Resignation PHASA President

[Ryan]

Back to the letter. All I'll say is I now know where NAPHA and Mr. Burger stand.

 

[IdaRam]

It seems there may be more to it.
A year and a half ago or so PHASA took a vote of the members. The membership voted to adopt a stance in opposition to captive bred lion hunting/shooting (choose your verb of preference). So, at that time obviously the majority supported that position.
Does the majority no longer support that position? Why would Mr. Burger resign if his personal belief enjoyed the support of the majority? Is there such rancor and division within PHASA he just got tired of dealing with it? Is there an entirely different reason for his resignation aside from this issue? We seem to be basing a lot on one short letter from NAPHA. Do they have all the facts and would they share them with us if they did?
Not trying to . It just seems to me that rarely is it as simple as the NAPHA letter makes it out to be. Rarely do organizations come out with letters like that if there is not an agenda of some sort. And it's usually not the overtly stated one.
Call me jaded if you will. I just wonder what's behind the curtain.
Carry on, we've got 11 pags to go!

 

[Royal27]

Summary for first three pages:

1. NAPHA doesn't like captive lion hunting/shooting
2. Some people agree with NAPHA
3. Other people think NAPHA is wrong because captive lion hunting is legal in SA and therefore should be supported by all, including those who think it's wrong, cuz it's legal after all and therefore has to be supported
4. Bill doesn't think small groups should decide anything for large groups, unless the small group is a government and makes a law, then it's ok
5. Bill scolds people with different opinions, is called on it, and denies scolding people, except for when he admits he did scold people, but not other than that

Next summaries will be made available on pages 6, 9, and 12.

 

[wesheltonj]

What did or does this guy do? Tharia Unwin is CEO, correct?

 

[Michael Dean]

Hi Hank2211, billc and others,

I do not care for the concept of shooting hand-fed / animals that have become used to close human contact, lions or deer or kudu, etc.
It appears to me that the anti-hunter's "home" seems to be in the street, brandishing a sign, with lies and hateful slogans printed on it.
And so, I do agree with Hank2211's thought that the anti-hunter will not go quietly home (or go quietly anywhere for that matter.)
Anti-Hunters will never be satisfied, ever.
They are haters and haters love to hate.

I am an avid hunter / gun collector who, believes that lately, we have evolved into being our own worst enemy, in regards to the "Public Relations Arena".
If animals are born into the bush, on a large enough hunting concession to give them a reasonable chance of dying from old age, fence or no fence, I quietly do not care what anyone thinks of me hunting such critters.
If however, some animal is hand-fed / pen raised, genetically engineered specifically for the tendency to have: a black mane, freak antlers, "golden gemsbok", "golden wildebeest", (and the list goes on) and put on a concession set up such that it cannot possibly evade being located by the people who are hunting there for a week or two, I do not blame "normal" people from being disgusted.

One of my friends here in Alaska had "won a safari" at one of these SCI Banquets, for his first African experience.
It turned out to be on a fairly small plot of ground, with a high fence.
At one stage, early in the "hunt", a cattle truck arrived and the PH said to my friend, "Let's go pick out your eland to hunt tomorrow".
To this day, he is so soured by that nonsense that, he will only book with the guarantee that he will only be hunting many thousands of hectares of land with no game fence.

My parting shot as it were, is that I do not feel there should be laws against the things I described above as a very real PR problem, for the entire world wide hunting community.
But, I do feel we should not participate in such things, as a show of good sportsmanship to the millions of non-hunters who will likely applaud us for phasing-out these "canned hunts".
If it doesn't pay, it doesn't stay.

I will stand by for the inevitable fiery darts,
Velo Dog.

Very well stated, concise and to the point. There's a dividing line between legality and ethics; two hundred years ago slavery was legal in the states, was it ethical? I can safely state that the consensus today would state no. There's a distinct difference between shooting and hunting. At the end of the day no one has to sit you down and explain the difference. Years ago an outfitter offered me an American buffalo hunt. In short, the hunt amounted to visiting a farmers ranch where a single buffalo was being held in a fenced in 50 acre parcel. There was no hunting, it was killing.

We all want to have a successful hunt but when the experience of hunting is replaced by simply shooting, both the challenge and experience is compromised. We all have a responsibility to maintain the ethics of the sport.

 

[BRICKBURN]

What did or does this guy do? Tharia Unwin is CEO, correct?

 

[BRICKBURN]

 

[BRICKBURN]

 

[BRICKBURN]

http://www.phasa.co.za/about-phasa/phasa-constitution.html

 

[Red Leg]

Slippery slope here folks. This forum is largely game farm hunting in rsa and namibia. Not saying that is bad, but for everyone to get up in arms about various hunting methods being acceptable or unacceptable can divide us as a group rather quickly.

Point taken. I say again, I have no issue whatsoever with anyone hunting self-sustainable populations behind a fence. I have every issue in the world with "put and take" operations, where a specific animal (regardless of its species) is placed into an enclosure to be shot - I deliberately did not use the word "hunted". I believe that practice does damage to our sport because it is inherently contrary to any traditional notion of fair chase. It might be a dangerous thing to do - so is stepping into a bull ring or playing with a puff adder. But the practice is antithetical to all the reasons we typically give for hunting. As many have noted, the antis won't care. I am not worrying about them. I am, however, seriously concerned about the shrinking ambivalent majority of my fellow citizens. Most of them are open to arguments supporting sustainable use; use of game meat - by the hunter or indigenous populations; and the generation of resources. Making that argument about a human raised, genetically tricked out lion released into an enclosure - however big - to be tracked down and killed - is beyond my oratory or literary skills. And I assure you it is beyond the understanding of most of that ever thinner wedge of those ambivalent to our sport.

 

[wesheltonj]

View attachment 186687

So in other words it really does not matter what the "President" does, Thatia Unwin runs the show. And if that's the case, so what if the president resigns. The power and responsibility rests with the CEO for the "ranch lions" decision.

 

[SafariA]

I would like to post the most recent Press Release from Phasa . Unfortunately some people and Organizations jumped to conclusions without having relevant information. I hope this will help clear some unfound statements





PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release 26 May 2017
PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS SA
ON FALSE MEDIA REPORTS ON BURGER’S RESIGNATION

The unfounded, misleading, opportunistic, and inflated media reports that Stan Burger resigned as president of the Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa (PHASA) earlier this week because he “reeled under the pressure of some captive-bred lion hunting supporters” are untrue.

“PHASA acknowledges that our members have different and strong opinions on how the association’s resolution on the hunting of captive-bred lions (CBL) should be implemented, and that this has caused conflict within the association. This is, however, not the only reason that led to Stan’s resignation on 23 May,” says newly elected PHASA president, Dries van Coller.

The conflict [referred to above] may have caused some of the challenges that both PHASA and Stan had to endure, address and overcome during the past six months, “but these challenges are not putting PHASA’s CBL resolution in jeopardy in any away. This resolution still stands,” adds van Coller.

Stan’s reasons and motivations for resigning are not meant for public scrutiny and debate as it has to do with the manner in which the association and its members were governed in the past few months, and ought to be governed in the future.

Both Stan and PHASA have agreed not to discuss these details in the press because these matters are internal and personal, and have nothing to do with the future of well-regulated, responsible and legal hunting in South Africa.

“With that said, I need to clearly state that contrary to the inflated media reports that we have witnessed this week, PHASA is not going to dissolve nor are we about to heed to any “demands” that are not in the best interest of our members or in violation of PHASA’s constitution,” notes van Coller.

“Stan is a valued member of PHASA and the executive committee wishes him all of the best,” says van Coller.

He adds that PHASA will continue to safeguard, facilitate and promote the future of legal and sustainable trophy hunting as part of responsible conservation. “It is every hunter’s duty to ensure that whatever we do benefits Africa’s wildlife and contributes to the social-economic wellbeing of our communities,” concludes van Coller.

Other changes in PHASA leadership include the reinstatement of Barry York as vice-president.

THE END
ISSUED BY THE PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS’ ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: media@phasa.co.za or +27 83 353 6811

 

[BRICKBURN]

Thanks for the latest.

.............the hunting of captive-bred lions (CBL) .....is, however, not the only reason that led to Stan’s resignation on 23 May,” says newly elected PHASA president, Dries van Coller.
...................
Stan’s reasons and motivations for resigning .......has to do with the manner in which the association and its members were governed in the past few months, and ought to be governed in the future. .......

NAPHA's skipped the other politics and focused on the one conflict.

Next page.....

 

[BRICKBURN]

So in other words it really does not matter what the "President" does, Tharia Unwin runs the show. And if that's the case, so what if the president resigns. The power and responsibility rests with the CEO for the "ranch lions" decision.

The decision was made by the members of PHASA at their AGM.

 

[billc]

Summary for first three pages:

1. NAPHA doesn't like captive lion hunting/shooting
2. Some people agree with NAPHA
3. Other people think NAPHA is wrong because captive lion hunting is legal in SA and therefore should be supported by all, including those who think it's wrong, cuz it's legal after all and therefore has to be supported
4. Bill doesn't think small groups should decide anything for large groups, unless the small group is a government and makes a law, then it's ok
5. Bill scolds people with different opinions, is called on it, and denies scolding people, except for when he admits he did scold people, but not other than that

Next summaries will be made available on pages 6, 9, and 12.

#1 seems like your right

#2 maybe right again.

#3 again look at what I say not want you want to think I am saying. Never said anyone who does not like it has to support it. I said don't bash what other hunter may do and be ok with because of your dislike of it. Bashing other HUNTERS is never good unless it is illegal and then I don't think it is hunting at that point anyway.

#4 Yeah it would be like letting peta make laws for us. Small group who takes there side and tries to tell everyone else there wrong. Takes more then one or two groups to get thing right sometime and in the end all the people have a right to vote for people in gov. to make the laws. Pretty sure all the laws you follow come from the gov. not Phasa or any other group. Never said I agree with all laws or ok with them but it is what it is at that point so then you know if it can be done or not. What we know now after the great phasa vote is lions still get hunted and they cant stop it from happening anyway. So what did the vote get done? The answer is it divide there group even more and did the same to a bunch of hunters. We also have learn since all hunters took the side they thought was right and did not stick together over it all more lions are getting killed for no reason and helping nothing.

#5 Is just funny. because if scolding is telling another hunter not bash another hunter for something they may not like.Then some of you are just way to thinned skinned and your little feelings get hurt to easy. But hey bash away because after all so far everything us hunters have done over the last few years have only just about stopped the hunting of lions and elephant with more to come. The plan is working so well with going after other hunters and the way they hunt. I mean divided as a group we will be much stronger as that logic makes totally sense.

LETS SEE IF I CAN GET MY POINT ACROSS FINALLY. IF YOU DONT LIKE A FORM OF HUNTING DON"T DO IT AS THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. DON"T SUPPORT IT OR GIVE IT ANY BACKING. JUST DONT BASH IT OR TAKE THE ANTI'S SIDE OF IT AS THAT WILL NOT HELP HUNTING OVERALL.THAT HAS BEEN PROVE NOW WITH WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR WITH THE WHOLE LION MESS WE ARE IN NOW.

 

[Royal27]

Supplemental page three summary:

1. PHASA announces NAPHA is incorrect and Stan's resignation had nothing to do with CBL
2. PHASA states instead that Stan resigned because he didn't like how PHASA was governed past or future, but nothing to do with the CBL issue, all just internal stuff
3. Bill doesn't totally agree with Royal's initial summary, just with summary point one, and maybe point two

 

[Pheroze]

LETS SEE IF I CAN GET MY POINT ACROSS FINALLY. IF YOU DONT LIKE A FORM OF HUNTING DON"T DO IT AS THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. DON"T SUPPORT IT OR GIVE IT ANY BACKING. JUST DONT BASH IT OR TAKE THE ANTI'S SIDE OF IT AS THAT WILL NOT HELP HUNTING OVERALL.THAT HAS BEEN PROVE NOW WITH WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR WITH THE WHOLE LION MESS WE ARE IN NOW.

I get what you are saying but it will not help the sport.

It really is necessary for us to define our activity. Trophy hunting, unlike subsistence hunting, is not intuitive. You have to educate yourself to understand trophy hunting. So, if we do not define what it is then it will be defined for us and that never goes well. It is healthy to the sport to have this debate so we can create a common understanding. But, that also requires us to draw a line. I am not saying where that line is, but it has to be be bright and easily understood by non-hunters.

 

[ActionBob]

and now lions just get killed for no reason.

I seem to remember a great report by @PHOENIX PHIL ... I don't think that lion got killed for no reason.

And if these lions are getting killed for no reason, then they must not be being hunted. Not trying to take one side or the other. But Bill, you are saying conflicting things here.

And yup, likely to be 12 pages

 

[Red Leg]

#1 seems like your right

#2 maybe right again.

#3 again look at what I say not want you want to think I am saying. Never said anyone who does not like it has to support it. I said don't bash what other hunter may do and be ok with because of your dislike of it. Bashing other HUNTERS is never good unless it is illegal and then I don't think it is hunting at that point anyway.

#4 Yeah it would be like letting peta make laws for us. Small group who takes there side and tries to tell everyone else there wrong. Takes more then one or two groups to get thing right sometime and in the end all the people have a right to vote for people in gov. to make the laws. Pretty sure all the laws you follow come from the gov. not Phasa or any other group. Never said I agree with all laws or ok with them but it is what it is at that point so then you know if it can be done or not. What we know now after the great phasa vote is lions still get hunted and they cant stop it from happening anyway. So what did the vote get done? The answer is it divide there group even more and did the same to a bunch of hunters. We also have learn since all hunters took the side they thought was right and did not stick together over it all more lions are getting killed for no reason and helping nothing.

#5 Is just funny. because if scolding is telling another hunter not bash another hunter for something they may not like.Then some of you are just way to thinned skinned and your little feelings get hurt to easy. But hey bash away because after all so far everything us hunters have done over the last few years have only just about stopped the hunting of lions and elephant with more to come. The plan is working so well with going after other hunters and the way they hunt. I mean divided as a group we will be much stronger as that logic makes totally sense.

LETS SEE IF I CAN GET MY POINT ACROSS FINALLY. IF YOU DONT LIKE A FORM OF HUNTING DON"T DO IT AS THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. DON"T SUPPORT IT OR GIVE IT ANY BACKING. JUST DONT BASH IT OR TAKE THE ANTI'S SIDE OF IT AS THAT WILL NOT HELP HUNTING OVERALL.THAT HAS BEEN PROVE NOW WITH WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR WITH THE WHOLE LION MESS WE ARE IN NOW.

Excuse me Bill, but allow me to remind you that it was you, who said, in your unique syntax, that "the difference is nothing other then some like to make some animals special so they feel good about them selves". Assuming I have translated that into English correctly, I find a statement like that personally insulting. So how about climbing down off your high horse.

I make no secret of the fact that I am opposed to any captive bred shooting which is done on a put and shoot basis. I assure you my motivation has everything to do with trying to preserve this sport I love, and nothing to do with feeling good about myself. I manage that on my own quite well, thank you. I suppose I should not be surprised that you can't understand that motivation. I also don't believe I am taking the "anti's side" in this issue. Rather, I am concerned about giving them yet another weapon which they can use to sway more of the ambivalent majority to their cause. I realize that may require a bit of nuanced thinking on your part. More importantly, however, and regardless of the anti's success or failure, I find the practice itself the antithesis to fair chase. I also fully understand that any number of people on this forum may disagree with that position. I respect their right to have their own opinions. That doesn't mean that I will not voice mine or be insulted into being quiet on the subject. Indeed, because I am personally convinced, like many in these two African-based professional organizations, that the practice is actually detrimental, I would be failing in my responsibilities as a steward of our sport, and the wildlife and places we all want to protect, if I didn't voice my concerns. For me, "as long as it's legal" is a false choice.

 

[Big5]

Excuse me Bill, but allow me to remind you that it was you, who said, in your unique syntax, that "the difference is nothing other then some like to make some animals special so they feel good about them selves". Assuming I have translated that into English correctly, I find a statement like that personally insulting. So how about climbing down off your high horse.

I make no secret of the fact that I am opposed to any captive bred shooting which is done on a put and shoot basis. I assure you my motivation has everything to do with trying to preserve this sport I love, and nothing to do with feeling good about myself. I manage that on my own quite well, thank you. I suppose I should not be surprised that you can't understand that motivation. I also don't believe I am taking the "anti's side" in this issue. Rather, I am concerned about giving them yet another weapon which they can use to sway more of the ambivalent majority to their cause. I realize that may require a bit of nuanced thinking on your part. More importantly, however, and regardless of the anti's success or failure, I find the practice itself the antithesis to fair chase. I also fully understand that any number of people on this forum may disagree with that position. I respect their right to have their own opinions. That doesn't mean that I will not voice mine or be insulted into being quiet on the subject. Indeed, because I am personally convinced, like many in these two African-based professional organizations, that the practice is actually detrimental, I would be failing in my responsibilities as a steward of our sport and the wildlife and places we all want to protect, if I didn't voice my concerns. For me, "as long as it's legal" is a false choice.

So very well said. Not a single sentence I disagree with.