Posting photos of dead wild animals could be illegal soon

This may be catching on, further reducing the places some people will hunt. What happens if South Africa looks at joining this club?

Fortunately, no impact on me!

If it becomes widespread I hunt where I want to. As long as it isn't though, this would still be a deciding factor in choosing between two otherwise similar places, for me.

It's always interesting when most people don't mind rights being lost when there isn't a direct impact to them.
 
If it becomes widespread I hunt where I want to. As long as it isn't though, this would still be a deciding factor in choosing between two otherwise similar places, for me.

It's always interesting when most people don't mind rights being lost when there isn't a direct impact to them.

The most oft-heard example being "I'll never buy an AR, so who cares if they are banned"?

Agree with an earlier poster that a lot of great points have been made on both sides of the argument.

Telling me I cannot post a trophy picture on AH makes me think this regulation is wrong-headed. I understand some may think this will win friends and influence people. I see it as ceding ground in a battle that will only back us into a corner.

I could be wrong...and am open to being convinced of such.

Tim
 
If it becomes widespread I hunt where I want to. As long as it isn't though, this would still be a deciding factor in choosing between two otherwise similar places, for me.

It's always interesting when most people don't mind rights being lost when there isn't a direct impact to them.

Seems a mite harsh to me. And more than a little off point.

Many here don't seem to care too much about the" rights" of others when it comes to captive bred lion hunting. Many are OK with banning baiting of certain animals. No one jumped up and down when hunting leopards with hounds was banned in Namibia. I could (and usually do) go on, but I won't. I think you get the picture. But to call any of these things "rights" issues is to misunderstand what we're talking about.

What's happened, or might happen, here, hasn't really impacted your rights, at least not to any great extent. To the extent that the hunting permit forms a contract between you and the state - you agree to these conditions and in return we let you hunt - then it's entirely up to you if you choose to hunt or not. No rights impact at all. And no different than any other condition to a permit.

You can also decide, as some have, that you don't care what Namibia has to say, since they can't really enforce this rule once you've left the country. You may be right, and whether you choose to honour the conditions of your hunting permits is entirely up to you. If your complaint is that you're an American and this could be a Lacey Act problem, well, you might look to your government about that rather than to Namibia. Again, not much of an impact on anyone's rights.

Bottom line is this. I think we'd all agree (jump in if not) that each country has the right to make whatever laws it wants with regard to hunting. We, as hunters, then have the right - the unfettered, untrammeled right, the complete freedom in other words, to choose to hunt there or not. Offer and acceptance, or not. Since no one has a right to hunt anywhere on the terms of their own choosing, I completely fail to see how I am supporting anyone giving up their rights. What I have said is that this new rule is of no real concern to me - much like living in a state which doesn't allow you to hunt bears with dogs might or might not bother you. Not a question of rights at all.

What I am supporting is giving a country a bit of slack to try to contain the social media firestorms which threaten to limit our ability to hunt generally. I have said I'm skeptical that it will work, but I won't bash Namibia, one of the good guys, for trying something different.
 
I would agree that hunting is a privilege granted by the state, and their is no right to hunt. If you live in the USA you have a right to own a firearm subject to certain restrictions the state has imposed.

I don’t know if posting photos would be a Lacey Act violation or not, but I would not want to be the test case.
 
Here's an interesting angle on the Lacey Act issue. Some may recall that a while ago USF&W was seizing pictures of hunts to prove who really shot an animal. For example, father takes son hunting but only father is on the hunting permit. PH allows son to shoot an impala, because it's the nice thing to do. Might be at father's request, or PH might even offer. Pictures tend to indicate that the impala is son's trophy, not father's. Killing by son was illegal, hence in violation of Lacey Act on import.

We all know (I hope) that shooting from vehicles is illegal in many if not most (all?) South African provinces. At least that's what I've been told, and what's been posted on AH a number of times. We also know that this law is never enforced, to the point where many of the hunting vehicles are actually set up to allow people to shoot from the back.

Under the Lacey Act, a hunt is illegal if it is against the law in the place where it was conducted, regardless of whether or not the law is enforced there. So technically, shooting an impala from a vehicle and then bringing the trophy (or potentially any trophy from that hunt) to the US is a violation of the Lacey Act.

Yet people have no problem saying in public (hunt report, for example) that they shot from a vehicle, or even posting video showing them shooting from a vehicle.

Seems like a bigger Lacey Act issue than the Namibia issue we've been discussing.
 
I’m no Facebook expert, but it is my understanding that with my privacy settings only my friends can see my posts. If that is true, how can my photos possibly cause a problem (unless I pick the wrong friends)? Am I missing something?
WAB,
This is a good point and I suppose people don't use the privacy settings. I've been on this journey with Trophy the film and I have posted and shared everything on FB with no problems as long as my posts stay private, friends only. A few times I had somehow reposted something that went public then there was a fire storm. So maybe someone can explain to us why FB is such a problem? Do most people not know how to work the privacy settings?
Back to the issue at hand. I believe we should all contact MET and PHASA and ask at the very least for an exception to allow tasteful pics on closed, members only social medial like AH. I think they didn't think this through and we should tell them so.
Regards,
Philip
 
it all comes down to choices, go if you want or go some where else, plain and simple. I for one don,t want to be a test case as it may cost you more than any hunt you have ever been on in legal bills and you may even do jail time.
 
Governmental authorities certainly have the power to tell us where, when and how we can hunt. That is pretty well settled!

When they start telling us we cannot share trophy photos in the public domain I think they are a bridge too far.

Of course, my opinion does not matter much to anyone but me. At least I can still express it!
 
I can not imagine or find a case when a public photo with legally hunted dead animal did any good for hunting community.
Except sharing the experience on personal level of individal hunter.

On the other hand, there have been more harm done then good:
For example Cecil the lion then, black giraffe now, and numerous others.

If all the photos with dead animals are suddenly removed from public web sites, anti hunting groups would loose practically the only argument against hunting community.
This issue could be viewed from different angles and not all are necessarily negative.
 
its some times hard to think about just giving up hunting and letting all the do gooders(they don,t pay their way)they just talk about it) have their way and after the hunting dollars dry up and the animals eat their way out of food and home and the pouches have their way. we as hunters can set back and say we told you so(not much joy in that), but it may come to that in certain countries. I just don,t see the do gooders stepping up to the plate and paying the bills pertaining to good animal management, let alone picking up the tab to get all the people that will be put out of work other jobs or taking care of them in the transition. even the small farms I hunted had 20-30 people working on the hunting side of the farm.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN1979 (2).JPG
    DSCN1979 (2).JPG
    633.2 KB · Views: 194
  • RSCN8551.JPG
    RSCN8551.JPG
    1,019.4 KB · Views: 220
Last edited:
Did you see where Zimbabwe is considering making it illegal to post hunting photos taken in Zim and posting them on social media?

https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/zimbabwe-parks-seeks-to-ban-trophy-hunting-pictures/

Zimbabwe Parks seeks to ban trophy hunting pictures
3 July 8, 2018 3:35 PM





FOLLOWING an outcry by local animal rights activists about the killing of a lion at Hwange National Park last week, the Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife Management is working towards introducing a Statutory Instrument to bar the posting of vanity pictures of animal trophy hunts in the country.


Last week an Alaskan hunting company —GrizzlyStik posted pictures of a hunt, where a lion was killed. The hunt was organised by a South Africa-based safari company — Chattaronga Safaris. GrizzlyStik is an Alaskan Bow Hunting supply brand. It was founded in 1994 and has grown into one of the largest traditional archery companies in USA.

The pictures court the ire of a local animal rights and awareness group, Lions of Hwange National Park, where it requested for an insight into how the hunt was sanctioned.

ZimParks spokesman Mr Tinashe Farawo told Sunday News that the authority was working towards introducing an instrument, with those caught contravening it paying hefty fines or facing jail time.

“It is unfortunate that there are some people that take such issues to social media, without taking precise routes to settle or confirm issues. We are, however, investigating the matter of a hunt, which I would like to clarify as a sanctioned one. We are, however, working towards coming up with a Statutory Instrument that will prevent people from posting trophy hunts within the country on social media. Further details into that will be provided in due course. Countries such as Namibia have done so and we as a nation are working towards that,” said Mr Farawo.


Responding to questions from Sunday News, Lions of Hwange National Park accused some land owners of accepting bribes and allowing unsanctioned hunts within the country.

“The bottom line is, are we as Zimbabweans happy for our natural resource and heritage to be plundered. The reason why the Gwayi Intensive Conservancy Area hunts to South African hunters (to sell to their International clients) is because quota settings are dysfunctional in this region and is not sustainable. Zimbabwean hunters and operators know it’s not sustainable and refuse to hunt there.

“The game is hugely depleted but some land owners take loads of bribes from these rich South African clients and hence our image and resource is being abused. We are not the authority, we are just an awareness page,” said the group, appealing to ZimParks to take measures to prevent the hunting of wildlife.

“This lion was barely three years old and nowhere near an adult. There should be huge penalties instilled by ZimParks for killing an animal this age,” said Lions of Hwange National Park.
Peter Matika, Senior Reporter
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the Namibia Professional Hunting Association - NAPHA Newsflash



Dear NAPHA members and friends,

I feel the need to urgently communicate with you all regarding the recent turmoil, questions and uncertainty regarding the statement made by our Minister of MET, as well as myself in the capacity of NAPHA President.

Firstly, I want to stress the following points:
  1. Social media is the collective of online communication channels dedicated to community based input, interaction, content-sharing and collaboration. Some prominent examples of social media are: Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Linkedln, Reddit, Instagram, Pinterest.
  2. The Minister made it clear that his restriction does not apply to websites, brochures, and marketing material used for advertising. Although I will confirm this with the Minister, the statement made by me representing NAPHA, was done so with this in mind.
  3. So far two public statements were made by NAPHA. One by myself via telephone communication from various newspapers on the day of the release by the minister after having laid eyes on it moments before, and not having all the facts at hand. Secondly as an official NAPHA press release that was sent out to all members, media and stakeholders. This press release was also quoted in today’s newspapers.
  4. Both statements have the same message of which the latter is more explanatory.
  5. No legislation has been passed yet. Even though permit conditions might be enforced, the legality of the imposition of such restriction is, failing any amendment to the current legislation, challengeable. Whether the directives of the ministry are unlawful or not, this presents us with another challenge which we will pursue in consultation with the ministry to see whether this can be solved on an amicable and constructive basis. I want to stress that we have to respect that the Minister launched this statement in the spirit of safeguarding the industry, which was my opinion from the start, but which might have been misunderstood or misinterpreted by some.
Herewith I would again like to reiterate the points made and emphasise the following in order to neutralise any possible misinterpretations:
The NAPHA Constitution 1.3.6 refers; Protecting and promoting all hunting sectors, hunting traditions, training and upgrading of members and their employees or other interested persons.
This writing mandates NAPHA to PROMOTE all hunting sectors and traditions. I have made it clear in both statements that hunting in Namibia should be advertised and promoted responsibly.

Furthermore 1.3.6 of the Constitution reads;
Preventing all forms of illegal or unprofessional hunting ethics as well as destructive practices undermining wildlife habitats and vegetation.

This writing mandates NAPHA to prevent destructive practices. It is a fact that irresponsible and insensitive marketing is destructive to the hunting community and therefore to our wildlife and habitat. Please note the wording irresponsible. As duly noted by various members through their correspondence the last couple of days, ethics and morals are crucial to our hunting community, but the opinions and level of this varies greatly from person to person. NAPHA’s Code of Conduct clearly states our intent to secure the industry for current and future generations, as well as to ensure sound and ethical social, business, hunting and environmental practices at all times. With the age of social media, no clear guidelines regarding this type of marketing have been provided by either the ministry or NAPHA as of yet, and therefore we have to respect each person’s view on what responsible marketing is. Please note that although NAPHA was in the process of compiling a chapter on responsible social media marketing in the Best Practice Hunting Guide, we will prioritise a clearly defined guideline list as to this and propose this to the members, to be able to ensure a risk-free freedom of advertising by NAPHA members.

Adding to this, NAPHA’s Code of Conduct also reads as follows: To promote hunting as a recognised and sustainable form of the utilisation of renewable natural resources. As stated in NAPHA’s press release, we will never agree to not be able to market our sustainable practices through hunting.

This is where I want to clarify to our members that we will never succumb to pressure from anyone to stop advertising our services. But we will reprimand anyone for doing so in a way that destructs it. The point is not whether a certain photo is moral or ethical, because again this can be argued. What is important to note is that we are exposing ourselves, hunting, and our country to a world of people. Some of them are at the outset against it, some have no opinion to it, and some welcome it. We have to be aware of all of these sectors, take responsibility for how we expose ourselves, and be absolutely and without a doubt convinced that by doing so, we are securing our industry for current and future generations. It is with this motivation that I have supported the minister on a qualified basis, as NAPHA president, in his request to ban all photos of dead animals on social media.

With reference to the NAPHA Constitution 1.3.7; Consolidating members to protect and represent the objectives and duties stipulated in the Constitution with reference to state and society. In particular, the Association offers support and advisory services for the initiation of new laws and regulations in the field of hunting and nature conservation. The Association will assist to honour existing laws and regulations. At the same time, the Association will monitor that no laws and administrative regulations be accepted which are not in the interest of members.
We have made it clear that we will advise our ministry as we have done so in the past, and I trust that we will succeed again, in that pictures of our trophies should still feature on our marketing platforms, with certain restrictions which I am sure our members will agree to.

I feel the need to remind our members that for the last couple of years, NAPHA has effortlessly worked together with our MET in order to protect the constitutional rights of us as a hunting collective in a world where the attack on hunting as become more and more to the fore-front, and to such an extent that some governments banned hunting in total. Many outfitters and hunters have ignored the warnings communicated by the ministry as well as our office against irresponsible social media marketing.

For those who have expressed reservations about myself and my Executive Committee, I want to assure you that we respect and accept all viewpoints, whether received in an honourable manner or not, and that we will communicate and relay all comments to our ministry, and will undertake to “protect and promote the interests of its members and the harmonious cooperation between all members and the staff. The Association serves as a forum for the exchange of information, trying to find a solution for problems and differences, which may arise.”, as per our Constitution.

I hope that this communication will find yourselves more clear as to our objective, but even more so, regain trust in the unity that makes this Association great, but also the example that we as fellow Namibians and proud NAPHA members have always set for the world as well as the rest of our fellow Namibians to be proud of…

Yours,
Danene van der Westhuyzen
 
looks like talking out of both sides of their mouths
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
From the Namibia Professional Hunting Association - NAPHA Newsflash



Dear NAPHA members and friends,

I feel the need to urgently communicate with you all regarding the recent turmoil, questions and uncertainty regarding the statement made by our Minister of MET, as well as myself in the capacity of NAPHA President.

Firstly, I want to stress the following points:
  1. Social media is the collective of online communication channels dedicated to community based input, interaction, content-sharing and collaboration. Some prominent examples of social media are: Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Linkedln, Reddit, Instagram, Pinterest.
  2. The Minister made it clear that his restriction does not apply to websites, brochures, and marketing material used for advertising. Although I will confirm this with the Minister, the statement made by me representing NAPHA, was done so with this in mind.
  3. So far two public statements were made by NAPHA. One by myself via telephone communication from various newspapers on the day of the release by the minister after having laid eyes on it moments before, and not having all the facts at hand. Secondly as an official NAPHA press release that was sent out to all members, media and stakeholders. This press release was also quoted in today’s newspapers.
  4. Both statements have the same message of which the latter is more explanatory.
  5. No legislation has been passed yet. Even though permit conditions might be enforced, the legality of the imposition of such restriction is, failing any amendment to the current legislation, challengeable. Whether the directives of the ministry are unlawful or not, this presents us with another challenge which we will pursue in consultation with the ministry to see whether this can be solved on an amicable and constructive basis. I want to stress that we have to respect that the Minister launched this statement in the spirit of safeguarding the industry, which was my opinion from the start, but which might have been misunderstood or misinterpreted by some.
Herewith I would again like to reiterate the points made and emphasise the following in order to neutralise any possible misinterpretations:
The NAPHA Constitution 1.3.6 refers; Protecting and promoting all hunting sectors, hunting traditions, training and upgrading of members and their employees or other interested persons.
This writing mandates NAPHA to PROMOTE all hunting sectors and traditions. I have made it clear in both statements that hunting in Namibia should be advertised and promoted responsibly.

Furthermore 1.3.6 of the Constitution reads;
Preventing all forms of illegal or unprofessional hunting ethics as well as destructive practices undermining wildlife habitats and vegetation.

This writing mandates NAPHA to prevent destructive practices. It is a fact that irresponsible and insensitive marketing is destructive to the hunting community and therefore to our wildlife and habitat. Please note the wording irresponsible. As duly noted by various members through their correspondence the last couple of days, ethics and morals are crucial to our hunting community, but the opinions and level of this varies greatly from person to person. NAPHA’s Code of Conduct clearly states our intent to secure the industry for current and future generations, as well as to ensure sound and ethical social, business, hunting and environmental practices at all times. With the age of social media, no clear guidelines regarding this type of marketing have been provided by either the ministry or NAPHA as of yet, and therefore we have to respect each person’s view on what responsible marketing is. Please note that although NAPHA was in the process of compiling a chapter on responsible social media marketing in the Best Practice Hunting Guide, we will prioritise a clearly defined guideline list as to this and propose this to the members, to be able to ensure a risk-free freedom of advertising by NAPHA members.

Adding to this, NAPHA’s Code of Conduct also reads as follows: To promote hunting as a recognised and sustainable form of the utilisation of renewable natural resources. As stated in NAPHA’s press release, we will never agree to not be able to market our sustainable practices through hunting.

This is where I want to clarify to our members that we will never succumb to pressure from anyone to stop advertising our services. But we will reprimand anyone for doing so in a way that destructs it. The point is not whether a certain photo is moral or ethical, because again this can be argued. What is important to note is that we are exposing ourselves, hunting, and our country to a world of people. Some of them are at the outset against it, some have no opinion to it, and some welcome it. We have to be aware of all of these sectors, take responsibility for how we expose ourselves, and be absolutely and without a doubt convinced that by doing so, we are securing our industry for current and future generations. It is with this motivation that I have supported the minister on a qualified basis, as NAPHA president, in his request to ban all photos of dead animals on social media.

With reference to the NAPHA Constitution 1.3.7; Consolidating members to protect and represent the objectives and duties stipulated in the Constitution with reference to state and society. In particular, the Association offers support and advisory services for the initiation of new laws and regulations in the field of hunting and nature conservation. The Association will assist to honour existing laws and regulations. At the same time, the Association will monitor that no laws and administrative regulations be accepted which are not in the interest of members.
We have made it clear that we will advise our ministry as we have done so in the past, and I trust that we will succeed again, in that pictures of our trophies should still feature on our marketing platforms, with certain restrictions which I am sure our members will agree to.

I feel the need to remind our members that for the last couple of years, NAPHA has effortlessly worked together with our MET in order to protect the constitutional rights of us as a hunting collective in a world where the attack on hunting as become more and more to the fore-front, and to such an extent that some governments banned hunting in total. Many outfitters and hunters have ignored the warnings communicated by the ministry as well as our office against irresponsible social media marketing.

For those who have expressed reservations about myself and my Executive Committee, I want to assure you that we respect and accept all viewpoints, whether received in an honourable manner or not, and that we will communicate and relay all comments to our ministry, and will undertake to “protect and promote the interests of its members and the harmonious cooperation between all members and the staff. The Association serves as a forum for the exchange of information, trying to find a solution for problems and differences, which may arise.”, as per our Constitution.

I hope that this communication will find yourselves more clear as to our objective, but even more so, regain trust in the unity that makes this Association great, but also the example that we as fellow Namibians and proud NAPHA members have always set for the world as well as the rest of our fellow Namibians to be proud of…

Yours,
Danene van der Westhuyzen

Danene,
Thank you for the note and the additional context provided. I understand and agree with the concern over what some choose to post, and the open nature in which the material is posted. However, I consider it overreach for a government to try to restrict what I share with friends via social media, this site being one such avenue. I think a little more thought and definition needs to be applied if you are to avoid unintended negative consequences of what appears to be a well intentioned effort.
Yours,
Bill Boycott
 
looks like talking out of both sides of their mouths

I actually think it's pretty straight forward.

Danene wants to protect NAPHA and it's business interests fully, even at the expense of it's clients. She is making the bet that clients will still come. Time will tell....

I do find it interesting that she freely admits there are very likely legal issues with the move and that she fully supports something that in her words is, "legally challengeable."
 
I wonder of a focused education, such as pamphlets, discussion etc., would have been cheaper and less divisive than a piece of legislation? I fully understand the idea. But why always the leap to new laws?
 
looks like talking out of both sides of their mouths
Looks like they have no problem banning photos posted by the hunters while protecting their members advertising.
"The Minister made it clear that his restriction does not apply to websites, brochures, and marketing material used for advertising."

So I'll repeat my question to NAPHA... Can I share on my Personal Face Book, Twitter, Etc. photos of my Hunt that my PH posts for advertising?

The Minister states in his memo the Ban on social media photos is now a condition attached to my Hunting permit.

"No legislation has been passed yet. Even though permit conditions might be enforced"
 
I wonder of a focused education, such as pamphlets, discussion etc., would have been cheaper and less divisive than a piece of legislation? I fully understand the idea. But why always the leap to new laws?

Because ultimately and unfortunately both governments and organizations only end up with two goals:

  1. Power
  2. Control
Take away the checks and balances and it happens every time....
 
as the replies keep mounting one thing is starting to show, the antis are probably right that most hunters don't care near as much about conservation as they make out.

Im beginning to wonder why anyone ever bothered hunting africa before social media because being able to put pics up everywhere appears to be a primary motive for a lot of guys.
Forget hunting, take anything like golf, fishing, football, going to a kids dance recital what would you think of someone who said "nah I'm not doing that there anymore they don't let us put pics on facebook ". I for one would be thinking the guy probably wasn't in it for the right reasons to begin with if something so petty put him off.

Hunting to me is about a lot of things, killing something is way down the list and being able to put those pics on social media is so far below even that its not a consideration.

People need to take a breath and think about what's a priority when they chuck on their hunting gear in the morning
 
why I,m just amazed at such talk, coming from a hunter. if you feel that way, why not leave your gun and camera at home and just take a hike. I guess us hunters are just lured to Africa by all the ad,s put out by the out fitters and go to kill just about every thing we see. I enjoy seeing others pictures and reading reports of their hunt from places all over the world, knowing that also have enjoyed hunts all over the world and can relate personly to their experiences in the field . living in a tent, the long stalks, heat , being tired to the bone, eating a cold meal, drinking piss warm water, passing up a shot that just wasn,t right. for every shot taken, many hours pass leading up to it and then you still may not get it. not to mention the long hours put in getting there and the expense.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,985
Messages
1,142,281
Members
93,339
Latest member
CharlineDu
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Cwoody wrote on Woodcarver's profile.
Shot me email if Beretta 28 ga DU is available
Thank you
Coltwoody@me.com
Pancho wrote on Safari Dave's profile.
Enjoyed reading your post again. Believe this is the 3rd time. I am scheduled to hunt w/ Legadema in Sep. Really looking forward to it.
check out our Buff hunt deal!
Because of some clients having to move their dates I have 2 prime time slots open if anyone is interested to do a hunt
5-15 May
or 5-15 June is open!
shoot me a message for a good deal!
dogcat1 wrote on skydiver386's profile.
I would be interested in it if you pass. Please send me the info on the gun shop if you do not buy it. I have the needed ammo and brass.
Thanks,
Ross
 
Top