whats every one think of s.d. and mn. legal casess

[bobbrennan]

whats your opinion about the trapping legal cases in s.d. and minn.?

[trappnman]

personally, I think it was wrong.

that it will set precedents.

however, I hope I'm wrong.

[badlandsbilly]

Steve
I agree with you.I hope the suits fail.

[bobbrennan]

what is your reason that you hope the suits fail?

[bghunter119]

i dont post alot any where, but i have been following this, i am a little leary of the precedent this could set, and see this as something that overall will benifit only a handful of people, as most trappers can not pack up and travel all over the country, too many responsibilities at home

[bobbrennan]

but how will it hurt you?

[trappnman]

bob- you don't see any problem, with trapping possibly coming under federal commerce clause regulations?

and otr have trapping labeled as commerce, rather than a sport?

because thats what a "win" would do

and maybe having trapping labeled as commerce, and controlled and regulated by the federal govt would be all peaches and cream- but perhaps not

and keep in mind- this lawsuit benifits, really, only a very small number of people as most trappers, like most hunters, never stray from their home state

[thorsmightyhammer]

The feds already consider the sale of furs and trapping a commerce. How the hell could they not. Its part of what opened up and settled this country.

They wouldnt control the trapping part and the wildlife part it would be the commerce part and they already do when it comes to exportation and importation.

If it wasnt for the commerce part of the sale of fur and free trade regulations we'd probably have had our markets closed a long time ago.

Affirmative action only benefits a small number of the people in this country as well.

[badlandsbilly]

Bob why do these other trappers have to come into our home states and dictate to us who can trap here.If they want to trap here move here,buy property here,pay taxes here that's what I did.
If all non residents can trap here how about elk hunt here?bighorn sheep hunt here?mountain goat hunt here?Their suits aren't about commerce.I seriously doubt they support themselves from fur checks only.

[wolfrunner]

Do I hear the Fox barking ?

[trappnman]

billy does have a point concerning states rights

yes steven what you say is true, but except for a few things like otter, the feds have not tried to regulate trapping, and even the otter is marginal insofar as tags not trapping regulations.

I'm not saying it will happen, but at the same time it simply cannot be dismissed out of hand as that will never happen, cause it could.

Sure its a big industry- but kind of like add up all the garage sales in the country and thats a big industry too. so collectively income is produced, but in the plus minus column it is indeed a very few-

Again, not the path I'd have choosen or endorse, but thats MY opinion, and I hope for the best. I'd love to see a precedent set that allows me to trap WI
whats the status?

[FWS]

The feds already consider the sale of furs and trapping a commerce.

The Feds don't currently recognize trapping as a commercial activity, as evidenced by the fact that trappers are not subject to the regulations virtually every other commercial user operating on Federal lands is required to abide by.

[trappincoyotes39]

agreed if the feds thought trapping was commerical they would have fed laws in place. Something I sure do not want to see!!!!! Leave it state to state, I sure don't want OUR fed govt dictaiting trapping.............

[splicer]

If it only benefits a few trappers, whats the big deal to you then? MN or SD will not have trappers in the 100's taking all the fur from the residents.
I have a good friend that owns land in SD, he would like me to trap his land and show him what trapping is. At his age, he doesn't want to learn this in a windstorm sometime after Dec 5th.
Also, I go to a state to trap with my brother. If I have family somewhere, I should be able to fish or hunt, but not trap?

[trappincoyotes39]

The issue being what is to be lost? I think more than gain in THIS form.

I have no problem with anyone trapping anywhere, but to do so in this matter could open up alot more than what a "FEW" bargined for.

Your good friend in SD, you could teach him prior to Dec 5th, you just can't do the setting he would have to.

The issue also with your statement you can fish and hunt as long as the state allows non resident permits. If numbers go really low like can happen with certain species at times getting a non resident tag is not a gurantee by any means. In SD on avg you will apply 2 years for a west river any deer tag, you pay 5.00 for the application process, depending on what county your applying for could take a 3rd year.

Some states like SD also sell a gurantee tag 500.00 and is only good on private not public, even though some of the public is federal lands. So you see states rights should be maintained and trapping for non residents should go through applying pressure in the right areas and not involving any federal court, again my opinion. I would hope either outcome it stops there but if taken to a higher court ie: Fed courts this could blossom into something much larger and more restrictive in the years to come.

I do agree it only takes a few greedy well positioned people to make it bad on all others, sad but true.

[mostinterestingmanintheworld]

States are responsible for the management of the endemic species, feds endangered and migratory. Land use by other agencies. FWS is right, you need a permit to cut Christmas trees from the feds on public land but not to harvest wildlife.

[thorsmightyhammer]

Oct 22, 2012 20:37:36 GMT -6 bghunter119 said:

i dont post alot any where, but i have been following this, i am a little leary of the precedent this could set, and see this as something that overall will benifit only a handful of people, as most trappers can not pack up and travel all over the country, too many responsibilities at home

BG this has been eating at me enough I have to respond.

What makes you think you have anymore responsibilities at home than anybody else.

I can trap in 2 different states and 2 provinces and be closer to home than my day job. And my day job is in the same state I live in.

There are millions of people who work long distances away from home. They have wives, husbands, childrens and just as many responsibilities as you do They figure it out.

Steve I cant say the lawsuit is going good or bad because the state asked for a continuance and there hasnt been anything before a judge yet.

[bghunter119]

i never said i had more responsibilities than anyone else, please point out to me where in my post i said that, i just see this as something that could cause problems down the road, one thing i have learned from working in state goverment for the past 18 years is when a state is forced to do something they are not in favor of, their first reaction is to over react,it would suck to see my state which it is real trapper friendly for everyone to go south if trickle down federal regs come about, just my thoughts

[thorsmightyhammer]

Well you said and I quote "most trappers cant pack up and travel all over the country, TOO MANY RESPONSIBILITIES at home".

What does that mean, you have more responsibiliteis?

People who chose to travel to ply their trade have less?

Which is it?

You have more? Or am I avoiding mine?

[bghunter119]

i guess you didnt understand what i was saying, most guys have a fulltime job at home where they live, cannot pick up and go for long periods of time without quitting or loosing their job,and in todays ecconomy, a steady paycheck is pretty important, that is what i was saying, their income mainly comes from a job other than full time trapping, therefore,that is their main source of income, not full time trapping, and as far as your questions to me, you are the only one who can answer that, i dont know you. i know i dont have more responsibility than anyone else, you have your way of supporting your family and i have mine, everyone is differant