one and only post on prestaking - where from here?

[jdrogge]

Good idea but you'll run into a lot of resistance on that, DNR doesn't like it.

[Eric Rector]

Guys, you haven't lost anything yet, remember that. Complacency on this issue will however cost you. I would strongly urge all of you that are for pre-staking organize yourselves and come up with a strong arguement for keeping it. Pack the next ITA meeting with supporters, even your friends, bring them along and when the DNR discusses the topic at their various meetings, pack those to, but don't just sit back and do nothing.

[k9]

I concur. We need to go to the ICN meetings also and present very positive messages that are ON POINT. They will not let you ramble about personal feelings at those deals, present the facts and thats that.

[jdrogge]

I fully intend to go to the ICN meetings, my question is do you need to be put on the agenda to speak or can you just ask to speak when the topic is brought up? I also think that moving the starting time up is a good idea if we can prestake or not, its a waste of daylight on opening day to sit around waiting for 8:00. I have heard the argument that the 8:00 makes it fair for everyone, 1/2 hr before sunrise is fair for everyone also, they just have to drag themselves out of bed a little sooner. That is the legal starting time for most other hunting in the state it should be that way for us also.

[iayogi17]

you do not have to be on any agenda for the ICN meeting. it's more matter of timing to say what you want too.

[longpond]

Natural Resource Commission
Public Participation Procedure
All interested citizens are encouraged to attend Natural Resource Commission meetings
and offer public input at the designated time. Additional opportunities for public input
are provided through rulemaking and public comment periods.

It is the intent of the Commission to provide adequate opportunity for citizens to offer
public comment at its meetings while balancing the constraints of time and conducting
official business. As a result, the Natural Resource Commission has adopted the
following procedure to implement 571 Iowa Administrative Code 1.5(2)(c), which
governs meeting decorum by providing the Chairperson with the authority to facilitate
public participation as necessary.

1. Speakers must fill out a form, giving their name and address, in order to speak.
Citizens are encouraged to participate in the rulemaking process.

2. Speakers may speak at the scheduled public participation time or may request to
speak when a particular item is being discussed. The Chairperson will call upon
the person(s) to speak.

3. Speakers shall speak from the podium (if physically able), state their name and
address, and shall speak to the subjects listed on the agenda or an issue related to
the duties and responsibilities of the Commission.

4. Each speaker may have up to five minutes to speak. Speakers are to be
constructive and concise. Public disturbances, outbursts, personal attacks, threats,
or other disorderly conduct will not be tolerated.

5. The Chairperson reserves the right to establish limits to public input on any
agenda item. (i.e. if multiple persons request to speak on one particular agenda
item, the Chairperson has the discretion to adjust the allotted time and the number
of speakers).

6. Speakers are asked to provide written materials in advance of the Natural
Resource Commission meeting, preferably one week in advance. Materials
presented at the time of the meeting, become part of the public record for that
meeting.




For further information about meetings you may contact Karyn Stone at 515/281-8650.

Natural Resource Commission: www.iowadnr.gov/nrc/

[k9]

OK so lets talk a bit about the upcoming BOD meeting. We will have people who want on the agenda, and some of us agreed earlier that it would be better for one guy to speak for the group. Ryan is good at speeches that are pre written, and I am more of an off the cuff kind of speaker. So I am up for taking Ryan up on his offer to speak for the group.

Who plans to speak at this BOD meeting?

[Kelly]

April 5th at 10:00. Plan to be there in support of pre-staking, but will not speak. Leave that up to someone else as I am just too angry about this whole deal and how it come down.

Seriously guys, we need to find out when the next DNR Commission hearing is, first. We need to be at it in force. The ITA BOD meeting might just be too late.

[Kelly]

Looks like the next DNR Commission Meeting is March 12th in Wright Co. So far no agenda posted.

[Eric Rector]

From what I know the NRC is just touring some DNR projects in Wright county, but the actual meeting is going to be held at Maynes Grove in Franklin County in their shelter house there. Located south of Hampton on Hwy 65 about 4 miles or so. If that changes will advise, the website should be updated on Mon or Tues I would think.

[~ADC~]

From the stickied post at the top of this forum...

Mar 3, 2009 18:43:27 GMT -6 Eric Rector said:

Here is the info on the March NRC meeting and location. The actual meeting portion is on Thursday.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009: Commission and staff will meet at 1pm at Mayne's Grove Shelter in Franklin county. 3 miles south of Hampton on Hwy 65 for a local tour.
Thursday, March 12, 2009: NRC meeting convenes at 8:30am. Public Comment Period begins at approximately 10:30am.

The point of interest all should be watching for

NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION [571]
Notice of Intended Action
Pursuant to the authority of Iowa Code subsection 455A.5(6), the Natural Resource
Commission hereby gives Notice of Intended Action to amend Chapter 110, “Trapping
Limitations,” Iowa Administrative Code.
Chapter 110 sets the requirements for placing, tagging and checking traps and snares.
The amendments prohibit the placement of traps or stakes in the public right-of-way
outside of the legal season. They also require that live animals be released immediately or
euthanized by the trapper.
Any interested person may make written suggestions or comments on the proposed
amendment on or before April 29, 2009. Written comments may be directed to the Wildlife
Bureau's website at www.iowadnr.com or may be sent to the Wildlife Bureau Chief, Department
of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0034; fax
[phone]. Persons who wish to convey their views orally should contact the Wildlife
Bureau at [phone] or at the Wildlife Bureau offices on the fourth floor of the Wallace
State Office Building.
Also, there will be public hearings held at 18 locations via the Iowa Communications
Network on April 29, 2009. Interested persons should contact the Department at [phone]
for a list of hearing locations or go to the Department's website at www.iowadnr.com. At the
hearings, persons may present their views either orally or in writing. At the hearings, persons
will be asked to give their names and addresses for the record and to confine their remarks to the
subject of the amendments.
Any persons who intend to attend the public hearing and have special requirements such
as those related to hearing or mobility impairments should contact the Department of Natural
Resources and advise of specific needs.
These amendments are intended to implement Iowa Code sections 481A.38 and 481A.92.
The following amendments are proposed.
ITEM 1. Amend rule 571–110.1(481A) as follows:
571--110.1(481A) Public roadside limitations—snares, body-gripping, and Conibear type
traps. No person shall set or maintain any snare, body-gripping, or Conibear type trap within any
public road right-of-way within 200 yards of buildings inhabited by human beings unless a
resident of the dwelling adjacent to the public road right-of-way has given permission or unless
the body-gripping or Conibear type trap is completely under water or at least one-half of the loop
of a snare is under water. Nothing in this rule shall be construed as limiting the use of foothold
traps or box-type live traps in public road rights-of-way. No person shall place or leave any trap,
stake, or non-indigenous set making material upon any public road right-of-way except during
the open trapping season.ITEM 2. Amend rule 571-- 110.5(481A) as follows:
571—110.5(481A) Removal of animals from traps and snares. All animals or animal
carcasses caught in any type of trap or snare, except those which are placed entirely underwater
and designed to drown the animal immediately, must be removed from the trap or snare by the
trap or snare user immediately upon discovery and within 24 hours of the time the animal is
caught. All live animals must be released or euthanized immediately upon discovery.____________________________________
Date
____________________________________
Richard A. Leopold, Director
(P:110n.doc/mg)



Last item of the day to be discussed

This looks to me like the last chance to voice an opinion to possibly prevent the ban on pre-staking. It's a VERY inconvient time for most people but if you don't want to lose pre-staking you should try to be there. I don't know if it will do one bit of good but if you wait for ITA BOD meeting you'll be too late by the looks of it, just as Kelly said and as I suspected you can't unring a bell.

~ADC~

[Scott W.]

So, will our opinion carry more weight if we show up at an ICN site to voice it in person, or is a written, or oral submission just as effective? Scott

[~ADC~]

Mar 4, 2009 9:05:40 GMT -6 Scott W. said:

So, will our opinion carry more weight if we show up at an ICN site to voice it in person, or is a written, or oral submission just as effective? Scott

I'd guess there's nothing like bieng there Scott, I know its harder to say no to someone face to face.

[Scott W.]

I guess I'm going to scratch this wound just a little more, 'cause I really don't like the way it seems our government is running rough shod over us with these proposed rule changes. Shucks, had I not found this site, I would know nothing about this "train" that is barreling down the tracks at us. I would like to propose a special permit for a person to keep a live animal or two or three, that has been legally caught by that person for personal urine collection. The animal would be "euthanized" at the end of the season. (Jan 31st). Scott

[~ADC~]

Change in the location of the meeting!

Scott W. I can't see how it would be too difficult for the DNR to issue a couple permits to trappers wanting a couple animals for urine collection.

~ADC~

[~ADC~]

Anyone going to the DNR meeting or we just give up and say good bye to pre-staking ROW's?

[dfox]

I plan on attending one of the ICN meetings in April, I can't make the March one.

[Scott W.]

I hear and understand what you are saying about being at the meeting being the most effective way to get your point across. Where I need some clarification is how the ICN sites fit into the equation. Can I show up at one of the ICN sites and have my say, or is it a sit and watch only situation, and then make my comments during the comment period? The other problem I am having is actually finding where the ICN sites are located. Any help? Scott

[hardwired]

To locate the monthly meetings of the ICN. Pull up the Iowa DNR website. Scroll down left side to Commissions and Boards then go to natural resources commission. This should get you where you want. I'm planning on being there. My concern is with the live animal side of this. They seem to side with the animal rights people saying the animal is better dead than alive. I would promote the benefits of animal urine in organic farming and even keeping nuisance animals away without having to resort to using terminal results. I tend to look at things differently. Tell them how this will benefit them directly and they will be more receptive. Tell them how the use of coyote any fox urine will keep pests like rabbits out of their garden and keep their wives happier.

[~ADC~]

Well it looks like to me they will be finalizing the amendments that will ban pre-staking ROW's and change it so no live animals can be kept AT THIS MEETING. Once this meeting is over it will be too late to voice your opinions. That's how it looks to me.

I also think it was set in motion at the last ITA meeting and there is no stopping it, no matter who says what against the changes. I think its a forgone conclusion, pre-staking ROW's is gone now all they need to do is put it in the regulations booklet, same goes for the live animals.

Neither of these changes will effect the way I trap currently anyway so I guess I'll live with it.

~ADC~

[Scott W.]

That's how it looks to me too, ADC. So why are they having the comment period after the meeting? Is it just a ruse? Scott

[hardwired]

My question would be If we can't have them alive why can we have them dead?. Section 1 Iowa Bill of Rights All men and women are,by nature, free and equal and have inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty,acquiring,POSSESSING and protecting property and pursuing abd obtaining safety and happiness. source :Iowa Constitution. I like the part of acquiring and possessing property. doesn't tell me I have to kill it to keep it.

[justwannano]

So do we just email Garner or all the NRC members?
just

[k9]

I have been a bit distracted the last week or so.

I do not think DNR is engaging in any ruse, they really don't need to even if they wanted to.

I will be trying to prioritize this week getting ahold of some people.

I would say that the ball is clearly in DNR's court.

So this brings us to the question I asked earlier, does it serve any productive purpose to challenge the ITA BOD vote taken recently? I will still be trying to attend the BOD meeting, but I think that issue is now in DNR's hands, and little can be done from an ITA standpoint.

So what do we hope to gain from flooding the BOD meeting and rehashing the issue? I truly don't know yet, here are some things I am assessing.

-Nothing can be gained by fingerpointing and pissing matches over past business.
-Many of our Directors have had a MAJORITY trapper response to thier polls AGAINST prestaking. Even though I disagree with the outcome I cannot be ticked at a director for doing what the majority in his area wishes.
-The thing we stand to gain would be suggestions on how to positively communicate such things in the future, so we can be ahead of an issue.

Even if we lay out our best case, which I am prepared to do, I can't ask a Director to ignore a majority of trappers in his district. My task is not to change the director's mind, my task is to change the majority of trappers minds.

I am not afraid of a fight, but I do not fight just for fightin's sake. There has to be a reason and an end goal.

So if this is all about DNR now, what do we hope to accomplish with ITA?

Thats what I am trying to decide, and hope some of you can help me make that decision.

[Scott W.]

What I hope comes out of this from the ITA is better communication with it's members. If it weren't for this forum, I would know nothing about this pre-staking issue. I don't think it serves any purpose to challenge the BOD vote on this issue. I do want to praise the directors who polled their members, but I think this issue is like seat belts. How many people get stopped for speeding and comment on what a good law mandatory seat belt use is? The guy who gets a ticket for not wearing one will complain about what a rotten law it is almost every time. Get my point? I do wonder if the polled members are truly educated about this issue. Sort of like the population of the country. It scares me to have some people vote when you consider what they do not know. I don't mind someone opposing my view if they are educated about the issue. I know it's their right, but ignorant voters scare me. Scott

[k9]

Interesting and well thought out pm I got brought up a couple good points.

Had all our Directors known such an important vote was to be taken, they probably all would have attended and the vote could have easily gone the other way. Even if the Director was unavailable, they could have had a proxy cast a vote for them.

This pm also questioned Directors intent to a degree, given the fact that the surveys were sent out after the vote. The PM raises the possibility that some directors were influenced by others.

I know one Director whom I have talked to, Gene, was not surprised as to the outcome of his survey, because he already had discussed the issue enough with his area members that he knew how the majority of them felt. The survey was just confirmation of what he already knew.

[paulb]

i wonder how many of the members who responded to Gene's question have ever pre staked a right of way in their life,,,i never have pre staked a right of way in my life,,,, but if i was asked how i would vote i would say i am in favor of pre staking right of ways ,,,i just don't like to give up something i have,,especially with out getting something back,,,i will be very surprised if all pre staking is not made illegal in the future,,,, the foot is in the door!!!

[Scott W.]

Had I been asked the question, before I realized it was legal, I would have said I'm against it. Now that I know it is legal, I realize it is a useful tool for certain trappers in certain situations. I don't pre-stake because I never thought of it. I definitely don't want to restrict one of my trapping brethren from using a tool (method) that makes their work more efficient. Scott

[justwannano]

I tried to email Dale Garner NRC member who is evidentally heading the rule change.
I tried twice with 2 different email sources--DNRs and my own isp and neither got through.
Anybody got an email addy that works?
just

[bearcreektaxi]

Is anyone planing on attending the ICN meeting? It sounds like it is the last shot at saving prestaking. I don't see any reason to try to change the ITA's position on prestaking considering it seems to be already out of their hands.