Get out yer wallets ALbertans. Paid hunting is here.

[sheephunter]

I am with Longdraw. Why the fascination with ARHJ? You are right ARHJ did say that but I can tell you right now:

"ARHJ does not support RAMP"


Bubba

Does not support the previous version of RAMP or the new version? Just curious if it is the new version, have you seen it? If not, why the change in position? Do you no longer feel that landowners should be compensated for retaining habitat? Sorry for all the questions but your flip flop in position is a bit confusing, unless you've seen the new version of RAMP that is and then please let us know what you know.....

 

[Waxy]

An entire paragraph from an ARHJ issued position paper is hardly a vague quote but I can send you the entire position paper if you like. I do have it on my computer as a Word file. Send me your e-mail addy. As I said earlier, it was issued by the ARHJ.

It is if it can't be put in context or was from a paper that wasn't meant for public distribution.

Where did you get the paper?

Yes, I too am glad that larger and more credible organizations spoke up despite the ARHJ's attempts to discredit them.

I'm not aware of the ARHJ attempting to discredit any organizations that are involved in the fight against OSA and RAMP, that seems a rather far fetched claim.

At any rate, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, it's a rather pointless distraction from the real issues at hand.

On another note, I'm glad that some of the more credible outdoors writers, Neil Waugh and Don Meredith for example, have come out and voiced their objection to OSA and paid hunting in AB in general.

Waxy

 

[sheephunter]

It is if it can't be put in context or was from a paper that wasn't meant for public distribution.

Where did you get the paper?

For the third time, I got the paper from the ARHJ. I requested it and they sent it to me so I assumed it was for public distribution. Why would they have position papers that they didn't want the public to know about? Is there something they are trying to hide?

It can be put in the context of the position paper that I requested under my real name from the ARHJ web site. I asked for it and they sent it to me. As a supporter of the organization, I would have thought you'd be aware of the position the organization was taking.

 

[Moon]

Yes, I too am glad that larger and more credible organizations spoke up despite the ARHJ's attempts to discredit them.

I too am a bit surprised with your ramblings. We went through this about a year ago on the AO Board and you claimed you understood things.
I have taken the liberty to once again post the explanation of the ARHJ originally posted on a thread that you yourself started on March 3rd, 2008.
_______________________________________________________

ARHJ was spawned by a common desire to eliminate the Open Spaces Proposal. Very early on, many members were accused of spreading misinformation and untruths about the OSA proposal. There was a lot of changing information from SRD and the University of Calgary and we found that it was often difficult to keep up. Many Alberta Outdoorsmen members expressed their reluctance or frustrations to read through the numerous threads to find facts and information. A few of us decided to meet and do something in an attempt to rectify the situation.

Similar to what the “Sportsmen of Alberta” did in their quest to expose the Interim Métis Harvest Agreement, we felt that it would be beneficial to dedicate a website to collecting the documentation and facts in regard to Open Spaces Alberta.

I would venture a guess that 99% of the information that is shared among individuals connected to the group also makes it’s presence on the AO boards. The ARHJ board provides a convenient way to consolidate information... old and new.

I do not pretend or purport to represent anyone other than myself. If you happen to agree that Open Spaces Alberta is the most dangerous scheme to resident hunters in Alberta, great! If you do not agree or you remain unsure, I am hoping we can change your mind.

With regard to participation, I think we all recognize that writing the Premier and our MLA’s a letter outlining our opposition is currently our best and most effective tool. Contact information is available on the website. Any other ideas would be most welcome and may also be shared on the AO board or via PM!

Our goal, much like the “Sportsmen of Alberta” website, was to make things easier.

AND (in the same thread)

Brady, I don’t know that we have ever considered, nor do we want to consider the ARHJ as a membership group. I personally feel well represented by my participation with groups such as AFGA, ABA, RMEF, DU, PF, etc. All funding to this point has come from our own pockets, and to this point the wife has not figured this out, so I think we are okay.

My understanding of ARHJ (and if I am wrong I hope to be corrected) is that it is much more of a study or research tool that attempts to marry hunters and anglers to information on Open Spaces Alberta.

I appreciate your recognition of the group’s efforts. We continue to research and ask a lot of questions and as answers or facts are revealed we share them.
__________________________________________________

Apparently, I take a different view than you. I was very happy that a group of concerned individuals chose to provide information and expose the prejudices and bias of these paid hunting schemes. If you believe that the ARHJ was attempting to discredit those in favour of paid hunting and inequality among concerned landowners, I guess I can live with that.

I really don’t know if I can make it any clearer?

 

[Waxy]

For the third time, I got the paper from the ARHJ. I requested it and they sent it to me so I assumed it was for public distribution. Why would they have position papers that they didn't want the public to know about? Is there something they are trying to hide?

It can be put in the context of the position paper that I requested under my real name from the ARHJ web site. I asked for it and they sent it to me. As a supporter of the organization, I would have thought you'd be aware of the position the organization was taking.

Nothing at all, I'm not denying or claiming it didn't come from the ARHJ. Just curious, because I don't remember the document being sent out that's all. That said, it's quite possible it was sent to you.

As for the ARHJ, there's no flip-flops, no deception, no inside info, no conspiracy, etc, etc..., just a few guys doing the best they can to oppose paid hunting in AB.

At any rate, like I said, this petty stuff is pretty pointless. There are way more important things to be taking up bandwidth with.

Waxy

 

[sheephunter]

I too am a bit surprised with your ramblings. We went through this about a year ago on the AO Board and you claimed you understood things.
I have taken the liberty to once again post the explanation of the ARHJ originally posted on a thread that you yourself started on March 3rd, 2008.
_______________________________________________________

ARHJ was spawned by a common desire to eliminate the Open Spaces Proposal. Very early on, many members were accused of spreading misinformation and untruths about the OSA proposal. There was a lot of changing information from SRD and the University of Calgary and we found that it was often difficult to keep up. Many Alberta Outdoorsmen members expressed their reluctance or frustrations to read through the numerous threads to find facts and information. A few of us decided to meet and do something in an attempt to rectify the situation.

Similar to what the “Sportsmen of Alberta” did in their quest to expose the Interim Métis Harvest Agreement, we felt that it would be beneficial to dedicate a website to collecting the documentation and facts in regard to Open Spaces Alberta.

I would venture a guess that 99% of the information that is shared among individuals connected to the group also makes it’s presence on the AO boards. The ARHJ board provides a convenient way to consolidate information... old and new.

I do not pretend or purport to represent anyone other than myself. If you happen to agree that Open Spaces Alberta is the most dangerous scheme to resident hunters in Alberta, great! If you do not agree or you remain unsure, I am hoping we can change your mind.

With regard to participation, I think we all recognize that writing the Premier and our MLA’s a letter outlining our opposition is currently our best and most effective tool. Contact information is available on the website. Any other ideas would be most welcome and may also be shared on the AO board or via PM!

Our goal, much like the “Sportsmen of Alberta” website, was to make things easier.

AND (in the same thread)

Brady, I don’t know that we have ever considered, nor do we want to consider the ARHJ as a membership group. I personally feel well represented by my participation with groups such as AFGA, ABA, RMEF, DU, PF, etc. All funding to this point has come from our own pockets, and to this point the wife has not figured this out, so I think we are okay.

My understanding of ARHJ (and if I am wrong I hope to be corrected) is that it is much more of a study or research tool that attempts to marry hunters and anglers to information on Open Spaces Alberta.

I appreciate your recognition of the group’s efforts. We continue to research and ask a lot of questions and as answers or facts are revealed we share them.
__________________________________________________

Apparently, I take a different view than you. I was very happy that a group of concerned individuals chose to provide information and expose the prejudices and bias of these paid hunting schemes. If you believe that the ARHJ was attempting to discredit those in favour of paid hunting and inequality among concerned landowners, I guess I can live with that.

I really don’t know if I can make it any clearer?

What still confuses me is the opposition to the new version of RAMP. I appreciate all the opposition the ARHJ brought forward against OSA but from the limited amount I know, this appears to be a new version of RAMP with the habitat component requested by the ARHJ. I have no idea what that component is or what's involved with access under the new plan and it may very well be offensive but if the ARHJ is in possesion of some of the new details regarding RAMP, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. I just have the feeling you know more than you are saying or how could you be opposed to a plan you said you could support. I'd just like to know the details as apparently you know them.

 

[sheephunter]

Nothing at all, I'm not denying or claiming it didn't come from the ARHJ. Just curious, because I don't remember the document being sent out that's all. That said, it's quite possible it was sent to you.

That is strange that you've never seen it as it outlined the position of the ARHJ. I like to know all the details of groups I'm associated with....not just jump on bandwagons. Each to their own though.

 

[Lazy Ike]

Ok! TJ's got a hard-on for ARHJ.(start your own thread)

Lets try and keep this thread on topic. The topic in this case is the impending implementation of a revised? version of a RAMP program.

 

[sheephunter]

I gotta ask why the focus on ARHJ with them being quoted?

I thought that the AFGA, ABA, Pheasants forever, all came out publicly against the OS initiative? I am sure I missed a group or two as well. Don't forget about nearly every resident that was made aware of the initiative was against it as well, at least every one that I spoke to.

I realize that only one component of the OS initiative is proceeding, but to say that one group was quoted supporting something that has not been unveiled with none of the facts being made public seems to be a stretch to me?

I agree that Open Spaces was met with opposition and it seems the minister went back to the drawing board to address concerns like those brought forward by the ARHJ and garner the support they promised. I also know that most Albertans, at least those that provided input to the Land Use Framework, supported the idea of landowners being rewarded financially for retaining and improving habitat on their property. Does this new version of RAMP meet those needs? I have no idea but I just find it strange that a group that promised support is now washing their hands of RAMP when they have repeatedly said they don't know the details of the new version. If they know something about the new plan and it indeed does not meet the requirements to garner their support, I just wish they'd share those details with us so we too can make an informed decision...that why the facination.....I just want to know what the new plan looks like.

 

[sheephunter]

Ok! TJ's got a hard-on for ARHJ.(start your own thread)

Lets try and keep this thread on topic. The topic in this case is the impending implementation of a revised? version of a RAMP program.

Actually Ike, that's all I'm trying to do here, is find out what the new version looks like. I bear no ill will against the ARHJ at all and appreciate all their hard work when Open Spaces was first made public. I'm just trying to find out some details of the new version and by their opposition, it appears they know something they are not sharing.......how else do you explain the flip flop? I'm sure we'd all like to know the details....wouldn't we?

 

[bubbasno1]

Does not support the previous version of RAMP or the new version? Just curious if it is the new version, have you seen it? If not, why the change in position? Do you no longer feel that landowners should be compensated for retaining habitat? Sorry for all the questions but your flip flop in position is a bit confusing, unless you've seen the new version of RAMP that is and then please let us know what you know.....

Alright, read the quote again. We never supported RAMP and I personally never will. You can read anything you want into the quote it does not say we support RAMP. Read the whole sentence

"With a fully public consultative process and a reasonable timeframe for development we can see how a RAMP-like program could work in Alberta. At this time the process and precedent prevents us from supporting RAMP in its current form (not linked to habitat retention or creation) as part of OS."

Has there been a public consultative process a reasonable time frame. Has the process or the precedence it sets change.

You seem to think that we have more information than anyone else out there has. I wish. Because unlike when this happened last year I would get the information out to people as quickly as possible. Unlike some people who shall remain nameless (for now).

The only information I have is that it will be unveiled at the AFGA AGM. Which I have already stated on another forum. Hopefully someone can get a copy sooner so we can read it before hand.

Bubba

 

[LongDraw]

Actually Ike, that's all I'm trying to do here, is find out what the new version looks like. I bear no ill will against the ARHJ at all and appreciate all their hard work when Open Spaces was first made public. I'm just trying to find out some details of the new version and by their opposition, it appears they know something they are not sharing.......how else do you explain the flip flop? I'm sure we'd all like to know the details....wouldn't we?

So you are suggesting that ARHJ has the final draft of how RAMP is going to be unveiled to the public?

 

[sheephunter]

So you are suggesting that ARHJ has the final draft of how RAMP is going to be unveiled to the public?

I'm not suggesting anything. What concerns me most, is that while other groups offered up unconditional opposition to Open Spaces, the ARHJ, offered up conditional opposition and now I can see the minister saying that he considered those conditions of support and incorporated them into the new plan to make groups like the ARHJ happy. That's one of the dangers of making a public position known with conditional support. Thankfully, the other groups just opposed the plan and never gave the minister an opening to come back with version two. Do you think it coincidental that he shelved HFT to which no conditions of support were offered but revamped RAMP to which conditions of support were offered? The ARHJ left the door wide open........

This is one of the dangers of groups without a formal structure or member input that proclaims to represent a large portion of the population.....they become an easy fall guy for politicians.

 

[bubbasno1]

I'm not suggesting anything. What concerns me most, is that while other groups offered up unconditional opposition to Open Spaces, the ARHJ, offered up conditional opposition and now I can see the minister saying that he considered those conditions of support and incorporated them into the new plan to make groups like the ARHJ happy. That's one of the dangers of making a public position known with conditional support. Thankfully, the other groups just opposed the plan and never gave the minister an opening to come back with version two. Do you think it coincidental that he shelved HFT to which no conditions of support were offered but revamped RAMP to which conditions of support were offered? The ARHJ left the door wide open........

Nice to see that you think we have this much pull with the Minister. As I stated above you can interpret the quote as you see fit.

I will state this again. "ARHJ does not now or never has supported RAMP.

I hope you will somehow get past this unhealthy fixation with ARHJ. It is starting to make you look bad.

Bubba

 

[scott_r]

The day I pay a land owner to hunt on his property is the day I no longer hunt.

 

[sheephunter]

I hope you will somehow get past this unhealthy fixation with ARHJ. It is starting to make you look bad.

LOL...possibly it's making you look bad.....

I appreciate what the ARHJ did in the beginning but as with any faceless, anonymous group with no real membership or structure...it has morphed into something it was likely never meant to be and from my perspective, it's become a very dangerous entity as far as the rights of sportsmen are concerned. You've opened the door for this new version of RAMP and are now trying to figure out how to get out of the hole you've dug. Possibly it's time to slink away gracefully and let real groups with real members and real structure deal with this in a professional manner and not anonymously on messageboards.......just a thought?

Nice to see that you think we have this much pull with the Minister.

You might want to look up the definition of scapegoat...trust me, I never thought you had any pull......unwitting dupe maybe.

 

[guido]

Well, seeing that I am happily on Humper's ignore list, I will address this to the rest of you. I remember in the "old" days when OS first raised it's ugly head. HFH portion of OS was the worst thing that could happen to outdoorsmen in Alberta. But, their were still some fence sitters, with a wait and see how it goes outlook on it. Humper being one of them and SB Duffy another just to name a couple. I wonder, if we all took that same attitude, would we be buying tags off landowners this coming season? Probably. Well, not myself because I wouldn't be able to afford the price that would/could be put on these tags. Thankfully, guys like Bubba, Waxy and such brought this BS to light before Morton and his followers could sneak this through. I find ARHJ a very informative site that has brought A LOT of info to the likes of me. Unlike a certain member here who was with holding information.
I wonder if we should just sit on the side lines and watch Morton and his gang RAMP it up?

 

[sheephunter]

You've never been on my ignore list here.....not sure where you got that idea.

I agree that getting info out has always been critical......

 

[guido]

"Oh well, one more for the list......"

This is what you wrote on one of your replies to me. I guess you forgot to put me on.

 

[sheephunter]

"Oh well, one more for the list......"

This is what you wrote on one of your replies to me. I guess you forgot to put me on.

Oh sorry, never meant the ignore list. I meant the list of really stupid comments made on CGN. It's kind of a hobby I have. I keep a list of really stupid things said on here and each year send those comments out along with my Christmas wishes. Your lack of knowledge about optics was definitely one for the list. Sorry again about the confusion.