I can't even believe what I'm reading in this thread. You're now going to try and turn around and lay OSA and RAMP at the feet of ARHJ? Weave a web of lies, conspiracy theories and innuendo to try and insinuate they're - at fault, holding back from the public, scapegoats, pawns, dupes, the ones that really have the minister's ear, dangerous, etc...? Really? UNREAL.
You've reached an all new low sheephunter. I didn't think even you could stoop to this level. You truly are a piece of work.
The ARHJ position has not, and will not, change. They oppose paid hunting and paid access, plain and simple.
I have no interest in debating this any further with you or providing you a forum to spout your BS. I rest comfortably knowing that this will all come out in the wash, and in the end, everyone will get what they have coming to them...
Waxy
I wish I could be as confident as you Waxy but answer me this.....what is the process for the ARHJ to make public statements, who has input into what is said in public, who creates the policy for the ARHJ, how will the ARHJ deal with changes in RAMP and how it responds, who will be selected to be the lobby to government, who will sit on working groups, how are these individuals selected, what is the reporting process....I could go on. To me, these questions are the cornerstone of any reputable organization that says they represent a segment of the population. Who do I call if I have a question even. All the anonymity and secrecy doesn't lend much credibility.
BTW, I never laid RAMP or OSA at the feet of the ARHJ....just that they opened the door for a revised version of RAMP.
This statement is most definitely
not a total rejection of RAMP.
"Stance on OS.
Vehemently opposed. All the old arguments that have been trotted out over and over since the days when all we had to go on was the two-page original document.
The greatest opposition to the whole pilot is summarized in three points: 1. Process – the secretive, underhanded, diabolically political way in which the pilot was taken to an advance stage without the public knowing. 2. Overarching principle is paid hunting. We take great umbrage with the repeated assertion by the proponents of the program that it is not paid hunting. A child could see through the rhetoric and conclude it is paid hunting. American-style paid hunting schemes are not wanted here. 3. The precedent is our biggest concern. We do not think the pilot will be anything more than the unstoppable beginning of a system that we abhor. Welcome to hunting for the elite. See attached PF statement that articulates these same points well.
RAMP – built on the Montana Block Management Program. As was written in one of our ‘black documents’ it is not completely offensive. The Montana system seems to be reasonable in many respects. 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.
HFH this one is wholly offensive and is paid hunting through and through. There is so much to criticize with this one it is hard to know where to begin.
Taking a public resource and turning it into a private one is the polar opposite of what the Alberta hunting heritage and the wildlife act represent. The elitism that the program embodies is the end of the hunting future for generations to come. The business analysis that SRD has produced (and Cormack Gates denied authoring) is the most damning document so far and outstrips anything we could have come up with to turn the undecided against HFH. A resident need only see the stunning loss of RESIDENT tags and the increased draw-wait times to draw a negative opinion on HFH. We were surprised to see this document include non-draw species as well; thus opening the door to all of Alberta landowners to get in on the paid access gravy train. The sell job to entice residents to buy in to the pilot is laughable. The promise of greater access and more tags in the future is pure idiocy. Access is promised, but this doesn’t mean opportunity. What difference does it make if one has access but no opportunity? If the business analysis comes into being a choice trophy animal will go for many thousands of dollars – really the participating landowner’s incentive is to limit access more, not less."
I typically find that once people resort to telling me what I'm thinking and start putting words in my mouth that they are getting desperate. Maybe stick to what you know. If high road means interfering with my personal and business life....spreading malicious rumours and lies, then yes, some ARHJ flag wavers have taken the high road. That wasn't necessarily aimed directly at you Bubba but you are aware of who the shoe fits.
