$$$ whitetail allocations $$$

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Great job by the admin, as the discussion has been good. I have written several letters to both the previous and present government regimes concerning both the allocation system, and the fact that convicted outfitters do not have their allocations revoked, and are still allowed to outfit. In every instance , the response has been the same, that been that the government will not involve themselves in these matters, they leave all disciplinary actions to APOS. But given that even the APOS president has been convicted of offences; why would anyone expect APOS to discopline it's members for being convicted of violations?

It's about as corrupt as it can get

[nube]

Originally Posted by admin

The thread is cleaned up
no more mud slinging, keep it on track please.

Good call!

[nube]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Great job by the admin, as the discussion has been good. I have written several letters to both the previous and present government regimes concerning both the allocation system, and the fact that convicted outfitters do not have their allocations revoked, and are still allowed to outfit. In every instance , the response has been the same, that been that the government will not involve themselves in these matters, they leave all disciplinary actions to APOS. But given that even the APOS president has been convicted of offences; why would anyone expect APOS to discopline it's members for being convicted of violations? And why would the members vote to allow a convicted offender to represebt their association?

A lot of times these outfitters that are convicted do not hold title to the Allocations Elk11. How does APOS go about stripping Allocations from members that are not convicted of anything.
Take good old Loyd for instance. I don't think that guy has his name on any of his Allocations yet its his business.
Said this many times before it isn't as easy as you would think. It's a lot of legality issues which APOS can't afford to fight for "doing the right thing".

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The fact remains, that APOS chooses it's own president, and they choose who they allow to become a member of their organization, and who they allow to remain a member of their organization. As to not knowing about the inner workings of APOS, shouldn't you as a member who depends on income from the industry know how the organization that represents you operates? If I had significant money invested in the industry, I would make it a point to find out how APOS works.

All peas in a pod

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by nube

A lot of times these outfitters that are convicted do not hold title to the Allocations Elk11. How does APOS go about stripping Allocations from members that are not convicted of anything.
Take good old Loyd for instance. I don't think that guy has his name on any of his Allocations yet its his business.
Said this many times before it isn't as easy as you would think. It's a lot of legality issues which APOS can't afford to fight for "doing the right thing".

A person requires a guide outfitter permit to operate as an outfitter in Alberta. Right on the APOS site it states that APOS can suspend or revoke a person's guide outfitter permit. Yet APOS does not do that, in fact Lloyd is still a member of APOS and is still listed as a guide outfitter. When one of the most convicted poachers in Alberta history is still allowed to be a member of APOS, and to hold a guide outfitter permit, it says a great deal about APOS as an organization.

[walking buffalo]

I earlier mentioned Walmart's interest in a volume purchase of Allocations earlier.
While in jest, there is a serious reason for the comment. a concern that has not been discussed in this thread.

The basic tenant of our Wildlife Management model is that Wildlife is "Owned by the Public, held and managed in trust by the Crown for the Public.



APOS and several Outfitters have been pushing for the legal determination that allocations are Real Property, meaning that the holder of the allocation would Own the resource described.
APOS's position on Real Property Allocations if realized would effectively dismantle the core pillar of our Wildlife Model.



Where does Walmart come into play?

If Allocations are determined to be Real Property, multi-national corporations will be quick to gain control of the resource.

A couple of years ago after an Alberta Inheritance civil suit including assets of Big game Allocations was judged, F&W received an influx of international inquiries as to the purchase of Allocations based on them being Real Property. These people were researching investments in "owning" our wildlife!

As a worst case scenario IF Allocations become "real property". Would anyone believe that Monsanto or Nestle wouldn't be interested in owning this resource?

Or how about the The Alberta Elk Commission (AEC) , Alberta White-tail & Mule Deer Association? A few years ago the Game farmers tried to get a clause added to the Livestock diversity act allowing for "escaped" elk and deer AND ALL THEIR OFFSPRING to be considered legally allowable and remain in the ownership of the company. This was an attempt to allow unfenced game farming! The Game Farming industry would be pleased with the option to own wild herds. One of the first Alberta models/studies in game farming was based on free ranging stock. Allowing Ownership of Wildlife allocations could make this model a reality.


The Outfitter big game allocation system is leading to the privatization of our wildlife.
In order to protect Wildlife as a Public resource while maintaining public hunting as a allowable management action, Allocations must be eliminated.

[Deer Hunter]

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=137715

So they are trying to make this legal, without the lawsuits and judgments against the outfitter of course.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/20...unting-permits

Whether legal or not, it is happening already without any repercussions from the crown

[35 whelen]

Originally Posted by nube

A lot of times these outfitters that are convicted do not hold title to the Allocations Elk11. How does APOS go about stripping Allocations from members that are not convicted of anything.
Take good old Loyd for instance. I don't think that guy has his name on any of his Allocations yet its his business.
Said this many times before it isn't as easy as you would think. It's a lot of legality issues which APOS can't afford to fight for "doing the right thing".

There are three or four Outfitters that have been convicted have transferred the titles into family members names and are still more or less running the business unfortunately I've worked for a few of them. It must be pretty easy to do

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[JDK71]

Lenz is not liked in the area he lives always up to some thing

[Salavee]

For what it's worth, here is a link to the history (and the probable future) of Outfitting organizations in Alberta.

https://www.apos.ab.ca/about-apos/th...tting-industry

Having been involved back in the Wild Rose Outfitters Assn days I suggest you pay close attention to WB's latest post.

[nube]

I am not 100% sure but I think if you have a conviction and loose your license as a guide you can not get a guide license can you? I have heard of guys in the past not being able to guide because of this

[Salavee]

APOS dispenses Guide licenses through a designated Outfitter.
Not too sure if they monitor Game Act convictions.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by JDK71

Lenz is not liked in the area he lives always up to some thing

Somebody said the president is a convicted poacher, and you're saying he's always up to something!

So what was he convicted of ?

Also wondering what F&W said when you reported him ?

[JDK71]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Somebody said the president is a convicted poacher, and you're saying he's always up to something!

So what was he convicted of ?

Also wondering what F&W said when you reported him ?

you need to reread my post /convicted report him for what sorry but did not say anything about that .

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

But given that even the APOS president has been convicted of offences

Originally Posted by JDK71

Lenz is not liked in the area he lives always up to some thing

Sorry JDK71

The question was not only directed at you.

So.... I was technically asking elkhunter what he was convicted of ?

And asking you what "he was always up to" and what F&W said when you reported him ? You know, for "always being up to something"

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Torkdiesel

Somebody said the president is a convicted poacher, and you're saying he's always up to something!

So what was he convicted of ?

Also wondering what F&W said when you reported him ?

The former president Glen Brown was a convicted poacher. After his conviction, the membership conducted a vote, and voted to keep him on as their president.

[JDK71]

all good

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The former president Glen Brown was a convicted poacher. After his conviction, the membership conducted a vote, and voted to keep him on as their president.

Sorry elk, when you said the president I thought you were talking about the current president.

[sns2]

Lots of this stuff is unfortunate really.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sns2

Lots of this stuff is unfortunate really.

Exactly, the members themselves voted to allow a convicted poacher to continue to represent them. As such, the members themselves are condoning this type of behavior from their representative.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Exactly, the members themselves voted to allow a convicted poacher to continue to represent them. As such, the members themselves are condoning this type of behavior from their representative.

Not all of them, but certainly a majority of those that were present for the vote. Sickening. That's a big problem with organizations. Just think of how few members of a gun range actually show up the the meeting. Votes should be done in such a way that all members could easily vote.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sns2

Not all of them, but certainly a majority of those that were present for the vote. Sickening. That's a big problem with organizations. Just think of how few members of a gun range actually show up the the meeting. Votes should be done in such a way that all members could easily vote.

The other side of this, is that if you really care about something as important as this, you should make it a point to do everything that you can, to try and show up at a meeting and vote. Yes it can be an inconvenience, but if you really believe in something, it's worth some inconvenience. If nobody was willing to accept those inconveniences, those gun ranges that you speak of could not function.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The other side of this, is that if you really care about something as important as this, you should make it a point to do everything that you can, to try and show up at a meeting and vote. Yes it can be an inconvenience, but if you really believe in something, it's worth some inconvenience. If nobody was willing to accept those inconveniences, those gun ranges that you speak of could not function.

You get no argument from me. My point is that people should be able to vote by proxy, so all could take part.

[Little red riding hood]

Hear hear! It's a lack of voter turnout that has our province in the quandary we are currently in... with notley!

[nube]

Clinton almost made it in the Whitehouse and look what she has done lol Look at what that tells you how people think these days lol
Fact is most people do not attend the meetings. It's like most union meetings and any associations of any type.

[diamond k]

If there was a petition to pull back any allocations on any species that is not available as a general over the counter tag I would sure not only sign it but help to distribute it but unfortunately with 2 jobs and a family I don't have the band with to make it happen.

Also a petion that every allocation that an outfitter owns at the time of a wildlife infraction would be forefitted to the crown would be signed in a second by myself. Other property used in a crime is forefitted to the crown why would it be so hard to enforce in this case. Pretty hard for APOS to fight this in the court of public opinion. Hell even the PETA nut jobs might sign it.

While every letter ( and I have written one) helps a petion with ten thousand signatures would gather a bunch more attention to a govt that knows every vote in the next election will count.

[nube]

Originally Posted by diamond k

If there was a petition to pull back any allocations on any species that is not available as a general over the counter tag I would sure not only sign it but help to distribute it but unfortunately with 2 jobs and a family I don't have the band with to make it happen.

Also a petion that every allocation that an outfitter owns at the time of a wildlife infraction would be forefitted to the crown would be signed in a second by myself. Other property used in a crime is forefitted to the crown why would it be so hard to enforce in this case. Pretty hard for APOS to fight this in the court of public opinion. Hell even the PETA nut jobs might sign it.

While every letter ( and I have written one) helps a petion with ten thousand signatures would gather a bunch more attention to a govt that knows every vote in the next election will count.

Good thing your not in charge of much lol That is like saying we should throw everyone that speeds in jail. Glad you have never done anything wrong in your life......
I would bet there is a large percentage of people on this forum that have not followed hunting rules by mistake or a dumb choice.
But I do understand your frustration with a few well knowns in the world.
I would surely hate to loose my whole business because of one circumstance.

[diamond k]

I would say that poaching and speeding are not in the same category but if I get caught poaching I risk losing my truck or gun or quad an on and on.

I am a professional with 2 seperate designations. Both are strictly regulated under codes of conduct and I breach those codes or get convicted of anything above a misdemeanour and I lose my licence and my livelihood . Why can't we hold outfitters to same standard as the rest of us.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by Salavee

For what it's worth, here is a link to the history (and the probable future) of Outfitting organizations in Alberta.

https://www.apos.ab.ca/about-apos/th...tting-industry

Having been involved back in the Wild Rose Outfitters Assn days I suggest you pay close attention to WB's latest post.

Thank you for the link, interesting information.

[nube]

Originally Posted by diamond k

I would say that poaching and speeding are not in the same category but if I get caught poaching I risk losing my truck or gun or quad an on and on.

I am a professional with 2 seperate designations. Both are strictly regulated under codes of conduct and I breach those codes or get convicted of anything above a misdemeanour and I lose my licence and my livelihood . Why can't we hold outfitters to same standard as the rest of us.

They are both illegal and I look at it as the same. You think it's fair to take a license away because someone wasn't paying attention and made the wrong choice and went through a red light?
And I have yet to know of anyone who has had a truck or rifle taken from them and kept. If it happens they always give them back. It takes pretty major charges and convictions to warrant taking someones vehicle. I know 2 people that guns were held and given back.