Ontora neglected by the OFAH

[Dude Bro]

There is one group that nobody has mentioned yet that you should contact. That is your local OFAH Zone Chair and it's directors, send an email or call and ask for this topic to be discussed at the next zone meeting as well as being documented in the minutes which are then sent onto head office. If all zones support addressing this, then the paid staff (Greg Farrant) at the OFAH will have to change their approach to this subject.

i have been to several zone E meetings in which there are less than 20 people show up other than the annual election meeting.

If we don't give the OFAH head office staff a list of things to work on, they will just do what ever they think they should do.

That's exactly right. As a former member of the OFAH, I know that OFAH policy is set by the Board of Directors, which is made up of executives from ofah zones across the province. Without input from the grassroots level, the Zone executive is left to determine their position on their own. This position gets put forth at the Board level where it gets supported because there weren't any OFAH members that stood up against it. Seen it happen on a couple issues.

As far as OFAH position on crown land access, I think their position is starting to change somewhat. I know for a fact, from speaking with head office staff, that ofah was more worried about the militant attitudes that OntOra has than about OntOra's position on access. I was told that sometimes ofah needs to take a "more moderate stance" on certain issues simply to remain at the table when those issues are discussed. They took a militant stance on the Lake Nipissing walleye issue and as a result were completely cut out of the committee that discussed the problem and management actions.

[Dude Bro]

By contacting your local OFAH zone director and secretary and ask for a motion to be included in the agenda for the next zone meeting.

then get as many people that you can to show up at the zone meeting and vote in favour of having this changed.

this needs to happen in the majority of the zones, and pretty much needs a zone director with the balls to push it, as they will need to contact directors from other zones to keep the pressure on Greg Farrant to change his stance on the public access issue.

Be prepared for a long drawn out process, since most zones only have 3 meetings per year, and will require a personal investment of gas and time to get to the meetings.

my personal observations have been that the OFAH head office prefers to give the zones direction and are generally not very welcoming to the concept of the zones giving head office it's direction.

Be prepared to find out that while there may seem to be a lot of people not happy with the OFAH stance on this policy, it will be one hell of a struggle to get people to commit to going to the meetings and supporting the change. It's far too easy to just complain on forums and hope for change, and unfortunately that's what will happen.

I used to be active in my local ofah zone, and B Wilson has it exactly rigth. complaining on forums doesn't do anything. Membership in the ofah gives us a more powerful voice at the zone level, which helps direct policy from the board of directors.

[trimmer21]

Nope! Not yet from anyone. I'll re-send them. If I still don't hear back,we'll have our answers.

Just for the record,nobody from OFAH has ever responded to my e-mails on this subject.

That's exactly right. As a former member of the OFAH, I know that OFAH policy is set by the Board of Directors, which is made up of executives from ofah zones across the province. Without input from the grassroots level, the Zone executive is left to determine their position on their own. This position gets put forth at the Board level where it gets supported because there weren't any OFAH members that stood up against it. Seen it happen on a couple issues.

As far as OFAH position on crown land access, I think their position is starting to change somewhat. I know for a fact, from speaking with head office staff, that ofah was more worried about the militant attitudes that OntOra has than about OntOra's position on access. I was told that sometimes ofah needs to take a "more moderate stance" on certain issues simply to remain at the table when those issues are discussed. They took a militant stance on the Lake Nipissing walleye issue and as a result were completely cut out of the committee that discussed the problem and management actions.

This "more moderate stance" seems to be OFAH policy. I'm not convinced it's good as a "blanket" policy,but,while it's very true that "we can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" sometimes,a little bit of a "raised voice" is needed. WE,also,need to remember that the OFAH is merely a lobby group,not a labor union with a paid membership that demands solid results or they're going on strike. Lobby groups can be booted at the whim of any government ministry. Granted,if enough stick together and yell out loud and clear,politicians see votes flying out the window,BUT,if the alternative is worse,we've accomplished nothing except cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

[Dude Bro]

http://www.ofah.org/ofahcomments

scroll down toLand Use/Access Past Postings


then scroll down to
Crown Land Use Harmonization Project (CLUAH)

then read the ofah response sept 1 2011 its a pdf file

Thanks for posting that mark270wsm. I just read it, and it seems like ofah is against almost all access restrictions. Am i reading that right? Seems to me that ofah and ontora agree, at least in principle.

[trimmer21]

Thanks for posting that mark270wsm. I just read it, and it seems like ofah is against almost all access restrictions. Am i reading that right? Seems to me that ofah and ontora agree, at least in principle.

The key word,though,is "principle." It should be noted that northern Ontario outfitters have considerable support from the OFAH,also. For the OFAH to "take a side" and promote one over the other would be next to impossible and ultimately,self-defeating.

[DGM999]

By definition "Crown land is an area belonging to the monarch ("the Crown"), the equivalent of an entailedestate that passed with the monarchy and could not be alienated from it. Today, in countries where the British monarchy is the head of state, the term is used to refer to public land." Key word here is public land, I don't believe anyone is interested in denying outfitters the right to run a business on land they have purchased with access to "public" land they may be adjacent to, however, this does not provide the right to deny the rest of us access to "our"public land. OFAH should take up the cause here on our behalf, run a campaign to collect funds to pay for legal opposition and put an end to this practise. I would be happy to throw in $50.00, if we all put in what we were able I'm sure our pure numbers would win this fight. How can a group of individual small outfitting business's deny an entire population access to the land that is rightfully theirs? Does an OFAH representative monitor these posts and conversations? What comment does the OFAH have regarding this and their promise to uphold our rights?

[gubbz]

Might be a good idea to get charged,that way a court challenge can be started and outdoors people could throw in a fee bucks and see if the road closures hold water under the legislation they are using.

Get them in court and don't settle for dropped charges:Make them go to trial. That way they have to stop the practice all together. Far too often bad policy or laws (of which there are many) are money makers that won't hold up in court so they'll drop the charges so they can still use the scam on the next sucker. Hope you got the time off work if you go for it though, you might need it.

[woody1948]

Don't complain on forums, take a more moderate stance, and remember the 'voice of fishermen and hunters is working for you. What a crock, all the while the closures are escalating and the OFAH won't answer an email. Do the sheeple still believe this stance is not driven by the advertising dollar? No wonder the province is in the state it is in.

[mark270wsm]

they have enough money in there war chest and reserves to more than pay for the court fees .. the last time they ofah asked for money for a land purchase it turned into a nightmare. I think that is where the ofah "officially jumped the shark"

[Monster29/66]

Where are your great canadian hunting and fishing shows on this issue ? Do they use their paid advertising to help secure and maintain public access to water and land they get to use for free so they can film infomercial hunting and fishing shows at these
tourist operators free of charge as their trips are donated so they can tell someone to pay to get to said lake.

the basis of these shows and turning hunting and fishing into a business is exactly what is leading to the problem some are pouting about.

enjoy your Saturday morning hunting and fishing shows promoting the tourist operator whom is pushing government to block your access to crown lands and waters unless you pay him to be there. !!!