Originally Posted by Pudelpointer
At last year's conference a resolution was passed for the removal of Guide Outfitter quotas for ANY species in ANY zone, where is takes a resident more then 3 years to get drawn.
However, I too am frustrated with the lack of information forthcoming from the AFGA on these matters (Archery Mule Deer, G/O Allocations, fisheries, etc.). You can trust that I will be asking some pointed questions (if allowed the opportunity...) at this year's conference.
I still maintain that everyone on the AFGA executive, and the AFGA Chairs, have nothing but the best interests of resident hunters first and foremost in their discussions and representations with/to government; to suggest otherwise is insulting and uncalled for - unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. Whether they are doing a good job of making the 'Resident's Voice' heard, well that is another issue that needs to be discussed - from within.
As much as I am willing to be patient and accommodating with those who volunteer their time to attend meetings and negotiations with government on our behalf, at some point we (may) have to ask those people to account for themselves.
Failing to respond to requests for information, in this day and age, is not really acceptable. An email saying "I represent members of XYZ Group and don't have time to respond to non-members" is better (IMO) than no response at all; at least you know where they stand.
The longer I am in AB, the more concerned I have become about how our government is run and decisions are made. I am extremely frustrated with the BS that passes for stakeholder consultation - fisheries roundtables, AGMAG, Public Wildlife Meetings, etc. - most of this is a charade in my opinion; this 'consultation' is really just 'dissemination of information' and they could save everyone some time (and our tax dollars) by just releasing this information to the public and stakeholders (using this little thing we call the internet) in a timely manner.
I have been to a couple fisheries roundtables, a few area wildlife meetings, and multiple AFGA conferences where the same SOP appears to be used by GOA personnel: Fill the time scheduled with information to support the changes (or lack thereof) that WILL be implemented in the coming year, leaving no time for questions, concerns, or detailed discussion.
IMO (considering consultation and facilitation is what I do for a living...) this process is all designed to make stakeholders and the public "feel" like they have been involved in the decision, while the reality is they have not.
Effective and adequate consultation should take place in two phases:
- An exploratory phase where all stakeholders' views are put 'on the table'; ideally a wide variety of stakeholders are included, and the 'project' or 'policy' will be delineated, the problem identified, and concerns (with the problem) raised and explored,
- An action or direction phase where numerous possible solutions are identified, discussed, and compared; ideally this assessment should result in a "go forward" plan with a single course of action, HOWEVER..
True "consultation" requires a few other things, including:
- Equal access to information by all parties (and enough time to review it)
- Providing those being consulted with the opportunity to ask questions and time to acquire additional information
- The opportunity for those affected (the group, i.e. the public) by the change (legislation, development, policy, project, etc.) to review the chosen "course of action" and voice their opinions and concerns, as the 'representatives' of the group may not have represented the group well (this happens surprisingly often)
The GOA appears to jump straight to the "single course of action" (or at best, "here are 3 choices - pick one, or we will do it for you"), presents it to the "group representatives", and calls it "consultation" - done deal.
Again, IMO, this is not acceptable. As we saw last year with Jorgenson's Trophy Sheep presentation; given information (only a little) and some time (again, only a little) enough serious questions were raised about the (mis)representation of scientific data and research, and the ideological motivation of the biologist, to stop (at least temporarily) what was at first being presented as changes that WILL HAPPEN.
I think we are seeing this again with Antlered Mule Deer: the biologists and bureaucrats have decided they will tell us how they are going to manage MD in the province, and we are being told that we have no say.
I think that ESRD may be underestimating the velocity with which outdoorsmen in AB are losing patience.
|