Update on Proposed Hunting Reg changes from Alberta Beef

transportationoffirearmsinvehicles.jpg
 
Dear Rich Smith -

road hunting is already illegal in Alberta and any other jurisdiction I can think of.

Consequently, you and your proposed regulations can go firmly f*ck yourselves.

Signed,
-Rational People Everywhere
 
Doc: Time to take a few minutes and actually read the letter. Para 3 and 4 discusses the aim of the letter and proposed amendments. If you note in the last para, many hunting groups are identified as stakeholders for a discussion on how to deal with road hunting. This is a call letter with the aim of discussing an amicable solution to the problem of road hunting prior to approaching the government. Nothing about this is unreasonable and it does not bode well that stakeholders are not willing to discuss problem issues before somebody approaches the government...
 
Glock -

I see where you're coming from there, but one of the very seriously considered proposals is to force anyone on a public road to keep ammunition in a separate, locked container. This is beyond ridiculous, and I don't support it. To backtrack and say they plan to use it as a "starting point" is downright deceitful.

Road hunting is already illegal, and I'm sad to see Alberta Beef Producers even entertaining the idea of imposing more restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners.

-M
 
Fully in agreement with Doc M.....

If they had of approached it as "there is a problem" instead of creating an out of this world "proposal", then I would agree that there is room for a discussion....

As presented, its the "negotiations" prior to C68 all over again !!!!
 
tree mugger said:
Fully in agreement with Doc M.....

If they had of approached it as "there is a problem" instead of creating an out of this world "proposal", then I would agree that there is room for a discussion....

As presented, its the "negotiations" prior to C68 all over again !!!!
Click to expand...

Can I get an AMEN for Brother Mugger?! :)

-M
 
tree mugger said:
Fully in agreement with Doc M.....

If they had of approached it as "there is a problem" instead of creating an out of this world "proposal", then I would agree that there is room for a discussion....

As presented, its the "negotiations" prior to C68 all over again !!!!
Click to expand...

To be fair, that is the process via the stakeholders meetings. Any proposal has to have unanimous agreement from all participants. If one disagrees, it is done. So this is not a done deal and it is the first step to discussions. Some people are getting lost in some phraseology without understanding the whole process. See glocks comments.
 
Doc: People here can take two approaches to this. You can either look at it as a conspiracy theory with a view that this is some self serving evil organization practiced at deceit and lobbying (maybe they are I don't know) or you can look it as concerned citizens requesting that other stakeholders discuss a possible solution. Based on the letter and the first line: "clarifying the nature and ntent" my interpretation is to the latter. If a group is coming forward with a problem, it is pretty normal to also come with a proposed solution. Is this solution amicable to other affected parties? In this case not and the whole follow on is an invitation to discuss a possible better solution.

I have watched this thread and the other on this particular topic with interest but I am not really with any particular side. I am not a land owner (outside of the city that is) or a hunter on private land - I hunt crown property and the gun regulations for vehicles don't bother me one way or the other.
 
I absolutely agree with Doc M and tree mugger that this isn't acceptable.

However before we crucify the entire ABP this came up from a subcommittee on wildlife, and was not generally known about. I truly believe the area reps etc I contacted were completely oblivious, and this was done by a small group.

What we need to do now, is get every rancher we know to be aware of this, and contact their rep and get Walter Suntjens and possibly Rick Mcnight removed from the subcommittee.

All of the ranchers I have contacted are much more upset then myself even. So I don't want to hold beef producers responsible yet, but I am all for making sure they get motivated and correct this situation, if they don't, then I'm for holding them to blame.
 
Glock I agree except these regulations will come back to bite you too if they were to become law. What if you forget a round in your pocket, or drop one behind the seat. Then it's not in a locked container, and you are every bit as guilty as the next guy.
 
Well, I certainly hope that's the case.

The recent land use "stakeholder" meetings in Alberta were nothing like that from what I hear... unanimity was about the last thing on the agenda, IIRC.

-M
 
Scar270 said:
Glock I agree except these regulations will come back to bite you too if they were to become law. What if you forget a round in your pocket, or drop one behind the seat. Then it's not in a locked container, and you are every bit as guilty as the next guy.
Click to expand...

This is my concern.

I've seen painfully few game wardens in my area (read: NONE for the last 6 years) but we need more rules to enforce? Ones that can hamstring a guy who dropped a box of 30-30 behind his seat last season accidentally?

I don't think it's a big conspiracy, I just think it's ridiculous for ABP to start a tempest in a teapot about a non-issue.

-M
 
Morpheus32 said:
To be fair, that is the process via the stakeholders meetings. Any proposal has to have unanimous agreement from all participants. If one disagrees, it is done. So this is not a done deal and it is the first step to discussions. Some people are getting lost in some phraseology without understanding the whole process. See glocks comments.
Click to expand...

I land firmly in Doc M court and agree with his sentiments to a "T". Everyday I see more and more reason that we become just as ruthless at defending our gun rights as the NRA does in the US. If they want anything and I mean no matter how small, they should have to fight for it.
Morpheus, where did you get the statement; "If one disagrees, it is done." from? I've had a bit to do with the groups and I've never seen one operate like this, it has always been majority rules.
 
Omega said:
I land firmly in Doc M court and agree with his sentiments to a "T". Everyday I see more and more reason that we become just as ruthless at defending our gun rights as the NRA does in the US. If they want anything and I mean no matter how small, they should have to fight for it.
Morpheus, where did you get the statement; "If one disagrees, it is done." from? I've had a bit to do with the groups and I've never seen one operate like this, it has always been majority rules.
Click to expand...

The stakeholder's meetings don't work on majority rule...they work on consensus from all participants. If any of the discussions, motions, or concepts, do not have unanimous support, it does not move forward. The motions/proposals are brought forward by the various stakeholders, and presented to the meeting. Should there not be unanimous agreement or a stakeholder asks to seek consensus from his organization, it does not move forward. A stakeholder can abstain from agreeing or disagreeing.

Like I said, alot of people are getting rather excited but they don't understand what is actually happening. Rather than getting more details, there are flat out getting emotion and invoking C-68 days.

I have attending one of these meeting as I am on the executive of the ABA as a fill in but I don't normally attend. I am the youth and new bowhunter coordinator for both the ABA and ATBA.

As I said before in the other posts...the ranchers are concerned with the problems of road hunting. It will be discussed at length and might not get anywhere. There are a number of organizations on the stakeholders group and are strong gun hunting organizations. But there is a problem with people who are under the guise of hunting, tresspassing, shooting from vehicles, cutting fences, stealing property etc. All I have observed first hand at my family member's farms. So the ABP is trying to address this concern. This is part of the process. There is a problem and they want a solution. As I mentioned before, pressuring the government to increase enforcement is likely the best and most practical way of reducing the problem....a new law is not. So as I have been say, firing off a letter to the SRD at this point if futile, as it has not made its way anywhere....it is a suggestion which goes through the same process as the other suggests in play....adding crossbows to the archery season, adding a muzzleloading season, changing the priority system etc.
 
The letter says they will stay with this piece of garbage policy. There are only 3 guys on the committee, they've all signed off on it according to the release we saw a couple days ago. There is the first crock of crap from them. Next it goes to the main board of directors where it could still pass, or it might not. If it does pass the main board then off to the larger stakeholders meeting it will go. They obviously have no intention of simply pulling the plug on this. They've gone on to explain exactly how it will proceed. They have tried to shift blame to other groups if and when it passes. The ABP seem to be weasels. We need to make noise and be sure this doesn't ever get any further than the main board at ABP.

Only idiots believe having two laws dealing with the same problem will help. If something is already illegal, what the hell good does making it "double" illegal do.

We need to get mad and defend our rights like the NRA does. If you give an inch they'll take a mile, look at the mess we are in now with the Federal laws. If every Canadian gun owner had gone off on that issue like Albertans have on this we might be in a very different situation than the one we are facing now.

Glock4ever: I only hunt on crown land so it won't affect me. What happens when the ABP decides to attempt a ban on hunting on crown land. Betcha you'd like a bit of support there. Give your head a shake. If we don't stand together we are done for.
 
The way this is written it would also affect you city folks. What happens when you go down to the shop to pick up some .22 shells. If you don't lock them up, but proceed down a maintained road your in violation too. But hey you know the cops have to use discretion and common sense.
 
Morpheus32

"goes through the same process as the other suggests in play....adding crossbows to the archery season, adding a muzzleloading season, changing the priority system etc."

I think you have this part wrong.

There are two kinds of "proposals"
The proposals that groups make TO F&W for them to think about. And the proposals F&W make and present to the affected groups to let them know what F&W is thinking of doing.

The "locked guns and ammo" one is a proposal from ABP that they will take to the "Advisory group" of which you spoke.

The cross bow, muzzleloader, priority cap proposals were brought to the table by F&W and they said they would be "consulting" with interested groups about these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom