Newest information on open spaces.

[Cowboy Al]

Jamie, I being a delegate for the first time I asked our club how they wanted me to vote on the various resolutions. For the most part they told me that they trusted my judgement and to vote the way I saw fit. We had extensive discussion about the OS program and there was no doubt about which way the club felt and I voting accordingly (which just happened to be the way I'd vote personally). I my mind being a delegate is like being a MP or MLA I'm there representing my constituants (other members of my club) and I voted according to the way they wanted me to vote. I'm not sure how it works in the other clubs I'm only speaking of the one (Medicine Hat) that I belong to.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by bubbasno1

Here you go folks.

http://www.mediafire.com/?9mm0njpdiju

Just to let everyone know I have deleted the names from the list. I do not feel it is my place to publish peoples names to an open forum.

Bubba

I'm sure by now people have read over the minutes from the January 30th meeting. Some interesting things to note, or questions to ask from what I have read or how I understand the minutes.
You will note that in one form or another HFT, AHEIA, ACA, APOS and AFGA all comment that they agree with, or support, or are comfortable with the Guiding Principles of The Alberta Land and Wildlife Stewardship Project. For these two Guiding Principles you have to reference to the U of C web site http://poli.ucalgary.ca/wildlifestewardship/ and specifically the two Guiding Principles:

1) Wildlife is a public-trust resource to be managed in the public interest.
2) Landowners should not bear the full costs of production and public use of wildlife on their lands without compensation.

As we all know AFGA has been taken to task on Open Spaces, and the latest result is that the membership & delegates have voted down support of Open Spaces.
I guess my first question is regarding the other groups - HFT, AHEIA, ACA, and APOS. As did the AFGA, all these other groups have stated their support of the Guiding Principles. There has been much uproar over AFGA, why has so little been said about these other organizations? Do they not all have to answer to their membership as well? From the January 30th minutes we know they all support the two Guiding Principles - but where do they stand overall in the big picture of the Open Spaces program? I am not a member of any of these other groups. Can anyone here shed some light on them and where they stand with things?

My next question is regarding the OS Framework Proposal document. A number of the groups in the minutes all make reference to this document, and their support for it. Is the "Framework Proposal" a document that is available to read? There have been quite a few different documents floating around, so I'm not certain which one this is. Does anyone know which document this is?

[Rob Miskosky]

Visit the links page on the AO website. There you can read about the groups you mention - HFT, AHEIA, ACA, APOS. Only APOS is member driven.

[Duk Dog]

Will do. Thanks Rob.

[Dick284]

HFT, Aheia, ACA, are not lobby groups.
They actually recieve monies from the Govt.
They do not actively as a group speak for or against Govt policies.
APOS, AFGA, are reallt the only active lobby groups in this fight.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Dick284

HFT, Aheia, ACA, are not lobby groups.
They actually recieve monies from the Govt.
They do not actively as a group speak for or against Govt policies.
APOS, AFGA, are reallt the only active lobby groups in this fight.

I look at ACA and their directors have a wide range of backgrounds and interests - AHEIA, ATA, APOS, Pheasants Forever, TU, AFGA, various Public at Large groups to name a few.
You take a look at HFT and their stakeholders also consist of a variety of groups with different back grounds and interests - ABA, ACA, AFGA, AHEIA, APOS, ASRD, ATA, ATBA, CWS, Delta Waterfowl, to name a few.
When you look at AHEIA there is a long list of board of directors. It appears that their objective is to promote conservation and hunter education.

So these groups aren't member driven, and they aren't lobby groups. They are all currently, or have in the past, sat at the OS table. What is their directive with a program like OS? Where does their direction come from as to what interests to promote and defend during negotations? In one way or another they are a voice for Albertans.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

I look at ACA and their directors have a wide range of backgrounds and interests - AHEIA, ATA, APOS, Pheasants Forever, TU, AFGA, various Public at Large groups to name a few.
You take a look at HFT and their stakeholders also consist of a variety of groups with different back grounds and interests - ABA, ACA, AFGA, AHEIA, APOS, ASRD, ATA, ATBA, CWS, Delta Waterfowl, to name a few.
When you look at AHEIA there is a long list of board of directors. It appears that their objective is to promote conservation and hunter education.

So these groups aren't member driven, and they aren't lobby groups. They are all currently, or have in the past, sat at the OS table. What is their directive with a program like OS? Where does their direction come from as to what interests to promote and defend during negotations? In one way or another they are a voice for Albertans.

That I do not know, since it has piqued your interest how about making a few calls and filling in yours and our blanks.

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Dick284

HFT, Aheia, ACA, are not lobby groups.
They actually recieve monies from the Govt.
They do not actively as a group speak for or against Govt policies.
APOS, AFGA, are reallt the only active lobby groups in this fight.

I wonder if that makes it difficult to disagree with a government driven program like Open Spaces?

[Duk Dog]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

My next question is regarding the OS Framework Proposal document. A number of the groups in the minutes all make reference to this document, and their support for it. Is the "Framework Proposal" a document that is available to read? There have been quite a few different documents floating around, so I'm not certain which one this is. Does anyone know which document this is?

Anyone?

I don't have any one document named that but I think most of the references where directed to the project in general. They have so many documents that I don't think that they were referenced appropriately that often. For the most part the Executive Summary was the one that most of the WG would reference and Gates, Manzer and Burton would pick points out of the Business Analysis as well.

I've just got a chance to go over the minutes and as you might imagine there are some statements that are lacking and the intent is not enforced. That is not a cut it would have been a killer trying to keep up and get everything as it was brought up, these minutes are very good but do have a few wholes. I'll try and get some comments as I remember them from the meeting.

Here is a media release I just received from AWA.

Bubba

[lazy ike]

Thanks Bubba

[Duk Dog]

Personally I am not really familiar with the AWA, and figured some others might be in the same boat, so here is a link to their web site.

http://www.albertawilderness.ca/

[Waxy]

I just came from the meeting.

Turn out was disappointing on a few levels -

- There were only 3 or 4 people, including myself, there representing the hunting/fishing community.

- The only media coverage I saw was a CBC camera, hopefully a couple more of the observers were also media.

- Only the Liberal (Herb Coburn) and NDP (John Chan) candidates were present, despite an invitation being sent to all 5 parties.

That said, I think the press conference was very well run. The message regarding Open Spaces was presented loud and clear, and hopefully it will be heard. Both the Liberals and the NDP, as well as the AWA itself, spoke out in opposition to Open Spaces, and ANY program that would involve the privatization of wildlife. Unfortunately, with no one there to defend the program, there was no chance for debate.

Kudos to those that organized the conference for doing it the first place, and for doing such a good job of it.

Waxy

P.S. I'm don't support many of the initiatives of the AWA, but they are a strong voice in opposition to the Open Spaces pilot.

Here is another news release from AWA.

http://news.albertawilderness.ca/2008NR/NR080227.pdf

On another note I my watch CBC news for the first time in quite a while as I hope they will be airing portions of the news conference today.

Bubba

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

I wonder if that makes it difficult to disagree with a government driven program like Open Spaces?

not sure, but ethically, a group that is government funded shouldn't be making any comment on policies of their funder. If you want to do that, form a stand-alone group.

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by Waxy

I just came from the meeting.

Turn out was disappointing on a few levels -

- There were only 3 or 4 people, including myself, there representing the hunting/fishing community.

- The only media coverage I saw was a CBC camera, hopefully a couple more of the observers were also media.

- Only the Liberal (Herb Coburn) and NDP (John Chan) candidates were present, despite an invitation being sent to all 5 parties.

That said, I think the press conference was very well run. The message regarding Open Spaces was presented loud and clear, and hopefully it will be heard. Both the Liberals and the NDP, as well as the AWA itself, spoke out in opposition to Open Spaces, and ANY program that would involve the privatization of wildlife. Unfortunately, with no one there to defend the program, there was no chance for debate.

Kudos to those that organized the conference for doing it the first place, and for doing such a good job of it.

Waxy

P.S. I'm don't support many of the initiatives of the AWA, but they are a strong voice in opposition to the Open Spaces pilot.

Waxy,

Sometimes in life we have to have strange bed fellows. I like you, don't agree with everything the AWA says or does. However, I think that even though the various groups that oppose paid hunting may have differences in opinions, we are united in a common cause, opposing paid hunting. A coalition of groups can be very powerful and joining forces can prevent paid hunting from happening in this province.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Rafter

Waxy,

Sometimes in life we have to have strange bed fellows. I like you, don't agree with everything the AWA says or does. However, I think that even though the various groups that oppose paid hunting may have differences in opinions, we are united in a common cause, opposing paid hunting. A coalition of groups can be very powerful and joining forces can prevent paid hunting from happening in this province.

Yep, I completely agree Rafter. In fact, I think it makes the message even stronger when it's coming in a united voice from groups that are largely at odds over most issues. That makes it pretty clear how important the issue is to everyone involved.

Unfortunately, after watching the 1 min clip on the CBC news last night, I'm more depressed than I've ever been during this fight. The entire 45 min conference was edited to less than a minute of the AWA representative talking and a mention of the AFGA. No mention of the Liberals or NDP being present. To top it off, the anchor ended the segment by saying that the PC party stated that the pilot program will increase hunting opportunities for everyone.

No one from the PC's showed up, preferring a blanket statement. The reason was clear as far as I'm concerned. You can't argue with yourself, so by completely avoiding the issue, you avoid debate and questions, and hopefully, the issue goes away. It worked perfectly for them yesterday.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this thing is a done deal, and everything we're doing is simply falling on deaf ears. Morton is dug in, and he's on a one way track. We need to find someone who's willing to listen, maybe Stelmach himself.

Waxy

[bowchaser]

Originally Posted by Waxy

Yep, I completely agree Rafter. In fact, I think it makes the message even stronger when it's coming in a united voice from groups that are largely at odds over most issues. That makes it pretty clear how important the issue is to everyone involved.

Unfortunately, after watching the 1 min clip on the CBC news last night, I'm more depressed than I've ever been during this fight. The entire 45 min conference was edited to less than a minute of the AWA representative talking and a mention of the AFGA. No mention of the Liberals or NDP being present. To top it off, the anchor ended the segment by saying that the PC party stated that the pilot program will increase hunting opportunities for everyone.

No one from the PC's showed up, preferring a blanket statement. The reason was clear as far as I'm concerned. You can't argue with yourself, so by completely avoiding the issue, you avoid debate and questions, and hopefully, the issue goes away. It worked perfectly for them yesterday.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this thing is a done deal, and everything we're doing is simply falling on deaf ears. Morton is dug in, and he's on a one way track. We need to find someone who's willing to listen, maybe Stelmach himself.

Waxy

I would agree with you. Morton will not listen at this point regardless of what people are saying. What I cannot wrap my head around is why when the message is loud and clear from the outdoors community. All I can assume is he will benefit personally either for personal hunts, or future political aspirations. Just don't get it...

[209x50]

Originally Posted by bowchaser

I would agree with you. Morton will not listen at this point regardless of what people are saying. What I cannot wrap my head around is why when the message is loud and clear from the outdoors community. All I can assume is he will benefit personally either for personal hunts, or future political aspirations. Just don't get it...

Not to defend the minister but belief in the program doesn't automatically have to be grounded in greed, profit or politics. Could be the fella just believes in what he is trying to do, it doesn't fair to tar and feather him just because he has a different belief system than you. There have been a few fellows through history that were ostracized for marching to their own drum and some of them we think pretty highly of today... Different beliefs can be scary, sure, and not always right, but sometimes they are no more complicated than just being different.

[bagwan]

I agree with you 209 but I would also bet within a year he'll be making another run to emasculate Ed if he thinks hes got a shot. Don't forget Albertas Toronto aren't happy with the present situation.

[Jamie]

BAG
"Albertas Toronto"

HUH???
Please explain

[Kanonfodder]

Lol He means Calgary, Jamie....the other centre of the universe

[bagwan]

Just reiterating all the back room Tory power people and it isn't the MLA"s. Power boys still want the power in Calgary. Nothing more. From Peter to Ralph it has been mostly Calgary. Delete Getty. Do you not see a leadership review depending on numbers? Distinct possibility. I think Mr Dinning should have stayed in cabinet but maybe he couldn't because of policy or lack of it under Ralph. I personally supported him so I don't hate Calgarians. Got too many relatives there. Maybe Bronxco whines too much but hes doing what he gets the bucks for very effectively. Anyway, I don't want to be lynched as it was tongue in cheek. Analogy is centre of universe vice centre of AB. But you do have the best hockey team this year. My apologies for getting this off the original topic.

[Jamie]

You know whats funny, is those here in Calgary really don't see it that way.
I consider myself a Albertan before a Calgarian..
I think there is a bit of jealousy going on.
In fact when ED won the leadership race, there were drunken fools running the hallways screaming how they were going to screw Calgary...
Not a progressive attitude.
All this Calgary vs every one stuff, was made up by those that wanted it made up. It sure as heck wasn't coming from here.
As for Bronco.. Even I thought he was complaining to much.. But lo and behold ED folded like a cheap deck of cards.(as he should have, promises were made and the City of Calgary made plans around those promises) So it turns out it worked.

I am not sure what the situation is like in Edmonton, but our Traffic problems are unbearable down here. That needs to change, PRONTO! Calgary was designed for 800,000 people.. We are over a million Our LRT is lacking, our roads are a mess, we have a extreme shortage of recreational facility's.
With the way Canada is set up, it falls on the GOV to build these things. (I don't like it)

Jamie

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Not to defend the minister but belief in the program doesn't automatically have to be grounded in greed, profit or politics. Could be the fella just believes in what he is trying to do, it doesn't fair to tar and feather him just because he has a different belief system than you. There have been a few fellows through history that were ostracized for marching to their own drum and some of them we think pretty highly of today... Different beliefs can be scary, sure, and not always right, but sometimes they are no more complicated than just being different.

Makes more sense than anything I've read on here in a long time.

Robin in Rocky

[bowchaser]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Not to defend the minister but belief in the program doesn't automatically have to be grounded in greed, profit or politics. Could be the fella just believes in what he is trying to do, it doesn't fair to tar and feather him just because he has a different belief system than you. There have been a few fellows through history that were ostracized for marching to their own drum and some of them we think pretty highly of today... Different beliefs can be scary, sure, and not always right, but sometimes they are no more complicated than just being different.

I can see your point 209, if the program was developed with transparency, ample dialogue between the stakeholders, biology driven, etc. I agree he may have had admirable intentions when this got started, but it has gotten far away from where it started which he has not kept in check. There needs to be another year of study as there are far too many questions and concerns, yet he's trying to ram this through in this election year and before next hunting season. Again, I have to ask why? The AFGA vote against is loud and clear. If he rams this through he has alienated thousands of future voters and we have a long memory. Rest assured, that is what we will remember about Ted Morton...

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by bowchaser

I can see your point 209, if the program was developed with transparency, ample dialogue between the stakeholders, biology driven, etc. I agree he may have had admirable intentions when this got started, but it has gotten far away from where it started which he has not kept in check. There needs to be another year of study as there are far too many questions and concerns, yet he's trying to ram this through in this election year and before next hunting season. Again, I have to ask why? The AFGA vote against is loud and clear. If he rams this through he has alienated thousands of future voters and we have a long memory. Rest assured, that is what we will remember about Ted Morton...

Exactly.

If this was truely based on admirable intentions and a solid belief in the merits of OS, then it would have been openly initiated and debated.

209 may be right, Morton might honestly believe he's doing the right thing for Albertans, at least as the concept was formed. However, if that's the case, you'd think he would want to not only consult with those Albertans, but to convince them of the merits of his plan. That should have been easy if the plan was a good one, but that's clearly not the case. Continuing with Open Spaces at this point in spite of all the opposition, even if he truly believes it is a good program, would not be an admirable act. It would put him in the company of those in history that marched to their own beat and aren't so highly thought of today.

Waxy

Originally Posted by Waxy

Continuing with Open Spaces at this point in spite of all the opposition, even if he truly believes it is a good program, would not be an admirable act. It would put him in the company of those in history that marched to their own beat and aren't so highly thought of today.

Waxy

This would be fairly obvious to someone who doesn't suffer from tunnel vision. Or someone that has ulterior motives.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Not to defend the minister but belief in the program doesn't automatically have to be grounded in greed, profit or politics. Could be the fella just believes in what he is trying to do, it doesn't fair to tar and feather him just because he has a different belief system than you. There have been a few fellows through history that were ostracized for marching to their own drum and some of them we think pretty highly of today... Different beliefs can be scary, sure, and not always right, but sometimes they are no more complicated than just being different.

I agree with parts of this statement- BUT you would think that a public consultation, open house, etc.. should have taken place before a steering commitee gathered behind closed doors to set out a Pilot Project that is going to take a big chunk of wildlife out of the Public Trust?

There is a big difference between a pioneer and a pirate.

This is Canada, not Cuba.