quote:

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?

Yes Saeed, that is the requirement, but the border police seldom even look at the letter.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
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?

Saeed,

The requirements are halfway down this page:

http://www.shakariconnection.c...ort-regulations.html

and here's the application form:

http://www.shakariconnection.c.../namibia-permit1.pdf

One thing that I don't understand is the press release fails to say whether they are trying to stop 'outside' PHs coming into Namibia to conduct hunts on their own (which is understandably unacceptable) or if they also want to stop what's commonly known as 'cover hunting' which is where an 'outside' PH comes in with his client and hunts alongside a locally licenced PH. This usually happens when the client particularly wants to hunt with a PH he knows but in a country where the selected PH might not be licenced. Traditionally, cover hunting is an accepted part of the industry and many PHs, even very well known PHs either do it, or have done it.

If they do want to stop cover hunting, I can't help but feel they should have said so and if that is the case, I also feel it might well make life difficult for some of their own members because if they do stop cover hunting in Namibia, I'm fairly sure other countries may well adopt a tit for tat policy and do the same to those Namibian PHs who in turn might go elsewhere in Africa to cover hunt.

I guess it all goes back to the press release being rather badly phrased. (To say the least)

One thing I am fairly sure of is that the implication to threaten visiting hunters with legal action in their home country was unintentional. My guess is that what they meant to do was point out that it's illegal not to have a local PH present on a hunt etc.

quote:

One thing that I don't understand is the press release fails to say whether they are trying to stop 'outside' PHs coming into Namibia to conduct hunts on their own (which is understandably unacceptable) or if they also want to stop what's commonly known as 'cover hunting' which is where an 'outside' PH comes in with his client and hunts alongside a locally licenced PH. This usually happens when the client particularly wants to hunt with a PH he knows but in a country where the selected PH might not be licenced. Traditionally, cover hunting is an accepted part of the industry and many PHs, even very well known PHs either do it, or have done it.

shakari, cover hunting is totally legal, and the foreign PH is basically treated like an agent. NAPHA, MET, and non NAPHA members have an issue with ILLIGAL PH's, like this last case where the client and houndsman (who was not a Namibian PH, but an RSA PH), where doing the hunt on their own, no local PH, or outfitter present.

Karl,

I guessed that was the case and thanks for confirmation...... I can't help but feel the press release could perhaps have spelt that out a little better..... Actually, I'm suprised the NAPHA didn't just get together with their own GD and then go to PHASA and maybe the SA GDs and try to agree to simply warn the SA PHs not to operate without a local PH.

Interesting the houndsman was a South African. PHASA have had a moritorium on hunting with hounds for some considerable number of years.

All that said, I have to admire the Namibians for trying to put their house in order. I reckon the press release itself was a bit of a cock up but the intent is admirable.

quote:

Originally posted by Karl S:

quote:

One thing that I don't understand is the press release fails to say whether they are trying to stop 'outside' PHs coming into Namibia to conduct hunts on their own (which is understandably unacceptable) or if they also want to stop what's commonly known as 'cover hunting' which is where an 'outside' PH comes in with his client and hunts alongside a locally licenced PH. This usually happens when the client particularly wants to hunt with a PH he knows but in a country where the selected PH might not be licenced. Traditionally, cover hunting is an accepted part of the industry and many PHs, even very well known PHs either do it, or have done it.

shakari, cover hunting is totally legal, and the foreign PH is basically treated like an agent. NAPHA, MET, and non NAPHA members have an issue with ILLIGAL PH's, like this last case where the client and houndsman (who was not a Namibian PH, but an RSA PH), where doing the hunt on their own, no local PH, or outfitter present.

Karl,

On whose land was the hunted conducted?

Didn't the owners of the land approve of this?

Saeed, as far as the word on the street, the owner had a problem with a leopard, and phoned the local outfitter. He (the outfitter) allegedly said that all the permits was in order for his outfit to hunt there, and the owner allowed it. The owner saw that there was no local PH with, and he in fact contacted NAPHA as far as I could understand. They contacted MET, and a case was opened.

I've just received an email from PHASA with an obviously reviewed NAPHA press release, which to my eyes is considerably more acceptable than the original.

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

quote:

3.) We will inform clients about illegal operations of their PH’s/outfitters

Did they say how they are going to do this?

Saeed,

Karl could probably answer that question better than I could but my guess is the GD would be aware of the PHs actions and would also have contact info of clients whose trophies were being exported and could therefore then contact all the clients who have hunted with that PH and could pass the relevent info on........ although I have no idea of the legalities of that........

If the PH was from outside Namibia and there was no cover hunting agreement then it would obvoiously become considerably more difficult unless the GDs of different countries worked together. That however, isn't impossible as they do all stay in fairly close contact with each other.

quote:

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.

This pretty much guarentees that I won't be hunting there. Even if you win just hiring a lawyer to defend yourself against something like this would equal the cost of a Safari and probably much more.

They need to focus on the professionals. Expecting hunting clients to have any idea about "cover" agreements etc... is a huge stretch.

And frankly what recourse if you are with a NAPHA member are they offering? Won't report you to USFG? They will refund your safari and offer an apology from the country of Namibia? Having a PO box to send letters? What exactly?

Every single case they report to USFG will be used by HSUS to campaign against sport hunting. Every one will be a nail in the coffin.

Someone needs to sit these people down and talk some sense into them.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Saeed,

Karl could probably answer that question better than I could but my guess is the GD would be aware of the PHs actions and would also have contact info of clients whose trophies were being exported and could therefore then contact all the clients who have hunted with that PH and could pass the relevent info on........ although I have no idea of the legalities of that........

If the PH was from outside Namibia and there was no cover hunting agreement then it would obvoiously become considerably more difficult unless the GDs of different countries worked together. That however, isn't impossible as they do all stay in fairly close contact with each other.

Just as I thought.

This will happen after the fact.

I was hoping that they will weed out the undesirables before hand.

At least we live in hope.

As I read this one, all they're doing with regard to the Lacey Act is warning you that you might be in breach of it if you do something illegal..... and it's better to be aware of that fact before you go than have an unpleasant experience by finding out afterwards.

I'm sure that what they're trying to do is tidy up the industry, which however you look at it, is admirable.

As I said earlier though, I think a far better way to do it would have been not to make a press release at all and instead,get together with the PHAs Tourism Depts and GDs etc and then write to every PH & Outfitter in all relevent countries warning them all of the consequences of operating illegally.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

I was hoping that they will weed out the undesirables before hand.

At least we live in hope.

Saeed,

That's never gonna happen I'm afraid. Whichever country we're talking about, the fly by nights are not going to be easy to get out of the industry....... and it can only be done with the co-operation of ALL parts of the industry.

All the while even a single fly by night or dodgy bastard is allowed to advertise in magazines or shows etc, they'll always be someone out there who will choose to buy a cheap product rather than pay a bit more and buy a good one.

As you say, we live in hope though!

So lets look at that leopard case. We have a PH in the country hunting illegaly because a namibian ph wasn't with him (even though he apparently had a "cover" agreement with a namibian ph). We have a houndsman. and then we have a hunter.

MET has statements from all three admitting culpability.

How is the Namibian PH being punished specifically?

The South African PH?

The houndsman?

Now consider what happens to the hunter if he was a US citizen and this was reported to USFG for enforcement under the Lacey Act. With the statement in hand a conviction would be easy. So he gets hit with a Felony and a fine and maybe some prison time. The felony removes his rights to own guns and likely his ability to hunt in the USA, heck he may not even be allowed to vote. Lawyering up for the case probably cost him $50,000 to $75,000. and the icing on the cake is this gets splashed all over the place by HSUS in there anti trophy hunting campaign.

So again, what exactly happened to the PH's and the houndsman in this case?

It's also a good example of what can happen when someone doesn't do their research properly and/or buys by price rather than quality etc.

I would argue that level of knowledge is virtually unobtainable to a new African hunter.

I reckon I'd dispute that John. The internet
has given the world the best information resource ever and all one has to do is sift the wheat from the chaff. Admittedly there's a lot of chaff out there but there's also a lot of really good info available and between AR & www.shakariconnection.com all the answers are there for the looking.

quote:

I would argue that level of knowledge is virtually unobtainable to a new African hunter.

Yes, my thought too, and there are too many subtleties involved. And as was pointed out, "being stupid" is not a good defence! So better to error on the side of caution.

Obviously, a Booking Agent familiar with the ever-changing laws could provide some assurances to clients. But I wonder what exposure (liability) a Booking Agent "caught in the middle" might have- ?

It is pretty obvious that NAPHA's main focus (knee-jerk) was the "South African outfitters" hunting Namibia illegally. We've seen the same reaction/resentment from the Zim organizations and PH's when companies from SA were illegally hunting in Zimbabwe. Understandable. But to assume that clients, especially newbies, are all in cohorts with these guys is ridiculous. As is the notion that there are no corrupt outfitters amongst their own ranks. Stories seep out of Namibia just like any place else.

It might have sounded like a good idea to assign some of the culpability to the hunters, but this is going to backfire on NAPHA, and they need to retract and rethink their approach.

I think the most common error people make is shopping by price rather than quality.... and it never ceases to amaze me how many obviously intelligent people make that same mistake.

As far as unlicenced PHs go, South Africa has it's fair share of 'outside' PHs (including Zimbabweans) coming in and operating without a cover hunter...... however, the trophy exporting process & requirements nowadays now tends to reduce that.

Of course, one of the main reasons for not using a cover hunter goes back to the price thing. If you don't use one, you don't have to pay for one so you're price can be slightly lower and because of that, some guys who can't resist a deal go for it.

And we expect a new African hunter (or even an experienced one) to figure this out why??

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
And we expect a new African hunter (or even an experienced one) to figure this out why??

If you mean that they can't figure out that you don't get what you don't pay for or that quality only comes at a price, then my reply would be that it's one of the first rules of life and I'm sure most people who can afford an African safari probably practice that rule every day of their life and cetainly every time they make a big expenditure on things like cars or other vacations etc......... so why not on an African safari where their very lives could be at risk if they choose badly?

If there's something they don't know and in the unlikely event they can't get an answer here on AR they can go to our site at www.shakariconnection.com where they'll find over 450 pages of information on hunting 12 (soon to be 13) African countries and 170 (or so) species.

Every subject from initial research, to game laws, to planning, to booking and all the way through to post hunt health is all there. They even have the choice of several thousand African hunting related books to buy at prices from less than a dollar to almost a quarter of a million dollars.

All you got to do is look and in the unlikely event of still not knowing, ask.

If I remember correctly, some guy posted a video and story about a hunt in New Zealand on the Aust. N.Z forum. A NZer thought he broke the law by flying/hunting from a helicopter. He said he turned him into the FBI for a violation of the Lacey Act. Does anyone know the outcome of this? Penalties, fines, felony etc?
The answer to that question may give us an idea of any consequences.

I dont know about anyone else but I have a couple of problems here. First, the threat of turning the Lacey Act against American hunters is a threat pure and simple. I wont speculate as to the motivation for making such a statement. I would like to believe it is well intended and just a poor choice of words. However, there is some doubt. Second, why single out American hunters? Are we the main problem? seems to me the gent mentioned was Canadian. Or perhaps is it that we spend the most money and represent the greatest number of hunters? Does any other country have a law like the Lacey Act? I think that targeting American hunters was a bad idea. I dont know about anyone else but I dont take threats lightly. If the motivation behind this is just, it is a good thing. I do however think they screwed the pooch in their initial approach. It will certainly cost the Namibian hunting industry money. I hope they get their house in order but leave me out of it. I love the country and the people but I am having second thoughts about going back. Politics and power have a way of shifting in unexpected ways. Why would anyone no matter how law abiding take a chance of being caught up in this?

Since I've got a right to face my accuser, how they gonna get all those involved to a US court to testify?

quote:

quote:

I would argue that level of knowledge is virtually unobtainable to a new African hunter.

Yes, my thought too, and there are too many subtleties involved. And as was pointed out, "being stupid" is not a good defence! So better to error on the side of caution.

Amen, and since this is the risk (and threat):

quote:

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.

...then the only prudent option is to not set foot in Namibia. Have been considering Namibia, but this has convinced me to not darken their door.
----------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I'd hate it for the Namibian hunting industry if a bunch of hunters got skiddish and decided not to hunt there.

After two trips to Namibia I would like that situation for myself because it would mean more opportunities and less cost for me. (that's just a joke)

Everyone I have had contact with in Namibia has been great, I'll continue to hunt there. With Karl Stumpfe, I might add.

Namibia is a beautiful place.

josh

Might be a fine point, but even if one breaks the foreign hunting laws/regulations, a US citizen doesn't violate the Lacey Act until he imports the trophy?

This is a question, not a statement.

quote:

Originally posted by cable68:
Might be a fine point, but even if one breaks the foreign hunting laws/regulations, a US citizen doesn't violate the Lacey Act until he imports the trophy?

This is a question, not a statement.

Taken from the following website:
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/lacey.html

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981
Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (P.L. 97-79, 95 Stat. 1073, 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378, approved November 16, 1981, and as amended by P.L. 100-653, 102 Stat. 3825, approved November 14, 1988, and P.L. 98-327, 98 Stat. 271, approved June 25, 1984) These amendments repealed the Black Bass Act and sections 43 and 44 of the Lacey Act of 1900 (18 U.S.C. 43- 44), replacing them with a single comprehensive statute.

Under this law, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.

The law covers all fish and wildlife and their parts or products, and plants protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and those protected by State law. Commercial guiding and outfitting are considered to be a sale under the provisions of the Act.

Felony criminal sanctions are provided for violations involving imports or exports, or violations of a commercial nature in which the value of the wildlife is in excess of $350. A misdemeanor violation was established, with a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment of up to 1 year, or both. Civil penalties up to $10,000 were provided. However, the Criminal Fines Improvement Act of 1987 increased the fines under the Lacey Act for misdemeanors to a maximum of $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for organizations. Maximum fines for felonies were increased to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations.

Rewards are authorized for information leading to arrests, criminal convictions, civil penalties, or the forfeitures of property, and for payment of costs of temporary care for fish, wildlife, or plants regarding a civil or criminal proceeding. Strict liability is established for forfeiture of illegal fish, wildlife or plants, and marking requirements for shipments of fish and wildlife must conform to modern commercial practices.

Those enforcing the Act are authorized to carry firearms, make qualified warrantless arrests for felony and misdemeanor violations of any law of the U.S. when enforcing the Act, search and seize under Attorney General guidelines, issue subpoenas and warrants, inspect vessels, vehicles, aircraft, packages, crates, and containers on arrival in the United States from outside the United States or prior to departure from the United States.

Amendments to the humane shipment provisions of Title 18 required the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations governing such activity.

As amended May 24, 1949, 18 U.S.C. 42 (63 Stat. 89, September 2, 1960; P.L. 86-702; 74 Stat. 753; and November 29, 1990, P.L. 101-646, 104 Stat. 4772) prohibits importation of wild vertebrates and other animals listed in the Act or declared by the Secretary of the Interior to be injurious to man or agriculture, wildlife resources, or otherwise, except under certain circumstances and pursuant to regulations.

Skiddish? Nope. Prudent? Probably. Truthfully I am mostly pissed off as I feel Americans were unjustly singled out. I dont know if the Lacey act only applys when one attempts to import the trophy. That would make sense to me. I dont think they could make a law in the USA apply to an act in another country until it involved the US authorities. I certainly am not sure that is correct though. The case in question occured on Namibian soil, and involved a South African ph and a Canadian hunter. So why target US hunters? It makes me think there is different agenda in the mix. Perhaps not the primary one but it does cause one to question motives.

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

Waiting on a reply FROM PHASA for that one mysely. I cerainly hope someONE gives it the thought it deserves before issuing a statement like the last one. Again an event occured on Namibian soil. It involved a local namibian ph who waS TO PROVIDE THE COVER HUNT ALLOWING THE SOUTH AFRICAN PH/DOG HANDLER TO HUNT WITH DOGS FOR A CANADIAN CLIENT. I WANT TO KNOW IN LIGHT OF THOSE FACTS WHY IN HELL TARGET AMERICAN HUNTERS WITH THE BIG STICK OF THE lACEY aCT? I THINK YOU HAD BETTER PASS SOME LEGISLATION TO FIRST FORCE ON PHASA MEMBERS. THEN EVEN STRONGER PENALTIES FOR FOREIGN PHS HUNTING ILLEGALLY IN NAMIBIA. lAST, tHE CLIENT WHO HAS TO TRUST HIS PH MORE THAN NOT MUST BELIEVE IN WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL TELLS THEM. OFTEN THE CLIENT SHOULDNT EVEN SEE THE PERMITS OR ARRANGEMENTS THAT WERE MADE AHEAD OF TIME. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU PAY A PH FOR IS TO GUIDE YOU THROUGH THE TANGLED UNDERGROWTH THAT IS THE LAW AND ITS PARTICULLAR APPLICATIONS THEREOF AS WELL AS THE ACTUALL HUNTING. THE CLIENT HUNTER RELATIONSHIP IS SUCH THAT THE CLIENT MOST ALLWAYS TRUSTS WHAT THE PH SAYS IS NEEDED. WHEN IT TURNS OUT AT TIMES THAT ASSUMPTION IS IN ERROR WHO SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? IT SHOULD BE THE PERSON IN THE POSITION OF AUTHORITY THE PH NOT THE CLIENT!
NOW IF THE CLIENT KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THE LAW THAT IS A DIFFERENT STORY AND SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE "PROFESSIONAL" SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILLITY. THE NATURE OF THE RELANTIONSHIP MAKES THE PH THE PERSON MOST ACCOUNTABLE. ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS INCLUDING THE CLIENT SHOULLD BE HELD TO A LESSER OR NO STANDARD DEPENDING ON THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE PH IN CHARGE.

AGAIN I ASK WHY AN INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED ON NAMIBIAN SOIL, INVOLVED A NAMIBIAN PH, WHO WAS ABSENT HENCE HIS PART IN THIS, A SOUTH AFRIICAN PH/HOUNDSMAN WHO HUNTED ILLEGALLY BUY NOT HAVING THE NAMIBIAN PH PRESENT NOR THE REQUIRED PERMITS IN HAND, AND LASTYLY THE CANADIAN HUNTER WHO ALSO ADMITTED CULPABILITY, CAUSE THE NAPHA TO RELEASE A STATEMENT BASICALLY TARGETING THOSE OF US IN THE US? ALSO WHAT ABOUT THE HUNTERS FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD? ESPECIALLY AS THERE IS NO OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS ANYTHING LIKE THE LACEY ACT TO CONTEND WITH. HOW WILL THE PHS BE PUNISHED FIRST? MEMBERS GET BETTER TREATMENT THAN NON? wHAT ABOUT OUT ILLEGAL HUNTERS LIKE THE GUYS FROM RSA IN THIS CASE? WHAT ABOUT THE CANNADIAN CLIENT? NO LACEY ACT TO BEAT HIM OVER THE HEAD WITH. I AM PISSED OFF BECAUSE WE AMERICANS SEEM TO BE SINGLED OUT BOTH AS BEING THE BAD GUYS WHICH IS NOT TRUE. LOOK AT YOUR OWN REPORT WHO WAS INVOLVED. MOSTLY THOUGH IT IS THE IMPLIED THREAT OF BEING CAUGHT UP IN THE LACEY ACT. WHY USE THE BIGGEST CLUB ON THE GUYS THAT WERE NOT EVEN INVOLVED? YOU NEED TO BE ANSWERABLE FOR YOUR STATEMENTS JUST AS A PH IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW MUST ANSWER FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
I AM WAITING TO HEAR FRM PHASA ON THIS.

Mike,

PHASA have had a morotorium on hunting with hounds for some considerable years and it's doubtful that the guys involved are PHASA members. If they are PHASA members, all the association can do is expel them at the very most.

I understand you and other Americans (quite rightly) feel aggrieved about the wording of the press releases but you'll get a lot more achieved by complaining/questioning the Namibian Tourist Dept (perhaps?) the Minister for Tourism and the Game dept than you will by complaining to the PHAs who are effectively not much more than a trade union.

Just jumpingon the bandwagon here,

What are the names of those involved ?

As a by and by, Shakari is correct, NAPHA and Zim PHA keeps on complaining about SA Phs , but there are a s!@# load of them bringing their clients into SA and hunting here ????

What's good for the goose ??


And once again my pet topic, those " In Power " in the differnt associations , making all kinds of accusations and threats, as well as "claiming too be lily white" in my experience has been feeding of the forbidden fruit themselves,

OH YEAH if no one noticed I have severe "authority" issues

This thread brings tears to my eyes as I recall reading the tales of old hunters:

You'd get aboard a steamer, set sail to Algoa Bay, buy a wagon & team, hire a bunch of locals and head into the hinterland...
You would suffer Malaria, Blackwater Feaver, hunger, thirst & lonliness.
Your staff would abandon you and your span will die of Ngama!
You'd get "hunting permits" from the local chief (assuming his tribe did'nt eat you)
You would suffer a month to get your (self dressed) trophies back to civilisation.

Hell this all sounds a lot safer and more pleasant than a modern day safari......

quote:

Originally posted by Kwan:
Just jumpingon the bandwagon here,

...............................................................................................

OH YEAH if no one noticed I have severe "authority" issues

Kwan,

I take note of your severe "authority" phobia! I suffer from the same affliction, if "suffer" and "affliction" are the correct words?

In South Africa all PH's can be very accurately divided into two major groups: Those that are proud members of PHASA is one group, while the other group contains those that are proudly NOT members of PHASA. I have no real data to back the statement, so I'll be very vague and just say my "gutfeel" is that these two groups contain roughly the same number of PH's. I am a member of group (ii), and will remain so until PHASA gets serious about stopping the unsustainable hunting practices "committed" by so many of it's members in good standing. My choice of the word "committed" may not be the best one, but I see Put&Take shooting as a crime against hunters, and a criminal is only convicted if he is found guilty of having "committed" a criminal deed(s)!

Can anyone give an indication of the situation in Namibia? Are there a significant number properly licensed and practicing Namibian PH's that are NOT members of NAPHA? Could the whole thing not really be part of a membership drive by NAPHA? You know: Hunt with a NAPHA member or else......, and hope the clients and prospective clients request or somehow exert pressure on their chosen PH to join NAPHA?

Just wondering about the situation in Namibia.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

quote:

Can anyone give an indication of the situation in Namibia? Are there a significant number properly licensed and practicing Namibian PH's that are NOT members of NAPHA? Could the whole thing not really be part of a membership drive by NAPHA? You know: Hunt with a NAPHA member or else......, and hope the clients and prospective clients request or somehow exert pressure on their chosen PH to join NAPHA?

Just wondering about the situation in Namibia.

Andrew, I think the vast majority of PH's, master hunting guides and hunting guides are members of NAPHA in Namibia.

I had strongly considered Namibia for my next trip to africa...after reading the press release, no way. I don't speak the language, have no way of really being sure the outfitter [ph] that I choose is not involved in some conflict with some other ph..that could make accusations that are unfounded [but could certainly lead to misery and expense for me] Why run such a risk when there are lots of places to hunt in africa.

quote:

Originally posted by Karl S:
.........................................

Andrew, I think the vast majority of PH's, master hunting guides and hunting guides are members of NAPHA in Namibia.

Thanks Karl. If the vast majority are members, then the main drive of NAPHA ExCo was probably an honest attempt to get the 'whole house', and not only NAPHA members, in order. I'll just keep watching the postings here.

I wish you, and all other NAPHA members and the executive all the best at resolving both the leopard hunting issue and the 'possible massive boicot' of Namibia as a hunting destination for foreign clients. Glad that I'm not involved in the efforts to solve this one! Good luck!

In good hunting. Yes, in Namibia!

Andrew McLaren

Steve, It isnt just the wording that has me upset. The issuance of a threat implys not only the ability but a willingness to follow through with it. On the one hand I think they are trying to clean things up. On the other I smell greed. Using the Lacey act against a hapless hunter who unwittingly is in violation is akin to using a 50 BMG on a dik dik. Overkill isnt even an adequate description. This was a threat, not a simple you might be in violation statement. I still want to know why American hunters were singled out. I also want to know why the folks who issued this statement decided to use the biggest gun in the arsenal. I want to know what they are going to do about the situation being discussed in regards to the leopard hunt. Last is there going to be equal enforcement of all different nationals in the future? A felony conviction for an American as well as all the legal grief compared to what? Will everyone from every country who commits the same offense receive the same treament and penalties? It would appear not.

Karl, I would like to hear your opinion on this. I really want someone to convince me that this is just a big misunderstanding.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
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?

I have hunted Namibia twice and will be going back in April 2010 to once again hunt plains game. It's one of the easiest countries to import guns into. I have even built guns for PH's there and had no problems getting them transfered to the PH.
You need a letter of invitation from your PH and the gun registration form filled out. The whole process takes about 5 min. in the airport and the officer has always been very friendly and glad to see us........Tom