In my case a felony conviction would cause me to loose my ability to earn a living. I am sure this is the case with others as well. Since we know they are aware of these threads one must wonder why noone has responded. Or do we? I was going to go back in Nov. In light of this issue and the way in wich it has been handled I have changed my mind. I can not afford to be someones collateral damage in this. As such I can only protect myself and show my displeasure by going elswhere. I am going to vote by spending my hard earned cash elsewhere. This also includes not flying Air Namibia since I wont be going to Windhoek. I am also making sure that the NAPHA phs I know all understand the what and why of this. The industry has already seen a decline in American dollars from the current economc situation. Lets see what they think when they loose another 30 to 40% because of this cock up.

Bill,

I'm pretty much 100% sure you'll find it's in the Lacey Act somewhere. The link you posted seems to be just the amendments and I'd bet that unless they've changed the act and introduced anew piece of legislation recently, it's in there somewhere.

FWIW, I also seem to remembera few years ago, a certain American hunting equipment supply company that also sells hunts either getting prosecuted or nearly getting prosecuted under the Act in question because they were unintentionally selling hunting on seized land........ I don't know what happened in the end but would surmise they apologised and removed the offending hunts from their site.

If I remember correctly, this is the list http://www.treas.gov/offices/e.../ofac/sdn/t11sdn.pdf and they use the Lacey Act penalties to enforce it.

See also: http://www.shakariconnection.c...unting-zimbabwe.html

I have to say that it strikes me that someone has taken legislation meant for one purpose and bent it to another purpose, which to me at least, ain't quite cricket...... but what the f**k do I know about politics!

I wonder if we have any legal eagles out there that can confirm?

Shakari,

offhand, I'd venture to guess that loss of your firearms privileges and a felony conviction wouldn't do much for any of your business or personal interests. If I were you I would already have let them know that what they are doing is economic suicide. I am advising everybody I know including SCI what has happened.

Punitive isn't the word for what is going to happen to their business. We have a phrase that covers such people: "Fu-ktards". It's short for Fu-king Retards.

Rich

To all the readers and participants on this site, I own a hunting ranch in Namibia and I'm also a Napha member, I also know a lot of PH's who does not belong to Napha and run very good operations. I did not know of this statement until I saw it now on accurate reloading, since I'm a member of Napha and 80% of my clients come from the US I would have appreciated it if Napha discussed this statement with it's members before releasing it. I will be in Windhoek on Tuesday and stop by the Napha office to clear this up. I agree with Shakari that they meant Hunters who knowingly hunts illegally with there PH's, they will not prosecute a hunter if he had no idea of what was done wrong, in most cases that I've heard off here the hunters usually doesn't even know what has been done to them, especially when it comes to Leopard hunting. They worded there statement wrong and I sincerely appolgise for this, if they refuse to correct there statement I will cancel my Napha subscription and I'm sure I won't be the only one. This is damaging to my bussiness and it cost us a lot of money to visit Dallas and Houston, I have invested a lot of money in the US so it's my interest to get this sorted out. One thing that I might sugest that if you would like to hunt in Namibia and you have an outfitter in mind send a e-mail to Napha and ask them if there has been any bad reports on that specific outfit.

I will try to keep the forum updated regarding this manner.

Roy van der Merwe

Rich,

I'm not disagreeing with you Bwana. Like you, I think they've shot themselves in both feet and I reckon the expression you mention, fits perfectly.

The only difference in our opinions is that you think they shot themselves in their feet deliberately and I reckon it was probably an accidental discharge.

The below is from the other, original, thread on this press release.

NAPHA has responded and IMHO it is even worse.

The idea that the visiting hunter will have seen this notice here, or taken classes at SCI is ridiculous. I'd guess that a minority of hunters even know SCI exists and those that find AR is miniscule compared to the total numbers of US hunters to southern Africa.

I seem to recall that one of the justifications for REQUIRING the use of a PH has always been that it was unreasonable [ or impossible] to expect visiting hunters to be fully aware of all the hunting laws and the PH was there as an expert on all the hunting laws.

See Below,

Les

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
Sent to NAPHA and MET this morning (with copies of the press release)...

I have been participating/following a thread on the Accurate Reloading internet forums about a press release from NAPHA. I would like to confirm that this was actually released from NAPHA and I have a couple of questions about a specific case that may have triggered it.
First the release then the case.
Then regarding the case specifically. What are the penalties that have been imposed (or will likely be imposed) on the professional actors in the event (the Namibian Outfitter, the Namibian PH and the South African dog handler)? What were the conditions of the Canadian admitting unconditionally that he hunted illegally? Is his statement available? And what penalties might he face (or avoided) by signing the statement?
This is a very active topic with a number of members declaring there unwillingness to return to Namibia if NAPHA is truly threatening to police them and report them to the USFG for prosecution under the Lacey Act if they do something wrong. As such I would like to hear from the source itself to make certain that we have a full understanding of this issue.
Sincerely,
John Hunt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: NAPHA CEO [mailto:ceo@napha.com.na]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:16 AM
To: jhunt@hunthosted.com; napha@mweb.com.na
Cc: sts@met.na; kamab@africaonline.com.na
Subject: RE: Latest press release



Dear Mr. Hunt,



The approved NAPHA Press release you will find below.



Before we get to the case in question, some comments: It is not our intention to go after the international hunter. We want the co-operation of the hunter to clarify and if needs be, to address the local PH and/or Outfitter. It is the hunters responsibility to know what is legal and what not. For years we have given seminars at SCI where we inform hunters of legal issues and ethics, also our Press Releases serve the purpose of informing hunters.



To your question: At this stage we cannot say anything about the penalties, because they will have to be determined by our legal system. I do not quiet understand your second question: A Ministry official and our Disciplinary committee Chairman questioned the parties involved, and the Ministry official recorded their statements. Statements are with our Ministry of Environment and Tourism and are not available at the moment. Penalties, will be determined by the legal system in Namibia.



Finally, we are of the opinion that hunters should live up to their pledge: hunting is applied conservation, and that does not leave any room for illegal hunting.



Yours truly,

Diethelm Metzger

NAPHA President


_______________________________________
And my response to his letter...

Mr. Metzger,



I think you are at what we call “a tipping point” on this subject. So if I can be so bold as to suggest that you have American public relations firm look at what you are trying to accomplish and what you have actually done with this memo. Because I believe that there is a cultural element to this that you and NAPHA do not understand, because if you did you would recognize the dangerous place you have positioned hunting in Namibia and would work very hard to change it and quickly.



In your note below you state “It is not our intention to go after the international hunter. We want the co-operation of the hunter to clarify and if needs be, to address the local PH and/or Outfitter.” But then your press release threatens American hunters with enforcement of the Lacey Act. Which one is it?



If you think it will be of any benefit whatsoever to threaten American hunters then you are sorely miscalculating your message. You might want to review some of the comments on the Accurate Reloading site in relation to this memo? Pay attention to the small poll that shows 51% of the respondents are less likely or now simply won’t come hunt in Namibia. Now think what happens as this gets more broadly discussed at SCI and DSC.



http://forums.accuratereloadin...1411043/m/2281037711



http://forums.accuratereloadin...1411043/m/7121094711



Sincerely,



John Hunt

Steve, Accidental discharge? As with a weapon I have never seen an "accidental" discharge. I have seen some f ups because someone did something they shouldnt have. Same thing here. What remains to be seen is wether they shoot themselves in the other foot as well.

Mike,

Yup........

Roy, Thank you. Please keep us informed. All of the phs and outfitters I have met have been stand up people. That is part of what makes it so hard to understand this. I agree that this is going to hurt a lot of people if it isnt sorted out quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Bill,

I'm pretty much 100% sure you'll find it's in the Lacey Act somewhere. The link you posted seems to be just the amendments and I'd bet that unless they've changed the act and introduced anew piece of legislation recently, it's in there somewhere.... I wonder if we have any legal eagles out there that can confirm?

Steve:

If the list is a part of the Lacey Act, it would have to be added to it as an amendment and the language to enable it should have appeared on the site I found.

The list, as I said earlier, was created and is maintained by two agencies in departments that are separate from the Interior Department's Fish & Wildlife Service, so although I could be wrong, it is unlikely that the Lacey Act specifically lists banned individuals .

It is possible that the Treasury and State departments are allowing Fish & Wildlife to enforce the ban on the basis that hunting wildlife with the listed people represents illegal "taking" (as well as trading with banned persons).

I was unable to open the site you quoted, but I noticed that the address is the Treasury Department's site, and not Interior's.

Bill Quimby

If I remember (and interpreted) things correctly, one would have violated the Lacey Act in Zim by hunting on seized farms; however they would have seperate problems from dealing with the banned individuals.

We need bumper stickers that say "Just Say NO! to Namibia".

Rich

Big difference between Zim and Nam...

... no one in Zim is threatening to report hunters to the USFG

All the talk about The Lacey Act got me looking and thinking about the danger of prosecution for an "in the field" violation of an African country's game laws. Here are my conclusions:

Lacey is a set of conservation based trade regulations. It is not a set of hunting regulations.

Most of us are familiar with The Lacey Act's most commonly used provisions, "the trafficking offenses". These sections are most easily understood if one thinks of them as prohibiting trade in "tainted wildlife." These sections generally prohibit certain acts involving wildlife, fish, or plants that have been taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of a federal, state, tribal, or foreign law or regulation. Lacey is basically triggered by the:

- import, export, transport, sale, receiving, acquiring, or purchasing of
- wildlife, fish, or plants that have been
- taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of a
- state, federal, foreign, or tribal law or regulation.

Thus, a Lacey Act trafficking charge generally requires proof of both an underlying or "predicate" violation of some law, as well as proof of an "overlying" violation of the Lacey Act's list of prohibited acts. The underlying violation occurs when someone illegally takes, possesses, transports, or sells the wildlife, fish, or plant. The Lacey Act violation does not occur until the defendant commits or attempts to commit an import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase of the tainted animal or plant.

Thus, it sounds like there is no Lacey violation until you go to import the trophies. But, not so fast my friends. . .

Unfortunately, there is a special rule that hurts hunters. Lacey basically defines "purchase" as "paying for guiding, outfitting, or other services OR paying for a hunting license or permit for the illegal taking, acquiring, receiving, transporting, or possessing of fish or wildlife." So, basically any paid hunt that results in illegal hunting is a Lacey Act violation as it happens, in the field, well before you try to import the trophies. I suspect the US authorities do not hear about 99.9% of such offenses.

As for the remaining 00.1%, I opine there is a miniscule chance that agents of the department of the interior are going to make a case against you based on a "in the field" violation in Africa. This is just not likely unless you talk, confess, and make their case for them. You really think they are they going to Africa to interview witnesses and find out what happened? How are they going to get witnesses to the USA to testify against you. I'd like to see the look on the face of the PH when a federal agent handed him a US subpoena (although this has occurred at SCI in Reno before). With no confession and all the witnesses sitting in Africa, beyond the reach of a subpoena, they cannot prove their case.

Imagine, the Namibian folks call the USA to say that Bob has broken the law while he was hunting in Namibia. You really think agents are going to get on the next plane to Windhoek? No. Might they go see Bob in Virginia and see what he will tell them about his illegal hunt? You bet.

All that said, the real danger is what happens when you get home. If you import illegally taken trophies or you run your mouth about illegal hunting. This will get in trouble with the Feds.

I dont need the grief no matter how it plays out.

If you use the Kern - Duncan incident a couple of years ago as a case study then this should scare booking agents as well.

Duncan (one of the wealthiest men in the world) hunted Moose from a helicopter in Russia.

His booking agent was Kern from Hunting Consortium.

It is generally against the law to trophy hunt in Russia from a helicopter but they had "meat licenses". You can hunt for meat from a helicopter. Kern had no idea they would hunt from a helicopter when he sent Duncan to Russia, this was decided in camp by the Russian guide.

Even with no complaints from Russia the USFG charged Kern with violating the Lacey act and nearly charged Duncan as well (deep pockets saved him??).

Kern was eventually aquitted, in part because a Russian govt official flew over and testified that the hunt was legal.

Now substitute a flashlight and leopard for the helicopter and moose. Then a NAPHA official testifying against you.

Why would a booking agent take the chance?

BTW: Now Duncan gets to go through life as a poster child for HSUS. Who, also BTW, lobbied for him to be charged when they got wind of this. Want to bet they would do the same favor for any trophy hunter.

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife_a...y_hunter_072307.html

http://experts.wirefire.com/DN...um1/HTML/005746.html

http://home.beaumontenterprise...n-officials-for.html

http://www.myoutdoortv.com/new...r-big-game-hunt.html

The boys in Namibia had better get this sorted and soon. They are about to tip over a major bee hive and they are the one who are going to get stung.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
The boys in Namibia had better get this sorted and soon. They are about to tip over a major bee hive and they are the one who are going to get stung.

Yea, especially for me. I had been planning to hunt in Namibia no later than 2011. If I go, I'll need to make plans soon. If this doesn't change, I'll probably do Zimbabwe despite the tenuous political situation there.

A nonresident isn't allowed to hunt in Africa without a licensed PH who is supposed to ensure compliance with the rules. You should be able to trust the information and instructions of the PH licensed by the country you're hunting in.

Fortunately for the hunters [probably unfortunately for the Namibian outfitters]
there are many other places to hunt.

In particular, the Namibian price advantage, which drew clients away from South Africa, has mostly disappeared in this economy.

The South African outfitters can offer most anything a plains game hunter could want, and much of it in very similar conditions.

And for me, while the elephant and buffalo in the Caprivi were of interest, I am almost ready to take my chances in Zim again rather than risk a figurative lynching at the hands of this NAPHA management posse.

If they remove the threat from their agenda, the rest of it sounds not unreasonable. Why do they insist on such an offensive position at the expense of their entire program?

Les

NAPHA could not have made a worse mistake. NAPHA's driving out Non-NAPHA PH's by threatening international sportsmen, mainly directed at Americans, is going to land NAPHA officials in jail. NAPHA is going to find themselves the Defendant in millions and millions of dollars of civil litigation claims.

Good riddance to bad trash.

I cannot risk the cost of a felony trial defense because I do not know that it is illegal to hunt single tusked werewolves on the Wednesday following a full moon after April first in odd numbered years.

I am going back to Africa in 2011 but as of right now, it will not be to Namibia.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
The boys in Namibia had better get this sorted and soon. They are about to tip over a major bee hive and they are the one who are going to get stung.

Too Late