Alberta Hunting Guide for Brock Lesnar fined

[petew]

APOS is nothing like a union in any way shape of form.

Pete
A Proud member of local 488.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by petew

APOS is nothing like a union in any way shape of form.

Pete
A Proud member of local 488.

No offence but it is very much like a rogue union or if you prefer a PR company.
They lobby and they bargain and they protect and insulate their members when they ought not to.

I know that isn't an accurate picture of all unions but there are some...

If it makes you feel any better...I come from a long line of union guys.
used to be one myself....Steelworkers.

One of the major problems with APOS is that they don't have a war chest. You can bet if they pulled someone's tags that there would be a subsequent law suit and they just don't have the funds to go through that. It was kind of set up to fail. If the government would back them legally, I suspect you'd see harsher discipline handed out against their members. I'm not so sure it's a matter of them not wanting to clean things up but more a matter of they couldn't weather the storm if they tried. Many of their own members are very frustrated. I don't really think there is a conspiracy to protect their own...they are just handcuffed by circumstances.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

One of the major problems with APOS is that they don't have a war chest. You can bet if they pulled someone's tags that there would be a subsequent law suit and they just don't have the funds to go through that. It was kind of set up to fail. If the government would back them legally, I suspect you'd see harsher discipline handed out against their members. I'm not so sure it's a matter of them not wanting to clean things up but more a matter of they couldn't weather the storm if they tried. Many of their own members are very frustrated. I don't really think there is a conspiracy to protect their own...they are just handcuffed by circumstances.

Sorry but that sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

Plain a simple...if that IS the case...they are misrepresenting themselves to everyone and at some point one would hope that the Province might actually take an interest in that and either take over again or spur them to take action.

Originally Posted by pesky672

Sorry but that sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

Plain a simple...if that IS the case...they are misrepresenting themselves to everyone and at some point one would hope that the Province might actually take an interest in that and either take over again or spur them to take action.

The province put them in this position..........

[hal53]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

The province put them in this position..........

the province told them to not answer questions about their society???...to anyone?....and to feign ignorance when confronted with a proven fact???....how so???....don't understand, maybe they're getting a bad rap???...Not being sarcastic...just don't understand.....

Originally Posted by hal53

the province told them to not answer questions about their society???...to anyone?....and to feign ignorance when confronted with a proven fact???....how so???....don't understand, maybe they're getting a bad rap???...Not being sarcastic...just don't understand.....

LOL...I'm not making excuses for them Hal and there's lots wrong in Denmark but there is a reason for some of it. I was strictly commenting on the disciplinary process....nothing else. The province approved them as a Delegated Administrative Organization (DAO) without really giving them the wherewithall to discipline their own...even though it was part of the DAO. I'm pointing out what's broken and needs to be fixed...not making excuses for them. First part of fixing something is identifying the problem.....either that or just believe it's a conspiracy as many seem to....lol

[hal53]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

LOL...I'm not making excuses for them Hal and there's lots wrong in Denmark but there is a reason for some of it. The province approved them as a Delegated Administrative Organization (DAO) without really giving them the wherewithall to discipline their own...even though it was part of the DAO. I'm pointing out what's broken and needs to be fixed...not making excuses for them.

Didn't for one second think you were making excuses, I have had some (slight) inter-action with them via e-mail, and there is a lot of stonewalling going on...just wondering the reason, imho, they are tending to give some reputable outfitters a very. large black eye....a little openess would alleviate a lot of the hostility towards the industry.....

[brownbomber]

Look at APOS as one step above the local chamber of commerce. If you don't listen we will cross the street when we see you coming. But sheep is right if you want to play the way the should be able to you need the teeth to fight when need be

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

The province put them in this position..........

How?
Who is preventing them from doing what they claim to be able to do?

It seems resonable to me that a bunch of Outfitters got together and said...lets organmize and then approach the government as a body of professionals and then...like other professionals lobby them to allow us to self police.

Well if they did that then who/what is stopping them?

Money?

Well why is that?
Is that because they want tax payers to fund their organization or is it because they lack the internal political will or savy to set aside funds in the event that a former member in good standing...sues?

If the answer to either question is yes then its time to admit to their lack of credibility or at least their failure to form an effective body.
Fold and let the Province and voters take responsibility for regulating a group that has proven themselves at best incapable and at worst unwilling to do it for themselves.

Honestly...(and I don't know the answer myself but)...have they ever punted a member for bad behaviour or is more likely that they have only dropped the ones that failed to pay their dues??

Pesky, you should likely read up a bit on the history of APOS and how they became a DAO and what that actually entails...it would likely help you understand the situation a bit better but I agree, discipline should likely be back in the hands of the province but I suspect they don't want it. In fact, I'm guessing they were happy to get rid of it.

[avb3]

APOS is very well financed, or at least they were 4 years ago when I last saw their financial statements.

Besides, they carry D&O insurance, so it is a red-herring suggesting that law suits are the reason the disciplinary committee does not issue sanctions other then if a client is wronged or there is an outfitter-outfitter conflict.

Originally Posted by avb3

APOS is very well financed, or at least they were 4 years ago when I last saw their financial statements.

Besides, they carry D&O insurance, so it is a red-herring suggesting that law suits are the reason the disciplinary committee does not issue sanctions other then if a client is wronged or there is an outfitter-outfitter conflict.

My understanding is that they aren't that well financed....

D&O insurance does not protect the organization...just the Directors and Officers personally.

[Speckle55]

its simple change their by-laws

David

[avb3]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

My understanding is that they aren't that well financed....

D&O insurance does not protect the organization...just the Directors and Officers personally.

Yes, you are correct on D&O but it is my understanding that in at least one case before them that the threat of law suit of the members was a primary reason for no action.

This was third party information, so take it for what it is worth, but knowing the party that was involved, I am inclined to believe the situation. I still don't understand that someone who did jail time for a Lacy Act conviction plus being fined one of the largest if not largest amount in Alberta for game infractions can continue to operate. Many will know who I am referring to.

The financial statements that I saw showed from 4 years ago showed significant ability to operate. Knowing their business model, I would know no reason that their ability to operate would have declined.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Pesky, you should likely read up a bit on the history of APOS and how they became a DAO and what that actually entails...it would likely help you understand the situation a bit better but I agree, discipline should likely be back in the hands of the province but I suspect they don't want it. In fact, I'm guessing they were happy to get rid of it.

K thanks.

Any suggestions for reference reading?

[Doodle30]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

One of the major problems with APOS is that they don't have a war chest. You can bet if they pulled someone's tags that there would be a subsequent law suit and they just don't have the funds to go through that. It was kind of set up to fail. If the government would back them legally, I suspect you'd see harsher discipline handed out against their members. I'm not so sure it's a matter of them not wanting to clean things up but more a matter of they couldn't weather the storm if they tried. Many of their own members are very frustrated. I don't really think there is a conspiracy to protect their own...they are just handcuffed by circumstances.

I know you are not defending them SH just giving a basis for my response, but like others I can't understand how this organization can operate in a particular manner. Any regulatory organization that operates under the fear of lawsuit needs to be removed.

While I really have no personal input, I was lead to believe by much of my reading on here, that outfitting is not a high margin business. Sure they make money, which all businesses should. If it turns out it is a high margin business my argument loses a bit of steam.

As with most types of Justice, infractions should be dealt with on a sliding scale. Minor infractions should be treated as such. Major infractions, a of number of minor infraction that show disregard for the law or even minor infractions that show a sophistication in the planning should be dealt with much more harshly.

Now the point of my argument. Only those outfitters with major infractions or a "history" on their report card would have tags permanently taken away. What organization would be scared of a lawsuit from a low margin business owner that has a proven track record of violations?

I work in an industry that is self regulated. Our firm is overly strict with us because we don't want the Regulator to get involved, on top of that the regulator is overly strict because they want to maintain the privledge to self regulate.

[elkhunter11]

If APOS has no power to even police their own members, I see no point in allowing them to even exist as an organization. The government should be revoking outfitting licenses, just like they suspend individual hunting licenses in the case of violations. Once the outfitting license is revoked, all allocations should be automatically forfeited.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by petew

APOS is nothing like a union in any way shape of form.

Pete
A Proud member of local 488.

Disagree.... EXACTLY like a union... Both are there primarily/exclusively to represent the interests of their members, not the general public. Wouldn't you say your union's primary concern is your interests, not the interests of the general public or your employer? If you answer "no" you should decertify them.

[Hollingsworth]

I grew up in foremost and went to school with chad stryker first i heard of this crazy.

[AxeMan]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If APOS has no power to even police their own members, I see no point in allowing them to even exist as an organization. The government should be revoking outfitting licenses, just like they suspend individual hunting licenses in the case of violations. Once the outfitting license is revoked, all allocations should be automatically forfeited.

I am not buying into the myth that APOS has no disiplinary powers over their members that someone started on here.

Originally Posted by AxeMan

I am not buying into the myth that APOS has no disiplinary powers over their members that someone started on here.

Who said that?

They have all kinds of disciplinary power.....

[avb3]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Who said that?

They have all kinds of disciplinary power.....

They do, including a life time suspension from being in the outfitting industry.

I am not aware of them ever using their power except if a client complains or another outfitter does. Even then it may be limited to refund of funds to the client, or an arbitration between outfitter disputes.

Cancel allocations? Won't happen. Life time suspension? Really, really won't happen.

[AxeMan]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Who said that?

They have all kinds of disciplinary power.....

You said it. Sheephunter: "The province approved them as a Delegated Administrative Organization (DAO) without really giving them the wherewithall to discipline their own".

Perhaps you could clarify your position some more. Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that since they don't have a big bank roll, they are fearfull launching some severe disiplinary action because of a possible court challenge? If the directors are protected personally, I would say they should exercise some of their power and let the chips fall where they may even without expensive lawyers.

I think Pesky has it nailed here.

[walking buffalo]

APOS has the power to discipline it's members, the question is "Do they have the desire?".

The answer always seems to be No.



APOS could form an "Ethics" fund. Have clients pay a surcharge to enhance "Ethical" behavior in the Outfitting community.

Originally Posted by AxeMan

You said it. Sheephunter: "The province approved them as a Delegated Administrative Organization (DAO) without really giving them the wherewithall to discipline their own".

Perhaps you could clarify your position some more. Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that since they don't have a big bank roll, they are fearfull launching some severe disiplinary action because of a possible court challenge? If the directors are protected personally, I would say they should exercise some of their power and let the chips fall where they may even without expensive lawyers.

I think Pesky has it nailed here.

Important to keep things in context. I never said they don't have the "power" as you stated because the absolutely do. What I said was they don't have a war chest to fight some serious lawsuits. Just stated it as a fact that was told to me. If that truly is the case and I have no reason to believe it's not, then discipline should likely be in the hands of government like most other provinces. If that is the reason and I believe it is, then it should be fixed.