Minnesota non-resident trapping. MTA explanation

There's been a lot of misinformation and back-stabbing of the Minnesota Trappers Association recently regarding the non-resident issue. I've posted this on other sites but I'll post it here for those that havent seen the explanation of why the MTA hasn't recently tried to introduce a non-resident bill.
The MTA would be stupid to try to introduce a bill with the current makeup of the legislature. The legislature is currently completely controlled by largely anti-trapping metro democrats. There would be ZERO chance a bill ever makes it out of both the House and Senate environmental committees, especially the House. And if by some miracle it did make it out of the committees, there's ZERO chance it would pass the House, Senate, and then get signed by the governor. I've personally been told by legislators or their assistants that the trappers (specifically the MTA) have one of the most active lobby groups at the capital. The MTA has a very good handle of what the "temperature" of the legislature is regarding trapping related bills. For some to say the MTA does nothing are just plain ignorant.
Why a zero chance? First of all we would need bill authors in both the House and the Senate. That part is possible. But after a bill is introduced it would then go to the respective environmental committees. Thats where the possibilities end, especially in the House. The House environmental committee is made up of 16 members, 10 are democrats. Some of those democrats have been our enemies for years. Even one democrat thats favorable to trapping on the committee is dead set against non-resident trapping. The first thing he told us in a meeting last year was if we are going to pursue non-resident trapping he would not help us in our battle against the horrific anti-trapping bills we were facing. Our worst enemies, both the bad bill's author and co-author, are also on that committee. The chairman has not been favorable to us in the past. There's no chance any of the rest of the democrats on the committee will go against their party regarding trapping. This is the same party that voted to require tampons in public men's bathrooms, beginning January 1st, because they say men can menstruate. They are metro minded through and through. At the Trapper's Day at the Capital last year our display table was on the democratic floor. Unless I missed one, (I wasn't at the table the whole time) not one democrat stopped to see our display and talk. We had lots of Republicans though. Theres some very good pro-trapping republicans on the environmental committees, but they are far outnumbered.
So when there's no chance of a bill passing, the MTA would be foolish to try. All it could possibly do is motivate the anti-trappers to push their current bills forward. Theres no good that can come out of it, only bad. The MTA has a committee set up for the express purpose as to pursue non-resident trapping. The chairman is in Texas right now trapping, nobody is more pro non-resident trapping than he is. He and the others understand now is not the time, at least until we have a safety net. Right now there's nothing we could do to stop the bad bills if they want to push them forward. The MTA worked extremely hard last session against these bills and were successful. But they are still alive this coming session. The bills are active for two legislative sessions. The last thing we need is for them to get motivated when they hear we want to increase trapping in this state. For those of you that dont know, the bad bills would basically severely limit or even end snaring, dryland and 1/2 submerged bodygrips, dog-proof traps, loss of license if a dog is caught (even if it's on your own land) and written permission to trap on private land. The bills would be devastating to us. Lots of people would just quit.
Also remember, when the vote was taken by the MTA on the issue, it only passed by a few votes. There will be plenty of trappers contacting their legislators against non-resident trapping. So even the pro-trapping Republicans arent guaranteed to vote for the bill. It will likely depend on how much pressure they get from either side. And we'd need every Republican plus Democrats to get a bill passed.
So again. When there's no chance of a non-resident bill passing, it's wisdom to wait until theres at least a safety net. By a safety net I mean the Republicans having control of at least the House or Senate. I'm very encouraged for the future. I was hoping for a couple new legislators with some type of trapping experience. I am astounded by the amount of new legislators I've talked to that either trap, have trapped, or have a close relative like a brother or dad that traps. There's 12-15 between the House and Senate at least. We havent met with all the new ones yet, but we will, hopefully there will be more. The MTA was all ready to go forward with a non-resident bill before the last election, fully expecting both the House and Senate to go Republican. All the polls ended up being wrong. Instead we ended up with a bunch of anti-trappers controlling the whole legislature. Thats why the MTA hasn't pursued a non-resident bill. One of the main purposes of the MTA is to protect trapping. The MTA's not going to do anything to foolishly jeopardize what we have.

Thanks for the update and info.

Thank you for the very informative update and information. Keep up the good fight.

That is a very informative and welcome post. Thank you Goldy!

Thanks for the update, Goldy.

Thank you for the update and support.

Got to continue pushing back, otherwise the entire state will end up like the Lynx Zone of NE MN….

Thank you goldy for that explanation, timing can play a huge part as you say. Thank you for all you do for us and the MTA!

Is there a written bill prepared, How many democrats have been approached one on one.?

Nothing formal, but it wont take long to put a bill together. One of our officers has experience drafting bills. We've had meetings with some democrats, most wont even talk to us though. Believe me, we've tried. If we get meetings through their assistants, the legislators themselves cancel. Most meetings we have been able to get are because a constituent asks for one, and we go with the constituent.

So the Explanation is they don't think it will pass so they are not going to do anything about it.If people never did anything because they didn't think something was going to pass nothing would ever get done.We haven't been able to pass non resident trapping in the past this is just the Latest excuse. Anti trappers will always push for anti trapping legislation no matter if we present a bill or not

So the MTA should just introduce a bill knowing full well it has no chance of passing? That the only thing that could possibly come out of it is motivation to the anti's? Thats just plain foolish.

Mn. legislature is at a poor place for introducing a NR bill,,, it will never be, ever, in Mn., a good legislature for it.

There was lots of research and discussion about suing the state. But it would cost at least $100,000, likely far more. Good luck raising that kind of money from trappers

I don't have a solution but waiting for a better legislation in Mn, ain't it. IMO. Too many democrats there for it to ever change for the better. Sad for the guys who would like to travel to or from there to trap, but as stupid as the NR regulations are, I don't see a way to ever change it. You're right of course about getting that kind of money. I wouldn't donate simply because I feel it would be throwing away the money.

In 2011 both the senate and house in Minnesota were controlled by the republican party.
A small group of us were successful in having bills sponsored in both the senate and house that would have removed the requirement that a nonresident could only trap on land they own.

https://legiscan.com/MN/text/SF1585/2011

Those bills were killed in committee primarily because of the MTA leadership. I was told this by my State rep that sponsored the house version.

One only need to look at wisconsins success in opening nr trapping to understand that the overstated risk to trapping by opening it to nonresidents is a straw man argument.

Why did the MTA stand against the lawsuit against the state on this issue 10 years ago and now they think it's a good idea to do it? Do you and Gary not understand how laughable it is when you bring up a lawsuit?
The money was in fact raised by trappers. It's been done several times.

Never once has the MTA publicly stated their position on the matter. The actions over the years really show the position they (he) holds on the matter.

Anyone that wants the truth on the matter should listen carefully to what BobMo types on the issue.

This sure didn't take long.....

The truth ? I sat in meetings with key legislators and witnessed a prominent member of the MTA make arguments against NR trapping.
Bobmo is 100% accurate in his statement ! The MTA could have joined in the effort to promote and pass NR trapping in MN at that time. They chose not to support the endeavor despite the MTA members expressing their wishes by a paper ballot vote. The CTM had reached out to the MTA President prior to jacketing a Bill and prior to hiring a Lobbyist, We were told if we made the effort by the MTA they would not interfere.

Now reread Bobmo’s post on who fought the effort !

Thanks Goldy

Not against non resident trapping But free hunting for coyote was wrong .They come here from all over but if we go there we pay and pay some more . Everything should at least be reciprocal

The House chairman of the environmental committee at time flat out said there would be no non-resident trapping while he's in power. The senate minority leader and others on the senate committee were dead set against non-residents also. If you dont have support in the committees the bill isnt going anywhere. Especially the chairmen, they have all the power

Again. The bill had no chance of passing all branches of government. It would have been foolish to introduce a bill when it had no chance of passing. All that can come out of it are possible bad amendments that trappers wouldnt have wanted. I wasnt active at that time but I know the circumstances. The House Chairman wasnt going to allow the bill out of his committee.

And how do you know the circumstances?

Why wouldnt I. We've talked about it many times at meetings.

Do you suppose it was detrimental for the MTA to be sharing a Lobbyist with an Association formed soley to oppose NR trapping at the time ?

Any chance that the MTA representatives making arguments against NR trapping had any bearing on the Committee Chairman’s opinions ?

What you know is what you were told by the MTA leadership that leaned on the committee chairs to not let the bills out of committee. I was actively involved with each step of the process. You're repeating inaccurate information

None. Hackbarth wasnt swayed by any lobbyist. He had his ideas and wasnt getting swayed. I do think it was a bad idea to share a lobbyist. The board eventually recognized that too, thats why he just represents the MTA now.

One bright spot is the current committees have some people that are very favorable to trapping. If the republicans can get the power back in the House and Senate in 2024 we will be in the best shape in years. Theres three trappers on the Senate committee with another one very supportive. On the House committee, there's two trappers with all the other Republicans very supportive. If the Republicans take control, they will have more members, hopefully the additions will be trappers.Theres two democrats that do support trapping, (the only two I'm aware of in the whole legislature) although one is against non-residents, the other I'm not sure, he keeps cancelling meetings.. He used to trap but he did vote to end the wolf season, probably got pressure from constituents.

Let me reiterate, hold on to what you have, you'll be lucky to do so.

Exactly! Some dont realize how close we are to losing trapping as we know it in this state. If the active bills came up for a full legislature vote, it literally would likely be passed or not passed by a couple votes, or even a single vote.

I think that SHOULD be the focus right now. And thank you again to Goldy and ALL the others spending lots of time and energy on this.

What happened in the past is just that, the past. We can all have our opinions on the reality of the situations, and we’re all probably right to a certain extent. Trying to sift through and figure out the “truth” is always a challenge. Things have come a long ways in the right direction and I truly feel that given the right representation and timing there is light at the end of the tunnel. That was NOT the case 15-20 years ago when I was spending time educating, promoting, and listening to folks on their thoughts of NR trapping in MN.

Happy trapping! ScottW

I believe it was 2018 or 2019 it was voted and passed in a board meeting to not share a lobbyist with the MFZTA. I wouldn't be shocked if they still did.

"Protecting the Rights of Minnesota Sportspeople to Harvest Surplus Furbearing Animals"
MTA Official Mission Statement:

"The Minnesota Trappers Association was established in January, 1959 for the sole purpose of "helping to perpetuate the nation's oldest industry - the fur trade"."

You see what happened to our MN flag I know none of you would have OK'd that . MNSP is responsible for that and trapping will also go the same way .

It certainly would be hard to take an individual seriously if he collecting revenue from both sides of an argument. Pretty much a comedy of errors !

With that said I found the paid Lobbyist to be extremely careful as well as professional when I was in his presence on that particular subject. He was not making arguments against NR trapping.

And the City of Rochester, the entire North Shore including the City of Duluth.
I suspect St Cloud metro played a roll and I believe also Fergus Falls. Individuals that call MN as a whole Liberal, are ignorant at best !

First to go will be trapping. Then what they have learned what does or doesn't work will be used against hunters, fishermen and eventually farmers and ranchers.

Thanks BobMo!!

I find it ironic that the MTA chairman of the committee is trapping out of state, in a state that doesn't require reciprocity. Taking advantage of opportunity that his state denies fellow trappers. Especially after the leadership stated their opposition to allowing NR's.

I'm not from MN so excuse my ignorance on the matter, but what position do you serve in the MTA, Goldy?

I'm Legislative Director

You completely missed the point of why I said he was trapping out of state. He's not against non-resident trapping, he's worked very hard to get it, and he wants to trap other states besides Texas. Nor is any other of the leadership against it, like some have accused. There's been meeting after meeting, discussion after discussion, on how we can get non-resident trapping in Minnesota. But first and foremost is protecting what we have, especially now when we have active bills that would severely damage trapping in Minnesota, and the party of the anti's is completely in charge. One of the main purposes of the MTA is protecting trapping, we're not going to risk that foolishly. I dont know what youre talking about when you say leadership has come out against non-resident trapping, I wasnt active at the time, but I know this, despite what some on here think, there's no one in leadership now that's against non-resident trapping. Say what you want but that's the absolute truth.

Well . . . . yes, we were successful, but the legislative window to do so was momentarily open at that time.

There is no such thing in today's legislative world as an "overstated risk." The best of intentions by a trapping organization can be upended in "helpful" committees who have deemed themselves experts and wizards in most any subject they have control over. What goes in doesn't necessarily come out looking the same.

Timing is everything now. If you don't understand that, you really don't understand how things work in today's legislative world.

As far as perceiving nonresidents as a threat to trapping as we knew it then and especially today, it really never was a real threat. In fact, there were trappers in the northern third of this state that feared the southern Wisconsin trappers were going to trap their muskrats so much . . . they actually railroaded a common state opener via certain channels. It took years to disengage that nonsense.

Yes, reciprocal like Iowa and Wyoming

I have many MN friends who are non resident trapper friendly because they wanna go to some states that are reciprocal.

They are MN association members and they say the problem is within the association itself..
They're take on it is that a majority of Northern MN trappers do not want non resident trappers.

The same members say that the northern MN trappers( not all but most) don't even like the southern MN residents coming north to trap in their own state and treat them.as non residents.. and they say that if those Northern MN traers could prevent Southern MN trappers from going north to trap, they feel those northern trappers would do so.

The also complain of the secret voting for non resident trapping issues.

The say why not vote out right and let everyone know where you stand.
This is what I've been told by many MN trappers who are fed up with the association making excuses and blocking non resident trapping.

And before someone says it's none of my business. It is.

Jerry has some very good friends in MN that he can't trap with because the association doesn't want it to happen so they wont sponsor a non resident trapping bill, regardless of the makeup of the legislture.

It's easy to blame things on the legislature but the legislature changes every few years so if the want was there, a bill would have been introduced for a vote, by now.

A couple of our friends have given up and said that as long as a. Few guys are in office with the association, non resident trapping will never happen Iin MN.

It's been referred to in conversations with some MN trappers as "an old boys club"
That mindset is in lot of associations where change is resisted.

I feel like if MN won't let all trappers trap their state, that they shouldn't be picked as an NTA convention location.
Why would many non resident trappers want.to spend money where they're not wanted?
Just my .02

I swore I had washed my hands of all of this but I will throw this out as a suggestion.

Does everyone know what "HIP Certification" is when you buy a small game license? You answer YES or NO if you hunted migratory waterfowl last year and if so, roughly how many you harvested. Why not approach the MN DNR about asking a similar question to each trapping license sold? "Do you support or oppose NR Trapping in MN"? I can't believe the cost would be anything more than minimal at best and ALL trappers would be required to answer the question regardless of trapping association affiliation. The DNR and Trappers Associations (3 I believe) would ALL have access to the same, unbiased survey completed by ACTUAL trappers. Ok, I am out for good now.

Good idea

Rob, the DNR surveyed trappers this past spring/summer and compiled a 50+ page report on the data. It isn't on the DNR site that I can find but Erb might be able to provide it. I can't locate the link I had for it.

I never got a survey and neither did my Dad. A mail survey can be skewed by any mail carrier between here and St Paul. That is why I suggested the electronic survey.

I guess some people missed the part where goldy seems to be prioritizing saving the sport of trapping, not infighting among you sportsmen.

Lots of misinformation in this post. You have the Minnesota Forest Zone Trappers association (MFZTA) confused with the Minnesota Trappers Association (MTA). The Minnesota Forest Zone Trappers Association was basically formed to fight non-resident trapping. Read my original post again Catherine on why the MTA hasnt gone forward with a non-resident bill. Theres nobody in the MTA leadership trying to block non-resident trapping. Thats a cold hard fact. The Minnesota Forest Zone Trapping Association is another matter. They do have the reputation of not wanting even southern Mn trappers in their areas, but Ive never actually heard a member say it. And theres no "secret" voting going on on any issues. Thats ridiculous.

They dont care.

I threw out what I felt was an economical solution to get an accurate, up to date census on how trappers as a whole feel about NR trapping. On any voluntary survey you will get the hard core, both ends of the prospective responses. The vast majority will not respond. Make the survey mandatory and if it favors NR trapping then you have a FACT that you can use that can't be disputed. You need to remember that the vast majority of MN trappers don't belong to one of the 3 organizations but the opportunity is there to turn them into enemies if we don't solicit their input. It was a suggestion to try to help but I won't make that mistake again.

Well, goldy, whether it's warranted or not I do not know, but there is definitely a general consensus among trappers that the MTA ALSO does not want NR trapping allowed. You obviously don't believe that's true and has stated that it's not, but a lot of people still think it's so.

I feel your pain.

Actually theres not that many at all, definitely not close to a consensus. Theres a few making a lot of noise on here and other sites. You would have see all the texts and emails Ive been getting. Most hate the divisive arguments on social media so they keep quiet. Most, if not all, are in favor of non-resident trapping too

I wonder what the consensus is with the MFZTA? Or maybe their opinion doesn't matter. I'm not taking sides but it seems like the deck is being stacked a little here. Are you saying that most TRAPPERS support NR trapping or just the MTA membership?

Randy, under what basis would the MTA file a lawsuit to obtain NR?

We've looked at everything possible. I dont recall the exact discussions with the attorney but the best option would have had something to do with free trade. If you want I can find out for you

So how is that different from the 2013 lawsuit that was filed under the same basis, that the MTA stood against?

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.

You call trappers sportsmen?

Yet your primary goal, stated many times by yourself, is to make money?

Bob made it so in Minnesota in court. Look at your MTA and MFzTA websites. They proclaim it to the world.

Judges have been wrong before and will be wrong again.
.

Anyhow I hate to steer Goldy's post too far off course.

Not sure what you're talking about. Nothing we did created a definition about fur trapping as being recreational.
This is an often repeated statement that is factually wrong.

Post the judge's findings.

If you knew you'd already have it.

A pissing match ? The Associations are both supposed to represent their respective Members.

As a voting member of the FTA I voted in favor of supporting the New Mexico lawsuit. I can’t trap in New Mexico on either Public or Private land in that State because of MN law. But I was elected to represent all trappers and protect trapping as a whole. I certainly have no desire to pick and choose what trappers I want to turn my back on. I want all trappers to retain their rights in their respective State and sincerely fight for every one of them. Actually I want to support every trapper actually gain opportunity.

The assumption is often made that supporters of NR trapping just hope to benefit themselves with more opportunity. Personally I have more interest in giving others opportunities. I have trapping friends in near every State in this Union. Not a single one of those individuals who work tirelessly to support trapping are allowed here in MN.
I don’t see where it is selfish to fight for those individuals. I wont turn my back on the Grandpas , the grandmas, the Youth , and certainly not the Veterans of this country. Gene Purdy was a Military Veteran, a grandpa, and a volunteer who spent his entire life promoting and protecting Trappers. You’re terribly misguided to call that a pissing match Dirt.

Getting legislation passed is a money game. Here is how to play the money game with non-res trapping:
PR funds are paid to the states on a 3-1 ratio I believe. For every dollar a state takes in for license, tags, fees associated with hunting/trapping, the state gets 3 dollars in PR funds. In hunting, non res income is often more than resident income, thus non res matching is TREMENDOUSLY more than res. Usually I think. In Alaska, non residents pay the majority of money, thru the PR match, for wildlife management.
Pretty common for state legislatures to ALWAYS be looking for more money. A non res trapping license, maybe associated with species tags, or other sources of charging non res that the state doesn't charge the res would noticeably INCREASE revenue to a states wildlife management money.
You can play this out to democrat legislators by pointing out that more money to the state means higher pay for state employees and more state employees. Since most or all your state employees are union members, more money for the employee and more employees means more money to the union. Where do democrat legislators get a lot of their campaign money from? UNIONS!

If bob would have won his lawsuit and trapping would have been found primarily to be a commercial enterprise, things could have got reaaaaal interesting on public land in Minnesota.

Straw man argument.

"Most commercial uses require additional information with the application. You may need business plans, operating plans, liability insurance, licenses/registrations, or other documents. A commercial use is when an applicant intends to make use of NFS lands for business or financial gain."

Source: USFS

I'm somewhat familiar with operating commercial operations on Federal land, if it is even allowed. Hopefully, they don't ask for a piece of the action.

Good luck, Goldy!

Laughable that you use the"current house and senate" makeup to justify doing nothing. The MTA was instrumental in making sure NR couldn't trap in Minnesota long before this current political climate. That's a dead argument, and a poor excuse.

Somebody better tell South Carolina and Georgia to stop selling Commercial fur trapping licenses. Lol
More of the same old sky is falling nonsense. Fear mongering.

Less than 1/2% of all little league baseball (recreational)players make it to the professional (commercial ) level. The fact that 99.5% of ballplayers play ball recreationally does not make all of baseball recreational.

NR will never happen in MN and Trapping as we know it will be gone soon, too.

Years ago the MN DNR asked the MTA what they thought about going forward with NR trapping. Wasn't there a letter leaked from the then MTA prez about that? The MTA said NOPE so the DNR dug in their heels against it. It'll never be asked again, and like said, the legislature in this state isn't going to go along with it.

Now we have the DNR admin openly admitting they are going after a new resource of people: "School groups, bird watchers and recreational types". The DNR knows these groups have LOTS of money behind them. How many of those people in these groups want to see poor defenseless animals die a horrible death in steel jawed traps (their words). NONE, that's how many. As a govt employee of 22 years I can tell you money dictates policy and law, and we have no money compared to these new groups of people. So the DNR is out and also the Legislature. We are on a tiny island and the water is a rising. Each year we lose more. Now we lost turtle trapping (by the DNR) and I fish a section of the Cannon river where the DNR bought both sides of the river for a 6 mile stretch and deemed it a "turtle sanctuary". Anyone guess how much 6 miles of river will cost you? You can't even stop your canoe on a sandbar there. We can't even make this stuff up anymore.

As far a the MTA goes, I've brought up the issue many times in the past that most every city around the metro banning trapping 100% with city ordinances. Now, we have a couple states (Mississippi and Illinois) that has fought this in court and won, so there is case law regarding cities not having authority over wildlife. Rob Erickson from Illinois has said he would help us here as he got the law (ordinances) changed in IL. where city ordinances related to wildlife are null and void. But seems nobody in the MTA gives a rip about us metro guys who lose more and more ground every year due to an unchallenged (and clearly illegal) law. But hey, you can still use a #220 in northern MN (well in places) so who cares?

Just the way I see it guys. Right or wrong. And I'm not saying I'm right. Just my viewpoint at this point in the game.

Goldy, I am sincerely happy to hear you are still in there giving it heck. I know there's a couple other guys, too, so I'm not bashing you one bit. I wish you the best, I truly do.