Boco, the question in mainers document that refers to BMP's I think could be a major hiccup for some US trappers. The agreement concerning BMP's in the US was a far different agreement than what your country had. The BMP's were to be completed, and then disseminated amongst the different state DNR's, and dept. of wild life to implement into trapper education, and use as recommendations in conjunction with already standing regulations. We know that at this time some states made changes in regards to BMP's, and in most case BMP"s are now a large portion of trapper education programs.
The regulating process as been another matter, and that is because some wildlife agency thought that their regulation that were already in place were sufficient enough in regards to animal welfare. A state that come to mind is New Jersey, if BMP's would have been applied to trapping in that state, then Newt might of been able to own foot hold traps, and actually set them there as well. The BMP's in the US were developed, and are being taught, and in some cases applied within some regulations, but nothing not totally like in your country. We have a lot amore variable's in the lower 48 than within your country, and those variables is what makes it so difficult to have a one size fits all agreement, and that is were the individual states come into play, they are able by adapting to those variable's, and taking the best from the BMP"s, and coming up with regulations that fit the need of the resource within that state. The BMP agreement was never a document signed with the intent to regulate, because that is totally a state right issue, and well with in the constitutional rights of the individual states, so an agreement with EU asking for total compliance was a no go from the very start, and the EU knew this.
Everything these people are asking for is in place in a large part, but not completely, and with BMP's in the education pipe line, then at some point in regards to regulations the only thing that might be different will be those select variables in some states. We are right back to square one if a license trappers is shipping fur, then they have the address of the supplier, and if their license is current then there is the traceability, same with fur buyer's and their documents. I just get the feeling there is more to these question than just traceability, because I feel that if the auction houses spent so money on IT, and tossed out their old Commodore 64 computers like some have, then maybe this would not be such an issue.
Nafa, the old HBC, this company has a past history of doing whatever is needed to assure a profit, and sometimes in that history it has not all been good for trappers.
RTT
