Interesting thoughts on RAMP

[guido]

The statement I heard was that the executive fully supported it so I guess that would equate to 100% support. I'm sure not all individual members are on side but as the executive speaks for the organization, that's what I understood it to mean. There was no qualifier.

I understand 100% means every single person that is a member of a group.

 

[sheephunter]

I understand 100% means every single person that is a member of a group.

By your way of thinking, the vote against Ramp at the AFGA AGM is 100% assuming the 7 or so voters were not among the executive.

We aren't talking a vote here but an organization's stance. I'm uncertain if the members were permitted to vote or not before they decided on their position. Again, symantics, PF Calgary offered their support of RAMP at a public meeting with no conditions. To me, unconditional support, equates to 100% support. BTW, you are incorrect about my way of thinking.

I'm guessing by the silence of the rest of your little club that they'd just like to see this thread die a quick death. I'm with them. It would seem everyone has had their say on the subject. If you stop asking me questions, I'm happy to allow it to slide into oblivion or if the mods like, please feel free to lock......

 

[guido]

So, you start a thread. Prove yourself to be an ignorant azzhole, and then want the thread to die. O.K. sounds good to me.

 

[Moon]

We aren't talking a vote here but an organization's stance. I'm uncertain if the members were permitted to vote or not before they decided on their position. Again, symantics, PF Calgary offered their support of RAMP at a public meeting with no conditions. To me, unconditional support, equates to 100% support. BTW, you are incorrect about my way of thinking.

I'm guessing by the silence of the rest of your little club that they'd just like to see this thread die a quick death. I'm with them. It would seem everyone has had their say on the subject. If you stop asking me questions, I'm happy to allow it to slide into oblivion or if the mods like, please feel free to lock......

Just taking a bit of a breather. Lots to digest because I am apparently as confused as Guido.

You are working on a project and you appear to know very little about the subject matter so you have come to gain information on CGN? The information you have posted, which is not yours and to which you are unsure of the veracity of the content (judged by your "guessing") is presented as all "facts" under the heading "Interesting Thoughts".

Yeah, I can understand why you would like the thread to slide into oblivion. There is a lot of life left in this one.

 

[sjemac]

Everybody seems to be dancing around something here. Flat out. State your case as to what you suspect the other party of doing and why or STFU.

 

[Moon]

What wasn't factual, I'll be happy to retract anything that isn't.

Details were leaked out on AO before Government documents were made public, weren't they? If memory serves it might have been Lurch but could be wrong.

You suggest that details were "leaked" out on AO before Government documents were made public. Are you insinuating something sinister?

 

[sheephunter]

You suggest that details were "leaked" out on AO before Government documents were made public. Are you insinuating something sinister?

I actually didn't suggest that but I see nothing sinister about that statement......I actually remember having some interesting telephone conversations with Lurch about those first details that he brought out. Time proved some were dead on and others were incorrect.

Sorry for the edit but a thought just crossed my mind. What has happened to Lurch? Didn't he start the ARHJ? He seemed a pretty level-headed guy that was always willing to talk candidly about the ARHJ. I learned a fair bit about your organization and the main players in the early days from him. I haven't seen him around for ages. Is he still part of your group?

Sorry for the edit again....working far too late as usual. I've been very patient and answered all of your questions but you have eluded my one simple request so until I get a full answer to my question, I fail to see the point of this thread continuing..

Let's try and make this easy.....the ARHJ has stated in a position paper "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."

What many parts of the Block Management Program did the ARHJ find reasonable and does the ARHJ still believe the Montana system is reasonable in many respects? Could the ARHJ still support RAMP, as they stated, if it were linked to habitat retention? If so, what type of habitat component would have to be linked to it?

 

[Lazy Ike]

Providing there is no expectation of privacy. The fact that it's a private message and messageboard rules prevent posting private messages, I would say there is an expectation of privacy. I'm comfortable with that. Information obtained from a request to a public website.....I see no reason why it should be considered private.

I get junkmail in my Private Mail box everyday. If it's unrequested there can be no expectation of privacy.

 

[bigdaddymorton]

"I've been doing some research for a project I'm working on" qoute by Sheephunter

Moon,

What the hell is wrong with you man? A young fellow comes on this site trying to get information about a school project that he is doing and you blast him!!!

All he is doing is trying to get information like any good up and coming journalist would do and you guys roast him...

Sheephunter,

Keep it up young man...dont let these yahoos get you down. Chase your dreams and be the best you can be. I hope you are taking journalism in school because it looks like you have a real passion for the outdoors and writing about it...hopefully some day you will be writing in some of our Canadian Hunting Magazines. God knows that they are lacking in qaulified talent these days.

BDM

 

[Lazy Ike]

Everybody seems to be dancing around something here. Flat out. State your case as to what you suspect the other party of doing and why or STFU.

In a nutshell, Sheephunter cannot accept the fact that there is a group of ALbertans who organized, created a platform and are actively invovled in an important hunting related manner, that did not think to ask his permission first. He (in case you've missed the thrust of the majority of his posts) considers himself to be the expert on..well most everything and to that end will not tolerate another voice. At this point Sheep's position(if there actually is one) has been pushed onto the back-buner while he tries to discredit this threat to his ego.

I don't personally know any of the people in this dispute and have arrived at this conclusion based solely on the information they have seen fit to post on the internet and insist on sending me via pm.

 

[Moon]

i actually didn't suggest that but i see nothing sinister about that statement......i actually remember having some interesting telephone conversations with lurch about those first details that he brought out. Time proved some were dead on and others were incorrect.

Sorry for the edit but a thought just crossed my mind. What has happened to lurch? Didn't he start the arhj? He seemed a pretty level-headed guy that was always willing to talk candidly about the arhj. I learned a fair bit about your organization and the main players in the early days from him. I haven't seen him around for ages. Is he still part of your group?

Sorry for the edit again....working far too late as usual. I've been very patient and answered all of your questions but you have eluded my one simple request so until i get a full answer to my question, i fail to see the point of this thread continuing..

Let's try and make this easy.....the arhj has stated in a position paper "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."

what many parts of the block management program did the arhj find reasonable and does the arhj still believe the montana system is reasonable in many respects? Could the arhj still support ramp, as they stated, if it were linked to habitat retention? If so, what type of habitat component would have to be linked to it?

Please read the following:

"alberta resident hunters for justice is a group of concerned individuals whose purpose is to oppose open spaces. The group is informal, there is no corporate structure, no executive positions, no membership fees, no mission statement, and no political ties"

As I recall, and of this I am quite certain, the so-called "leak" was by AFGA at a local F&G meeting that "Lurch" was attending. He called it news... I think they all did.

I think everyone at the AO board soon recognized that the info that Lurch brought was just about bang-on. I know that a couple of individuals, including a "Sheephunter" that posted over there played a large role in marginalizing that information and the messenger that brought it. I think that confused a lot of people because Lurch was and is very much against paid hunting.

I also remember a lot of speculation about a leak on the Open Spaces Alberta Working Group. It did certainly appear that some knew far more than others, especially in light of the documents that were made public. I guess I am not supposed to know what you do for a living, but I am wondering where your research has taken you in that regard.

It is widely believed that we are in the mess we find ourselves today because of what happened (or didn't happen) in that Working Group. A lot of people are wondering why there is this sudden fascination with the ARHJ, a website, while those largely believed to be responsible for the introduction of paid hunting are being sheltered. In another thread you have made it very clear that you hold the ARHJ responsible for this latest version or RAMP. You are severely misguided.

What might be of interest to you is that the Government tried once before to initiate paid hunting in Alberta through the Cypress Hill Elk Management Plan (CHEMP). The reason they were unsuccessful was because of the withdrawal of key members of the Working Group who understood the Plan was actually paid hunting.

In my opinion, and history appears to prove me right, the hunting representative(s) that sat on the Open Spaces Alberta Working Group did not withdraw, even though he/she/they recognized the proposal to be paid hunting and the advancement of paid hunting in Alberta so SRD and Ted Morton may have used them as unwitting dupes. I understand that they had about ten months of consultations.

So what is this project you are working on?

 

[bigdaddymorton]

Moon,

There you go again.

I am sure once the young fellow is on a recess break he will be able to get on here and rebutle all of this...

BDM

 

[sheephunter]

Good to see all the long time listeners/first time posters showing up. That never looks suspicious. As it appears that no one is willing to answer my very simple question and before this thread deteriorates any more into the depths of dispair, I'm outta here. Have fun with it.

 

[Waxy]

Let's try and make this easy.....the ARHJ has stated in a position paper "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."

Nothing's easy with you sheephunter, but I'll give it a shot.

As I've REPEATEDLY told you, this quote is from a draft letter sent to someone early in the fight against OSA. It doesn't now, and never did, represent the position of the ARHJ. Plain and simple.

We're still unsure as to how you got the paper in first place, as your claims of it being emailed to you are not supported by the email evidence or the records on the website's server.

What many parts of the Block Management Program did the ARHJ find reasonable and does the ARHJ still believe the Montana system is reasonable in many respects? Could the ARHJ still support RAMP, as they stated, if it were linked to habitat retention? If so, what type of habitat component would have to be linked to it?

I'm pretty sure that no matter how carefully I word this to try and make it crystal clear, you won't understand it, or will somehow spin it anyway, as is your MO, but here goes -

The part that initially seemed acceptable was the actual method by which landowners were paid, NOT the reason they were paid. Some program by which landowners were compensated, possibly in a similar manner to the way in which the method of compensation in the BMP program works, for habitat protection and development seemed like a reasonable idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as though you also believe that some sort of compensation for habitat stewardship is reasonable.

Further research on the BMP program led to this notion being quickly dismissed. As a result, the ARHJ NEVER supported RAMP, or any form of RAMP, regardless of a habitat component.

RAMP represents PAID HUNTING, and the ARHJ has been VERY clear from day one that it opposes ALL forms of PAID HUNTING.

Waxy

 

[MadDog]

I'm outta here. Have fun with it.

Figures......


Hey all you guys that came over from AO, thanks alot and your more than welcome around here anytime, I've enjoyed this....really.

 

[Redfrog]

Let me answer your questions in order yes, no, yes, yes, no.

Hope this helps.

Thank you

Bubba
Past President of ARHJ

Thanks but it really didn't help much. I'm having trouble understanding why all the secrecy, if this organization represents thousabds of hunters.

Is this group looking for support from hunters?

 

[Moon]

In a nutshell, Sheephunter cannot accept the fact that there is a group of ALbertans who organized, created a platform and are actively invovled in an important hunting related manner, that did not think to ask his permission first. He (in case you've missed the thrust of the majority of his posts) considers himself to be the expert on..well most everything and to that end will not tolerate another voice. At this point Sheep's position(if there actually is one) has been pushed onto the back-buner while he tries to discredit this threat to his ego.

I don't personally know any of the people in this dispute and have arrived at this conclusion based solely on the information they have seen fit to post on the internet and insist on sending me via pm.

That's an interesting take Ike and you might be right. What makes it even more bizarre is that this interested group that formed the website and tried to organize and supply information does not want or expect any recognition. Was it effective in getting info out to Alberta's hunters and anglers? I don't really know but I think everyone did their best to provide those that love the outdoors relative information on Open Spaces Alberta and paid hunting. I know that Dr. Valerius Geist was in support of the cause (the cause being No Paid Hunting in Alberta) and provided a wonderful letter exposing the dangers in the commercialization of wildlife.

It is sort of paradoxical: the ARHJ, which Sheephunter appears to hate with a passion, and which he would love to fade into oblivion continues to exist and take center stage because of... Sheephunter. He has his minions worked into a frenzy over a website. I am not certain if that is funny or if that is sad.

In my opinion, I really cannot think of too many other individuals who have contributed to, and done so much recent damage to Alberta's hunting community than Sheephunter. He continues to fragment the hunting community with his ramblings. And what is even more puzzling, if he is to be believed, he is apparently on "our" side.

 

[Moon]

Is this group looking for support from hunters?

If you are Albertan, the Alberta Fish & Game Association is looking for support from hunters. I highly recommend joining and participating in this fine organization. In my opinion, they are the true voice of Alberta's hunters.

 

[hansol]

I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME!!!!!!

Wow, classy. A guy starts a thread and then whines about the direction it goes....

Good thread guys. In amongst all the BS whining and spin, I actually learned a little bit. I think. I'm kinda slow, so I can't figure out what all the drama is about, so maybe you can fill me in:

-From what I gathered, the ARHJ, as well as the AFGA, are against the current RAMP program because it is a form of paid hunting.

-What sheephunter is whining about was that the ARHJ produced an internal letter saying they didn't mind the RAMP's initial way of compensating land owners for their participation.

-But after furthur research, ARHJ decided that RAMP sucked, and withdrew support.

What the hell isn't to like about this?

 

[crazy_davey]

In my opinion, I really cannot think of too many other individuals who have contributed to, and done so much recent damage to Alberta's hunting community than Sheephunter. He continues to fragment the hunting community with his ramblings. And what is even more puzzling, if he is to be believed, he is apparently on "our" side.