We are making some movement foreword on the trap cabin permits. The Senate read SB 230 into the record and the House should be soon.SB 230

Hope this link works.

Cross my fingers. Of course mostly federal and Tribal land, down here.

The only state land around here is the airport. Unfortunate that the fed owns most of the land in Western Alaska.

That's good as far as it goes but they really need to address all the additional restrictions & requirements that DNR adds every few years on a whim

Your right White 17, if we can get this passed this year, we will work on the other issues though the regulatory process.

The DNR made a friend of mine post a cash $3000 bond a few years ago before they granted him his permit.
Is there any provision in this legislation requiring the DNR to refund bonds they are holding? At the time they just made up the requirement out of thin air. It was a last minute condition and they wouldn't give him the permit until he gave them $3000; extorsion in all reality.

I know a lot of trappers are wondering why SB230 doesn't include ALL the myriad of things that needed to be fixed with the TCCP law. It is indeed frustrating.

Very simply, the answer is that because if we included everything, it definitely would not pass! A lot of work has gone into determining what changes we could enact that would most likely be successful. Once we make some progress (and we get a more sympathetic Legislative make up...) we can try and make some more changes.

That said, we need trappers to contact legislators and support SB230. And be wary of changes that the other side is going to try and make through amendments.

Thanks,

Pete

Who is the other side?

Mainly the DNR, Dirt. As i see it.

The "Other Side", would also be the same ones that want to restrict or eliminate trapping, cutting trails, eliminate the Iditarod, vegans, Center for Biological Diversity, .............

Mostly DNR. They have never thought that they should administer the law according to the intent of the legislation. In fact, they resent it and take it personally.

Pete

^^^^^
I can attest to the truth of that.

Several years ago I was having a conversation with a DNR official in Juneau. I quoted him a statute regarding a particular permit that I was renewing.
The statute said that the permit "SHALL" be renewed by the department if the applicant had "abided by the conditions of the permit".

They did not want to renew the permit. When I brought to the official's attention that the statute said "SHALL", as opposed to MAY, he replied in a very condescending way, that the department could either approve, deny, or terminate any permit at any time at their discretion, and without cause or reason, regardless of what the statute says.

That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the department's attitude toward the public and the law.

Man, Waggler, I hope you followed up on that attitude! First his supervisor, then a call to Sullivan and Young.

Sullivan helped me out with two similar situations dealing with a cabin permit in the tongass national forest.

The USDA is another problem muddying up use on public lands.

^^^^^
I don't think the USFS wants trapping cabins on State land in SE, and I have suspicions they are influencing the State DNR on this subject.

Let's not confuse jurisdictions here! Sullivan and Young can help on FEDERAL issues.

TCCPs on State land, adjudicated by DNR, are under State jurisdiction. We need to put pressure on STATE legislators to fix the problems we encounter.

Thus SB230 now...

Pete

The problem is that most rural legislators are of the political persuasion that places the STATE above the citizen and the law

Attempted to renew my permit and what a hassle. Not friendly public servant at all, almost a public hater!

I have to admit though it might been partly me. I forgot to renew and they didn't send a renewal notice out and it was a 5 year renewal I think.

In the mean time someone bought the remote parcel and the cabin was within the exempt corridor of the river where the cabin was since the 50's. The person that purchased the remote parcel removed the property corner and placed it on the river bank thus stole the cabin from me which placed the cabin within the river set back, I think it was......100 feet setback from the river no remote parcel could be.

You think the person behind the counter would listen to me, she was a not nice public servant. I ended up having a in depth conversation with the person that moved the corner and we came to an agreement. He only hunted from the cabin and I only trapped the area of the cabin. It was easier than fighting and the only thing lost on my part was the materials and labor to make some improvements.

I came to a conclusion that if I ever would build another cabin it would be in a place that no one could find and if I was followed its would be a trip in circles to get there. I don't have to worry anymore those days are over for me and I think my years early on were the best it could ever be.

My mistake. Pete is right, as to the state DNR. Mostly, (not all), federal, here, as to forest land.