petition to defeat SD non resident ban---

[trappnman]

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.


on point one- yes indeed, I couldn't belabor the point anymore- that very very VERY rarely, does any biological protection from a species, come from restricting NRs. If the states you mentioned have unlimited tags, or much higher tag limits for residents than NRs, then there is no reason to restrict nrs.

point #2- don't all trappers in CA have to use cages? if so, then, no this would not be an example of restricitng nrs.

it comes down to should nrs have the same rights as resident trappers.

if the answer is yes, then its simple. All states should follow KS and IA (both states that have good fur btw). Then the only difference, should be price of lic. And i have no problems, with "good fur" states, having higher fees for "full right" NR, and even having a "hobby lic" thats good for a week or somesuch at a lower fee. this would allow a trapper wishing to go to a particular state to make money if thats his goal, or to trap with out of state friends, another common goal.

If you don't think nrs should have equal rights, then its not so simple. Then its perspective- one state might want to "protect" it's cats, another its rats, still another its coon or beaver.

and if thats the case, than no one should complain about what another state does.

[kelly]

Jul 20, 2011 6:55:52 GMT -6 mostinterestingmanintheworld said:

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....

Yes, but all these restriction in Oregon and Utah and California and Arizona and Colorado and Washington are for residents, too. Not just for Non Residents like in New Mexico and South Dakota.

And one can add another state to the total reciprocal trapping, Maine now allows NR trapping of beaver so everything is the same for resident and non resident.

If we use you way of thinking Joel, then when you come to Iowa should you be able to drive 75 miles per hour like in Neveda or take unlimited numbers of bobcat when residents only can take one. Or when I would come to Nevad I could take 2 otter yet , you can't take any. So in a sense you are saying Neveda's State laws are good for you when you are in another state regardless of what those laws are in that state-in other words Nevedas laws trump Iowa's laws while there.?

Nope that is not what "reciprocal" means-all are equal, given or felt by each other to the other; done, given, performed or felt in return or exchange; in return, hoping for reciprocal favor, present or existing on both sides, each to the other, equal in exchange or interchange, done to each other and I could go on with definitions but nowhere can there be found one season for residents and another shorter season for non residents.

Laws are a States rights but all non residents while in that state must abide by the laws. Neveda does not have a different set of driving laws for non residents, do they? Or when one goes to South Dakota are non residents to abide by lower speed limit laws because they are non residents, no.

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

Yes, but all these restriction in Oregon and Utah and California and Arizona and Colorado and Washington are for residents, too. Not just for Non Residents like in New Mexico and South Dakota.

So? They are still restrictions for NR's. What is the difference between NM having a 5 cat NR limit and Utah having a 3 cat NR limit?

Seems to me that NM would still be offering more to a NR than Utah, am I wrong?

Same with the cage states, so what, if the restriction is for both R's and NR's? It's still a restriction to a NR in a non cage state.

Reciprocity is a nice concept but unless there is some equity in the situation is doesn't work well.

True reciprocity would be for me to be able to go to Utah and catch unlimited cats and Utah guys to come here and catch 3.

Or that I can go to California with traps and they can come here with cages.

I hate it but it's the way it is.

[trappnman]

So? They are still restrictions for NR's. What is the difference between NM having a 5 cat NR limit and Utah having a 3 cat NR limit?


So?

So this joel- the point of this whole discussion, is that in some states, NR have different regs, limits, start dates, etc. than residents.

not that regulaitons etc, should be the same state to state, as you seem to think.

are you really suggesting, that start dates, be the same in Alsaka, as Florida? Or that since NC has no limits on otter, that Iowa should be the same?

that regulations BASED on sound biological (most times- mn coon seaosn perfect example of greed limiting rights) reasons, should be tossed out?

no, I would think not...................

what the discussion is, is that states should offer residents AND non residents, the same regs, limits, etc.

and btw- a refreshing discussion, w/o the name calling and insults.

True reciprocity would be for me to be able to go to Utah and catch unlimited cats and Utah guys to come here and catch 3.



you seriously think, that your states regs, should follow you to every other state?

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

No I don't Tman, what I'm saying is that reciprocity works well in a perfect world where things are somewhat equal.

For instance most states restrict hunting rights for their most precious species. If not, the hunters in the state of California would get a disproportionate number of elk, moose, and sheep tags issued in the Rocky Mountain states just because of their sheer numbers.

What I'm saying is that I live in the middle of a bunch of states that have had their cat trapping so severely restricted that it would create some big problems for us if they had carte blanche access here.

I'll give you two examples of real life instances to back up my position.

In Nevada we have an excellent management system on cats. We gather all the lower jaws and age/sex them to determine the recruitment and explotation of the population. We keep a tight rein on the data. Consequently we enjoy a liberal season because we have biologists that do a good job.

1-Several times in the recent past Utah residents have been caught trying to "launder" their Utah cats into Nevada because it is easier to bring a fifty or hundred or so over and tag them one time in Nevada than it is to find enough cousins and uncles to buy Utah trapping licenses to tag their cats three at a time.

This is a fact, not just some perceived problem I've dreamed up. If they are trying it now, what would happen if we just opened the door for them. I'm guessing that if we opened it our harvest would increase dramatically on paper just from "laundered" cats. What that would do would be twofold, one the harvest would look like it spiked from the long term averages and two the composition of the data would be compromised.

2- The second point is that I watched what happened to Arizona back in the 70's when snowbird trapping was the rage. Look where they are now.

The public doesn't get the same exposure and angst about trapping $12 coons on private ground as they do about $1200 cats.

It's apples and oranges. The problems with western cat trapping are different than what you are used to.

[trappnman]

The public doesn't get the same exposure and angst about trapping $12 coons on private ground as they do about $1200 cats.


I don't think its the public that cares, or imposes bag limits.

you ae btw, using the same arguemnts, Mn anti NR trappers use.

its a big circle-

[FWS]

What I'm saying is that I live in the middle of a bunch of states that have had their cat trapping so severely restricted that it would create some big problems for us if they had carte blanche access here.

Joel, NV's prohibition on non residents taking cats and gray fox precedes the ballot measures in AZ, CO & CA that restricted equipment to cages and there are not now, nor have there been individual limits on cats in those states.

The only thing you have 'better' in NV is the ability to use legholds..........for now.......................

But from a business standpoint for an individual trapper, for cats anyways, it can be debated whether that's 'better'................

But I do understand the rationale for restricting cats and gray fox to resident take only in NV for conservation reasons. NV is 85% Federal land, the bulk of which is open access to trappers and with high $$$ cats there would be additional pressure from NR's.

[kelly]

FWS;

Could you explain the non resident trapping rules/seasons in California for me? Tried to find them on the Internet but no luck so far. i do know you are a "reciprocal" state and that cage traps are only allowed-no footholds, nor bodygrips, correct? What about dogproofs?

Thanks!

[FWS]

What about dogproofs?

No dogproofs, those are 'body gripping traps'.

Here's the regulation on traps for commercial fur trapping from the CA Fish & Game Code,

§465.5. Use of Traps.

a) Traps Defined. Traps are defined to include padded-jaw leg-hold, steel-jawed leg-hold, and conibear traps, snares, dead-falls, cage traps and other devices designed to confine, hold, grasp, grip, clamp or crush animals' bodies or body parts.

(b) Affected Mammals Defined. For purposes of this section, furbearing mammals, game mammals, nongame mammals, and protected mammals are those mammals so defined by statute on January 1, 1997, in sections 3950, 4000, 4150 and 4700 of the Fish and Game Code.

(c) Prohibition on Trapping for the Purposes of Recreation or Commerce in Fur. It is unlawful for any person to trap for the purposes of recreation or commerce in fur any furbearing mammal or nongame mammal with any body-gripping trap. A body-gripping trap is one that grips the mammal's body or body part, including, but not limited to, steel-jawed leg-hold traps, padded-jaw leg-hold traps, conibear traps, and snares. Cage and box traps, nets, suitcase-type live beaver traps, and common rat and mouse traps shall not be considered body-gripping traps and may be used to trap for the purposes of recreation or commerce in fur any furbearing or nongame mammal.

(d) Prohibition on Exchange of Raw Fur. It is unlawful for any person to buy, sell, barter, or otherwise exchange for profit, or to offer to buy, sell, barter, or otherwise exchange for profit, the raw fur, as defined by Section 4005 of the Fish and Game Code, of any furbearing mammal or nongame mammal that was trapped in this state, with a body-gripping trap as described in subsection (c) above.

The cage trap only regs. were written into Prop. 4, the anti trap initiative.

To change that law would require another ballot measure with language stipulating such a change or a 4/5th's majority vote of the state legislature. Neither of which are likely.

As per reciprocity, CA's law reads,

§4006. Issuance of license;

A license shall not be issued to a nonresident if the state in which he or she resides does not provide for issuance of a nonresident trapping license to California residents. Also, a nonresident issued a
license under this subdivision may take only those species, and may take or possess only that quantity of a species which a resident of California may take or possess under a nonresident trapping license or permit in the state of residence of that nonresident.

Oddly enough CA did not used to be reciprocal, it was open to all. And that included NV residents whose state prohibited CA residents from taking cats or gray fox, or MT residents whose state was even more restrictive on non resident take.

And residents of both those states, and many others, trapped as non residents in CA through the 70's, 80's and 90's.

So it's kinda humorous to hear some whine how they'd be overrun by nonresidents.



But it's really sad to know that a NV resident trapped cats in CA without a license, out of season, using unlawful equipment to do so a couple years ago. He was caught, but suffered a mere slap on the wrist. When he should have had been prosecuted for a Lacey Act violation and spent some time in a correctional facility as Bubba's new bride.

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

FWS I'm not too concerned about the coon trappers from Iowa showing up. My concern is way more about neighboring states laundering and raising the radar.

I'm guessing that if NR was opened up our total catch would rise by a four figures and the neighbors would decrease by that amount.

There is the further incentive to launder from other states because a Nevada cites tag looks better than one from Arizona or California.

[FWS]

My concern is way more about neighboring states laundering

I understand that concern, but anyone doing so needs to recognize that it constitutes a Federal felony under the Lacey Act.

Which means a loss of the rights and privileges they hold most dear. For life.

And with DNA and isotopic analysis it'd be hard to claim those cats came from an area 300 miles from where the fool trying to launder them claimed they were from.

Guys need to understand they're playing a dangerous, life changing game by trying to 'launder' cats.

They also f**k with our ability to take cats commercially.

and raising the radar.

Yup. Too much of the legislation we deal with is put forward after a high profile incident, which the antis just wait to occur to exploit as a 'crisis'.

You really, really don't want to be 'the guy' who caused that.

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

Everytime I have to fight something it is because of an "incident".

I remember driving up a long canyon in Colorado one time setting traps as I went. I had just finished setting up a great rim with 4-5 sets. I drove around the bend and there was a house about a half mile up the road. I thought WTF is a house doing way back here. I debated whether to pull the traps or not because there was a lot of financial pressure for me to catch something on the trip. I went ahead and did it because I didn't want to cause problems for the Colorado guys, but I have to admit I thought hard about leaving them.

[FWS]

FWS I'm not too concerned about the coon trappers from Iowa showing up.

I think they'd be too skeered of the mountains. Might fall off.

I've seen the fear in some lifelong flatland types

But many of the NR's who I remember that trapped here in the 80's were guys from the Midwest or East. I recall counting like 15 of em' in one valley back around 1986 or 87', most had heard how good it was from a 'pro' giving seminars the previous spring.

So you would see some cornfed Midwestern fellas. I believe the ones from Iowa are called 'Striped Whistlers'..............

[FWS]

Everytime I have to fight something it is because of an "incident".

That is the modus operandi for the antis, the enviros, gun control types, or the religious right, just to name a few.

The antis unfortunately have a nasty habit of 'creating' those incidents to simulate the aura of 'crisis' that only their proposed new law can remedy. They've been pretty successful with it in the past, not so much now with the information flow being increased.

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

Man I remember the 80's, at one time I had guys from Idaho, Texas, Utah, and Montana trapping the same roads for coyotes. There was a caller from Wyoming that blew his call so many times his lips swoll up and turned black and blue.

Don't recall any striped whistlers showing up. lol!!

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

Yeah I had a local lady vet call the newspaper guy here just before the vote on a bill I was fighting.

Claimed that a four year old labrador had been caught and killed in a skunk trap in a gated community.

When questioned no one seemed to be able to verify the incident.

Sure was convenient timing though.

My last big one was a cat from a "feral" cat colony on the river. Seems that the local animal control has become a no kill facility so they turn the cats loose in County parks and designated ladies feed them every day.

[Rally Hess]

Joel,
Is that part about turning cats loose really true? In a county park?