Have any of the South African Professional Hunters/Outfitters seen this?

Draft Norms and Standards for the Regulation of the Hunting Industry in South Africa

The draft has been gazetted on December 11, 2009 and comments are due within 30 days i.e. by 10 January.

Just read it thanx.Getting tougher on the P.Hs and whats with the para19 Agents need to be registered to environmental affairs on your outfiting application and renewal form?

My crystal ball tells me it's likely to be challenged in court on the grounds that the individual provinces already have their own game laws etc that do the job perfectly adequately, the new proposals are a load of unenforceable bollocks and the Govt can't police the roads, let alone an entire hunting industry.

quote:

My crystal ball tells me it's likely to be challenged in court on the grounds that the individual provinces already have their own game laws etc that do the job perfectly adequately, the new proposals are a load of unenforceable bollocks and the Govt can't police the roads, let alone an entire hunting industry.

We could say the same thing about the soon-to-be-passed health insurance "reform" here in the States, but it will be shoved down our throats anyway.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:

quote:

My crystal ball tells me it's likely to be challenged in court on the grounds that the individual provinces already have their own game laws etc that do the job perfectly adequately, the new proposals are a load of unenforceable bollocks and the Govt can't police the roads, let alone an entire hunting industry.

We could say the same thing about the soon-to-be-passed health insurance "reform" here in the States, but it will be shoved down our throats anyway.

Bill Quimby

So true.....

Why fix whats not broke!
Most game and hunting is in private hands and doing great in fact the Parks often come to the private sector for practical advice.
Its a New minister that wants his 5c worth of BS.
Its like the Black Wildebeest and TOPS what a mess. Farmers are culling the things due to the eccessive red tape to kill their own animals that they have looked after for years without Govn help.Hunting brought them back from the brink and the Greenies with this legislation is going to send them back.
Its just a Draft proposal though and Im sure all the Industry role players will jump on this and water it down.
Dave davenport

I quite agree that the terrorist organization that is now also acting as the internationally recognized government in South Africa is quite incapable of policing anything at all, and that the new regulations will be just another set of laws that are not properly enforced at all!

The saying that if you shake any tree in South Africa it will likely result in a few PH’s falling out of it holds much truth! There is without any doubt an oversupply of ‘fully qualified’ PH’s in South Africa. Anyone who wants to disagree with this statement is most welcome to do so in another posting. There are also many who would agree that the required actual training and qualification of PH’s is lacking in many ways: There have been many accusations made that the theoretical training and practical ‘apprenticeship’ required to become a licensed PH falls short of the requirement. I do not want to enter into that argument to much in this posting, other than remarking that our South African requirements seems less demanding that those of, for example, Zimbabwe.

For many years there have been two categories of PH in South Africa: Once group being allowed to guide clients on dangerous game hunts, and another (more numerous) group who have a restricting clause added on their PH licenses that restricts them from guiding clients on dangerous game hunts. But now the Draft “Norms and Standards” makes provision for two newly introduced classes of PH: The associate professional hunter – plains game and the associate professional hunter – dangerous game. The definitions section states that-

"associate professional hunte"' means a person who is capable to perform the functions of a professional hunter, but lacks the ability to execute the administrative duties that are required from a professional hunter;

It does not take a rocket scientist to read between the lines that this class of professional hunter is introduced to enable people that lack the reading, writing and other administrative skills, but who may be in many other respects very good hunting guides, of also entering the already oversupplied numbers of professional hunters seeking employment. It is also a most unfortunate fact that many of these are likely to be from the ranks of the black South Africans, that for a number of reasons today find themselves unable to effectively execute the administrative duties of a PH. I do applaud the efforts to make use of the very substantial hunting talent that is found in many game farm laborers, and any Government efforts to uplift the standards of such formerly disadvantaged people by drawing them into the ranks of the professional hunters’ fraternity. I do however question the total lack of any indication of how these persons are going to be evaluated, registered and controlled in the Draft Norms and Standards. Nothing, zilch not a single indication of what, who, when, why and a few other “wh,,,,’s” about the registration, licensing and control over the activities of these people? Strange, isn’t it?

All that the Draft Norms and Standards does indicate is that they will work for only one hunting outfitter at a time and that they may not seek better employment by advertising themselves and offer their services to other HO’s. Can it really be that a person employed by one hunting outfitter may not advertise his services to another HO in the hope of getting better employment? I don’t understand it at all!


Another thing in the Draft Norms and Standards that I do not really understand is the extremely wide powers given to the various provincial nature conservation authorities, as the “issuing authority” for new hunting outfitters permits. I quote from the document – my emphasis added:

Issuance of a new hunting outfitters permit.
11. (1) An applicant applying for a new hunting outfitters permit must submit to the issuing authority-
(a) a completed prescribed application form and any other documents required by the relevant issuing authority;
(b) proof……

May I give a few examples of documents that such an issuing authority may say they “require” and you will have no option but to provide:
(i) A sworn affidavit by a registered practicing Medical Practitioner that your workforce is at least 33% HIV positive. This requirement may be motivated (although no motivation is needed to be given by the issuing authority) by the requirement that there may be no discrimination against people who are HIV positive in giving employment, and hence your workforce shoud reflect the demographics of the general population.
(ii) Proof that the hunting outfitter firm has some undefined minimum shareholding by black people.
(iii) Proof that every single person employed by the hunting outfitter has been paid at least the minimum wage for as many years as there was a minimum wage defined in our Labor Acts.
(iv) Proof that the hunting outfitter will employ a minimum number of assistant professional hunters from formerly disadvantaged race groups.
(v) Any number of documents that some official bent on furthering the BEE ideals of our terrorist government can think up.

The whole idea of the “Draft Norms and Standards” is to have uniform norms and standards in all provinces – yet here the door is opened for each issuing authority to intrepid the intention just in any manner that they choose to and to so defeat one of the main objectives of the Norms and Standards!

For most I agree that it is just a storm in a teacup, but yet I urge PH's and HO's to think about how these may affect your own business and make written comment by the due date.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

Some good points to think about Andrew.
I hope this "Associate professianal hunter" does not mean that every jo is going to get Jan and Piet on the farm to guide at next to no money and lowering the standard of hunting to save on a good p.h to promote these cheap hunts.

Time will tell
merry xmas to you all.
Dave Davenport

I heard talk that this might face a court injunction.
Proposals by PHASA and the Game Ranchers Association and a couple of other stakeholders were not included, and it was supposed to be returned to the stakeholders for comment before made open for public comment.
Notice also that this legislation could preclude some calibers between 223 and 270.

My crystal ball was right then!

Steve,
Kortbroek admitted at a PHASA AGM that with the autonomy granted the provinces in terms of the constitution in certain issues, that getting together and putting one ordinance and one system of PH/Outfitter national licence was going to be nigh impossible beacause of all the little empires and Nerotistic egos in the various parks departments. This is reflected in the TOPS regulations and now with the acknowledgement that all provincial authorities can demand whatever bloody paperwork they deem fit.

Mate, I'd say Kortbroek is probably right. The entire provincial set up is and has always been a super mega bugly stuff up.... Ideally, it would all be scrapped and national game laws and PH licencing system established where all SA PHs could work anywhere in the country..... but there's more chance of pigs flying than there is of that happening.

The proposed new PH training syllabus is also a load of bollocks and I wonder what bloody idiot dreamed up a syllabus and requirements of that duration, mananged to get in psychology and all other kinds of crap yet can omit subjects such as ballistics etc.......

Robert Service got it right when he wrote the following:

Freedom’s Fool
By Robert Service

To hell with Government I say;
I'm sick of all the piddling pack.
I'd like to scram, get clean away,
And never, nevermore come back.
With heart of hope I long to go
To some lost island of the sea,
And there get drunk with joy to know
No one on earth is over me.

There will be none to say me nay,
So from my lexicon I can
Obliterate the word "obey",
And mock the meddling laws of man.
The laws of Nature and of God
Are good enough for guys like me,
Who scorn to kiss the scarlet rod
Of office and authority.

No Stars and Stripes nor Union Jack,
Nor tri-colour nor crimson rag
Shall claim my love, I'll turn my back
On every land, on every flag.
My banner shall be stainless white,
An emblem of the Golden Rule,
Yet for its freedom I will fight
And die - like any other fool.

Oh Government's a bitter pill!
No force or fear shall forge my fate;
I'll bow to no communal will,
For I myself shall be the State.
Uncurst by man-curb and control,
my Isle shall be emparadised,
And I will re-possess my soul . . .
Mad Anarchist! - Well, wasn't Christ?

I'm printing it off now and am going to read it with a stiff whiskey for company tonight!

This trick of publishing stuff in December with comment required in January is an old one of our government. Seems we have to stop taking holidays.....

John & Steve, if Kortbroek is right as you say, this would be a rare occasion! Perhaps he was cornered into some truth after being surrounded by sorts that used to be of his own ilk once?

How many government departments does shooting/hunting have to engage nowadays?

1) Environmental Affairs
2) Agriculture
3) Tourism
4) Safety & Security

And then the provincial departments etc etc. Can't do this part time for love-and-charity anymore.

quote:

"associate professional hunter"' means a person who is capable to perform the functions of a professional hunter, but lacks the ability to execute the administrative duties that are required from a professional hunter;

It does not take a rocket scientist to read between the lines that this class of professional hunter is introduced to enable people that lack the reading, writing and other administrative skills, but who may be in many other respects very good hunting guides, of also entering the already oversupplied numbers of professional hunters seeking employment. It is also a most unfortunate fact that many of these are likely to be from the ranks of the black South Africans, that for a number of reasons today find themselves unable to effectively execute the administrative duties of a PH.

Andrew,

You are right, There is more than enough PH's that doesn't have work and with what did BEE helped until now...?

I don't think it'll ever happen but it reads to me as though they want to lower the standard so that more previously disadvantaged can guide overseas clients.

Add on the other proposed legislation for 150(ish) unit standards where each unit standard equates to a day, to gain a PH licence (as opposed to an associate PH licence) that will make it harder for the previously advantaged to gain a licence and you can see the plan.

Problem is that there's a hell of a lot more to being a good PH than just hunting and paperwork.

What about the social graces, dealing with client relations, knowledge of science, astrology, scientific names, rifles, ballistics, history, languages, first aid, and world events etc etc etc etc etc.

It was a bit of a rush but I felt compelled to do something!

Written Representation to the Draft Norms and Standards for the Regulation of the Hunting Industry in South Africa.

By Stephen Palos
PO Box 6673
Greenhills, 1767
stephen@thegrillmaster.co.za
Tel: 011 412 3774
Cell: 082 905 7400

General Point
It is noted that publication of the draft was on 11 December 2009 and that written representations and/or objections need to be submitted within 30 days and that it is made clear that comments received after the closing date may not be considered. It concerns me that this practice of releasing such draft legislation over the December festive season seems to be common and such practice also occurred with matters relating to the Firearms Control Act. It seems that this may be a deliberate attempt to limit he ability of individuals and particularly organisations such as member associations from being able to properly convene to prepare proper responses to such draft legislation. This could well be a restriction on a person’s rights to partake in the process of such legislation. In the instance I reserve the right to amend or supplement this representation.

Points Relating to Specific Content

1. Page 7 - Definitions – “hunter” I question the need for the word “restricted” in describing the activity of hunting.

2. Page 9 – Purpose and application 2. (a) (b) & (c) I highly commend the contents hereof.

3. Page 10 – Guiding Principles
• (c) Wastage is a highly subjective term and as such open to far too wide an interpretation to form part of legislative text. I also question the necessity of such a provision given that the sheer costs of hunting naturally form a deterrent to wastage.
• (e) The broad use of the terms “ethical” and “fair chase” are highly subjective. There are a myriad of different standards which could apply and the interpretation of this would bog down any actions launched in terms of this document in contentious and impossible debate. This was is similar and well illustrated in the recent litigation regarding the ritual slaughter of bulls in the Zulu traditional First Fruits Festival where the judge said that telling Zulus not to slaughter the bull would be tantamount to telling Catholics not to take Communion. The big question is WHOS standards will be applied.


4. Page 10 – Chapter 2 – Ethical Conduct and Good Practice. This chapter dictates the content of independent, voluntary association’s constitution! There is no possible way according to the “Freedom of Association” clause in the South African Constitution that the state, or any other body, can dictate this type of content. This is not the business of the state.

5. Page 11 – Chapter 3 – 5© 6© 7© 8©. No mention is made of feathered game. The use of the term “only” thus precludes any category of Professional Hunter or Associate Professional Hunter from ever guiding a client on feathered game. Is this the intention?

6. Page 11 – Chapter 3 – 7(b) and 8(b). This precludes an Associate Professional Hunter from sending his CV to prospective employers. This would make his relationship to his current employer a type of “indentured labour”. This clause cannot be legal in terms of the South African Constitution, and the right to seek employment. What is its purpose?

7. Page 20 – Chapter 3 – 16 Professional Hunting Course – (3) & (4). The exclusion of persons less than 21 years of age conflicts with the Constitutional Right to earn a living as well as the act determining the Age of Majority. This cannot be legal?

8. Page 20 – Chapter 3 – 16 Professional Hunting Course – (6) This may be illegal in terms of the “Recognition of Prior Learning”

9. Page 25 – Chapter 4 – Categories of Hunting 21, 22 & 23. The various minimum calibre classes, barrel lengths etc are somewhat subjective and controversial. As an example the way it now reads one may not shoot a blesbuck or impala with a 6,5 x 57 or .243 Win rifle, but it is legitimate to shoot an eland or blue wildebeest with a .357Mag revolver? Management hunts are often conducted using centre-fire .22 calibre rifles and in most cases these are perfectly suitable in that application. Bullet construction type is also contentious to include and all but impossible to police.

10. Page 27 – Chapter 4 – Categories of Hunting 24 (e). To include that the species is edible is somewhat superfluous. There are those in Africa that would eat any species of bird so by whose standards should this be applied?

11. Page 27 – Chapter 4 – Game bird Hunting Methods 25. This chapter deals with specifics that can best be described as ethics. This is subjective and relate to the “rules of the game” so to speak. It would be the same as asking the state to write the rules for rugby, soccer or golf.

Conclusion

I believe that there must be a distinct line which separates the states role in these matters from the ethics, cultural norms and chosen methods employed by individuals in their hunting activity.
The state must concern itself with managing the overall conservation program of the nation, with legislating against gratuitous, undue or extreme cruelty in ALL manner of animal slaughter, and enabling the industry to be a successful, positive contributor to the national economy.
The freedom of choice of individuals, which stem from a myriad of different roots, habits, cultural differences and values should not be interfered with by meaningless and misdirected legislation. Such legislation always marginalises a part of the community and as such becomes difficult to enforce and counter productive in achieving he broader objectives of this initiative. It smacks of “control for control’s sake” rather than meaningful law. This weakens the very foundation of the law.
Animals die in the interests of humankind. This is a fact that must be accepted and the state’s function is not to set the rules as to the means we get there. They certainly do have a role in determining the manner at the end. There must be logic in this however, and in particular it must be possible to police realistically. It must also be reasonably popular so that it carries the support of the public who are governed by it.
To a large extent these rules were drafted with the emotional and unfortunate practice of “canned lion hunting” influencing the content. If there is a belief that that practice can be stamped out by such legislation as this then it is tantamount to saying that the law that murder is illegal should result in a zero murder rate. This is absolute naivety.

The challenge should be to limit the states obligations, but to create an environment where correct best practices are followed because they make the most sense, are most beneficial to the environment, the economy and the specific industry. Hunters should not be demanding that the state steps in to do our house-keeping.