Quote:
Originally Posted by Headwaters
It is a lie to say that ABHA said they are "fine with an eventual hunting closure in the Castle." They said exactly the opposite. They are the only group that publicly supported the government's proposal to keep hunting, even in the provincial park. They also supported OHV restrictions to restore habitat that is badly damaged, to stop the displacement of elk from habitat where they used to be common and to improve the hunting and fishing experience. The AFGA burned their bridges in the meantime with an aggressive and hostile defence of off-roading that could have cost us any hope of continued hunting access. You are free to oppose ABHA but not to spread deliberate lies.
|
They knowingly accepted what is a thinly veiled attempt at closure. I'm paraphrasing, but "for 2017 hunting will continue as planned and then be reevaluated" - that's closure talk. We all dang well know what reevaluated means. It'll be another cypress hills.
I'm not in agreement with the AFGA position either, but there should have been absolute zero acceptance or support of a park from
any hunting group without 100% guaranteed continuation of licensed hunting access to public lands. For petes sake, that's their thing!!! They betrayed every one of their members.
When the GOA introduces restrictions to all but treaty hunting next year, I'll bring this up to remind you exactly what the ABHA stood for, the exact opposite of what their mandate is. This was perhaps the biggest disappointment in recent history. A group that should have stood up and shown that hunters care about the habitat and a negotiation that could have set precedent. Instead, they kissed up to naturalists. Absolute disgrace.
As for Y2Y, they coordinated the anti-grizzly hunt efforts that were funded by MEC. Deny all you want, it's common knowledge. Along with their ever changing hunting policy that has been well documented.