Has your PH ever sent you out without him?

[jeff]

Does anyone know the exact wording on how it's defined? Direct control, under supervision, within sight, no more than 10ft away or what. Seems a like there must be definition.

 

[BRICKBURN]

My personal opinion here is that even if the hunter is in a blind sh#$ can happen. Who is responsible then? As a client you are paying for the PH to be there, do you get reduced rates for going it alone, who is responsible if things go sideways? What about miss judged animals and wounded animals?

Do you think "OOP's!" would work?

 

[daved]

I'm not questioning that, just saying that's the way it is. They make no false promises, you're aware of how they conduct their hunts from the start.

Thanks Jeff . No dig at you at all.
Do u mind sending me a PM with the companies name and those others that openly hunt without Professional hunters ?

 

[jeff]

Thanks Jeff . No dig at you at all.
Do u mind sending me a PM with the companies name and those others that openly hunt without Professional hunters ?

You'r not with out a PH he's just a radio call away and will be there promptly with the trackers if need be. I don't want to get anyone in trouble as I had good hunts with these outfitters. A PM is not really private as some have privy to the info.

 

[BRICKBURN]

As an example the Limpopo Ordinance:

Activity defined:
“hunt” means hunt with the intent to kill, and includes —
(a) to search for, lie in wait for, bait, pursue, shoot at, set a snare or trap or disturb with the
intent to kill wild or exotic animal; or

The restriction on the activity vis-a-vis the client:
50.
(1). A client may hunt a wild or exotic animal only —
(a) if the hunt has been organised by a hunting-outfitter; and
(b) under the supervision of a professional hunter.

The responsibility of the PH:
“professional hunter” means a person who —
(a) supervises, offers to or agrees to supervise a client for reward in connection with the hunting of a wild or exotic animal; and

The control expected of the PH:
(2) A hunting-outfitter and professional hunter —
(a) must ensure that the client hunts in accordance with this Act; and
(b) may give the client any lawful instruction which the client must obey at all times.

A legal test related to supervision in RSA:

(1) The supervision and control test

In Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v MacDonald 1931 AD 412 at 434-435, De Villiers CJ stated: "But while it may sometimes be a matter of extreme delicacy to decide whether the control reserved to the employer under the contract is of such a kind as to constitute the employer the master of the workman, one thing appears to me to be beyond dispute and that is that the relation of master and servant cannot exist where there is a total absence of the right of supervising and controlling the workman under the contract; in other words unless the master not only has the right to prescribe to the workman what work has to be done, but also the manner in which that work has to be done."

The purpose of this test is to establish whether or not one party controls the activities of another. This implies that the employer not only prescribes what must be done, but also how, where and when it must be done. The application of this test has a weakness, in that some workers, like doctors need a degree of independence in the performance of their tasks. So in terms of this test, the employer need not have absolute authority over the employee, but at least some degree of control. (See also R v Feun 1954 (1) SA 58 (T)).


Is the PH is able to control the actions of the hunter? If not, are they supervising them?

 

[siml]

End of story, don't hunt illegally.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Do you think "OOP's!" would work?

Can you imagine the conversation on a trophy hunt: "You said shoot the big one!"

 

[jeff]

Thank you for this. We were given instruction, agreed not to leave the hide and also the manner in which the hunt was done. I am under my supervisor at work but not in his sight all the time.

 

[bdavis1960]

Most everything here is in regards to SA. Let's not forget Africa is not a country. In Namibia, you're required to hunt with a hunting professional, which can be a guide, master guide, or PH.

I chose to hunt with a licensed guide who is NOT a PH, in full compliance with Namibian law and we were quite successful.

Please don't judge everyone and everything carte blanche. Some hunters NEED constant supervision, while others do not. At times, depending on what we're hunting, I'm the latter.

No two hunts or hunters are the same.

 

[daved]

Thank you for this. We were given instruction, agreed not to leave the hide and also the manner in which the hunt was done. I am under my supervisor at work but not in his sight all the time.

Hi Jeff. I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but there are a couple of things to take into consideration . 1) if you are not accompanied by a PH it's an illegal hunt .2)1 PH is only legally allowed to guide 2 foreign clients at any given time 3) if the legal authorities get wind of it , the PH could loose his license and a HO also.
4) if you're from the US and openly atmitted to an illegal hunt in a foreign country you are in violation of the Lacey Act and that's a federal offense .
So it's so much more serious than you think.
You don't have to name the outfit , just know that they are conducting illegal hunts and could potentially be putting unsuspecting hunters foul of the law.
In good hunting
Regards

 

[jeff]

Reading Brickburns post it says that you have to be under the supervision of a PH it does not say he has to accompany you at all times, Supervision seems to able to be interpreted several ways. I believe I was under my PHs supervision.

 

[Ragman]

Interesting thread. I watched a video last year of a well known American bow hunter who had been hunting on his own in I think the Limpopo province (could be wrong on that one). He was spear hunting and was dropped off at his tree stand. While setting up he needed to climb down for more equipment. Partway down he lost his balance and had to jump to the ground. He had not secured his Cold Steel spear and it fell out of the tree and stuck him in his thigh. Worse yet, his radio and water were still in the tree and he couldn't get to them. So there he sat, trying to hold his wound shut, for 4 or 5 hours until his PH came to pick him up. Being alone nearly cost him his life that time.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Reading Brickburns post it says that you have to be under the supervision of a PH it does not say he has to accompany you at all times, Supervision seems to able to be interpreted several ways. I believe I was under my PHs supervision.

I did not do an extensive legal search in RSA for definitions and case law.
If you want to have a chat and find out exactly how Nature Conservation thinks on the subject, call them. Pick the province and drop them a line.

When I hear of the complaints on AH I have seen one of the situations when the hunter and the PH were acting like buddies and then when business ($) suddenly get in the way we see problems.
Read them. Remember what your mom told you: "It's all fun, until someone loses an eye!"

Another similar case:
Someone's wife/friend/dog hunting without a license. "Hunting on my license".
Had a complaint out of Namibia when the women was mad at the taxidermist for not shipping her trophies directly to her. She has no license to hunt! How is to ship her trophies to her? Totally illegal hunt, no paperwork.She was clueless and the PH was just doing them a favour.
When she raised a public stink she would get the PH, Outfitter, Hunter and herself charged. Ignorance is not bliss.
The taxidermist was saving her ass.

etc, etc.

It would be fun to hang out on our own and just be let loose. However, ...

The PH and Outfitter are taking a huge risk. As just noted by @Ragman

 

[jeff]

Everyone has made some great points and it was good discussion on supervision.

 

[BRICKBURN]

For an unlicensed individual to hold a firearm in Canada they must be "directly and immediately supervised" by an individual that is an adult with a license.
Here, that means within arms reach.

 

[jeff]

Yes when they say directly and immediately it narrows down the interpretation.

 

[siml]

I will report the next outfitter to Nature conservation that I hear is hunting illegally and I hope the next clients take notice. I find it totally mind boggling that some clients are trying to push the fact, people have said on this post how they have hunted illegally...................blows my mind!! We are here to protect our industry, not shame it. A few examples....shooting leopards at night when illegal in that country( the moon was high in the sky, on a report).......shooting female leopards(bragged about his hunt, but after female killed..silence).......Yes Africa is a small place, we hear the stories.

I have a passion for what I do.........getting sick of the bull!@#@ that is taking over our industry.

Thanks to @Leopards Valley Safaris for having the balls to also go against illegal hunting.

 

[jeff]

Yes hunting does need to be policed, I heard of outfitters that tried to take trophies into SA that were taken in other countries just to save a few bucks.

 

[cls]

"Sorry officer my PH radioed me that it was OK to shoot that one" (insert here the sound of the cuffs being cinched up).

 

[Dave Lowe]

If I were to be left to my own devices on my safari I'd be extremely aggravated at both my PH and outfitter. The money I am paying them is a direct reflection of the trust I have in them to keep me safe both physically and legally.