Jump to content

Hac Leader


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have read everyone’s comments, and good arguments have been made on all fronts.

 

I would like to make a few points, as I too am a member of HAC.

 

When I first read the story as it appeared in the original post, l was surprised and disgusted by the actions of those involved. However, more importantly, I wanted to know what involvement executive members of HAC had in this, particularly Brian Jenner.

 

When you read the article, it does not explain what Brian’s involvement was in all of this, so I emailed Brian myself. His unedited response…”I just wanted to spend the weekend in the bush and be helpful in preparing and loading moose killed by others. Unfortunately helping involves being in possession of meat that was deemed to be illegally obtained.”

 

There you have it. This was Brian’s alleged involvement.

 

Is this a case of guilty by association? That ‘s debatable. In no way do I condone the actions of any of the parties involved, including Brian’s. But, should Brian be forced to step down as president and CEO of HAC? Absolutely not…considering his involvement. It would, however, be different if he was at the controls of the JetRanger. Love him or hate him, Brian has done good things for this industry – for the small operator and the large operator alike.

 

The lines are blurred between our personal lives and that of a public figure. What happened here was during Brian’s own personal time. Public figures have done far worse things and still maintain their place in office.

 

 

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

jerry... while ingrid's writing certainly grabs your attention, for accuracy's sake, let's go with the first article you've quoted... the one that provides both a current and accurate record of the court's ultimate disposition in this matter...

 

"Brian Jenner, Quebec, was sentenced to almost $ 7000 fine for possession of illegal moose meat." (nothing more, nothing less)

 

this offence (while definitely considered to be serious) is NOT a criminal offence... it is an offence against a quebec provincial statute for which there is similar legislation throughout the rest of our individual provinces & territories (ie. the ontario game & fish act). similar charges would be laid against anyone anywhere in this country who has in their possession more pickerel/walleye/pike/bass/sockeye/coho/char (pick one) than lawfully permissible under their particular provincial/territorial statute.

 

for the record, i wouldn't know mr JENNER if he were to show up on my doorstep... i am providing the above information in the interests of both perspective and accuracy for those of us who may not be as familiar with the very real distinction between a provincial offence (speeding/illegal possession of game meat) and a criminal offence (possession of a controlled substance/impaired driving).

 

happy & safe holidays to one & all...

mulligan

Link to post
Share on other sites

…”I just wanted to spend the weekend in the bush and be helpful in preparing and loading moose killed by others. Unfortunately helping involves being in possession of meat that was deemed to be illegally obtained.”

 

There you have it. This was Brian’s alleged involvement.

 

Don't buy that excuse at all. Poor innocent bystander at a hunting camp....come on!

 

I do not believe the Wildlife folks in Quebec hand out $7000 fines for someone just lending a hand to their rich friends who probaly could have hired sherpas to haul their moose out of the bush.

 

Perhaps you should let Mr. Jenner explain things in his own words, not through the moderator.

 

2007

 

[inserted by moderator.... Just to clarify, he did explain things in his own words and those words were posted into this thread. BTW - Mike is more than a moderator.]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it seems as though there are a few witches to burn,,,,

 

 

Have no clue of Mr Jenner's involvement and quite frankly think he deserves a break, this man has done alot for the industry. That's my opinion. So if you want to stand on a soap box, make room for me to stand there as well.

 

As a side note, when fighting fire near Lillouet BC a few years ago there were some roadside stands selling fresh salmon, smoked salmon etc. I asked around and was told that yes, is was good but the natives were allowed to sell it but it was illegal to buy it due to some weird freaking law...I asked the forestry fella if they did charge people, he said no but you never know..so had there been a sting operation and at the wrong place and wrong time,,,,possesion of illegal salmon????

 

Unless there is more info to prove contrary is silly to flap on. :down:

 

Paul Kendall

Hi-Wood Helicopters Ltd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jerry... while ingrid's writing certainly grabs your attention, for accuracy's sake, let's go with the first article you've quoted... the one that provides both a current and accurate record of the court's ultimate disposition in this matter...

 

"Brian Jenner, Quebec, was sentenced to almost $ 7000 fine for possession of illegal moose meat." (nothing more, nothing less)

 

this offence (while definitely considered to be serious) is NOT a criminal offence... it is an offence against a quebec provincial statute for which there is similar legislation throughout the rest of our individual provinces & territories (ie. the ontario game & fish act). similar charges would be laid against anyone anywhere in this country who has in their possession more pickerel/walleye/pike/bass/sockeye/coho/char (pick one) than lawfully permissible under their particular provincial/territorial statute.

 

for the record, i wouldn't know mr JENNER if he were to show up on my doorstep... i am providing the above information in the interests of both perspective and accuracy for those of us who may not be as familiar with the very real distinction between a provincial offence (speeding/illegal possession of game meat) and a criminal offence (possession of a controlled substance/impaired driving).

 

happy & safe holidays to one & all...

mulligan

 

[removed - personal attack against another posting member]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he got off easily considering the possible fines.....

 

 

Quoted from a wildlife management website

 

"Penalties

There is a high price attached to illegal hunting and fishing in Canada. Those found intending to possess by having a loaded rifle or are in possession of killed wildlife game or fish will be charged and can expect a hefty fine up to $25,000 and/or up to one year in prison. In some cases, the fine can be up to $100,000 and/or up to two tears in prison if the accused is commercially hunting, fishing, or trapping without a license. Each province has its own regulations and penalty."

 

but always remember, the persons personal wealth should always be factored into the fine...imagine a speeding ticket for a 6 figure salary worker and a part time gas station attendant....who's going to likely stop speeding when they get hit with a $500 fine??? (we now are seeing speeding fines priced at $10000 for 50km/h over the limit)

 

$7000 is a pretty good sum of money to alot of people. hopefully enough to deter even the wealthy.

 

I would love to still hear his side of the story candidly, but I really doubt he's ever going to come here...invites to a witch hunt usually go unanswered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched this discussion for the past couple of days and one thing confuses me. Why is all of the focus on Mr. Jenner ,from what I have understood from the HAC website is that he is president and CEO of the association while Mr. Martel is one of the directors sitting on the board....correct me if I am wrong but it is he that bore the brunt of the largest fines and penalty's (did he get the seized helicopter back?) .While the president of HAC has allot of influence it is ultimately the board that sets policy and direction for HAC.

We do not know all the details of what exactly happened and probably never will, I do believe that the rest of the Board for HAC should be deciding what if any conflict (of interest) the director and president might be in as a result of these convictions and media attention. They should then advise the members and public of their findings. It is HAC's mandate to represent industry to government and in my opinion some damage has been done to the lobbying power of HAC should they ever have discussions with wildlife authority's country wide (the possibility is there with no-fly zones ...ect). In the end I think the next real step would be for HAC to address these questions in the most timely manner..

 

Cheers & Merry Christmas

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...