|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Feb 16, 2009 12:24:41 GMT -6
I think someone posted in the proposed changes to the trapping regulations along with the pre-staking was something like, "Any animal captured or trapped must be immediately released or reduced to possession by euthanization." I wonder if any of you have opinions on this and what they are? Also if there is any course of action that could be taken to either prevent or promote this proposed change to the current trapping regulations.
~ADC~
|
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Feb 16, 2009 20:48:12 GMT -6
This is also a topic we (ITA) have been discussing with the DNR. Just what do you call the live market and what animals are involved?
Gene
|
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Feb 17, 2009 10:05:23 GMT -6
I was thinking foxes, coyotes, maybe raccoons Gene?  ~ADC~ |
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Feb 17, 2009 19:19:08 GMT -6
The only live markets I know of are for coyote but some would like to pen a fox or coyote for urine purposes or pen a coon for hound training. I think this is ALL included in what I have heard with the discussion of the live market. I can not quote the wording but something to the affect that an animal must be reduced to possession. In that text it means the animal must be killed or set free.
Gene
|
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 17, 2009 22:07:47 GMT -6
Do you see this going through this year Gene? I did not have time to pen a coyote or two this year and collect any urine. Should have done it but just too dam busy.
|
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Feb 18, 2009 23:10:19 GMT -6
Looks like a real possibility of being done this year. Will let you know if I hear anything new.
Gene
|
|
|
|
Post by TexA on Feb 19, 2009 4:38:43 GMT -6
Read the law as it is written and act accordingly.
SIMPLY, What It amounts to is someone "twisting" the Law to suit themselves - again.............
"something to the affect that an animal must be reduced to possession. In that text it means the animal must be killed or set free."
What part of "No" don't you understand?
|
|
Nick C
Active Trap Talker
Posts: 73
|
Post by Nick C on Feb 19, 2009 12:50:45 GMT -6
"Reduce to possesion"
It's reduced to my possesion if I'm collecting pee off it in a cage right?
|
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Feb 19, 2009 13:00:32 GMT -6
Read the law as it is written and act accordingly. What part of "No" don't you understand? The law has NOT been written yet. Its only a "proposed change" as far I've heard... thus the reason for this post to see how people feel about the PROPOSED CHANGE.  Nick I can certainly see how a person could define it just that way.  however the proposed wording is "reduced to possession by euthanization." ~ADC~ |
|
Nick C
Active Trap Talker
Posts: 73
|
Post by Nick C on Feb 19, 2009 15:18:08 GMT -6
I understand coyote pee is $35 gallon. Maybe 2 to 3 gallons of good pee can be collected off a meat fed coyote. So instead of a $10 fur coyote, it could be a $70-$100 dollar pee coyote. Which could be worth somebodys time to trap them.
Not to sell them for live market but the pee market.
Why reduce a trappers option to market the animals the way they want?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott W. on Feb 19, 2009 16:29:45 GMT -6
Nick, We are going to drive ourselves as a species into the ground with all the laws, rules and regulations we allow non-understanding bureaucrats to shove into our lives, Scott |
|
|
|
Post by daveplueger on Feb 19, 2009 16:53:45 GMT -6
EXACTLY!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Coydog on Feb 19, 2009 18:55:25 GMT -6
Read the law as it is written and act accordingly.
SIMPLY, What It amounts to is someone "twisting" the Law to suit themselves - again.............
"something to the affect that an animal must be reduced to possession. In that text it means the animal must be killed or set free."
What part of "No" don't you understand?
Tex,
I guess I really dont understand what you are getting at there.
Would you elaborate?
From what I have read on this topic, no one is intentionally bending any rule, or trying to break it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dfox on Feb 20, 2009 5:40:47 GMT -6
Read the law as it is written and act accordingly.
SIMPLY, What It amounts to is someone "twisting" the Law to suit themselves - again.............
"something to the affect that an animal must be reduced to possession. In that text it means the animal must be killed or set free."
What part of "No" don't you understand?
Tex, I guess I really dont understand what you are getting at there. Would you elaborate? From what I have read on this topic, no one is intentionally bending any rule, or trying to break it. Maybe if they would write laws that were not clear as mud, there would be a lot less confusion. Maybe they should say the critter should be killed immediately upon discovery unless it's animal x,y and Z and then it can be used for the x,y and z purposes or immediately released unharmed. |
|
however the proposed wording is "reduced to possession by euthanization." 
