

I have no problem with people drinking but these knuckleheads who want to out Hemingway Hemingway with the booze during hunts can go straight to hell.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Normally wounded game and not found is considered shot, that is clear to everyone.

In this case the question arises as to whether the animal was hit and wounded, or missed. In a lot of cases, based on how the animal reacted to the shot, it can be assumed whether it was hit or not. Unfortunately, blood cannot always be found and then you have to look for other signs. That's why, at the slightest suspicion of a wounded game, we immediately use in our countries a specially trained dog for tracking the animal.

It is therefore difficult to express an opinion on this case because one would need some additional information, especially from the PH side who certainly not was looking 2 hours for this game without reason.

I'd agree they didn't spend 2 hours searching for a potentially wounded animal if they didn't think it was, but then what becomes the objective criteria for making the call of wounded / not wounded?

 

[Foxi]

At the end of the safari there is a protocol for the settlement, signed by both sides.
If this zebra is not listed, it will not be charged.
It could be a mistake or you are just trying something and hoping the client is stupid enough.

 

[pilar]

Maybe a mistake? Did they reach out to the outfitter?

Yes , in a long email, and they didn’t get a response from the SC

 

[booker]

First off it was a mistake for the wife/hunter to take a shot that she was not 100% confident in. I feel this was a poor decision by the one pulling the trigger.

That being said, the issue to pay for an animal should have been discussed then, that day, period. No blood and no video or definitive proof an animal was hit then sorry no payment should be expected. Especially some time post safari.

 

[Nyati]

First of all, if lady was not confortable with taking the shot, she should not have done it.

If the zebra was considered as wounded, it should have been billed at the end of the hunt.

Unfortunately, if they don´t pay, they may not receive their trophies.

 

[grand veneur]

I'd agree they didn't spend 2 hours searching for a potentially wounded animal if they didn't think it was, but then what becomes the objective criteria for making the call of wounded / not wounded?

What I wrote above, based on the reaction of the game to the shot, whether there is suspicion that the game was hit or not. Unfortunately, hit means wounded, and unfortunately more game are hit than missed.

Sure, there is always an element of uncertainty when no blood or other signs can be found, but ultimately the PH's word will count more than that of the client. The outfitter then has to decide whether to issue an invoice on suspicion of a wounded game or not.

 

[wesheltonj]

With the facts as presented, no payment.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

What I wrote above, based on the reaction of the game to the shot, whether there is suspicion that the game was hit or not. Unfortunately, hit means wounded, and unfortunately more game are hit than missed.

Sure, there is always an element of uncertainty when no blood or other signs can be found, but ultimately the PH's word will count more than that of the client. The outfitter then has to decide whether to issue an invoice on suspicion of a wounded game or not.

I understand what you're saying, but it just seems to subjective. I've hit, killed and retrieved game that didn't in the least act like they were hit, but most certainly were.

I've also been on hunts where it appeared due to the animal's reaction, it was hit. But only to never find blood or any other evidence including a dead animal to support that.

So I don't see it as an issue of relying on anyone's word or trusting one over another. Certainly it's possible relying only on blood that a true hit results in no charge when there should be one, but it also prevents true misses being wrongly charged.

 

[shootist~]

If she told the PH she was uncomfortable with the shot - and 350 is too long for many if not most - the PH should have called if off.

That and the other facts (no blood and not charged at end of safari), means nothing is suddenly due now.

All assumes nothing is being left out of the story.

 

[Tokoloshe Safaris]

If there was no notice of a definite hit. No sign of blood or other body evidence of hit at the time, We would consider the shot s miss.

If the animal is found soon after the hunt. Then you might want to discuss.

Do what you want, but I would answer their statement with a piss off.