Reciprocal

[ChrisM]

Iowa is the perfect example of how to do it right.

South Dakota is the worst example.

The Idaho system is nonsense.

[trapperfred]

I have check on a few states and so far Iowa & North Dakota are the same

It read Nonresident wanting to purchase a Iowa non-resident Furharvester License may do so only if their state also sell a non-resident Furharvesters/ Trappers License to Iowa resident,

North Dakota said the same thing

[FWS]

The Idaho system is nonsense.

Not really, you have to consider that ID is bordered by two states, MT & NV, that do not allow nonresidents to take cats. And Eastern OR where the cat limit is currently 5, and UT where the limit is 3.

So ID residents have no or little opportunity in those states, why should ID provide the gift of unrestricted NR trapping with no limit on cats to NV, MT, OR or UT residents. Or, as Joel fears, the laundering of cats from areas with individual quotas like E. MT or E. OR, or UT.

[trapperfred]

Here is one for you

Nebraska Non-resident $225.00
( reciprocal )--- for 1000 or less fur bearing animals plus $15.00 for each additional 100 or part of 100.

How that is what its said

[FWS]

Also a co in ID sees a guy with 3 cats how does the warden know he is going to get them tagged at a state office?

What would the benefit be of not tagging cats taken legally in ID ?

You can not legally sell a bobcat without a CITES tag on it, nor can you legally cross a state line without that CITES tag or a state issued personal use tag or stamp. Be a Lacey Act violation if you don't and guys have been prosecuted and convicted of that.

And when you tag cats they're usually collecting other data as well (sex, location, date of capture), and in some states the lower jaws to assess populations and quite often hair samples to help build the database using DNA and isotopiic analysis.

Which is something the cat launderers need to realize, they can ID where those cats are from using that data.

[crichards]

Curious! How many SD,Minn. res trap, fish and hunt out of state. Compiled individually

[bblwi]

What is being debated here is the Webster's definition of reciprocal versus the political and "scientific"interpretation of reciprocal. We may need to quit worrying about what is "equal" and more about what is "fair" or "roughly equivalent" so that we can get out of the court room and on the trap line with much of this.

Bryce

[trapperfred]

you can buy a non-resident hunting and fishing permit in MN just not a trapping one
But if you have land in MN and are not a resident you can buy a non-resident trapping permit
and trap your own land. That is bull sh&^

[trappnman]

yes it is bullshit- and this could have been changed long ago, if the ones shouting the loudest for it now, even bothered to whisper their "support" in past years.

don't come here hunting and fishing- doesn;t bother me if you do or don't.

so many states that are "open" to NR, have such restrictive reciprical laws- that 2 states that were closed to NR, WI and MI- are now open to such- except neither state can trap in the other. and thats bullshit as well

frankly, I get tired of the bickering- my advice, if a state is so important to you to trap- then move there.

and again where oh where is the leadership of the FTA and the NTA in this? national organsations, that make no effort to BE a national organisation.

[trapperfred]

I know theirs more states that do not sell NR
.
And they all have national forest in then, that we all should have right to Hunt, Fish& TRAP on

I think that this is what it is all about and I know that some people in MO don't like what they did in South Dakota.
This has came up before in MO a few years back, And did not get any where

[trappincoyotes39]

FWS the point is a CO isn't going to let it slide they will have to do the background work if they come across it period. Streamline the rules and let them trap cats set a non resident quota if you wish but make it equal for all non residents be it 5,10 or 30. Much easier to track than setting the quota by what other states allow this person to harvest for cats.

How many Non resident license does ID sell each year? Bey not many at all. Come winter your talking alot of work, the highest majority of non residents aren't heading to ID thats for sure.

[robertw]

Tman,
The FTA did their best to stop what took place in South Dakota. The FTA also had people in New Mexico.

You need to quit stereo-typing to two organizations together.

[FWS]

Streamline the rules and let them trap cats set a non resident quota if you wish but make it equal for all non residents be it 5,10 or 30.

So MT should cut the individual cat quota to 2 from 5 for the Eastern side for residents and Nevada should establish an individual quota for residents so that nonresidents can partake and have equal access.

Since their bobcat management plans have statewide or regional harvest quotas.

I'm sure the guys in MT and NV would be more than willing to sacrifice for their brother trappers from other states.

And they all have national forest in then, that we all should have right to Hunt, Fish& TRAP on

Resident wildlife, like bobcats and other furbearers, are owned by the state they are in, regardless of who owns the land they are on.

We want it to stay that way too.

[trappincoyotes39]

FWS what bilogical reason does MT have for a bobcat quota on residents? If you want to limit non residents fine but do it in away across the board, not what your state allows is what you can do here.

Many states limit non resident hunters and allow residents all the tags they want. Ever try a non resident Iowa deer license? Iowa residents can hit wal mart and have instant deer tags 1 bow and 1 gun tag.

You can limit numbers of non residents and limit cat take per non resident but that makes more sense than what ID has going now. Plenty of better ways to handle it for sure.

The issue I have is the goofy regs of making more work for CO's and the dept with such regs. Streamlined rules and regs is what most people want , UNLESS their is biological data to proove other wise.

[trappnman]

Robert- what, exactly, did the FTA do or try to do in sD?

and in any case, SD is the TIP of the iceburg- what action was taken or attempted to be taken in all the other states that restrict NRS?

like MT, Like NM? lke NV? like MN?

[motrapperjohn]

I contacted dave hastings and Chic about the NM deal as soon as I heard about it from Robert while at the FTA in Dunkirk. All the commisioners was contacted either by phone and Letter. Gary Jepson was at the commisioners meeting in Clayton. And I was told Roy Greenfeild was on the letter righting. And also the G& F was told the FTA going to stand up against any suites and fight the antis which is where the NM deal started. Now in Sd that was trappers against trappers (selfish greed imo ) letters and calls there also. The NTA on the other hand turned their backs as far as I know. AS from what I heard they would take no action unless the state association asked for it, and in both instances they basically was going to throw the NR trappers under the buss.

[FWS]

FWS what bilogical reason does MT have for a bobcat quota on residents?

Low cat population densities and high interest from trappers, and in the Eastern part of the state, which is mostly private lands, the cats are accessible with little refugia in comparison to ID, CA, AZ, NV, etc.

So the statewide harvest quota is 2175, with quotas in individual zones in the East. Those Eastern MT quotas are almost always filled BTW, so to allow nonresidents there would be a decrease for residents. It's like Eastern OR, where the good cat habitat is limited and the population densities are low, and trappers can access the cats more so than in other states which have areas of refugia that are inaccessible for any number of reasons.

ID was looking at individual quotas too, and that may happen if interest in harvest remains high.

Ever try a non resident Iowa deer license?

Not in Iowa, but I've put in for draws in several states for multiple big game species, as well as for different deer zones, and elk, pronghorn, and desert sheep here in CA.

So I'm pretty familiar with that process and the nonresident quota issues on big game tags. Which is pretty illustrative when you study it and the lawsuits and court rulings on nonresident tag caps. I posted the info on the AZ lawsuit and court rulings years ago.

And the subsequent legislation in Congress to clean that up and reafirm that the states had the right to manage their wildlife and set tag quotas.

I posted a lot of info on S. 339 (and related bills) when it was pending, it passed and is now the law.

Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

S 339 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 339

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 9, 2005

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.339:

History behind the legislation:

Congress was given the power to regulate interstate commerce by Article I of the Constitution. This power to regulate has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to also give Congress the power to regulate activities which negatively impact interstate commerce, commonly referred to as the “negative” or “dormant Commerce Clause.”

The Court has cited the dormant Commerce Clause when denying the states the power to unjustifiably discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce. If a state regulation has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, then the subject matter of the state regulation, which could be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause, becomes subject to the dormant Commerce Clause.

Congress does have the power to specifically exempt a state regulated activity from the dormant Commerce Clause. In 1890, when the Supreme Court decided that the regulation of alcoholic beverages lay beyond the reach of the states, Congress promptly overrode that decision with the Webb-Kenyon Act. Thereafter, the Court upheld Congress’ authority to commit the regulation of liquor imports to state authority.

Motivation for legislation:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that a state recreational hunting regulation substantially affects interstate commerce such that the dormant Commerce Clause applies and ruled that state laws that distinguish between state residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non-resident hunters.

The Ninth Circuit ruling has spawned litigation in other states, and several pending lawsuits threaten each state’s wildlife regulatory authority.

What the Bill Would Do:

The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:

*

Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.
*


Protecting the public interest of individual states’ conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.
*


Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state’s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife.

You can limit numbers of non residents and limit cat take per non resident but that makes more sense than what ID has going now. Plenty of better ways to handle it for sure.

Nothing prevents you from lobbying the ID legislature or F&G Commission to change the regs......................

[trappincoyotes39]

first of all how did the land useage change in Montana pre quota days and after they implamented such?

We didn't have cat trappers in the 80's in MT? That dog won't hunt. There where other reasons for the quota system.

There would not have to be a decrease in resident cat tags just add for non residents on a lottery system, where not talking another 2,000 cats.

I'm all for states keeping the right to manage their wildlife, I'm all for common sense approach for such as well. SD deal was ridicolous to say the least and it is what motrapper talked about nothing but greed and rats plain and simple. That is NOT common sense as other states lack it as well.

I have no reason to contact ID because I'm not going there cat trapping, the KISS system should be in place when ever possible.

[FWS]

first of all how did the land useage change in Montana pre quota days and after they implamented such?

The "change" came in the early 70's when bobcats increased in value and guys started targeting them and harvesting in numbers.

Cats can be depleted due to harvest pressure, particularly in areas like I described.

We didn't have cat trappers in the 80's in MT? That dog won't hunt.

I think that individual quota in E. MT goes back to the 80's actually............. Been like that for a while. It had been 5, I think it's 7 for now.

It may go back to MT's having to certify findings of non detriment to the ESSA to qualify for export when that was an issue in the early 80's. Prior to that there was little focus on cat management, there or elsewhere.

just add for non residents on a lottery system,

That's not simplifying. Nor does it reflect biological management, if there were 'extra' cats that could be made available to nonresidents why not increase the quota for residents ?

That would be the question a resident would ask first. And why shouldn't residents get preference ?

I have no reason to contact ID because I'm not going there cat trapping,

Then the regulation will continue as is and it can just be a source of annoyance for you.

But why complain about ID's reciprocal requirements when other states, such as MT, NV, SD, and MN lock out NR's entirely.

[trappincoyotes39]

Nor is simplifying by stating each trapper can have 5 or 7 cats when they don't know how many trappers will be out trapping year to year, a number thrown out there no more or less.

They could allow each non resident a set number as well and your limiting non residents through a lottery for each zone, you really think an additional 30-40 cats in many of those zones makes a bilogical differance year in and year out?

The price and weather all play a limiting factor as do other things on a bobcat population. There is far more behind montanas limits than population based. Or it may just be something decided on by the pwoers that be in states like MT and ID and have little to do with science, have you thought of that? You trying to tell me things like that do not take place? LOL.

I agree all states should have recripocal trapping but back again to states rights and the pressure applied in the right areas will be the thing that changes that justb as it does other functions of rules and regs with many, many species in many, many states.

The squeaky wheel always see's more grease