Reciprocal

[TRay]

Several of the Western Districts in MT fill their quota within a week or two some years. I know when trappers the eastern districts have tried to raise their quotas they have been met with opposition from Fish and Game biologists. So I don't think they would go for it.

I do agree that some type of lottery system would be good for NR, just like should be in Northern MN on marten and fisher. At least something for the hobby trapper with a bucket list.

[trappnman]

lets put this into perspective- how may NR trappers, are there nationwide?

1000? 2000? if 3000 I'd be shocked-

so a couple of thousand trappers nationwide

its not an important issue, to the remainder of trappers. Mn for example, had the MTA send a ballot to every member- and less than (from what I have heard from reliable sources if I'm wrong, my apologies) 1 in 5 returned the ballots-

so that means that only those very opposed, or very in favor, responded- so I'm guessing the vote will be close- so in effect, 2-300 trappers in Mn that belong to the MTA, care enough about having NR trapping, to even cast a vote.

most trappers simply do not care either way.

some NR trappers went about their business as gentleman, didn't poke fingers, didn't brag, just quietly trapped.

but the last barrage of internet IDIOTS that kept poking their fingers into other state trappers chests, calling them lazy, dumb, ignorant- bragged about how the mighty NR trapper was going to stick it to them- and a reaction occurred.

anyone surprised by that?

I'm not. Nor am I surprised by the reaction of other states.

all this hubbub, over the fact that a few trappers, have limited or in the case of Mn, no NR trapping rights?

why is it accepted, that pretty much every state, has restrictions on in some way, on hunting and fishing concerning residents vs non residents?

Mn has a resident moose and elk season- moose is a once in a lifetime draw, and thats 4 hunters w/1 tag as I guess elk is as well- and I know many residents, that still are waiting for such lics.

Is it wrong, to "save" these opportunities, for those living and paying in the state?

Joel and FWS have valid points on the cats- one cannot dismiss that point lightly.

MN has reduced tags on martin and fisher- allowing non residents, could certainly reduce that further.

WI has draws that take years to get on cats, otter, etc- should they (and maybe they do) offer the same lottery chances to residents as non residents?

the reason the nationals don't really get involved, is that they know the majority of their members, could care less either way- and within those that DO care, the vote is probably, as in Mn, evenly divided.

but what started as asinine bravado by a few, has led to increased restrictions in one state, and I have no doubt, no doubt, that other states are going to follow suit.

and that effort as well, as in MN, will be driven by a few, because the majority of trappers never will leave their state, nor have any desire to-

but come to one of them, and tell them what going on in the Internet world, and the gut reaction is hell yeah, keep those baastards out!

so whats the solution?

I surely don't know. I've butted my head against the NR thing here in Mn, but I'm old and tired and grumpy.

I see things getting worse where reciprocal will become so complicated, so outlandish, that it will in effect, as in SD, stop NR trapping for certain species altogether.

one thing thought that is ironic- is the call that those opposing NR trapping, are greedy-

and yet, aren't those so adamant about having NR trapping rights the same in all states greedy as well?

I don't see the crowds of NR trappers flocking to Alabama- and yet they have liberal seasons, no NR restrictions, etc-

NR trappers, for the most part, go out of state TO MAKE MONEY. and of course nothing wrong with that. but lets again, put it into perspective.

so I think a good start, is leaving the name calling out of the equation- and btw, I'm not talking on this thread- this thread has been a very civil discussion.

And its my opinion, that if the NR issue is that big an issue, then the only resolving it, is under the leadership of the nationals.

The FTA is holding a national in Mn- why not start now, contact all the member clubs, and tell them to gather the thoughts of their members, then have a Meeting of the Minds on the issue AT the national? See what is and what isn't acceptable.

See if any common ground, can be found.

if not, I sadly see more and more restrictions going on, as fights between states continues.

and keep in mind the point I made over and over here- MOST don't give a fig either way- its only a few that care, and only a few that are vocal about it.

but get that majority riled up, and its easy to be against NR on GP.

[thorsmightyhammer]

Just to clarify, its a two person minimum for moose and it can be up to four if a group wants it that way.

Elk must be a party two applicants.

But thats moot and its not even remotely close to apples and oranges to compare not allowing NR's to hunt a herd of elk that number around 200 to 300 and a herd of moose that are going to all but disappear whether we hunt them or not

Common ground will never be found as long as people are jealous of others or dont have the work ethic to compete.