Interesting thoughts on RAMP

Status
Not open for further replies.
norskie said:
Anyone that believes this thing will be objectively evaluated by Gates and the U of C probably believes in the tooth fairy as well.

Let us not forget Cormack's role in Open Spaces, and his previous attempts to commercialize wildlife in the Cypress Hills area.
Click to expand...

The way RAMP is set up, I'm not sure how it can be determined anything but a success. Hunters are gaining easier access and landowners are receiving payment for that access...of course it will be deemed a success. How can it be anything else. The pilot project is being incredibly well run (despite the late start) and most participants seem happy. What is not being evaluated is the Pandora's Box that has been opened, the future costs and future ramifications for access.

I'm actually quite impressed with the way they are running things and that's all you can evaluate. There is no mechanism to comment on why you think the whole premise is wrong. I'm certain the evaluation will be done fairly (and no I don't believe in the tooth fairy) but that doesn't address the overall problems with RAMP. There is a much bigger picture here but it's easier to keep seeing a conspiracy in everything...ugh.. There is enough wrong with RAMP without the conspiracies......
 
Waxy said:
The major AB based forum where this topic was first broght to the attention of AB outdoorsmen, and where most of the information on it was/is made available, is controlled (censored) by a VERY small minority who choose to look after their own interests ahead of those of the hunting community in general.

Waxy
Click to expand...


I guess I was not the only one that noticed that ;)
 
sheephunter said:
The way RAMP is set up, I'm not sure how it can be determined anything but a success. Hunters are gaining easier access and landowners are receiving payment for that access...of course it will be deemed a success. How can it be anything else. The pilot project is being incredibly well run (despite the late start) and most participants seem happy. What is not being evaluated is the Pandora's Box that has been opened, the future costs and future ramifications for access.

I'm actually quite impressed with the way they are running things and that's all you can evaluate. There is no mechanism to comment on why you think the whole premise is wrong. I'm certain the evaluation will be done fairly (and no I don't believe in the tooth fairy) but that doesn't address the overall problems with RAMP. There is a much bigger picture here but it's easier to keep seeing a conspiracy in everything...ugh.. There is enough wrong with RAMP without the conspiracies......
Click to expand...

Well I am glad you are impressed enough at how this is being run to mention it twice.

Maybe you would have better success in brandishing your "conspiracy" card on another forum. I don't suggest any conspiracies in my statement, rather that the person likely to judge the merits of this program (Cormack Gates) has met stiff opposition to the commercialization of Alberta's wildlife, not once but twice - so I am unsure that I could trust him to remain completely "objective" here either.

The whole aspect of us being able to question where the money will come from is born largely from the efforts of some very dedicated and vigilant woodsmen who were successful in getting the HFH component of the original Open Spaces proposal shelved. It is my belief that we have not heard the last of HFH, because if enough people praise RAMP's successful operation, but convey concerns about the economics - you open the door for the HFH component to become the magic bullet to solve that issue. IMHO
 
It is my belief that we have not heard the last of HFH, because if enough people praise RAMP's successful operation, but convey concerns about the economics - you open the door for the HFH component to become the magic bullet to solve that issue. IMHO
Click to expand...

It's possible that HFH could appear again but I don't see how that would solve the economic issues surrounding RAMP. If RAMP were replaced with HFH then yes, the economic issues would be solved.

I'm not sure how you can call the RAMP process a failure. From what I've seen, it's working as advertized with a few first-year hiccups but that still doesn't mean it's good for the future of hunting in Alberta. I can stand here and spout off about the Gates conspiracy and how RAMP isn't working, even though it is, or I can attack the tangibles like economic principals and the threat it posses to to the future of access in Alberta. I like to base my letters to politicians, the media, etc on facts. I find they carry more weight than the ramblings of conspiracy theorists. People in tinfoil hats aren't usually taken all that seriously in my experience.
 
sheephunter said:
It's possible that HFH could appear again but I don't see how that would solve the economic issues surrounding RAMP. If RAMP were replaced with HFH then yes, the economic issues would be solved.

I'm not sure how you can call the RAMP process a failure. From what I've seen, it's working as advertized with a few first-year hiccups but that still doesn't mean it's good for the future of hunting in Alberta. I can stand here and spout off about the Gates conspiracy and how RAMP isn't working, even though it is, or I can attack the tangibles like economic principals and the threat it posses to to the future of access in Alberta. I like to base my letters to politicians, the media, etc on facts. I find they carry more weight than the ramblings of conspiracy theorists. People in tinfoil hats aren't usually taken all that seriously in my experience.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how exposing the FACTUAL inner workings of the OSA working group, and it's followup compromise, RAMP, is a conspiracy theory? Are those issues not legitimate and pertinent to the fight against RAMP?

I agree that the economics and the threat to future access are the primary issues, but the inner workings of RAMP, and the lack of an unbiased and objective means to truely evaluate the program should be a concern to anyone that opposes RAMP. You've been posting a lot of constructive criticism on another forum regarding the legitmacy of polling methods, hypothesis, and about how the questions and how the system itself are setup affects the outcome. Perhaps you should review some of that in light of the way the RAMP program is being assessed.

Waxy

P.S. It's also my experience that those who act only in self interest and are incapable of standing up for themselves, preferring instead to hide behind others when challenged, aren't taken all that seriously either...
 
Waxy said:
I don't understand how exposing the FACTUAL inner workings of the OSA working group, and it's followup compromise, RAMP, is a conspiracy theory? Are those issues not legitimate and pertinent to the fight against RAMP?

I agree that the economics and the threat to future access are the primary issues, but the inner workings of RAMP, and the lack of an unbiased and objective means to truely evaluate the program should be a concern to anyone that opposes RAMP. You've been posting a lot of constructive criticism on another forum regarding the legitmacy of polling methods, hypothesis, and about how the questions and how the system itself are setup affects the outcome. Perhaps you should review some of that in light of the way the RAMP program is being assessed.

Waxy

P.S. It's also my experience that those who act only in self interest and are incapable of standing up for themselves, preferring instead to hide behind others when challenged, aren't taken all that seriously either...
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your ps refers to Waxy. I'm not hiding anywhere.

In regards to your other comments Waxy, one of the worst things we can do is give politicians items they can single out to argue against as that's where they'll focus their response. Why not stick to the hard questions rather than giving them the easy out. If we don't argue that Gates is part of the conspiracy then you can't be forced into defending an undefendable position. Even if the most unbiased person in Alberta evaluates RAMP based on the response cards and landowner interviews, it's still going to be deemed a success. The questions ensure that. Whether intentional or not, the questions lead that direction. Who cares if Ted is a Mormon, who cares if Gates worked on the Cypress Hills access. What I care about is how will this be paid for and what will be the impact of future access if deemed a success o0r failure. I want hard answers to hard questions. I don't need to defend my questions. You call Gates part of the conspiracy and suddenly you'll find yourself in the position of defending that.
 
sheephunter said:
I have no idea what your ps refers to Waxy. I'm not hiding anywhere.
Click to expand...

Uh huh...right...

In regards to your other comments Waxy, one of the worst things we can do is give politicians items they can single out to argue against as that's where they'll focus their response. Why not stick to the hard questions rather than giving them the easy out. If we don't argue that Gates is part of the conspiracy then you can't be forced into defending an undefendable position. Who cares if Ted is a Mormon, who cares if Gates worked on the Cypress Hills access. What I care about is how will this be paid for and what will be the impact of future access if deemed a success o0r failure. I want hard answers to hard questions. I don't need to defend my questions. You call Gates part of the conspiracy and suddenly you'll find yourself in the position of defending that
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone saying that Gates should be the focus of the fight, only that it's a factor within the process by which RAMP is being evaluated, and one that should be questioned. There's no need to defend it, as it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact. The reality is, Gates is irrelevent, it could be Santa Claus we're talking about here, the fact of the matter is, you don't put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The only way that politicians will be able to avoid the questions or sidetrack the discussion by singling out specific items is if we allow them to. As a group, we need to keep asking all of the hard questions, and demand complete answers.

Even if the most unbiased person in Alberta evaluates RAMP based on the response cards and landowner interviews, it's still going to be deemed a success. The questions ensure that. Whether intentional or not, the questions lead that direction.
Click to expand...

Apparently you have no problem with that. I object strongly to it, and I feel it's an issue that must be addressed, because you can bet your bottom dollar that those in favour of RAMP will be using it to the greatest extent possible to support their case when the time comes.

Waxy
 
Waxy said:
Uh huh...right...



Apparently you have no problem with that. I object strongly to it, and I feel it's an issue that must be addressed, because you can bet your bottom dollar that those in favour of RAMP will be using it to the greatest extent possible to support their case when the time comes.

Waxy
Click to expand...


Once again Waxy, your cryptic reference eludes me......weird because you are the one of the crew that usually got to the point. If you got something to say, spit it out.:confused:

Point out anywhere on the RAMP survey that the average hunter with no opinion on RAMP before hunting the property could say anything negative. You can show up in a WMU with no prior scouting or permission and access some great properties and kill your game. I'm sure Santa Clause will reach the same results as the U of C.
 
sheephunter said:
It's possible that HFH could appear again but I don't see how that would solve the economic issues surrounding RAMP. If RAMP were replaced with HFH then yes, the economic issues would be solved.

I'm not sure how you can call the RAMP process a failure. From what I've seen, it's working as advertized with a few first-year hiccups but that still doesn't mean it's good for the future of hunting in Alberta. I can stand here and spout off about the Gates conspiracy and how RAMP isn't working, even though it is, or I can attack the tangibles like economic principals and the threat it posses to to the future of access in Alberta. I like to base my letters to politicians, the media, etc on facts. I find they carry more weight than the ramblings of conspiracy theorists. People in tinfoil hats aren't usually taken all that seriously in my experience.
Click to expand...
So who mentioned a conspiracy? Oh, I believe that was you. Suggesting that I do not feel comfortable with someone evaluating a paid access scheme when they clearly have shown they support such a scheme, should not be construed as a conspiracy but rather a legitimate concern backed by two instances of such behavior (see Open Spaces and CHEMP). Why do you wish to derail this legitimate concern with your banter about conspiracies?

I don't normally encounter folks in tinfoil hats, but I do seem to encounter a forum troll that likes to cry wolf a lot. He was busy demanding the facts about Open Spaces when a great deal of the outdoor world had researched and come to the conclusion that this whole pilot was bad from the get go. I don't think many in the know take him that seriously anymore either....
 
norskie said:
So who mentioned a conspiracy? Oh, I believe that was you. Suggesting that I do not feel comfortable with someone evaluating a paid access scheme when they clearly have shown they support such a scheme, should not be construed as a conspiracy but rather a legitimate concern backed by two instances of such behavior (see Open Spaces and CHEMP). Why do you wish to derail this legitimate concern with your banter about conspiracies?

I don't normally encounter folks in tinfoil hats, but I do seem to encounter a forum troll that likes to cry wolf a lot. He was busy demanding the facts about Open Spaces when a great deal of the outdoor world had researched and come to the conclusion that this whole pilot was bad from the get go. I don't think many in the know take him that seriously anymore either....
Click to expand...


Name calling is so unbecoming of you.

I want to derail your "legitimate" concern because it's derailing the real issues here. It's easier for politicians to placate the tin foil hat crowd than answer the real questions.
 
sheephunter said:
Name calling is so unbecoming of you.

I want to derail your "legitimate" concern because it's derailing the real issues here. It's easier for politicians to placate the tin foil hat crowd than answer the real questions.
Click to expand...

I wasn't calling anyone anything, simply stating an observation...

No one disputes monetary pressures as being the key to the demise of this program, but suggesting an observation as a conspiracy does little but create even more vitriol to a emotionally charged issue.

Can we please move beyond this bilious version of groundhog day and concentrate on constructive solutions?
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
Once again Waxy, your cryptic reference eludes me......weird because you are the one of the crew that usually got to the point. If you got something to say, spit it out.:confused:
Click to expand...

Give it a rest, you haven't noticed all the "guest" taglines over at AO?

Are you actually going to tell me that you, the apparent "golden goose", had no part in that?

Point out anywhere on the RAMP survey that the average hunter with no opinion on RAMP before hunting the property could say anything negative. You can show up in a WMU with no prior scouting or permission and access some great properties and kill your game. I'm sure Santa Clause will reach the same results as the U of C.
Click to expand...

For crying out loud man, that's my entire point! It can't fail! It's been setup to appear to be a success regardless of the reality.

We, you included, should be upset about that and challenging the system by which RAMP will be evaluated. Is that really so difficult to understand?

Waxy
 
Give it a rest, you haven't noticed all the "guest" taglines over at AO?

Are you actually going to tell me that you, the apparent "golden goose", had no part in that?
Click to expand...

I'm flattered that you think I have that kind of influence but I can honestly say that I had zero part in it. I was informed of the fact after and chastized for some of my comments as I suspect you were and that's where it ends. Can we get past this conspiracy theory now?
 
Lazy Ike said:
"Many"? JFK and UFO's have noting to do with this discussion(as far as I know)so perhaps you could be a little more specific as to the exact "conspiracies?
Click to expand...

Been there, got the t-shirt. Think we've been down that road enough times...until the next new one pops up of course........I'm sure it will.

You sure about JFK though?
 
sheephunter said:
I'm flattered that you think I have that kind of influence but I can honestly say that I had zero part in it. I was informed of the fact after and chastized for some of my comments as I suspect you were and that's where it ends. Can we get past this conspiracy theory now?
Click to expand...

Good lord, I believe some of your conspiracies may have had relations and spawned yet another! Could it be?

I think I may now understand the reference to tinfoil helmets....

Does anyone else hear the theme to star trek?
 
sheephunter said:
I'm flattered that you think I have that kind of influence but I can honestly say that I had zero part in it. I was informed of the fact after and chastized for some of my comments as I suspect you were and that's where it ends. Can we get past this conspiracy theory now?
Click to expand...

Actually no, I wasn't involved, so I haven't been chastized for anything.

I'd like to know what your thoughts on it are, seeing as how whether done with your knowledge or not, it was said to be done on your behalf...

Waxy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom