Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750
ACA is not a farmer. They are a publicly funded organization that receives the vast majority of it's income from taxes and fees. As a public not for profit org they fall under different guide lines and audit rules.
In a nut shell, their operation and use of public funds is not the same as a farmer or private land owner. You can see clearly on the ACA web site the full disclosure of income and spending. You don't see this on a farmer's face book page.
If the ACA for example decides that all board members should be given new trucks as a thank you for service there could be some serious repercussions ie; removal of funding.
In this case they could in deed decide that no hunters are to wear red boots HOWEVER they could not expect LEOs to enforce their bylaws. I as a tax payer and red boot wearer would have every right to not only question but protest against what I consider to be misuse of funding or authority.
As a member of the ACA they would also be charging someone with being on their own land. The Organization (all members) own the lands, not an individual or even board members. Who exactly at ACA would have the authority to approach an individual and ask them to leave a property. A board member certainly doesn't have the authority of a land owner and I can't even imagine a charge of trespassing holding up in court on land purchased with public funds.
|
Missing the point....
The ACA are mandated to control and set the rules for usage for the properties under their control.... just like a Farmer or any landowner sets the rules for usage of their property.
The only difference is that the ACA is a publicly funded organization and if you do not agree with their decision or rules you probably have recourse to complain to different levels of government or a regulatory body. But that does change the fact that they can impose rules (in this case limitations to access) and that rules when associated to hunting are enforceable by the Wildlife Act if not adhere to.