Based upon the recent press release stating NAPHA will report a client to the US authorities when hunting violations committed by PHs:

...Furthermore we want to focus your attention to the fact that NAPHA has embarked on a policy of zero tolerance towards hunting professional as well as clients when NAMIBIAN hunting laws are transgressed, even more so if sensitive CITES animals are involved.
The responsibility of law-enforcement lies with our Ministry of Environment and Tourism.
However NAPHA has decided to utilize all additional means available to increase the collegial/industry pressure to respect our NAPHA Code of Conduct, the Code of Ethical Sport-hunting for Africa and the Namibian hunting regulations.
1.) We will inform our partner organizations like SCI and DSC and CIC of any misconduct;
2.) We will inform the clients about illegal operations of their PHs/outfitters;
3.) We will notify CITES;
4.) We will notify US Fish and Wildlife;
5.) This could lead to the enforcement of the LACEY act, with possible severe consequences for the hunting clients themselves;
6.) We will participate on a limited scale on the internet hunting chat forums, as we recognize the importance and the speed of these institutions in order that the market forces will apply additional pressure on the PHs/outfitters to play the game according the self-imposed and self-defined rules and regulations.

Question:
How has this announced policy affected you attitude toward hunting in Namibia?

Choices:
I am more likely to hunt Namibia
I am less likely to hunt Namibia
I am neither more or less likely to hunt Namibia
I will now not hunt Namibia under any circumstances

 

I guess my yankee dollars will do my voting...

Rich
4-bore shooter

quote:

Originally posted by 404WJJeffery:
Based upon the recent press release stating NAPHA will report a client to the US authorities when hunting violations committed by PHs:

4.) We will notify US Fish and Wildlife;
5.) This could lead to the enforcement of the LACEY act, with possible severe consequences for the hunting clients themselves;

IMHO, NAPHA is not a law enforcement organization or government body therefore I think it is stepping out of bounds with these actions. I'm all for fair hunting and abiding by local laws but I think NAPHA is taking this a little too far.

My two cents....
-Bob F.

NAPHA is trying to do some about some of the rogue operators in their country, so more power to them.

However, they should concentrate on dealings wit this problem in their own country.

They have absolutely no right in trying to get a client to get punished in his own country for things he wasn't aware of.

Obviously, they are using the Lacey Act as a stick. Only problem is, the Lacey Act only applis to American hunters, and could get hunters who had no idea that they are breaking any laws, get punished.

Some of you might have been following the PAC hunts advertised by White Buffalo Safari.

In which WBS said they had a "secret recipe" for bypassing the laws of Mozambique - which do NOT allow visiting hunters to shoot PAC animals.

I imagine the Lacey Act can also be applied in those instances too.

I really think the best form of action ANY of us - whether client, PH, outfitter or professional orgenization - can do is call a spade a spade.

We have far too many people who tend to prefer to keep quiet after they have been taken for a ride.

All this does is support the crooks who think they have got away with it, and try it again, and again.

I get a lot of reports privately, and individuals ask me not to post the details. But you will be surprised how many bad apples there are. On both sides of the fence.

It is all smoke and mirrors at this point. I will believe it when I see it. I dont know what started this whole thing but I am sure it will settle down. Going after someone knowingly breaking the law is one thing. It is another to try and go aftera client who is innocent or at least not knowingly in violation. They will have to go after their own members or other ph companys first. The ph by the nature of the relaionship with the law mandating organization has to be held to a higher standard. Then the client but to a lesser degree. This is just to garner attention to a few bad apples in the group. I doubt it will be applied as initially stated. As far as that goes the governing body dosnt have enough manpower or teeth in the laws at this point. We will see how things progress but I am not worried about it.

What about other foreign hunters from Europe for instance?
Among others there is a quite a number from Germany, England, and also the Scandinavian countries who hunt in Namibia.
(the Franfurt / Windhoek run, smoot as silk)

Event though we dont have a Lacey Act to be treathend with, we are still supposed to be reported to our respective authorithies?

Or is this new aproach ment only for American hunters?
And if so, do they target them because they are an easy hit compared to us European hunters?

So far I keep on planning my 2011 safari to Namibia.

The other thread with thoughtful commnents on this subject.
http://forums.accuratereloadin...1411043/m/7121094711


It is a huge mistake to use the Lacey Act as enforced by the USFG. There are plenty of anti-hunters at USFG that would love to take a report from a "professional organization' NAPHA that someone has broken a wildlife law and prosecute the hunter. In this scenario the "most" punished person will be the hunter. Rarely are bad apples in Africa truly punished for anything. And the anti's would have a field day with the data as well. NAPHA needs to unequivically rescind that statement. Enforce African law in Africa and on the professionals that are providing the service. PERIOD

IMHO, this is a stupid idea. It forces a client to know more than they could possibly know about the local laws.

For example, how does a client know they are hunting in an area authorized for hunting? How does a client know the permits are proper? How does a client know there is quota available? and on and on and on............

Who need that grief in their life? Not me.

Count me among those who will not return to Namibia as long as this policy is in effect.

We are at the mercy of our guides while in a foreign country, and the penalties under the Lacey Act are not worth risking.

Bill Quimby

When you can't police your own dump on the visitor. Smart policy there.

Well you know those devious foreigners, they duped the poor local to break the law.

I know very little about nmibian hunting,aswellas the outfitters/PH's.I do know that last year a friend was urged to shoot any cheetah he saw, as they were pests reducing the antelope poplation on the ranch (he refused)/This year, an (ex) friend returned from a plains game hunt with a story of having shot "3 leopards".Turns out he exterminated a female and her two cubs, allegdly at the urging of his PH.
Turns my stomach
Hope someone brings these goons to justice

We were kicking around the idea of stopping into Namibia after our next DG trip to either Zim of TZ to hunt a few head of PG and take in the sights. I think this pretty well takes care of that, and it's a damned shame, too, because I really wanted to see the place.

When I am paying some guy several thousand dollars to put me in the proper place hunting properly and following the rules and he gets in trouble for busting some regulation I am not vaguely familiar with, I'm not going to take the chance of getting my butt in a crack if he decides to blow it off on me, or my friends.

Get tangled up with the Lacey act and you could lose your entire trophy collection...no matter where it was taken. Guns and all associated articles. Add to that a Felony. Let's say it was all a mistake...your going to get your things back how???????? Saeed is spot on: no foreign country should involve itself in our law enforcement. However, as a Nation, we're quite adapt at sticking our nose in their business. This will backfire IMHO. Let Namibia clean its own house. This is one snowball that will turn into an avalanche before it's over.
What next, US Military doing poaching patrol?
LDK

There's no doubt the Lacey Act has very big teeth indeed but I think hunters need to keep things in perspective. After all, thousands of Americans hunt Zimbabwe every year without any problems and the chances of contravening said act is considerably higher in Zim than it is in Namibia.

All they're trying to say is make sure you hunt in a legal manner........and as long as you have a proper contract that stipulates the PH is registered correctly etc then it's not a problem.

There's no doubt they shot themselves in the foot with the first press release and the second plays catchup but the phrase storm in a teacup springs to my mind on this.

Its clear that Shakari does not realize the possible red tape and insensativity of government here at times. Especially since our present administration has many appointees to important positions who are soooooo anti hunting. Its almost impossible to know all the laws and regulations in Namibia or anywhere else for that matter. Even if found to be not in violation of a Lacey Act rule a hunter from the US could face unbelieveable legal expense to protect himself legally. I was planning to hunt in Namibia but now will not unless this is straightened out to my satisfaction. Not worth the worry or stress to me - after all its a vacation and should be a totally pleasant experience. So much better to go to another country and eliminate this otential trouble when you are dealing with someone unknown to you as well as remembering that anyone can make a mistake and wind up taking you down with him.

Clayman,

I do understand bwana but maybe you missed the point of my post.

I appreciate that the penalties for breach of the Lacey act are extremely severe and the act is incredibly wide ranging but my point is that the Namibia issue and how ir relates to the Lacey act is pretty much directly linked to whether the (American) client hunts/books with a correctly (Namibian) licenced PH & Outfitter.

Whereas in Zimbabwe, whilst the same rule of only booking with a correctly (Zimbabwe) licenced PH/Outfitter would apply, that pales into insignificance when compared to the very extensive list of banned individuals that if an American hunter did business with, could bring prosecution under the same act.

In other words, American hunters stand a FAR greater chance of infringing the Lacey Act in Zimbabwe than they would in Namibia and yet thousands of them hunt Zimbabwe every year without any problems. Therefore the chances of infringing the act in Namibia are considerably less there than in Zimbabwe.

South Africa and Namibia - due to their vast variety of species, reasonably priced hunts and good infrastructure easily attracts more international hunters to their shores than most other African countries.
It's because of this that these two countries seem to have the most rogues, crooks and scoundrels operating within the hunting industry.
I am not saying that other countries do not have similar problems - it just that when one hears about dubious dealings with regards to African hunting on a regular basis - it inevitably always involves PH's / Outfitters from these two countries.
I am reading more and more of this kind of stuff everyday - and must admit that I am disgusted by what my " so called fellow professionals" get up to !
Who needs PETA, Green Peace or the Anti Hunter Lobbyists to close down hunting - we are going to do it to ourselves !

quote:

Originally posted by Mark DeWet:
Who needs PETA, Green Peace or the Anti Hunter Lobbyists to close down hunting - we are going to do it to ourselves !

Yup!

I think the bottom line is, whether you are booking a hunt in your home country or overseas you need to be sure you are booking with a quality outfit, with good references.

Also it is a good idea to know the hunting rules and regulations as best you can.

Also in this day and time it might not be a bad idea to ask some questions about the legal requirements of your hunt and even have it put in the contract that nothing illegal will be done.

However... IF you think you need something like that in the contract... Then maybe you should be hunting with someone else.

Shakira; There isn't anyone in Zim (much less a professional organization) threatening to "turn you in to the USFG" for prosecution under the Lacey Act. That is a huge difference.

NAPHA is using the threat of closely scrutinizing your hunt and reporting you if you aren't with a NAPHA PH. Use a NAPHA ph and you won't face the scrutiny because all the NAPHA's are professional and none would break any rules.

Again, what happened to the SA PH the Namib PH and the houndsman in that case?

John,

You might like to re-read the second press release. As I read it, they're not threatening to turn you in to anyone. What they're doing is warning you that by not having a locally licenced PH etc there, you may be laying yourself open to prosecution under the Lacey act........ and they're quite right in that statement.

That said, whilst the second press release is better than the first, it still ain't great.

Am I missing something here?

4.) We will notify US Fish and Wildlife;
5.) This could lead to the enforcement of the LACEY act, with possible severe consequences for the hunting clients themselves;

was changed to;

4.) We will notify other relevant authorities
5.) This could lead to the enforcement of the LACEY Act in the US, with possible severe consequences for the hunting clients themselves.


Pretty much the same thing Shakari

And interestingly enough both cases involved Namibian registered PH's (just maybe not NAPHA members)

John,

I see your point and I guess it all depends on what they mean by relevent authorities, so I guess the fact that we (maybe?) read it differently means they still need to make a still clearer statement.

My guess that they want to inform (US) hunters that by hunting with unlicenced PHs etc, they are laying themselves open to possible prosecution in their home country ....... and nothing more.

I will say that their whole attitude strikes me as a bit ridiculous. I reckon they'd be a lot better off not mentioning the Lacey Act at all, which after all only affects hunters from one nation anyway and this in turn will make those hunters feel they're being singled out.

As I said earlier, it would have been a better idea to address the issue privately and not make a press release at all but now the cat is out bag, it can't be put back quietly.

I think that now a press release has been issued they'd be much better off issuing yet another one explaining it's illegal to hunt without a correctly licenced local PH etc and that if it happened, no export licences would be issued etc.

Load gun, aim down, pull trigger! Shot themselves in the foot. Mt money won't be going to Namibia under these circumstances.

quote:

South Africa and Namibia - due to their vast variety of species, reasonably priced hunts and good infrastructure easily attracts more international hunters to their shores than most other African countries.
It's because of this that these two countries seem to have the most rogues, crooks and scoundrels operating within the hunting industry.
I am not saying that other countries do not have similar problems - it just that when one hears about dubious dealings with regards to African hunting on a regular basis - it inevitably always involves PH's / Outfitters from these two countries.
I am reading more and more of this kind of stuff everyday - and must admit that I am disgusted by what my " so called fellow professionals" get up to !
Who needs PETA, Green Peace or the Anti Hunter Lobbyists to close down hunting - we are going to do it to ourselves !

+1

Seloushunter

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
...I appreciate that the penalties for breach of the Lacey act are extremely severe and the act is incredibly wide ranging but my point is that the Namibia issue and how ir relates to the Lacey act is pretty much directly linked to whether the (American) client hunts/books with a correctly (Namibian) licenced PH & Outfitter.

Whereas in Zimbabwe, whilst the same rule of only booking with a correctly (Zimbabwe) licenced PH/Outfitter would apply, that pales into insignificance when compared to the very extensive list of banned individuals that if an American hunter did business with, could bring prosecution under the same act.

In other words, American hunters stand a FAR greater chance of infringing the Lacey Act in Zimbabwe than they would in Namibia and yet thousands of them hunt Zimbabwe every year without any problems. Therefore the chances of infringing the act in Namibia are considerably less there than in Zimbabwe.

Steve,

A significant difference between Zimbabwe hunting and Namibia hunting is that the list of "banned" individuals is well published, and known. Thus allowing every hunter going to Zimbabwe to ask their outfitter, in writing, to verify that they will not be doing business with the listed parties.

In Namibia, they can only ask the outfitter if they will be doing everything legally! What will he respond in any case?

It appears to me to be a not so subtle attempt to bludgeon USA hunters into using only NAPHA member hunters and/or force all PH's to be NAPHA members to avoid trouble.

Les

Les,

I take your point about the way the Namibian press release is phrased and I agree it seems to threaten US hunters..... but I reckon it's more a case of unfortunate phraseology than intended threat.

Regarding the Zim/Namibia comparison, you're missing my point. What I was trying to point out was that in Namibia, the ONLY major issue relating to the Lacey Act is the hunting with correctly licenced PHs etc........ Whereas in Zim, you have that same issue PLUS you have the issue of seized land and listed banned individuals etc.

Therefore the risks of contravening the act are far greater in Zim than in Namibia yet thousands of Americans hunt Zim every year and don't sweat the Lacey Act, so why do it in Namibia where the risks and chances of contravention are considerably less.

Hope that helps.

Big Brother is becoming too Big. Namibia is not in my future. I go to hunt and enjoy it, not to worry every second if I have done something wrong that I may not know about, or if there is a vendetta against my PH or someone connected to him that could lead to some unforeseen charges against me. When it gets to this point, then it's time to look elsewhere. When you have declared activisim like this, then you don't need it unless you are looking for trouble.

I agree with Use Enough Gun, these guys made the press release or statement and it looks like they went overboard to some degree. Its impossible to know all the rules when you hunt in another country and if the PH screws up - either intentionally or otherwise you may end up with a problem with your own government. Not
worth the risk to me and yes it looks like some form of activism. If its the PH's they are concerned with they should address that first and see how it goes. As far as Shakari'spost to me goes - in the other countries they may use some discretion about contacting US athorities. In the case of Namibia it appears that they will
contact them in all or most cases. I am sure it will be a loss of many clients to them.

It seems to me that their PH association wanted a bigger piece of the hunting pie by scaring visiting hunters to use only association hunters. Their dumb asses might have insured there won't be much of a pie to cut up.

Up until now, the press release is just to focus attention on the group and their goals. Once they have reported a hunter, especially if it is in error or over a minor issue, then the situation is changed and many if not most hunters will boycott the country.

They have much more to lose than to gain with this war of words. I hope to see a retraction or significant clarification in the very near future.

This topic will certainly be brought up at the SCI and DSC shows, and I have no doubt that the Namibian PH's and outfitters will downplay it.

I want an elephant in my near future and Namibia is/was on my short list , along with Zim. At least with Zim, (you hope), you know the people to avoid before going in. It would be very unfortunate to get a nice bull ele in Namibia and then find out when you get home there are problems that you weren't even aware of.

I am looking forward to hearing the thoughts of booking agents such as Wendell and Mark Y. who do a lot of Namibian business.

Let's not write off Namibia yet.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,

RCG

quote:

Let's not write off Namibia yet.

I sincerely hope so!

Let's just cross countries where the alleged professional hunters association tries to "blackmail" us into using only their assn members by threatening legal action off our hunting destination lists for a couple years. That should weed out the illegals. It could cause minor inconveniences for the NAPHA membership as well, but I am sure they will be proud to bear any short term economic fallout for the good of their organization and the country. I tend to eliminate threat sources from my list of people to do business with.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
There's no doubt the Lacey Act has very big teeth indeed but I think hunters need to keep things in perspective. After all, thousands of Americans hunt Zimbabwe every year without any problems and the chances of contravening said act is considerably higher in Zim than it is in Namibia. All they're trying to say is make sure you hunt in a legal manner........and as long as you have a proper contract that stipulates the PH is registered correctly etc then it's not a problem. There's no doubt they shot themselves in the foot with the first press release and the second plays catchup but the phrase storm in a teacup springs to my mind on this.

Steve,

I believe someone who books with a banned outfitter would be subject to prosecution under a different U.S. law. (I think it's called the "Trading With the Enemies Act, but don't hold me to it.)

As I understand it, the Lacey Act applies to those who cross borders and violate the wildlife laws of another state or country.

Someone who hunted with a banned outfitter in Zimbabwe or elsewhere and also broke a wildlife law could find himself in deep doo doo with both the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and whatever agency (the U.S. State Department?) it is that enforces trade bans.

If found guilty of violating both laws, he would not only face horrible fines by both agencies, but could also spend many months in a federal prison.

The cost of defending himself in court, even if he wins, could force him into bankruptcy.

I will not hunt again in Namibia because of the NAPHA policy, and I'm shocked at the results of this thread's poll that show other hunters are not angered by said policy.

As I said earlier, it is impossible for even an informed and experienced American hunter to know all the wildlife laws of another country.

This leaves Americans at the mercy of those who guide us. Despite NAPHA's good intentions, hunting with one of its members does not guarantee that some law will not be inadvertently violated.

Bill Quimby

Shakari,

you are missing the point(s).

1. NAPHA has told the hunting world that they have appointed themselves to police the Lacey Act on this issue.

2. They did not say "We are going after illegal hunting companies..."
What they did say, in no uncertain or ambiguous terms is that they are going after foreign hunters who do not submit
to this not too subtle attempt at blackmail.

It reads like , if I may parse a bit: "we can't clean our own house or get the Namibian government to stop the illegal operations so we are going to try and get foreign hunters prosecuted for our impotence...". That's a threat to me, and I am not real good at taking that sort of thing. Neither are most of us here. Since we CAN make a statement with our checkbooks, that is how we choose to respond to this thinly veiled threat. I am looking forward to "chatting" with the NAPHA representatives should they be foolish enough to show their faces at SCI Reno next year. I don't think I've been thrown out of a convention since the APGCA (American Psychologists & Guidance Counselors Assn) in 1978; but this might do it.
I hope they get a tremendous drop in business, and the board member PHs who dreamed this up go out of business. Have they told the Namibian government about this yet?

Rich
spend your time and money hunting with companies who understand the reason they're making all that money is people like you.

Bill,

Amongst many other things, the Lacey Act (which incidentally, strikes me as a right stuff up piece of legislation) publishes a loooong list of individuals from all over the world with whom American citizens are forbidden to do business with.

In the case of Zimbabwe, that list has pretty much everyone involved in the Mugabe Gvt and includes those who have been allocated stolen land. Note, (relatively) rarely the outfitters themselves.

Rich,

I don't disagree with you buddy but I personally think they didn't intend to threaten hunters in general or American hunters in particular. My guess is they just opened their mouths and put their foot in it.

I think what they probably meant to say is that hunters need to be careful who they hunt with for their own sake and that American hunters especially, could find themselves in deep doo doo if they did the wrong thing.

As I said before, NAPHA shouldn't have made a press release at all and instead should have got together with Gvt and gone to the GDs and Gvts in the other relevent countries and tried to sort it out behind the scenes......... however, what is done, is done and they now need to rescind the 2 previous statements and make another one, preferably drawn up by people who have a bit of diplomacy and have English as their first language.

It also wouldn't do any harm if it included a public apology for any offence caused to (esp American) hunters.

As Omah Kyham said (from memory):

And the moving finger writes and having writ moves on, nor all thy piety not wit shall move it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

Sure would be interesting to see them get on here and tell us what they were thinking intstead of us speculating on it.

I wonder if they even care about the negative reaction? Or if they are going to let the chips land where they land.

Maybe they want to see what happens at DSC and SCI to gauge how serious this issue is.

They have certainly been cautioned.

Well, they've had several days of bad reaction to their policy posting. We've heard nothing from them in the way of an explanation. I can only conclude they don't give a crap. Explanations, excuses, and rationalisations from others don't cut it. They can run their hunting economy without my funds.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Bill, Amongst many other things, the Lacey Act (which incidentally, strikes me as a right stuff up piece of legislation) publishes a loooong list of individuals from all over the world with whom American citizens are forbidden to do business with. In the case of Zimbabwe, that list has pretty much everyone involved in the Mugabe Gvt and includes those who have been allocated stolen land. Note, (relatively) rarely the outfitters themselves. ...

Steve:

The text of the U.S. Lacey Act I found at the site listed below has no reference to trading with banned individuals.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plan...--forests--may08.pdf

The banning of trade with individuals on the “Specially Designated Nationals List” ( which includes Zim’s banned outfitters) was enabled under the the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the U.S. Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which are administered by our Treasury and State departments.

I’m not a lawyer, but my limited research leads me to feel that booking a hunt with a banned outfitter could subject an American to prosecution from three U.S. agencies -- The Fish and Wildlife Service (an Interior Department agency), and divisions of the Treasury, and State departments (each with its own laws and penalties) -- all because our government has deemed it illegal for us to “trade” with certain individuals.

Because these would be violations of our federal laws, the penalties (including prison time) would be especially steep. If convicted, a violator would become a felon and also prohibited from possessing a firearm for the rest of his life.

Bill Quimby