\

Where did anyone suggest throwing all convicted outfitters in jail? And the hunters convicted of violations often have their hunting privileges suspended for a single violation, so why shouldn't an outfitter that is convicted have his outfitting privileges suspended? If you feel that you have more to lose, then you should be more motivated to obey the rules.

I don't have a problem with an Outfitter being put on time out for abuse. I do have a problem with what Diomond said in an Outfitter loosing his allocations and basically stripping him of his business and possible livelihood.
I'm not a lawyer but I bet there are reasons for why things are and have been the way they have.
If a client gets caught shooting a deer tresspassing he gets charged. What would be the charge to the Outfitter? He may have a guide working for him that is a poaching SOB and gets caught. Kinda hard to nail an outfitter for what his worker does.
Anyways boys I have said enough for now. Hopefully things change for the better. I understand frustrations. I think it will be a hard battle to fight to make any sort of change.

As I posted earlier, if you have more at stake, perhaps you need to be extra careful about following the regulations. If the client trespasses because the outfitter sends him onto that property without permission, then the outfitter should be charged for his actions, but if the client takes it upon himself to shoot an animal where he was told not to, then the outfitter should not be at fault. The same for the guide. In fact a sheep guide was recently charged for hunting in another outfitters territory, where his outfitter did not have allocations, and since the outfitter was apparently aware of the illegal activity, he was also charged.
As to the number of outfitters being convicted, there have been quite a few, and they have been convicted of offenses ranging from trespassing, to baiting deer, to fraud, to providing false information to LEOs, to smuggling firearms across the border , so it's not that convictions are rare or limited to minor offenses.
And it's not like people in other occupations can't lose their livelihood if they are convicted of an offense, several occupations require a clean record, and a conviction will cost you your job.

Sort of confirms what the members think of poaching, and reveals the character of the organization overall.

Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between a Society and an Association. Are the guidelines and regulations different for each ?
What would be the benefits of forming a Society as opposed to an Association ? Just curious.

Basically interchangeable words in the eyes of the law. If you are interested in reading court decisions regarding the use of terms, here you go...

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Society.aspx

I agree with what Nube has said above ^^^.

Now if it is the outfitter who is repeatedly committing such offences, such as a Lloyd Mcmahon, then they deserve to have their allocations revoked and put up for auction.

In addition, APOS could very easily make a condition of membership that disclosure of all convictions by any employee of the company be made public on websites, contracts, and/or advertising materials. They absolutely could do that in the name of promoting upstanding behavior by members. This would clean things up I am guessing. If I was a client, I would want to know whether the outfit I am contracting are shady operators. This really is no different than the BBB making consumers aware of poor businesses.

Thank You. It seems there is no real difference. Always wondered about that.

I feel that it should depend on the offense, as to whether the allocations are seized. A small mistake in paperwork would not warrant this, but intentional violations such as shooting an animal and then abandoning the carcass to rot, or setting out bait for deer or elk, or using an aircraft to drive game or direct hunters to game, are much more serious, and the penalties should be more serious .In those situations, suspending the outfitters license would be appropriate for even a first offense, and seizing the allocations would be appropriate for a second offense. And in order to outfit for allocations,there should be a contract whereas the owner of the allocations places those allocations under the management of the outfitter, so they would be subject to seizure if the outfitter commits illegal acts.