The us of in defense of which was made in response to had lead me to conclude you considered it an obligation.
It's only an obligation if any funds were put into holding awaiting the full execution of the contract. In this case, the hunter actually showing up and justifying the labor used to take them out and any consumables used by the hunter during the trip. If a guide was paid in full upfront with a deposit (which I doubt), then that would be a dumb thing to do by the outfitter. If a guide were to be sitting in camp waiting for his hunter to show up the next day, well, all portions of the contract have been met in good faith.
I fully understand that those contracts are one sided, as long as they are legal and no verbal modification was made to them (i.e. "don't worry about that, we will take care of you if anything happens") it really makes no difference, an agreement is an agreement and a person who cannot stand by what they agree to simply because it becomes inconvenient lacks character. On the flip side, a person who will be flexible on agreements when that flexibility is inconvenient shows character that goes above and beyond. There are several ways clients can protect themselves, ranging from buying trip insurance to using a credit card that provides trip insurance just for using the card (usually not enough to cover the full cost of a hunt, but something). The simple reality is that the less a person can afford to just eat the cost of anything, the more they should hedge (especially if it may be the last guided hunt they can afford to go on). It is simple personal responsibility.
If an agreement has language to protect the business owner, there is no lack in character when they stand by what they agree. On the flip side, the hunter full well knows what is and is not refundable. Nobody made them sign the agreement and book with the outfitter, sounds callous, I know. Good human nature dictates a compromise should be made somewhere, but human nature is a squirrely thing.
And, yes, I think it is moral and ethical for guides to follow any clearly defined policies that were in place at the time of booking. There are things that could change that, such as did insurance cover losses it normally would not when a client failed to show or did the government give out business specific funds to cover such losses?
Not aware of any insurance policies that cover loss of revenue, just loss of tangible goods and real property. A charter captain loses his boat in a hurricane, a claim can be filed to replace the boat but not the revenue lost because of it.
I could equally ask why you are so defensive, however as being defensive generally has a negative connotation and taking any position comes with an element of defense I chose not to as both asking and the answer are unlikely to add substance.
Only defensive relative to the intent of the poorly written article. I don't lose sleep at night wondering if the hypothetical outfitter will be able to financially survive or whether Shockey is pleading his own case. Nor do I lose sleep on whether or not a hunter will receive all monies paid they saved for over the last decade.
Taking the face value of the article, hunters may lose everything they invested into their hunt and here's why. If too many hunters demand full repayment, hunters (generalized) can cripple the Canadian outfitting industry to unrecoverable levels up to and including complete failure.
This article is one man's opinion of what could happen. Historically, the world saw an event unfold that went down a similar path in 1929 but on a much larger scale...
