Just trying to follow your line of thinking Ike and don't want to assume anything but are you saying that user pay means replacing RAMP with an HFH-like program where all landowners would be given tags to sell on the open market?
RAMP - What does everyone think?
- Thread starter Pudelpointer
- Start date
Just trying to follow your line of thinking Ike and don't want to assume anything but are you saying that user pay means replacing RAMP with an HFH-like program where all landowners would be given tags to sell on the open market?
I totally disagree. Call it what it is, PAID ACCESS to private land for Hunting, fishing etc. Just because Ted and some "average" hunters doesn't admit that it is paid access, IT IS. Just my thoughts. But then, who am I? Getting advice from a fence sitter, when your only goal is to be firmly on one side of the fence, is not a good idea. Just my personal thoughts.
Guido, you read the intent of my advice wrong. The intent of my advice to to prevent Ted from easily discounting the petition after a lot of hard work went into. Remember, if this gets to the opposition and they take it to the legislature, they likely won't have much time to debate it. Why allow Ted the opportunity to drive that debate in another direction. Present a petition with thousands of signatures against RAMP and you make a point. Present a petition with the words "paid hunting" and "paid access" in it and all you've done is give Ted an easy out by saying it's not. Being political is good advice when dealing with politicians.
Given this was Ted's original goal, why would we assume different? Anyone who has followed his politcal career knows TED does not change his mind. Remember bill 208? Ted does not take no(even a majority no) for an answer. If Ted wanted a HFH program, Ted wants a HFH program.
If that's your belief then I can understand why you think arguing economics is the wrong tact...thanks.
So an average person (assuming he, like a lot of other Albertan's, know nothing about RAMP) walks into WSS, sees a petition that says "We are against RAMP" Now you need 4 pages of explanation of what RAMP is. Then if they read it they will need to make a decision whether they should sign or not.
Or, it could say "We are against paid access on private land for hunting, fishing etc. which the P.C.'s have called RAMP"
Which one is the average outdoorsman/women going to sign?
Quite possibly the latter but as it can easily be dismissed by Morton in the legislature, I see the value of the one opposing RAMP being greater despite the fact it may have less signatures. I'm guessing one very short paragraph would suffice as a backgrounder, however. You might lose a few signatures but I honestly doubt it would be many. Alberta's sportsmen and women are actually pretty well versed in matters of the outdoors.
Pudelpointer
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lethbridge, Alberta
I appreciate everyone's effort at civility. Thank you all. Please keep it up.
SH, I understand your concern but I agree with Guido that the issue boils down to paid access, and I understand the issue of clearly stating a position on a petition, as most will not take the time to read more then a couple of lines. Dilemma.
If I decide to take this on (BTW thanks to those who have PM'd an offer to help) I will post any wording on here to get opinions. I value ALL your opinions, even ones I do not agree with.
Knowledge is power my friends.
SH, I understand your concern but I agree with Guido that the issue boils down to paid access, and I understand the issue of clearly stating a position on a petition, as most will not take the time to read more then a couple of lines. Dilemma.
If I decide to take this on (BTW thanks to those who have PM'd an offer to help) I will post any wording on here to get opinions. I value ALL your opinions, even ones I do not agree with.
Knowledge is power my friends.
I totally agree it's paid access. I'm just saying that Morton has argued many times it's not and I'm sure that's what he'd focus on if the petition contained those words. I say don't give him the ammo......disarm him in advance. The real value of a petition is if the opposition presents it in the legislature and the government is on record as having a program called RAMP.....they aren't on record as having a paid access program. The KISS principal applies!
Say the opposition presents the petition...Ted stands up and thanks them for this valuable input from Alberta's sportsmen, assures the opposition that the government has never had, nor will it ever permit paid access. All the Tories clap in support and the issue dies. The opposition gets little time to debate their items and often have to accept the first answer they receive. If they present a petition soley opposing RAMP, now Morton has to answer to RAMP.
Last edited:
see above
Ted stands up, thanks the opposition for their valuale input from Alberta sportsmen and then goes onto say that RAMP is not paid access but a habitat based program that provides Albertans opportunities to hunt and fish on private property. Using the words "paid access" or "paid hunting" in a petition gives him a very convenient out. I guess I'd like to see him answer to the fact that sportsmen don't like RAMP....no matter how you define it.
It doesn't matter. Ted will find an out whatever you call it. He's a politician. The important thing is getting the fact out that this is paid access.
This being a pilot project is his biggest "out". He'll just say we will await the results after 3 years.
I think the goal is to get the "paid" part out in the open. The petition won't stop RAMP, but it will get info out to more people and some M.L.A.'s and opposition that have (surprisingly) never heard about it.
I don't know if you are aware , but the IMHA is not over yet. But that is another topic.
And the difference is Ted was against the IMHA also.
Actually the IMHA is long over...the agreement expired. But you are correct, that is another issue.
I guess the petition had no effect at all then?
Actually it had a huge affect. The IMHA was destined to become the Metis Harvest Agreement and it didn't. I'd say that was fairly significant but that is another matter as you pointed out. I was just trying to demonstrate the effectiveness of the opposition presenting a petition in the Legislature, not start a debate about the Metis issue.
Maybe put that quote from a PM in context. Oh ya, publically posting PMs is a board offence isn't it. Not that it matters but that was in response to one of your rediculous claims about the IMHA and despite me presenting facts to the contrary you kept going on about your belief contrary to a fact. Hence the reason your thoughts on that one particular matter didn't matter to me. Hope that clears that up.
Let's keep the personal stuff personal......I'd hate to have to bring up some of the rediculous things you've PM'd me. We are having a good discussion here. Maybe let the personal stuff go....k?
Let's keep the personal stuff personal......I'd hate to have to bring up some of the rediculous things you've PM'd me. We are having a good discussion here. Maybe let the personal stuff go....k?
