The recent postings about the NAPHA press release sparked my interset in how important the typical hunter foreign to Africa feels about the membership status of their PH or HO in such an association.<BR><BR>The Question is really posed for anyone who has an active interest in hunting in Africa, and by virtue of not being resident here needs to hunt under the guidance of a PH. Please help clear up the situation by selecting the reply thet best reflect your feeling on this.<BR><BR>Thanks.<BR><BR>Andrew McLaren.<BR><BR>PS Similar poll deleted. Sorry Steve is right :It does not work! <img src="https://forums.accuratereloading.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif" alt="Mad" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin::mad:--> I never tried to vte myself and did not test it! Sorry!Which one of the following statements best reflects your feeling about membership of a Professional Hunters Association of the HO or PH you will book a hunt with?Regard membership as essential, and will not book with someone that is not a member. The benifit I see is that membership provides me with a place to complain to if the HO or PH does not "deliver the goods"?Membership desireable but not regarded as essential as for me to book a hunt through a particular HO or PH. Membership means that th HO or PH will be better kept up to date by his PHA about changes in laws and regulations.Membership not an issue at all: I will book with a HO or PH with a good reputation irrespective of his membership of a PHA or not.I will not book with any member of a PHA. Membership of a HO or PH through which I book has absolutely no benifit for me, and members have to have higher costs to cover their membership fees.