What is everyone’s opinion of this? Do we as trappers support it?

We should...it works!

When implemented as the "North American model" it does work very well.
When it's a European style management disguised as the North American model, not so much. Some of the western states & maybe others are drifting to a European model.

I’ve always thought it was basically followed by about all fish and wildlife agencies.

It is basically the status quo that most states' have been using to guide their hunting-fishing-trapping rules and regulations over the years. Lately it has been under fire from antis who want to completely do away with it and substitute new marching orders backed by pseudo-science from "their" experts.

The reason I’m curious is that it seems to oppose the taking of furbearers out of season unless causing property damage etc. There’s no exception for the year round killing of “ nest predators” in an attempt for more turkeys. There are wildlife agencies pivoting on this. The plan generally refers to furbearers as to be taken only for their fur, unless causing property damage and wildlife, turkeys are not property. Just curious and something for us to talk about.

If politics and special interests would stay out.....it'd be perfect.

The Ohio nuisance rule defines a nuisance animal as one that is damaging property or preventing you from enjoying your property

According to y’all up North the South ain’t got fur worth anything so might as well delist them and make a year round season for them.
Rabbits here have a season, in other states they’re not a game animal.
Squirrels have a season yet folks trap them year round and even post it on here, lol.

Management has different meanings for different States.

That is exactly the flaw I saw in BMP’s. Broad national blanket management isn’t the best. Each state should determine how to best manage their resource.

It brought most of our wildlife species back from the brink of extinction and it's the reason we can still trap and hunt today. Darn right I support it. I wish the entire world had it and understood the value of regulated hunting in Wildlife conservation.

Nope just taking care of their residents first, as the law allows.

Whether or not an action or activity is legal or "allowed by law" has nothing to do with it being correct. At one time it was legal to own slaves but that didn't make it OK. Abortion is allowed by law (at least to a certain number of weeks) but that doesn't make it morally correct. Squatter laws, drug laws, and other examples ad infinitum. But that's not the point.
Just for the sake of clarification however I will inject this. Usually the justification for higher non-resident fees is that residents provide year-around support for the wildlife management costs, while the non-residents are transient and therefore only provide limited contributions towards state management. Some state's management departments are supported by multiple means but that is not the case in Wyoming for example. WGFC (the group charged with managing the wildlife resources in Wyoming) is almost completely funded by license sales. Almost 80% of that license revenue in Wyoming is from non-residents so 3/4 of the management is paid for by non-residents. Non-residents are taking care of most of the management cost for the residents, kind of a welfare situation if you want to view it from a resident versus non-resident perspective. Someone else is having to pick up the tab.
But that's not the point.
A number of years ago while elk hunting in the Tie Flue area an older WGFC employee came into camp and checked licenses, etc. Before he left, he shook hands and told us how grateful he & the state of Wyoming were that we were there. Some of the guys had cow tags. He told us that the WGFC tried hard to keep the cow tags "a good value for hunters, perhaps the best in the west." Read that affordable. He was right and he got it. We talked for a while about how if it became unaffordable or inaccessible to the common person, then it would lead to a different style of wildlife management. The wildlife did, and had to remain, in the care of and the property of the general population, not a select few.
I have spent a lot of time in the Kaycee/Barnum area during the 2000's. The local WGFC guy in that area was young and didn't get it. He was all mixed up about the source of rights and privileges and who ultimately should be responsible for the wildlife.

One of the foundational principles of the model is equal access to all, not just the wealthy or privileged (that's core to the European and most of the rest of the world's model). Surely most people can see the progression to an elitist system as opposed to a commoner system. This is most apparent in western states. The prostituting of wildlife "management" that prices out the commoner (whether they be a resident or non-resident) is the beginning of the end. Many won't see this because they are too defensive, fearing that someone is going to get ol' mossback instead of them. Short sighted and destructive.

By the way, this is not meant to be a personal attack. You'd be welcome in my camp anytime. I'd even point you to a good stand.
This is just something I have felt strongly about for a long time. The population as a whole is increasing, but not the number of sportsmen (it's actually declining) and that bothers me. There are multiple reasons but exclusivity is one of them.