|
|
Post by robertw on Mar 19, 2007 19:29:31 GMT -6
My concern is that I continuously read where market hunting or profiting from wildlife is bad or is portrayed in a bad way.
It seems that very few state wildlife agencies openly promote trappers as professionals that provide a service and are entitled to adequate compensation for their time.
Why are the state wildlife agencies not helping promote the use of fur and helping in developing markets for this renewable resource?
Why is it ok for a government trapper to destroy an animal and wantonly waste it but it is not ok to pay a trapper to harvest and use the animal?
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Mar 19, 2007 19:39:37 GMT -6
**Why are the state wildlife agencies not helping promote the use of fur and helping in developing markets for this renewable resource? **
Because such a large number of them are sandal wearing,petulli reeking,tree hugging, halfwit ,anti-trapping earth mommas.
Edge
|
|
|
|
Post by Furhvstr on Mar 19, 2007 19:49:03 GMT -6
Ca. D.F.G. is full of bunny hugging granola heads.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stef on Mar 19, 2007 19:59:00 GMT -6
Good question Rob
|
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Mar 19, 2007 20:08:34 GMT -6
It's not. No explanation necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Mar 19, 2007 20:16:56 GMT -6
Who's gonna pay for it ? Because any program like that is going to cost quite a bit to operate.
The likelihood is that the cost would be borne by the licensee's.
We have various 'councils' and 'committees' in commercial fisheries that are quasi governmental entities that exist to promote those products and they are financially supported by the producers through landing taxes, permit fees, etc.
I'm thinking that most trappers would be unwilling to pay a percentage based on their catch to support such programs.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartyPhipps on Mar 19, 2007 20:36:00 GMT -6
If they did, it could get so good you would have to buy a limited entry permit.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Mar 19, 2007 22:05:55 GMT -6
The WI DNR and the WI Trappers Assoc Is going National with the fur school we have been running for the last 6 or so years. This school Is not for the Individual trapper but Is designed for personnel In wildlife agencies. This school Is also part of the curriculum of our UW wild life ecology students . We have had several states send agency personnel to attend this school.
I feel It's the only way we are going get consummative use through to these people.
The feed back from these classes has been nothing but positive.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Mar 19, 2007 22:12:14 GMT -6
Beav,
How is this promoting the consumption of the resource?
Does this Fur School teach these students that the trapper is a professional and is entitled to compensation for his services? Does it teach that the negative market hunting concept is wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Mar 19, 2007 22:53:54 GMT -6
I truly believe that I can make a far better argument for commercial fur harvest than I can for other "sports" like trophy hunting, even fishing.
For wildlife professionals to look down on harvesting wildlife for money is hypocritical.
The salaries of many/most are made from the deaths of deer and other species.
To say not is like saying meat comes from the grocery store.
Joel
|
|
|
|
Post by Hornhunter on Mar 20, 2007 3:43:33 GMT -6
Maine needs to send their entire Wildlife Department for training. And the Federal Biologist they're dealing with.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohiyotee on Mar 20, 2007 5:45:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by braveheart on Mar 20, 2007 7:10:04 GMT -6
After several years of dealing with the Federal Fish Cops I have no love for them or Locals Fish Cops.They don't want anyone to make a dime off wildlife exept themselves.They know very little about animals in general.And can they make up stories but you better tell the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Mar 20, 2007 7:14:10 GMT -6
ohiyotee several of your agency people have been through our training class.In fact there was one lady at the last class. It was my understanding that she was going to set up the same type of class In Ohio as we have here In WI.
Yes Robert, just about everything Is covered. The feds come In the WS people are involved they go through our trappers ed class. There's several days of class room stuff that I'm not Involved with so I don't know the depth of that part.
If any of you are Interested you should call John Olson @ 715-685-2934.
The agency people that are against trapping and hunting aren't going to be swayed,but those that are fence sitters with little or no knowledge can be turned around through education.
I've only seen one Young lady that wouldn't do any skinning but she did get Into the fleshing part of the class and did participate In the hands on work with the traps. I don't think we have had any negative feed back.
The people we are training are our current wildlife employees and the college students are the next generation heads of these agency's,we need to educate them because they aren't getting It In collage. So If you want It done we need to do It ourselves.
In my opinion It's a win win situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 20, 2007 7:28:32 GMT -6
but it is not ok to pay a trapper to harvest and use the animal?
not quite sure of your point. pay how? through fur money? compensated by the state?
is it "should wildlife services pay trappers to trap?"
If wildlife is causing damage, the wildlife service usually DOES compensate trappers for their work. I know many that have dnr contracts on animals. I've had some myself.
if your thought is "should wildlife agencies publicly promote trapping as a benefit in $$$"
and for the most part, they do. I've read many state dnr sites, and quite a few of them point out the savings trappers cause in crop and other damage.
Or do you mean should dnrs work toward making trapping a commercial endeavor rather than sport?
I see nothing but positive in beavs approach. The FTA does the same thing, with free scholarships to wildlife personnel every year.
if the wardens in the field are positive toward trapping ( and everyone I've met here, is) and if those making the rules are positive toward trapping- our life's would be a lot simpler having friends on "the inside".
heres a thought- what would happen if we'd all call our local warden, and ask him if he'd like to ride along for a day.
think that would increase his knowledge and acceptance of trapping?
|
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Mar 20, 2007 7:42:16 GMT -6
Steve quite a few of your MN wardens have gone through this class.
I have been Involved In these ride a longs for quite some time and I believe they are quite beneficial for both the trapper and the warden.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wright Brothers on Mar 20, 2007 8:05:26 GMT -6
This topic reminds me of farming. It's WORK.
If there were 5 people in cubicles per trapper, making money on that trapper, I think it would be more excepted.
Seems when someone can make money working, without others getting in on it, without physical work, non labor people don't like that.
When I have to go to the big city, I look at all those offices and have to wonder what it is that all those folks actually DO.
Twisted myself into a headache writing that. I could write examples, but will go do some work instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by blakcoyote on Mar 20, 2007 10:20:40 GMT -6
Beav, has our own state APHIS guys taken it.If they have,maybe they should take it again,they seem to think there the only ones capable or smart enough to trap wolves here,maybe they'd learn trappers are more capable than they realize.But then that wouldn't be in there best interest($$$). I contacted Olson about the wolf BMPs,seems only APHIS and the DNR are the only ones conducting the BMPs here,then when their done,then they'll look at other input (possibly).
If we want to trap wolves in this state in the future,we need to push hard,because I got the feeling APHIS and the DNR have other ideas and it's not in our favor.
|
|
|
|
Post by coloradocat on Mar 20, 2007 20:17:14 GMT -6
The old arguement of commercializing wildlife. In Colorado it is a huge issue for some reason. Why can trappers benefit from monetary value of furs while no one else can. I say "bull" to that. If the truth be known, Division of Wildlife is the biggest commercializing whore there is. Selling Colorados big game is big,big business. Second to the states skiing industry. And then add in Outfitters who sell Colorados wildlife, and then ontop of that private land-owners selling private land big game vouchers for upwards of 6 digits. And they are worried about a couple hundred thousand dollars of furbearers harvested a yr.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Mar 20, 2007 20:31:22 GMT -6
trappnman;"not quite sure of your point. pay how? through fur money? compensated by the state?"
By promoting / explaining the fact (to land /home owners, in trapper ed material ect) that the trapper is providing a service and is entitled to compensation for his time.
This seems to be a central and northern state problem as this is not the case in the southern United States. Several states understand that the trapper needs compensation for his work. The incredible number of bounty programs run in the south is just one example of this.
How many game wardens in your area explain to the land owners that they need to "HIRE" a trapper?
My other concern is why none of the state agencies are promoting the use or consumption of fur. When was the last time you saw a Conservation agent / employee wearing fur and publicly advocating to the public that it was a good thing?
We can push trapper education till we are blue in the face but where are we going to be with no market for our fur?
|
|
