Scam offers

[Timbo]

Scam offers are usually fairly easy to spot. "Too good to be true", etc. It's up to the individual to look out for themselves and depend upon their own research and diligence in checking... not someone else's or the nanny state or whomever. As to the various organizations mentioned like the so-called professional associations... mostly mutual admiration societies that charge a fee to allow one to put a string of capital letters by their name or DBA.

Quite. Some interesting points. But in my case when I engaged this operator I didn't even know about AH - I only joined after discovering this site through researching to find the scammer.

As for "too good to be true" deals, I've got a pretty damn good one at the moment and will be in camp with the American representative of the outfitter (both AH members). So, by your definition should I - and the half dozen other guys going - be concerned that these two guys are scammers? This example shows it's not as clear cut, and as easy to spot as you may think.

I don't know who you mean that are asking for a "nanny state", but the point being acknowledged here, and by others too, is that regulatory bodies should be more proactive in policing their industry. Mutual admiration societies, they may be - but I for one couldn't care less about that - as long as they have the presence of mind to fulfill a proper regulatory role. QED.

 

[Mekaniks]

I think the real distinction here is the the difference between an "organization" (a body of folks organized with a particular purpose) and a "regulatory authority" which has supervisory capacity over a group of people.
As example, 4H clubs, Rotary, VFW, Free Masons, are "organizations" designed for a specific purpose and they have automonous authority over their memebership. They can and do represent and lobby on behalf of their membership. But, they are not a "regulatory authority" and cannot supervise over folks that do not belong to their organization.
Its no different with PHASA, DSC, SCI, Wild Sheep Foundation or any of the others.
If the members of these organizations want regulatory changes, or current laws enforced, the organization needs to lobby the proper regulatory authority (i.e congress, senate, local government etc...to effect the change.
In my opinion, it really puts these groups at a disadvantage when we expect them to directly supervise over folks that are outside of their organization.

 

[Timbo]

I think the real distinction here is the the difference between an "organization" (a body of folks organized with a particular purpose) and a "regulatory authority" which has supervisory capacity over a group of people.
As example, 4H clubs, Rotary, VFW, Free Masons, are "organizations" designed for a specific purpose and they have automonous authority over their memebership. They can and do represent and lobby on behalf of their membership. But, they are not a "regulatory authority" and cannot supervise over folks that do not belong to their organization.
Its no different with PHASA, DSC, SCI, Wild Sheep Foundation or any of the others.
If the members of these organizations want regulatory changes, or current laws enforced, the organization needs to lobby the proper regulatory authority (i.e congress, senate, local government etc...to effect the change.
In my opinion, it really puts these groups at a disadvantage when we expect them to directly supervise over folks that are outside of their organization.

I agree that there may be differences between organisations and regulatory bodies but as you state, more proactive lobbying can be done. Again, SSAA has successfully taken legal action against those outside of their organisation who are/were working against it. As proof of what can be done by a members organisation, can be found here:

https://www.ssaawa.org.au/news/2017/no-recreational-hunting-in-wa-vs-ssaa-wa-inc

If the SSAA can do it, then there's no reason why other such bodies can't follow suit.

 

[Hank2211]

When bad things happen to hunters in South Africa, or the country's hunting industry looks bad on the world stage, damage (a little or a lot) is done to the country and its reputation as a hunting destination.

The reality is that hunting is, or should be, important enough to South Africa that they should have some sort of national organization to ensure the qualifications of professional hunters, certain standards for outfitters, and the like, with power to force compliance with minimum standards. Zimbabwe has something like this for PH's, and as a result they are among the best in Africa.

I'm not a big fan of the 'nanny state' but some things are too important to be left to the whims of the market. As we've seen on this thread, people (PHASA in this case) get blamed for things over which they have no control. Not fair, but it happens all the time.

Can't believe I'm in favour of more regulation. Time for a beer.

 

[Timbo]

I agree with you. Apathy through non reporting and/or inaction encourages such criminal activity. I'm not a proponent of a "nanny state" at all, but as discussed, more action to deter, through policing and convicting such criminals - yes. Legitimate outfitters would have nothing to fear in this.

As a PHASA member yourself, you said it - "looks bad on the world stage, damage (a little or a lot) is done to the country and its reputation as a hunting destination." And there should be an organisation with the power to shut down bogus operators. Until someone in SA has the round objects to do something, the industry and it's reputation will continued to be plauged.

 

[IvW]

The reality is that hunting is, or should be, important enough to South Africa that they should have some sort of national organization to ensure the qualifications of professional hunters, certain standards for outfitters, and the like, with power to force compliance with minimum standards.

All that is in place and it is enforced by the Nature Conservation Authorities for each province and also nationally.

Again it have nothing to do with PHASA.