Interesting thoughts on RAMP

[sheephunter]

I've been doing some research for a project I'm working on and this was sent to me. While all of the facts are correct, I'm not sure if I buy into the conspiracy being suggested here but I'm sure many will. It does make for a thought-provoking read though.........




An Interesting Chronology of RAMP


Details of Open Spaces begin to leak out.



An ad hoc group called Alberta Resident Hunters for Justice is created by some members of the Executive of the Lethbridge Chapter of Pheasants Forever.



The ARHJ vehemently opposes Hunting for Habitat (HFH) but offers the Minister a suggestion on how to make the Recreational Access Management Plan (RAMP) more palatable by stating, “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.”



Morton pulls HFH off the table but in 2009 announces a new version of RAMP with a beefed up habitat component.



The Calgary chapter of Pheasants Forever offers 100% support of RAMP. It should be noted that while PF chapters are autonomous, the Calgary Chapter of PF has been asked to previously represent all PF groups in Alberta in key roles like a Board position on the ACA.

 

[Waxy]

Waxy

 

[guido]

:banghead:

Waxy

x2.....

 

[bubbasno1]

 

[Moon]

I've been doing some research for a project I'm working on and this was sent to me. While all of the facts are correct, I'm not sure if I buy into the conspiracy being suggested here but I'm sure many will. It does make for a thought-provoking read though.........




An Interesting Chronology of RAMP


Details of Open Spaces begin to leak out.



An ad hoc group called Alberta Resident Hunters for Justice is created by some members of the Executive of the Lethbridge Chapter of Pheasants Forever.



The ARHJ vehemently opposes Hunting for Habitat (HFH) but offers the Minister a suggestion on how to make the Recreational Access Management Plan (RAMP) more palatable by stating, “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.”



Morton pulls HFH off the table but in 2009 announces a new version of RAMP with a beefed up habitat component.



The Calgary chapter of Pheasants Forever offers 100% support of RAMP. It should be noted that while PF chapters are autonomous, the Calgary Chapter of PF has been asked to previously represent all PF groups in Alberta in key roles like a Board position on the ACA.

, you continue to make very serious and inflammatory allegations in spite of repeated responses to you: The individuals that created and contributed to the Alberta Resident Hunters for Justice (ARHJ) website have made it explicitly clear that we are not now, nor have we ever been in favour of paid hunting in Alberta.

As you are likely aware, the Alberta Fish & Game Association (AFGA) voted unanimously not to support the Open Spaces Alberta pilot and recently voted against supporting SRD’s latest version of RAMP. As you seem so concerned with our alleged involvement in the advancement of paid hunting in the Province of Alberta (which we vehemently deny) might I suggest that you file a formal complaint with the AFGA..

I promise you that all individuals involved with the ARHJ will respect your complaint, cooperate fully with the AFGA and indeed, welcome an inquiry about the evolution of Open Spaces Alberta and SRD’s latest version of RAMP. By all accounts, we have common interests in this subject and I think it would be very beneficial and somewhat therapeutic to Alberta’s hunting community in allowing the facts to be revealed through an open and transparent inquiry rather than the engagement of some random gossip on an outdoor forum.

If you are so inclined, we could initiate proceedings with your participation of course. I assume that this would not present any problems.

In order to offset any costs that may be incurred by the AFGA in consideration for such an objective inquiry, we will make a meaningful donation towards AFGA youth hunting programs.

We look forward to your prompt and public reply.

 

[MadDog]

Guys as per board rules can you please stop posting Sheephunters real name, he's under the impression nobody knows who he is here.

 

[sheephunter]

I am but an anonymous poster with no affiliation and your attemps to create an affliation and use real names are a clear violation of Rule 8 and will hopefully result in you being banned from this site. I have never used your real name (despite the fact that I could) or disclosed your employer (despite the fact that I could) as I respect the rules of this board and I respect the fact that people are entitled to their personal opinions, especially when they make it clear that it is their personal view only and not that of any people they do business with. Your veiled threats here reveal the fact that I'm getting very close to some truths that you are afraid of being disclosed. I find your conduct somewhat questionable and so typical of the members of the ARHJ. You are either a 100% supporter or they will work to smear your personal/business reputation.

The only reason I raise the PF connection is that the ARHJ publically stated in a position paper that they were members of the executive of the Lethbridge Chapter of PF and stated "We are all from Lethbridge and surrounding area. Our connection to one another is mostly social and through hunting. Four of us sit on the executive of the Lethbridge chapter of Pheasants Forever. The PF group has proven mighty useful to get some sort of name to represent. It has provided us with a group through which to develop a position statement and a group to send representatives from (eg. to the Calgary meeting)."

You keep crying that you are against paid hunting but have publically stated that you could support RAMP if the habitat component was beefed up. The Minister obviously took your conditional support to heart and beefed up the habitat component. I also find it very interesting that the ARHJ has publically stated that "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." The Block Management in Montana is simply a pay for access plan. Tell me, what is it that you find reasonable about it?????

Continue with the veiled threats if you choose but I have public statements and positions papers to back up what I say and the best you can do is threaten me....think about it.

This post had all but died on this site.....I find it interesting you felt the need to bring it back to life with no other purpose than to violate Rule 8 and threaten me....I think that speaks to the type of people the ARHJ attracts....

 

[Waxy]

I don't get it.

How is asking you if you'd like to be involved in an open inquiry into the matter and the allegations, by a neutral third party like the AFGA, a threat to you? Why would that be a threat to anyone? It's the opposite of a threat, it's an invitation to get everything out in the open and get to the bottom of it so we can begin working together to oppose paid hunting.

It was even proposed that they offset any potential costs to the AFGA!

Waxy

 

[sheephunter]

I don't get it.

How is asking you if you'd like to be involved in an open inquiry into the matter and the allegations, by a neutral third party like the AFGA, a threat to you? Why would that be a threat to anyone? It's the opposite of a threat, it's an invitation to get everything out in the open and get to the bottom of it so we can begin working together to oppose paid hunting.

It was even proposed that they offset any potential costs to the AFGA!

Waxy

You missed the unedited version of the post.

I'm truly not making any allegations....just trying to get some answers. I've publically stated that I dont buy into the conspiracy theory but I also find it interesting that a position paper by the ARHJ says the things it does and no one seems to be able to provide any answers. I'll start with a very simple question then.....

The Block Management Program in Montana is simply a pay for access plan. Tell me, what is it that the ARHJ finds reasonable about it????? The plan that Morton unveiled last week far surpasses Block Management for rewarding landowners for habitat....isn't that what the ARHJ said would require their support?

Was not the ARHJ formed out the executive of the Lethbridge Chapter of PF?

I'm not looking to make this personal or ruin anyone's livelyhood but we have a group saying they represent Alberta Hunters for Justice and I think it only fair that they clarify their public statements. I'm not putting words in their mouth, just asking for clarification on words they have publically stated....is that unreasonable or the cause for veiled threats by members of that group?

 

[Waxy]

If you don't buy into it, and you don't believe the allegations, then why continue to beat the dead horse?

It seems to me the ARHJ has repeatedly stated, here and EVERYWHERE, that they do NOT support paid hunting in any way. The document you're referring to was not meant for public distribution, and does not represent in any way the position of the ARHJ. The source of the quote is no different than a leaked draft of an article or hunting story which was further edited before it was sent to the press. It's the final copy that counts, not the drafts. It was part of an exercise in which all aspects of OSA were being investigated and analyzed - proper due dillegence for any issue. After that process was complete, the support of any type of paid access, the BMP included, was abandoned. I think you'll find this is completely born out by the facts, as the ARHJ has never posted anything on it's website that supports the BMP, or ANY form of paid hunting/access.

You're looking for skeletons in a closet that aren't there.

Again, I don't see any threat in that post, and I did see the original version, the only edit was removing your name. Seems like a very reasonable offer to me.

Waxy

 

[sheephunter]

The document you're referring to was not meant for public distribution, and does not represent in any way the position of the ARHJ.

Huh???

Why was it sent to me from my request to the ARHJ website then. This is what confuses me. Bubba, whom I assume speaks for the group said earlier that it was produced by them. Why would the ARHJ produce a document like that, that was apparently not for public distribution despite the fact that is was sent to me from the ARHJ through a public request and then claim that it's not their position. Why was it written then. Sorry but internal position papers that seem to contradict public positions do not instill a lot of confidence in me and I have to wonder if the group is actually counterproductive to what so many of us hold dear. I do find the wording in the document more geared to a public audience than an internal one....strange. Many a politician's career has come to end when internal documents like this surface that seem to fly in the face of their public statements. People feel they are being lied to. As a concerned member of the publifc, I find it troubling that the ARHJ seems to have different positions depending on who they are talking to.

So to be clear, this internal document produced by the ARHJ only represents their internal policy...not their public one? You seem to be a spokesman for them as well Waxy...possibly you can answer these concerns.

 

[Northern Rancher]

As a hunter and a landowner is Saskatchewan why is it unfair for a landowner to be compensated for providing habitat and access-to be painfully blunt is far more in my best interest to post my land and lock my gates than to put up with the liability and damage issues that I face by allowing hunter access. When I travel from my zone on draw tags I'd have no problem with paying an access fee. Alot of landowners are pretty sick of people that feel a $20 deer tag grants them unfettered access to anywhere and anything-I think that a landowner should be granted a certain numberr of discretionary tags he can burn them-use them or sell them-HOWEVER if he accepts them he has to allow full access to his landbase for a set period of time. There definately has to be some give and take on the issue or you'll just see more No Hunting signs and padlocks.

 

[bubbasno1]

Huh???

Why was it sent to me from my request to the ARHJ website then. This is what confuses me. Bubba, whom I assume speaks for the group said earlier that it was produced by them. Why would the ARHJ produce a document like that, that was apparently not for public distribution despite the fact that is was sent to me from the ARHJ through a public request and then claim that it's not their position. Why was it written then. Sorry but internal position papers that seem to contradict public positions does not instill a lot of confidence in my and I have to wonder if the group is actually counterproductive to what so many of us hold dear. I do find the wording in the document more geared to a public audience than an internal one....strange. Many a politician's career has come to end when internal documents like this surface that seem to fly in the face of their public statements. People feel they are being lied to. As a concerned member of the publifc, I find it troubling that the ARHJ seems to have different positions depending on who they are talking to.

So to be clear, this internal document produced by the ARHJ only represents their internal policy...not their public one?

Please forward the document to info@arhj.org. I have no record of ever sending you a document. I manage the email and website so I would be very interested in this document.

Bubba

 

[Waxy]

Oh my God, I REALLY don't understand why this is SO difficult! It's simple reading comprehension sheephunter - read to understand, not to attack.

You were sent a document that was not publicly posted. That doesn't make it a public document. How you personally interpret the wording of the document is irrelevent.

I explained to you here -

The source of the quote is no different than a leaked draft of an article or hunting story which was further edited before it was sent to the press. It's the final copy that counts, not the drafts. It was part of an exercise in which all aspects of OSA were being investigated and analyzed - proper due dillegence for any issue.

...the reason the document was written. What else is there to say?

So to be clear, this internal document produced by the ARHJ only represents their internal policy...not their public one?

You're speaking for the ARHJ here are you, stating that it represents ARHJ's internal policy? Come on sheephunter, quit with the insinuations and double talk.

It doesn't represent their "internal policy" at all. That's completely of your own concoction. It was looked at and abandoned, VERY early in the process. I don't know how to make that any clearer than I did above.

Waxy

 

[sheephunter]

Oh my God, I REALLY don't understand why this is SO difficult! It's simple reading comprehension sheephunter - read to understand, not to attack.

You were sent a document that was not publicly posted. That doesn't make it a public document. How you personally interpret the wording of the document is irrelevent.

I explained to you here -



...the reason the document was written. What else is there to say?



You're speaking for the ARHJ here are you, stating that it represents ARHJ's internal policy? Come on sheephunter, quit with the insinuations and double talk.

It doesn't represent their "internal policy" at all. That's completely of your own concoction. It was looked at and abandoned, VERY early in the process. I don't know how to make that any clearer than I did above.

Waxy

I am trying to understand. So why was this document not meant for public distribution written then?

 

[sheephunter]

Please forward the document to info@arhj.org. I have no record of ever sending you a document. I manage the email and website so I would be very interested in this document.

Bubba

On it's way....btw, that's the address I requested it through.

 

[stormbringer]

I'm

.

I've

I

. I'll

I'm

I

I'm

IMHO as long as you are anonymous..................all the Is I'ms and I'lls are meaningless.
Who are you to ask?
Why is your opinion of any merrit?

BTW I (and everyone knows who I am) have no dog in this fight. This is a simple observation.
Seriously, If you want to take a position in the front row in ANY situation you had best be prepared to take the consequences. One of them being that you will soon be known.

Heck I had a lady in line at the grocery store the other day refer to me as "the gun guy on TV"!

My wife..........well she did laugh it off but I know that it does concern her somewhat.

You simply cannot/should not expect to remain unknown when you pull stunts that attract attention.

 

[hansol]

Can someone remind me what the thread-count is up to regarding "meaningless pissing-contests started under the guise of RAMP discussion"?

Mine is 8...

 

[Moon]

My sincerest apologies as I meant absolutely no harm. You post pictures of yourself, the same pictures that appear in magazines with your full name, you discuss your work, etc. I just find it hard to believe that you consider yourself anonymous.

No veiled threat here. In fact, what I have offered up is a chance to get to the truth about Open Spaces Alberta and this latest version of RAMP. The fact that we would prefer that the truth be made public is something that I would have thought very important to you. It is very important to us, and as stated, I think it would be very therapeutic to the Alberta hunting community. There are absolutely no threats to you at all… unless you are somehow threatened by the truth.

I’m not certain I got an answer. Do you want to file a complaint with the Alberta Fish & Game Association genuine hopes of getting to the bottom of this debacle? As stated before, the contributors of the ARHJ will take the complaint very seriously, cooperate fully and reveal all pertinent information. Let’s get to the bottom of this “paid hunting” scandal! If you would like, I am sure we can get the ball rolling.

 

[sheephunter]

Why on earth would I file a complaint with a third party....from what I see they have no stake in the ARHJ at all. Why do you keep trying to drag an unassociated party into this? When did they become the mediator for issues the ARHJ is having? My beef is with the contradicting messages and stances put out by the ARHJ and the existence of internal docments that contradict what it is that the ARHJ publically says they stand for. If the ARHJ takes these complaints seriously, why has no one answered my very simple questions. I don't see why a third party needs to be involved when it's the ARHJ I'm asking the questions of.

Do you speak for the ARHJ? Can you answer my questions?