I dont recall the MTA standing against that lawsuit. I dont know why they would. But again, I wasnt as active at that time. The people on the MTA non-resident committee, along with an attorney, looked at that lawsuit and thought some things could be done differently. Again, I dont know or recall the particulars.

With the current state of politics In Minnesota we are probably better served putting money, time and effort in trying to keep what we have . Even though I believe a majority including myself would be fine with NR trapping in Minnesota.

How interesting. Free trade is typically protected by the 14th Ammendment as well as the commerce clause. Sounds familiar.
A few more points of fact.
Myself and another trapper met with Ed Boggess before we put legislation forward to understand what they thought of our proposal to remove the ownership of land by nonresidents from the current statute. He said the DNR had no opposition to it and that there was no biological reason to ban nonresident trappers. He told us that he believed the MTA would oppose it and if they did the DNR would not support it. Saxhaug authored the Senate bill and drazkowski and shimanski authored the house bill. Both died in committee. I had direct communication with saxhaug and hackbarth and both told me the MTA opposed it. Saxhaug actually withdrew the bill he sponsored because of that pressure. Hackbarth was very polite and apologetic in his communication with me but stated he would not go against the MTA. Goldy, these are direct conversations I had with these people. Not something i heard in a meeting. I'd caution you to be careful with the information you're fed. Much of it is simply wrong and is coming from some of the same people that opposed our efforts.
The battle for nr trapping in Minnesota is over 40 years old. There have been many windows of opportunity to get it implemented but it has failed for the same reason everytime.
When our legislative effort failed and we sued the State of Minnesota, the DNR sent John Erb
To testify that nr trappers could put our furbearers at risk. Truly a sad day for wildlife biology when you consider that the DNR would have had full control over seasons and limits of all furbearers. I always thought highly of Erb but hearing him testify the way he did was painful. I suppose he was just following orders.
I find a tremendous amount of irony at the notion of the MTA suing to remove the nr ban after all the squawking they did across the country about the great risk we were putting trapping in, in Minnesota.
Now it's a good idea? I suppose it is for the attorney.

Frankly, I would not want you as a representative of any organization I'm a member of Goldy if you think belittling someone who is stating what she hears is appropriate. "Read my original post slowly this time Catherine..." is out of line. Your defensiveness says to me you really are not confident in the information you are putting out there. Did you say that as a citizen, or as representing the MTA, Mr legislative director? You owe Catherine an apology.
Additionally, submitting a bill over and over again can be a great offensive tactic. Watch how the anti's push bills again and again until they win. I do know that pro-trapping bills have lost 100% of the time they are not submitted. Not having the legislative make-up you like does not guarantee you'll ultimately lose the vote.

I am proud to say Montana finally legalized non-resident trapping this last legislative cycle.

JMHO

It wasnt meant to be rude in any way. If I owe her an apology, then I'm sorry. But she was attacking the MTA with completely false information. You bring up the past of the MTA. This is not the past, the leadership is much different

How could you pursue a lawsuit under the notion of free trade when the president of your association publicly stated, on the most listened to trapping podcast, that trapping has absolutely nothing to do with money and nobody makes money at it?

Instead of that question, ask something like this.... "Would you like for yourself, your children and friends to have an opportunity to trap in other reciprocal states?" ... because your question causes a knee jerk reaction - "No. I don't want "out of staters" trapping my animals." without thinking through and realizing it actually is helping open opportunities for them.

Jamie, he doesn't have any children.

I'm fortunate my daughter, son in law and 2 grandsons moved back home. It was going to really tear me up if they couldn't come home on and meaningful trap with grandpa on holidays or what not. 99 percent chance my youngest daughter won't live in MN, so I'm not out of the woods yet.

I think of one of my friends whose son lives in a different state, he can't go there and his son can't come here so they have to go to another state to trap together.

I think of another friend whose daughter loved to trap with him and now that she lives in another state, well you get the picture.

That is only two examples, I can think of dozens.

Bobmo, the discussion wasn't free trade it was the commerce clause.....

Reciprocity works if we allow non-residents access to Minn furbearers. One of the big holdouts has been the Forest Zone Trappers Association. They used to be part of the MTA but split off over this issue. I do understand they’ve softened their resistance lately, but, we need more republicans in the legislature, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

For the record, about 80% of the state’s population live in the 11-county metro area. This is about 4 million people. Being their lot sizes are typically a third of an acre and smaller, they have no knowledge of the kinds of damage animals can do. Nor do they understand modern removal techniques and equipment, including the foot hold trap. Couple this with the line of thinking that they are willing to pay someone to remove their problem, as opposed to managing the wildlife resource, and you get a better picture of how things are stacked against trapping to begin with.

The Association’s attorney, Gary Leistico, keeps us informed about what is prudent to do and what is not. As a trapper himself, he is very aware about legislative conditions here in this state. I’ve spoken with Gary at length, several times, and he’ll push the non-resident issue when he feels we can make good headway with it. But right now, with this legislative makeup, we’d only be spinning our wheels and getting no where.

I know Steven. But, if you were to pose a question then it needs to be formatted to give all the information needed to form a rational decision.

We had a ITA director a few years back send out a question to the trappers in his district worded like Rob's question to get a knee jerk reaction. This nearly cost all the state to lose pre-staking of traps here prior to season. That is why I say you need to get the questions written correctly, as people can be easily be biased by the wording of the question.

For what its worth, we have had non-resident trapping for my entire life. I found exactly one non-resident's trap EVER. It may have even been one someone bought used and still had the previous owners tag.

Those trappers who oppose NR trapping are completely wrong to worry about NR trappers. Aside from a few border counties very few resident trappers would ever even see a NR trapper around them, and those in the border counties would be able to hop the border legally and trap in the surrounding states. It's completely greedy and ridiculous to oppose allowing NR trapping and it's hurting your own trapping opportunities.

LOL.



Bias works both ways and your question is even more biased than 160 users. A slightly less biased question would be: Many Minnesota trappers are unable to trap in other states due to laws that prevent non-residents from trapping in MN. Do you support or oppose allowing NR trapping?

There's an opportunity there for your association if they can work with your NWCO/ADC guys operating in those 11 counties because I can guarantee you those urbanites are paying to have trapping done on their behalf. Those NWCOs are your best ambassadors if, and that's a big if, they are from a fur background or fur friendly. (You would be shocked at the number of antis in the NWCO camp) Your NWCOs are educators and your association needs to be on the ball on what type of education they are providing.

Don't be like Georgia and write off your NWCOs as the enemy.

I would be fine with that. My point was to make answering the question mandatory to everyone that buys a license. Word it however you like.

For those within the MTA that genuinely wish to remove the ban on nonresident trappers, my sincerest wishes for success.

No longer curious why legislators were so set against such a trivial subject as NR trapping. Speaking towards the broader spectrum of politics. I suppose it’s a lesson on “who” gets in there ear and the leadership “we” select.

An effort was made by BobMo via the MN State Court under the Commerce Clause regarding free trade. Expensive venture to finance a law suit to say the least. When seeking additional funding they reached out to both National Organizations. The NTA was opposed to helping calling it a State issue despite it affecting every trapper in this Nation. The FTA was tasked with making a decision. I did my absolute best to write a letter based on facts to every voting Member of the FTA. I am no English major but the letter seemed to be well received. The late Gene Purdy ( Iowa ) as a voting member immediately called with support of my letter. You see Gene had grandchildren in MN and because of MN law could not purchase a NR license in MN. Because of MN law forbidding NR trappers in MN the State of Iowa forbid Gene’s grandchildren from participating in trapping in Iowa. It’s easy to see why Gene Purdy as a voting member of the FTA supported my letter.
Some how the MTA President got wind of my efforts and wrote a letter to the FTA asking them to oppose the efforts and not offer any financial assistance . It is my opinion the MTA President wrote a letter without authorization by the MTA Board. Others voting members as well as general members of the MTA felt the same way. I have been told some individuals felt threatened by Legal action if they didn’t drop their opposition to the MTA President writing a letter based solely on his personal preferences and not the wishes of the MTA Board.

Does that sound familiar Angela ?

The FTA motion to support the effort with some financial backing passed a Board vote. The FTA understood that this affected all FTA members both those living in MN who are often forbidden from trapping in other States . And those members living outside MN forbidden by MN law from purchasing a license in MN.

You have been told the MTA doesn’t oppose NR trapping yet a letter was sent by an MTA President in opposition.

There is language that supports me to apply my trade in any State in the Union. Minnesota can not forbid a Wisconsin heavy equipment operator from practicing his trade in MN. In Federal Court the State of MN would not be able to defend their current position on NR trapping. The law would not be defendable in Federal Court that is a fact. Even Goldy has alluded to a lawsuit on a Federal level. The Court would order the MN DNR to fix their current illegal law that does forbid individuals from practicing their trade.

Unfortunately it would be in the neighborhood of $100,000 to bring suit against the State of Minnesota. Sounds expensive but it may very well be the only solution to stop MN lawmakers from holding the trappers in the entire Nation hostage.

My friend Gene Purdy left this Earth being denied the opportunity to trap with his grandchildren because of what the Federal Court would rule is an illegal law. If that endeavor seems extreme financially take a look at the Cost of just trying to protect trapping on Public Land in New Mexico.

RIP Gene, it's a shame that because of some small minded people he couldn't partake in the opportunity to teach his grandkids how to trap in their home territory.

I tend to look at it from a mathematical standpoint. in 2013 we sold somewhere in the 12,000 plus trapping licenses.

Today we are 6500 give or take. Those who fear competition should not fear nonresident trapper, instead they should be wary of 10 dollar muskrats.

One thing I do agree with Goldy on whole heartedly is that this particular biennium is not the time to introduce NR language. There was some opportunity in the past I believe and will be again. That doesn't mean there can't be a groundwork laid.

I only met Gene Purdy once when I flew out to the FTA convention in PA to provide the BOD with a report as well as my thanks for thier public and financial support of our efforts. He expressed how excited he was at the prospect of being able to share a trapline with his grandchildren from Minnesota. My greatest regret in this entire affair is that Gene died before we were able to remove the ban on Nonresident trappers.

It's a shame Gene's grandchildren couldn't participate in Iowa where NR trapping is supposedly legal because of an Iowa law Gene could have changed.

IMO both nationals should not take positions on pissing matches between trappers. Especially sportsmen.