New MLAs

With the number of new MLAs elected, I thought it would be interesting to check on some of their backgrounds and see where their leanings might be on key issues that affect sportsmen. I thought it was interesting to see the Arno Doerksen was the former chairman of the Alberta Beef Producers. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't they part of the OSA working group?

I see that Broyce Jacobs runs a successful cattle ranch near Cardston as well. I'm sure he'll have some interesting input into issues that concern sportsmen as well. Some of the quotes on his web site from agricultural producers are very interesting....."Has a keen understanding of the many challenges facing agriculture in the emerging global economy and is eager to help the farm sector take on these challenges with innovation and creativity" "Strong advocate on behalf of Alberta's agriculture sector and continues to speak out and works tirelessly in efforts to ensure farming community has the opportnity to earn a reasonable return on their investment"

I'm sure Ed will hold true to his word and take OSA back to caucus....I wonder what some of the new MLAs will think of it. I wonder if they may suggest some changes to better represent their constituents? We may indeed see a number of changes to OSA come out of the new caucus.

[brownbomber]

how about this for a mla. i went to i guess what could be called a mixer late last week that my dad invited me to. there was the new mla for bonnyville/cold lake. at the time just the p.c candidate but that virtually guarantees election around here. i asked her opinion of open spaces and she told me she had no idea what it was and could i please explain it. i was kind of shocked, and explained to the best of my knowledge. not my riding, at least my mla is ray danyluk who is usually well informed and knowledgable but a bit ambiguous and vauge when asked about open spaces. just not sure what to think. and shouldn't this be in general??

[Dick284]

I will be getting the read on Dianna McQueen here in DV/Calmar, right quick, I will also be letting her know how I feel about OS and letting her know I will be watching how she deals with OS in caucus.

[209x50]

It doesn't look much like OS influenced the vote. We can only hope that what comes back from the caucus isn't worse than what we have right now.

[Neil Waugh]

Hey TJ, when we talked at the convention before the Saturday vote I was under the distinct impression you were all for it. Now you want Eddie to take it back to caucus for a re-do.
Except Bill Bonko, Paul Hinman and David Eggen - all who publically opposed it - are done like last night's dinner. And there's no imminent political danger for the Tories. If we are lucky Morton will keep the SRD job. He sure wants it and there's still the Land Use Framework to stick handle through the legislature. It's been resting on a backburner until the election's over.
Now it's time to turn up the gas.

[Pathfinder76]

Hey TJ, when we talked at the convention before the Saturday vote I was under the distinct impression you were all for it. Now you want Eddie to take it back to caucus for a re-do.

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

I think everyone that is making cash in the boom is scared to change.

As long as you have cash in the bank who cares about anything else.

Considering OS was only dug up two months ago I am not surprised it wasn't a major issue.

The key is to make it so now. Everyone needs to start applying pressure to their local MLA. Tell them you want this back in caucus and you want it voted down.
Lets hope Eddie is a man of his word.

From your comments Neil are you in favour of OS? Ted Morton?

[Vindalbakken]

chevy - it would seem to me that Neil is against OS in its present form and for Ted Morton.


I think sheep was implying the same thing in his last sentence that 209 said in his post. An emboldened caucus may not be so inclined to sway towards 50,000 hunters who don't have a pocket to line.

thanks Vin

they could sway to 50,000 hunters if we all stick together and scream like he!!

[Win94]

50,000 people didn't even vote did they??

[lazy ike]

The PC's succeeded in booting Hinman with a candidate who, inspite of being directly connected to various stakeholders in the OS proposal, has no opinion. I expect he will learn what his opinion is soon.

I think we are going to need more than 50 000 hunters making noise to shut this thing down. Considering the size of the PC majority and the 5 year trial of this proposal, it will be very simple for them to "give it a try" just to see how it works.

Originally Posted by Neil Waugh

Hey TJ, when we talked at the convention before the Saturday vote I was under the distinct impression you were all for it. Now you want Eddie to take it back to caucus for a re-do.
Except Bill Bonko, Paul Hinman and David Eggen - all who publically opposed it - are done like last night's dinner. And there's no imminent political danger for the Tories. If we are lucky Morton will keep the SRD job. He sure wants it and there's still the Land Use Framework to stick handle through the legislature. It's been resting on a backburner until the election's over.
Now it's time to turn up the gas.

Neil, I have no idea where you got the impression that I was for OSA and quite truthfully don't appreciate that inference. Just because I called you on some BS you were trying to spread about the Deseret Ranch most certainly did not mean I was for pro OSA, it just meant that I was anti BS. It was Stelmach himself that that said he would take this back to caucus...it's not a matter of whether I want him to or not. Thanks for speculating out loud about my beliefs though...it sure shows some professionalism on your part......

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by lazy ike

The PC's succeeded in booting Hinman with a candidate who, inspite of being directly connected to various stakeholders in the OS proposal, has no opinion. I expect he will learn what his opinion is soon.

The most disappointing loss in the election for me.

The writing was on the wall there, and we're about to read all about it. The devil has his soul now, and I agree, he'll be told what his opinion is in short order...

I think we are going to need more than 50 000 hunters making noise to shut this thing down. Considering the size of the PC majority and the 5 year trial of this proposal, it will be very simple for them to "give it a try" just to see how it works.

The vote in caucus is the first step. There are 72 members, I guess we'll need to convince 37 of them that OS is a bad deal. It won't be easy, as we don't have the numbers, and more importantly, the $$$$, but I think it can be done.

Waxy

Originally Posted by chuck

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

X2 Ya, I'd love to hear that little fairy tale as well.

[Waxy]

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

X2.

Waxy

Originally Posted by Vindalbakken

chevy - it would seem to me that Neil is against OS in its present form and for Ted Morton.


I think sheep was implying the same thing in his last sentence that 209 said in his post. An emboldened caucus may not be so inclined to sway towards 50,000 hunters who don't have a pocket to line.

Where did this 50,000 number come from? There are 110,000 of us in the province.

[TheClash]

mr jacobs has been over to my folks house a few times recently (although i urged my folks to vote wap).....unfortunately i have never been there when he was to talk tohim about os...hopefully the next time he is around i will be able to talk to him and see what he is all about. i know his son...he married a friend of mine...and i know that he is (the son) hunts....if that carries any weight at all...

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Neil, I have no idea where you got the impression that I was for OSA and quite truthfully don't appreciate that inference. Just because I called you on some BS you were trying to spread about the Deseret Ranch most certainly did not mean I was for pro OSA, it just meant that I was anti BS. It was Stelmach himself that that said he would take this back to caucus...it's not a matter of whether I want him to or not. Thanks for speculating out loud about my beliefs though...it sure shows some professionalism on your part......

:

Waxy you nailed it, the trick now and always was that once caucus gets up and running you have to identify MLA's that will stand up to this and they are out there. Lethbridge West MLA is on record in opposition to this and there are others especially rural MLA's out of the loop that are a little mystified by it like Diana McQueen. Don't let this drop.

Neil I'm interested in why you think Mortin would be good to keep in SRD I would rather have some one like Len Mitzell if for no other reason he is the only one in caucus that voted against this thing in any meaningful way in the last 4 months. Don't know if he would want it but that would be what I would want.

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by MAV

Waxy you nailed it, the trick now and always was that once caucus gets up and running you have to identify MLA's that will stand up to this and they are out there. Lethbridge West MLA is on record in opposition to this and there are others especially rural MLA's out of the loop that are a little mystified by it like Diana McQueen. Don't let this drop.

Sounds like another round of letters to our respective MLA's is in order.

Originally Posted by Neil Waugh

Hey TJ, when we talked at the convention before the Saturday vote I was under the distinct impression you were all for it. Now you want Eddie to take it back to caucus for a re-do.
Except Bill Bonko, Paul Hinman and David Eggen - all who publically opposed it - are done like last night's dinner. And there's no imminent political danger for the Tories. If we are lucky Morton will keep the SRD job. He sure wants it and there's still the Land Use Framework to stick handle through the legislature. It's been resting on a backburner until the election's over.
Now it's time to turn up the gas.

An interesting tidbit of info. I too, would be interested in what reason's Morton would be the man for the SRD job?

[Brady]

Originally Posted by delburnedave

Sounds like another round of letters to our respective MLA's is in order.

Anybody have an idea how long they take to get the new guys' email addys set up? In West Yellowhead, we still have a PC guy, but he is new, as Strang "retired". Just curious, as I don't want my letters "lost" in the transition between the two guys.

As Neil has attempted to slander my name on this board, I'd like to give my account of the events of Saturday Feb 23 that he is referencing. I leave it open for him to give his version but I can't see it being any different.

Rob and I were standing talking after the Minister's address and Neil comes walking up to us with a piece of paper in his hand and says "Here's the new rules for hunting in Alberta"

I looked at the paper and it was the rules for hunting on the Deseret in Utah. All I said to Neil was that there was no way that he could say those rules would apply in Alberta when we hadn't even seen the details of OSA and that many of those rules may not even be legal in Alberta. Then we had a brief discussion about hitting a 9x11 piece of paper at 100 yards from the standing position with a rifle and Neil seemed to indicate that he might have trouble doing it. To the best of my recolection that was the sum total of the discussions I've ever had with Neil regarding OSA.

For him to come to the "distinct impression" that he did, took some wild speculation at best. As I said, I've never taken a pro OSA position but I've sure taken lots of anti BS positions and what Neil was saying to Rob and I in what I thought was a private conversation was total BS.

Your version any different Neil?

[MathewsArcher]

Neil if you get the chance could you explain why Morton would still be a good choice for SRD if your opposed to Open Spaces.

[lazy ike]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

As Neil has attempted to slander my name on this board, I'd like to give my account of the events of Saturday Feb 23 that he is referencing. I leave it open for him to give his version but I can't see it being any different.

Rob and I were standing talking after the Minister's address and Neil comes walking up to us with a piece of paper in his hand and says "Here's the new rules for hunting in Alberta"

I looked at the paper and it was the rules for hunting on the Deseret in Utah. All I said to Neil was that there was no way that he could say those rules would apply in Alberta when we hadn't even seen the details of OSA and that many of those rules may not even be legal in Alberta. Then we had a brief discussion about hitting a 9x11 piece of paper at 100 yards from the standing position with a rifle and Neil seemed to indicate that he might have trouble doing it. To the best of my recolection that was the sum total of the discussions I've ever had with Neil regarding OSA.

For him to come to the "distinct impression" that he did, took some wild speculation at best. As I said, I've never taken a pro OSA position but I've sure taken lots of anti BS positions and what Neil was saying to Rob and I in what I thought was a private conversation was total BS.

Your version any different Neil?

Are you agaisnt it(OS) then?

Originally Posted by lazy ike

Are you agaisnt it(OS) then?

Sadly Ike, I'd love to give my take on OSA but as I've explained, the malicious actions of a few on this board prevent me from doing so. I'm pretty well limited to providing facts as I get them and asking the occasional question. As you can see, even that neutral stance doesn't prevent some from taking their slanderous shots at me.

Tried to pm you ike but you box is full.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by Neil Waugh

Hey TJ, when we talked at the convention before the Saturday vote I was under the distinct impression you were all for it. Now you want Eddie to take it back to caucus for a re-do.
Except Bill Bonko, Paul Hinman and David Eggen - all who publically opposed it - are done like last night's dinner. And there's no imminent political danger for the Tories. If we are lucky Morton will keep the SRD job. He sure wants it and there's still the Land Use Framework to stick handle through the legislature. It's been resting on a backburner until the election's over.
Now it's time to turn up the gas.

Seems to me Neil is only expressing his opinion (impression) of events and as such this would not be considered slander as an opinion (not expressed as fact) is generally a defence to defamation.

Same thing most of us do when we post on a discussion board.

Gee Matthews, I appreciate the legal advice but I think I'll stick to my own lawyer thanks.

[MathewsArcher]

I would too.........

I think the important thing to remember and my point from the beginning, is the fact that we now have a number of new MLAs that will, occording to Ed, have an opportunity to put their own input into OSA and it's important to look at how some of them may view OSA. While Ed saying it would go back to caucus seemed a victory at the time, I guess it's important to look and see who it's going back to and what input they may have.