Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Canada Jim Shockey...

I will admit right up front that Im not a Shockey fan. I know a lot about him, but thats got nothing to do with this. Thoughts on this?? Ive been in the business for 35 years and my question to Shockey would be how many outfitters took outside jobs to keep things rolling?? My wife and I both did. Maybe Im old school but a deal is a deal to me. Make it work. We rolled our clients ahead...thats the only fair thing to do in my opinion.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/deep-dives/canadian-outfitters-border-closure-hunt-refunds/

I don’t know Shockey personally. I have clients that have had business dealings with him and were fine dealing with him.

Also have clients in the industry and have a pretty good idea what they are going through

I see some of his point.

Having said that I feel/think it is incumbent on the outfitter to roll the commitment forward . Or refund the $ if you can’t make a reasonable attempt to provide the Hunt - not necessarily in 2021 , but 2021 or 22 . Obviously some juggling involved because most are , or were , booked 2-3 years out.

So to accommodate someone who was supposed to hunt in 2020 in 2021 or 2022 you have to move someone else. They have to be aware of this and try to be reasonable as well.

Letter of law ? Probably don’t have to roll forward. Still I think it is reasonable.

Lot of self justification in the article

The border shut down is going to happen again it's just a matter of when. My thinking is, you'd have to be nuts or have money to burn to ever pay for a Canadian hunt upfront. For US residents Alaska is the only way to go.

My wife and I did..............................

I'm super unimpressed with this from Jim Shockey.

As per the comments "Shockey is laying it on a bit thick"

If the net were 10%, I don't think many would have stayed in the guiding business.

I would think Shockey has made enough $$$$ to weather this storm but small, newer operations will suffer for sure.

us the people who booked the hunt with a guide should receive a large portion of the money back , matter of fact those hunts with a guide the price of insurance should be part of the fee all the time and guides should make it mandatory that insurance is always part of the fee. that way hunters have some protection with their money and guides do also get some protection then too. very foolish that this money down for a guiding /outfit hunting or fishing trip isn`t even a law to protect a consumer and the guides. common sense would be get this rule /law passed for hunter /guide protection????

I honestly don't think we need anymore laws. But after this China flu BS everyone needs to be fully aware that there's a real need for trip insurance. The guides can and should have some kind of wage insurance to cover themselves,.

May I ask which outfitting operation is yours or that you work for? A PM would be fine if you're not comfortable saying on the open board.

Or feel free to tell me to mind my own buisness.

Thanks.

First, if the oh so benevolent government is handing out money like they have been, the government should be refunding the fees paid for what the government subsequently prohibited, in reality as a practical matter if not explicitly. Secondly, the next negotiations should be between the businesses involved in the B2B transactions Shockey referenced. Those outfitters shouldn't be left holding the bag alone on lodging, etc. that they didn't utilize. Then, what about insurance the outfitters carry to mitigate loss - do any of those policies help pay for the shortfall?

Only after all other means to recoup funds are exhausted, and the outfitter should be able to explain everything he did, should the business providing an agreed-upon service go to the customer seeking more money. The inflation issue makes sense that I think everyone can relate to, and I think most customers would be willing to add some additional compensation to cover inflation. However, most people are going to see business expenses as business expenses and part of what a business owner has to manage to stay in business. Shockey mentions all the additional costs that "full- time" outfitters may have, but the increased size of the busines means the risks taken on by the owners increase, too. Any business that is contemplating asking customers to pay again (double) for the same goods or services they haven't received yet probably should just shut their doors.

An additional option is to add species such as birds, varmints, and fish that can be used to help bring additional revenue at no or minimal additional costs. I really think an inflation surcharge to cover increased expenses and offering add-ons should be what the outfitters focus on with their customers. Most people would probably consider paying another 20% or so under the circumstances, especially if they are getting "more," but 40% more for something you've already paid for and not received would be hard to swallow unless you're getting more than what you originally paid for. The outfitters will also need to increase their margins for future hunts to make up the 2020-21 shortfall. It's time for the outfitters to get creative.

I'll add, too, if the contract stated that the balance of the contract amount had to be paid by a certain date, and the hunter didn't fulfill his obligation, those nonrefundable deposits are fair game for the outfitter to do with as he pleases.

I have a lot of sympathy for the outfitters, but the way Shockey wrote his article appeared a little tone deaf. Of course, the article kinda lines up with my impression of his personality from the few times I've seen him on TV so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Never met the man but my hunting partner has several times and says he is a really decent guy to chat with.

Given all that, I think he is off base on this topic. He does make a good point about clients being responsible for their own travel insurance though.

I think what the cruise ship industry has done is reasonable, if less than perfect. If they could not provide the service contracted (the cruise) they gave a credit for 100-125% of the cost of the cruise, to be used again future sailings (any sailings). i.e. I believe the credit is for the value of the cruise, not necessarily one cruise for another. People who have booked later cruises are not bumped to accommodate those whose cruise did not sail. Seems reasonable as a baseline for outfitters to follow that model.
I understand the point he made about yearly operating expenses before the trip, but that is the outfitters business model and his risk, and suggesting the client eats that cost is unreasonable. That would be like the farmer who wants the processor to pay for his expenses when he has a crop failure with not crop to sell!

I suspect any outfitters who do not work with their clients towards a reasonable solution, in spite of what their lawyers advise is their legal requirement, will suffer significant bad press and their business will suffer, as it should.

Poor Jim Shockey...

It's my understanding that trip insurance won't cover for COVID related issues moving forward. Not sure how people fared for last year if they had purchased insurance prior to COVID but tried to get paid out for cancelled hunts last yr.

no more in the outfitting or guiding business as well but he is out of lunch but that will not the first time as well ...

Sent you a PM. I own Grizzly Creek Lodge.

as soon as I started reading that story I thought of Force Majeure in a contract.

I had never heard that term until last year when my group was on the hook for several thousand dollars worth of hotel costs for an event we couldn't have.

As I understand it , Force Majeure is valid for contracts that were written before Covid-19 was a known threat. Once its decided that a cancellation is possible, even if it isn't defined in the contract due to a known entity (like booking a hotel room on the coast during hurricane season) then Force Majeure can no longer be claimed.

Also, 25% of the cost of the trip seems really high for trip insurance. Maybe that's due to the volatile nature of a hunting trip, but standard travel destination insurance thru a 3rd party is never more than 10% for vacations I insure.

The guy hunts the world and is crying about money?

Maybe Nosler quit putting money “up front”.