Ohio State Trapper Forums
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  ..  4    6
Author: Subject: 160 thread
FishDaddy
COONSLAYER(coonfat's a flying)
*****************




Posts: 477
Registered: 11-3-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 15-12-2011 at 02:35 AM


what about putting them in coni boxes?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
minker
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 4472
Registered: 3-11-2002
Location: Fayette County , Washington C.H., ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: KamiKazi Rock Hauler

[*] posted on 20-12-2011 at 07:53 AM


how do you know the osta supported banning #220's in 1973 ? you seen it in writing ? you talked to anyone who was there ? i have art scott's number , i'll call him and ask him.



sept. 05 , yes it was voted on, and since no one other than myself and matt vedrin asked any members what they wanted , and the majority we asked were interested in larger bodygripping traps , then that vote should never have been taken since the rest of the B.O.D. didn't know what any of there members thoughts were. again kicked under the rug and dismissed without investigation. the information that matt and I brought to that meeting , what was legal/illegal in other states, what restrictions could be used here, we weren't even allowed to present all of it .

i was the chairman of the #220 comm., and all those on it were emailed and called by me to get there thoughts and what ever info they gathered . other than matt vedrin none responded with anything.

your right on no #160 meeting's but there were emails and phone calls made . if the chairman had been invited to the july and sept. directors meetings that might have been different , but things were discussed by email .

you forgot to mention what was the other thing approved by the board of directors at the july 2005 directors meeting about #220's .

it was approved that a #220 trap survey/questionaire was to be printed in the sept./oct 2005 buckeye trapper as well as the same was to be printed up for display and to be handed out at the state convention to get members thoughts and comments on the issue.

neither was done . and if they had been done , members thoughts and comments could have been used to vote on the issue ethicly .

do you know why that wasn't done mike ? I do and i have proof and the person who ordered it to not be done didn't have the authority to .

the fact that larger bodygripping traps have been brought up a min. of 4 times should point out something , that its an issue with members that hasn't been resolved to there satisfaction and your right i do consider that my responsiblilty . members own the OSTA , they are the ones who support it .

some people mike have problems with right and wrong. some think its alright to be a little wrong as long as they get away with it which in there minds makes them right.
best way i can describe that is an anti war protester calling them selves a conscientious objector instead of the draft dodger that they really are. both are wrong .

and i will always mantain that the OSTA B.O.D. taking votes on issues pertaining to trapping laws and regulations without consideration to the members thoughts to be just that , Wrong.



[Edited on 20-12-2011 by minker]




Mark D. Stackhouse , Region C Director. Life Member OSTA , NTA , NRA , Member of the U.P. Trappers Assn., Alaska Trappers Assoc., Fur Takers Of America. \" Far better it is to dare mighty things , to win glorious triumphs , even though checkered by failure , than to take rank with those poor spirts who neither enjoy much nor suffer much , because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat \" - Theodore Roosevelt
View user's profile View All Posts By User
racer
MANGEY COYOTE
*****************




Posts: 584
Registered: 21-11-2002
Location: Dover,Ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 20-12-2011 at 11:02 AM


Have never received an E-mail or phone call on the 160 issue.


Russ




Life Member NTA,OSTA.OSTA Hall of Fame
View user's profile View All Posts By User
coonie
Administrator
********




Posts: 301
Registered: 4-4-2003
Location: Lorain County
Member Is Offline

Mood: Retired

[*] posted on 20-12-2011 at 03:40 PM


I am finished with this thread too. I think most folks can read my posts and understand my positions and my reasons.



Mike Conrad
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ric
Senior Member
****




Posts: 101
Registered: 10-2-2005
Location: Wellington
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 20-12-2011 at 08:05 PM


sept. 05 , yes it was voted on, and since no one other than myself and matt vedrin asked any members what they wanted , and the majority we asked were interested in larger bodygripping traps , then that vote should never have been taken since the rest of the B.O.D. didn't know what any of there members thoughts were. again kicked under the rug and dismissed without investigation. the information that matt and I brought to that meeting , what was legal/illegal in other states, what restrictions could be used here, we weren't even allowed to present all of it .”

The vote in 2005 was taken after you ( the chairman of the 220 committee) presented you findings.

The vote was negative (dismissed without investigation) It seems that the investigation was the responsibility of the committee not the BOD.

If the BOD declined to hear the information you presented. Why? Possibly the way the information you wished to present was compiled?

You state the Matt Vedrin and yourself were the only two committee members with input into the presented material because no one else responded. Sounds like the wide spread call for larger BG’s is more of a personal agenda than an issue that greatly interests the majority of the general membership.

No meetings for the 220 committee, no meetings for the 160 committee. How on earth would anyone expect the BOD to support an issue of such a serious nature ? When the information being presented to them is obviously the personal agenda of those presenting it and not a matter of particular importance to the general membership.

As for the 220 survey not being followed through on . Once again that would be the committee chairman’s responsibility. If it didn’t get done that is who should be taken to task for the lack of leadership.

The fact that BG regulation changes have been brought up repeatedly and dismissed. Tells me that those proposing the changes have repeatedly failed to make there case.

Can larger BG traps than we currently are allowed be used on land in Ohio without jeopardizing trapping in Ohio? Obviously the answer by several Boards of directors is NO.

“and i will always mantain that the OSTA B.O.D. taking votes on issues pertaining to trapping laws and regulations without consideration to the members thoughts to be just that , Wrong.”

I agree.

Let’s not conclude that because a vote did not go our way. That what we said was not heard . Just that we did not get an answer to our liking.

I sincerely believe that any BOD current or past was always open to listening to the concerns of a member. If and when a vote was taken on that concern. The protection of the continuation of our trapping privileges in Ohio would take precedence over the agenda of any group or individual. As it should be.





Ric McCaslin
View user's profile View All Posts By User
minker
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 4472
Registered: 3-11-2002
Location: Fayette County , Washington C.H., ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: KamiKazi Rock Hauler

[*] posted on 20-12-2011 at 11:25 PM


well russ, until you resently mentioned it , i wasn';t aware you were on the comm. myself.
but there were emails sent.

2 of us did gather info , and as i said they didn't even let us give all of it , does that sound fair ric ? i asked if any of the others had asked members what they thought about #220's , none had bothered. it wasn't there concern because they'd already decided before hand to do just what has been done in the past. even if the other members of the #220 comm. had done there investigations as they were supposed to , it wouldn't have changed a thing.
if the people on the comm. didn't want on it , they shouldn't have been on it , all they did was help make sure that it was going to fail .

as for the #220 survey, that was left up to the exc. director to see that it was put in the buckeye trapper and get printed for hand out at the convention. not me or the committee.

since you've never been on the B.O.D. ric, you have no idea how far off base your are in your last paragraph. IF your statement was true , then why would the B.O.D. allow a director to show up out of the blue , to one b.o.d. meeting , to only vote on one issue , to then just disappear again as if he wasn't there in the first place , never fullfiling any of the requirements to be a director in the first place ?




Mark D. Stackhouse , Region C Director. Life Member OSTA , NTA , NRA , Member of the U.P. Trappers Assn., Alaska Trappers Assoc., Fur Takers Of America. \" Far better it is to dare mighty things , to win glorious triumphs , even though checkered by failure , than to take rank with those poor spirts who neither enjoy much nor suffer much , because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat \" - Theodore Roosevelt
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ric
Senior Member
****




Posts: 101
Registered: 10-2-2005
Location: Wellington
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 21-12-2011 at 03:25 AM


Four times a subject before a Board of directors, two committees formed. Yes, the subject has been treated fairly.

It was the responsibility of the chairmen of those committees to put together information in such a manner that the BOD would listen to it. If there were people not doing what was expected of them it was the chairman’s job to replace them with someone that would. The decision to not waste time on a poorly researched presentation does not indicate negligence by the board . It reflects directly on the leadership provided the committee’s as to what type of information should be sought for presentation and how it should be obtained.

I cannot envision a BOD not being interested in hearing accurate information presenting all sides of an issue, when that same BOD has established a committee to do just that.

“since you've never been on the B.O.D. ric, you have no idea how far off base your are in your last paragraph.”

Me, not being a current or past BOD member is irrelevant. I’m just a OSTA member. I can give you a view from that perspective though. I’ve know quite a few directors over the years. Talked about trapping issues with them on a few occasions also. NEVER and I’ll repeat NEVER did I get the impression that what I had to say was not listened to respectfully . Did they always agree with my point of view ? No, but I certainly wasn’t ignored






Ric McCaslin
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  ..  4    6

  Go To Top

Powered by XMB 1.9.11
XMB Forum Software © 2001-2012 The XMB Group