From the ATA
 

July 22, 2016



Re: Announcement from your President


ATTENTION: All Registered Fur Management Area Holders

Recently, Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) have released a Memorandum notifying trappers of impending changes coming to the trapping industry in Alberta. As well, a Trapping Interim Administration Reference Document, mostly pertaining to Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMA’s) in Alberta, has been released. Both of these documents have been circulated to the membership by the Alberta Trappers’ Association (ATA).

While looking towards 2017, this interim document is already being used by some Regional and District AEP biologists as an operating guideline.

It needs to be understood that this document was developed by AEP staff alone. The ATA was not invited to provide any input prior to its release and it appears to be quite separate from prior discussions that the ATA was having with AEP.

While the intent may be fine, without further clarification, we find points in this document to be problematic. Especially troubling is the area around RFMA transfers and relinquishments. As a result, we request that all current RFMA holders considering or intending to transfer an RFMA to immediately suspend doing so until the ATA can meet with the AEP Fur Management Team. We need to receive clarification and learn the intent behind some of the decisions in this document. Please do not relinquish any RFMA’s to the Crown.

We are in talks with the appropriate officials, a meeting has been arranged, and preparations are being made. Until further notice, it is important that all trappers are alerted to this important message.

It is also important that all trappers, if not current members of the ATA, join immediately. We must have the strength of numbers when meeting with the GOA. Non-members will not have as strong a voice as what we will all have if we work together collectively.

We will continue to keep you advised through your local Presidents.

Thank you for your patience and cooperation,



Yours Sincerely,

Anne Coles
President, Alberta Trappers Association

An encouraging letter. I don't beleive these implements/changes are set in stone. There will be some tweeking and fine tuning. Stick together and make yourself heard. I predict this will be revised to a certain extent in order to meet in the middle with current holders concerns. Good luck. I hope I'm right.

The widow's seized line #2285 that was up for application has now been removed from posting.

That's a great first step !!!

I'm on the road now. Hope to be back in time for the meeting

That is good news. i wonder how that came about?
I know of another lady right now that is an older First nations lady with a line that has been in her family for years. The line does not get trapped. Are the new rules being discussed only for White people with lines or are things different if you are First Nations? I would think this could open another can of worms if we stated pulling lines from First nations people that do not use them. Something to think about.

Guaranteed it's a different set of rules. Govt's wouldn't dream of upsetting the First Nations. Political suicide. You know that Nube. One example is netting lakes. What group can net lakes these days? Anything with First Nations in the scenario and it's a given.

Great to see ATA is trying to resolve these very serious changes proposed by APS biologists. On second issue I believe the first nations lines are also affected the same as our lines, was mentioned in original documents.

If they are not then that will mean there will still be a lot of lines not being used. For sure it would cause a big issue if lines were started to be pulled from Natives as well.

Beginning in 2017, vacant RFMAs to be allocated shall be posted publicly at local Alberta
Environment and Parks (AEP) offices from June 1
st to July 31st
, and applications will only be
accepted during this period. Vacancies of designated First Nations RFMAs will also be posted at the
relevant Band Office, but applications will only be received at the AEP office. Our intent is to also
post vacancies on a dedicated website, but this process is not yet available.


My take on reading this is that if First nations is vacant it can go to the best candidate. Red, white, brown, . Possibly an even playing field, who would have thunk it.

Kinda why i was asking. To me you are right 6T but i really do not believe it. If that is the case I I expect First nations to fight this thing to the end as well. And at the same time if you can not get the line because you are not native then that is not right either because the purpose is to get these lines used. I would also bet First nations people have quite a large holding of traplines in Alberta but I may be wrong

That is the way it should be , but when dealing with FN on any issue I wouldnt hold my breath about an even playing field .

I think you folks are forgetting the wording designated . that means it will stay designated first nations .

Yes. I beleive First Nation lines will go to other First Nation people who want a line.

Better retract my post and stay out of banned camp . :)

:sHa_shakeshout:

:)

This document has "interm" right on it and I think the bios are starting to understand how little they know about trapping and just how interm it truly is.

how can we say as a society that we denounce racism when our government writes a policy worded " designated native rfma" a clear cut case of racist policy .

"It needs to be understood that this document was developed by AEP staff alone. "


Has this been confirmed?

Were there no "consultants" involved, only government employees?

Gentlemen, I would be Very suspicious here....

Yes it has been confirmed. The bio that attended our snaring course on the weekend admitted it to all in attendance and confessed they had done a very bad job of it.

Anne Coles and her husband have a line (as I understand) why would she post a letter that undermines their situation. I believe the letter to be genuine.

I'm curious how you would suggest that the highlighted quote would "undermine" their situation? :confused:

Like the PCs did, the NDP government are regularly using consultants in drafting policy, plans and procedures. I would be surprised if developing Trapping policy would be different.

And let's remember, the Government has a legal obligation to include public consultation on most of its work, which can be accomplished through the use of consultation committees. This consultation requirement is unique and higher when Aboriginals are effected, as they are for trapping.
Did the government really do this without aboriginal consultation?

So far, this just doesn't pass the smell test.

To be clear on my reasoning for posting the question. I have no knowledge or evidence of how this administration document was developed. It appears that no one else here does either. I posted the question as a suggestion direction for those involved to becoming informed on who actually is behind this. If it was just AEP staff, who? Were the others?

When simple questions are difficult to get answered....

walking buffalo you wrote that you don't believe the ata was not consulted . why . what evidence. do you think anne coles was consulted . why would she lie . it makes no sense. our time would be better spent forming strong alliance with our ata who has stated they are apposing the new relinquishment changes. and to write our MLA .

Expedition, the problem is that yes some of them have stated there were talks and others say no there were not. The problem is there is no proof of anything. After talking to a couple people who were at the meeting it sounds like the pure objective of the ones in charge is to make traplines worth nothing. Their logic behind it is also retarded and the thoughts of the Bio when talked to by an individual I know seemed to change from one min. to the next.
There seems to be a lot more to this than just some new rules to make sure a line is being used.
No point in pointing fingers right now as it will just make things worse. Hopefully in the end we can have some say in it and change things for the better but again from talking to a guy today that had a personal 45 min talk with the bio it does not sound very reasuring at all

I did NOT write any such thing.


You are completely missing the point of my questions and statements. Hopefully others will pick it up.

who are you suspicious of