Posting photos of dead wild animals could be illegal soon

[ShortMag]

I think they are being proactive, by not letting the antis have more photos to shove down every ones throat. Of course if you never plan on going back to Namibia have at, but it does not help the cause.

The whole purpose of the antis faux outrages over hunting photos on social media is to silence and isolate hunters, I fail see how proactively giving them exactly what they want helps our cause. On the contrary, this move by Namibia sends a strong message that hunting is shameful and something to hide. This plays right into the antis' hands by making hunters look far worse than posting any photos ever would. For those that think this move by Namibia and even self censorship is a good idea, do you really think a ban on posting photos is where it ends? Banning trophy photos is just the first step, the second step will probably be a ban on promoting hunting on social media, followed by a ban on even discussing hunting on such platforms. How long do you think it will take for hunting to be banned once hunters are silenced, isolated and completely marginalized? Those of us in the US have seen the exact same tactics employed against firearms ownership, self censorship and hiding hasn't worked well for us in that case either.

"The issue is never the issue, the issue is always control"

 

[outwestidaho]

Great post shortmag ! This is exactly what the anti hunting world dreams about getting done world wide !

 

[Dragan N.]

I agree this seems like a bit of overreach, but each country is allowed to make their own laws. We have a bunch of laws in Canada, and I know the US does as well, which might be thought of as a bit odd, if not downright stupid. The Lacey Act comes to mind - not all of it, but a lot of it.

This particular law would be enforceable to the extent that the person was within the reach of Namibia. No different than any other law. Given how much I enjoyed hunting there, and how much I'd like to again, I'd likely comply.

Is this law a good idea? Well, given that it won't stop the posting of most pictures, it probably won't make much difference to anyone's views of hunting, whether in Namibia or anywhere else. But if Namibia wants to make a statement, well, that's up to them.

Personally, AH is the only social media platform where I've ever posted my pictures, Some have ended up on social media because outfitters (without my approval) posted pictures of me with trophies.

Would I still hunt if I couldn't post my pictures? Absolutely. I take pictures principally for me, and for friends. I have no need to show them to others, although I've been happy to do so here.

I think we need to maintain a sense of balance and proportion here. The world is changing, and not for the better. I am hunting in September and part of the deal is that I will not publish any pictures anywhere, nor will I make it known where I have hunted what I'm hunting. Sound a bit much? The place I'm hunting wants no bad publicity, because it could seriously impact what they do. I can't argue with them; in fact, I think they're right. But it's a great deal for me, and I'm happy to agree to the conditions.

How important is bragging to hunting anyway? You can still take and share pictures with others, just not on social media.

This strikes me as no big deal. Let's get behind the good guys and save our anger for the bad guys. Namibia is one of the good guys.

Hank,

The one distinction that strikes me between the two examples is the motive. Has Namibia proposed this law in an attempt to help protect the outfitters and hunting in their country or was it done to pander to the anti-hunters and animal rights activists? Where outfitters consulted before this amendment was drafted? Some of the language they use such as not morally correct or unethical would indicate to me that the later is their motive. Also it would seem that Namibia could be moving in the direction of Kenya and Botswana given this... This, in my opinion, looks like a slippery slope...

Now the example of an outfitter individually prohibiting photos being shared publically I could see that being reasonable. They do not want a single picture to blow them up. I mean some of those vegans are teamed up with hackers- theres even a group called Anonymous (the hackers anonymous) for the Voiceless. If they were to hack an outfitters email server and get info on clients out- this could turn into a very very bad situation. And I doubt the average outfitter has exceptionally strong cyber security... Or even getting their email spammed with antis emailing them. I can certainly understand why an individual outfitter would want to minimize these risks as much as possible. But id rather see individual outfitters make that choice for themselves rather than have a government dictate no hunting pictures on social media...

 

[Fred Gunner]

Seriously? China and Canada in the same sentence?

You do realize, I assume, that there are restrictions on free speech in the US? I'm happy to provide the legal lesson if you need your memory jogged.

Canada and the US both restrict certain forms of speech, yet you seem to have decided that US restrictions are part of the "natural human condition" while Canadian restrictions are not. On what basis do you make that distinction? I looked for it throughout the natural law and couldn't find it, so happy to be directed to the right place.

Different countries can approach the same issues differently, without one being wrong, or worse, or better, etc. That's one of the great things about traveling. But if you'd rather go to Africa (or Canada for that matter) and point out all of the ways in which it isn't like the US, and let everyone know how the US does everything better, then you'll miss out on some great experiences and the friends you might have made. Your choice.

I'm not sure we need to be bashing each other's countries on this forum. I'm happy to acknowledge that my country (Canada, if it wasn't as obvious as is the greatness of your country) has issues. You might consider doing the same. I could point out lots of ways in which the US is the best at things no one wants to be the best at, but I'm not sure what would be gained by that. Again, though, feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

You'll find that freedom of speech and natural rights are inshrined in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. There are no restrictions on free speech or freedom of expression anywhere in the USA... Our Supreme Court even went so far as to rule that burning the American Flag was protected Speech.

 

[Fred Gunner]

My PH posted photos of a successful STEENBOK hunt on his face book page 5 hours ago??

 

[leslie hetrick]

the use of straight walled cases was made to let more hunters use the space around a lot of housing developments and very flat land, where only bow and muzzle loaders could be used before, thus opening up a lot more land to other types of hunters who don,t use bows or muzzle loaders.

 

[spike.t]

the use of straight walled cases was made to let more hunters use the space around a lot of housing developments and very flat land, where only bow and muzzle loaders could be used before, thus opening up a lot more land to other types of hunters who don,t use bows or muzzle loaders.

Not sure what you mean bout the straight walled cases and space around housing developments.. .

 

[IdaRam]

https://www.africahunting.com/threads/sci-on-nbc.44270/#post-462278
SCI is unwavering in its support and defense of hunting and is proud of who we are and what we do. It is this Hunter Pride and our stories that can help put human faces and humanity into the public discussion about hunting.

SCI will continue to do all it can to defend hunters and hunting, both when we are attacked and when it is possible to take the initiative and communicate to those in the world who would not hear our message in any other way.

As SCI's presence in the media grows, take pride in being a hunter and relay that pride to all of your friends and family. No longer will we be a silent punching bag for those who would end hunting. Thank you for being part of the solution.

Need to get MET & NAPHA on board with that message and mindset...

 

[Fred Gunner]

https://www.africahunting.com/threads/sci-on-nbc.44270/#post-462278
SCI is unwavering in its support and defense of hunting and is proud of who we are and what we do. It is this Hunter Pride and our stories that can help put human faces and humanity into the public discussion about hunting.

SCI will continue to do all it can to defend hunters and hunting, both when we are attacked and when it is possible to take the initiative and communicate to those in the world who would not hear our message in any other way.

As SCI's presence in the media grows, take pride in being a hunter and relay that pride to all of your friends and family. No longer will we be a silent punching bag for those who would end hunting. Thank you for being part of the solution.

Need to get MET & NAPHA on board with that message and mindset...

Gentle respectful but serious reminders of who pay$ the Bill$ from hunters is the only way.

 

[IdaRam]

Gentle respectful but serious reminders of who pay$ the Bill$ from hunters is the only way.

You may very well be correct, and I agree that a civil and respectful dialogue is most likely to yield positive results.
However...
MET and NAPHA have been on this path for over a year now and so far the leadership has not been inclined to change direction. I wonder how much gentle and respectful dialogue has taken place internally within NAPHA?

 

[Royal27]

Need to get MET & NAPHA on board with that message and mindset...

I think the new NAPHA logo is kinda nifty!

 

[IdaRam]

I think the new NAPHA logo is kinda nifty!

View attachment 236935

 

[Fred Gunner]

You may very well be correct, and I agree that a civil and respectful dialogue is most likely to yield positive results.
However...
MET and NAPHA have been on this path for over a year now and so far the leadership has not been inclined to change direction. I wonder how much gentle and respectful dialogue has taken place internally within NAPHA?

NAPHA's Internal dialogue has been their fear that Anti-Hunters using social media will hurt their business. We need a land slide of External dialogue reminding them that We The Hunters are "The Business." Notice they exempt Hunting TV shows and Print media.

 

[IdaRam]

NAPHA's Internal dialogue has been their fear that Anti-Hunters using social media will hurt their business. We need a land slide of External dialogue reminding them that We The Hunters are "The Business." Notice they exempt Hunting TV shows and Print media.

I agree. FEAR being the operative word here.

 

[MAdcox]

I can kind nd of understand, and yet disagree with, not wanting to stir up antis on social media. The antis are always stirred up without any facts or provocation.
But the language from the Namibia official doesn’t sound to me like they are trying to save hunters from anything. They sound very anti hunter themselves.

 

[Hank2211]

Hank,

The one distinction that strikes me between the two examples is the motive. Has Namibia proposed this law in an attempt to help protect the outfitters and hunting in their country or was it done to pander to the anti-hunters and animal rights activists? Where outfitters consulted before this amendment was drafted? Some of the language they use such as not morally correct or unethical would indicate to me that the later is their motive. Also it would seem that Namibia could be moving in the direction of Kenya and Botswana given this... This, in my opinion, looks like a slippery slope...

Now the example of an outfitter individually prohibiting photos being shared publically I could see that being reasonable. They do not want a single picture to blow them up. I mean some of those vegans are teamed up with hackers- theres even a group called Anonymous (the hackers anonymous) for the Voiceless. If they were to hack an outfitters email server and get info on clients out- this could turn into a very very bad situation. And I doubt the average outfitter has exceptionally strong cyber security... Or even getting their email spammed with antis emailing them. I can certainly understand why an individual outfitter would want to minimize these risks as much as possible. But id rather see individual outfitters make that choice for themselves rather than have a government dictate no hunting pictures on social media...

I understand your perspective on motive, but I think we could just as easily conclude that the motivation was to protect Namibia's hunting industry. If we assume you could keep pictures like the recent giraffe one out of the public domain, you would reduce the amount of money the antis raise off the back of those pictures, and you would reduce the outrage which might be engendered among non-hunters. Both would be good things from a hunter's perspective.

Another angle is that of the Namibian people. Note that whenever we see pictures out of South Africa - the giraffe, Melissa Bachman with her (beautiful) lion, etc., local people get exercised and up in arms as well. Now, much of this could be fomented by animal rights activists from elsewhere, but it's picked up in local media and makes the government's life difficult. So Namibia could have concluded that to protect hunting in Namibia, they do not want to see any pictures from Namibia which might make people in Namibia think that (mostly) well-off (rich by Namibian standards) white hunters are coming to their country to kill charismatic mega-fauna and gloat about it.

Let me ask you a question. If you knew that posting a picture of your latest elephant kill on social media would result in increased fundraising by HSUS, WWF, Born Free, etc., would you still post it? Aren't you just giving aid and comfort to the enemy, by playing into their hands? If there was no evidence of this hunting, if we hunters just did our thing and didn't feel the need to share (note that I write (overly) long hunting reports), and the result was that fundraising by antis declined and the non-hunting majority wasn't forced to confront dead animals, wouldn't that be a good thing?

One other note. Given the post which reproduced NAPHA's response to the initiative (see Danene van der Westhuyzen's statement), it seems that if NAPHA wasn't consulted, it is at least supportive.

I want to be clear. I don't think a law like this will work, but I respect Namibia's right to try. What we're doing now isn't working, that's for sure. Since I've been hunting, our right to hunt has never been under attack to the extent and on as many fronts as it is today.

 

[Hank2211]

You'll find that freedom of speech and natural rights are inshrined in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. There are no restrictions on free speech or freedom of expression anywhere in the USA... Our Supreme Court even went so far as to rule that burning the American Flag was protected Speech.

Oh @Fred Gunner. Never throw a red flag in front of a bull.

Here are the facts.

1. Freedom of Speech was not "enshrined" in your constitution, at least not when it was written. There is no mention of free speech there at all. Not a word. Freedom of speech is addressed in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, which was an amendment to the constitution. It didn't become effective until 1791, some years after the adoption of the Constitution.

2. On top of that, nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that Americans have a right to free speech or that it is a "natural right". Note the words are these: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

In Canada's written constitution (adopted much more recently than the US Constitution, admittedly) it says this in part:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience . . .;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
​

One says that the government won't make any law abridging free speech. It says nothing about a right, natural or otherwise, to free speech. The other says that everyone has, sort of like you were born with it (or you might even say a natural right) as a fundamental freedom "freedom of conscience . . . thought, belief, opinion and expression.

Which form of expression of the right would you say is better?

3. The US Supreme Court has carved out a bunch of exceptions to American's right to free speech, including these: speech characterized as incitement (to violence, among other things), false statements of fact, "fighting words" , some forms of commercial speech, some forms of porn, among others. In fact, US courts recently (2017) carved out a new exception for incitement to suicide. Your speech can be, and is, being limited . . .

No right, including your rights under the US Constitution, or ours in Canada, are absolute.

But credit where credit is due. At the time that the US Constitution was adopted (1787), it was rightly seen as a radical document, setting forth a challenge to the "old order" and fundamentally changing the relationship between the government and the governed. We also need to give credit, of course, to the French, who provided the intellectual underpinnings for the French Revolution and to a great extent to the US Constitution.

But I still think that the wording in the Canadian Constitution better reflects your idea of natural rights than does the wording in your constitution. But that's just me, and I don't feel the need to tell everyone that mine is better than theirs (but I will defend mine if called upon).

 

[leslie hetrick]

just quit going there to hunt, its too bad the good that comes from the hunting jobs,monies and meat is not put out more. if you talk to the people involved in hunting, trackers-skinners-grounds,house keepers ect you will find they approve of the hunting and things it brings them.

 

[cagkt3]

Oh @Fred Gunner. Never throw a red flag in front of a bull.

Here are the facts.

1. Freedom of Speech was not "enshrined" in your constitution, at least not when it was written. There is no mention of free speech there at all. Not a word. Freedom of speech is addressed in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, which was an amendment to the constitution. It didn't become effective until 1791, some years after the adoption of the Constitution.

2. On top of that, nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that Americans have a right to free speech or that it is a "natural right". Note the words are these: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

In Canada's written constitution (adopted much more recently than the US Constitution, admittedly) it says this in part:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience . . .;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
​

One says that the government won't make any law abridging free speech. It says nothing about a right, natural or otherwise, to free speech. The other says that everyone has, sort of like you were born with it (or you might even say a natural right) as a fundamental freedom "freedom of conscience . . . thought, belief, opinion and expression.

Which form of expression of the right would you say is better?

3. The US Supreme Court has carved out a bunch of exceptions to American's right to free speech, including these: speech characterized as incitement (to violence, among other things), false statements of fact, "fighting words" , some forms of commercial speech, some forms of porn, among others. In fact, US courts recently (2017) carved out a new exception for incitement to suicide. Your speech can be, and is, being limited . . .

No right, including your rights under the US Constitution, or ours in Canada, are absolute.

But credit where credit is due. At the time that the US Constitution was adopted (1787), it was rightly seen as a radical document, setting forth a challenge to the "old order" and fundamentally changing the relationship between the government and the governed. We also need to give credit, of course, to the French, who provided the intellectual underpinnings for the French Revolution and to a great extent to the US Constitution.

But I still think that the wording in the Canadian Constitution better reflects your idea of natural rights than does the wording in your constitution. But that's just me, and I don't feel the need to tell everyone that mine is better than theirs (but I will defend mine if called upon).

Hank,

I love your posts, you always entertain me, teach me something new, or provide new perspectives. I know you were just responding to another post, but I have 1 question - doesn't Canada, or some provinces within, have a commission/organization that can charge people if they deem their speech immoral? I seem to remember a comedian that was fined because he made a joke about a disabled person they deemed immoral. I don't really have a point I suppose, other than to free speech has it's limits everywhere.....or something.

 

[Hank2211]

Hank,

I love your posts, you always entertain me, teach me something new, or provide new perspectives. I know you were just responding to another post, but I have 1 question - doesn't Canada, or some provinces within, have a commission/organization that can charge people if they deem their speech immoral? I seem to remember a comedian that was fined because he made a joke about a disabled person they deemed immoral. I don't really have a point I suppose, other than to free speech has it's limits everywhere.....or something.

I think every province has a human rights commission, by one name or another. And they can chase you if you discriminate against people, or violate human rights, but you generally have to be an employer or a business. Individuals can usually express themselves freely, subject to our criminal laws. So not a lot different than what, for example, that organization in Colorado which went after a baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I think many states have these organizations. Most of ours are a waste of space and air, but they can often be counted on to produce the most bizarre decisions imaginable.

Canada's criminal laws - which are federal - do define "hate speech" and you can be charged if you try to stir up hatred against an identifiable group. Because these are criminal laws, the threshold is pretty high, and the law is rarely used. But again, it's probably not a lot different than the "fighting words" exception to the US Bill of Rights.

But if you're asking if I support these things, that depends. I support things that help us live in a peaceful, civilized society. Not everyone learns what they should from their parents, apparently, so sometimes we need to reinforce what makes the world work.

But here's where it counts. There are no limits in Canada on political speech, as long as you don't counsel violence. Same in the US.

Here's another tidbit, if you want to compare the two countries. Canada incarcerates 114 people per hundred thousand of population. The US incarcerates 655, or about 5 times as many on a per capita basis as Canada. That is the highest (reported) rate in the world. Yes, the world. Either y'all have a lot of criminals in the US, or you make up reasons to put people in jail. It's not like we let criminals walk around freely in Canada - we're safer on almost every metric, if not every metric, than the US.

As long as we're on free speech, here's my favorite difference between Canada and the US. In the US, it's a crime to lie to federal officers. You can go to jail for that, even if you've committed no substantive crime. Ask Martha Stewart. In Canada, we have complete freedom to tell any federal officer to pound sand, or lie to our heart's content. Now, I call that freedom of speech!

With all of that, have a great 4th of July weekend. I have no doubt that the Founding Fathers wanted the 4th to always fall on a Monday or a Friday, but the people in charge of the calendars weren't notified . . . my kids (all of whom live in the US) seem to have found a way to have a very long weekend anyway . . .