Open Spaces ? Afga Resolution

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

AFGA at the direction of their members told the OS working group a resounding no to the whole shebang. Why would they invite them back now? To negotiate what? They are ready said no, not maybe, or if this was changed. If it is the intention to push the pilot program through why have a group there that will by direction be trying to derail the proccess?

That leaves the OS group two options -

Push it through however they see fit without support of the AFGA and MOST other outdoorsmen groups

or

Scrap OS and go back to the drawing board with all these groups at the table and truly hammer out a "made in Alberta" solution based on the guiding principles that the vast majority are in agreement with.

Option #1 gives them an absolute nightmare to deal with for years, a flimsy document, created without any real public consultation or most importantly, consultation with the primary stakeholder groups, that will only end up with them having to deal with everything from ticked off constituents to costly legal battles.

Option #2 gives the gov't and SRD a legitimate program that might actually stick and work for everyone involved in the long term. Again, I go back to the minutes of the Jan. 30 meeting where it was clearly stated by SRD that they would prefer a program approved by all with a real chance of being a long term made in Alberta solution. We must hope that cooler rational heads are going to prevail here, and appeal to those people. Even if it's only an appeal to their instincts for self preservation.

I understand the point being made "if it's going to go ahead anyway, we should try and have some input". I don't really agree. You can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig.

I'm not ready to concede defeat at this point, and make no mistake, that's exactly what clamouring for a spot at the table now is.

Waxy

[Duk Dog]

Reread the January 30th meeting minutes. I believe all groups present stated their support for the 2 guiding principles. Take that a step further and HFT and APOS are on record as supporting the Executive Summary. Now when you read the Executive Summary you will find that a "Program Advisory Committee" will be formed. The make up of it would consist of a variety of groups which includes "two sportsmen representatives". I don't know how ASRD defines "sportsmen representatives", but I am sure it is open to debate. Between HFT, ACA, APOS, AHEIA they can achieve that objective without requiring AFGA to be one of them.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Reread the January 30th meeting minutes. I believe all groups present stated their support for the 2 guiding principles.

True, but I believe they also all stated that they were opposed to the current OS pilot, or at least significant parts of it. I also believe they are on record as directly asking for more time to assess and rework OS before it gets implemented.

Take that a step further and HFT and APOS are on record as supporting the Executive Summary. Now when you read the Executive Summary you will find that a "Program Advisory Committee" will be formed. The make up of it would consist of a variety of groups which includes "two sportsmen representatives". I don't know how ASRD defines "sportsmen representatives", but I am sure it is open to debate. Between HFT, ACA, APOS, AHEIA they can achieve that objective without requiring AFGA to be one of them.

I don't think any of us are fools. If they want to push this thing through, they'll do it, and they'll find a way to justify it, and no doubt in a very slick manner.

I believe we do need more unity amongst the "sportsmen representatives" if we want to truly get some results. Perhaps clear public statements of position from HFT, ACA, AHEIA, etc..., similar to the AFGA statement, would be a first step.

Waxy

[Duk Dog]

Specifically look at ACA and HFT. The AFGA sits on the boards for both of these groups - as do many other interest groups. Membership has given the AFGA their directive, but do any of you really think AFGA has any clout within the ACA or HFT? It would be very easy for the SRD to say that although the AFGA is not directly at the table they are part of both ACA and HFT. As already mentioned on an earlier post both HFT and ACA receive government funding.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Waxy

True, but I believe they also all stated that they were opposed to the current OS pilot, or at least significant parts of it. I also believe they are on record as directly asking for more time to assess and rework OS before it gets implemented.



I don't think any of us are fools. If they want to push this thing through, they'll do it, and they'll find a way to justify it, and no doubt in a very slick manner.

I believe we do need more unity amongst the "sportsmen representatives" if we want to truly get some results. Perhaps clear public statements of position from HFT, ACA, AHEIA, etc..., similar to the AFGA statement, would be a first step.

Waxy

To answer your first paragraph you are correct that most did state they require more time, but HFT and APOS are both on record as supporting the Executive Summary.

To answer your final paragraph look at my post further up. ACA, and HFT are made up of a wide range of groups - perhaps all with varying interest and feelings towards OS. That makes it very hard for them to make a stance on this issue. Combine that with government funding and it gets even tougher.

The last I heard there will still be representation by AFGA, get in touch with the Zone 1 rep and I think he would be able to fill you in on what's coming, how long that lasts is up to the WG, but I would also suggest that without the AFGA the legitimacy of the project is suspect at best. There arguement to forward this was to increase hunting oppurtunity and access and the hunting community is not comfortable with this deal if it hinges on the privitazation of the resource by a select few landowners. I also see landowners becoming divided on this if only specific select individuals are in a position to benefit from this free public resource give away.

As for who is going to make the decisions from this point forward I would say the only reason there is so much focuse on AFGA is because we belong to this group and have direct say in it and the timing of the AGM. Lets start focusing on the remaining groups in the WG. I have included the contact list again for everyone to start getting there voices heard to the remaining members. Some of the politician e-mails may have to be forwarded to the constituency offices.

What can you do to stop this?
Contact the people listed below and make your opposition known.

Political Party Leaders
Ed Stelmach Conservative office@stelmach.ca
Kevin Taft Liberal office@kevintaft.ca
Paul Hinman Wildrose/Alliance paul.hinman@assembly.ab.ca
Brain Mason NDP BrianMason@AlbertaNDP.ca

SRD Representatives
Ted Morton ted.morton@gov.ab.ca
Cliff Henderson cliff.henderson@gov.ab.ca
Ken Ambrock ken.ambrock@gov.ab.ca
Keith Lyseng keith.lyseng@gov.ab.ca
Jim Allen james.Allen@gov.ab.ca Tel 780-427-4194 Cell 403-844-0162

Working Group Committee Representation (The group that developed the pilot to this point)

University of Calgary
Cormack Gates Ph.D ccgates@nucleus.com (403) 220-3027
Rainer Knopff knopff@ucalgary.ca (403) 220-5930

Alberta Beef Producers
Rick Burton rgburton@xplornet.com (403) 625-2234

Western Stock Growers Association
Darryl Carlson dcarlson@telus.net (403) 250-9121
Russel Pickett wsga@shaw.ca (403) 641-2485

Alberta Fish and Game Association
Brad Fenson brad@afga.org 780-437-2342
Maurice Nadeau moework@telusplanet.net 780-437-2342

Alberta Professional Outfitters Association
Colin W. Reichle colin@apos.ab.ca 780.414.0249
Bob Byers bob.byers@electrotel.ca 403.742.3140

Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation
Kelly Semple ksemple@huntingfortomorrow.com 780 462 2444
Bob Gruszecki robert_gruszecki@ezpost.com 403 319 2275

Alberta Conservation Association
Doug Manzer Doug.Manzer@gov.ab.ca 403-563-8934
Brian Bildson primepm@telusplanet.net (780) 410-1999

Canada West Foundation
Roger Gibbins rgibbins@cwf.ca 403-264-9535

Alberta Agriculture and Food
Lori Enns lori.enns@gov.ab.ca (780)422-1670

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties
Rodney Cyr rcyr@mdpinchercreek.ab.ca 403-627-3130

Alberta Employment Immagration and Industry
Colin Gosselin colin.gosselin@gov.ab.ca

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Specifically look at ACA and HFT. The AFGA sits on the boards for both of these groups - as do many other interest groups. Membership has given the AFGA their directive, but do any of you really think AFGA has any clout within the ACA or HFT? It would be very easy for the SRD to say that although the AFGA is not directly at the table they are part of both ACA and HFT. As already mentioned on an earlier post both HFT and ACA receive government funding.

That leaves me with a couple of questions.

Should not the ACA and HFT then take direction from the AFGA (and other interest groups on the board) and follow suit with the AFGA's opposition to OS, or at the very least, come forward with a public statement of their position? How are the ACA and HFT not responsible to their board members?

Easy for SRD yes, accurate, no.

The bolded sentence - in the real world this should disqualify them as "sportsmens representatives", as it introduces a bias. (Not a slam on anyone involved in those groups or their integrity, it's just a reality, especially within the legal system to remove any possible conflict of interest, judges recuse themselves all the time.)

I realize the AFGA receives gov't money as well, so I'm not sure what the ultimate answer is here.

Waxy

[bruceba]

Again a quote I posted back on number 152 of this thread.

"I'm still listening," Morton said. "If I'm satisfied with the support from the fish and game and hunting community, I have the authority to go through with it. I know I'm not going to persuade the skeptics," he added. "Let's give the thing a chance. Let's try it. If it doesn't work, we will can it."

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Waxy

That leaves me with a couple of questions.

Should not the ACA and HFT then take direction from the AFGA (and other interest groups on the board) and follow suit with the AFGA's opposition to OS, or at the very least, come forward with a public statement of their position? How are the ACA and HFT not responsible to their board members?

Easy for SRD yes, accurate, no.

The bolded sentence - in the real world this should disqualify them as "sportsmens representatives", as it introduces a bias. (Not a slam on anyone involved in those groups or their integrity, it's just a reality, especially within the legal system to remove any possible conflict of interest, judges recuse themselves all the time.)

I realize the AFGA receives gov't money as well, so I'm not sure what the ultimate answer is here.

Waxy

Go the the websites for ACA, AHEIA, HFT and you'll see all the groups represented. As you can imagine they may all have differing views of OS, hence the difficulty in them making a statement.

http://www.ab-conservation.com/

http://www.huntingfortomorrow.com/

http://www.aheia.com/

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by MAV

The last I heard there will still be representation by AFGA, get in touch with the Zone 1 rep and I think he would be able to fill you in on what's coming, how long that lasts is up to the WG, but I would also suggest that without the AFGA the legitimacy of the project is suspect at best. There arguement to forward this was to increase hunting oppurtunity and access and the hunting community is not comfortable with this deal if it hinges on the privitazation of the resource by a select few landowners. I also see landowners becoming divided on this if only specific select individuals are in a position to benefit from this free public resource give away.

As for who is going to make the decisions from this point forward I would say the only reason there is so much focuse on AFGA is because we belong to this group and have direct say in it and the timing of the AGM. Lets start focusing on the remaining groups in the WG. I have included the contact list again for everyone to start getting there voices heard to the remaining members. Some of the politician e-mails may have to be forwarded to the constituency offices.

Since the AFGA is involved with HFT, ACA, and AHEIA that can be the loop hole to not have AFGA directly at the table and say they are represented by their involvement with HFT, ACA, AHEIA.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Go the the websites for ACA, AHEIA, HFT and you'll see all the groups represented. As you can imagine they may all have differing views of OS, hence the difficulty in them making a statement.

http://www.ab-conservation.com/

http://www.huntingfortomorrow.com/

http://www.aheia.com/

Actually, the more I look at it, the more it seems to me that stating a public position for the these organizations should be very easy. The majority of their member groups have already come out opposed to OS. On top of that, they're all largely interconnected (too much so for my liking), so communication and cooperation shouldn't be an issue.

The only wildcards are the APOS and SRD (in the case of HFT) and maybe Safari Club International, the rest of the groups - ABA, SABA, Pheasants Forever, etc... have all come out publicly as being strongly opposed. I can't imagine why the other groups involved (Ducks Unlimited, RMEF, NWTF, etc...) would be in support of OS.

The only real kicker here that I see is the presence of SRD and the $$$$ that they represent.

Waxy

[Duk Dog]

I wonder if the groups that have officially come out with a position on OS have stated such to the "parent" groups of the boards they sit on - ie HFT, AHEIA, and ACA. I know a variety of groups sit on the boards but are HFT, AHEIA, and ACA really responsible to the groups that make up their boards? Who do they answer to? Are they responsible to your everyday Albertans?

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

I wonder if the groups that have officially come out with a position on OS have stated such to the "parent" groups of the boards they sit on - ie HFT, AHEIA, and ACA.

I can only assume they have. If not, get on it guys!

I know a variety of groups sit on the boards but are HFT, AHEIA, and ACA really responsible to the groups that make up their boards? Who do they answer to? Are they responsible to your everyday Albertans?

All good questions I'd like answers to as well.

Waxy

[Jamie]

I would encourage you to pick up the phone and Call Bob at the office. Perhaps he can shed some light on your questions.

Jamie

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

I wonder if the groups that have officially come out with a position on OS have stated such to the "parent" groups of the boards they sit on - ie HFT, AHEIA, and ACA. I know a variety of groups sit on the boards but are HFT, AHEIA, and ACA really responsible to the groups that make up their boards? Who do they answer to? Are they responsible to your everyday Albertans?

Sorry been busy hugging the new granddaughter.
So if there are two of us Duk are we both paranoid?
Good work and questions I've wanted answers to for sometime but it can feel like you are yelling down a well sometimes when you ask unpopular questions.
AFGA is but one board member and one vote on each of these boards. So it is easy to see how they can be maneuvered around.
Do people read what is going on here? Good question. I see that someone is no longer a director for APOS. Something that seemed to be a conflict of interest on the surface anyway.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Can this actually go foreward without the approval of the AFGA? Mabybe im thinking they have more power than they actually do have. I thought they were made up of tax paying Albertans. If its a resounding NO to open spaces from the members at 17000 members strong, how can it go foreward. We are tax payers, the govt acts on our behalf, they implement things we want to see implemented, this is not a communist country. How can afew pass things that affect the mass in todays society in regards to our outdoor heritage, like the proposals we are being presented with right now.

keep a strain on er.

Sorry Pack but yes it can. For a very longtime the voice of AFGA carried a lot of weight with SRD. Unfortunately the advent of so many splinter groups in the outdoors has badly eroded that voice and perhaps this was the straw that broke the camels back and allows another groups voice to be the loudest now. A group that doesn't directly represent you and I.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Sorry been busy hugging the new granddaughter.
So if there are two of us Duk are we both paranoid?
Good work and questions I've wanted answers to for sometime but it can feel like you are yelling down a well sometimes when you ask unpopular questions.
AFGA is but one board member and one vote on each of these boards. So it is easy to see how they can be maneuvered around.
Do people read what is going on here? Good question. I see that someone is no longer a director for APOS. Something that seemed to be a conflict of interest on the surface anyway.

I have looked at the APOS site, but I am not familiar with who may have changed on the board of directors. Who is no longer there?

Never mind I figured it out.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I would encourage you to pick up the phone and Call Bob at the office. Perhaps he can shed some light on your questions.

Jamie

Jamie - as you seem to already know Bob perhaps you could speak with him and get his feedback. From the January 30th minutes it appears that he represents a number of associations so he should be in the know. Looks like he is involved with at least APOS (SRD minister's appointment), HFT (Chairman), and AHEIA (president). I'm not sure if he is involved with any others.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Jamie - as you seem to already know Bob perhaps you could speak with him and get his feedback. From the January 30th minutes it appears that he represents a number of associations so he should be in the know. Looks like he is involved with at least APOS (SRD minister's appointment), HFT (Chairman), and AHEIA (president). I'm not sure if he is involved with any others.

Upon looking closer at this could there be a potential for conflict? He is appointed to APOS by the Minister that is driving Open Spaces. He also holds positions of strength within HFT and AHEIA.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by bruceba

209x50 Do you really think if it impacted APOS in a negative way that they of all people would be able to refrain from vocally opposing OS. I can't find were it won't pay for non-resident [ maybe I over looked that part ]. Thousands for tags in the hands of guides far out ways $5-$20 a head. I'm sure that can be worked out between guides and land owners.

APOS members I have talked to are scared spitless that OS will go through and what it means for them. They are kind of like us in that they don't always have a direct voice right at the table.

Originally Posted by 209x50

APOS members I have talked to are scared spitless that OS will go through and what it means for them. They are kind of like us in that they don't always have a direct voice right at the table.

Really. I know of at least one APOS board member who has approached AFGA members, on behalf of Cormack Gates, down south here asking them to be on the new working group. This APOS board member seems to also have a pretty tight relationship with Mr. Gates as well.

Maybe the APOS members should be talking to there board as well.

Bubba

[Duk Dog]

No question APOS is one aspect to be aware of, but they aren't the only one. (I'm not saying anyone said they are.) We have to make sure we look beyond APOS and AFGA, and that we look closer at the other groups involved as well.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Really. I know of at least one APOS board member who has approached AFGA members, on behalf of Cormack Gates, down south here asking them to be on the new working group. This APOS board member seems to also have a pretty tight relationship with Mr. Gates as well.

Maybe the APOS members should be talking to there board as well.

Bubba

See. these guys wouldn't know Cormack Gates if he kicked them in the shin. Why wouldn't he be just asking the AFGA to be on the new working group?

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Really. I know of at least one APOS board member who has approached AFGA members, on behalf of Cormack Gates, down south here asking them to be on the new working group. This APOS board member seems to also have a pretty tight relationship with Mr. Gates as well.

Maybe the APOS members should be talking to there board as well.

Bubba

No doubt there is a split within APOS on their feelings towards OS. Although the AFGA vote was 100% unanimous as being opposed to OS don't forget there are AFGA members that are either on the fence, or agree with OS. I'm sure the same can be said within the APOS ranks.

[Chet]

Keep up the good work boys. These threads have been a great information source to a lot of us.

[LongDraw]

The APOS members I know don't seem too worried about OS. Maybe other members feel differently?

The APOS members that are organized, connected in the south this will no doubt benefit them. The one South Landowner that I discussed this with said the initial plan would be to have an existing outfitter as the conduit to market the vouchers. I know things change, but he thought it would be best to market the vouchers in one lump, rather than trying to market hunts on a one of basis himself.

His attitude was "leave it to the pro's", I'll just collect the cash. His plan went as far as paying his wife to answer the phone for the RAMP program.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

The APOS members I know don't seem too worried about OS. Maybe other members feel differently?

The APOS members that are organized, connected in the south this will no doubt benefit them. The one South Landowner that I discussed this with said the initial plan would be to have an existing outfitter as the conduit to market the vouchers. I know things change, but he thought it would be best to market the vouchers in one lump, rather than trying to market hunts on a one of basis himself.

His attitude was "leave it to the pro's", I'll just collect the cash. His plan went as far as paying his wife to answer the phone for the RAMP program.

Then I'd say he was yanking your chain as nothing I've ever seen says that anyone can double dip or belong to both prograqms at once. Perhaps he knows so little about OS that he was just making things up.
The outfitters I've talked to want to know where the profit is for them in the whole scheme. They sell a mule deer hunt for 6K now and when I quote the 4k figure JUST FOR THE TAG they double over laughing. One even said he'd sell them his tags.

Originally Posted by 209x50

Then I'd say he was yanking your chain as nothing I've ever seen says that anyone can double dip or belong to both prograqms at once.

Someone been into the wine a little too heavy? Where did anyone say anything about joining both programs?

[LongDraw]

Just relaying a "very involved" landowners take on the situation.

I didn't say he would join both programs. He thought his wife could get paid by participants I guess to deligate access for the RAMP program. He saw a need for this, one number to call in one area to line up access.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Upon looking closer at this could there be a potential for conflict? He is appointed to APOS by the Minister that is driving Open Spaces. He also holds positions of strength within HFT and AHEIA.

When you look at the OS process does nobody else see this as a conflict of interest? An individual appointed by the minister is involved in the OS process and has his fingers in at least 3 pieces of the pie. How can he possibly argue against OS and the minister that has put him in one of his positions in the first place?