Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Africa vs. Alaska

I have been on the fire for many years. I've noticed that within the past few years there has been nearly as much interest and sometimes even more interest in hunters experiencing Africa as compared to Alaska. One thing that tipped me off to this is the numbers of members watching particular posts. African topics frequently have equal or even more post watchers than Alaskan topics. Why do you think this is? Or is it? Perhaps I have made a false observation. Maybe more of us are more interested in experiencing African than Alaska. I know I am more interested in returning to Africa than Alaska even though the travel costs are substantially more and the distance much greater. Hunt costs and animal availability is one of the big reasons.
I have noticed too that Canadian topics have fallen way off the interest radar. Interesting.

I've been to both.....IMO it's Africa for hunting and Alaska for fishing.....

I would guess it is because generally, on a volume basis, it is "cheaper" to hunt in Africa than it is in Alaska or Canada. Also, in general, Africa will be a physically less demanding hunt. I am currently working, in my mind, my retirement hunt that is a few years or so away. Originally a cape buffalo/sable hunt was envisaged but the more I work it the more I want to return to northern BC for a multi-species hunt. My two bits.

No high fence operations in Alaska that I am aware of.

I think Africa is more intriguing for the average hunter...different animals, different culture, the the lore and tradition created by Ruark, Roosevelt, etc.

Be what it is.
RedHeads N Blondes, YES...

Alaska = 1 animal taken per expensive trip + few animals seen
Africa = several animals taken per expensive trip + many opportunities

The math is particularly important when the economy tanks, exchange rates don't favor our $ and time for hunting trips becomes shorter. Just my take based on my own experience. YMMV

I've been to both, contemplated moving to Africa, and ended up here... I haven't spent all that much time in Africa, only 3 trips, and about 9 weeks total, but I will say this...

Africa is for shooting, Alaska is for hunting. Saying that a trip in Africa is a hunt is misnomer... being waited on hand and foot, not having to do anything once the trigger is pulled, being led around like a puppy and shown what to shoot, etc... Africa is a joke compared to Alaska, no question in my mind. How many people go to Africa and come home empty handed? A few who may have been looking for that one special animal, but come on... you could shoot 4-8 animals a day if you wanted to, in some cases. How is that "hunting?" It's not, its called killing. Look at the cull hunts offered in Texas, er I mean Africa, for Christ sake.

I'm sure there will be a lot that come to the rescue of Africa, but they'll likely be the same type of hunters that are more for the kill than the hunt. Its pretty obvious when the $/animal quotes start popping up. Because to some it's about the biggest body count per dollar. I have friends who guide, and they absolutely HATE this kind of client. Luckily few of those type make it up here.

I love Africa and will go back some day, but doubt anytime soon. I'd rather chase sheep, and moose, and caribou, and bears and... I'd rather spend 2 weeks chasing sheep and not kill one than go to Africa for 2 weeks and kill 20 animals. Where's the challenge in that?

In Africa you pay for your trophy in Alaska you earn it.

Personally I think there is less interest because people don't want to hunt that hard. Its pretty obvious even here in AK. If an animal wants to survive all he has to do is stay half a mile from an ATV trail and he'll die of old age. Alaska by and large has some of the most lazy hunters I've ever been around.

Have to disagree with you in terms of your generalization on Africa. In Africa, the degree of difficulty largely depends on WHERE you go and WHAT you hunt. Sure, the Plains-Game farms in RSA and Namibia can certainly fit your description of "whack and stack", no question. But move past that and look at other African locales - Mountain Nyala in Ethiopia, Bongo in Cameroon, Lord Derby Eland in CAR, Roan and Buffalo in Western Africa, the list can go on and on. None of those hunts are the kind of "cake walk" you describe.

Recently saw three interesting safari offers in Africa. First was a Lion hunt in Western Africa (Burkina Faso) for around $20K, all in. Hunting Lion there is totally different than in Eastern or Southern Africa. No baiting, no calling, and no use of dogs is allowed by their laws, only tracking. Could a non-resident hunter hunt one of the equivalent/"glamor" species (Stone Sheep, Dall Sheep, Moose, Grizz/Coastal Brown Bear) in AK for the same money? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm actually asking.)

The second was with the same operator but for Buffalo and Roan that came in for less than $11K, provided you were successful on both species. Both hunts could increase in price if you hunted additional animals. In terms of demanding, I'd rate both of these right up there as these were not in fenced areas, they were to take place during a very warm time of year, Burkina Faso is very much a malaria zone and is predominantly a French-speaking country.

The third offer was for a "chasse libre" hunt in Cameroon and is probably the most similar to hunting in AK. Chasse libre is a concept that survived the post-colonial period and means there is no PH to help guide or hold your hand. You do have support staff available but you furnish your own food and equipment, accommodation/shelter are in the form of a fly camp, and you hunt large, unfenced areas on your own. These safaris start at around $7K and rise with the number of animals you hunt, taxidermy costs, etc. The species available on these hunts can be considered "top shelf" - Lord Derby Eland, Yellow-back Duiker, among others that are indigenous to Central Africa.

Mo, long time no talk. I hope all goes well for you.

That perspective is true and will remain so. Alaska is first world economy.

When I talk with my African collegues, that are able to commandeer a troup of 35 locals anytime they want to fresshen up a camp that a client may or may not actually be brought in to hunt, this drives it home.

Add to that species diversity and abundance, climate and you pretty much have it onesided in favor to Africa.

Anytime my collegues from Africa, you know the ones with the big double rifles, hear about the way a sheep hunt goes, they say: "hey, you guys are actually working."

Personally, I think comparing a trip to AK and a trip to Africa, say both costing the same, is the wrong approach. Both are out there and provide differing experiences.

One will not find a brown bear in the Save or a Leopard in Cold Bay.

I like sleeping in a bed, not on a cot.

I like being warm.

I like being where it doesn't rain for three hours every three hours.

I like to take warm showers and be clean.

I like it when people wash my clothes--daily.

I like to eat sitting at a table, with silverware, like a civilized man.

I like having someone else butchering and skinning the game.

I like hunting things that weigh 13,000 pounds once in awhile, and also dangerous things. I think lion are a lot more dangerous than brown bears.

I like plains game hunting because on my first safari I took eight animals and the whole thing, including air fare, cost less than hunting a single elk in the western US.

I like the sounds of the African night.

You also might have noticed that Safari Press offers about five times as many African books and videos as they do about Alaska.

Sounds like Africa is for you.

Godspeed.

As I posted on the Alaska forum, Africa appears to appeal to the folks that enjoy eating at buffets. Seems the appeal of filling up your plate for XYZ dollars is far better than only having one item on your plate.

Often it does, but not always, Scott.

My first trip to Africa was for a cape buffalo. I hunted hard for one, very hard. I also took an eastern impala that trip to Masailand.

My trip to Zimbabwe was for a kudu. I hunted 27,000 sq hectares in an un-fenced conservancy for eight days before finding a good older animal, and he was in an awfully thick thorn forest. I also took a few guinea and francoline.

My third hunt was for a gensbuck in RSA. It was on a high fenced farm of 9,000 hectares. It took four days to get a shot at a decent animal.

I went on two other trips to Africa as a guest of the PH and with clients. They did the buffet hunts and had a great time. I did, too, and was given the chance to shoot two more buffalo. One almost killed me and a tracker and was a follow up to a badly placed shot by the client.

I hunted northern BC and SE Alaska as a younger guy and loved the experiences. I slept in the open in a constant rain when we were caught out late after killing two caribou on top of the mountain; the tarps we had were used to keep the meat dry.

I survived a float plane crash in Ketchikan and lost most of my gear.

I wouldn't trade any of these experiences for a king's ransom now, but I also wouldn't endure the cold and wet of BC or AK anymore. Knees and hands quit working.

So, in all actuality either experience has an equal allure. Physical limitations can dictate which CAN now happen for many. I hate getting old.

Some writer did a piece for SPORTS AFIELD a couple of years ago on Africa and Alaska, and apparently quite a few readers liked it.

I've been to each an equal number of times, and the last was to Africa so I guess Alaska will be next again. Any one-paragraph generalizations about either places (such as Africa is a bunch of game farms, and Alaska is only for real he-men) are pretty much BS. I have been just as miserable in Africa as in Alaska, but in different ways, and spend just as long hunting one particular animal. I have also been just as comfortable in Alaska and had pretty easy hunting.

In my estimation any hunter who isn't the slightest bit interested in seeing Africa lacks appreciation for the natural world. It is still the most amazing spectacle of different birds and animals (not to mention vegetation and terrain) on earth, and to claim Alaska is far superior because the hunting can be tougher and animals aren't abundant is like saying bicycles are superior to laptops. It doesn't make sense, but it may help some people pat themselves on the back, especially if they've never been to Africa.

The only thing that ever bugs me is when folks say/type (and I've seen it a BUNCH on the 'Fire), go to Africa, you can shoot more for less money.

Seems those folks just don't have a [bleep] clue about anything.

Africa



Alaska

I will let you know. Going from Brown Bear next week.