The outfitter owes the funds back to the client as he is unable to deliver the service ie the hunt.

I always insist an outfitter which has bullshit clauses about not having to refund a deposit for any reason, delete those clauses, as the inability to deliver a safari is HIS obligation not the clients.

The deposit is there for the outfitter to cover his costs if the CLIENT DEFAULTS, not when the OUTFITTER DEFAULTS.

If an outfitter has to pay a deposit to a landowner for access and the landowner screws the outfitter is the business of the outfitter, and the outfitter should refund the deposit 100% if the outfitter is not able to deliver the hunt, or an agreed upon alternative.

"Insurance" for the outfitter being unable to provide a hunt, is the responsibility of the outfitter, not the client.

As it comes from AR, I imagine the crooked outfitter is one of the many that infest that place. Probably had "good" members giving "independent" references for the outfitter as well.