Press Release to the International Hunting Community

NAPHA has informed the national and international media about the circumstances which led to the moratorium of leopard as well as cheetah and herewith the suspension of trophy hunting permits in Namibia for the 2009 season.
We also informed you about the recommendation of our Association to the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism to also close leopard and cheetah trophy hunting for 2010 to get “our house in order” by drawing up additional guidelines and regulations for fair-chase, ethical and sustainable utilization of our valuable natural resources.

In the mean time we want to assure our esteemed international clientele that we will not tolerate any misconduct by either NAPHA members or non-members that could jeopardize the future of our hunting sector. Therefore we appeal once more to the international hunter, please book your Namibian hunt with a NAPHA member to have the guarantee to have recourse.

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.
7.) Publication of law transgressions in NAPHA’s own electronic newsletter and the NAU newsletter- including details of actions taken;
8.) We will inform the regional professional hunters associations about misconduct
of their members within Namibia, 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 regulation.

NAPHA MISSION STATEMENT

The fundamental purpose of NAPHA is to enhance and maintain, by effective management, an organisational infrastructure that can serve professional hunting members, clients and other interest groups.

NAPHA MISSION STATEMENT

Our intent is to ensure and promote ethical conduct, sustainable utilization of natural resources, and to secure the industry for current and future generations.

=========


NAPHA release to the hunting chat forum – case 1

On September, 11 , 2009 a South African citizen, farmer, PH, outfitter and hound master conducted a leopard hunt with hounds in the Khomashochland , Namibia with a Canadian client. Said South African is not a registered professional hunter in Namibia, and does not have a valid work permit for Namibia.

The Canadian hunter booked his hunt through a foreign based booking agent directly with the SA hunting outfit that belongs to the SA hound master. He allegedly has an business agreement ( partnership) with an Namibian outfitter.

The trophy was taken on land for which the hunting Licence was not issued, this is not permitted . The Namibian PH ( no NAPHA member) was not present when the Leopard was shot.

All three individuals involved, the Canadian hunter, the Namibian PH and the SA dog handler unconditionally admitted that they hunted illegally.

Formal charges have been laid by the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism against the Namibian outfitter, the Namibian PH as well as the South African dog handler. The MET confiscated the skin as it originated from an illegal hunt.

A disciplinary action has been launched against the owner of the outfitting company, who is a NAPHA member.

NAPHA DC


NAPHA release to the hunting chat forum – case 2

A Namibian registered PH has been charged by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism for illegally hunting two leopards with two US hunting clients by using artificial light.
The PH is not a NAPHA member.US Fish and Wildlife will be informed about the incident.

NAPHA DC

Good on them! A few lessons for other Associations to learn from

ufda - somebodys got a big owie

That's a great release from NAPHA to the forums, but useless without names.

quote:

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

So if it isn't a CITES animal then there is some fudge room on the zero tolerance policy?

I also think they should be very careful about threatening to report clients to the US for prosecution under the Lacey act. Most hunters really don't know much about Namibian law and require/expect the PH to keep everything legal. The Lacey act can be a huge sledgehammer. If a US hunter ends up in prison for violating the Lacey act after NAPHA reported them you can bet the industry would dry up pretty quick. It is a stretch for a US hunter to know that hunting Leopard by torch is against the law in Namibia when it is legal in other southern african countries. And what would that cost him if prosecuted in the US under the Lacey act? $100,000? Prison time?

Just the idea of it points me to other southern African hunting destinations. Not that I want to do anything illegal, but I don't want my personal freedom riding on the judgement or vendetta of someone in Africa (PH or NAPHA).

Bravo!

I share JohnHunt's concern about the "innocent" client, so we must all be informed.

How about

Not booking a hunt in Namibia with a non-NAPHA member (e.g. South Afican PH)

Handing out a sheet with the rifle permits stating- no hunting cheetah with dogs, no spotlighting leopard etc. so the client knows.

MET has a small staff, doing very important work, so we can help them by supporting only NAPHA PHs in good standing and with good reputations.

quote:

Originally posted by SBT:
That's a great release from NAPHA to the forums, but useless without names.

What he said.

quote:

We also informed you about the recommendation of our Association to the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism to also close leopard and cheetah trophy hunting for 2010 to get “our house in order” by drawing up additional guidelines and regulations for fair-chase, ethical and sustainable utilization of our valuable natural resources.

Fair chase, Ethical!

quote:

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.

Code of Ethical sport hunting!

Well Done NAPHA but in the same breath good luck. I am very interested to see how this eventually pans out and what code of ethics they come up with. Ethics dont go down to well with a lot of the people posting in this forumn - you should read some of the PM's i received after my crticism of using fire crackers to smoke a leopard (unwounded!) out of a cave so that it could be shot. Hopefully this is a move in the right direction to end all of the BS going on in Africa that is being called hunting.It is time for some standards and accountability and the end of the subjective determination of ethics by each individual.

Still waiting for NAPHA to get back with me on my issue with Boet Nel.....

Mac

quote:

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.
7.) Publication of law transgressions in NAPHA’s own electronic newsletter and the NAU newsletter- including details of actions taken;
8.) We will inform the regional professional hunters associations about misconduct
of their members within Namibia, 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 regulation.

I am glad NAPHA has decided to take an active part in trying to solve problems that arrise in their country.

However, if my experience of seeing how professional orgenizations act to problems that do take place, they tend to be VERY selective in their reactions.

That is the biggest problem I have seen happing from all the cntroversies that have been brought up here.

Questions have already been raised by prospective clients after reading the above press release, and may be feedback from us hunters might be a good idea so conditions are changed.

1.) We will inform our partner organizations like SCI and DSC and CIC of any misconduct;

This is simple enough, as it generally occurs after an event.

2.) We will inform the clients about illegal operations of their PHs/outfitters;

How are you going to do this?
The only way I can imagine is a compiling a list of those who do break the law, and update it very regularly. Having a list that is out of date is not going to help anyone.

3.) We will notify CITES;

This is only relevant when a CITES permit is required. And as has already been mentioned in the press release, it does happen, and NAPHA only knew about it after the fact.
How many occasions did this happen without them knowing?

4.) We will notify US Fish and Wildlife;

The USFW are following their own rules - disregarding any rules by CITES and laws in countries that allow hunting - and from what I have been hearing lately, some individuals in that orgenization are decidedly anti-hunting, and will do whatever they can to disrupt the importation of hunting trophies. I have heard that they are asking for CITES permits for species that require NO CITES permit!

Additionally, what good would notifying them do if an American client, unkowningly, books a hunt in Namibia with a crooked operator operating in that country?
As has already beeb mentioned, this will have a very negative effect on those who might wish to hunt in Namibia, and might actualy cause some to go elsewhere.

5.) This could lead to the enforcement of the LACEY act, with possible severe consequences for the hunting clients themselves;

A very big red herring here. NAPHA has no right to bring this up unless they can prove that the client KNOWINGLY hunting illegally.

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.

You should participate on a VERY REGULAR scale, with updates of names of individuals and outfitters who are breaking the laws, and those who you know are operating in Namibia without being licensed. This is the only way I can see that up to date information can be posted.

7.) Publication of law transgressions in NAPHA’s own electronic newsletter and the NAU newsletter- including details of actions taken;

How often is this going to be updated?
This really has to be kept right up to date to be effective.

8.) We will inform the regional professional hunters associations about misconduct

How about starting with the names of those who are already operating illegally, or have been reported for misconduct?

Again, being very selective is NOT going to help anyone.

A number of negative reports have been posted on here about PHs in Namibia, and I understand the NAPHA has been informed about them.

What actions has been taken?

Having hunted in several countries, relying entirely on the people I hunt with to make sure that I follow the rules and laws of that country, I really have no wish to be worrying about breaking any lwas that might see me in up in jail for things I know nothing about.

I like the idea of what they propose but think that it still has one major downfall.
The NAPHA is run by active commercial outfitters and is by and large a tight knit club. It is apparent in the wording of the memo too. These laws will be selectively applied to those who fall outside of the club and as is so often the case the regular offenders are sitting at the top of the pile handing down judgement.

Yup, don't use a club member and you significantly increase your risk of having to defend yourself against a Lacey Act prosecution back home.
Don't follow the laws of the country you are hunting in is a felony when you get back home. Don't know what the laws are? too bad, ignorance is never a legal defense.

Ironically the hunter may be the "most" punished of all in this scenario.

I have received the following as an update to wat I have posted earlier.

I have not read these, so have no idea what the differences are.

============

NAPHA release to the hunting chat forum – case 1

On September, 11 , 2009 a South African citizen, farmer, PH, outfitter and hound master conducted a leopard hunt with hounds in the Khomashochland , Namibia with a Canadian client. Said South African is not a registered professional hunter in Namibia, and does not have a valid work permit for Namibia.

The Canadian hunter booked his hunt through a foreign based booking agent directly with the SA hunting outfit that belongs to the SA hound master. He allegedly has an business agreement ( partnership) with an Namibian outfitter.

The trophy was taken on land for which the hunting Licence was not issued, this is not permitted . The Namibian PH ( no NAPHA member) was not present when the Leopard was shot.

All three individuals involved, the Canadian hunter, the Namibian PH and the SA dog handler unconditionally admitted that they hunted illegally.

Formal charges have been laid by the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism against the Namibian outfitter, the Namibian PH as well as the South African dog handler. The MET confiscated the skin as it originated from an illegal hunt.

A disciplinary action has been launched against the owner of the outfitting company, who is a NAPHA member.

NAPHA DC


NAPHA release to the hunting chat forum – case 2

A Namibian registered PH has been charged by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism for illegally hunting two leopards with two US hunting clients by using artificial light.
The PH is not a NAPHA member.US Fish and Wildlife will be informed about the incident.

NAPHA DC

=============

Press Release to the International Hunting Community

The Namibia Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA) has informed you about the circumstances that lead to the suspension of issuing leopard and cheetah trophy hunting permits in Namibia. NAPHA also informed you that we recommended to the Ministry of Environment & Tourism (MET) to impose a moratorium on the issuing of leopard and cheetah Trophy Hunting Permits for 2010 to get “our house in order” so that a just , ethical and sustainable utilization of our valuable natural resources can be warranted.

In the mean time we want to assure our esteemed international clientele that we will not tolerate any misconduct by either NAPHA members or non-members that could jeopardize the future of our hunting sector. We, therefore, appeal to the international hunter, please book your Namibian hunt with a NAPHA member to have the guarantee of recourse.

We also want to bring to your attention that we have accepted a policy of zero tolerance if NAMIBIAN hunting laws are transgressed. 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 pressure to respect our NAPHA Code of Conduct, the Code of Ethical Sport-hunting for Africa and the Namibian hunting regulations.

1.) We shall inform our international partner organizations like Safari Club International (SCI), Dallas Safari Club (DSC) and International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) of any misconduct.
2.) Law transgressions will be publicized within our own ranks.
3.) We will inform clients about illegal operations of their PH’s/outfitters.
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.
6.) Regional Professional Hunters Associations will be informed about the misconduct and /or the transgression should their member be involved.


NAPHA MISSION STATEMENT

The fundamental purpose of NAPHA is to enhance and maintain, by effective management, an organisational infrastructure that can serve professional hunting members, clients and other interest groups.

Our intent is to ensure and promote ethical conduct, sustainable utilization of
natural resources, and to secure the industry for current and future generations

I suspect that NAPHA hasn't thought this one all the way through. And won't until they discover that they just sent a US hunter to prison and the resulting bad press in the hunting community impacts there bookings.
(don't forget felons can't own guns)

The trick is not to be the guy they pull the trigger on.

I, for one, will hunt somewhere else until this plays itself out.

The only thought I have now is; why doesn't Namibia sort their own house before getting into the complex idea of trying to implicate paying clients who are most likely unaware of what is required?

We have an old prover that fits this situation.

"The theif was my brother, but I told the police it was the man passing by".

I agree with John completely.

This is going to impact the Namibian hunting industry in a very negative way.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:

I also think they should be very careful about threatening to report clients to the US for prosecution under the Lacey act. Most hunters really don't know much about Namibian law and require/expect the PH to keep everything legal. The Lacey act can be a huge sledgehammer. If a US hunter ends up in prison for violating the Lacey act after NAPHA reported them you can bet the industry would dry up pretty quick. It is a stretch for a US hunter to know that hunting Leopard by torch is against the law in Namibia when it is legal in other southern african countries. And what would that cost him if prosecuted in the US under the Lacey act? $100,000? Prison time?

Just the idea of it points me to other southern African hunting destinations. Not that I want to do anything illegal, but I don't want my personal freedom riding on the judgement or vendetta of someone in Africa (PH or NAPHA).

Nicely put.

It certainly seems directed toward Americans doesn't it?

Sounds a lot like use a NAPHA member or else. And that is probably there goal.

I think professional associations CAN do a lot of good, but, as has been pointed out, their actions are rather selective.

To be effective, ANY proffesional association HAS to act on what has happened - totally ignoring WHO is involved.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:

quote:

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

So if it isn't a CITES animal then there is some fudge room on the zero tolerance policy?

I also think they should be very careful about threatening to report clients to the US for prosecution under the Lacey act. Most hunters really don't know much about Namibian law and require/expect the PH to keep everything legal. The Lacey act can be a huge sledgehammer. If a US hunter ends up in prison for violating the Lacey act after NAPHA reported them you can bet the industry would dry up pretty quick. It is a stretch for a US hunter to know that hunting Leopard by torch is against the law in Namibia when it is legal in other southern african countries. And what would that cost him if prosecuted in the US under the Lacey act? $100,000? Prison time?

Just the idea of it points me to other southern African hunting destinations. Not that I want to do anything illegal, but I don't want my personal freedom riding on the judgement or vendetta of someone in Africa (PH or NAPHA).

I share these exact same concernes. While I would never knowingly book with any safari operator or PH who isn't legal and ethical, I certainly don't want to be held accountable to know the laws of a foreign country, and then possibly be held liable in my own country if a law I knew nothing about was broken.

This would cause me to look elsewhere as the risk isn't worth it, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt: Sounds a lot like use a NAPHA member or else. And that is probably there goal.

Here's a link to their member list: http://www.natron.net/napha/members/membersm-o.html

quote:

Originally posted by McKay: Still waiting for NAPHA to get back with me on my issue with Boet Nel.....

Boet Nel (Nel, G.M.) is a member of NAPA.

Mac- Do you as yet have a contact person at NAPHA? Could you get on the phone , get a name and link them this and your main thread? Could work wonders! If you do not have a contact person, perhaps one of our members does. Keep plugging!

You could phone NAPHA directly, and speak to Almut Kronsbein. The phone number is:
+264 61 234 455

Seems to me if one is hunting anything other than common plains game avoiding Namibia is a good idea.

My first safari was to Namibia ( 1992) with Jan Oelofse. A great hunt and overall experience but if these guys get in bed with Fish and Wildlife i'm finished with Namibia. What a crock that would be!

Adrian,

I can tell all my first hand experience with NAPHA and the MET. Both organizations are staffed with dedicated, professionals, and in the case of NAPHA, volunteers for the betterment of the sport we all enjoy.

First, bear in mind they are in fact small organizations with limited staff. As I interacted extensively with each organization, and though my issues were specific to Boet Nel, the way the matter was handled is probably typical of their procedures with PHs.


Premise: They are understaffed and lack the necessary enforcement ability against PH violations and PH professional ethics/proper business practices

Facts supporting the Premise:

-In my case, they "didn't find any hunting violations" committed by the PH - some specifics: though we were in the truck with hounds looking for cheetah, and I in fact DID NOT have a permit, (contrary to what Boet Nel told me), the PH "did not violate the hunting laws because we did not actually chase a cheetah."

Hmmm I know if you stand on a street corner with rock cocaine and offer it for sale, you are engaged in an illegal activity, whether someone buys it or not.

-Though we did actively hunt and stalk without a PH, it was, very cleverly spun By the PH as hunting for "camp rations" therefore not a violation,

-Alleged bad behavior and failure to perform on the agreement (no PH for us) was "outside their jurisdiction", and was a private civil matter that they would not get involved with beyond admonitions to Boet Nel to refund the money.


Note well, I was out hunting cheetah with dogs (violation), without a permit (violation).

Under these new guidelines I would be reported to Fish and Game and quite possibly prosecuted (in theory), but at the least in a world of trouble, even though I was lied to about the permit and did not in fact know one could not hunt cheetah with hounds in Namibia.

I was told Boet Nel raised such a fuss with Ben Beytell, threatening to sue and complaining that his reputation was damaged, that they were really weary of the whole affair.

Premise: The Bad Apples are Known but Continue to Thrive in Namibia.

Facts supporting the Premise: I was told by individuals associated with both organizations that Boet Nel was well known and had a history of complaints. Yet after my situation, and I assume many others, he took over a huge area from Vaughn Fulton. Why? Why is he (and those like him) allowed to thrive when they are known bad apples?

Fact: Our own McKay is wrapped up in a terrible situation with the same Boet Nel, and NAPHA and MET HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO ASSIST HIM. Why all the bluster on this thread when they have matters on their desk they are not responding to?

No punishment without due process? Ok - put your heads together and pass legislation that empowers MET to act against bad PHs.

Why is it that taxi drivers in New York can IMMEDIATELY lose their licenses if they are rude to tourists, don't maintain their cabs or cheat passengers - but PHs with so much more responsibility for safety and environmental safeguards can slip through the system time and again?

I do hope the organizations in question read and respond to the concerns in this thread. I think we should collaborate with them, rather then criticize them and write off hunting in Namibia.

Of course, they may have been better served opening the proposals for a comment period and then refine the guidelines.

So you might presume that they would more likely lower the hammer if you are not hunting with a NAPHA member (report you to USFG).

But imagine if they did on 404Jeffrey and he had a felony conviction as a result. Are you able to get a hunting license in your home state, much less own firearms, if you have a felony conviction?

This could ulitmately impact your ability to hunt period, not just in Namibia.

So NAPHA's little fight to get rid of non NAPHA outfitters may have serious collateral damage.

quote:

Premise: They are understaffed and lack the necessary enforcement ability against PH violations and PH professional ethics/proper business practices

Then I suggest they start doing something about it before passing the blame onto un-suspecting clients.

I have no reason to believe that they are not trying to correct things, but from what I have seen so far notifying the USFW about any perceived illegal activities is NOT acceptable.

It is not their business what happens in other countries.

They sould concentrate on solving the problems where they do actually occur - in Namibia!

This brings to mind the problem arising from Osangu safaris as being posted on other threads.

Lots of people are asking for action against Zaher Mulla in other countries - where he has NOT broken any laws.

All his questionable actions have been in Tanzania. So it is up to the Tanzanian authororities to sort it out, not elsewhere.

IMHO, crooks like Nel and Mulla and their nefarious activities need to be exposed to the world.

It would be best, of course, if they could also be put out of business - but that is not likely to happen, given the many corrupt practices at play.

Saeed, your fine website does more to inform otherwise unsuspecting hunters about such crooks than all of the world's "professional hunter" organizations combined.

Wow, I am willing to bet the vast majority of leopards are taken after dark. If the Lacey Act is brought down on these U.S. hunters they won't know what hit them! Ouch

And I had decided Namibia would be my first hunting destination. I don't need to get in the middle of an association's squabble with non members. If they think they'll sick my government on me because I didn't choose the right PH, they can operate with someone else's money.

quote:

Originally posted by gbanger:
...I don't need to get in the middle of an association's squabble with non members. If they think they'll sick my government on me because I didn't choose the right PH, they can operate with someone else's money.

I couldn't agree with you more!!!

Well said...

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
IMHO, crooks like Nel and Mulla and their nefarious activities need to be exposed to the world.

It would be best, of course, if they could also be put out of business - but that is not likely to happen, given the many corrupt practices at play.

Saeed, your fine website does more to inform otherwise unsuspecting hunters about such crooks than all of the world's "professional hunter" organizations combined.

I agree that all crooks should be exposed, and that this site does much more than all PH-assocaitions combined!

I keep telling people that PHASA and NAPHA are Professional Hunters associations. In the first instance they look after the wellfare of their members - the PH's; of which some are crooks! In a case where a PH is a crook AND a member of a PH-association the client that was cheated will mostly waste his time complaining to such an association.

In good huting.

Andrew McLaren

quote:

In the first instance they look after the wellfare of their members - the PH's; of which some are crooks! In a case where a PH is a crook AND a member of a PH-association the client that was cheated will mostly waste his time complaining to such an association.

I could not disagree more, Andrew.
It might be true of PHASA, I have zero experience with them, but I can tell you that NAPHA is trying very hard to uproot unscrupolous PH's and outfitters, and also is very serious when it comes to the image of the hunting industry in Namibia.

As I see it Andrew & Karl are both right in their own way.

It should be bourne in mind that the PHAs are just that. Professional Hunter's Associations and their job is to represent the views/opinions/rights etc of their membership and no matter what the country, the vast majority of PHs and outfitters are honest people who simply want to see the industry kept clean of the few dishonest vermin that occur in their industry.......and indeed all industries.

However, it should be noted that most PHAs have few if any teeth other than excluding an individual of membership. Therefore, most complaints would be better directed elsewhere, perhaps to the local game dept, tourism board or courts etc.

As far as the press release itself is concerned, as I see it, the release was well intentioned (esp the 1st two paras) because it aims to clean up their industry but the later paras (esp), were rather unfortunately phrased / overly intimidating and (perhaps?) misdirected.

The release almost seems to threaten clients, esp American clients with all kinds of shit if they book with the wrong person/company etc. I'm sure that wasn't the original intention.

The press release doesn't really completely explain exactly what problems they face or what they hope to achieve and without knowing more about those things, I can't really comment on how the release might perhaps have been better phrased but in it's current form I reckon the only thing it'll achieve is to antagonise potential clients which I'm sure wasn't the intent.

I can't help feeling that a lot more could have been achieved by the relevent PHAs, game depts & tourism boards etc all getting together and making a joint effort behind the scenes beforehand.

Either way, I'm sure that Karl and the rest of the board are only acting with the very best of intentions and we should all be grateful for that..........

[QUOTE]
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;
[QUOTE]

While all of their plans sound reasonable and appropriate, their past performance as noted here on AR does not inspire too much confidence.

AND the above quoted threat to "report" to USFW seems like at best not their job, and at worst a subtle threat to require use of NAPHA members only. Rather self serving.

This alone is reason enough for me to avoid hunting in Namibia.

Saeed

Have you had any feedback from NAPHA? I wonder if they have even monitored their press release and its reception here?

Karl, or anyone, really, - don't want to get you in the middle of something so I won't use Boet Nel's name (hehe) but suppose their is PH "X" and he has a history of problems with clients and NAPHA, ok, nothing firm but lots of warnings and complaints....how the heck does he get awarded a prime conservancy? For example, to take over a large area from Vaughn Fulton?

I had heard through the grapevine that Vaughn's old area, the one that was transferred, was awarded by the local people, out of the jurisdiction of NAPHA and MET.

And, isn't the problem that NAPHA and MET in reality have very little control over anything other than clear hunting violations? If PH "X" commits "contract" breaches or fails to perform, the client is told to pursue it civilly.

Again- why is it the Mayor of New York can police taxi drivers because their behavior hurts tourism and the city's image but MET and NAPHA can't do it with PHs. BTW not picking on Namibia, the problems may be endemic to all hunting countries, Namibia is just the country we are discussing.

quote:

Originally posted by 404WJJeffery:
BTW not picking on Namibia, the problems may be endemic to all hunting countries, Namibia is just the country we are discussing.

Because they are the ones (not SA or Zim, or Tanz, Bots) threatening to start an action that may snowball and end up throwing a hapless American hunter into prison, or lose his rights to own firearms and hunt even in his own country.

They don't have the power to attack these PH's directly so they think a good strategy is use the Lacey act as a free bludgeon against there customer.

[/QUOTE]

Because they are the ones (not SA or Zim, or Tanz, Bots) threatening to start an action that may snowball and end up throwing a hapless American hunter into prison, or lose his rights to own firearms and hunt even in his own country.

They don't have the power to attack these PH's directly so they think a good strategy is use the Lacey act as a free bludgeon against there customer.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are right- they really didn't think this thing thru, did they?

it seems a prudent man would not even travel thru Namibia, let alone spend a dime there.

I can get into enough trouble on my own, don't need any assistance from the local crooks. Threatening Americans has not worked anywhere yet.
Perhaps the US will just stop allowing any importation of trophies for five years or so til this is sorted out...

I do know where I am NOT stepping foot in in the future.

Rich
4-bore shooter

Can someone please answer the follwoing question for me please?

What is required for a hunter to enter Namibia with his rifles?

Isn't like all other countries where he has to have a form that has his details as well as the details of the PHs he is going to be hunting with?

If this is the case, why can't NAPHA take the issue with the PHs?

And leave the client well alone?

quote:

but suppose their is PH "X" and he has a history of problems with clients and NAPHA, ok, nothing firm but lots of warnings and complaints....how the heck does he get awarded a prime conservancy? For example, to take over a large area from Vaughn Fulton?

I had heard through the grapevine that Vaughn's old area, the one that was transferred, was awarded by the local people, out of the jurisdiction of NAPHA and MET.

404, unfortunately money talks. PH-X offered to pay more to the local community, had an "inside" partner, (who BTW has since left him). The reality is, offering to pay more, and actually paying more is in the case you have mentioned, not happening.

I cannot speak on behalf of NAPHA, or even on behalf of the sub committe (Predator hunting committe) of NAPHA of which I am a member, but I am pretty sure that the intention was never to threaten law abiding clients- or even clients that hunted with unscrupilous outfitters and then unintentionally/ and mostly unknowingly broke the law. That is one of the reasons why you require a PH to hunt with you, because he / she is expected to know the law, not you.
I think the intention was to warn people that are knowingly breaking the law. For instance, on one of the recent MET cases of illigal hunting, the foreign hunter willingly made a false statement to protect his (illigal) PH.

quote:

And, isn't the problem that NAPHA and MET in reality have very little control over anything other than clear hunting violations? If PH "X" commits "contract" breaches or fails to perform, the client is told to pursue it civilly.

Unfortunately, that is true in about all countries that offers hunting. If such a breach of contract is serious enough, such outfitters have in the past been banned by orginasations like SCI.