Back in 1986 or so, the MTA (then), and Michigan coon hunters assoc. went together to generate the fur harvester license.

It took some time and a lot of persuasion to get the DNR & the budget office to go along with us. We showed then a "NEW" license and the monetary gain.

Along with restrictions we (MTA & MCHA) came up with. Non resident trapping/hunting for fur was the issue mostly.

Our fur take here was usually Oct.25 in the U.P., Nov.1st. in lower northern and Nov.10 in the lower third of the state.

The question came to mind, when would a non-resident be able to start trapping/hunting fur? A suggestion of Nov.15th.-opening day of deer rifle season state wide.

It passed with great delight associations wide. The fee for Nonresident was $151. Now all that's changed to let non's come in same day as residentials.

Now if I wanted to go to another state and state hop I could. Providing that state allows it.

Its called a Reciprocal law! Its quite simple if you work out the details with the stat.

So, from what I am reading, Minnesota doesn’t want help or financial assistance from non-residents to help fight their next anti-trapping battles. Too bad. Why should the NTA or FTA help Minnesota out if called upon with donations from NTA and FTA members since most members are not allowed to trap in Minnesota.

Sorry, that's not true reciprocity. If it was, there would be no extra burden like a late start for non-residents and the price for a licence would match the state the trapper came from.

Example.....If you come here to Pa., We charge you 81.90 for a licence and you start when we do. If you are a true reciprocity state, you charge us 81.90 and we start when you do, which you dont.

Yep, that's how look at some states and act accordingly.

If I have the extra money, only after "friendly" states get my support do I consider supporting them.

grandpa trapper,,yes they want your help and donations, they just dont want to give you anything back in return for your support.

teacher, no im not saying one person stopped the process, but he sent that letter as a representative of the mta, and the mfzta was already against the change, so with both state associations against the change, why would the dnr entertain it?

Fossil2- the letter to which you refer was after the 1st vote, to not allow NR trapping. The letter asked that the national organization of FTA, which the MTA donates a large sum to, does not promote a stance of a state level issue that is contrary to the stance of the organization that supports it. I have been told the FTA felt it was a national, not state, issue (see my previous post in this thread) and moved forward with their agenda. My view at the time shared it was a national issue and off went a significant check to the FTA.

However, the President of the MTA was representing the member's majority vote in his organization as members should have expected of him. And applauded him. If it did not jive with your personal belief, being in the minority of the membership, should be irrelevant to his letter. Now the membership has demonstrated a change in mindset, it would be appropriate for the current President to write a letter to the FTA and NTA asking them not to fund a resistance to NR trapping as it is contrary to the MTA's position.

There still exists some hard feelings by some for the FTA running contrary to the MTA after that letter. And when increasing our funding to the FTA (at their request) it was brought up in the last year; this was voiced. The NTA apparently did not feel it was a National Issue and did not contribute. At the time I personally disagreed with them, wrote a letter and cancelled my membership. Only this year did I join again.

This issue has in whole or part, led to the start of two trapping organizations in Minnesota who felt the MTA was not doing enough to prevent NR trapping on one hand, and promote NR trapping on the other. To my way of thinking combined what I observed firsthand during lobbying efforts, this has further delayed the meaningful change on several issues because members of legislative committees as trying to please everybody to stay in office, and the easiest way is to change nothing. Most often accompanied by a canned excuse of "it would be too difficult" without so much as exploration.

United we stand, divided we fall. Yet most trappers fly the Gadsen Flag in their heart if not on their porch. To fully promote trapping, we need to temper our own perfect (aka personal) agenda and back burner some things, and move forward for the greater good. Pride is often one of the greatest qualities of a trapper, and the chief reason we don't agree with each other. Just look at the inflammatory speech to each other on this website as BOGMASTER recently pointed out.

The MTA increased their financial support to the FTA substantially in the October 2019 or January 2020 board meeting. We are keeping the greater good in mind, and surely the FTA is a presence of protection and paving the road of our future. We are seeing some joint activity between the FTA and the NTA to bury a friction that caused the one national organization to divide into two. Across the nation folks are seeing the necessity. There is enough people/organizations to hate you just because you are called a trapper; no need to alienate each other.

Who are the ones doing the dividing, is the million dollar question.

As usual, I am lost in the language and terminology. But what I did manage to sift out is that the trappers in the forest section don't want us guys from the farming section of the state or anyone else for that matter, to come up and trap "their animals"? Is that correct? If so, then that's like saying I don't want anyone else to come down and catch "my fish". My area is full of lakes and tourism supports a large portion of our economy and brings in millions to the area. So what is so different between trapping and fishing or hunting? Attitudes like this cause nothing but problems for everyone but the few who make the rules. Why should I care if someone comes over to catch a few animals if they are willing to pay for a license and dump a little money into our economy? I mean the state has no issues taking money from a NR for fishing and hunting. I honestly see no difference between the two.

There is very little chance that this will ever go anywhere.



There are a lot of trappers in MN that have the same feeling I have on this.

1 I dont have money or time to trap another state.
2 I have plenty of places to trap at home.
3 what am I going to trap that I cant at home???? Possum
4 other than Bobcats or Martin why would you want to buy a nonresident license to trap Mn
5 this is really my #1. I have seen the out of state guys here with their hounds "running coyotes" they say. 99% of the time they are on a cat track with a tree dog not a running dog. I really dont want to see more of those guys here, and they would be.


So when it comes to us voting, I don't care or if pushed I vote No. Sorry it's just how I feel, and no amount of talking will change my opinion.

So the money the trappers in the other 49 states donate to FTA and NTA goes to MN also? That's really fair!!!

Why do they claim to be running coyote? Is it illegal for non-residents to run cats?

For 20 plus years I was a member. Whenever I brought NR trapping up all I was given no real discussion except we are working a on it. Several years ago they discussed different start dates and several species being off limits to NR. As understood it most trappers could live with that plan. Why did that plan disappear. Minnesota has changed it’s Martin and Fischer season To run with Christmas in the middle of it. This was pushed for by northern trappers with the MTA agreement. ( basically eliminates southern trappers from participating if they have a family). We are now required to have bads on our snares because the DNR wanted them up north to eliminate or reduce accidental wolf catch’s. Northern trappers responded they were ok with it as long as everyone else in the state had to use them also. MTA leadership what was your response? Beav run for MTA president you would have plenty support.

"membership has demonstrated a change in mindset"

when the mindset was against nr trapping, the mindset had the support of the mta. now that the mindset has changed, wheres the support? all we get is "working on it", "not the right time", etc. same old same old.

i continue to support the mta, buy my tickets, have a life time membership, etc. i just dont appreciate the run around, and if theyre against nr trapping, then say so, same as those of us that say we support it.

actually been a good conversation,proud of ya's.

This thread is like a bad rerun.

Minnesota stands alone in the trapping world. They could use support from other states wit the wolf and lynx issues. They should do everything they could do to give other states the incentive to help out not allowing other trappers to trap here will hurt mn next anti lawsuit

What EVERY Minnesotan that is against N.R. trapping doesn't seem to get is that there are 51,205,760 acres of federal land ( 6.8% of the state ) that belongs to EVERYONE in this country to use for legal recreational and commercial activities. Minnesota trappers against N.R.trapping are holding these lands hostage, as if they own sole rights of use as trapping grounds! Total B.S., whenever you guys need help think about how your stance on this issue is going to hurt you.

You need a fur bearer license (trapping) license to possess a bobcat. We get tags for them. If you're a non resident you cant have a trapping license, so you can't possess a bobcat. It's a really touchy subject, and I don't agree with it. When these out of state guys are running in an area that has very few coyotes (lots of wolves), and a high number of cats, it really gives away their intentions.


You cant go deer hunting without a license and tell everyone you're hunting coyotes, that wouldn't fly with the game warden.






Really there's nothing here for anyone out of state to trap if...
1 We dont allow cities tags - martin, Fisher, cats.
2 we block spring beaver.
3 non resident have a later start date.

Aside from trapping with a family member for a couple days what would be the point? I doubt any warm weather guys would chop through a foot of ice to set beaver traps only to find out someone cleaned the pond out on the first weekend of season.

.

So let's say its changed.


You can have a license. Its $150, and you can't trap wolves, cats, Fisher, martin, or otter. You can not trap spring beaver. You start 2 weeks after the residents, and it is a limited season - only a few weeks. Your season also runs during the two weeks of rifle season when there's thousands of people in the woods.

Are you still going to buy a license???? No
Why would the DNR push to make it legal there's no money in it for them. So ten licenses are sold that's $1500 that does nothing for the DNR. They will never push for this to happen.