Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 03-08-2017, 09:07 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post
Good thing your not in charge of much lol That is like saying we should throw everyone that speeds in jail. Glad you have never done anything wrong in your life......
I would bet there is a large percentage of people on this forum that have not followed hunting rules by mistake or a dumb choice.
But I do understand your frustration with a few well knowns in the world.
I would surely hate to loose my whole business because of one circumstance.
\

Where did anyone suggest throwing all convicted outfitters in jail? And the hunters convicted of violations often have their hunting privileges suspended for a single violation, so why shouldn't an outfitter that is convicted have his outfitting privileges suspended? If you feel that you have more to lose, then you should be more motivated to obey the rules.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 03-08-2017, 09:55 PM
nube nube is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In a house
Posts: 7,778
Default

I don't have a problem with an Outfitter being put on time out for abuse. I do have a problem with what Diomond said in an Outfitter loosing his allocations and basically stripping him of his business and possible livelihood.
I'm not a lawyer but I bet there are reasons for why things are and have been the way they have.
If a client gets caught shooting a deer tresspassing he gets charged. What would be the charge to the Outfitter? He may have a guide working for him that is a poaching SOB and gets caught. Kinda hard to nail an outfitter for what his worker does.
Anyways boys I have said enough for now. Hopefully things change for the better. I understand frustrations. I think it will be a hard battle to fight to make any sort of change.
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 03-08-2017, 10:21 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post
I don't have a problem with an Outfitter being put on time out for abuse. I do have a problem with what Diomond said in an Outfitter loosing his allocations and basically stripping him of his business and possible livelihood.
I'm not a lawyer but I bet there are reasons for why things are and have been the way they have.
If a client gets caught shooting a deer tresspassing he gets charged. What would be the charge to the Outfitter? He may have a guide working for him that is a poaching SOB and gets caught. Kinda hard to nail an outfitter for what his worker does.
Anyways boys I have said enough for now. Hopefully things change for the better. I understand frustrations. I think it will be a hard battle to fight to make any sort of change.
As I posted earlier, if you have more at stake, perhaps you need to be extra careful about following the regulations. If the client trespasses because the outfitter sends him onto that property without permission, then the outfitter should be charged for his actions, but if the client takes it upon himself to shoot an animal where he was told not to, then the outfitter should not be at fault. The same for the guide. In fact a sheep guide was recently charged for hunting in another outfitters territory, where his outfitter did not have allocations, and since the outfitter was apparently aware of the illegal activity, he was also charged.
As to the number of outfitters being convicted, there have been quite a few, and they have been convicted of offenses ranging from trespassing, to baiting deer, to fraud, to providing false information to LEOs, to smuggling firearms across the border , so it's not that convictions are rare or limited to minor offenses.
And it's not like people in other occupations can't lose their livelihood if they are convicted of an offense, several occupations require a clean record, and a conviction will cost you your job.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 03-08-2017, 10:22 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Exactly, the members themselves voted to allow a convicted poacher to continue to represent them. As such, the members themselves are condoning this type of behavior from their representative.
Sort of confirms what the members think of poaching, and reveals the character of the organization overall.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 03-09-2017, 06:20 AM
Salavee Salavee is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Parkland County, AB
Posts: 4,253
Default

Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between a Society and an Association. Are the guidelines and regulations different for each ?
What would be the benefits of forming a Society as opposed to an Association ? Just curious.
__________________
When applied by competent people with the right intent, common sense goes a long way.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 03-09-2017, 06:36 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salavee View Post
Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between a Society and an Association. Are the guidelines and regulations different for each ?
What would be the benefits of forming a Society as opposed to an Association ? Just curious.
Basically interchangeable words in the eyes of the law. If you are interested in reading court decisions regarding the use of terms, here you go...

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Society.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 03-09-2017, 06:43 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post
I don't have a problem with an Outfitter being put on time out for abuse. I do have a problem with what Diomond said in an Outfitter loosing his allocations and basically stripping him of his business and possible livelihood.
I'm not a lawyer but I bet there are reasons for why things are and have been the way they have.
If a client gets caught shooting a deer tresspassing he gets charged. What would be the charge to the Outfitter? He may have a guide working for him that is a poaching SOB and gets caught. Kinda hard to nail an outfitter for what his worker does.
Anyways boys I have said enough for now. Hopefully things change for the better. I understand frustrations. I think it will be a hard battle to fight to make any sort of change.
I agree with what Nube has said above ^^^.

Now if it is the outfitter who is repeatedly committing such offences, such as a Lloyd Mcmahon, then they deserve to have their allocations revoked and put up for auction.

In addition, APOS could very easily make a condition of membership that disclosure of all convictions by any employee of the company be made public on websites, contracts, and/or advertising materials. They absolutely could do that in the name of promoting upstanding behavior by members. This would clean things up I am guessing. If I was a client, I would want to know whether the outfit I am contracting are shady operators. This really is no different than the BBB making consumers aware of poor businesses.
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 03-09-2017, 06:58 AM
Salavee Salavee is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Parkland County, AB
Posts: 4,253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
Basically interchangeable words in the eyes of the law. If you are interested in reading court decisions regarding the use of terms, here you go...

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Society.aspx
Thank You. It seems there is no real difference. Always wondered about that.
__________________
When applied by competent people with the right intent, common sense goes a long way.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 03-09-2017, 07:54 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
I agree with what Nube has said above ^^^.

Now if it is the outfitter who is repeatedly committing such offences, such as a Lloyd Mcmahon, then they deserve to have their allocations revoked and put up for auction.

In addition, APOS could very easily make a condition of membership that disclosure of all convictions by any employee of the company be made public on websites, contracts, and/or advertising materials. They absolutely could do that in the name of promoting upstanding behavior by members. This would clean things up I am guessing. If I was a client, I would want to know whether the outfit I am contracting are shady operators. This really is no different than the BBB making consumers aware of poor businesses.
I feel that it should depend on the offense, as to whether the allocations are seized. A small mistake in paperwork would not warrant this, but intentional violations such as shooting an animal and then abandoning the carcass to rot, or setting out bait for deer or elk, or using an aircraft to drive game or direct hunters to game, are much more serious, and the penalties should be more serious .In those situations, suspending the outfitters license would be appropriate for even a first offense, and seizing the allocations would be appropriate for a second offense. And in order to outfit for allocations,there should be a contract whereas the owner of the allocations places those allocations under the management of the outfitter, so they would be subject to seizure if the outfitter commits illegal acts.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.