A Brilliant Letter From A NAPHA Member, Hagen Denker

NamStay

AH fanatic
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
865
Reaction score
1,623
Media
106
Articles
279
Source: NAPHA FB Page

full



A brilliant letter from a NAPHA Member, Hagen Denker.

To whom it may concern,

Re.: The proposed ban on the import of hunting trophies into the UK

Personally, from a practical perspective, I could not care less about a possible ban of hunting trophies into the UK. Yes, I am a landowner, and yes I make a living from trophy hunting, but my business would not cease because of a ban, and I would not stop hunting because of a ban. I would not have to diversify into some other business, because the conservation of nature - that I also achieve through hunting - is a much more fundamental question and activity to me. I am a conservationist because I believe that there is an incredible importance to conserve nature and live a natural life. And this would not be changed by a ban from whatever country.

So why am I opposing the proposed ban by the UK? There are three main reasons, and the first two are a question of principle for me.
Firstly, the proposed ban is nothing else than an ideological drive by people who have largely or completely become detached from nature and a natural life as well as being part of nature, and what this actually entails. Such people have lost the comprehension of what happens in nature and moreover reduce the act of hunting to a mere act of killing, which brings them into a moral dilemma. They do not understand that killing is only the penultimate and yet necessary part of hunting - and no true hunter will claim to enjoy killing. However, to have hunted you have to have killed. As such detached people never directly come into a situation where they have to decide to, or even ‘only’ witness, killing, they condemn hunting as a whole, where in actual fact their problem is with killing (death) and more specifically a human directly being ‘responsible’ for this.
The questions must be asked: what do such people eat? What do they wear? Where do they live? How many living beings had to die to afford such people such a life style?

Secondly, these detached-from-nature people have a problem with a hunter bringing back a ‘trophy’ from abroad. Some of these people accept that the killing of animals is necessary to feed people, but that killing for a mere trophy is despicable, as the notion persists that meat from trophy hunted animals is wasted. This is decidedly not the case; especially in communal hunting areas in Namibia, hunting outfitters are contractually obliged to distribute the meat to the local communities. Also in private hunting areas, all meat is utilised.
Therefore the so-called trophy that is much rather a piece of memorabilia - in simplified terms like a pebble from a beach or gnarly piece of wood from a forest - from the adventure of the hunt, has no greater effect than a meat hunted animal. To the contrary, a trophy hunted animal yields much higher financial returns, resulting in less animals that have to be taken.
Hence, again, this is much more an ideological and emotionalised question than a question of whether there is a threat to an animal species.

The third reason I am opposed to the proposed ban is because the ramifications that such a ban would render, go far beyond what most people can imagine, and they go far beyond how I personally feel about or am affected by such a ban.
The ultimate goal of hunters, conservationists - and in some ironic way probably also of the proposed ban - is to protect nature, natural habitats and the beings living there. The single biggest threat to all of this nature is the encroachment by humans/ civilisation, and it is of paramount importance that we do our best to protect what little nature is left.
More so than in other parts of the world, the drive and hunger for civilisation and a piece of land in developing countries is incredible. Therefore these local communities are key to conserve nature.
This In many instances is achieved from them receiving benefits from nature that far outweigh the benefits that other (destructive) land uses have.
Hunting presents such benefits.
And a ban would actually and seriously jeopardise the positive effects and benefits for the local communities and, arguably more important, nature at large.
The local communities will have no option neither will they have second thoughts but to turn to alternative land uses to just make a living off of the land.

This means that a ban would be the absolute end of nature in such areas.
Can anybody really live with the responsibility of taking a decision that will effectively wipe pristine natural lands off the map?

I cannot fathom that a so-called first world country would actually take a decision that would be purely based on emotions and ideologies of a saturated community, and that would moreover ironically result in the exact opposite of what it intends to do.
Even many anti-hunting and/ or hunting critical NGOs have acknowledged that well regulated hunting can be a conservation tool, especially in the absence of a viable alternative.

Therefore one can only hope that a fact-based decision will be taken that will not be to the detriment of nature.

I thank you for reading this and for your consideration.

Yours sincerely
Hagen Denker
Namibia
 
I truly hope that the English Legislators read and heed the message being sent by the people most likely to be effected by the proposed Trophy Ban.
 
Boris has already stated that he plans to ignore the consultation results. Very democratic of him.
 
Brickburn, yea I know, it is either that or his girlfriend is going to cut him off. A sad state of affairs indeed.
 
Brickburn, yea I know, it is either that or his girlfriend is going to cut him off. A sad state of affairs indeed.

Yeah the power of the pussy....... Unfortunately it doesn't matter how many letters.....great very well made videos and other efforts are put into trying to get the information across .......these people to put it simply don't give a flying fk......
 
Methinks Ol' Boris ought to consider growing a set and listen to the people involved instead of the the sick antis.
 
Source: NAPHA FB Page

full



A brilliant letter from a NAPHA Member, Hagen Denker.

To whom it may concern,

Re.: The proposed ban on the import of hunting trophies into the UK

Personally, from a practical perspective, I could not care less about a possible ban of hunting trophies into the UK. Yes, I am a landowner, and yes I make a living from trophy hunting, but my business would not cease because of a ban, and I would not stop hunting because of a ban. I would not have to diversify into some other business, because the conservation of nature - that I also achieve through hunting - is a much more fundamental question and activity to me. I am a conservationist because I believe that there is an incredible importance to conserve nature and live a natural life. And this would not be changed by a ban from whatever country.

So why am I opposing the proposed ban by the UK? There are three main reasons, and the first two are a question of principle for me.
Firstly, the proposed ban is nothing else than an ideological drive by people who have largely or completely become detached from nature and a natural life as well as being part of nature, and what this actually entails. Such people have lost the comprehension of what happens in nature and moreover reduce the act of hunting to a mere act of killing, which brings them into a moral dilemma. They do not understand that killing is only the penultimate and yet necessary part of hunting - and no true hunter will claim to enjoy killing. However, to have hunted you have to have killed. As such detached people never directly come into a situation where they have to decide to, or even ‘only’ witness, killing, they condemn hunting as a whole, where in actual fact their problem is with killing (death) and more specifically a human directly being ‘responsible’ for this.
The questions must be asked: what do such people eat? What do they wear? Where do they live? How many living beings had to die to afford such people such a life style?

Secondly, these detached-from-nature people have a problem with a hunter bringing back a ‘trophy’ from abroad. Some of these people accept that the killing of animals is necessary to feed people, but that killing for a mere trophy is despicable, as the notion persists that meat from trophy hunted animals is wasted. This is decidedly not the case; especially in communal hunting areas in Namibia, hunting outfitters are contractually obliged to distribute the meat to the local communities. Also in private hunting areas, all meat is utilised.
Therefore the so-called trophy that is much rather a piece of memorabilia - in simplified terms like a pebble from a beach or gnarly piece of wood from a forest - from the adventure of the hunt, has no greater effect than a meat hunted animal. To the contrary, a trophy hunted animal yields much higher financial returns, resulting in less animals that have to be taken.
Hence, again, this is much more an ideological and emotionalised question than a question of whether there is a threat to an animal species.

The third reason I am opposed to the proposed ban is because the ramifications that such a ban would render, go far beyond what most people can imagine, and they go far beyond how I personally feel about or am affected by such a ban.
The ultimate goal of hunters, conservationists - and in some ironic way probably also of the proposed ban - is to protect nature, natural habitats and the beings living there. The single biggest threat to all of this nature is the encroachment by humans/ civilisation, and it is of paramount importance that we do our best to protect what little nature is left.
More so than in other parts of the world, the drive and hunger for civilisation and a piece of land in developing countries is incredible. Therefore these local communities are key to conserve nature.
This In many instances is achieved from them receiving benefits from nature that far outweigh the benefits that other (destructive) land uses have.
Hunting presents such benefits.
And a ban would actually and seriously jeopardise the positive effects and benefits for the local communities and, arguably more important, nature at large.
The local communities will have no option neither will they have second thoughts but to turn to alternative land uses to just make a living off of the land.

This means that a ban would be the absolute end of nature in such areas.
Can anybody really live with the responsibility of taking a decision that will effectively wipe pristine natural lands off the map?

I cannot fathom that a so-called first world country would actually take a decision that would be purely based on emotions and ideologies of a saturated community, and that would moreover ironically result in the exact opposite of what it intends to do.
Even many anti-hunting and/ or hunting critical NGOs have acknowledged that well regulated hunting can be a conservation tool, especially in the absence of a viable alternative.

Therefore one can only hope that a fact-based decision will be taken that will not be to the detriment of nature.

I thank you for reading this and for your consideration.

Yours sincerely
Hagen Denker
Namibia
Bravo! I push this "line" every time someone walks into my home, and sees my "trophies" or learns that I hunt...
 
Great letter. Boris Johnson needs to go along with his wife.
 
geoff rath

I agree with your thoughts

In 2013 my wife and I hunted in Namibia and we witnessed what happens to the meat of the game taken as you well know.

In 2018 I again went to Africa on a DG game hunt, this time without my wife. A lesson learned that I won't go with out her again. Never the less, while I was in Africa, people came over to our farm and inevitably the question was asked as to where I was. My wife told them that I was in Africa on safari. On several occasions there was a look distain from the visitors, so she got a bit smarter on her reply to the question. She now answered with "Oh he is in Africa helping feed the poor". The response typically was "What church is he with doing this?" To which she replied
" Oh its not a church, he is on safari and all the meat goes to either orphanages, or tribal villages, nothing is wasted". When it was explained to them, they began to see the light.

A little bit of truth and knowledge to counter the misinformed and lied to masses.
 
Leftists.....and that's what ALL anti hunting and anti gun morons are.......do not care about conservation at all. They do not care about the indigenous people at all, except for wishing they were all dead once their usefulness is over. They don't want us armed period...........hunting or not. Harsh, I know, but true. All you need to do is look at history.
 
I would venture to say that a large portion of the leftist tree huggers have never been to an African country and really sees how hunting works and how it provides food and jobs to the people. It is a crying shame that the "uninformed" can have so much influence. It is nothing more than the squeaky wheel gets the attention !

And the gentleman from Namibia did a beautiful job penning his letter. Hopefully, someone in the political food chain will read it and absorb the facts.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
54,998
Messages
1,168,228
Members
95,521
Latest member
Rgan
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

here with available dates for 2024/25

1-13 September 2024
14-31 October 2024
1-7 November 2024
18-24 November 2024

March 2025 is wide open!
12-17 April 2025
24-28 May 2025
15-21 June 2025
7-12 July 2025
22-28 July 2025
13-31 August 2025
15-30 September 2025

October and November 2025 is wide open!
Bill J H wrote on gearguywb's profile.
Do you still have this rifle? I'm in the KC area on business and I'm very interested.
Safari Dave wrote on CoElkHunter's profile.
I didn't get drawn for Wyoming this year.




Are you planning to hunt Unit 4 this fall?



(Thinking about coming out)
another great review


 
Top