[Bub]

Not sure about this whole post, Torkdiesel. Seems a bit naive, for the lack of a better word.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Really ? So APOS could impose a ruling banning an individual from participating in the outfitting industry the same as the crown could?

It seems to me that this is exactly a function of APOS. The only way the Crown can ban an individual from outfitting is ban that individual from hunting. They clearly cannot impose any sanctions on his/her status as an outfittter. APOS, however, can. This is very clear from Walking Buffalo's post above yours:

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

(2) The Society is delegated the following powers, duties and functions, to be carried out in accordance with the Act, this Regulation and the objects and by‑laws of the Society:
(a) the issue of outfitter‑guide permits and guides’ designations;
...
(f) the cancellation and suspension of licences, permits and guides’ designations, issued by the Society

What this means is the Society is the one issuing the "credentials" and it is the one that should take them away, if circumstances exist. In case of Mr. McMahon, such circumstances certainly existed on numerous occasions; but no action has ever been taken by the Society, as far as my awareness goes (am I wrong?)

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

I’d love to see that one play out in court !!!

Accountants, nurses, doctors, etc get their licenses to practice from an appropriate professional organization. That organization issues the license when an individual meets certain criteria. Most such organizations have certain conditions attached the membership, including professional development, being a prescribed number of hours of training an individual must do every year. Different professional organizations deal differently with non compliance in regards to the annual required training. Often, it is a big deal, but can be dealt with and an individual can continue to practice with some conditions and whatnot (of course the hours have to be put into training, regardless). In addition, every single organization has a Code of Ethics that has to be followed by all members. Now, when that code is broken by a member of the organization, it is looked upon way more serious than the professional development. Depending on severity of the violation, there will be warnings, suspension, and license revocation. Always. Every single time any member is caught violating the Code of Ethics. This is because no professional organization wants to be viewed as "flawed" in public eye because their livelihood depends on it. They also want to be as professionals in their duties and expertise.

Back to your court statement. Since it is up to the organization to decide whether an individual should be a member of the said organization, there is not much any court can do if it can be shown that an individual no longer meets the criteria dictated by the organization. And the Code of Ethics is a big part of any professional organization, which is why I compared it to the professional development above.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

How about APOS telling the government what the non resident allocation numbers are going to be going forward, and not the other way around? You think that will fly ?

No, it will not fly. Why? Because the government decides the number of allocations and it is up to the APOS to divide them up the way they see fit. Seems obvious, no?

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Surely the governing body would decide all manner of process for that sector of government???

Well, not really. The government had decided that:

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

(2) The Society (APOS) is delegated the following powers, duties and functions, to be carried out in accordance with the Act, this Regulation and the objects and by‑laws of the Society:
(a) the issue of outfitter‑guide permits and guides’ designations;
(b) the distribution, including transfers, of allocations;
(c) the issue of non‑resident alien licences authorizing the hunting of big game animals;
(d) the collection of fees for licences, permits and guides’ designations;
(e) the designation of, and the setting of the qualifications for, guides;
(f) the cancellation and suspension of licences, permits and guides’ designations, issued by the Society;
(g) establishment of the kinds of protection of deposits required by section 57(2) of this Regulation.

Clearly, the government "deligated the powers" to the APOS, as a self-controlling organization. Can those powers be revoked by the government? Sure they can! Just matter of rewriting some sections of the Wildlife Act. Lol, I believe, is in order here.

The way I see it, it is quite convenient for the APOS. There is no resident stakeholder in that organization aside from outfitters themselves. There is no public eye, but the nonresidents who may or may not do their due diligence before hiring an outfitters. The government cannot really do anything but act with accordance to the Wildlife Act. Why would anyone within the organization care to do anything above what the government can in these circumstances, i.e. a fairly small fine (relative to the profit) and a short suspension from hunting? Ask yourself that.

In addition, every time there is another article about another (or the same!) "professional" outfitter being caught violating the Wildlife Act, a fellow hunter thinks (pick one that suits you):
(a) another f-ing outfitter;
(b) what a scumbag (without a particular tie to the outfitters in general).
What would you bet a person that has nothing to with hunting think? I would bet on:
(a) f-ing hunters;
(b) same as above.
And I would bet (a) gets picked the most for both groups. And I am not saying the sky is falling and everyone should panic. It is merely an observation.

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Another way to look at it is if APOS truly is the governing body as you say they are then why does the crown impose fines and suspensions ? If APOS is responsible for sanctions and suspensions on their members then why does the crown impose fines and suspensions first ?

Lol. Not really sure if this is a serious question. Clearly, the Crown imposes fines and suspensions for violations of the Wildlife Act (and, in case of Mr. McMahon, Criminal Code in more than one country), as it would impose on any hunter.

On a side note, why is there "professional" in APOS, anyway? Are there any other outfitters in Alberta? There are "professional" and "chartered" accountants, for instance. Yet one does not need to be either to practice accounting.