AF&GA membership benifits

Sheep that is great to hear, I look forward to getting more involved with them as time goes on, maybe even get a chance to bend your ear sometime, saw you at the sportsman show, and everytime I wanted to say hi you chatting up another one of your admirers.

Sniper training yikes I hope that is not with a black gun
I may start to think I could use it for something more than paper targets, what would the public think :lol :rollin :lol

Just kiddin guys I am finding the black rifles thread(s) very interesting and it has me thinking, still not sure where I come out on all of it yet.
Fall

Feel free to bend my ear anytime.... Those were likely bill collectors that were talking to me. LOL

The flip side of this, are the benefits to anglers and hunters as a whole. If we were all AFGA members we would have much more clout every time something comes up that could affect our sports. Future generations would be thankful.

Okotokian:

pm me and we'll talk about the benefits of the AFGA.

Quentin Bochar
1st VP AFGA

I have e-mailed Ted Morton, Pearl Callahassen, and the M.N.A. And I have also read the 2 arcticles in this months A.O. by Struther's and Waugh.
I have NOT recieved a response from Morton's office. Callahassen response was ; They will check with Ted Morton's office. And the M.N.A.'s response was the I.M.H.A. is the same as it has always been.
In the 2 articles Waugh and Struther's explain the situation, but no where do they say that the I.M.H.A. is non existent.
So, I have yet to see proof that the agreement is null and void.
The rest of my post was edited by lilsundance.

Your post has nothing to do with the original topic of the thread, so be thankful your whole post was not edited.

What kind of "proof" are you looking for anyway????

Robin

I put it here because this is where Sheephunter was calling me down. He was the one suggesting I mail Ted Morton for an explanation. It would be nice to see it in the news as there was a couple people saying that there was media at the AGM.
It looks to me that either Ted Morton was putting false hope into Albertans minds or T.J. Schwanky is.

The two articles were published before the appeal period was over so at that time it was not null and void. Now the appeal period has passed and the courts...not Ted or TJ have ruled it invalid. I'm just going by the legal system and what Morton said in response to the courts ruling. Not sure how much more proof is required. Whether the Alberta goverment comes back with another agreement remains to be seen but for now Powley is the deciding factor of law. End of story. I'm just citing some facts Mackay...if you are looking for a debate or argument your are barking up the wrong tree. This isn't my opinion...it's a fact of law!

YOU ARE WRONG! NO DEBATE.

Huh???? Did I miss something????? Why are the facts I reported on wrong????? I know you are itching for a fight Mackay but at least wait until I give my opinion on something. These are the facts as they were presented to me and I'm just passing them along. No need to shout either buddy. If you know something I don't, please enlighten me and the other fine users of this board. I'm always open to learning. Otherwise please stop shouting.

And just for the record Mackay, I never called you down.

I repeat.

I have e-mailed Ted Morton, Pearl Callahassen, and the M.N.A. And I have also read the 2 arcticles in this months A.O. by Struther's and Waugh.
I have NOT recieved a response from Morton's office. Callahassen response was ; They will check with Ted Morton's office. And the M.N.A.'s response was the I.M.H.A. is the same as it has always been.
In the 2 articles Waugh and Struther's explain the situation, but no where do they say that the I.M.H.A. is non existent.
So, I have yet to see proof that the agreement is null and void.

The only response I recieved was from the M.N.A.
"My" own govt' won't respond to the question.
They are the ones who make the laws.
I would say at best the IMHA is being looked at again.
You are going by your or Ted's interpretation of the court's decision. It is NOT official. And that is what I am trying to get across. I am 99% sure you will not find a c.o. in the province who will charge a metis who is hunting or fishing within the IMHA.

The fact remains Mackay that two judges have ruled the IMHA invalid. How the government chooses to deal with that is open for plenty of speculation and I'm certain the issue is far from dead so I agree with plenty of what you are saying. As I've said from the beginning, I was only passing along some facts. Where it all goes from here is anyone's guess. Not sure why we had to go through that whole song and dance but glad we ended up at the same place....I think.


Nothing of what I said was inaccurate...it was fact plain and simple. It's where the government chooses to go from here that is open to speculation.

I think the problem was your reply on page 1. It simply said "Nope"

Sorry Mackay...seemed like a simple question so thought a simple answer would suffice. I often find out a lot of info before other sportsmen and when it's important I like to post those facts here. I'm not afraid to post my opinion when I have one but quite often the facts are just the facts.