Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 12-13-2018, 08:54 PM
brendan's dad's Avatar
brendan's dad brendan's dad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton Area
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
Another way to look at it is if APOS truly is the governing body as you say they are then why does the crown impose fines and suspensions ? If APOS is responsible for sanctions and suspensions on their members then why does the crown impose fines and suspensions first ?
If a doctor sexually assaults a patient, the Courts will charge and convict him of sexual assault. The association of physicians will revoke his license.

If APOS is the governing body as per the Act then they would definitely have the ability to revoke his outfitting license in addition to any court imposed rulings.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 12-13-2018, 09:11 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
Really ? So APOS could impose a ruling banning an individual from participating in the outfitting industry the same as the crown could ?

I’d love to see that one play out in court !!!

How about APOS telling the government what the non resident allocation numbers are going to be going forward, and not the other way around?
You think that will fly ?

Surely the governing body would decide all manner of process for that sector of government???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
Another way to look at it is if APOS truly is the governing body as you say they are then why does the crown impose fines and suspensions ? If APOS is responsible for sanctions and suspensions on their members then why does the crown impose fines and suspensions first ?


You are proving why APOS is such a mess. Their Executive and membership (past and present) will either lie in defence or are ignorant of the laws concerning their legal responsibilities.

The "Crown" has delegated the authority to APOS to create and enforce bylaws in which an outfitter and guides may lose the Privilege to participate in this business. It Is APOS's responsibility to do so, yet as we all know when you put a weasel in charge of the chickens....



Again, are you just playing dumb? This is a serious question.

The regulations and delegated authority assigned to APOS Does NOT include the ability for APOS to determine Allowable Harvest and the number of allocations or licences issued.


You are proving yourself to be a harmfully incorrect and potentially deceitful source of misinformation regarding the powers Delegated to APOS. I say potentially because as you are obviously an intelligent person and a former member of APOS, it is expected for your comments on this topic to be factual.



So here we have it, evidence of why APOS would allow Lloyd to become a Director. Many APOS members likely don't care or know what APOS can and should do, and their is no internal drive to change.


As a side note to a question asked earlier in this thread. YES, several other Alberta hunting interest groups DO require potential Executive candidates to disclose all Wildlife Act convictions, which typically will disqualify the person from being eligible to run for election.
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 12-13-2018, 11:31 PM
Full Curl Earl Full Curl Earl is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern Alberta
Posts: 1,704
Default Huh, very Liberal thinking

Never really took you for a Liberal bleeding heart, Omar Khadr hugging kinda guy Pack? Sometimes you cant turn back the clock and be forgiven, not by me at least. A message needs to be sent, this is not the face of our great tradition, and we clean our own house here!


Quote:
Originally Posted by packhuntr View Post
With all due respect.
Again, my personal position has never been on display. And no man's SHOULD BE.
What IS glaringly obvious to me in this, is that ANY man who has "paid" for issues, mistakes or otherwise, (so long as not a blatant risk placed on society), should be left free of the type unbelievable behaviour on display here.
What people are doing to this individual, and this Stakeholder group in its entirety here is nothing short of disgusting, and shows a "lack" of many things, on a lot of levels.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 12-14-2018, 01:25 AM
Bub Bub is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,392
Default

Not sure about this whole post, Torkdiesel. Seems a bit naive, for the lack of a better word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
Really ? So APOS could impose a ruling banning an individual from participating in the outfitting industry the same as the crown could?
It seems to me that this is exactly a function of APOS. The only way the Crown can ban an individual from outfitting is ban that individual from hunting. They clearly cannot impose any sanctions on his/her status as an outfittter. APOS, however, can. This is very clear from Walking Buffalo's post above yours:
Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post

(2) The Society is delegated the following powers, duties and functions, to be carried out in accordance with the Act, this Regulation and the objects and by‑laws of the Society:
(a) the issue of outfitter‑guide permits and guides’ designations;
...
(f) the cancellation and suspension of licences, permits and guides’ designations, issued by the Society
What this means is the Society is the one issuing the "credentials" and it is the one that should take them away, if circumstances exist. In case of Mr. McMahon, such circumstances certainly existed on numerous occasions; but no action has ever been taken by the Society, as far as my awareness goes (am I wrong?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
I’d love to see that one play out in court !!!
Accountants, nurses, doctors, etc get their licenses to practice from an appropriate professional organization. That organization issues the license when an individual meets certain criteria. Most such organizations have certain conditions attached the membership, including professional development, being a prescribed number of hours of training an individual must do every year. Different professional organizations deal differently with non compliance in regards to the annual required training. Often, it is a big deal, but can be dealt with and an individual can continue to practice with some conditions and whatnot (of course the hours have to be put into training, regardless). In addition, every single organization has a Code of Ethics that has to be followed by all members. Now, when that code is broken by a member of the organization, it is looked upon way more serious than the professional development. Depending on severity of the violation, there will be warnings, suspension, and license revocation. Always. Every single time any member is caught violating the Code of Ethics. This is because no professional organization wants to be viewed as "flawed" in public eye because their livelihood depends on it. They also want to be as professionals in their duties and expertise.

Back to your court statement. Since it is up to the organization to decide whether an individual should be a member of the said organization, there is not much any court can do if it can be shown that an individual no longer meets the criteria dictated by the organization. And the Code of Ethics is a big part of any professional organization, which is why I compared it to the professional development above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
How about APOS telling the government what the non resident allocation numbers are going to be going forward, and not the other way around? You think that will fly ?
No, it will not fly. Why? Because the government decides the number of allocations and it is up to the APOS to divide them up the way they see fit. Seems obvious, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
Surely the governing body would decide all manner of process for that sector of government???
Well, not really. The government had decided that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post

(2) The Society (APOS) is delegated the following powers, duties and functions, to be carried out in accordance with the Act, this Regulation and the objects and by‑laws of the Society:
(a) the issue of outfitter‑guide permits and guides’ designations;
(b) the distribution, including transfers, of allocations;
(c) the issue of non‑resident alien licences authorizing the hunting of big game animals;
(d) the collection of fees for licences, permits and guides’ designations;
(e) the designation of, and the setting of the qualifications for, guides;
(f) the cancellation and suspension of licences, permits and guides’ designations, issued by the Society;
(g) establishment of the kinds of protection of deposits required by section 57(2) of this Regulation.
Clearly, the government "deligated the powers" to the APOS, as a self-controlling organization. Can those powers be revoked by the government? Sure they can! Just matter of rewriting some sections of the Wildlife Act. Lol, I believe, is in order here.

The way I see it, it is quite convenient for the APOS. There is no resident stakeholder in that organization aside from outfitters themselves. There is no public eye, but the nonresidents who may or may not do their due diligence before hiring an outfitters. The government cannot really do anything but act with accordance to the Wildlife Act. Why would anyone within the organization care to do anything above what the government can in these circumstances, i.e. a fairly small fine (relative to the profit) and a short suspension from hunting? Ask yourself that.

In addition, every time there is another article about another (or the same!) "professional" outfitter being caught violating the Wildlife Act, a fellow hunter thinks (pick one that suits you):
(a) another f-ing outfitter;
(b) what a scumbag (without a particular tie to the outfitters in general).
What would you bet a person that has nothing to with hunting think? I would bet on:
(a) f-ing hunters;
(b) same as above.
And I would bet (a) gets picked the most for both groups. And I am not saying the sky is falling and everyone should panic. It is merely an observation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
Another way to look at it is if APOS truly is the governing body as you say they are then why does the crown impose fines and suspensions ? If APOS is responsible for sanctions and suspensions on their members then why does the crown impose fines and suspensions first ?


Lol. Not really sure if this is a serious question. Clearly, the Crown imposes fines and suspensions for violations of the Wildlife Act (and, in case of Mr. McMahon, Criminal Code in more than one country), as it would impose on any hunter.

On a side note, why is there "professional" in APOS, anyway? Are there any other outfitters in Alberta? There are "professional" and "chartered" accountants, for instance. Yet one does not need to be either to practice accounting.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 12-14-2018, 01:36 AM
Bub Bub is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper View Post
WB, this thread is fueled by misguided anger towards a senior citizen. Not logic lol
Lol again. Lloyd?

First of all, I can't speak for any of the other posters, but there is certainly no anger in any of my posts, whatsoever. Mostly curiosity lead by a disappointment, or something like that. Second, it ain't a senior citizen who sits on his porch enjoying another sunrise. I am pretty sure you are catching my drift.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:00 AM
Bub Bub is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packhuntr View Post
With all due respect.
Again, my personal position has never been on display. And no man's SHOULD BE.
I really do not follow your stance. Why wouldn't you "display your personal position"? And why shouldn't anyone else express theirs?

I really see no substance in any of your posts. Yes, the dude may have paid the fines he was "awarded" by the court of appeal (he appealed every time). But what is the point?
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 12-14-2018, 05:57 AM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,502
Default

Talks in circles has no credibility as in his/her posts just keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper......he/she must go to the children to tell big stories.....at least then he/she would have a captive audience until the 6 year old caught on he/she was full of it and gets up and walks away to find another BS'er
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 12-14-2018, 06:35 AM
albertadave albertadave is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendan's dad View Post
You are correct, I am not an outfitter. The APOS is a stakeholder that directly effects the hunting opportunities of resident hunters in Alberta. They lobby for the interest of their Membership and we hope for good wildlife management. I believe their executive should be held to a high moral standard to ensure that their Members activities are lawful and moral. Now you have an individual monitoring those activities who himself has demonstrated poor moral character. Why shouldn't every resident hunter care?
That's fair enough.

What I meant when I asked "why do you care?", was more 'why not let them keep digging a hole for themselves, maybe eventually they'll be buried'. But you are absolutely correct, as long as they still sit at the table and have a vote, they should be held, and hold themselves, to the same standard as every other stakeholder.
__________________
Never say "Whoa" in a mud hole.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 12-14-2018, 08:27 AM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
You are proving why APOS is such a mess. Their Executive and membership (past and present) will either lie in defence or are ignorant of the laws concerning their legal responsibilities.

The "Crown" has delegated the authority to APOS to create and enforce bylaws in which an outfitter and guides may lose the Privilege to participate in this business. It Is APOS's responsibility to do so, yet as we all know when you put a weasel in charge of the chickens....



Again, are you just playing dumb? This is a serious question.

The regulations and delegated authority assigned to APOS Does NOT include the ability for APOS to determine Allowable Harvest and the number of allocations or licences issued.


You are proving yourself to be a harmfully incorrect and potentially deceitful source of misinformation regarding the powers Delegated to APOS. I say potentially because as you are obviously an intelligent person and a former member of APOS, it is expected for your comments on this topic to be factual.



So here we have it, evidence of why APOS would allow Lloyd to become a Director. Many APOS members likely don't care or know what APOS can and should do, and their is no internal drive to change.


As a side note to a question asked earlier in this thread. YES, several other Alberta hunting interest groups DO require potential Executive candidates to disclose all Wildlife Act convictions, which typically will disqualify the person from being eligible to run for election.
At what point did I say APOS wasn’t a complete train wreck ? I’ve mentioned at least three times in this thread alone they need a revamp and shouldn’t be operating the way they do. There’s been no miss information, I’m just a realist. Can something be done ? Surely it can, but it won’t be because the system is broken.
I’m not sure how you missed that part but we do tend to focus solely on what we want to see.

I never said APOS had control over allocation numbers, I said if they were truly the governing body why wouldn’t they control it all ? That was a question!

I realize written in APOS’s literature it says they have the power to pull licences, impose suspensions and delegate punishment to its members. But, they don’t, and I’m not sure if they ever would with the way the system is set up.
The better question is why you would want to rely on an association that operates on the funds paid by its members to represent their best interest, to doll out suspensions and disciplinary actions ?

Why not just get rid of that function completely and let the crown handle it solely ?
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 12-14-2018, 08:43 AM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub View Post
Not sure about this whole post, Torkdiesel. Seems a bit naive, for the lack of a better word.


It seems to me that this is exactly a function of APOS. The only way the Crown can ban an individual from outfitting is ban that individual from hunting. They clearly cannot impose any sanctions on his/her status as an outfittter. APOS, however, can. This is very clear from Walking Buffalo's post above yours:
.
Thanks for your giant post. Obviously I was not clear enough and should have really simplified my opinion so there was no room for interpretation. I’ll break it down in a few posts for you.

You’re 100% wrong, the crown can and does impose bans on outfitting, guiding or having anything to do with the outfitting industry. They just did it. An $80,000 fine and 22 year ban from the crown, nothing to do with APOS.

APOS in theory can now do the same thing or more if they choose. But they can also be sued by the member they impose the that ban on civilly, and no doubt would be if they chose to cause a loss on an individual of several hundred thousand if not millions in some cases. Having dealt with a few civil litigations over the years I know how this will play out. In a perfect world good would prevail, but APOS is not likely going to fight against a member with funds collected from members.

Again, why would we want to rely on APOS to do this in the first place ?
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 12-14-2018, 08:56 AM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub View Post


Accountants, nurses, doctors, etc get their licenses to practice from an appropriate professional organization. That organization issues the license when an individual meets certain criteria. Most such organizations have certain conditions attached the membership, including professional development, being a prescribed number of hours of training an individual must do every year. Different professional organizations deal differently with non compliance in regards to the annual required training. Often, it is a big deal, but can be dealt with and an individual can continue to practice with some conditions and whatnot (of course the hours have to be put into training, regardless). In addition, every single organization has a Code of Ethics that has to be followed by all members. Now, when that code is broken by a member of the organization, it is looked upon way more serious than the professional development. Depending on severity of the violation, there will be warnings, suspension, and license revocation. Always. Every single time any member is caught violating the Code of Ethics. This is because no professional organization wants to be viewed as "flawed" in public eye because their livelihood depends on it. They also want to be as professionals in their duties and expertise.
.
Yes many other licensed professionals are governed by associations and are subject following a code of ethics. APOS members should be too, unfortunately this doesn’t happen to any substantial degree.
If you read back through my posts I at no time said they shouldn’t be enforced by APOS, I truly think they should. But again I’m a realist and understand why they aren’t to the degree people would like to see.
That was my whole point, the way the system is set up is flawed.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 12-14-2018, 09:09 AM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub View Post

Back to your court statement. Since it is up to the organization to decide whether an individual should be a member of the said organization, there is not much any court can do if it can be shown that an individual no longer meets the criteria dictated by the organization. And the Code of Ethics is a big part of any professional organization, which is why I compared it to the professional development above.
Well the court is required to hear the case prevented by the individual / corporation that files a civil case against the organization. As long as I dish out my $400/hour to have my lawyer fight the ruling by the association the courts hear both sides.
Again in a perfect world each member of APOS would stand up and say “fight the good fight” and we don’t mind you possibly spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money in this one case, which we may or may not win, to make an example of this one member that you feel broke our code of ethics.

In reality, if the crown had just taken appropriate action none of this would be required or on the table in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 12-14-2018, 09:17 AM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub View Post


No, it will not fly. Why? Because the government decides the number of allocations and it is up to the APOS to divide them up the way they see fit. Seems obvious, no?
That was my point, why not let APOS do everything?

Because it clearly won’t work ! Just like this enforcement after the fact by the association is not working.

So why task APOS with part of the governing of the system but not all of it ? Why would you want to depend on them in the first place ?
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 12-14-2018, 10:30 AM
calgarychef calgarychef is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,668
Default

Here’s the response I received from APOS regarding the POS being discussed....



Thank you for your email. The process for nominations and elections is
determined by our bylaws and governance policy. Under the governance
policy, a person is only eligible to be nominated if they hold a current
outfitter-guide permit, have no outstanding debt to APOS, not be involved in
a lawsuit against APOS, and not been declared mentally incapable under
provincial legislation. Additionally, candidates cannot have any Wildlife
Act or other environmental act convictions in the past 24 months, or more
than 2 over the past 3 years. It was confirmed that Mr. McMahon met these
requirements prior to the election at the AGM.

Jeana Schuurman
Managing Director
Alberta Professional Outfitters Society (APOS)
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 12-14-2018, 11:29 AM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
At what point did I say APOS wasn’t a complete train wreck ? I’ve mentioned at least three times in this thread alone they need a revamp and shouldn’t be operating the way they do. There’s been no miss information, I’m just a realist. Can something be done ? Surely it can, but it won’t be because the system is broken.
I’m not sure how you missed that part but we do tend to focus solely on what we want to see.

I never said APOS had control over allocation numbers, I said if they were truly the governing body why wouldn’t they control it all ? That was a question!

I realize written in APOS’s literature it says they have the power to pull licences, impose suspensions and delegate punishment to its members. But, they don’t, and I’m not sure if they ever would with the way the system is set up.
The better question is why you would want to rely on an association that operates on the funds paid by its members to represent their best interest, to doll out suspensions and disciplinary actions ?

Why not just get rid of that function completely and let the crown handle it solely ?
You posted a whole pile of misinformation, which I called you out on and provided the legislation for confirmation.

If you would accept that you were wrong on those matters, then we could discuss the other concerns you raised.
It is not possible to move forward when you are sticking with false claims.

So now you know why APOS can't independently raise allocation numbers, they have no legal authority to do so.
And I have to point this out to a former APOS member?


Thanks to the posters that have taken the time to break down into grade school form, you can hopefully now understand that other organizations DO take their role to develop and enforce strict standards as a delegated authority seriously. APOS has fought tooth and nail to avoid behaving this way.


Clearly you are right, APOS is a incompetent organization when considering their duties to behave in an ethical manner. I agree, the only answer is for the government to rescind the delegated authority from APOS and assume FULL control of this industry.
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 12-14-2018, 11:32 AM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarychef View Post
Here’s the response I received from APOS regarding the POS being discussed....



Thank you for your email. The process for nominations and elections is
determined by our bylaws and governance policy. Under the governance
policy, a person is only eligible to be nominated if they hold a current
outfitter-guide permit, have no outstanding debt to APOS, not be involved in
a lawsuit against APOS, and not been declared mentally incapable under
provincial legislation. Additionally, candidates cannot have any Wildlife
Act or other environmental act convictions in the past 24 months, or more
than 2 over the past 3 years. It was confirmed that Mr. McMahon met these
requirements prior to the election at the AGM.

Jeana Schuurman
Managing Director
Alberta Professional Outfitters Society (APOS)

I hear Amy Winehouse singing....
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 12-14-2018, 11:50 AM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
Default

How can these concerns be addressed?

Since aPOS won't do it themselves, change will have to come from the outside.


Any such delegated authority is liable to a complete review.

The government can do so, or it can be done privately.



Do you want to know something about APOS or its members activities?
Make an official information request. They MUST respond.


The complete Wildlife Act Regulation Section pertaining specifically to APOS as a delegated authority.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/re...&resultIndex=2


Schedule 3

(Section 10(2) of this Regulation)

The Alberta Professional Outfitters Society
Interpretation of Schedule
1(1) In this Schedule,
(a) “by‑laws” means the by‑laws made by the Society under section 10;
(b) “fiscal year” means the fiscal year of the Society, as specified in the by‑laws;
(c) “Society” means the Alberta Professional Outfitters Society referred to in section 2(1).

Continuation of delegated authority, and delegated functions
2(1) The Alberta Professional Outfitters Society is continued as a delegated authority referred to in section 104(1)(b) of the Act.

(2) The Society is delegated the following powers, duties and functions, to be carried out in accordance with the Act, this Regulation and the objects and by‑laws of the Society:
(a) the issue of outfitter‑guide permits and guides’ designations;
(b) the distribution, including transfers, of allocations;
(c) the issue of non‑resident alien licences authorizing the hunting of big game animals;
(d) the collection of fees for licences, permits and guides’ designations;
(e) the designation of, and the setting of the qualifications for, guides;
(f) the cancellation and suspension of licences, permits and guides’ designations, issued by the Society;
(g) establishment of the kinds of protection of deposits required by section 57(2) of this Regulation.

Freedom of information and protection of privacy
2.1(1) The Society shall comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in the course of carrying out its powers, duties and functions under this Regulation.
(2) The Society shall designate a person to be responsible for freedom of information matters.
(3) If a request for access to information pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is made, the Society shall,
(a) in the case of a request made directly to the Society, immediately direct the request to the Department’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Co‑ordinator, and
(b) in every case, comply with such directions regarding the request as may be provided by the Co‑ordinator.
(4) All records in the custody or under the control of the Society that are required in the carrying out of its powers, duties or functions under this Regulation are subject to
(a) the Records Management Regulation (AR 224/2001), or
(b) any regulation that replaces the Records Management Regulation (AR 224/2001).
(5) All information and records created or maintained in the course of carrying out the powers, duties and functions under this Regulation become and remain the property of the Crown in right of Alberta.
(6) The Society shall designate a person to be responsible for records management matters.

Annual report and business plan
3(1) The Society shall,
(a) at least 30 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, provide to the Minister a business plan for the Society that indicates its goals for the coming fiscal year, and
(b) not more than 6 months after the end of each fiscal year, provide to the Minister an annual report summarizing the Society’s activities and containing its audited financial statements for that fiscal year.
(2) The remuneration and benefits that were paid or provided during a fiscal year to
(a) each director, within the meaning of section 1 of the Societies Act, of the Society, and
(b) all management personnel who report directly to one or more of such directors
must be reported in the financial statements for that fiscal year or as a note or schedule to those financial statements.
(3) The remuneration and benefits must be reported
(a) on an individual basis by name in the case of the persons referred to in subsection (2)(a), and
(b) on an aggregate basis in the case of the persons referred to in subsection (2)(b).
(4) The Minister may disclose personal information, within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, reported under this section, and this subsection constitutes an authorization for the purposes of section 40(1)(f) of that Act.

Charge for Society’s services
4(1) The Society may establish or continue a charge to be paid, in addition to any fee prescribed in Schedule 8, by its prospective holder or by a prospective designated guide.
(2) The charge is to be paid before the licence or permit to which the fee relates is issued or before the guide’s designation is given, as the case may be.
(3) The charge is a fee for services reflecting the costs incurred by the Society in undertaking its powers, duties and functions under this Regulation.
Remittance of fees

5 The Society shall, in accordance with an agreement (if any) with the Minister, remit to the Government fees prescribed in Schedule 8 and collected by it.

Returns and information
6 The Society shall make such returns and provide such information to the Minister as the Minister requires, outlining the services that the Society has performed pursuant to section 2(2).

Holding of prescribed fees in trust
7 The Society holds all fees prescribed in Schedule 8 and collected by it in trust for the Crown.

Cancellations and suspensions
8 The Society may cancel or suspend a licence, permit or guide’s designation issued by it in accordance with the by‑laws.

Agreements for service
9 The Society may enter into agreements with the Minister to provide any further administrative services that may be required under the Act or this Regulation.

By‑laws
10 The Society may make by‑laws
(a) setting the charges for services provided by it,
(b) establishing the form of any licence, permit or guide’s designation to be issued by it,
(c) respecting the provision of guiding services, including qualifications, restrictions and rights to enter into agreements to provide such services,
(d) respecting the manner in which allocations are to be distributed and transferred,
(e) respecting the manner in which licences, permits and guides’ designations issued by it may be suspended or cancelled,
(f) respecting the protection for deposits to be provided under section 57(2) of this Regulation, and
(g) specifying the Society’s fiscal year.

Notice of objects or by-law changes
11 When the Society proposes to change its objects or by‑laws under the Societies Act, it shall give reasonable prior notice of the nature of the proposed changes to the Minister.

Transitional
12 All terms and conditions of allocations issued before the commencement of this section and still subsisting are to be administered and maintained by the Society.
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 12-14-2018, 12:34 PM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
You posted a whole pile of misinformation, which I called you out on and provided the legislation for confirmation.

If you would accept that you were wrong on those matters, then we could discuss the other concerns you raised.
It is not possible to move forward when you are sticking with false claims.

So now you know why APOS can't independently raise allocation numbers, they have no legal authority to do so.
And I have to point this out to a former APOS member?


Thanks to the posters that have taken the time to break down into grade school form, you can hopefully now understand that other organizations DO take their role to develop and enforce strict standards as a delegated authority seriously. APOS has fought tooth and nail to avoid behaving this way.


Clearly you are right, APOS is a incompetent organization when considering their duties to behave in an ethical manner. I agree, the only answer is for the government to rescind the delegated authority from APOS and assume FULL control of this industry.
I didn’t post misinformation, you just took it literally (as law) instead of how I meant it and how it actually works.

For example:

In theory APOS can revoke your allocations and sieze that asset because you were convicted with any offence they see as a breach of their code of ethics or any actions they deem to be in contradiction of their charter and you’d never outfit again in Alberta.

In reality this would likely take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in law suits to possibly ever take effect, hence why to my knowledge APOS has NEVER DONE IT !!!
As you pointed out “here’s the legislation I posted for confirmation” but it’s never been enforced, at least not to the degree everybody would like to see !

Even with blatant cases of abuse and misuse like Mr. Lloyd mentions above.

Pointing out it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on is not misinformation, it’s reality. There’s no false claim, but being a realist I also don’t believe what may happen if all the stars align and good prevails over human nature !

I also never said APOS could control allocation numbers. I’m not confused at all.
I asked you if they were truly a governing body as you claimed they were why wouldn’t they be tasked with administering that function as well.
You’ve mentioned this twice now as some proof I didn’t understand the process, when I was actually just giving you an example of why I feel like they’re an advocacy group for their members and an administrator of licensing at most.

A true governing body would control all aspects of the industry, not just the portion the actual governing body didn’t want to handle do to administrative costs.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 12-14-2018, 01:40 PM
Bub Bub is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,392
Default

Thanks for the reply, Torkdiesel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
You’re 100% wrong, the crown can and does impose bans on outfitting, guiding or having anything to do with the outfitting industry. They just did it. An $80,000 fine and 22 year ban from the crown, nothing to do with APOS.
I do not believe I am 100% wrong. The Crown imposes suspensions on hunting. Were there any cases where the guilty party was banned/suspended from guiding/outfitting activities, but not hunting? This is where I could be wrong, but I very much doubt it.

As for the fine amount, the initial trial does not indicate much. For example, Mr. McMahon was previously fined almost $140,000 (this is a combined total Mr. McMahon and his company, Great White Holdings, where he was a sole shareholder at the time, were to pay). Original sentencing (additional hunting restrictions were put in place as well):



After Mr. McMahon and his company appealed the charges, the results were as follows:



(This is the case in point: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/do...&resultIndex=2)

Quite a difference, isn't it? Just over $102,000 worth of a difference.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg before.jpg (74.5 KB, 214 views)
File Type: jpg after.jpg (46.5 KB, 212 views)
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:08 PM
Joe Black Joe Black is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarychef View Post
Here’s the response I received from APOS regarding the POS being discussed....



Thank you for your email. The process for nominations and elections is
determined by our bylaws and governance policy. Under the governance
policy, a person is only eligible to be nominated if they hold a current
outfitter-guide permit, have no outstanding debt to APOS, not be involved in
a lawsuit against APOS, and not been declared mentally incapable under
provincial legislation. Additionally, candidates cannot have any Wildlife
Act or other environmental act convictions in the past 24 months, or more
than 2 over the past 3 years. It was confirmed that Mr. McMahon met these
requirements prior to the election at the AGM.

Jeana Schuurman
Managing Director
Alberta Professional Outfitters Society (APOS)
so a couple important things i gleaned from this.


1) APOS naturally expects that their members will be charged with wildlife offences, so they implemented a line in the sand where it becomes to extreme(not able to be elected). to them, it is 1 in last 24 months or 2 in the lat 3 years. so the grace period for APOS is as short as 3 years to look the other way on poachers wanting to be in their executive, much less than the "lloyd did this 35 years ago so leave him alone" line.

2) they look things like paid membership dues, et first before wildlife infractions when nominations come in

3) old lloyd can fill his boots, get convicted of infractions and not have to worry about getting kicked off the board(or maybe they just didn't mention that in the email). no mention of not being able to still serve if convicted while serving. kinda a trump thing i guess.


wow. just wow.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:14 PM
Joe Black Joe Black is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 997
Default

PS.

i'm amazed at the info you can find on the interweb if you really want to.

it makes calling BS on someones "misinformations" and "opinions" by using facts, a snap.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:18 PM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bub View Post
Thanks for the reply, Torkdiesel.



I do not believe I am 100% wrong. The Crown imposes suspensions on hunting. Were there any cases where the guilty party was banned/suspended from guiding/outfitting activities, but not hunting? This is where I could be wrong, but I very much doubt it.




Here’s a conviction from this summer. The crown issued this ban, it had nothing to do with APOS
I do believe he was already banned from hunting personally in 2014 for 5 years, but nothing about an additional ban for 20 years from hunting personally.

Although this case is a tricky one on what actually took place and the intent, the fine and ban from the industry is a step in the right direction moving forward.
And it was the crown who did it, not APOS, which is the way it should be in my opinion.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by Torkdiesel; 12-14-2018 at 02:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:29 PM
C&C Outdoors's Avatar
C&C Outdoors C&C Outdoors is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Fort saskatchewan
Posts: 169
Default

Looks like they meet the criteria & have the credentials to hold a strong membership with apos
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:32 PM
Joe Black Joe Black is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 997
Default

my guess is if they made conviction of wildlife offence a reason to be banned from membership, THEY WOULD HAVE NO MEMBERSHIP
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:42 PM
alpinebeers's Avatar
alpinebeers alpinebeers is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Okotoks
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper View Post
WB, this thread is fueled by misguided anger towards a senior citizen. Not logic lol
Im not sure why it matters if he's a senior citizen or a teenager. At the end of the day Lloyd McMahon is a CRIMINAL and now sits on a board that directly influences the industry he was convicted in.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:54 PM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Black View Post
my guess is if they made conviction of wildlife offence a reason to be banned from membership, THEY WOULD HAVE NO MEMBERSHIP
By percentage the number of Outfitters/Guides convicted of wildlife act violations was very close to that of residents, within a couple percent anyway.

Certainly some bad apples out there, definitely not the majority though
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:58 PM
fish_e_o fish_e_o is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: rollyview
Posts: 7,860
Default

the guy has made reparations through the justice system for the things he has done.

not everyone is who they once were. if you believe that people who go through the justice system have been given what they are due then it's now over, they have paid their debt to society and we need to move on.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 12-14-2018, 05:04 PM
leeelmer leeelmer is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rocky Mnt House
Posts: 932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
By percentage the number of Outfitters/Guides convicted of wildlife act violations was very close to that of residents, within a couple percent anyway.

Certainly some bad apples out there, definitely not the majority though
But Residents don't make their living from it, nor are we called professionals.
I think that is the big difference.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 12-14-2018, 05:08 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
By percentage the number of Outfitters/Guides convicted of wildlife act violations was very close to that of residents, within a couple percent anyway.

Certainly some bad apples out there, definitely not the majority though
Convicted is the key word, how much is going on that is never come to light. That goes for both groups.
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 12-14-2018, 05:11 PM
buckbrush's Avatar
buckbrush buckbrush is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikergolf View Post
Convicted is the key word, how much is going on that is never come to light. That goes for both groups.
This.
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 12:35 AM.


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