Open Spaces ? Afga Resolution

[bruceba]

Watch out at the AFGA AGM. I just heard that resolution will be brought forward in support of OPEN SPACES.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Fish & Game Association is in support of the proposed Sustainable Resourse Developement's " OPEN SPACES ALBERTA"
pilot program as presented in it's preliminary form to this association.

[Rackmastr]

Duk and I had a good chat last night on the phone....

I think something different needs to be done with the AFGA and how they handle big issues like this. There needs to be more consensus from the members and have the majority of the members decide what they feel is worth fighting, and what issues feel need to be defended, supported, etc..

Seems only logical that the majority of the organization would have the say in which way to direct focus on big issues such as this. I dont know how they could accomplish this, but when new issues come into light, something needs to be done to educate the ENTIRE membership and decide a general direction or focus of the group, dependant on the majority of the members...

[Copidosoma]

As was stated elsewhere, they have to word these proposals in a positive tone. It is up to the membership (delegates) to vote it down. Problem is that herd mentality comes in and people say yes just so they don't have to be contrarian.

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

Duk and I had a good chat last night on the phone....

I think something different needs to be done with the AFGA and how they handle big issues like this. There needs to be more consensus from the members and have the majority of the members decide what they feel is worth fighting, and what issues feel need to be defended, supported, etc..

Seems only logical that the majority of the organization would have the say in which way to direct focus on big issues such as this. I dont know how they could accomplish this, but when new issues come into light, something needs to be done to educate the ENTIRE membership and decide a general direction or focus of the group, dependant on the majority of the members...

How are the votes that come out of resolutions not the will of the majority? It is delegates voting the will of their club that decides on resolutions and all clubs are represented.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

How are the votes that come out of resolutions not the will of the majority? It is delegates voting the will of their club that decides on resolutions and all clubs are represented.

Agreed. My comment though was that I think that there could be better mechanisms of getting information out to the membership. (Whether it be direct AFGA members, or members via the associate F&G clubs.)

Personally I am a direct member of AFGA, as well as two other F&G clubs and I have not seen any of the resolutions that are up for vote. How can the F&G groups vote on behalf of their membership effectively if the information to be voted on is not shared with the membership? The executive may or may not have a clear picture of the consensus of the membership.

I can't speak to your specific clubs Duk but typcally these resolutions are brought forward to the members at a local meeting and then the delegates vote for the will of the entire club.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I can't speak to your specific clubs Duk but typcally these resolutions are brought forward to the members at a local meeting and then the delegates vote for the will of the entire club.

I will look into it with the local F&G clubs I belong to and find out.

I guess then I will redirect my question for people that might just be a direct member of the AFGA, and not a member of a local F&G club. How does the AFGA inform their direct membership of the resolutions up for vote? And do it in advance of the AGM to allow for feedback (consensus) from their membership?

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Personally I am a direct member of AFGA, as well as two other F&G clubs and I have not seen any of the resolutions that are up for vote. How can the F&G groups vote on behalf of their membership effectively if the information to be voted on is not shared with the membership? The executive may or may not have a clear picture of the consensus of the membership.

That is why I questioned the breif.


The brief reads as follows;
As this program has been presented to the hunting public in Alberta and discussed in it's proposed form, there are two underlying initiatives- Recreational Access Management Program [ RAMP] and Hunting For Habitat [HFH] having potential for enhanced access oppertunities im WMU'S 300 & 108 for all Albertans.

Some explanation on how it was presented to the hunting public would be nice.

[Rockymtnx]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Personally I am a direct member of AFGA, as well as two other F&G clubs and I have not seen any of the resolutions that are up for vote. How can the F&G groups vote on behalf of their membership effectively if the information to be voted on is not shared with the membership?

All of the resolutions are sent out to the clubs. I know we receive our copy a few months in advance. I would bring it up with your club why the resolutions are not being shown to its members.

Originally Posted by Rockymtnx

All of the resolutions are sent out to the clubs. I know we receive our copy a few months in advance. I would bring it up with your club why the resolutions are not being shown to its members.

Rocky, Our local club had a meeting to go over the resolutions.
How can the members make an informed decision on a resolution when no informaion on the subject has been made public?

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

How are the votes that come out of resolutions not the will of the majority? It is delegates voting the will of their club that decides on resolutions and all clubs are represented.

I guess what I wasnt sure about or concerned about was how the delegates of the club decide what the majority wants on a new issue? I guess thats the reason they are delegates, is to just decide on what the majority wants, but it seems there could be better discussions with members of the group for issues such as this, MHA, etc...

I guess what I wasnt sure about or concerned about was how the delegates of the club decide what the majority wants on a new issue? I guess thats the reason they are delegates, is to just decide on what the majority wants, but it seems there could be better discussions with members of the group for issues such as this, MHA, etc...

I think most clubs do discuss the resolutions at a meeting prior to conference and then instruct their delegates to vote accordingly.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think most clubs do discuss the resolutions at a meeting prior to conference and then instruct their delegates to vote accordingly.

Makes sense...I'd like to think there would be a bit better communication about meetings, etc. Seems the communication always comes too late. Either way, gives a guy a good reason to join a committee and become a part of the solution rather than sit on the sidelines...

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think most clubs do discuss the resolutions at a meeting prior to conference and then instruct their delegates to vote accordingly.

This is great. I would also think this is what should happen. Now the next question is what information was given to the clubs so they could make an informed decision on the resolutions. OSA was so secretive was there even enough information for the majority of clubs to discuss the pro's and con's.

Bubba

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by bruceba

Watch out at the AFGA AGM. I just heard that resolution will be brought forward in support of OPEN SPACES.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Fish & Game Association is in support of the proposed Sustainable Resourse Developement's " OPEN SPACES ALBERTA"
pilot program as presented in it's preliminary form to this association.

Refer to Duffys post in the General section titled "How AF&GA responds to issues" for an explanation of the wording.

[Duk Dog]

Here would be my comment on communication between AFGA and their members, as well as the various F&G clubs and their members in the province.

It is my personal feeling that information could be communicated more effectively to their membership. Just to use OS as an example there is a statement by AFGA regarding OS on the AFGA web site. That is all fine and dandy if people check the web site. There must be a way that when you get, or renew, a AFGA membership that you are given an option to supply your e-mail address and accept e-mails from AFGA (or your local F&G club) that would keep you posted on any upcoming events, or any news that may be of interest to the members. At the AGM the executive of the AFGA, as well as the executive of the various provincial F&G clubs have to vote based on the consensus of their membership. If the information is not communicated in a timely and effective manner to the entire membership how on earth can the executive know where the consensus is to base their vote upon?

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by bruceba

Watch out at the AFGA AGM. I just heard that resolution will be brought forward in support of OPEN SPACES.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Fish & Game Association is in support of the proposed Sustainable Resourse Developement's " OPEN SPACES ALBERTA"
pilot program as presented in it's preliminary form to this association.

I suspect that a few individuals from AFGA will come on here to tell us all that you propose a resolution in the affirmative so if it is defeated it sends a much clearer message. I don’t disagree.

I am, however, confused by the wording of this resolution, and I wonder why it was not phrased:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Fish & Game Association is in support of the proposed Sustainable Resource Development’s “OPEN SPACES ALBERTA” pilot program. (Period)

It appears to me, that any changes to the “preliminary form” on Open Spaces would require a new directive from the AFGA executive and/or membership. I think this confuses the issue and I would love to know why "as presented in it's preliminary form to this association" was included in the resolution. Regards, Mike

What concerns me is the brief that accompanies the resolution.

Who presented it to the public and who discussed it?

I don't recall it ever being released to the public.

[bruceba]

The brief reads as follows;
As this program has been presented to the hunting public in Alberta and discussed in it's proposed form, there are two underlying initiatives- Recreational Access Management Program [ RAMP] and Hunting For Habitat [HFH] having potential for enhanced access oppertunities im WMU'S 300 & 108 for all Albertans.

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by bruceba

The brief reads as follows;
As this program has been presented to the hunting public in Alberta and discussed in it's proposed form, there are two underlying initiatives- Recreational Access Management Program [ RAMP] and Hunting For Habitat [HFH] having potential for enhanced access oppertunities im WMU'S 300 & 108 for all Albertans.

Further info:

Submitted by: AFGA

Drafted by: AFGA Executive

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by duffy4
You must understand that a resolution must be phrased in a posative way(by the bylaws governing resolutions). So you cannot write a resolution"BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE DO NOT WANT SOMETHING" you have to phrase it "BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE WANT..." Then if it is defeated it shows the negative reaction to the resolution.

Robin in Rocky

Where is this coming from? I can't find anything in Roberts Rules of Order that a Resolution must be written in the affirmative. In addition a quick search shows many UN and other resolutions written in the negative and quick search of Operative Clauses suggested for resolutions shows many in the negative form: condem, expresses its regret, fails to support or renews its appeal are among a few that could have been chosen to show how membership feels.

This resolutions does nothing but indicate that the executive is in favor of the pilot in my opinion.

The Operative Clause
All operative clauses begin with "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association..." This is usually followed with either "requests" or "is opposed to". Operative clauses should specifically indicate the government to which the resolution is directed; for example, the Government of Alberta, the Federal Government, FCM. The operative clause is the call to action, the very reason the resolution was drafted in the first place. This is the most important part of the resolution and should be written very clearly. There should be no doubt as to what specific action is being requested.

Originally Posted by SNIPER

What concerns me is the brief that accompanies the resolution.

Who presented it to the public and who discussed it?

I don't recall it ever being released to the public.

The AFGA does not represent the public...it represents its membership. Are you a member?

[Dick284]

Cop has it correct, Sillyness.
If we keep alienating everyone who is quietly sitting back and and reserving their opinions we will be standing alone with no one other than a bunch of hot heads supporting us.
Think before you type, and think about what your typing, a half dozen or more threads on the same subject going down the same path over and over, are making us look like a bunch of un disaplined rabble.
You guys do realize SRD, U of C and any ranchers groups can, have, and probably are laughing their guts out watching us once again turn on our own and loose sight of the prize.
But again dont take my ramblings to serious it only comes from logic.

[Rob Miskosky]

Dick is correct. I'm tired of posters trying to accuse others for no better reason than to sound brave on a message board. I've deleted so many posts recently that it's rediculous. My "BAN" button is now going to take precedence. Many of you should be embarrassed by your actions and they will no longer be tolerated. If you can't discuss this issue properly...

[Dick284]

Thank you Rob.
My PM says the rest of my thoughts.

[bruceba]

A total of 25 concerned sportsmen, and 4 of them made over half the posts on here. Hmmmmmm! I wonder what the silent majority thinks about this issue?

duffy4 you asked so I'll respond.
I am extremely grateful to the few guys who have spent the time and effort to keep us updated on this, what IMHO I call the PAID HUNTING SCAM,
With out their persistence we'd all be in the dark while this was rammed through. Still sitting arms crossed feet firmly planted and damn proud of it.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Cop has it correct, Sillyness.
If we keep alienating everyone who is quietly sitting back and and reserving their opinions we will be standing alone with no one other than a bunch of hot heads supporting us.
Think before you type, and think about what your typing, a half dozen or more threads on the same subject going down the same path over and over, are making us look like a bunch of un disaplined rabble.
You guys do realize SRD, U of C and any ranchers groups can, have, and probably are laughing their guts out watching us once again turn on our own and loose sight of the prize.
But again dont take my ramblings to serious it only comes from logic.

I understand the point you're making, and some may feel that way, hopefully most do not.

I think that the vast majority of dicussion here on OS has been very constructive. Sure there's a lot of it, but it's an open discussion board, and it's a VERY important issue. It's the off season too, so there's not much else to talk about.

I for one don't think SRD, the U of C, or any ranchers are sitting back and laughing. I think they're realizing that this thing is not going to be so easy to push through as they thought it would be, and that there is real opposition to it that isn't going away any time soon. I haven't seen any amount of infighting here that would give me a warm and fuzzy if I was on their side. I've seen pretty much unanimous opposition (including IMHO the "silent majority"), with a few undecideds, and a few blow outs here and there that are to be expected.

Waxy

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by bruceba

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Fish & Game Association is in support of the proposed Sustainable Resourse Developement's " OPEN SPACES ALBERTA" pilot program as presented in it's preliminary form to this association.

That was the motion brought forward to the membership and voted down. If you take it word for word their vote was against OS "as presented in it's preliminary form to this association". I take that as being opposed to OS as it stands in it's initial form. That could be taken as still being willing to continue to sit at the table and maintain a voice on OS in order to shape it into a different form that might possibly work.

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

That was the motion brought forward to the membership and voted down. If you take it word for word their vote was against OS "as presented in it's preliminary form to this association". I take that as being opposed to OS as it stands in it's initial form. That could be taken as still being willing to continue to sit at the table and maintain a voice on OS in order to shape it into a different form that might possibly work.

Duk, it was ammened to read: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Fish & Game Association is in support of the proposed Sustainable Resourse Developement's " OPEN SPACES ALBERTA" pilot program.