Posting photos of dead wild animals could be illegal soon

[Hank2211]

And if education came at the cost of not throwing controversial pics in the general public sphere but rather simply promoting the messaging of hunting would you support it?

I can tell you, in all honesty, i have convinced several anti-hunters and a few more fence sitters to the positives of hunting but it was never done with photos of dead animals

@JPbowhunter, you are absolutely correct.

Many posters on this thread would rather be right than effective.

We can be right, as we have been for many years, and watch our hunting rights disappear a little (or a lot) at a time, as they have for years. If our children aren't able to hunt, we can tell them it's not fair, but we had nothing to do with it, We fought the good fight, and we had right and logic on our side.

I completely agree with those who say this is not the right thing to do, that we should take the fight to the enemy instead of "throwing in the towel", etc. Of course we should. But we live in the real world.

So far, being right has resulted in, among other things:

1. Botswana closing to hunting (I only refer to the recent past - Kenya and others have been closed for a long time).

2. Bans on importing certain trophies into the US, and into certain US states. (You can't bring a mountain lion trophy into CA from any other state).

3. Some airlines refusing to carry firearms.

4. Many, if not most, airlines and cargo companies refusing to carry hunting trophies.

5. Stores refusing to sell firearms at all, or only to those above a certain age.

6. Hotels and conference centers refusing to host hunting shows.

7. Legal hunters having their lives or means of business impacted by anti-hunters after the posting of pictures (Melissa Bachman, Dr. Palmer, etc.)

8. TV broadcasters refusing to air hunting shows.

9. Bans on certain hunts - such as BC grizzly - in the absence of scientific evidence.

10. Ballot initiatives to ban certain types of hunting in certain states.

I could go on, but I've already got a (well-earned) reputation for long-windedness.

How's being right working out so far? Yup, I think the solution is that we should just be "righter" and keep barreling down this road. Oh, and we should make sure to boycott anyone who has the temerity to suggest that we might perhaps try something new or different, like keeping our pictures to ourselves so we don't upset the snowflakes who happen to make up the majority of voters and taxpayers.

 

[IdaRam]

This is so weird! I think I just experienced a deja vu’ moment. It’s like the CBL thing all over again, except Hank is over HERE instead of being over THERE. Dogs are lying down with cats, the sun is coming up in the west... something just isn’t right!
On a serious note, I get what you guys are saying. In fact, if it seemed likely or even remotely possible that following this path with MET and NAPHA was going to yield positive results for hunters then I for one would probably have a different opinion. My sense is that it will yield the exact opposite result. Another win for the anti’s and damage to brand Namibia, which is a net loss for everyone.
The distasteful pics that some people post on social media most definitely do not help our cause. I agree wholeheartedly on that point. But to think this strategy is going to eliminate or even minimize that to any extent seems so improbable as to be ridiculous to me. No way is an attempt at censorship of social media going to be successful in eliminating photos posted in poor taste. And what is the benchmark for acceptable and not acceptable? Penalties for posting a photo here on AH? What might those be? What about photos posted to private, member only media pages the general public can’t view?
This whole thing is a very deep well... where’s the bottom?
@Hank2211 , @BenKK , @JPbowhunter , many others, I like and respect all you guys and enjoy your posts. Thanks for the opportunity to engage in discussion.

 

[Pheroze]

I dont mind restraint when it comes to the use of social media. I think if you want to quell a fire deprive it of fuel. With social media we give fuel to those that profit off of a very understandable emotional attachment to animals. Once the emotional rhetoric calms down we will have a better opportunity for intelligent discourse.

Use social media to fuel the prohunting discussion - pictures of being in the bush, villagers, snares kids etc. Namibia is not asking us to keep hunting off of social media, just dead animals.

 

[Hank2211]

This is so weird! I think I just experienced a deja vu’ moment. It’s like the CBL thing all over again, except Hank is over HERE instead of being over THERE. Dogs are lying down with cats, the sun is coming up in the west... something just isn’t right!
On a serious note, I get what you guys are saying. In fact, if it seemed likely or even remotely possible that following this path with MET and NAPHA was going to yield positive results for hunters then I for one would probably have a different opinion. My sense is that it will yield the exact opposite result. Another win for the anti’s and damage to brand Namibia, which is a net loss for everyone.
The distasteful pics that some people post on social media most definitely do not help our cause. I agree wholeheartedly on that point. But to think this strategy is going to eliminate or even minimize that to any extent seems so improbable as to be ridiculous to me. No way is an attempt at censorship of social media going to be successful in eliminating photos posted in poor taste. And what is the benchmark for acceptable and not acceptable? Penalties for posting a photo here on AH? What might those be? What about photos posted to private, member only media pages the general public can’t view?
This whole thing is a very deep well... where’s the bottom?
@Hank2211 , @BenKK , @JPbowhunter , many others, I like and respect all you guys and enjoy your posts. Thanks for the opportunity to engage in discussion.

Sounds like Ghostbusters!

Seriously, I think I can be in favour of CBL hunting, while also being against canned hunting! I really do think, not to be trite about it, that a picture is worth a thousand words. Knowing intellectually that people are hunting lions is one thing, while seeing the trophy picture is another. For example, some of the media (including, I think, Today) acknowledged how many giraffes are legally hunted every year in Africa, yet most people don't seem to get as exercised about that as they do when they see the picture.

I don't disagree with you, though, that this is unlikely to work. We can't or won't stop all the pictures, and it only takes one. I just thought we should stop dumping on one of the good guys (Namibia) for trying to do something different. Instead, some here have gone after Namibia as if they were PETA, accusing them of trying to kill hunting altogether. There is a similarity to my view of CBL - here, as there, there are far too many who way "if I don't agree with you, you are evil."

But thanks for the comments. I, too, enjoy the give and take of rational argument.

And having said that, there is a certain sporting event about to start, and people are spilling out into the streets at my local pub. Time to go!

 

[wesheltonj]

. . . And having said that, there is a certain sporting event about to start, and people are spilling out into the streets at my local pub. Time to go!

F1 or Wimbledon?

I find it some what surprising that some would not hunt Namibia because the license comes with the requirement of no posting dead animal photos.

 

[outwestidaho]

I have delt with anti hunters my whole adult life.
I can assure you that if this takes effect the new anti hunting campaign will be look we have won Namibia send more money now , were winning . We have shamed them into hiding . They will take full credit for this. Probably they would be correct in that. My personal problem is with the use of words like immoral, horrible and loathing in association with hunting.

 

[Scott CWO]

@JPbowhunter, you are absolutely correct.

Many posters on this thread would rather be right than effective.

We can be right, as we have been for many years, and watch our hunting rights disappear a little (or a lot) at a time, as they have for years. If our children aren't able to hunt, we can tell them it's not fair, but we had nothing to do with it, We fought the good fight, and we had right and logic on our side.

I completely agree with those who say this is not the right thing to do, that we should take the fight to the enemy instead of "throwing in the towel", etc. Of course we should. But we live in the real world.

So far, being right has resulted in, among other things:

1. Botswana closing to hunting (I only refer to the recent past - Kenya and others have been closed for a long time).

2. Bans on importing certain trophies into the US, and into certain US states. (You can't bring a mountain lion trophy into CA from any other state).

3. Some airlines refusing to carry firearms.

4. Many, if not most, airlines and cargo companies refusing to carry hunting trophies.

5. Stores refusing to sell firearms at all, or only to those above a certain age.

6. Hotels and conference centers refusing to host hunting shows.

7. Legal hunters having their lives or means of business impacted by anti-hunters after the posting of pictures (Melissa Bachman, Dr. Palmer, etc.)

8. TV broadcasters refusing to air hunting shows.

9. Bans on certain hunts - such as BC grizzly - in the absence of scientific evidence.

10. Ballot initiatives to ban certain types of hunting in certain states.

I could go on, but I've already got a (well-earned) reputation for long-windedness.

How's being right working out so far? Yup, I think the solution is that we should just be "righter" and keep barreling down this road. Oh, and we should make sure to boycott anyone who has the temerity to suggest that we might perhaps try something new or different, like keeping our pictures to ourselves so we don't upset the snowflakes who happen to make up the majority of voters and taxpayers.

So to your way of thinking, all of us in this industry world-wide should just take down our websites and advertising? I should just put up some fluffy pictures of my horses, camps, etc... but nothing dead? Over 26 years in this business has taught me that the VAST majority of prospective hunters will not book without seeing my pictures. You can talk all you want about the experience that we all Love but it’s the pictures that seal the deal for most.

I guarantee all of you that I have converted more antis to non-hunters and more non-hunters to pro-hunting in 26 years than most any of you. I have opened up more private land to hunting in Colorado than you can imagine. I talk to landowners, merchants I buy from, parents at my kids’ schools, my kids’ teachers, etc... alll the time. I even presented FACTS about healthy polar bear populations in Canada to a science class at my kids’ school.

That said, I help hunters hunt and kill wildlife for a living. There is no way to sanitize that fact. Would I put a giraffe picture on Facebook? No but let’s not go overboard with this thing and take it so far as to suggest that we shouldn’t put dead animal pictures on a members only website like AH.

The slippery slope is exactly why a citizen in England or Australia cannot own several types of firearms that I can here in the USA. There are parallels that can be drawn from that issue to this one. I, for one, won’t go down without a fight and as much education as I can get done.

I also have it from high authority that in the year between the upcoming midterm elections and the start of the next presidential campaigns, that we are going to see some pro-hunting changes come out from the USFWS so hold on to your hats.

 

[sestoppelman]

Sorry, mate. Not sure what you mean. I’m a hunter who is supportive of the idea proposed in Namibia, but I would happily break bread with hunters who disagree with me. I’m just trying to figure-out if I am one of those referred to in your comment. Cheers, Ben

Nope, don't know you. But to answer your question... I was replying to the post above mine, not sure why or how you might take that personally. Cheers mate!

 

[Hank2211]

F1 or Wimbledon?

I find it some what surprising that some would not hunt Namibia because the license comes with the requirement of no posting dead animal photos.

Football (or soccer). But the Brits won, so won’t be able to respond in more detail for a bit!

 

[Pheroze]

So to your way of thinking, all of us in this industry world-wide should just take down our websites and advertising?

Namibia is targeting the clients not the businesses. I think that they expect the professionals to present the images with care and attention to their reputation. Also, the antihunting profiteers target North American indiviuals not those in the industry so much.

 

[leslie hetrick]

we need to get our heads out of our ass,s and accept the fact that the anti,s will go to any lenths to kill the sport of hunting and I think fishing will also be in their sights(pun intended) in the future, you know fish and worms have god given rights too. on a few hunts in Africa the trackers took dirt and gravel and put on the blood and bullet hole on the animals, and yet at the same time they always wanted to cut the throut of a non dead yet animal. I stopped that by shooting the animal again making sure it was dead, as they were not jewish or muslem.

 

[WAB]

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]

F1 or Wimbledon?

I find it some what surprising that some would not hunt Namibia because the license comes with the requirement of no posting dead animal photos.

It is the principle for me. I don’t care that much about the posts but I’m not keen on the Namibian government telling me what I can and can’t do with the photos. I will tend to just go to a country that doesn’t want to involve itself in my life after the hunt.

 

[Royal27]

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?

No, you're not missing anything. But pick a wrong friend, have a friend send a screen shot to someone else, or someone takes a picture of the FB screen and BOOM, picture is out. And I'm just talking about low tech ways to get around settings. There are lots of other ways to get around privacy settings. Nothing digital is really private. It's simply a matter of whether anyone wants the data badly enough.

 

[Hank2211]

Namibia is targeting the clients not the businesses. I think that they expect the professionals to present the images with care and attention to their reputation. Also, the antihunting profiteers target North American indiviuals not those in the industry so much.

@Scott CWO, I agree with Scott. Anti-hunters tend not to target Africans or African businesses when they start their social media storms. My guess is that well-presented pictures aren’t the issue. And as for “sensitive” animals, if a prospective client wants to see pictures, there is nothing in the proposed rule which would stop you from sending those pictures.

If a rule like this could be enforced, it just might reduce anti’s fund raising opportunities. But it’s unlikely to make much difference. There are too many hunters who want to show off.

 

[Hank2211]

It is the principle for me. I don’t care that much about the posts but I’m not keen on the Namibian government telling me what I can and can’t do with the photos. I will tend to just go to a country that doesn’t want to involve itself in my life after the hunt.

@WAB, I don’t know where you’re from, but if you want to avoid a country that wants to involve itself in your life after the hunt, I suggest you stay a long way away from the USA.

 

[Royal27]

@WAB, I don’t know where you’re from, but if you want to avoid a country that wants to involve itself in your life after the hunt, I suggest you stay a long way away from the USA.

@Hank2211 I will tell you the difference here, for me.

The U.S. doesn't try and tell me who I can talk to about a hunt, or how. It doesn't try to control my speech regarding a legal activity. NAPHA and Namibia are doing this. They are making it illegal for me to discuss a legal activity and that just doesn't sit well with me. Combine this with the Lacey Act and I could potentially be in a world of hurt, over a picture. The same picture that NAPHA could post on the internet to help them advertise their wonderful and beautiful country could get me thrown in jail, and they support that? Not a great way to treat a client in my opinion, with hypocrisy.

That to me is very different than the U.S. saying I can't bring back ivory (which I also vehemently disagree with). The U.S. has not in anyway told me who I could share photos of my elephant hunt with. And for the record, and as I've shared here before, I did make a post on FB about my elephant hunt. I did it tastefully and explained why the hunt was good for elephant conservation and the local community. I made a conscious decision to not share any dead elephant pictures, other than one of my ivory. But, the decision was mine, and not that of my government or any other government.

Again, I totally respect the right of NAPHA and Namibia to infringe upon freedom of speech for their country. If they want to violate their Constitution that's a fight Namibians will need to take up, not me. As there are other similar options though and I'm on a relatively limited budget I will likely just go elsewhere. Why bother?

 

[WAB]

@Hank2211 I will tell you the difference here, for me.

The U.S. doesn't try and tell me who I can talk to about a hunt, or how. It doesn't try to control my speech regarding a legal activity. NAPHA and Namibia are doing this. They are making it illegal for me to discuss a legal activity and that just doesn't sit well with me. Combine this with the Lacey Act and I could potentially be in a world of hurt, over a picture. The same picture that NAPHA could post on the internet to help them advertise their wonderful and beautiful country could get me thrown in jail, and they support that? Not a great way to treat a client in my opinion, with hypocrisy.

That to me is very different than the U.S. saying I can't bring back ivory (which I also vehemently disagree with). The U.S. has not in anyway told me who I could share photos of my elephant hunt with. And for the record, and as I've shared here before, I did make a post on FB about my elephant hunt. I did it tastefully and explained why the hunt was good for elephant conservation and the local community. I made a conscious decision to not share any dead elephant pictures, other than one of my ivory. But, the decision was mine, and not that of my government or any other government.

Again, I totally respect the right of NAPHA and Namibia to infringe upon freedom of speech for their country. If they want to violate their Constitution that's a fight Namibians will need to take up, not me. As there are other similar options though and I'm on a relatively limited budget I will likely just go elsewhere. Why bother?

Totally agree Royal

 

[sestoppelman]

@WAB, I don’t know where you’re from, but if you want to avoid a country that wants to involve itself in your life after the hunt, I suggest you stay a long way away from the USA.

Alabama.... and agree with Royal, the only interference one will encounter here regarding legal activity is from other ignorant or misguided citizens. As far as free speech goes, we do in fact have it, certainly more so than other country on earth, its a Constitutional guarantee, enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And please don't anyone say, "you cant yell fire in a movie theater". Of course I can. There may be consequences for it, but I can sure say it! And so called "hate" speech that seems to have become a hot button issue here in the last 10 or so years, is protected speech. It may take time to wend its way thru the courts, but that is exactly the kind of speech that is meant to be protected, and it is. What would be the need for Freedom of speech if no one ever said anything disagreeable?

 

[Scott CWO]

Namibia is targeting the clients not the businesses. I think that they expect the professionals to present the images with care and attention to their reputation. Also, the antihunting profiteers target North American indiviuals not those in the industry so much.

I am a North American guide and the pictures we take are the same poses that my hunters take. Besides, what is considered tasteful by one person is disgusting to the anti. You can’t make much progress with hard-core antis. I converted my brother-in-law and he even requests venison now when he visits but he will never hunt.