Jim Shockey on Border Closure

[5MilesBack]

This is an excellent analogy. You can't blame the taxidermist for the tornado and you can't blame the outfitter for Covid.

A better analogy would be.......taxidermist requires the full cost up front for a mount, so the hunter pays that. The taxidermist orders the correct form, which arrives, and sends the cape out for tanning. Then the taxidermist shop burns to the ground and he tells the hunter he's out of luck. He didn't have insurance, he's not going to do his mount now, and he's going to keep the hunter's money. That's pretty much what Shockey is saying.

 

[Billy Goat]

So missed the point, hence the words hypothetical situation. I can rewrite it and use $200 and $300 respectively if you wish...

And no, a taxidermist WILL NOT do a shoulder mount for cost.

Just seems that the argument is how the margins are so thin, not much money in it. Not profitable enough to carry over a lost year....

My point about the costs was that a taxidermist is going to have 25-40% of the final cost in materials or hired out services. When a taxidermist gets burned on non payment, if he gets 50% selling the mount, that doesn't give him any profit, but covers the expense. If he had 50% up front, then doesn't get the original client to pay for it, but then sells it for 50% the value, well he got the same money.

 

[MosquitoCoast]

A better analogy would be.......taxidermist requires the full cost up front for a mount, so the hunter pays that. The taxidermist orders the correct form, which arrives, and sends the cape out for tanning. Then the taxidermist shop burns to the ground and he tells the hunter he's out of luck. He didn't have insurance, he's not going to do his mount now, and he's going to keep the hunter's money. That's pretty much what Shockey is saying.

The analogy he gave had to do with the Covid effect on border opening in general with regards to Canadian outfitters and American Hunters. I didn't read his analogy to be based on what Shockey said. I think we can all agree that what Shockey said isn't entirely factual and its completely insensitive to the hunting community that places faith in these outfitters. See my first post in this thread. I'm in the middle of this and Shockey is clearly over dramatizing on a subject I'm not sure he understands. I'm not sure other outfitters would agree with him either. My outfitter adapted as did many last year. Not sure he will be able to do the same this year if they can't get the border opened. If Jim can't adapt, he'll lose a bit of confidence from his clientele. Especially if he wants to sound like a jackass doing it.

 

[roadrunner]

A better analogy would be.......taxidermist requires the full cost up front for a mount, so the hunter pays that. The taxidermist orders the correct form, which arrives, and sends the cape out for tanning. Then the taxidermist shop burns to the ground and he tells the hunter he's out of luck. He didn't have insurance, he's not going to do his mount now, and he's going to keep the hunter's money. That's pretty much what Shockey is saying.

First is the reason the taxidermist (outfitter) now requires a deposit. Second is a complete loss due to uncontrollable circumstances and the taxidermist is still out a big portion of his expenses. The part missing from the total bill is not directly related to that mount such as taxes, rent, utilities, insurance (because of rent), etc. That is part he doesn't get to recover. If the hunter paid in full with a complete loss, those other expenses not directly related to the mount are still there and those expenses are shared by all the other customers as well in the course of a year in doing business.

What makes everyone automatically think the outfitter is keeping all the money in his vault of wealth? Shockey's sophomoric attempt at an article...?

ALL Businesses have expenses that ALL customer's get to pay for. Otherwise the business is pro-bono and nonprofitable. Being profitable is the very point to conducting business.

Just seems that the argument is how the margins are so thin, not much money in it. Not profitable enough to carry over a lost year....

My point about the costs was that a taxidermist is going to have 25-40% of the final cost in materials or hired out services. When a taxidermist gets burned on non payment, if he gets 50% selling the mount, that doesn't give him any profit, but covers the expense. If he had 50% up front, then doesn't get the original client to pay for it, but then sells it for 50% the value, well he got the same money.

And here is where Shockey's poorly written article gets blown out of proportion. In my analogy, the only thing picked up here was the hypothetical cost and associated profit margin (? no mention of it all in the analogy) and then trying to dissect any realism out of a hypothetical situation used merely to illustrate a point. The analogy full well states "...and hope to get 50% of that amount to offset cost.", which on $750 would be $375, not a total loss but not break even either as the hypothetical amount was $450 because he's not holding his breath for the full amount invested. Before then no deposit was required. After the lesson learned, a deposit was required so he doesn't have to hope to recover cost.

I can do number games to satisfy "realism" but that's not the point...

 

[Throwin Darts]

I'll just say this. Being broke is temporary if your any good at running a business. A bad reputation is tar baby and you will never shake it. Covid was a shit show and continues to be so.

The people that hold up there responsibilities I would bet a dollar end up smelling like roses and will have clients booked out as far as they like. The ones that want to act like covid only affected them and they are owed will crash in a spectactular fashion. If it was shockeys 30-65k that was hanging out there he would feel a bit differently. This was the nail in the shockey coffin for me.

Spot on. In every industry Covid made some shine and other stink. People don't forget. Anyone spending their money with Shockey going forward needs their head checked. Questioning folks on why they didn't purchase trip insurance......hell where was his business interruption insurance? Guy sounds like a total prick but I still want him as my father in law.....hello Eva!

 

[5MilesBack]

ALL Businesses have expenses that ALL customer's get to pay for.

Yes, all businesses have expenses, and some carry insurance and some don't, some are great businessmen and some aren't. Some go the extra mile and some don't. Some are ethical and some are unscrupulous. These kinds of things have a way of working themselves out in the long run.....or sometimes even in the short run.

 

[Will_m]

In Contract Law in our country, the client could actually be sued for not completing the contract. Would it be successful? Given the circumstances, highly unlikely. But as I said in my previous post. The Outfitters and Guides were there to provide a service. The client didnt show up. That is Breach of contract.

This is not fraud. It's a shitty situation for both parties. American laws stop at the 49th parallel. Maybe it's fraud in your country, but not up here.

The only performance required of the client is payment. The guide’s performance is providing the hunt services in the contract. The guide breached by not providing the services and canceling the hunt, though his defense is that performance was made impossible by the government. The client performed. I would think the non-refundable provisions-to the extent they exist-would not fair well in court given that the guide was essentially given free money. That being said, I’ve never seen a non-refundable provision in a contact that was challenged.

 

[Squamch]

I also have officially given up on Canada. I have hunted there on several big game hunts and usually come home with a bit of a bad taste. I feel the costs are way higher than than elsewhere and personally I have felt unappreciated and ay times bad mouthed for being American. What idiot would talk smack to a client with whom they are counting on for a substantial tip? A Canadian.
I've hunted sheep, bears, goats, and moose in Canada and I have had some great hunts, but they were generally from US owned outfitters. I was seriously going to book another sheep hunt for 2023 but changed my mind and booked for Alaska instead. I've hunted in Alaska 7 times and hands down like it multiple times better. I hope in time more Americans will just say no to Canada and hunt right here in the great USA.

Great plan, can you get the American outfitters and guides to stay down there too?

 

[Billy Goat]

First is the reason the taxidermist (outfitter) now requires a deposit. Second is a complete loss due to uncontrollable circumstances and the taxidermist is still out a big portion of his expenses. The part missing from the total bill is not directly related to that mount such as taxes, rent, utilities, insurance (because of rent), etc. That is part he doesn't get to recover. If the hunter paid in full with a complete loss, those other expenses not directly related to the mount are still there and those expenses are shared by all the other customers as well in the course of a year in doing business.

What makes everyone automatically think the outfitter is keeping all the money in his vault of wealth? Shockey's sophomoric attempt at an article...?

ALL Businesses have expenses that ALL customer's get to pay for. Otherwise the business is pro-bono and nonprofitable. Being profitable is the very point to conducting business.



And here is where Shockey's poorly written article gets blown out of proportion. In my analogy, the only thing picked up here was the hypothetical cost and associated profit margin (? no mention of it all in the analogy) and then trying to dissect any realism out of a hypothetical situation used merely to illustrate a point. The analogy full well states "...and hope to get 50% of that amount to offset cost.", which on $750 would be $375, not a total loss but not break even either as the hypothetical amount was $450 because he's not holding his breath for the full amount invested. Before then no deposit was required. After the lesson learned, a deposit was required so he doesn't have to hope to recover cost.

I can do number games to satisfy "realism" but that's not the point...

So I'm your analogy where you sell the hunt at 50%, that doesn't count??

It stopped people from coming across the border, but where we have posts from people who are waiting ten years to get another tag to hunt in there country where they own land?

I think you can probably sell at 50% off.
Maybe not.

 

[Billy Goat]

Spot on. In every industry Covid made some shine and other stink. People don't forget. Anyone spending their money with Shockey going forward needs their head checked. Questioning folks on why they didn't purchase trip insurance......hell where was his business interruption insurance? Guy sounds like a total prick but I still want him as my father in law.....hello Eva!

I spent an evening having bourbon with the both of them.


She is cool, but I think overated.




Not saying I'd turn a proposition down tho.

 

[roadrunner]

So I'm your analogy where you sell the hunt at 50%, that doesn't count??

It stopped people from coming across the border, but where we have posts from people who are waiting ten years to get another tag to hunt in there country where they own land?

I think you can probably sell at 50% off.
Maybe not.

 

[Marbles]

Most people posting and complaining about the tone deaf article show a lot of tone deafness themselves. Like the guy who says "being broke is temporary" but has enough money to have three international hunts booked at the same time.

Or the "I should not have needed travel insurance, but the guide is an irresponsible idiot for not having it" bit that keeps coming up.

Then, there is this bit from a US guide service "No refunds will be made for cancelled hunts for any reason. No rate reductions or extra days will be given if hunters leave before the conclusion of the hunt or if they fail to arrive on prearranged dates. We recommend you purchase trip cancellation insurance in the event you are unable to make your trip due to work, injury, illness or death. Refunds are not granted for weather delays, area or season closures." https://huntwyo.com/our-policies

Makes it pretty clear that in Wyoming and Montana there are guides where you would just be SOL if a fire closed your hunting area or if there was an emergency season closure. Guess you guys need to pile on and accuse US guides of fraud as well given all the "south of" type comments.

Adults don't book with an outfitter if they cannot live with their policies and adults read those policies before booking. Mealy mouthed individuals complain about policies they have agreed to when things don't go their way. The reason for agreeing to things before hand is so that both sides know what is expected. Abiding by those expectations is the personal responsibility of each party, whether client are service provider. Those who complain about mutually agreed on rules after the fact show a decided lack of character. The exception would be if they can show that the rules violated the laws of the jurisdiction that governs them (which no one on this thread has even made a good faith effort at, and generally requires taking it to court to get a definitive answer).

Those who have an outfitter who is willing to renegotiate previously agreed on rules when doing so clearly favors the client over the outfitter should be very grateful. But most here feel entitled to consideration that they are not. Their arguments boil down to "everyone else should take responsibility so I don't have to." Normally this forum has much more reasonable responses, such as in the thread "Done with KUIU!?"

Of course, guides are also responsible for following pre-agreed policies and if they booked hunts with a policy that allowed refunds the ethical options for them are to follow those policies, attempt a bilateral renegotiation (which they are NOT entitled to), or file bankruptcy.

 

[Reburn]

Most people posting and complaining about the tone deaf article show a lot of tone deafness themselves. Like the guy who says "being broke is temporary" but has enough money to have three international hunts booked at the same time.

Ha. Here goes people making assumpitons. Point in fact I have one international trip booked for 2020. Point in fact covid screwed it up. Another point is we will pay more in the end when we get there and are fine with that. Our cost will basically be what it currently cost to hunt not what we booked for 2 years prior. I have been very broke before and there is a chance I will be broke again. But I'll get up everymorning before the chickens and try my damndest to go make more. When I was broke and down I still fulfilled my obligations and contracts even though doing it damn near bankrupted me. Its called integrity and It cant be put on a piece of paper.

I dont have a trip planned currently for argentina but the outfitter we have used in the past is taking clients and is ready to roll. We have considered it but not made a final decision.

Secret for you. I can go to Africa and Argentina and fly first class for less money they one Canada moose hunt.

I still call BS to canada outfitters holding 3 years of deposits screaming broke.

Yep outfitter contracts have always been onesided for the outfitter. As a client you take some good faith that if something crappy happens on the outfitters side they aren't going to tell you to pound sand. Nobody saw covid coming though. Being as its never happened before navigating through it is rocky.

Most guys here that have chimed in say their outfitters have been great to work with. That should make you happy rather then the defensive you seem to be.

 

[wind gypsy]

I still call BS to canada outfitters holding 3 years of deposits screaming broke.

I had not considered the bolded previously but that is a very good point!

Its one thing to incur costs in 2020 hoping to be ready if the border opens, but it wasn't a full season's worth of costs. If they cant weather one year of partial costs with multiple years of deposits in hand, they are probably playing a little to fast and loose with people's deposits.

 

[5MilesBack]

Makes it pretty clear that in Wyoming and Montana there are guides where you would just be SOL if a fire closed your hunting area or if there was an emergency season closure. Guess you guys need to pile on and accuse US guides of fraud as well given all the "south of" type comments.

You didn't mention anywhere that these WY and MT guides would also refuse to push the client's paid for hunt into the future, while keeping all their money. That's the hangup here. But at least on their website they fully recommend trip cancellation insurance, so I would assume that they themselves have similar loss of income insurance as a business.

 

[Marbles]

Ha. Here goes people making assumpitons. Point in fact I have one international trip booked for 2020. Point in fact covid screwed it up. Another point is we will pay more in the end when we get there and are fine with that. Our cost will basically be what it currently cost to hunt not what we booked for 2 years prior. I have been very broke before and there is a chance I will be broke again. But I'll get up everymorning before the chickens and try my damndest to go make more. When I was broke and down I still fulfilled my obligations and contracts even though doing it damn near bankrupted me. Its called integrity and It cant be put on a piece of paper.

I dont have a trip planned currently for argentina but the outfitter we have used in the past is taking clients and is ready to roll. We have considered it but not made a final decision.

Secret for you. I can go to Africa and Argentina and fly first class for less money they one Canada moose hunt.

I still call BS to canada outfitters holding 3 years of deposits screaming broke.

Yep outfitter contracts have always been onesided for the outfitter. As a client you take some good faith that if something crappy happens on the outfitters side they aren't going to tell you to pound sand. Nobody saw covid coming though. Being as its never happened before navigating through it is rocky.

Most guys here that have chimed in say their outfitters have been great to work with. That should make you happy rather then the defensive you seem to be.

Point in fact, I did not say booked in 2020, I just said booked. Though I miss understood when you said "our outfitter in Argentina" and read that to indicate a hunt was booked.

Fulfilling "obligations and contracts" is pretty basic. I have argued that must be done by the guides. So, when almost broke, did you consistently go for supererogation at your expense? Because that is what you are arguing the guides are obligated to do.

Events from forest fires to volcanoes to terrorism can prevent a hunt from happening. COVID changes nothing other than scale and while a person may not have seen COVID comming, only a naive person would believe outside forces could not stymie a trip. Expecting someone else to make up ones damages from such things when the opposite is formally agreed to is not "good faith." In fact, it is explicitly bad faith (a lack of honesty and sincerity of intent) on the part of the person expecting concessions that have already been explicitly excluded.

The deposits in hand should already be earmarked for the hunts of those who payed them. So, now you are effectively arguing that giving the money of a person booked in 2022 to a person booked in 2020 is ethical?

Defensive of what exactly? I'm glad that people who actually have hunts booked are having good experiences. However, that does not offset the overall tone of this thread, which is inconsistent with those good experiences (just look how offten fraud is brought up).

You didn't mention anywhere that these WY and MT guides would also refuse to push the client's paid for hunt into the future, while keeping all their money. That's the hangup here. But at least on their website they fully recommend trip cancellation insurance, so I would assume that they themselves have similar loss of income insurance as a business.

That outfitter makes it pretty clear in their policy (linked in my first post) that they will not move hunts. They don't discuss rolling a hunt over, but a reasonable reading excludes it. The hypothetical scenario in Shockey's article states the existence of similar policies in the contract the client signed. Shockey also states travel insurance was recommended in his hypothetical.

Now, if a similar policy did not exist, clearly the situation is different.

 

[Reburn]

Point in fact, I did not say booked in 2020, I just said booked. Though I miss understood when you said "our outfitter in Argentina" and read that to indicate a hunt was booked.

Fulfilling "obligations and contracts" is pretty basic. I have argued that must be done by the guides. So, when almost broke, did you consistently go for supererogation at your expense? Because that is what you are arguing the guides are obligated to do.

Events from forest fires to volcanoes to terrorism can prevent a hunt from happening. COVID changes nothing other than scale and while a person may not have seen COVID comming, only a naive person would believe outside forces could not stymie a trip. Expecting someone else to make up ones damages from such things when the opposite is formally agreed to is not "good faith." In fact, it is explicitly bad faith (a lack of honesty and sincerity of intent) on the part of the person expecting concessions that have already been explicitly excluded.

The deposits in hand should already be earmarked for the hunts of those who payed them. So, now you are effectively arguing that giving the money of a person booked in 2022 to a person booked in 2020 is ethical?

Defensive of what exactly? I'm glad that people who actually have hunts booked are having good experiences. However, that does not offset the overall tone of this thread, which is inconsistent with those good experiences (just look how offten fraud is brought up).

Actually if you read back through MY posts I have never said that the outfitters are OBLIGATED to roll the hunts. Nor had I said that the hunter is free and clear of having to pony up more cash if their hunt is rolled. I simply asked if guys thought it was MORALLY right for guides to KEEP the money and tell the hunter to pound sand and not provide a hunt at all. You seem to be getting me confused with others. It seems the moral and ethical thing to do is both parties meet in the middle. But thats just my personal opinion. Morals and ethics can not be debated as our values maybe different.

The things about these neat contracts that guides want you to sign is they are extremely lopsided to the guide. This is mostly to protect them from deadbeats. While I can't make a general statement to all outfitters I can speak to the ones I know. The "contract" is lopsided to protect them, not the client and if and when something happens that stymies a trip they go out of their way to do what is right for them and their clients so they maintain their good reputation. But its completely at their discretion. I would suspect that these "contracts" become even more lopsided after covid and quite frankly I didn't book a stone sheep canada hunt in 2019 due to the extreme lopsidedness of the contract and I was not willing to drop 30k non refundable out there to someone I dont know.

You seem defensive of protecting outfitters and guide when in actuality the whole thread was in direct response to Shockey article. Not the actual outfitters out there. If other guys took it there I dont have any say in that. Are you defending shockeys article or general outfitters?

 

[MosquitoCoast]

 

[roadrunner]

Actually if you read back through MY posts I have never said that the outfitters are OBLIGATED to roll the hunts. Nor had I said that the hunter is free and clear of having to pony up more cash if their hunt is rolled. I simply asked if guys thought it was MORALLY right for guides to KEEP the money and tell the hunter to pound sand and not provide a hunt at all. You seem to be getting me confused with others. It seems the moral and ethical thing to do is both parties meet in the middle. But thats just my personal opinion. Morals and ethics can not be debated as our values maybe different.

IF the (deposit) money was used to pay for labor services for the hunter and any necessary rental deposits for the hunter, then there is no obligation to return that money. IF this is the case, the outfitter was acting as an agent for the hunter because the outfitter had the expertise as a source the hunter has no knowledge of or experience in. IF payment was made in full, then the REMAINING and UNUSED portion may have an obligated right for return or rollover.

The article has been convoluted into meaning something it doesn't and that is because of simple personal bias and sympathetic reasoning by some.

NOTE: The overuse of bold, font size, and underlining is not directed at you, it's for the hopeful understanding of those who only read the first couple of words or sentences before commenting halfcocked...

 

[Iceman82]

Great plan, can you get the American outfitters and guides to stay down there too?

I think that's exactly the attitude that we Great Americans are taking about. I don't think you people realize where your money comes from. If the "Great Plan" became a reality we would have to take care of Canada like the other 3rd world countries that we take care of now. Your border was closed for one stinking season and it put outfitters out of business. With all the big spenders in Canada you would have thought that it would have made no difference at all.
You need America. Like it or not.