Here is a controversial subject I want people to weigh in on. The Idaho Trappers Association board is looking into adjusting reciprocity for non-resident trappers. Current reciprocity for non resident trappers is as follows:
Wolf trapping in Idaho has no non resident restrictions. Any person from any state in the country can trap wolves in Idaho if they buy a license, tag and take the wolf class. This rule proposal will have ZERO affect on non resident wolf trappers. On to furbearers and predators: Currently anyone can come trap animals in Idaho that there state allows Idahoans to trap there. Example. I can trap any animals in Wyoming, so Wyoming trappers can trap any animals here. Nevada doesn’t allow Idahoans to trap come down and trap bobcats so we don’t allow them to trap bobcats in Idaho. These two scenarios will NOT change. Under my watch we will never allow non-reciprocal states to trap animals in Idaho. Here is the change: In 2021 California residents cannot trap anything in Idaho because California doesn’t allow anything to be trapped in California. This rule proposal we are drafting would allow California residents to come trap here. We did not feel we should penalize California trappers just because they lost trapping. We have some Californians that are lifetime ITA members and are dedicated volunteers to us. It was two Californians out of the 7 people left that were packing tables and sweeping floors at the end of the fur sale. The second part is if a state doesn’t have an animal we have. Currently a Texas trapper can’t come to Idaho to trap marten because Texas doesn’t allow us to trap marten there. The kicker is Texas doesn’t have marten. But I can go to Texas and trap kit fox, grey fox and ring-tail cats even though Idaho doesn’t have those (and I plan to one day). To put this in prospective, last season there was 36 non-resident trapping licenses for the entire state. I’m sure some of these were for wolf trapping as well, no way knowing how many were wolf trappers and how many were predator/furbearer trappers. I know no one likes competition but it never sat well with me restricting fellow trappers. We also get a tremendous amount of support from the surrounding states. We get a lot of donations, financial help and currently have 222 ITA members from outside of Idaho. Please let me know what you think of this rule proposal.
Thanks
Rusty Kramer
Idaho Trappers Association President
208-870-3217

That seems like a very good proposal that is well thought out and fair.

Sounds good to me.

sounds good

X2

As an Idaho resident, I like it.

Sounds good to me.

I will have to think about this. My initial reaction is to say no to residents of states that don't allow trapping. I don't mind the Marten trapping scenario if we can trap all their fur bearers. I also think Washington trappers should be limited to cage traps in Idaho as we are limited to cage traps in their state. I may change my mind but I don't think so.

I can see it both ways. Reciprocity is only fair.

Only time reciprocity should come into play is when your residents aren't allowed to pursue the same animals in another states that their residents are allowed to pursue.

It probly isn't fair for trappers from every state to go to Idaho/Utah/Nevada to trap them high dollar bobcats. Them two brothers a few years ago probly caught them all anyway. They was the Conor McGregors of bobcat trappers.

I think a lot of people get their waders in a bunch over NR trappers coming to their state to trap "their" animals, but realistically the number of NR trappers in most states is in the dozens.

I don't think I'll ever get the chance to travel and trap another state, but I would love to if given the opportunity.

Any idea how Idaho handles trappers from Wisconsin? We have a lottery for bobcat tags here, so technically you could trap one if you drew a tag, but not every year. And there is no preference given to residents over NR when it comes to the drawing. Just curious.

fax that up to Minn. would ya.

Sounds fair to me.

I believe that the new rules would be much fairer than your present rules.
I Pa,a non resident can trap the same as the resident for any species a resident can trap, the non resident pays a higher license fee.

All states should be open for any trappers in the USA to come trap any animals same as residents, no added restrictions at all, NONE. Same license fee as well. Hunting & fishing should be the same. The individual states DNR can impose limits if needed to protect animals but it should not matter where you are from as to who gets to legally kill them.

California residents would not be penalized for the rules of their state - seems reasonable.

Nevada residents would be penalized for the rules in their state. - not as reasonable.

How about: Anyone who gets the required training and pays the required licensing fee can trap? If that means too many licensed trappers for the land to support: residents pay taxes in their home state so they get priority and non residents get into a lottery. Non residents can also pay a higher fee - since they don't pay taxes that help support Fish and Game (or Division of Natural Resources, or whatever it's called in your state). In NJ, resident trapping licenses are $32. Non resident licenses are $200.

Sounds very reasonable to me. Why punish other trappers when their State bans some form of trapping, they didn't want that to happen anyway. Making trappers pay for the mis-deeds of their states voters is like taking guns away from law abiding gun owners to stop crime.

I would agree with that as well.

I wish Kansas were still reciprocal. Our Wildlife and Parks mucky mucks are only interested in more money. Need to fire a few people in Pratt. Maybe California can take them in.