Interesting thoughts on RAMP

Status
Not open for further replies.
MadDog said:
Why would you start the thread then, you knew what the outcome would be!

Your always bringing up rule 8, did you also see the "s**tdisturber" rule?
Click to expand...

Thank you maddog!!!
I use to post on another site where this sheephunter character was pretty much protected by the mods. It sure is a breath of fresh air to see that he has to play by the same rules as everyone else now. (I am sorry if this is considered #### disturbing)
 
Moon said:
This point in your chronology really strikes me as interesting. I know there were a lot of allegations, speculation and suggestion early on that there might be a leak in the working group but I did not know that anyone had investigated the claims.

You state this is research for a project and maintain all of the facts are correct.

Who leaked the details?
When where the details leaked?
Who received the leaked details?
Click to expand...

It's not my chronology so I can't answer your questions.

From what I recall though, the first details began to appear over on the AO board sometime in late December or early January I think. It was before the government released anything. I think it was some of the ARHJ members if I'm not mistaken.

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."

Does the ARHJ still believe the Montana system is reasonable and could they still support RAMP if it were linked to habitat retention? If not, has the ARHJ changed position. There's no shame in changing position. It would just be nice to know what your new position is, if there is indeed one......
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
It's not my chronology so I can't answer your questions.

From what I recall though, the first details began to appear over on the AO board sometime in late December or early January I think. It was before the government released anything. I think it was some of the ARHJ members if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

So when you wrote that "all of the facts" are correct you really didn't know if they were correct?
 
Arhj

I went to the ARHJ website, but can not find who is runningor steering this organization.
Can one of you who are involved shed some light on who decides what this organization does or what they plan to accomplish?
 
Lazy Ike said:
Can I post all the pm's you've sent me? If they are not for public distribution why were they written?
Click to expand...

Because they were private messages and sent with the understanding of privacy. This document was received from a request to a public website with no indication that it was private. A position paper of an organization obtained from a public website is hardly private. If it was sent to me in confidence, I most certainly would have kept it confident.
 
Redfrog said:
I went to the ARHJ website, but can not find who is runningor steering this organization.
Can one of you who are involved shed some light on who decides what this organization does or what they plan to accomplish?
Click to expand...

"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"

Bubba
 
Moon said:
So when you wrote that "all of the facts" are correct you really didn't know if they were correct?
Click to expand...

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.

But again in the hope of ending this thread I'll ask that very simple question one more time....

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."

Does the ARHJ still believe the Montana system is reasonable and could they still support RAMP if it were linked to habitat retention? If not, has the ARHJ changed position. There's no shame in changing position. It would just be nice to know what your new position is, if there is indeed one......
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
Because they were private messages and sent with the understanding of privacy. This document was received from a request to a public website with no indication that it was private. A position paper of an organization obtained from a public website is hardly private. If it was sent to me in confidence, I most certainly would have kept it confident.
Click to expand...


So by your logic it's up to the individual to determine what will or won't be deemed private on the internet, becuase I'm very comfortable with this train of thought.
 
guido said:
What is sheephunters position on RAMP?
Click to expand...

I thought the presentation that Morton put on was a very good case for Block Management in Montana but unfortunately, there is one fundamental difference between Montana and Alberta and that is that leasing land for hunting here is illegal. While the Block Management Plan works well in Montana and I think it could benefit from Morton's habitat ties, I failed to see how he made a case for it here in Alberta. I'm all for landowners being compensated for habitat retention and creation but am opposed to access being tied to it. For those reasons, I am opposed to RAMP.
 
Lazy Ike said:
So by your logic it's up to the individual to determine what will or won't be deemed private on the internet, becuase I'm very comfortable with this train of thought.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
guido said:
Thank you SH, we finally are on the same page, I am opposed to RAMP also. I was opposed to it from day 1.
Click to expand...

Guessing we've likely always been on the same page.....just good to have a Devil's advocate around to ask questions and keep people digging for answers. Knowledge is the key to sound decision making...not rhetoric.

I'm still not convinced this is paid hunting or that it will lead to direct payment to landowners. I just don't like it for what it is....not what it might possibly become. People screaming and shouting rhetoric don't sway my decision making but facts sure do. I guess I like to give others the same credit and that's why I'm not big on rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
guido said:
I don't know what it would take to convince you? It will not lead to direct payment, it is direct payment. A landowner gets paid to allow access to hunt. I translate this into PAID HUNTING.
Click to expand...

I can see that arguement but as this covers fishing and possibly other recreational access as well.....I think it is compensation for access. I don't need to call it paid hunting not to like it but for those that want to call it that, I can see their logic. I was speaking of direct payment from hunters and as the details of this have not yet been worked out and Morton eluded to industry possibly paying for it, there is a chance it may not come out of hunter's pockets. There is also a chance it will. Really, that's just symantics to me.....I don't like it for what it was presented as.......compensation for access.

I'm sure there are many people that don't agree with you though and vehemently oppose paid hunting but support RAMP. It's all in the definition. Let's call this what it is, access, and base our decisions on that and not muddy the waters. From what I've seen, Albertans are smart enough to see the difference.
 
Last edited:
bubbasno1 said:
"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"

Bubba
Click to expand...

Thanks That is what I read on the site.

Am I to believe that there is no structure, no meetings, no one directing discussions, no one presenting anything to the gov't. All that stuff just magically appears???

Makes a guy say HMMMMMMM?
 
Redfrog said:
Thanks That is what I read on the site.

Am I to believe that there is no structure, no meetings, no one directing discussions, no one presenting anything to the gov't. All that stuff just magically appears???

Makes a guy say HMMMMMMM?
Click to expand...

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

Hope this helps.

Thank you

Bubba
Past President of ARHJ
 
guido said:
"The Calgary chapter of Pheasants Forever offers 100% support of RAMP"

Is this a fact?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom