|
Post by bblwi on Aug 29, 2005 20:42:02 GMT -6
I don't look at the 25 square inch thing or a covered 160 as an appeasement thing at all. I look at it as a group of trappers that want more of the resource for themselves. There is not an anti in the state of WI that really would have a good idea of the real difference between 25 and 36 square inches or know enough about conibear sizes to come up with those recommendations. There are quite knowledgeable people involved in pushing those types of regs and restrictions. It is becoming much more apparent as I become more involved in reading more articles, posts and threads that we are the army that circled our enemy and we are firing the high powered ammo at our enemy dug in their fox holes and we are killing each other as we stand and shoot. I have a tendency at times to believe as Bob W stated, I have spent a lifetime working on establishing relationships and credibility with Wildlife staff, politicians etc. and can effectively accomplish a lot as a concerned individual. I don't necessarily blame those that lead our organizations either. If they are honest hardworking genuinely good people that listen to issues and concerns trappers won't lose if they trap only a little. If however they have axes to grind one issue agendas and or personal gain to be made then a semi full of fur ain't going to make them what we need either.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 30, 2005 7:20:42 GMT -6
very true and good post Bryce.
I think your first couple of sentences summed up a lot and is true as anything I've read lately. You nailed it square- those looking to take more of the resource for themselves.
Let me clarify one thing. When I say they aren't trappers, I mean it kinda like years ago- when a yuppie, preppy kid went by on his racebike looking Suzuki in shorts and sandals- you would turn to your brother and smile and say...he ain't a biker...with derision and scorn dripping from your voice.
Same thing here. How any traps the actually put in the ground is as meaningless as how many miles a biker puts on in a year...you either ARE a biker or you are not.
You either ARE a trapper or you are not.
And this is not meant to ridicule those organizational trappers who are hard working, who are looking out for their fellow trapper and not themselves. To those volunteers, I say thank you.
To the others- I say c u, glad I don't have to b u.
|
|
|
Post by blakcoyote on Aug 30, 2005 17:07:08 GMT -6
I don't look at the 25 square inch thing or a covered 160 as an appeasement thing at all. Tell me what it is then.First it was 220's,now it's 160's,next it'll be 120's because someones cat got killed in one.Just keep handing our tools over because of irresponsible pet owners,and a few trappers that dont know any better than setting up in public hunting parking lots. Bryce our state is full of sportsmen that are way to willing to give in or cannibalize on other sportsmen.The deer baiting issue in this state is a fine example of others pushing there agenda,wanting baiting banned because they say it spreads CWD,but what most are worried about is someone bagging there buck on a bait pile while there sitting at home down below.We dont have CWD up here.That issue alone shows the division on that issue,for the simple fact is that the deer up here dont herd up like they use to,reason being baiting,it keeps them spread apart,which you would think would keep disease down,instead of packed in like sardines in some swamp.But make that comment in the WI outdoor journal,and you'll have 10 nasty replies.It's the in thing to be against baiting,next thing you know,they'll try and ban using bait for trapping.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Aug 30, 2005 18:32:43 GMT -6
Black Coyote, I am not arguing the issue, it is who is leading the charge. There needs to be people well informed about trapping methods and trap size that is orchestrating much of the very selective regulation moves. Square inches, conibears near roadways and with footage limits. Most average citizens don't have a clue, the ARs don't want any traps so who is left? One could do the same thing and say north of hwy 64 on any county state or national forest roadway no foothold size two or greater or non soft catch trap can be set within 25 foot of the roadways during grouse season. It would take some one with considerable knowledge of trapping to be able to draft the material. Many dog hunters don't even know much of that information. (Example only) Those regs are tough but what really is a considerable issue for me with no regulations at all is the extended seasons for many other activities that directly impact the ability and availability to run a trapline. We can be seasoned right out of a sport or activity and not have any laws passed against trapping.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by blakcoyote on Aug 30, 2005 19:07:18 GMT -6
Bryce,I here what your saying,we need more involvement.Maybe if we had more involvement or more trappers involved in these issues,these restrictions could be less restrictive,if I'm hearing right.Take the 220 fiasco.It has been pretty much been restricted to the point that anymore restrictions would mean it being outlawed.I use to use 220 exclusively for otter up here,I have alot of otter slides I use to set up right in the snow,setting in the water would at times render the trap useless in below zero temps,so I set them on dry land in the trails and it worked super.But with all the restrictions now,it doesnt pay to haul all that garbage a mile to the river to keep it enclosed for 1 otter in Jan or feb.It just seems everytime a new rule comes out it just makes it harder for a guy,just because of a few.The cable restraints is another thing,I've held off,because of the tight restrictions,but decided to give it a go this winter,maybe I can figure something out that would give us some better laws.But I wont know until I see the problems with what we have.I recieved a reply from John Olsen awhile back to some questions I had,I'll post it in a little bit,but it should wake people up that our cable restraints could be coming to a state near you to be more PC.
Duane
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Sept 1, 2005 7:27:05 GMT -6
Once I find out who the members of this comitte are I will post their names and we can all let them know how we feel.
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Nov 10, 2005 7:16:20 GMT -6
If all states are on 24 hour checks in 10 years then I guess I better figure out something else to do by then. I would probably just use a horse. Not as efficient but far more private.
Joel
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Nov 20, 2005 17:40:46 GMT -6
Can they divide trappers? Trappers are already split into 2 camps. Those who see trapping as a money making business or avtivity, and those who see it as a sport, sort of an extension of hunting. One side declares they trap for the sheer love of it and the others are money grubbers who are killing the "Sport" by refusing to accept any changes. The other declares it as a business they love and claims the others undermine their efforts to get good money for their products by not closing ranks on harvesting numbers. The chances the two sides will ever agree is at best slim.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 21, 2005 8:11:00 GMT -6
funny thing is- its always those that don't trap for the money that complain the longest and loudest about poor fur prices.
unfortunately- in many states including my own, those in charge of trapping associations are either unable or unwilling to actually turn a buck on fur- and they do their best to make it impossible for others to do so.
I consider such people worse than antis and wouldn't call them trappers if they had a #3 clamped around their pencil...... necks
|
|
|
Post by sinrud on Nov 23, 2006 16:54:43 GMT -6
Well - let's see. If BMP recommendations are adopted to regulation and equipment and methods continue to be restricted, then perhaps those that want to trap with decent equipment and methods will become A.D.C. trappers and work for the state where they don't have to follow the rules? Sound to me like a conspiracy rather than a division. sinrud
|
|