Iowa By-Laws to Be heard on the Pre-Staking Issue

[~ADC~]

Below is a way for the membership to be heard on this issue of eliminating pre-staking. Just do exactly as it states to do and this should ensure that the membership gets to speak and maybe vote on it, unless it gets handled by the ten person committee.

---

ARTICLE XIV - VOTES OF THE BOARD BY ABSENTEE BALLOT

The Executive Council may, by a majority vote, bring, between Board meetings, any issue or amendment before the Board by absentee ballot. The Secretary shall cause ballots to be prepared containing a concise statement of the matter to be voted upon, which shall be mailed simultaneously to each Board member. Each Board member shall mark his ballot, sign his name, and return the ballot in person or by first class mail to the Secretary. No ballot shall be valid unless personally delivered to the Secretary within fifteen days of the mailing of the ballot, or if mailed, delivered in an envelope postmarked no later than fifteen days after the postmark on the envelope in which the ballot was first mailed.

ARTICLE XV - RIGHT TO CHALLENGE

Any member shall have the right to challenge decisions made by the officers and directors of the I.T.A. and shall be entitled to a hearing on the subject. Said member shall file a complaint in writing to his district director. If the complaint cannot be resolved by the district director, said complaint shall be forwarded to the President of the I.T.A. in writing, who shall then appoint ten non-office holders as a negotiating committee to bring about an agreement. If an agreement is not then reached, the matter shall then be voted on by the membership.

ARTICLE XVI - ENDORSEMENT

Sec. 1 - The fact that a person or persons is or are a member of the I.T.A. may be so stated in his/her advertising if it does not imply endorsement of his/her product by the I.T.A. Any such endorsement must first be approved by the Board of Directors. Nothing in this chapter, however, shall prevent information from being sent to members concerning publications that allow space for promoting the I.T.A. and state groups but shall exclude other publications and advertising. This shall not constitute endorsement of such publications, but shall be a gesture in the interest of all concerned.

Sec. 2 - In no case shall a membership list be used as personal mailing lists unless this first be approved by the Board of Directors. The Board shall have the right to set a price of reimbursement for the use of the I.T.A membership list. Such use of the I.T.A. membership list shall not constitute endorsement of the user by the I.T.A.

Sec.3 - No private enterprise for profit shall be sponsored by the I.T.A.

Sec. 4 - Any person or persons using or attempting to use membership in the I.T.A. for his personal gain shall upon conviction be removed from the I.T.A.

---

~ADC~

[k9]

I was keeping it under may hat but I have contacted my Director yesterday and issued a challenge. We will see what happens.

[k9]

Here is my written request that I sent.

Wayne

It has come to my attention that ITA Directors in a recent meeting have moved to proactively approach DNR to make illegal pre staking of traps in right of ways.

I am a member of ITA and live in your District in Brooklyn, Iowa.

In keeping with article 15 of the ITA by laws, I as a member of the ITA wish to challenge this ruling by the board.

Consider this email to be my challenge in writing, if I need to do so in letter form feel free to give me a call.

Thanks

Bruce Rhoads
Brooklyn, Iowa
641 751 8400

[dfox]

Sent my letter this morning.

[centraliowa (ryan)]

Sent my letter.

[dfox]

I already got a response:

David,
I will bring this to the attention of our president to be sure your challenge is noted.
Thanks for letting me know what you think, and I will give you a call after I have passed this on to Craig.

Dave Phipps

[x-demoman]

If the challenge is accepted and the decision reversed can another member challenge the reversal? It is after all a decision of the BOD.


Dave the challenge is yours to decide not the ITA President.


Gene

[~ADC~]

Good question Gene.

After this post, I'll still discuss this via PM with anyone who wants to but I'm done now with posting about it. It's not going to get resolved here.

We all know the problem is the very few people who pre-stake trails with the mind set that they want to get out as many sets as early as possible to beat their competition to the coons and certain locations. There are people who pre-stake JUST for that reason, they probably won't admit it here but we all know it's true. Those individuals with no regard for anyone but themselves have brought this whole thing to a head. Their ethics and morals are the thing the ITA is fighting on this issue, nothing more. On the other hand there are those who pre-stake to simply take advantage of the opportunity to make large catches when it's most suitable weather and high populations of active raccoons at the beginning of season. Those are the people banning pre-staking ROW's will unjustly harm.

If they would put a limit of two or even one week prior to the season for pre-staking ROWs and must be removed by April 1st, the whole thing would be put to rest.

I can not for the life of me figure out who has the power to say, "No, that's not even an option."

Like I've told others, I fully see where it comes from. I know there are a few individuals who think like, "I need to get all the snares out that I can to insure that I make a big catch, and get them out way early to insure I beat everyone to the trails I want to set." The reason I don't agree with the vote is your lumping all ROW pre-staking with those few individuals and I honestly believe that those individuals will still come through the area (8am or later on opening day) they will still set all the snares they can and they will still cause just as many complaints. Like I said in chat, I like them individuals pre-staking so I know where they will be and can work around them. Now, if the pre-staking is gone, they will be setting on top of me. (my snares blend in good, no kill-poles, not easy to see if they are moving fast) That would be worse for me.

It still takes me back to why two weeks before and after Ap[ril 1st is not an option. If it were written in the laws that way, everyone would still have the same equal chance at the trails and it would not effectively cut off the first few days of season for guys who just want to work hard and get out their stuff to boost their catch during the first part of season when the weather and population make it easier. There are some people who count on their fur checks for income as well as those who do it for a hobby, I think all could be fairly represented with the two week thing.... but alas someone decided "it's not even an option", who has that much power, and why would it not be an option? There is simply no reason I can see.

~ADC~

[k9]

To add to what you are saying Jayme, lets consider the large number of prestakers that no complaints are generated on. They do this every year, and have no problems.

Who is representing them?

[k9]

Just talked to Wayne and he did not get my email, so sent it to him again at both email addresses.

Gene I think you are right, I do not think some of these Directors know that they are the gate keeper for these challenges. Wayne promised me he would send it on which is fine, but I thought there would be some process between the challenger and the Director before it got moved on to the President.

[coontrapper]

ADC what is the April 1st thing your talking about?

[daveplueger]

It was discussed that by April 1st most years the snow is gone and frost out or close to it and trappers would be able to retrieve equiptment more readily than at the close of the season. Also wouldnt have to worry about mowers in the ditch yet at that time.

[x-demoman]

The first step in the challenge rests with the director recieving it. If he agrees with the challenge that should be where it stops. If the director disagrees with the challenge (supports the BOD) may be the challenger should review his challenge. Next step is for the Pres to appoint a review committee.

When we revised the by laws in the early 80s this article was left in for the current reason. This may need to be revisited as does several other sections of the by laws.


Gene

[k9]

Duriing the challence process, is there any chance for us to see hard data such as numbers of complaints etc?