So what happened to the Minnesota NR Law suit?

[bblwi]

I would think WI would entertain a bid for nationals in the future, probably the FTA preferred due to working relationships and the timing so we can hold a fall WTA as well.
I worked the demo area for both organizations 2010 and 2013 and there is a difference in how things get done and working relationships etc.

Bryce

[thorsmightyhammer]

What makes any of you guys think that even if the MTA backed nr trapping it could pushed through?

Randy, I was at the hearing. Very learning.g experience. The survey info they used was hogwash. Design the survey and you will get the answers you want.

[trappnman]

I think it would steven- based on the dnrs comments in the past, and that they were neutral for all practical purposes concerning NR, but they wouldn't even touch it with the MTA opposed.

I've heard the above from any sources, so I am assuming its true

so I believe, if the MTA went to the dnr and proposed it, then dnr would go along with it. Protected species, even though I think its ludacris- the limits are so small, and the reward $$$ so meager- that I can't see many NR doing so- cap that with NR fisher and martin tags at $50 a pop

we are stymied in court, stymied in the legislature- public opinion vote route would probably bite us in the ass- so catch 22

the only thing left in my opinion, is to see what happens with the MTA support-

or- have it put on the trapping lic as a question, and get the opinion of all trappers- but that could go wrong as well

I'm open to suggestions

[thorsmightyhammer]

The DNR doesnt make the nonresident laws.

Its statutory so must be changed by congress.

All they can do is say they support it if it ever gets to committee or vote?

Do you guys think it will ever get there?

[thorsmightyhammer]

Do you guys know who is the chair of the House Natural Resource Committee and where he is from.

[thorsmightyhammer]

Our best shot was when the R's controlled the house and senate.

But even than we couldnt get a committee vote on it.

[FWS]

Its statutory so must be changed by congress.

MN State legislature................... Congress is the Federal legislative branch.

Do you guys think it will ever get there?

Sure, if you're committed to doing it, hire professional help in your state capitol, and put serious time and effort into building the support from other groups, in addition to finding the funds to cover that.

[thorsmightyhammer]

When my kids correct me when I misspeak and they know what I mean they generally get smacked.

Well maybe not smacked but I dont appreciate it and they hear it.

You worry about California politics and I'll worry about MN.

[FWS]

You worry about California politics and I'll worry about MN.

Too late, you already injected CA politics into this with your previous threats to file lawsuits here unless we changed it legislatively per your preference.

Add in the tactics you and your group tried to use in supporting your lawsuit and quelling any reasoned questioning of it and you complain about get smacked ?

In addition to the above suggestions I made would be the need to grow much thicker skin.

[thorsmightyhammer]

I never personally said anything about Cali or Nevada for that matter.

What tactics did we/they use?

[FWS]

I never personally said anything about Cali or Nevada for that matter.

Sure you did. It's on record. Why deny that now ?

What tactics did we/they use?

Examine the threads where it was announced and in the subsequent fundraising threads and ask that again.

And explain to me why my concerns about the unintended consequences of the basis for your legal claim were not valid. Particularly when we've seen the antis using that as a legal means to attack other consumptive users since then.

[trappnman]

I always say- words matter, and if you use them incorrectly, communication suffers.

bottomline is that until the dnr backs NR trapping, its not going anywhere- that's a given whether one accepts that or not. and while the issue is political its not in any way political vis a vis dems/rep- our chances are no better who is in the legislature- the proof of that is the pudding.

the key is dnr acceptance- perhaps in the near and distance future, our only shot

anyone disagrees with that- please tell me how and why

the BIGGEST problem in the trapping political world, is those that are two faced- saying one thing, doing the other

[trappincoyotes39]

Steven the information put out by the trappers survey was done years back the numbers are the numbers those numbers are factual there is NO denying the facts that most people do not make a relative portion of their income from trapping. The numbers reflect what takes place each and every trapping season. Are there some that make a living off of trapping as a portion of their income? Sure there are but don't blame the trappers survey for showing the facts. Also beings you where there did you really think the IAFWA trappers survey was the nail,in the coffin for this law suit? really and honestly? Because as stated plenty of other information could have been gathered without the IAFWA survey for sure. Many states do such surveys to gather information and not to be set aside for a court case. No different than hunting or fishing surveys.

Steven in SD it didn't take much convincing to get legislators to go with what was applied as far as NR trapping went and frankly they could careless as they have much bigger issues to deal with as legislators if the majority of people are for it and the game commission is neutral and fine with it as a neutral or positive outlook I wouldn't think you would have much issue with it in Minnesota either. We are talking very low numbers and limited impact In the big picture.

Again I have NO issues with anyone trapping anywhere as long as it is handled at the state level and not done with a law suit that could have opened up many people to far more issues than what a a handful of trappers being able to trap wanted to accomplish. Wildlife for the most part is best handled at the state level by the people of the state. If the majority of Minnesota trappers wanted NR trapping it could get done do you not agree? I would look at your state trappers reps and vote them in and out on the issue of such if need be.

I just found the lawsuit to be a weak attempt at forcing the hand of the people to make change that clearly is not wanted at this time. Not right or wrong but the will of the people of the state should come first in this case. Otherwise see to it change is made at the levels needed to get NR trapping passed in the near future. To put blame on a trappers survey though is a stretch. The numbers are what they are and factual, only the verb age on how those numbers are used changes.

[thorsmightyhammer]

Find it FWS.

I said I didnt agree with their laws, but never personally said I personally was going to go after them.

Find it.

Sure Randy, it was factual to the survey. Like I said, design the survey and you will get the answers you want,'

Do you believe in all polls randy?

I dont blame the survey per se it was just one cog in the wheel. Probably not even the biggest cog. I think what we really needed most of all was about 20 30 guys showing substantial tax returns.

Our chances are most definately better if the R's are in control and it has nothing to do with political ideology but who gets to chair the House Natural Resource committe.

If you know anything about the struggles the biggest obstacle is the Chair and he is pretty much in the pocket of the MFZTA.

How in the hell do you think the beaver season got extended in the north zone this spring. Its unprecedented and not one peep was said to the MTA about their feelings on it

Randy, being from SD you should personally know that just because the association backs something it goes the way of the people who have friends in power.

Sure the original SD laws went with what the TA proposed, but did the SDTA back the current changes?

I personally am not bitter about the loss. It is what it is

[thorsmightyhammer]

Here is why I dont trust any government survey randy and I have put this out there before and Steve can relate to it.

Several years ago the state of MN was floating the idea of QDM state wide. I went to some of the meetings and filled out their survey.

First quest was do you support and APR(antler point restriction).

Second question was would you still hunt if the was an APR.

Well of course everyone was going to say yes to #2, so the DNR could say that the majority will hunt with an APR.

[thorsmightyhammer]

There have been plenty of hunting and fishing laws changed in this state without the backing of the DNR.

It helps but isnt necessary.

Also from what i have been told the DNR has never said they would "back" us.

My understanding is htey said they have no opinion on the NR issue and if the MTA were to come with a proposal they may not oppose it.

There is a difference.

[Gerald Schmitt]

I don't think it was a weak case at all. The state had asked for summary judgement earlier,the motion was denied by the judge and she ordered that a trial be held. If it was a weak case, it would not have made it to trial.

This has zero chance of being changed by the legislature, as long as it is controlled by the DFL. The committee heads will not even allow a committee hearing on the issue. You can argue that this is right or wrong, but it is politics and it is the way the game is played.

I don't think the MTA will touch the issue either, unless there would be overwhelming support one way or the other.

To me being in favor of opening up Minnesota was an easy decision. It would increase opportunities for Minnesota residents to trap other states, and it would open up opportunities for non residents to trap in Minnesota.

Sometimes things don't work out the way you want them to, but if you give it your best effort, you can still sleep well at night.

Gerald Schmitt

[trappnman]

I'm not going to quibble on the exact wording of what the dnr said- your version is close enough-

I think the actual words were, as told to me, "the dnr
was not even going to consider it, with the MTA being opposed"

Randy, the issue really isn't whether trapping is a commercial enterprise- it was more an innovative way to accomplish the goal of allowing NR trapping in MN and in my opinion it was a long shot, and had possible ramifications- but it was worth a shot. It faile,d its not going to be I would imagine appealed, so its done.

but that changes nothing about the NR battle in Mn

what we need, seriously is 2-3000 trappers showing up at the capital- but as divided as we all are, if that ever happened probably be as many opposed.

that survey was worthless- the overall % of those participating was nothing compared to overall ltrappers in MN.

until the MTA, representing about 1/3 of MN trappers is on board- and wholeheartedly on board- NR is going nowhere in MN

the other option is to have it as a question when buying a lic-

trappers have almost zero political power- the only meager power we have, is the MTA, and although futile in anything the FTA and NTA-

as far as extending beaver season- wasn't that done a time or two before?

[trappnman]

steven- what are your thoughts as to how to get this accomplished?

I know I'm weary of the fight, and feel less and less hopeful that I'll see it come to pass in my lifetime

I DO think its a state issue, on that I've always held fast- but damn it, its past time

common sense tells anyone, that there won't be enough people coming to MN to matter, and certainly not anyone that wishes to come here and really pile up the money. Sure we got good coon- but nicer weather and more coon in Iowa, or even southern WI. Beaver are hard work here, and sure we got mink- but better mink places with "longer" seasons than here- and who would come here for MN coyotes, besides 1080 to show me up?

put a high fee on it (and nothing wrong with $2-300 comparable to other states with less quality fur)and most Minnesotans will never see a NR trapper.

local guys can't get my permissions, not to worried about some from NY coming here.

its so frustrating to not be able to get over such obvious points, being met only with blind negativity....................

[trappincoyotes39]

Steven the survey showed what many state surveys show the numbers of traps set, days trapped etc. a it wasn't set out to prove anything that what the people responded to and also accounts for those that refused to show such and I am betting some did so to keep the IRS off their backs. That is their right as well as this was a voluntary survey and not a mandatory one.

There was no bias going into the survey as it was done prior to the law suit and shows the make up of trappers in the US , what species are taken and popularity of such species. trapping is always self regulating as with Lower fur prices less trappers afield, higher fur prices more trappers afield. no different than hunting when deer numbers are high more deer harvested by more hunters, birds hunters states sell more small game license in years of better production than years with less production . You think if South Dakota losses 50 percent of their birds they will sell a lot of NR bird license? Also do you think they would sell as many NR trapping license if rat numbers are down or rat prices are 3.00 instead of 7.00 or higher? It is all cyclic and a reason I have no problem with NR trapping anywhere as it is self regulating due to numbers and or pricing no different than hunting really. But to try and force states to open up NR activities through a law suit ?

The key to me in this lawsuit would be,does not allowing the NR to trap in said state have a direct impact on the non residents livelihood? That would be very hard to prove it in fact does impact either the NR livelihood or that of the resident to trap other states because of such laws it is trying to pertain to.

Again I have Zero problem with NR trapping just the manner in which some try to obtain NR trapping across the nation. I find it ironic that the state powers that be in Minnesota have an issue with NR trapping after the governor, the attorney general and a US house of rep all tried to sue the state of North Dakota back in 2004 over the idea that ND only allowed residents to hunt the first week of the waterfowl season. Just like many other states do on many seasons.