Outfitter Illegally Sold Bighorn Sheep Permits to an American?

[walking buffalo]

Gunslinger,

Did you notice the "?" mark and the word "gist" ?

The punctuation mark and noun were chosen for a reason.

I don't know why my post got you so worked up. I never accused either Chad or the American of anything, just passing on a newspaper article of the civil case before the courts.

I have no personal issue with Chad or the American. I don't know either. But there are issues within this civil case that are bigger than these two guys. Think about it.

Originally Posted by gunslinger
Rocky when you go to buy a yukon outfit or bc or high dollar tags you have a backer, You borrow money off them like a bank and then you work out a deal to pay it back. Theres no scheme or fraud or anything.

Sure, but a this is Alberta. Different laws apply. There may very well have been fraud involved here, or other illegal actions.

The American is claiming ownership of the permits. This is a big deal.

What if the courts decide that the American should be given legal rights to the Bighorn Allocations?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Doesn't sound like anything out of the ordinary regarding the way tags are bought and sold across Canada. Sounds like the issue is between Chad and his money man.

The issue is now between these two and all Albertans who have an interest in how our Bighorn Allocations can be bartered or owned.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I have no personal issue with Chad or the American. I don't know either. But there are issues within this civil case that are bigger than these two guys. Gunslinger,

Did you notice the "?" mark and the word "gist" ?

The punctuation mark and noun were chosen for a reason.

I don't know why my post got you so worked up. I never accused either Chad or the American of anything, just passing on a newspaper article of the civil case before the courts.

Think about it.





Sure, but a this is Alberta. Different laws apply. There may very well have been fraud involved here, or other illegal actions.

The American is claiming ownership of the permits. This is a big deal.

What if the courts decide that the American should be given legal rights to the Bighorn Allocations?

Think you are digging a bit too deep on this one WB...the court can't decide that because it contravenes Alberta law. It's a civil matter plain and simple.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The issue is now between these two and all Albertans who have an interest in how our Bighorn Allocations can be bartered or owned.

Think this is one of those mountain/molehill things WB. I see a civil matter here...not the future of bighorn allocations in Alberta. Either Chad owes the guy money or he doesn't...that's for the court to decide. If he does, the allocations can not be transferred to the American's name. They could be tranfered to another resident Class S outfitter though with whom the American may have a financial arrangement. Nothing new there.

[Rackmastr]

Sounds like a business deal gone a bit sour. Will take some sorting out and some lawyering in court, but thats the way that business goes sometimes it seems. In the end I'm sure most of it will shake out and my guess is that the majority of facts and information will only be known by the people present for the case or involved.

[Redfrog]

Thanks for the info Gunslinger. That is exactly why I said I would wait before I jumped to conclusions.

The American can claim whatever he wants to claim, that does not make it true or mean it is legal or that it will stand a court test.

Sounds like he lent some money to Chad, who used it to buy sheep allocations. When he was late on his payments for whatever reason, the lender got upset and is suing. Of course being an American he would rather have the allocations than his money back, but Alberta law prevents this from happening.

It's a business deal gone sideways. Not as exciting as all the speculation but it is still what it is.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Think this is one of those mountain/molehill things WB. I see a civil matter here...not the future of bighorn allocations in Alberta. Either Chad owes the guy money or he doesn't...that's for the court to decide. If he does, the allocations can not be transferred to the American's name. They could be tranfered to another resident Class S outfitter though with whom the American may have a financial arrangement. Nothing new there.

And if the courts decide that the American owns the Allocations?

There was a Civil court decision in 2009 that set precedent regarding the definition of "property" and "licence" regarding Class T Allocations.

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb%5...09abqb0444.pdf


I won't be cavalier about the Civil courts ability to make changes in the Bighorn Sheep Allocation system.

[Redfrog]

I'd bet big money, maybe as high as ten bux that those allocations never end up in the American's name.

Originally Posted by Redfrog

I'd bet big money, maybe as high as ten bux that those allocations never end up in the American's name.

I'd bet bigger money ($20 lol) that they end up in Chad's or Simpson's name.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I'd bet bigger money ($20 lol) that they end up in Chad's or Simpson's name.

I won't put money against it. Can't support the devil, even for a profit.

I might be willing to put in a few $'s for Chad's lawyer. Hope he has a good one.


Notice how Redfrog offered bux, not $.

[Rackmastr]

Big money betting going on here!!!!

[Redfrog]

Yep at this rate, we'll reach critical mass within the hour.

So does this mean there are 'whales' in Alberta? I'm just sayin'

[elkhunter11]

Reading the article, if the American can't legally hold the allocations,I don't see how he can win his case. I see this as being a losing situation for all involved.

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Reading the article, if the American can't legally hold the allocations,I don't see how he can win his case. I see this as being a losing situation for all involved.

All except the lawyers!

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Reading the article, if the American can't legally hold the allocations,I don't see how he can win his case. I see this as being a losing situation for all involved.

I suspect he's hoping to win the case so they can be transfered to another Class S outfitter. This is hardly new ground. Seems there are one or two of these cases in western Canada each year. I'd say 80+ percent of the high dollar tags/areas bought in the past 15 years or so in western Canada have some sort of American investment.

[elkhunter11]

I suspect he's hoping to win the case so they can be transfered to another Class S outfitter. This is hardly new ground. Seems there are one or two of these cases in western Canada each year. I'd say 80+ percent of the high dollar tags/areas bought in the past 15 years or so in western Canada have some sort of American investment.

Of course I am not a lawyer, but what I read into this, is that like many other situations, the American investors are simply using Alberta outfitters to comply with the regulations concerning the allocations. I would love to see the judge rule that since the outfitter officially holds the allocations ijn his name, he is deemed the owner, so he has legal control over them. I think that this American losing his case would actually be a good thing for hunting in Alberta, as it might help reduce the American involvement, take some money out of the picture, and with less money involved, reduce APOS's influence in Alberta.

[Rocky7]

Gunslinger seems to know the facts. He said:

"Morgan said when he purchased the permits he consulted with a lawyer who informed him he’d need a local connection, such as Lenz, to lease the permits to hunters."



Morgan is Bruce Morgan, right....the American?

So how did he "purchase" the Alberta sheep permits?? Sounds to me like he found an Alberta outfitter to front it for him.

What am I missing?

[gunslinger]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Gunslinger seems to know the facts. He said:

"Morgan said when he purchased the permits he consulted with a lawyer who informed him he’d need a local connection, such as Lenz, to lease the permits to hunters."



Morgan is Bruce Morgan, right....the American?

So how did he "purchase" the Alberta sheep permits?? Sounds to me like he found an Alberta outfitter to front it for him.

What am I missing?

No your just looking at it the other way rocky. Let me try to explain.

Morgan lent chad the money , Chad bought the tags. Chad owns the tags.

Chad was late on a payment so morgan had a fit and wanted out of the agreement and wanted frank to have the tags. Chitshow started and Chad lost a year of hunting becasue of paperwork.

Chad owes morgan 105000$ because thats what he lent Chad and thats what chad payed for the tags to own them.

Chad wants his 60000$ that he didnt get by not having hunters that year.

Blah Blah Blah back and forth, Morgan sues, Chad sues and now the courts are goign to tell chad to pay the 105000$ back to morgan and im guessing Chad is going to have to suck up the year lost in hunters unless the judge splits that and makes chad only pay back 70000$.

Its simply a hunting deal that turned sour like 10 out of 11 due when you have partners in this business.

No american will ever own the sheep tags and no american has ever owned alberta sheep tags, so that simply isnt even in the equation

[gunslinger]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Gunslinger seems to know the facts. He said:

"Morgan said when he purchased the permits he consulted with a lawyer who informed him he’d need a local connection, such as Lenz, to lease the permits to hunters."



Morgan is Bruce Morgan, right....the American?

So how did he "purchase" the Alberta sheep permits?? Sounds to me like he found an Alberta outfitter to front it for him.

What am I missing?

Also rocky you took a quote off my post that i took off wb post, that quote is in the write up in the first post. so take my name off that quote please.

You can clearly see how morgan is thinking there his tags and im sure you can read into that, so morgan is saying when he purchased the tags but what it really is is he lent the money to chad to buy them but hes claiming there his becasue he lent the money. its like morgan is explainting to someone when he says that. so thats not even a issue,

[MountainTi]

Looks to me that the OP is just chit disturbin'...nothing more, nothing less

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

...the court can't decide that because it contravenes Alberta law. It's a civil matter plain and simple.

Do you know what a non sequitur is?

I agree with WB. If this isn't a big deal, it should be.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by gunslinger

No your just looking at it the other way rocky. Let me try to explain.

Morgan lent chad the money , Chad bought the tags. Chad owns the tags.

Chad was late on a payment so morgan had a fit and wanted out of the agreement and wanted frank to have the tags. Chitshow started and Chad lost a year of hunting becasue of paperwork.

Chad owes morgan 105000$ because thats what he lent Chad and thats what chad payed for the tags to own them.

Chad wants his 60000$ that he didnt get by not having hunters that year.

Blah Blah Blah back and forth, Morgan sues, Chad sues and now the courts are goign to tell chad to pay the 105000$ back to morgan and im guessing Chad is going to have to suck up the year lost in hunters unless the judge splits that and makes chad only pay back 70000$.

Its simply a hunting deal that turned sour like 10 out of 11 due when you have partners in this business.

No american will ever own the sheep tags and no american has ever owned alberta sheep tags, so that simply isnt even in the equation

Here's an excerpt from the Calgary Herald article, as WB posted:

Bruce Morgan testified he had an arrangement with Chad Savage Lenz, the new star of OLN’s Mantracker, to lease bighorn sheep hunting permits on his behalf.

Chad was acting as an "agent" leasing the owner's property. If Chad really owned the permits, he'd be leasing them out himself (which is itself offensive to me, but that is another issue). If he was an "agent", he was not the owner.


Morgan, who is suing Lenz claiming breach of trust and breach of contract, said he purchased two hunting permits for non-resident Albertans for $105,000........

"he" (the American) purchased. Not loaned. Not foreclosing. Not seizing in default of a loan. Purchased.


The plaintiff admitted to Lenz’s lawyer, John Boulton, he transferred the lease agreement to another outfitter in 2007, without telling the defendant he wouldn’t have them available for hunters....

How and why did this other outfitter think an American had any right to "lease" Alberta hunting rights or transfer anything to him?

How and what did this other outfitter think it was alright for an American to be transferring to him or anyone else the right to hunt Alberta bighorns?

Is this nonsense "normal"? sheephunter seems to think so.....


Morgan said when he purchased the permits he consulted with a lawyer who informed him he’d need a local connection, such as Lenz, to lease the permits to hunters.


The Herald story is not about a loan. Not even close. Maybe the American made up all these details; I guess that is possible.

The story is about an Albertan fronting for an American who, behind the scenes, owns rights to hunt Alberta bighorn sheep without the bother of a draw or residency or citizenship. Obviously, the American cannot own those rights legally! That's the whole point here........isn't it? It's the point WB correctly pointed out.

gunslinger, my post is cemented. When you quote someone, you really should use the "Quote" button and then don't edit the markers out. Nobody is going to proofread previous quotes to see whether your words are really your words. I quoted what looked exactly like your words and now it's too late. Anyway, the source is the Calgary Herald and not either you or WB and I guess readers will/should know that.

[FCLightning]

Either way you spin this thing there has been a fraudulent action IMO.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

When the law says you can't own something because, say, you are a foreigner and to get around that you "put it in someone else's name" in order to own it, why is that not fraud in your books?

What he said. There was no "borrowing" going on. American wanted it, couldn't buy it, so found a front man who would do it for a cut... then things got ugly. The fact that the Yank tried to transfer ownership proves he never believed it was a loan. Gonna get ugly for the "Mantracker" series too, me thinks... Grumpy or not, you at least believed the old Mantraker was an upstanding guy.

[huntinstuff]

Purchasing and owning are two different things.

Think of it this way....:

My son, who was 10yrs old, purchased a rifle. It was his money. But it was my PAL thus, Im shown as the owner.

In good conscience, I cannot sell that rifle, even though the receipt is in my name. I know who paid for it. Between my son and I, we know who the owner is.

Legally though, my son has no leg to stand on if I were to sell it and keep the money.

My son isn't allowed to own the firearm due to restrictions.

Now, let's say I rent that rifle out to someone for a $100. I keep the $100.

Does my son have a right to part of that $100? Legally, does he have a leg to stand on?

Best thing for my son to do is find another person with a PAL to take that rifle into their possession. Trick is, how does he get that rifle from me?

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by gunslinger

You can clearly see how morgan is thinking there his tags ,

Exactly. If you loan someone money to buy something, no one in their right mind thinks they own what was bought. And you wouldn't try to transfer ownership. Were the leases put up as collateral for the loan? Where are the documents? If it's a loan that is not being repaid you take the debtor to court. Your argument on behalf of the fellow is total fabrication and spin.

[HELL]

It didn't suprize me at all has a history with FW

[HELL]

It didn't surprize me at all has long history with FW about time outfitters get what they deserve for pushing the envelope long overdue

[ringo]

I've lived in the area and this is not the first I've heard about shady actions by mr lenz. I also heard about how one of those great big non typicals on his web site. Was bought from a fellow and he passes it off as one he guided. Just my two bits

[Redfrog]

This thread is hilarious.