Oregon Trappers need your help!

HB3390 would ban the sale and trade of fur and fur products in our state. It is being pushed by the same out-of-state interests that got the identical fur ban passed in California.

I had assumed that the introduced bill would never make it out of committee but I was wrong, they pulled a fast one on us and put it in the Economics/Business committee where our side doesn't have much influence, and it is now headed to the Judiciary committee where a hearing will be held on March 30th.

Indifference is the enemy. Members of the Judiciary need to get inundated with emails urging them to not move this bill forward. This is a cultural war being waged against our way of life. No wonder nine counties in eastern-southern Oregon want to secede from the state.

This is the latest strategy of the anti movement to end trapping in our country and will likely be coming to your state sooner or later as well.

You can help by taking the time to send a short (polite) message to members of the Judiciary committee urging them to stop this bill in its tracks.

I have taken a couple of screen shots of how to email the committee.



If you look at how the chair has his email address all of the other members are set up the same way with their first and last name and then the rest of the addy.



BTW, this fur ban would include Meps fishing lures (Squirrel tails) and any hats that use beaver felt (a fur product).

Thanks in advance to all that love our way of life and can take a few moments to help out!

Your numbers are a little off -- 11 counties have voted. it has been presented to the idaho and oregon legislatures. PLEASE SUPPORT GREATER IDAHO. I'll do what I can but I have no voice amongst the current politicians.

Dave, we all have a voice in our government. Doing nothing is not a good option. And thanks for the correction!

After Klamath Falls I'm going to try to sign up to testify in Salem on the 30th. I'm really hoping Ted (Wilvalley) can come and testify as well. He supplements his retirement money trapping nuisance nutria, home tanning them and making handbags and caps that he sells at flea markets. What a win win with how to deal with an invasive species! This thing passes and he's out of business.

I'll send acouple emails and do a testimony - trying to decide on wording and approach as well as who to target now. You are right doing nothing is not agood option. but I guarantee you my "voice" is falling on deaf ears in my district and my state.

Although I not real good at this here is what I focused on feeling would be that it does not actually accomplish the stated goals of:
Enhance the reputation of the State.
reduce public health risks
It should also focus on the undue burden of retailers in this time of recovery. With as many regulations and obstacles to the retail market has on it now trying to determine which ones will be permitted or not allowed due to the fur on them will be an undue burden.

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.

They cleverly made exceptions for leather products to keep the cattlemen off their necks.

Good job Rock! I love it.

Guys, here's my take on it (and I'm certainly no expert on these things): The members of the committee pay some attention to the emails that come in either in support or against a house bill that they will consider. My bet is they don't read them themselves, but have their aides read them. The aides read just enough to see if the email is "for or agin". They keep a tally and let their boss know how it is going.

So even if you just have one or two original thoughts and can take the time to send them to each of the committee members it will really help.

Among the many thoughts I have about the measure is laws should not be passed willy-nilly just to appease the animal rights movement that attempts these kinds of bills so that they can show their contributors that they are being proactive in the fight. Not much fur is sold in Oregon anyway, so why not let market forces decide the issue?

Rock crick -- excellent job - wish I was as gifted at writing. Until i become so I will have to rely on my fabulous good looks.

Just read Jim Soares testimony on this -- excellent job there also - succinct and to the point. My aunt (ex farm bureau pres. ) sent in hers today - haven't seen it yet but I am sure it will be good.

I filled out my testimony and got a few others to as well. More the better

As you consider writing in, please take a moment to look up the bill and inform yourself best you can about it. For example it was mentioned that it is unfair to first nation members who have a cultural connection to fur, however, they made an exception for that as well to keep the point from becoming their Achilles heel.

The way it reads to me is that members of a federally recognized tribe are only exempt for personal, spiritual, religious and traditional use of fur. Selling native art with fur to non tribal folks would not be legal which was the point I was making.

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?

A form letter copied over and over just requiring a simple signature and date works well

Hand them out to everyone you know

When they get bombarded with physical mail they take note



Worked well many years ago with a public land swap ....where as usual the public land user was about to get bent over

Yeah, you got it right. Good work! I know a member of the Modoc tribe that buys otters from me on a regular basis for making hair ties used in the Pow Wows. That would come to an end under this proposed statute.

Submitted my opposition.

Thank you washxc! WIth help like yours we are winning the battle!

I might have missed it, but I did not see a link on this page to the testimony submission form. I will include the link below

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/...390/0000-00-00-00-00?area=Measures%C2%A0

I submitted my testimony yesterday. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT TO SUBMIT YOUR TESTIMONY.

Good luck BP and other Oregon trappers, let us know what else we can do

P.S.....the large majority of the testimony that opposes this bill are fly tyers and fly fisherman. They are calling for the bill to be amended to give an exemption to fly tying. If this exemption is made a large portion of the opposition to this bill goes away. We need many many more people to speak up in opposition from a trapping standpoint. The opposition currently outweighs the support, but if you take the fishermen out of the equation the support will far outweigh the opposition.

Great news guys! WIth help from you, Oregon Farm Bureau, and many many others from diverse points of view the bill is now....officially....DEAD!

Got pulled from the committee's schedule as of yesterday. And assurances it will not see the light of day again during this legislative session. Nor likely ever again.

That is great news BP. Congratulations

Great way to start the morning. Thanks for pushing and organizing, BP!

All we hear about is how busy they are in Salem and they waist time on crap like that. Nice that is one less thing

Excellent news! Thanks for everyone who took the time to comment!