AJE at the present our trapping laws are more favorable than yours.

The DNR handed over the administration and funding of the trapper ed program to the WTA in the mid-eighties. We had no revenue source to support the program. With the stock market crash in 87 and subsequent bottomed out fur prices, it meant extremely low participation in the voluntary trapper Ed program. The WTA contacted legislators and to make a long story short we got the ball rolling. Once the DNR saw that we were serious, they too came on board.

To answer your question, the furbearer biologist at the time was happy to see the program go mandatory which included funding for the program. We used pittman-robertson funding for the manuals for the first year.

More favorable for all trappers, or just MN residents?

At this time more favorable.to anyone who is able to hold a license in MN.

There are those of us who are trying to make it that way for all trappers. As you well know, it's not easy.

How so? I voted online and didn't feel incomplete. Was it because I attended the meeting? Muskrat, Bryce, and nimzy were not in my meeting, yet they all played a role in how I voted. At least on one question.

Muskrat
You think we would be using colony traps if we did not have the Conservation Congress?

The Conservation Congress has been a tool for many sportsmen and women to use to introduce resolutions that have become law. Want some examples?

Four resolutions I introduced that have become law:

Mandatory trapper education. Some will say it was not necessary. But they were not serving as the statewide coordinator in the late 80s. We just about lost the program. Today, even with low fur prices, we graduate over a thousand students a year. The class we held here last weekend had 47 students.

Choice of name and address or DNR customer ID number on your trap tag. A resolution I introduced and has become law. Who knows how long we would have gone with the antiquated name / address system.

Legalizing the cutting of Willow along the lower Wisconsin River valley for the purposes of making trap stakes or duck blind material. Prior to my resolution, it was illegal to cut living willow along this river corridor.

Another resolution I submitted and I believe has become law. The choice of name and address on your ice-fishing shanty or your DNR customer ID number. Now I could be wrong on that, since I use a portable shanty and just hang the number on the outside when I am using it. I do not know about permanent shanties.

I try to submit at least one resolution a year at the hearings. I am a strong believer in citizen involvement in the hearings.

We shall see how online participation affects the desired outcomes by trappers, hunters, and fishermen. It is a shame that so many do not participate.



I agree! Don't know about this online vote. I know some guys that cannot attend the meetings every year because they are working. At least they can vote now and if you vote online I believe you have to provide your customer ID number but not sure. Can everybody vote? I don't know. Will anti's vote?

Too many unknowns.

You didn't have to put your customers id in, but you could if you wanted. It did collect your name and address. Not sure, how many antis are going to waste time filling out a questionnaire with 85 questions that are pretty mundane. Try passing badger season and I am guessing you will get more to fill it out or show up.

The benefit of the CC is the time it takes to get something passed. Unfortunately, the alternative venue takes very little. Mn loses the Senate, they might find themselves looking completely different.

Do you think badger trapping is a possibility? I like your thinking in that regard.

AJE, I think he was giving an example.

I don't think they came out with the voting results yet but anxious to see what it is.

I'll take our chances with having a shift in our senate VS having the CC, although it could be a case of I don't know what I don't know.

Look how long it takes to get something passed....2 years minimum and then it is still only advisement. It still can go to the scrap yard. Remember the proposal to shorten Beaver season? How about the common opener? Both passed the Conservation Congress but were never changed. Beaver season even had the support of the general membership of the WTA. Over the years, very seldom did the Conservation Congress go against the WTA.

How else did the Conservation Congress benefit trappers? It gave legislators some additional cover. Don't agree with constituent, tell them to run it through the Congress and let the Congress do your dirty work. The Congress killed a lot of antis dreams. Frustrated so many over the years that they have stopped trying.

There's are 72 counties in the state. How many lean in the trapper/sportsman favor? Five delegates for each. Only two are up for election each year. For antis to play any major role, that is a lot of elections to win and they need to win in consecutive years. I will take the political makeup in the 72 counties versus the MN Senate districts. Especially with Trump up for reelection in a few short years.


But here is another benefit. It gives us another chance to groom leaders and build relationships with other user groups. Those relationships have helped trappers a lot in WI.

Is it perfect? Nope, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be leveraging all the benefits. Gary can keep some antis from getting elected in Dane county, but do you think he can get a trapper friendly legislator in Dane county?

Not going to lie. I almost put in a resolution, but Gary talked me out of it. Legislators would have to get involved but I am not sure they pick it up unless it passes.

Good point.

I'm concerned the online vote will diminish this benefit though.

AJE, follow Gary example but get yourself elected. You would be a good addition.

It has the ability to attract the next generation which could magnify this benefit. You know the worst part? It's up to us to determine the success either way.

Not to throw water on the concept of online public input, but something occurred recently with the Conservation Congress that has me, and many others worrying and honestly really ticked off.. The Migratory Committee of the Congress met in early March, its members all driving through hazardous road conditions to get to the meeting at Mead Wildlife Center. Season dates and other options were thoroughly discussed, debated, and finally compromised to come up with a recommendation package for the 2019 season. This recommendation was based on many years of experience of the members of the committee who have gathered input from waterfowlers in their respective areas. The committee felt very comfortable that this was a good recommendation package, and that it would be presented to the Natural Resources Board as the recommendation of the Migratory Committee of the Conservation Congress.

During this time the DNR was conducting a statewide online survey gathering input (the CC does not allow the word "voting" anymore) from folks who were clicking on a link to the survey on the DNR website. The survey results came in a while after the CC Migratory meeting. The numbers of returned surveys were about 2200.

When the Executive Committee of the Congress met and were presented the results of the survey, they chose to use the DNR recommendations on the season over those from the Migratory Committee. So the DNR recommendations were presented to the NRB instead of those of the committee, made up of members from all over the state with many decades of waterfowling and season-setting experience, and a vested interest and personal investment in the waterfowling seasons in their various areas..

The Congress recommendations should and always have been be a parallel effort to those of the DNR. In many years and cases, they have not been in agreement but that is part of the process. The survey results are merely numbers, and while it is a grey area, have X percentage of people providing input without the benefit of discussion, background and experience. The decision made by the Executive Committee to use the DNR survey results, ignoring the recommendations of the Migratory Committee, has placed my trust and confidence in the Conservation Congress process on really thin ice, and most certainly has placed the future of the Mississippi River Zone in jeopardy. I shudder to think of the future if the recommendations of all the other Conservation Congress committees are handled in the same manner. This go along/get along movement does not fit with the true purpose of the Conservation Congress and its remarkable history and heritage.

Moosetrot

Moosetrot, I am glad that you are always willing to challenge.

Help me understand why leadership went in a different direction? After having a chance to review that input, would the committee have made changes to their original recommendations in your opinion? Why or why not? And did the folks from the migratory committee show up at the NRB meeting?

I received that online survey Moose is talking about, but I didn't fill it out since I don't waterfowl hunt.

It sounds like the migratory CC committee kind of got thrown under the bus.

I have no idea why they did it but have to assume it was to make things easier to agree with the DNR recommendation based on the online survey, as well as supporting the online survey movement within the Congress. The Executive Committee met and made the decision a week before the NRB meeting. At that same meeting the Chairman of the Migratory Committee was informed that the Conservation Congress as a whole, was setting aside the Migratory Committee proposal in lieu of adoption of the DBR proposal. Given the rules of the Congress, the Chairman had to present that proposal to the NRB meeting and did. The NRB adopted that proposal at its meeting this week.

The minutes of the Executive Committee have not yet been posted, and when they are I am sure they will be sketchy at best.

Moosetrot