Jim Shockey on Border Closure

[tdot]

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.

Now Canada is a 3rd world country?

Great American arrogance at its finest. Well done. That right there is the reason why some Americans may not have the best experience when they travel elsewhere. America First isn't a great catch line once you leave your borders.

 

[roadrunner]

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.

The price of our lumber in the States has gone up significantly because we get a large supply of it from Canada. New construction hasn't helped with all the city slickers "jumping reservation" for smaller town living.

But the disrupted supply from the north results in higher prices because the quantity demanded as gone up with a static supply, or even a decrease in that supply from what it should be.

We have a global economy now, like it or not.

 

[Michael Rankin]

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...

So if I book a rental car for a week, and there is a hurricane causing the trip to be cancelled what should happen?

Should the rental car company keep my money because they are experts in renting cars, already bought all the cars, and properties for running the operation, had employees, advertised that year, and paid state fees and licensing?

I would imaging I would get a refund are a credit towards a future trip.

I think you would be pretty hard pressed to find someone that books a hunt a year or two in advance that believes the 50 percent deposit is just going to the outfitters truck payment and expenses over the next year or two until they actually go on the hunt. Current expenses should be paid by by services completed. Operating a business any other way is a recipe for disaster.

As has been stated by many people, it’s an unheard of situation that both sides have to try to work out in a fair way. It seems like a huge majority of hunters and outfitters that I have read about are working together and coming up with good solutions.

 

[roadrunner]

So if I book a rental car for a week, and there is a hurricane causing the trip to be cancelled what should happen?

Should the rental car company keep my money because they are experts in renting cars, already bought all the cars, and properties for running the operation, had employees, advertised that year, and paid state fees and licensing?

You'd get a voucher for a future rental, you won't get a refund. They lose your business, they don't care as they have hundreds of thousands of rentals each year. The voucher would also be subject to current taxes, licensing, fuel price, and insurance rates so you'd likely pay more if it were used a year or two later.

Their ROI of the vehicle is quick. Fleet price, rented nearly every day. Not hard to figure what it would be. Your rental pays for the "rope, soap, and dope" of the operation.

And, the rental car company didn't rent the car. You did. You're the expert.

Next...

 

[tdot]

The price of our lumber in the States has gone up significantly because we get a large supply of it from Canada. New construction hasn't helped with all the city slickers "jumping reservation" for smaller town living.

But the disrupted supply from the north results in higher prices because the quantity demanded as gone up with a static supply, or even a decrease in that supply from what it should be.

We have a global economy now, like it or not.

The funny thing is that both the US and Canada were literally born due to Global economy's. It's nothing new, but some people still struggle to accept the idea.

 

[roadrunner]

The funny thing is that both the US and Canada were literally born due to Global economy's. It's nothing new, but some people still struggle to accept the idea.

And both because of the British Empire and their competition with France.

 

[Marbles]

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?

The us of

When I was broke and down I still fulfilled my obligations and contracts even though doing it damn near bankrupted me.

in defense of

Being broke is temporary if your any good at running a business. A bad reputation is tar baby and you will never shake it.

which was made in response to

People forget, they hired the outfitter to provide a service. Part of that service is making arrangements. Those arrangements have a cost...

had lead me to conclude you considered it an obligation. Of course I'm quoting the bits I found significant in each message. I don't feel stripping those quotes from the context of the post they where made in alters the meaning, but I used the quote feature so anyone can easily jump back to the posts in question and make their own judgement on that.

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.

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?

I don't have an interest in defending either, but rather am opposed to the entitled, I should be taken care of by someone else tone of many of the replies.

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.

 

[roadrunner]

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...

 

[EcoastDG]

Interesting thread. Covid has definitely caused a stir in all markets and industries. I would love to hunt in Canada in the future (probably moose or black bear).

I guess I'll have to get over my slight hatred for Canadians that I developed on February 28, 2010.

 

[KBC]

Interesting thread. Covid has definitely caused a stir in all markets and industries. I would love to hunt in Canada in the future (probably moose or black bear).

I guess I'll have to get over my slight hatred for Canadians that I developed on February 28, 2010.

Why do you hate us?

 

[EcoastDG]

Why do you hate us?

Not all of you. Just Sydney Crosby I guess, lol.

 

[Bearizona]

It’s hard to apply his argument to any other business and think it makes sense. Paying for a good or service and telling the customer “better luck next time” seems wrong regardless

 

[roadrunner]

It’s hard to apply his argument to any other business and think it makes sense. Paying for a good or service and telling the customer “better luck next time” seems wrong regardless

No doubt. If illegal action (fraud) actually takes place though, whole different story. There is no "better luck next time"...

 

[Bearizona]

No doubt. If illegal action (fraud) actually takes place though, whole different story. There is no "better luck next time"...

It's probably going to get a little western before the dust settles.

 

[KBC]

Oh right hahaha sorry I was a little under the influence that afternoon…..

Not all of you. Just Sydney Crosby I guess, lol.

 

[tdot]

Interesting thread. Covid has definitely caused a stir in all markets and industries. I would love to hunt in Canada in the future (probably moose or black bear).

I guess I'll have to get over my slight hatred for Canadians that I developed on February 28, 2010.

My ears are still ringing from the cheer that went up in the City of Vancouver when that goal was scored. It was pretty epic to be in the crowd and I'm not even a hockey fan.

 

[buzzy]

Apologies if this has been answered but I only skimmed thru the 7 pages of responses here. I'm curious to get opinions on hunts purchased via SCI or other organization auctions. If someone purchased an auction hunt for a Canadian Dall sheep and was scheduled to go when Covid hit and has been unable to make the hunt due to Covid should the hunter be obligated to pay anything extra that the outfitter might ask for? Seems to me since the hunt was paid in full at the time of the auction the outfitter is obligated to honor the commitment without any additional payment.

I have heard of a couple of instances where the outfitter is moving the auction hunter way back in line to get full paying customers in ahead of them even though the customers booked with the outfitter after the auction hunter won his hunt. So auction hunters are being treated poorly in the pecking order and being asked to pay something extra because they are being pushed out 2 more yearss from now when they were supposed to hunt last sseason. This is pretty screwed up in my opinion and I'm hoping will come around to bite the outfitters in the rear who are doing this.

 

[Covee]

They take your money, give you nothing, then tell you to pony up another 40% or pound sand......

And their customers let them get away with it.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Now Canada is a 3rd world country?

Great American arrogance at its finest. Well done. That right there is the reason why some Americans may not have the best experience when they travel elsewhere. America First isn't a great catch line once you leave your borders.

I’ve been all over the world, never once had trouble as an American and I don’t know any American that has either. Funny because I used to date a Canadian girl who said Americans have trouble when they travel….it’s not been the experience of me or anybody I know. Canadians seem to need to tell themselves that the world dosent like Americans but that just isn’t true, every where I’ve gone and all the time overseas, never once have I experienced a situation where Americans weren’t liked.

Now in all transparency, I don’t travel in the Middle East.

 

[tdot]

I’ve been all over the world, never once had trouble as an American and I don’t know any American that has either. Funny because I used to date a Canadian girl who said Americans have trouble when they travel….it’s not been the experience of me or anybody I know. Canadians seem to need to tell themselves that the world dosent like Americans but that just isn’t true, every where I’ve gone and all the time overseas, never once have I experienced a situation where Americans weren’t liked.

Now in all transparency, I don’t travel in the Middle East.

I was simply responding to an American who said he'd had problems traveling in Canada.

I've also traveled all over the world, including the Middle East and in my experience, the most well traveled Americans rarley or never have trouble, that includes Africa and the Middle East. But I have personally met a number of Americans while out traveling, who've complained about issues while outside their borders.

Nevermind the number of American travelers who I met with Canadian flags sewn to their packs, and the was pre 9/11. All of them claiming it was to prevent problems.