Well if they really want to pass this bill, there won't be any more shoes, boots or belts and they need to be reminded of that. Shoes, boots and belts are animal skins without the fur. They know not what they do. Where is your fish n game department?

My written testimony. Feel free to use some of my talking points for your own written testimony. I was trying to take a different approach to argue the nonsense included in this bill.

This bill is simply a back door attempt to end recreational trapping in Oregon by disincentivizing the activity by removing the financial aspect of trapping. What the authors of this bill failed to realize is that trapping of animals will still occur. The only difference is that the animals will be wasted if pelts can’t be sold and the trapper will be charging the land owner for their services instead of doing it in exchange for the pelts at no cost to the landowner.

There seems to be a lack of realization on the benefits that recreational trapping provides. Mitigating livestock and crop damage, providing genetic and biological samples (otter and bobcat jaws, marten reproductive tracts and several university genetic research studies) to further successful research and conservation of the species to name a few. Also mitigating mink and otter damage to the state’s numerous state, federal and private fish hatcheries which includes numerous stocks of fish that are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

All of these benefits are provided for free by trappers and will not be occurring if this bill passes. The economic costs for animal control will go up but they will be eclipsed by the economic costs of damages caused by problem animals. Google: “Fernley Nevada canal breech” to see what happens when muskrats get out of control in an area that didn’t allow trapping. This bill will create this exact situation that occurred in Fernley, no incentive to remove nuisance animals will result in property damage. Everyone loves beavers until they are flooding their property, at which time a trapper will charge to remove those problem animals which could have been controlled before flood damage occurred—but that recreational trapper has been disincentivized to solve this problem for free.

In closing, the most appalling piece of this bill is that members of federally recognized tribes in Oregon will still be allowed to buy or sell furs BUT ONLY for traditional, religious or spiritual uses. You don’t think there are any tribal members in Oregon that engage in recreational trapping for income and for making their traditional items using wild caught fur to sell to non-tribal members? This bill will literally take a source of income away from an already marginalized population in Oregon that oftentimes already lives below the poverty line. I would like the authors of this bill to explain how taking an economic opportunity away from a tribal member makes Oregon better? It is clear cut discrimination if you ask me.

I urge you to reject this bill for its economic damage it will create and it’s blatant discrimination against Oregon tribes.

Subsection 3 indicates that a person is not allowed to sell a fur product in the state.

Section 3a and 3 b, explain what an in-state sale is.

Section 4 explains that the exemptions to selling fur are listed below.

Section 4c indicates that members of a tribe can still purchase or sell fur, but it clearly states that it is for traditional spiritual purposes only and only by members of a tribe.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me that a member of Tribe in Oregon can sell fur to another Tribal member for making of traditional items or uses but not for resale to non-tribal. Unless selling raw fur and/or making fur trimmed mittens to sell at tourist stop is a traditional, religious or spiritual use then my original interpretation is correct. If Tribes were truly exempt then there would be a line specifically saying that they were still allowed to sell fur however they’d like.

Any native crafters that sell their wares to non-tribal members will not be allowed to include fur products. Any trappers that are tribal members will not be able to sell fur within the state unless they are selling it to another tribal member.

Explain to me how I have this wrong?