petition to defeat SD non resident ban---

[kelly]

trappnman wrote, " I can name state after state, starting with western states that deny certain furbearers to Nr starting with cats, and states that delay seasons and limits."

Outside of Neveda on Cats, Montana on furbearers and Idaho & California being reciprocal what other western states are you referring to? Oh, forgot ND on cats

I did research every States trapping seasons/regulations recently and there are only 3 states with delayed starts for NR, SD, WI on coon only and MI. Everybody else that allows NR to trap has same season and regulations as residents.

[thorsmightyhammer]

I still say the best bet is for blackhammer to run for office.

Going to be a lot of incumbants run off the next go around.

[janv]

The smart trappers keep there mouth shut on what they catch. the micheal muskrat exploits made it look like NR were out doing doing the residents what did you expect. Ther was 81 NR in South Dakota and only 1 person bragging on the internet which fueled this debate. By the way I signed the petion and in favor NR trapping with no restriction in MN.

[Kansaskoons]

Trappnman, I do see someone that is for more or heavier restrictions on trapping as anti, because they are against open trapping. That may be a long knife to stab someone with, but if you are against NR trapping in your state, yes Minnesota, Montana and any others than you are anti, or against trapping, then you should have an awfull good arguement as to why NRs should not be allowed. the only arguement would be some sort of population decline and in that case no harvest should be allowed by anyone.

I am with you on all states letting NRs in on an equal basis, the higher permit prices are expected and understood though. I don't understand how you can be so fed up, I guess I would have to put myself in your shoes, all of these issues are fairly new to me, the internet information has opened my eyes I guess. Trappnman, you carry alot of weight in this lifestyle and your voice can be a loud one, I just hate to see it silenced.

[trappnman]

kansastoons, we even went so far, as to start another organisation, with one of the goals, to work for NR (although not all menbers in our FTA chapter are for NR, the majority of them are), and we let the dnr know how our assocation felt. The troubles we had, getting that chapter going, would fill an unfortunately bad book. Add in the NTA stuff ( and no, not getting into that here).

so I'll continue to support my assocation, continue in letting the dnr people i know, my opinion on the isuse, I'll champion and support USSA (the biggest bang for trappers $$$ out there) but I'm just a foot soldier, not a general.

kelly- doesn;t WI have a delayed opener for nrs on a few things? and MI and WI cannot trap the other state, even though both are reciprical states. Some southern states, like VA I believe, have different rules for beaver. There are others. My point is this reciprocity thing, has gotten silly.

YOUR state, Kansas, other do it right- pay a higher fee, same rules and limits.

[garman]

Yes tman no doubt it was a mess and caused much stress during the escapade, and DNR told me, when presenting our stance (before the survey I believe) to the DNR at both the roundtable and individuals in the DNR later that they would take the MTA's stance, I asked what about ours they stated they would take the MTA's, we did not have enough members for a decent stance. I asked about surveys on the licensing and boggess and the others discussed it in front of me at the roundtable and stated they would look into it and it should no be that hard. SO, well that was what 3-4 years ago now! LOL what a joke, until other states keep giving more pressure we will remain in this reclusive ideological state. Going to legislature to fight this, well you give me the names of someone to introduce the bill and I will fight for it, all this is about it not "POLITICALLY" causing any harm to their names. I wish I was rich I would just fight for this stuff full time and to heck with the others. I would start a educational program to farm and cattle groups as well wildlife groups and there would be no plaquards, anything in return to those that help. You do it because you feel like you want to with nothing in return. If you don't like it that way LEAVE and start or join another group where the pass around end of the year awards to everyone they see fit. Sorry one of my biggest pet peaves!LOL

[garman]

Beav it appears many of the DNR do not want it here as well, that is my own take from the actions those in the DNR I have spoke with are doing with it.

[trappnman]

beav- I know its just a 2 week set back- but there is no biological reason for it- its there, to protect the resource and make it exclusive for residents for the first 2 weeks of easier, and more productive, trapping.

how is that much different, from SDs proposal?

or how some western states like Montana, that only allow residents to trap furbearers?

I've read elsewhere, where are the NTA and FTA?

and I think that answer is clear- they both are steering clear of the elephant in the room....minnesota.

[trappnman]

you can rationalize it all you want- but I'd think, that your first action, would be to start a petition, to ask the dnr to remove that 2 week ban.

since it comes down to this

TRAPPERS from STATES OTHER THAN WI can't trap coon FOR THE FIRST TWO WEEKS while WI TRAPPERS CAN.

your state, limits non resident trappers rights.

Are you telling me, that the hound hunters feel that 8-10 NR trappers, will take their coon, while 10,000 WI ones won't? Or they are too greedy to want 8-10 NRs, but are generous to their trapping brothers in WI?

if so, would be good wording to use in your petition......that sicne 1000s of WI trappers are out, the 8-10 NRs involved would be meaningless during this 2 weeks.
.
come on- call it what it is.

fence sitting? where in any of my posts on this issue, have you seen ambivalence?I gave my position on signing this petition in my first post of this thread. if that makes me a bad guy, tough ta tas.

My views on any state limiting NR has been well known, and haven't changed with the trapping winds.

[trappnman]

you miss the point beav- and that point is, since its an injustice to NR trappers why hasn't a petition been started? why has this particular restriction, drawn so much attention?

I don't need any justification in why the reg is there, only pointing out your acceptance of it.

and the most important point- is that unless you are like IA or KS, and whatever other states offer NR the same everything except lic as residents, then all it is is a ranking system, with MN at the bottom, and every other states in whatever order you wish- late seasons starts, bag limits, restricted seasons, etc.

my posts weren't personal towards your work- and none of my posts suggested that in any way. but having admiration (which I do) for what you have been able to accomplish, doesn;t negate me from pointing out the obvious-

is that many states, including WI, have restrictions toward non resident trappers. to someone living in IA on the mississippi across from SW WI, those 2 weeks are far more important to him, than SDs problems.

[trappnman]

since I can sense I'm being unclear, let me try to clarify-

#1- in no way, are any of my comments a reflection on you, or what you were able to accomplish vis a vis NR trapping in WI.

#2- the SD restrictions are silly, and they deserve to go nowhere but so are the ones from a lot of other states. for example, the deal between WI and MI- I mean, both reciprocal states, but as I understand it, neither can trap in the other state because of "technical difficulties"



#3- so to single out one state, seems disproportionate to the offense. Its a question of degree, not sin. The sin is the same- WI, SD or, the one resting in the inner circle- MN.

#4- I think the FTA and the NTA should have a meeting of the minds with ALL the state associations- and end this trapper vs trapper feud. Chris, I read elsewhere, NTA shouldn't get involved.

My question to you, is why on earth not- if the FTA and the NTA are there as NATIONAL trappers orgs- what could be more unifying, to have trappers from every state, be able to TRAP in every state?

#5- I also think there is a lesson to be learned here. the actions of a few, effect all.

[ChrisM]

Steve, I have argued for years that SD and all states should allow NR's, but I have never believed that the NTA should butt into these debates. Lets call it a matter of respecting state rights to manage their wildlife how they see best.

I'm not aware of the FTA's policy but the NTA only gets involved in an issue at the state level if asked to by the state affiliate. The NTA is made up of the affiliates. The Board of Directors is made up of the state directors elected by the states!

Now if, for example, the SDTA was opposed to the petition and requested assistance from the NTA we would do whatever we could to help. ( Though on an issue such as this Im not sure what they would be.) We have done this in the past on issues like Ohio trappers working to gets snares legalized ect.. We joined the MN trappers as an "interviener" in the lynx lawsuit.

Would you have the NTA or the FTA to go into a state and oppose our affiliates on an issue? I mean actually testify in opposition to the state trappers associations or FTA chapters?

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

what could be more unifying, to have trappers from every state, be able to TRAP in every state?

The problem is the inequity between states. I'd be fine with Utah, Oregon, California, Arizona, Washington, and Colorado coming over here if the laws in their states were at least close to ours.

Problem is we've got it good, they've got it bad, and that isn't a good hand for us to draw to.

[trappnman]

I understand your point, but could that not be said for quality in fur as well?

in other words- in Mn we got good fur- why would we want to go to Alabama to trap deep south fur and more importantly, why should we let thme come here?

would a law saying "MN is open to NR from these states: WI, SD, IA, etc (states with comparable fur) and closed to the residents of AL, RI, etc and etc?

would that be acceptable?

[ChrisM]

Not to me. For me the whole idea to going elsewhere is to extend the season. Go north early, south late.

[TurTLe]

So Geronimo, why not be recipricol with states that don't have restrictions like AZ, CA, WA, or UT? Why shouldn't someone from Kansas be able to come to Nevada and trap cats, when someone from Nevada can come here and trap everything a resident can with zero restrictions?

[boogerjr]

This type situation is one that will never be agreed or compromised
upon due to one reason or another. Be it the ones that preach equality
(and some that say they want equality and hide behind greed) or the ones that
really don't want outsiders in for a numbers of reasons. I said it on another form
also that mostly this is about money, which it is.

I also mentioned the point about the NTA and FTAs stand.

I signed the petition as well as sent my opinon to new mexicos
DNR about their cat limit proposal for NR. with that being said I believe
a state should allow non residents but who am I to tell them what dates and
limits they should set for NR. I am not a taxpayer of that state, the only
arguement I have to stand on is anyone from anywhere can come trap here
with the same restrictions as me and the same limits (which there are none) but
the cost is higher.

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

Turtle the only fair way to do it would for me to come to your state with my regs and you come to mine with yours.

That'll never happen though. The inequity sucks but it is what it is.

[ChrisM]

Nonsense Geronimo, regs differ in states for a reason.

Everyone wants to make the reciprocity deal way to complicated and restrictive..... start the same date as in their own state, exclude certain species ect...

To me states like Iowa, Kansas and many others have it right. Nonresidents operate under the same seasons and regs as residents. Period.

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

Well let me ask you this. Much is being made of the 5 cat limit being proposed for NR's in New Mexico.

Utah has a 3 cat limit for non residents, same in E. Oregon, should they be subject to the same criticism as New Mexico?

California, Colorado, Arizona, and Washington are cages only for Non residents.

So I'm surrounded by states that are so restrictive that there is no reason for me to go there and every reason for them to come here.

I wish it wasn't that way but I'm afraid that until/unless they get it right where they come from well....