Namibian PH Charged for Hunting Leopard with Artificial Light

Namibian PH Charged for Hunting Leopard with Artificial Light

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.

Did NAPHA or MET inform USFG? What is the policy of NAPHA moving forward?

Thanks,
John

Will NAPHA release the name of the PH who was charged? This information would be very valuable to prevent other hunters from being wrapped up in any sort legal mess.

AGAIN. . . without releasing the name of the involved 'registered Namibian PH' your post would seem to have little or no value/effect whatsoever. In fact, it may even be viewed as being somewhat counter productive.

You obviously give no consideration to those who may presently have a hunt booked, or those who may be considering booking a hunt, with this individual. Release of the PH's name may have an affect on their decision to hunt with this individual. It may also even save a hunter's deposit if this guys license is subsequently yanked due to the violation(s).

How about a link to the "official" declaration? That way it comes right from the source.

gentlemen and ladies and all hunters of good repute; napha said charged not tried and convicted, i would hope after a fair hearing, if not guilty , exonerated. if found guilty all severe penalites should apply. these are good practices here and there. i'm not defending this person in any way just fair and equal justice . some times the innosent are hurt. if they are guilty tack thier hides to the barn wall.

I do not necessarily disagree with Robert Tolliver's viewpoint . . . however, in response to a different violation reported by NAPHA which occurred on Sept. 11th I sought the identity of the violater and directly asked;

"Or could it be that NAPHA is waiting for a court conviction prior to naming anyone? . . . NAPHA?"

Having received no response, direct or otherwise, I must maintain a position that besides simply professing an ethical and law abiding viewpoint NAPHA presently seems to have little or no useful relevance to the hunting community at large.

Curiously though, I could not again help but notice that apparently prior to any conviction(s) NAPHA did see the need to notify U.S. Fish and Wildlife about the incident. Somehow it just doesn't all seem to be a 'kosher pickle' to me.

BIG 5 i understand your point , I did not care for the the heavy handed wording N A P H A used in the press releases pointed at U.S.hunters.to the point you ask a question you should get a responce, pretty simple. as to all of this I, we, need more information. and some respect on their part since all money they get comes from the hunters. with regards

Robert. . . I do believe we are on the same page, sir. BTW, great point you make about their (NAPHA's) funding.

I hope they therefore maintain themselves as a promoter of 'ethical hunting' rather than evolving into a self-important and punitive entity within the hunting community. Due to their recent posts and the absence and perhaps arrogance of not responding to simple inquiries (relative to their own posts) things aren't looking too good. They just don't come across as having an interest in building a relationship of mutual understanding or trust with us, the hunting community.
.

robert t & Big5:

Thanks for the observations and insights.

As someone who plans to return to Africa, but has not determined a destination, I will continue to watch this topic with interest.

I cannot yet figure out if NAPHA has chosen the wrong words to use in press releases or if there is something else going on.

Let's see how this unfolds over time...

- browningbbr

It sounds as if NAPHA is trying to cut off its nose to spite its face. The USFWS will use any information given to them to not only target Americans but also Namibia leopard hunting. The USFWS has a heavy hand when dealing with importing sport hunted trophies. I can see no benefit for Namibian wildlife by trying to strong arm American hunters by threatening them with USFWS. I love hunting Namibia but there are many places to hunt in Africa without being threatened by hunting associations. It makes no sense for a business to threaten its customers. What possible good can come of this? Perhaps NAPHA needs to look for new leadership.

Napha is quick to release the names of hunters of other countries who so called come to namibia and corrupt their hunting business, but when it comes to namibian ph's and guides, they "protect"them from being exposed or being named,

Nam Hunter, do you have the Namibian legislation to hand that governs the use of artificial light?
Point I'm going to is, is the use of 'lit reticle' scopes included?
Why scorch the client I wonder? Surely it's the PH's AGAIN at fault?! They know the law and the client has no say on how his hunt is conducted!!

..a client most definitely has a say in how his hunt is conducted.These hunters were either ALSO unethical or have the IQ of a bath plug..!

Docman. If the client knows it's illegal then of course he has a say, but very few clients know the their legal rights when hunting foreign countries. In zim it's legal to use a light to hunt Leopard outside of National Parks Estates land so how does ethics come into it? It's either legal or not! That's why I asked for the legislation so we can all make an opinionated comment!

Friend,I agree,some input from NAPHA would be good.I am born and bred Rhodesian and have been on both sides,guiding and as a client.I make sure that I am fully aware of my rights,as a hunter,wherever I hunt.An ethical hunter knows (or should know) the rules and would not allow an unethical ph to con him into an illegal hunt-hence,my use of the word. A fair-chase,law abiding,ethical hunter would simply ask '..is this legal..?'

Originally Posted by NamHunter

Napha is quick to release the names of hunters of other countries who so called come to namibia and corrupt their hunting business, but when it comes to namibian ph's and guides, they "protect"them from being exposed or being named,

Charl, the guy under discussion is also a South African that has accquired Nam permanent recidence or citizenship if my info is correct. The case you refered to was publisised by the Republikein, that's why the name of the hunter came out, before he pleaded guilty.

Originally Posted by Ole Bally

Nam Hunter, do you have the Namibian legislation to hand that governs the use of artificial light?
Point I'm going to is, is the use of 'lit reticle' scopes included?
Why scorch the client I wonder? Surely it's the PH's AGAIN at fault?! They know the law and the client has no say on how his hunt is conducted!!

Ernie, the law states that no hunting is allowed more than 30 minutes after sunset, or with the use of artificial light. No mention of illuminated reticels.