Whole Foods Is Selling Rabbit, And Bunny Lovers Aren't Happy

[FWS]

WT deer hunting most popular hunting activity in North America where is the return on investment?

Based on the nationwide harvest the return is several billion servings of venison.................

Hunting and fishing are one of the few recreational pursuits where there is an economic return, which is animal protein in this case.

1,000 bow, 1200 rifle, camo clothing, big truck, stands/blinds, calls, scent sprays,deer lures, cameras, license, gas,food time spent scouting etc,etc.

And guys will spend that, but the costs you use are inflated in reality since white-tails can be taken with cheap equipment and the family minivan. And they can be taken in quantity in many states if meat is the goal, which for the majority is the case.

Many pride themselves in utilizing that resource and do not buy meat as a result. The same way that many of us utilize marine resources for our income and our sustenance.

For many trapping is the same thing a recreational pursuit.

It is for the vast majority, and it is the recreational trappers who fund the fight to keep it legal, along with the other recreational user group interests.

You FWS are making a great claim with your post that their should be two types of trapping license sold commerical harvest or recreational.

Like commercial vs recreational fishing ? A heads up.............. Sport fishermen DO NOT fight for the commercial fishermen when legislation comes up, in fact quite the opposite. And both are regulated very differently, a 'commercial' trapper is gonna face some pretty steep regulation and guess what, they can't afford to deal with it, nor should they ask their 'brother trappers' or other recreational interests to fight or fund their fights.

I would move to where it afforded me the opportunity to trap with more equipment.

And probably have less opportunity overall as a result.

Let me know how that cage trapping for coyotes goes

Nobody really trapped coyotes for fur here, they were bycatch and not wanted, hence the reason we modified our methodologies with legholds to exclude coyotes.

and how one makes a return on investment doing that

How does one catch cats in sets plugged up with coyotes ?

You see your state may offer many things but it doesn't offer many trappers what they truly need or want

And your state is lacking in other outdoor pursuits that some of us find more important and more lucrative than trapping coyotes.

[trappnman]

everyone's experience is limited- that's kind of a given is it not?

therefore, one can only quantify things BY their own experiences-

is there always some bigger, better, brighter out there? Sure there is......but one has only so much time in a day, and in a life. And while some might like the constant pursuit of what someone else might have, or desire or pursue, I like continuity, I follow the advice given in the Take it easy song....

Take it easy, take it easy
Don't let the sound of your own wheels
Drive you crazy
Lighten up while you still can
Don't even try to understand
Just find a place to make your stand
And take it easy

I've eaten muskrat prepared at least 1/2 dz ways, and the same for beaver haunches... and ducks from grileldi nstrips with bacon to baked to frieds to sausage etc...same and more for deer, rabbit, etc. there are things I like, and things I don't and the things I like are varied enough, that I have zero desire to go on a quest.

"It just might, you never know when you'll stumble across the Holy Grail of rabbit recipes, if not several."

could well be..... but time again is limited.....I'd rather spend all day trapping coyotes, and eat a peanut butter sandwich for lunch.... then dine in the fanciest restaurant with the fanciest foods.

I wouldn't live in CA for 1 reason - no foothold traps. kind of like criteria for a girlfriend....many factors are variables and ebb and flow.but #1 shes got to at least be female......

and for a foothold trapper, no footholds is kind of a deal breaker

[FWS]

everyone's experience is limited- that's kind of a given is it not?

Sure, but some individuals choose to limit their own experiences. To their own detriment really.

therefore, one can only quantify things BY their own experiences-

Ever notice that doesn't stop some from attempting to quantify things they have no experience with ?

could well be..... but time again is limited....

Doesn't take much time to learn new things in this case.

then dine in the fanciest restaurant with the fanciest foods.

Or you can learn to make those things yourself. I've never considered any of it 'fancy', since most of it has roots in rural kitchens that had great ingredients.

Creme brulee is a fantastic dessert, served in the 'fanciest restaurants', but it's very easy to make and costs less than a box of Twinkies.

I wouldn't live in CA for 1 reason - no foothold traps.

And I wouldn't live in MN, IA, the Dakotas, MO, or any of those interior states because there is no ocean and no commercial fisheries among many other reasons. All of which I've pointed out many times.

Thing is that if the fur market crashes again the effort put into trapping will dwindle as will the number of trappers.............. again.

I prefer more options.

And when a subject like waterfowling comes up and I point out it's better in CA there's no need to get upset or defensive. Because it is simply true if you like hunting waterfowl and want the opportunities to do so. Long seasons, full bag limits, broad diversity of species, lots of public hunting opportunities, lots of private lands opportunities.................

[trappincoyotes39]

FWd the outdoor industry is not ran by meat hunters It is ran by the pursuit and hope of the thirty pointer. The feed, the cameras, the calls, the camo, the special 24.00 per ounce doe pee, the fast flat shooting bows and rifles, etc, it is made for the trophy hunter in hopes of the 180 class buck and it amounts to millions and millions each year, Guys paying 5,000-7,500 don't care about the meat it is about the rack.

I agree none of it is needed a to shoot does and fill the freezer, but many want the horns before the meat in days of super high deer numbers the meat has become secondary for many.Hence the reason many states still hVe higher than carrying capacity will allow deer numbers, some states have implemented earn a buck programs many not very popular with the deer hunting crowd, Fact.

deer meat is good but not good enough for me to eat it 4 days a week year round. Ni matter how you cook it. I grew up on deer meat, squirrels, rabbits and pheasants and ruffed grouse. yet we still ate chicken, pork and beef as well. varsity as you point out is better.

old co workers and I have given more than a few lbs of deer meat to the Indian reservations through the years, working deer depredation complaints and they where happy for it, that program was a win win the ranchers for relief from deer eating livestock hay and the Indian people received good source of protein.

Again as Tman pointed out the foothold thing would be a deal breaker for me, and some states have a better grasp on looking to keep them a viable tool than others and I wouldn't say because of that these states have limited pursuit of species in fact I would say the opposite is true in many cases.

South Dakota offers a variety of species to trap. Missouri has a large list as well and a robust bobcat and otter population. All can be trapped with footholds by the way.

trapping coyotes to me and many others is a pursuit first and foremost not about the money some years good others not so good, cats have had years of lower value and it will come again. Working coyotes in South Dakota for area ranchers and interacting on a daily basis with them have me a good insight and appreciation as to there abilities and will to survive. The pursuit is what drives me plain and simple. Working coyotes in heavy pressured areas can be a different ball game than in areas where they are afforded protection type status again fact. I found that to be of high interest and enjoyed it immensely. Watching them and learning things was as much a part of it as killing them. many are just coyotes act like the avg predator but a few not so and those are the ones that helped me learn a lot and come to realized that many of what is written on the subject of coyotes is pure bunk, both ways.

trapping isn't always about the fur or by catch but helping people raise crops and livestock successfully,

[FWS]

the outdoor industry is not ran by meat hunters

But the majority of white-tail hunters are meat hunters, sure they'd like to kill the tirdy pointer but they generally don't and take whats legal.

I posted the results of a survey not long ago that pointed out exactly that.

deer meat is good but not good enough for me to eat it 4 days a week year round

That's why I like the diversity of species I get, whether mammals, birds, fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and so on.

Another thing to realize is that the uptick in hunting license sales we're seeing is partially due to the 'locavore' types who want game as a protein source, I've posted articles and reports on that here. It's important to know, and those people are not from the traditional group, so politically there's a very effective argument for our side there.

You do see this reflected in the outdoor media and the mainstream media as well.

Again as Tman pointed out the foothold thing would be a deal breaker for me

For me it's not, since the species I trap can be taken with cages and by rifle. And I spent a lot of time and personal resources trying to keep the traditional equipment, thing is that I do many other things and have had to make equipment or methodology changes in some of those as well. So you adapt to it or die.

Overturning these ballot measures would be insanely expensive, and very time consuming, given that funding is essentially non-existent and many of us don't want to dedicate our lives to something that would probably prove futile we had to adapt.

[trappincoyotes39]

You left out one option people have,that is to move. Which is protected by our constitution as well.

[trappnman]

we understand you love CA for the oceans, commercial fishing, etc-

but what is not understood, is the belief that therefore CA is the best state ever to live in-

notice, healthwise, educationwise, multiple other "best of" lists, CA doesn't make the top 10

return in investment sure- that's a given- but whats not a given, although you want to make it so, is that that return, must be in either money, or tangible things

and as TC points out, there are other options besides adapting (giving in) or dying.....

[FWS]

is the belief that therefore CA is the best state ever to live in-

I've only said it has the opportunities I prefer and the resources available I want and need.

You fellas are the ones who keep saying your states are the best ever

You left out one option people have,that is to move

No, I've covered that many times. And I've pointed out that I would lose too many opportunities by going elsewhere, having been elsewhere that was obvious to me.

and as TC points out, there are other options

How would he know when he values but one option ?

[trappnman]

I think you need to reread a lot of posts-

what we all are saying -is that every state has opportunities that other states do not have-

and that based on your (our)own expectations, desires, etc we choose

And I've pointed out that I would lose too many opportunities by going elsewhere, having been elsewhere that was obvious to me.


you would lose opportunities important to YOU- not me, nor TC. and both of us, would lose opportunities that are important TO US by living in CA

you seem to think your choices, should influence ours-

and they do not

point out anyone who stated their state is "best evr"

cause everything I've read in these numerous threads, is that other states offer opportunities as well

for example- I can literally, in a 5 minute walk from my house- fish for over 100 kinds of fish, hunt deer, turkey, grouse, pheasants, bunnies and squirrels- can fur trap mink, rats, coon, beaver, otter, possum, skunk, fox and coyote

literally- not figuratively

for ME, that's heaven on earth-
why on earth would I move anywhere else? Esp when I live in the same woods, the same fields and streams, that my dad and grandfather did the same in?

and because I say I could care less about oceans (I got the Mississippi in my backyard, and that's the Mississippi of backwaters, marshes and ponds) because it offers me nothing I want, or need.

have you ever been to SE Minnesota?

have you ever hunted, fished, trapped here/

if not- then how can you have an opinion concerning it? while you can certainly prefer somewhere else, your somewhere else is subjective to YOUR wants and concerns.

[FWS]

I think you need to reread a lot of posts-

I think you need to do the same.................

you would lose opportunities important to YOU- not me, nor TC.

Which I have stipulated repeatedly................

and both of us, would lose opportunities that are important TO US by living in CA

But gain more you're unfamiliar with.........

And point out where I've demanded that you move to CA

Closest I've come to that is pointing out that even under CA's regulations you could do well on some furbearers.

you seem to think your choices, should influence ours-

Which is exactly what I get from you guys.

I can literally, in a 5 minute walk from my house- fish for over 100 kinds of fish

No you can't, and no you won't. That's what's interesting to me, you claim the resources available like that but you don't really utilize them. Thing is that I do, and I have caught and sold or eaten 100+ species of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, etc.

The argument you boys put forth on your fisheries being as abundant or as good as those of the Pacific Ocean was and is ludicrous.

You lack the species diversity, the biomass and the habitat, in addition to the almost blanket ban on commercial fisheries, and severe limitations on gear type.

But it's nothing either of you are the least bit familiar with.

and because I say I could care less about oceans

because it offers me nothing I want, or need.

You'd be wrong, because like it or not you do need the oceans and you do utilize the products derived from them in many ways.

And whether you realize it or not you do share a kinship with those who harvest marine fisheries, here and abroad. And not just fisheries..............

Something I recognized years ago in working on the politics of resource use was that many had tunnel vision, they did not see the big picture and never recognized how interconnected everything was. Interior people like you never recognized how their own Federal legislators voted on issues that were not their immediate down home issues.

Yes, you need to go back and read the various threads and see that reflected.

[trappnman]

I think you need to reread what you just posted

for example-


I can literally, in a 5 minute walk from my house- fish for over 100 kinds of fish


No you can't, and no you won't. That's what's interesting to me, you claim the resources available like that but you don't really utilize them. Thing is that I do, and I have caught and sold or eaten 100+ species of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, etc.


I can, and have.

Have I eaten all 100 species? no- and again I DON'T GIVE A RATS ARSE ABOUT DOING SO- but I've CAUGHT a damn lot of different fish types- and I HAVE walked a town route fur trapping, as stated. I know people throughout the world eat cockroaches and catapillers and lots of crawly things- but me, I choose NOT TO

but you can't say- ok- no, you bring up YOUR experiences

and I think thats where you have the problem- I don't need to live on the ocean, to take advantage of what it provides- but I bet you cannot name one thing FROM the ocean (besides gas, or shipping lanes) that I have eaten, consumed or used in past years

you avoided my question- have you ever been on the ground in SE MN- and if yes, have you hunted, fished or trapped here?

everyone bonds with where they grew up- and that's a fact

[trappnman]

and seriously- and I'll answer honestly- tell me 1 thing I used that came from the ocean

unless my gummy worms contain dolphin extract....I think you are going to come up nil

[FWS]

I can, and have.

Have I eaten all 100 species? no-

So those resources you have nearby are not those you utilize, and the resources I have available are those I do utilize, for both commercial use and personal consumption.................

Are you grasping that.................

but I've CAUGHT a damn lot of different fish types-

Nowhere near what I have, and you either can't or don't want to utilize them, the difference is that I do.

I don't need to live on the ocean

Never said you did, only that you recognize that it is not unimportant to you.

nd seriously- and I'll answer honestly- tell me 1 thing I used that came from the ocean

Water. You are aware that what you receive in precipitation originates as the water vapors from evaporation from the oceans right ?

And if you want just 1 thing you use produced in the ocean by humans we can look at kelp, and the carbohydrate produced from it alginate, which is used as a thickener in ice cream, jelly, salad dressings, toothpaste, etc, etc. A lot of the kelp is harvested off CA by the way,

All products you do use.

Thing is that your just not aware of it. And the list of other marine derived products you use would be pretty extensive.

See I looked at all of these things years ago, what we utilize from marine sources, byproducts from cattle, sheep, chickens, fisheries, timber harvest, grasses and so on. All good information to know when these issues become issues.

[trappnman]

do you grasp, I utilize what I WANT?

not what someone tells me I should want?

[FWS]

do you grasp, I utilize what I WANT?

Sure, as do I for what's legal to utilize. But your estimate of species available to you is hyperbole, in your area there are a handful of species you and everyone else does want to eat, the rest not so much, if at all.

The difference is that I and a lot of other people DO want to utilize the fish and shellfish available here.

not what someone tells me I should want?

Geez, that's what people have been telling me for 40 years....................

[trappnman]

no, nothing about legal or utilizing-

I don't WANT to eat fish, I DON'T WANT to live by the ocean

thusly, any reasons you have for doing so, are moot for ME

3rd time for the question- you ever set foot on the ground in SE Minnesota?

[FWS]

I don't WANT to eat fish,

Right, because your experience with 'fish' is limited.

thusly, any reasons you have for doing so, are moot for ME

Well the comments about 'fish' from inland types are humorous to me. You really wouldn't know any better because your concept of 'fish' is really very limited, which is why it would be moot to you.

you ever set foot on the ground in SE Minnesota?

Passed through there, but like a lot of areas I researched them pretty well years ago while looking at different options, and ya' know what ? I found that those areas just didn't offer me the opportunities I want and need, as I've pointed out repeatedly. Some areas had good points but overall they were lacking.

[trappnman]

ah, you read about it-

and I don't want to eat fish, because I don't want to eat fish

its that simple

[trappnman]

and CA, lacks in the points I want- and right here, in my backyard, are all the points I DO want............

good thing we all have choices about where to live

[FWS]

ah, you read about it-

And I've seen nothing from you fellas that would change my mind, in fact much of it confirmed what I already thought.

and I don't want to eat fish, because I don't want to eat fish

You don't know fish well enough to actually know that, since, as I've pointed out before, your experience with fish is limited.

nd CA, lacks in the points I want- and right here, in my backyard, are all the points I DO want............

Because your wants and needs are narrower than mine, but I always knew that.

Interesting thing has been to see the defensiveness when it comes to opportunities like fish and fishing in the Midwest, where you fellas want to claim it's as good as anywhere and the quantity and quality rivals anything anywhere.

Simple fact is that it isn't. Even funnier yet are the claims that you don't need the oceans, when in fact you do indeed. You're just unaware of it.