|
Post by trappnman on Jun 29, 2006 6:51:25 GMT -6
John Graham says "The BMP will probably effect trapping in Montana more than I ever thought it would "
Yeppers...its just the beginning
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jun 29, 2006 14:55:23 GMT -6
I wish the Montana Trappers well! I'll do everything I can to help them out but....Until these BMP issues are addressed they will continue to threaten trapping by severely impacting the harvest in a negative manner in several states!
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Jun 29, 2006 18:31:24 GMT -6
Amend General Trapping Regulations
Require snares to be fastened to an immovable object so that existing breakaway features may function. Adjusted language would read: Snares must be fastened to an immovable object solidly secured to the ground. The use of drags is prohibited.
- New restriction on maximum snare height (12 inches to bottom of loop) and maximum snare round loop diameter (12 inches) to reduce incidental take of protected non-target species. This will require a stop permanently affixed to the snare. New language would read: Relaxing snares are permitted. One stop must be permanently affixed to each snare on land that will prevent the snare from opening to a diameter greater than twelve (12) inches.
Snares cannot be set so the bottom of the loop is higher than twelve (12) inches above the ground; or when the ground is snow covered, no more than twelve (12) inches above the bottom of a person?s footprint in the snow beneath the snare, when using full body weight on the foot.
Add inspection language to regulations. New language would read: Furbearer taken must be shown to FWP enforcement for inspection when requested.
Amend Furbearer Trapping Regulations
Modify Body-Gripping Ground Sets regulation to increase opening size from 52 to 80 square inches and trigger setback from 7 to 10 inches for body-gripping ground sets on public land. Adjusted language would read: On public land, ground sets using 7 x 7 inch or larger body-gripping trap must have the trigger recessed a minimum of ten (10) inches in a secure wood, plastic or metal enclosure that provides an opening no greater than eighty (80) square inches.
Replace Cross-country Ski and Hiking Trails regulations with a Public Land Roads and Trails regulation to incorporate 50-foot setback from roads and trails on public lands for all ground sets, including snares. This would add roads on public lands to setback requirements, would increase the setback distance on trails (from 30 feet) and would incorporate all ground sets instead of just those sets using body-gripping traps. Adjusted language would read: Ground sets, including snares, require a 50-foot setback along open roads and trails on public land that are designated by administrative signs or numbers.
Add Public Trailheads to 1000-foot setback regulations for ground sets on public land. New language would read: Ground sets, including snares, are prohibited on public land within 1000 feet of a designated or marked trailhead.
Amend Furbearer Seasons, Quotas and District Boundaries
Reduce Trapping District 1 bobcat limit from 7 to 4 per trapper to spread out harvest opportunity among a larger number of trappers in an effort to increase number of days season open under quota system. Decrease Trapping District 6 bobcat quota (125 to 100) while population trend parameters are slightly negative, particularly a decline in the proportion of juveniles.
Change pelt-tagging requirements for reported species (otter, bobcat, fisher, and wolverine) from 10 days after season closure to ten (10) days after harvest.
Realign boundary between Trapping District 5 and Trapping District 7 south of the Yellowstone River to eliminate confusion and Trapping District reporting errors by trappers.
|
|
|
Post by Gasconade on Jun 29, 2006 21:06:56 GMT -6
Missouri has always been and probably always will be home, but there ought to be a law against any country being as pretty as Southwest Montana. It breaks my heart to see the Coloradification of wildlife management in such a special place. It seems to me that too many people have gotten a taste for newbie money and are willing to sell their "Big Sky" souls for it.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 1, 2006 9:11:26 GMT -6
The solid anchor is just common sense for snaring, many states have laws against a dragged snare setup. A BAD won't do nothing for you if not attached to a solid hookup. John G will tell you that!Remember MT has some of the most relaxed laws of any state and with more urban bunny huggar types. I see very little in the reg changes proposals that have much if anything to do with the BMP"s.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 1, 2006 10:30:30 GMT -6
Yes indeed, John agrees with the solid anchor as does anyone who uses BAD.
You don't have to read anything into my interpretation- Johns statement is there. Argue with him.
I just said I agree. And I do. And I have all along stated bmps will soon start becoming regulations. And I believe that. Then and now.
I know you disagree.
I just thought a statement from someone respected in trapping from that state, would carry some weight..
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 1, 2006 11:44:28 GMT -6
yes it carrys weight, but again what in the reg changes proposed have anything to do with BMP's? None, killer type traps have long been under fire and will continue in each state with more urbanized areas and there continued growth,as more fido's get whacked by them.
The BMP's will be the whipping boy for any/all rule changes made in any state no matter if they have any relation to the changes or not.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 1, 2006 12:53:43 GMT -6
Randy- I'm just repeating John's statement.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 1, 2006 20:18:00 GMT -6
Trappincoyotes37; "I see very little in the reg changes proposals that have much if anything to do with the BMP"s."
Did you read the proposals listed above? Where do you think the following comes from?
"- New restriction on maximum snare height (12 inches to bottom of loop) and maximum snare round loop diameter (12 inches) to reduce incidental take of protected non-target species. This will require a stop permanently affixed to the snare. One stop must be permanently affixed to each snare on land that will prevent the snare from opening to a diameter greater than twelve (12) inches.
Snares cannot be set so the bottom of the loop is higher than twelve (12) inches above the ground; or when the ground is snow covered, no more than twelve (12) inches above the bottom of a person?s footprint in the snow beneath the snare, when using full body weight on the foot."
Sounds like Cable Restraint BMP BS to me!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 2, 2006 7:04:41 GMT -6
Robert read other state regs that where put into place long before the BMP"s. Iowa snare laws are no bigger than 8" loop on land. No drags on snares etc. The thing is states make laws, they have for years and will continue to do so. Non target domestics are what fuel the reg changes primarly. 12" and 12" is an ideal setup for coyotes for sure. Again the BMP's will be brought up anytime some state changes rules. Look at the reasons behind the rule changes and ask why they are chaning the rules?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 2, 2006 13:46:41 GMT -6
see- Iowa is what we call a red herring.
It has nothing to do with the subject of Montana and BMPs, and was introduced to try to turn attention away from the issue.
Regulations on check times were introduced last year in Montana, DIRECTLY linked to the bmps.
Now this year, regulations concerning snaring are being introduced with it seems direct wording from the cable restraints.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 2, 2006 19:01:45 GMT -6
Iowa has exceptions to that 8" law.
There is nothing ideal about a 12 diameter loop for coyotes! On an unloaded snare (most kill snare are not loaded) you are looking at a horizontal opening of about 7" if it can only be 12" vertically (very small opening for coyotes!).
The drag issue IS NOT AN ISSUE, expert trappers in Montana agree with this proposal.
The funny part all of this is that apparently IS NO DOCUMENTATION to validate these endorsements (12 diameter, & height) to prevent the catching of mountain lions and wolves!
BTW, exactly how is a relaxing lock going to help with lions or wolves?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 4, 2006 13:02:58 GMT -6
"- New restriction on maximum snare height (12 inches to bottom of loop) and maximum snare round loop diameter (12 inches) to reduce incidental take of protected non-target species. This will require a stop permanently affixed to the snare. One stop must be permanently affixed to each snare on land that will prevent the snare from opening to a diameter greater than twelve (12) inches.
Robert if you can't catch a coyote with a 12" and 12" loop read the round part then I don't know whats up? I have a 12" round loop. 1x19 cable and set the majority 10" off the ground for coyotes. I can also tell you it won't help with non targets because 12" and 12" will take other critters such as MT Lions and other thing. Where are you getting 7" opening? 12" round loop means from one side to the other 12" correct? 12" from bottom means from ground level or in snow 12" from hard pack level. Restraint device is no entanglment and a stop on loop closure, these regs state nothing to the fact on this the stop must be to keep from going larger than 12". Nor does it state entangelment is illegal. Again MT has had some of the loosest laws in the nation and it comes with the big movement of more anti minded folk moving to the state. Ask trappers of CO or AZ if thy would have thought years ago they would lose there rights, they would have said no way we are an ag state, but the move of anti's to these areas and concerted efforts by anti groups helped make it happen.
It says relaxing snares are permitted but not MANDATORY, I don't think you'll see many looking for that avenue but worded it as such for them to be used but not the only choice correct? So you don't have to use a relaxing lock on your wolves or lions.LOL
Tman the Iowa thing is not a herring other states have loop laws and restrictions for snaring, you act as though this is a new frontier of rules and regs and unheard of policies, there not for the "rest" of the US just to MT where they have had very liberial laws for many years. Also check laws again a thing "most" other states have had yet MT did not, a logical approach for a state that people raise more concern of animal welfare, dictated by the people who choose to move there and concerns they have. MT has a very active HSUS office as well. Some states have went from shorter check times to longer. Depends on the Game depts,game commision and public response to such. Montana is a great state and has awsome country and they can do as they see fit, again check laws is just another item of ammunition for the anti's. This state can allow animals to sit for days to weeks on end etc,etc. Show the empathy and make rules/regs that fits well for trappers and also proves the points of animal welfare as being an issue trappers of MT care about.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 5, 2006 7:11:08 GMT -6
I'm not fishing for Red Herrings!
The fact is that most Montana Trappers veiw these regulations proposals as threatening the way that they snare! I know of NO Snare men in Montana that advacate a small loop. While I'm not a "groupy" of O'Gorman or Joh Grahams both of these men advocate larger (than 12") loups in there areas! I also suspect that these two men have snared A LOT MORE COYOTES than those of you who are trying to justify these changes!
It would also seem that the Montana FWP is employing another BMP tactic of asking for public input AFTER the issue has been decided as the department has already printed these proposals as regulations! (Hmmm sounds familiar doesn't it?)
In regards to "relaxing locks", The Montana Trappers DO NOT WANT THEM ALLOWED! How hard is that to understand?
The fact that those of you support the BMP support the idea of imposing regulations on other states who's trappers don't want is really something to observe! I can not believe any of you who trap would not support trappers and their respective associations in deciding for themselves what their regulations should be! So much for BMPs being voluntarily implemented huh?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 6, 2006 7:33:58 GMT -6
NO Red herrings, but I'm not a BMP blamer on every change a state thinks about making. A 12" loop works perfectly for coyotes no problem at all with 1x19 cable what so ever and I know John and I'll bet the majority of his loops are at that 12" round loop opening, he likes 7x7 versus 1x19 each to his own, he ends up with more of a tear drop and the bigger you get the more the tear drop effect meaning more vertical than wide. John has a right to his statements as does anyone else, but I would like to ask the MT game dept the reasons why the proposed rule changes.
It would also seem that the Montana FWP is employing another BMP tactic of asking for public input AFTER the issue has been decided as the department has already printed these proposals as regulations! (Hmmm sounds familiar doesn't it?)
In regards to "relaxing locks", The Montana Trappers DO NOT WANT THEM ALLOWED! How hard is that to understand?
So this proposal has passed the game commission and is codified law now? I doubt that as public imput session's are all part of any reg change or season enactment, doesn't mean though that the commission will act a certain way. They have the final say an take impute from both the public and the Game Dept to render a change. Robert I don't want to see the rubber jaw trap allowed but that is just me! The relaxing lock not mandatory just as in "most" states the padded foothold isn't mandatory is just another tool to be used correct?
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 6, 2006 17:19:58 GMT -6
Robert,
How ironic that the BMP blamers who encouraged the FTA to abstain from the process turn around and do the most bitching about the results of that process. That's like bitching about who becomes president after deciding not to vote.
I'm sure you are just loaded with rock solid evidence to prove that these Montana "proposals" came from the BMP process aren't you???
Here's a question for you to divert Robert..........
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT MONTANA REGULATIONS ORIGINATED FROM BMP'S ?
Watch the dance folks.................
There will be a movement towards futher regulation of trapping and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with BMPs. It has to do with the fact that there is people who want to regulate trapping but blamers need someone or something to blame don't they?
Progressive trappers will be working to stop regulations they can't live with while bmp blamers will be doing what they do best, BLAMING BMPS.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 7, 2006 7:40:34 GMT -6
Wiley "Progressive trappers will be working to stop regulations they can't live"
That is exactly what the Montana trappers are trying to do! Stop these proposals from becoming regulations!
The unfortunate truth is that they are already in print as being regulations before the date is passed for the Montana Association to comment on them!
Wiley;"WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT MONTANA REGULATIONS ORIGINATED FROM BMP'S ?"
You need only read the wording of the snare proposals to recognize them as coming from the BMPs.
Then if you want further proof maybe you should talk to some of the Montana Trappers on where this stuff came from, (I have!). The Montana Trappers are being force fed regulations that THEY DO NOT WANT and will be detrimental to their harvest! How can any one support this?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 7, 2006 8:56:49 GMT -6
Robert the proposed rule changes are then law as of now? You must first create the wording for any rule change and then have public opinion input and then decide on the outcome. The wording is created for all to see what the rule change would be. So your telling me they had no input sessions until after the Game Commission passed these proposals as law?
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 7, 2006 21:24:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 8, 2006 7:42:17 GMT -6
I read what was there and as I figured they are not law yet, I see John is fearful of things regarding this issue is it all warranted? I can't answer that without knowing all the facts, either can anyone else! I see nothing mentioned of "cable restraints" I see it all called snares or snaring devices. Relaxing locks can be used on snares, because some wan to use lethal devices and others do not. I see nothing mentioned of a CABLE STOP to limit closure of the loop, just limit max size, not min size and leaving the airway open for live catches if one does not want that. John is offering his opinion on what "may" happen in the future best way to help is to have dialog with the MT Game dept and ask the tough questions, to see where the MT game wants to go in the future and offer information as to way "IF" that is there road to not go down it for the sake of coyote trapping in the future. I see nothing concrete in any of this "so far" as alot is momentary panic, due to some circumstances of timing etc. I wish the MTA and all trappers the best but to finger point and place blame without knowing all the facts is not helping any trappers cause.
|
|