Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub
Not sure about this whole post, Torkdiesel. Seems a bit naive, for the lack of a better word.
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:
.
|
Thanks for your giant post. Obviously I was not clear enough and should have really simplified my opinion so there was no room for interpretation. I’ll break it down in a few posts for you.
You’re 100% wrong, the crown can and does impose bans on outfitting, guiding or having anything to do with the outfitting industry. They just did it. An $80,000 fine and 22 year ban from the crown, nothing to do with APOS.
APOS in theory can now do the same thing or more if they choose. But they can also be sued by the member they impose the that ban on civilly, and no doubt would be if they chose to cause a loss on an individual of several hundred thousand if not millions in some cases. Having dealt with a few civil litigations over the years I know how this will play out. In a perfect world good would prevail, but APOS is not likely going to fight against a member with funds collected from members.
Again, why would we want to rely on APOS to do this in the first place ?