Having not gone a complete cycle, I can't say 100% however my understanding is as you mentioned. It goes forward as recommendations after discussions, review and vetting to SRD who participate. It is not just throwing an idea out there, it is also getting technical feedback and may take years before it gets anywhere...if it does at all...
Update on Proposed Hunting Reg changes from Alberta Beef
- Thread starter Scar270
- Start date
Having not gone a complete cycle, I can't say 100% however my understanding is as you mentioned. It goes forward as recommendations after discussions, review and vetting to SRD who participate. It is not just throwing an idea out there, it is also getting technical feedback and may take years before it gets anywhere...if it does at all...
In the meeting I attended...SRD did not speak except to answer questions and advise on issues. The consulting you speak of is the advisory group which is the stake holders. I think they are two parts of the same process...
As I said, I have not been through a complete cycle however it is a two year process....
Your arguing about an issue without understanding the entire process. There is plenty of time to deal with this and will be a point brought up at the Stakeholders meetings in the future. This is not a right a letter process...it takes a lot more to make it into a regulation. In fact it is a two year process. If you want to make your point felt, make sure you join one of the many stakeholder organizations and make sure they present your views. The ABP members have a problem and they have "suggested" a solution. Cooler heads, in the stakeholder meeting, will focus on the problem...not the suggest solution. As I have repeatedly said, the likely outcome and recommendation should be increased enforcement rather than a new reg. But we have to understand the system to make our voice heard properly....getting all upset and angrily firing off letters will not solve the problem at hand which at the end of the day is what the proposal is all about.
- Location
- Scarborough, ON
Someone should write Mr. Smith back and ask him if his letter constitutes a professional engineering opinion, and if not, why he has signed it with his professional designation. APEGGA Guidelines for Ethical Conduct warn professional engineers and geologists not to misrepresent their personal opinions as professional opinions.
Mr. Smith's degree is in agricultural engineering. I wonder if he is qualified to state a professional opinion on game management?
https://www.apegga.org/ebusiness/pu...x?ID=MzE5NTE=&pg=0&fn=richard&ln=smith&st=All
Mr. Smith's degree is in agricultural engineering. I wonder if he is qualified to state a professional opinion on game management?
https://www.apegga.org/ebusiness/pu...x?ID=MzE5NTE=&pg=0&fn=richard&ln=smith&st=All
Again, your missing the point entirely of the process. This is irrelevent. His P Eng has nothing to do with anything in this discussion as he is the chair. Like I said, lets focus the point of enforcement of current regs rather than new legislation. There are plenty of opportunities to get our point across. This is not it...
Glock4ever
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Edmonton, AB
Jeff: You have way more patience then I do. Must be all the time you spent on those threads on if 5.56mm should be replaced with 6.8 SPC, 7.62mm, 6.5 Grendal, etc.
I sometimes wonder why I do...more than you know...drop me a line on the work email sometime....
My point to Glock was that firearms owners need to stand together. Kind of like I said at the end. I just tried to make a point, if the anti's are allowed to pick us off one by one because we aren't a cohesive supportive group, they will eventually win.
I'am a member of the group that is causing this crap, can't get much closer to the problem than that. I also live in a rural area where there are many hunters, I don't deny access to any of my land even if there are cows on it. Several hunters have privileges including using my shop, and staying in an extra house I own. I have never had a problem with hunters shooting off of roads. While talking to other ranchers about this problem I haven't encountered any who mentioned people shooting off roads being a problem. The most road hunting problems I hear about are in the cities.
In every other thread on this board people are encouraged to "write" letters when an anti is causing problems. I'm taking advice from our other members here and I'll write as many letters as I please. I'll also call and email as many members of the ABP board as I please.
Morpheus, you seem to think this isn't an issue because the stakeholder group is likely to stop it. That is probably true. However that doesn't excuse the ABP from any responsibility for coming up with a proposal that is a direct attack on shooters everywhere, not just hunters.
Being as it was a small group at ABP I'm not ready to crucify the entire group and boycott beef yet, however if the ABP doesn't wake up and rectify the situation through the pressure of it's members, many of whom, like hillbillyreefer, are as upset or more then the rest of us, it will be time to do anything we can to bring down that organization. If I have to personally go door to door to the ranchers in this area and help them fill out their refund forms to ensure the ABP doesn't get any funding.
I'm willing to give them a chance to rectify the situation, however if they do not, they need to be put in their place. They could have brought up the concern in a different manner, and could have also put some actual thought into the proposal. The fact that this passed as is, means at least someone would really like to see this happen. That person does not seem to represent the feeling of the membership as a whole, so they need to be taken off any duties they have.
There is also the potential for a government official to decide it's a great idea, whether it comes from the advisory group or not, and suddenly we will hear how it's supported by stakeholder groups, they just won't mention how few it is. I can envision now a government official telling us how they need to pass this, because beef producers want it, even if 90% of the members don't, much the same way the Liberals justify the registry because the chiefs and associations support it, even though 90% of the members don't.
As I said, I'm not about to punish my local ranchers over this yet, but if the ABP doesn't smarten up, I will be doing a lot more then a couple emails. As I said, I will make sure every rancher I can find knows what the ABP is saying on their behalf, I'll try my best to get them to suck them dry of money, I'll ensure that no varmint control gets done on ranch property until I've seen a letter to the ABP and a gotten a commitment to get a refund.
If an organization is going to attack me, that alone is enough reason to try and kill it, when it does so while not representing it's own members, then I can't see what it's purpose is anyway. If the ABP has nothing better to do then piss all over firearms owners without the knowledge of their membership, they don't really need to be in existence.
As I said, I'm waiting to see what sort of a response ABP comes out with, and in the meantime I will encourage my ranching friends to inform the ABP what they think. If the ABP doesn't listen, then it's time to really turn up the heat.
Being as it was a small group at ABP I'm not ready to crucify the entire group and boycott beef yet, however if the ABP doesn't wake up and rectify the situation through the pressure of it's members, many of whom, like hillbillyreefer, are as upset or more then the rest of us, it will be time to do anything we can to bring down that organization. If I have to personally go door to door to the ranchers in this area and help them fill out their refund forms to ensure the ABP doesn't get any funding.
I'm willing to give them a chance to rectify the situation, however if they do not, they need to be put in their place. They could have brought up the concern in a different manner, and could have also put some actual thought into the proposal. The fact that this passed as is, means at least someone would really like to see this happen. That person does not seem to represent the feeling of the membership as a whole, so they need to be taken off any duties they have.
There is also the potential for a government official to decide it's a great idea, whether it comes from the advisory group or not, and suddenly we will hear how it's supported by stakeholder groups, they just won't mention how few it is. I can envision now a government official telling us how they need to pass this, because beef producers want it, even if 90% of the members don't, much the same way the Liberals justify the registry because the chiefs and associations support it, even though 90% of the members don't.
As I said, I'm not about to punish my local ranchers over this yet, but if the ABP doesn't smarten up, I will be doing a lot more then a couple emails. As I said, I will make sure every rancher I can find knows what the ABP is saying on their behalf, I'll try my best to get them to suck them dry of money, I'll ensure that no varmint control gets done on ranch property until I've seen a letter to the ABP and a gotten a commitment to get a refund.
If an organization is going to attack me, that alone is enough reason to try and kill it, when it does so while not representing it's own members, then I can't see what it's purpose is anyway. If the ABP has nothing better to do then piss all over firearms owners without the knowledge of their membership, they don't really need to be in existence.
As I said, I'm waiting to see what sort of a response ABP comes out with, and in the meantime I will encourage my ranching friends to inform the ABP what they think. If the ABP doesn't listen, then it's time to really turn up the heat.
Well you might be having success with hunting season...but I can say first hand that in the area around my Aunt and Uncle's farms, there are some serious issues related to "truck hunting". I have seen it first hand and to be honest, get a bit tired of cleaning up the mess. RCMP and SRD called but unable to effect it. So my point is, there is a problem. So how do we fix it? Or do we care as long as it does not effect us? I don't recall suggesting inaction, nor saying not to write letters. All I am saying is there is a problem. I think increased enforcement is the solution not a new regulation. I have confidence in the other organizations in the stakeholders group that will correct identify the problem and suggest realistic solutions...that is increased enforcement.
So I guess the difference here is that you don't think there is a problem with truck hunting...where I do think it is a problem...so you don't think anything needs to be done, and I think we need to at least acknowledge the problem. I don't agree that new legislation is the key.
In my mind, hunters should be concerned by truck hunting particularly when they tresspass, damage property and have no respect for the animals. The question is how do we deal with it? The essence here is suggesting to ABP to modify their "solution" to increased enforcement rather than a new series of regulations. I think I have made that clear both in this thread on the other one. I don't think I have suggested you don't right letter....write all you want. I guess being a military guy, I like taking a couple of minutes to analyse the situation and make the most effective plan....rather than action for the sake of action....
- Location
- London, Ontario
Bull####!!!
Morpheus, I don't think too many wouldn't support more enforcement. Seems to me that it's a reoccurring theme coming from AFGA that we would like to see more officers and more funding for officer patrols.
....getting all upset and angrily firing off letters will not solve the problem at hand which at the end of the day is what the proposal is all about.
I generally don't fire off letters until I'm angry. These guys have really crapped in my cornflakes. I'm really offended that an Alberta based group, that I'm a member of could come up with something as ridiculous as this proposal. Farmers and ranchers are among the most free people in society and they want to restrict my freedoms.
I'm all for more enforcement in areas where the problems are. Just like writing letters and making phone calls the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Maybe your Aunt and Uncle should try it, if they haven't already. Get their neighbours involved too. Eventually the police and the geese police will get involved.
I generally don't fire off letters until I'm angry. These guys have really crapped in my cornflakes. I'm really offended that an Alberta based group, that I'm a member of could come up with something as ridiculous as this proposal. Farmers and ranchers are among the most free people in society and they want to restrict my freedoms.
I'm all for more enforcement in areas where the problems are. Just like writing letters and making phone calls the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Maybe your Aunt and Uncle should try it, if they haven't already. Get their neighbours involved too. Eventually the police and the geese police will get involved.
The problem is that, like bill c-68, the proposal won't change the amount of road-hunting, rustling - popping a beef, and if caught, pleading that you thought it was a moose gets a wildlife infraction, not a criminal code conviction - or just plain vandalism. But it will create new offenses, likely to be committed by innocent legitimate shooters with a stray round or forgotten box of ammo loose in their vehicle.
My family has lost beef to road rustlers. Law enforcement is powerless, and was then as now, disinterested in trying to do anything about this. Wildlife officers have bags of serious commercial game poachers to pursue, as well as a generous load of meat hogs who believe seasons and limits are for fools. They don't need to be burdened with having to make token gestures enforcing a law which will have no effect.
Sorry beef producers. Cowboy up. Literally in this case. Be on your land, visible, often.
My family has lost beef to road rustlers. Law enforcement is powerless, and was then as now, disinterested in trying to do anything about this. Wildlife officers have bags of serious commercial game poachers to pursue, as well as a generous load of meat hogs who believe seasons and limits are for fools. They don't need to be burdened with having to make token gestures enforcing a law which will have no effect.
Sorry beef producers. Cowboy up. Literally in this case. Be on your land, visible, often.
Sounds like this proposal is an effort to further regulate the lawful hunter. A generalization that points blame at all law abiding hunters for the actions of a lesser group of law-breakers that would not follow this proposal even if it were eventually pushed through as Alberta law.
Then it would be fair to write the NRA in the US and suggest their 4 million memebers start a campain to boycott Alberta beef. I don`t take my freedoms lightly and cannot believe that the ABP feel they have the right to curtail my freedoms.
Knock yourself out.
I see a third possibility,that being that there are already laws to control road hunting,and we don't need any more useless laws,that just make more responsible gun owners lawbreakers.More laws are not a viable solution.
Idiotic ideas like this one, just give the anti gun people more ideas.
