JoseCuervo
New member
Cali,
It is not that you can laugh at me, but, the true test is can you laugh at yourself. You seem to fail at that part.
Another Native vs. Transplant Montanan Conflict.....
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
Cali,
It is not that you can laugh at me, but, the true test is can you laugh at yourself. You seem to fail at that part.
Calif. Hunter
Active member
I have lots of things I laugh at about myself. I have learned the hard way not to share anything with you, however. 
You make up enough shit about people without giving you real ammo to work with.
You make up enough shit about people without giving you real ammo to work with. basecamplegends
New member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5
Is the enjoyment of being outside not enough? I would venture to guess a good many trappers (not all - I know) trap because they were taught trapping by their father/grandfather/great grandfather - whatever - and it was a source of woodsmanship that led them outside - and fed their early passion for the outdoors. I have a brother that really wants to get into trapping - he's hesitant for the same reason I mentioned I probably won't ever trap - time. But he wants to get into it because it seems like another outlet to put him outside. When the weather gets real nasty in the winter, there aren't a lot of other outdoor pursuits and he (and I) miss spending time outdoors - he wants to get rid of that feeling by learning to trap. I'd support him in that. If he made some money off it, good for him - I don't have a problem with it.
Anyways - I guess I just can't get riled up enough about anything to keep up an arguement...I'm basically a live and let live sorta feller. I guess I need to hone my argumentative/competitive skills?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
"Sometimes I break myself up."
Jose's idea of self-deprecation.
Jose's idea of self-deprecation.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Trapping is the only way to control certain types (rodent) populations that are getting over populated, beaver, muskrat, nutria, even skunks, mink, (they kill ducks, and eat eggs), raccoon, same thing, they are one of the main predators of ducks and pheasants. Try bringing back these game birds without trapping. It'll be impossible. When the ducks in the Central fly zone crashed for a decade, the WS studied the situation and raccoons, skunks, fox and coyotes where to blame. A massive eradication program started and within a few years the ducks were on the increase. Is this enough reason for trapping. Without it,the ducks wouldn't be hunted in the Central zone right now!
Trapping is the only way to control wolf populations without aerial gunning. Would you rather the government take the situation in their complete control. At least the tax payers aren't footing the bill. Trappers pay taxes on their equipment, and licenses to the states. People sell horns of trophy elk and deer all the time, so whats different about selling fur off the animal. Capes are sold from all big game. It's a commodity. What's wrong with recreating, and having something to help pay the gas costs?+
Hoser, when big game populations get to big, disease breaks out and starvation sets in. The big game population takes a nose dive and is long on the recovery. Hunting, if managed properly takes the lows out and keeps the population healthy. Trapping does the same thing for animals that aren't hunted. It's just like hunting only your traps are out there 24/7 working for you. These are animals that otherwise would be impossible to get at. Fox, coyotes, same thing, these animals aren't what you would consider (unless your oriental) good table fair. In order to control these populations from causing damage and over population, tapping is the only method that will work.
Trapping is the only way to control wolf populations without aerial gunning. Would you rather the government take the situation in their complete control. At least the tax payers aren't footing the bill. Trappers pay taxes on their equipment, and licenses to the states. People sell horns of trophy elk and deer all the time, so whats different about selling fur off the animal. Capes are sold from all big game. It's a commodity. What's wrong with recreating, and having something to help pay the gas costs?+
Hoser, when big game populations get to big, disease breaks out and starvation sets in. The big game population takes a nose dive and is long on the recovery. Hunting, if managed properly takes the lows out and keeps the population healthy. Trapping does the same thing for animals that aren't hunted. It's just like hunting only your traps are out there 24/7 working for you. These are animals that otherwise would be impossible to get at. Fox, coyotes, same thing, these animals aren't what you would consider (unless your oriental) good table fair. In order to control these populations from causing damage and over population, tapping is the only method that will work.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Jose,
My brother used to like to eat the muskrats we trapped.
My brother used to like to eat the muskrats we trapped.
Same reason there is commercial fishing...money. Whether it be for food or pelts, the bottom line is still the same...money. You can say both are renewable resources, neither have as much to do with "sport" as they do monetary gain. While trapping is often tied to hunting because people who trap normally hunt also, they are different and done for different reasons (some reasons overlap). There are benefits to trapping that exist on a personal level as well as an ecological level.
Sale of hides, horns, and antlers is allowed and relatively widely practiced. You think the Cracker Barrel had employees shoot all those deer heads they have hanging over the mantle? Big game and waterfowl are commercial enterprises for many...
JoseCuervo
New member
And what positive affect does the sale of animal parts from wild game have?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Calif. Hunter
Active member
It is illegal to sell game animals or parts thereof taken here. It appears to be okay to sell animal parts or trophies taken elsewhere.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
The selling of the hides of rodents keeps people pursuing them, this keeps the populations in some sort of check. This year fur prices have fallen with everything else. Muskrats are coming out our ears in most water ways causing major problems. Beaver have also become a nuisance in lots of canals and irrigation ditches.
The sale of big game capes gives hunters a mountable trophy even if they ruined their cape. I suppose all your trophies have the cape that the animal was using when you shot it.
JoseCuervo
New member
Why do you need to "control" rodent populations? Aren't there natural "controllers" such as predators and diseases? Why do we need to rely on trappers to "control" the populations only in the areas they care to trap, and, likely, only during the years that fur prices are up?
I think "control" is a weak argument for trapping.
And yes, I BELIEVE all my animals have been mounted with the cape I took in. Although, to be honest, a shady taxidermist could have switched on me and I might not have checked to be 100% sure. (There might be a few sets of antlers that I wished were switched out for bigger, but, I still like the ones I killed.)
I have lost a bear, a deer, and an antelope to poor record keeping at various taxidermists, so, somebody might have bought ones I killed, just that I did not get the dollars.
Never claimed it had a positive effect. Just wanted to point out that your debating point of not selling big game animals is false.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
We don't live in a non-human environment. Although up, birds of prey, fox, coyotes, coon prey on muskrats, but beaver have very few predators, a few babies get killed by birds of prey but after that they are pretty safe. Coyotes can't live in our back yards, to the extent that you'd like, so these other animals reproduce to rapid and then disease like tularemia (sp) break out. I believe that deep down your an anti anyway and trying to reason with anti's are useless because of your fanatically radical views of life. You have out standing supporting statements like:
Like your an expert on anything!
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Here's agood opinion piece. The only problem I see is that Footloose Montana doesn't really want to find common ground. Their agenda is to end trapping in Montana....period.
Opinion
Find common ground on trapping - Sunday, January 11, 2009
The forests of western Montana beckon trappers and dog-walkers alike, year-round, and by the thousands. And yet, it's the very thing they share that has driven a wedge between those who promote trapping on public lands and those who want to end it.
That wedge will only divide us further into pro- and anti-trapping groups if we don't start staking out some common ground. Only an estimated 3,000 people get trapping licenses through Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks each year - a mere fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Montanans who roam our shared acres. Not all of these recreationists would like to see trapping outlawed on public lands - but eventually, they will if traps continue to cause death and injury to their dogs.
It is impossible for anyone with a heart to ignore the heart-wrenching stories - and gut-wrenching images - of people's beloved pets caught and mangled by traps. We still haven't forgotten Cupcake, the border collie cross who died after being caught in an illegally set conibear trap not far from a Forest Service trailhead about two years ago. Or Otis, the beagle cross who was injured by a leghold trap last month.
The conibear trap that killed Cupcake was set illegally, and the trapper who owned it was cited. Montana FWP has rules and regulations for trapping specifically designed to minimize the number of conflicts with dogs. Every trapper who violates these rules gives the entire profession a black eye, and no one knows this better than the members of the Montana Trappers Association, which regularly holds classes to teach trappers about respective laws in the state.
However, the leghold trap that caught Otis was perfectly legal - despite the fact that it was set only about 20 feet off of Lost Horse Road in the Bitterroot Valley. Otis' experience was far from isolated, and no one knows this better than the members of Footloose Montana, which has become a clearinghouse for stories of run-ins between dogs and traps.
The two nonprofits are both expected to have a presence at the Montana Legislature this session, where at least two bills have been proposed concerning trapping. One would require first-time trappers to take an education course, and tellingly, the Montana Trappers Association has already stated its support for this. The other bill would give Montana FWP greater authority to take a commercial fur dealer's license for violating certain regulations.
This seems like as good a time as any for the folks at Footloose Montana and the Montana Trappers Association to talk - through a mediator, if necessary. We would dearly love to see these two well-intentioned groups sit down together to identify some common ground:
n They could start by acknowledging that trappers have a right to trap, and dog owners have the right to walk their dogs off-leash, but that neither of these rights are unlimited.
n They might also agree that there are irresponsible trappers and irresponsible dog owners, and that the irresponsible few do not represent all trappers and dog owners.
n When it comes to safety, both Footloose Montana and the Trappers Association, as well as FWP, offer trap-release clinics. That is a good thing, and perhaps they should combine their efforts to promote them.
n It would behoove the Trappers Association to identify the places where trappers frequently trap, and Footloose Montana to identify the places where dog-walkers frequently walk. Then, swap lists and disseminate them as widely as possible.
We don't pretend that any of these are new or especially brilliant ideas. Rather, they are good places to start a constructive discussion that got tossed aside a little too quickly in the rush to lay blame and claim the moral high ground.
But those arguments don't get us any closer to a solution everyone can live with. They certainly do nothing to make our public lands safer for everyone to use.
If Montana is going to make its public lands safer for families and pets without tramping the rights of trappers, we all have to remember: It's a matter of finding common ground.
More online
Learn more about Footloose Montana at footloosemontana.org.
The Web site for the Montana Trappers Association is www.montanatrappers.org.
Opinion
Find common ground on trapping - Sunday, January 11, 2009
The forests of western Montana beckon trappers and dog-walkers alike, year-round, and by the thousands. And yet, it's the very thing they share that has driven a wedge between those who promote trapping on public lands and those who want to end it.
That wedge will only divide us further into pro- and anti-trapping groups if we don't start staking out some common ground. Only an estimated 3,000 people get trapping licenses through Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks each year - a mere fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Montanans who roam our shared acres. Not all of these recreationists would like to see trapping outlawed on public lands - but eventually, they will if traps continue to cause death and injury to their dogs.
It is impossible for anyone with a heart to ignore the heart-wrenching stories - and gut-wrenching images - of people's beloved pets caught and mangled by traps. We still haven't forgotten Cupcake, the border collie cross who died after being caught in an illegally set conibear trap not far from a Forest Service trailhead about two years ago. Or Otis, the beagle cross who was injured by a leghold trap last month.
The conibear trap that killed Cupcake was set illegally, and the trapper who owned it was cited. Montana FWP has rules and regulations for trapping specifically designed to minimize the number of conflicts with dogs. Every trapper who violates these rules gives the entire profession a black eye, and no one knows this better than the members of the Montana Trappers Association, which regularly holds classes to teach trappers about respective laws in the state.
However, the leghold trap that caught Otis was perfectly legal - despite the fact that it was set only about 20 feet off of Lost Horse Road in the Bitterroot Valley. Otis' experience was far from isolated, and no one knows this better than the members of Footloose Montana, which has become a clearinghouse for stories of run-ins between dogs and traps.
The two nonprofits are both expected to have a presence at the Montana Legislature this session, where at least two bills have been proposed concerning trapping. One would require first-time trappers to take an education course, and tellingly, the Montana Trappers Association has already stated its support for this. The other bill would give Montana FWP greater authority to take a commercial fur dealer's license for violating certain regulations.
This seems like as good a time as any for the folks at Footloose Montana and the Montana Trappers Association to talk - through a mediator, if necessary. We would dearly love to see these two well-intentioned groups sit down together to identify some common ground:
n They could start by acknowledging that trappers have a right to trap, and dog owners have the right to walk their dogs off-leash, but that neither of these rights are unlimited.
n They might also agree that there are irresponsible trappers and irresponsible dog owners, and that the irresponsible few do not represent all trappers and dog owners.
n When it comes to safety, both Footloose Montana and the Trappers Association, as well as FWP, offer trap-release clinics. That is a good thing, and perhaps they should combine their efforts to promote them.
n It would behoove the Trappers Association to identify the places where trappers frequently trap, and Footloose Montana to identify the places where dog-walkers frequently walk. Then, swap lists and disseminate them as widely as possible.
We don't pretend that any of these are new or especially brilliant ideas. Rather, they are good places to start a constructive discussion that got tossed aside a little too quickly in the rush to lay blame and claim the moral high ground.
But those arguments don't get us any closer to a solution everyone can live with. They certainly do nothing to make our public lands safer for everyone to use.
If Montana is going to make its public lands safer for families and pets without tramping the rights of trappers, we all have to remember: It's a matter of finding common ground.
More online
Learn more about Footloose Montana at footloosemontana.org.
The Web site for the Montana Trappers Association is www.montanatrappers.org.
Similar threads
