I'm Legislative Director

You completely missed the point of why I said he was trapping out of state. He's not against non-resident trapping, he's worked very hard to get it, and he wants to trap other states besides Texas. Nor is any other of the leadership against it, like some have accused. There's been meeting after meeting, discussion after discussion, on how we can get non-resident trapping in Minnesota. But first and foremost is protecting what we have, especially now when we have active bills that would severely damage trapping in Minnesota, and the party of the anti's is completely in charge. One of the main purposes of the MTA is protecting trapping, we're not going to risk that foolishly. I dont know what youre talking about when you say leadership has come out against non-resident trapping, I wasnt active at the time, but I know this, despite what some on here think, there's no one in leadership now that's against non-resident trapping. Say what you want but that's the absolute truth.

Well . . . . yes, we were successful, but the legislative window to do so was momentarily open at that time.

There is no such thing in today's legislative world as an "overstated risk." The best of intentions by a trapping organization can be upended in "helpful" committees who have deemed themselves experts and wizards in most any subject they have control over. What goes in doesn't necessarily come out looking the same.

Timing is everything now. If you don't understand that, you really don't understand how things work in today's legislative world.

As far as perceiving nonresidents as a threat to trapping as we knew it then and especially today, it really never was a real threat. In fact, there were trappers in the northern third of this state that feared the southern Wisconsin trappers were going to trap their muskrats so much . . . they actually railroaded a common state opener via certain channels. It took years to disengage that nonsense.

Yes, reciprocal like Iowa and Wyoming

I have many MN friends who are non resident trapper friendly because they wanna go to some states that are reciprocal.

They are MN association members and they say the problem is within the association itself..
They're take on it is that a majority of Northern MN trappers do not want non resident trappers.

The same members say that the northern MN trappers( not all but most) don't even like the southern MN residents coming north to trap in their own state and treat them.as non residents.. and they say that if those Northern MN traers could prevent Southern MN trappers from going north to trap, they feel those northern trappers would do so.

The also complain of the secret voting for non resident trapping issues.

The say why not vote out right and let everyone know where you stand.
This is what I've been told by many MN trappers who are fed up with the association making excuses and blocking non resident trapping.

And before someone says it's none of my business. It is.

Jerry has some very good friends in MN that he can't trap with because the association doesn't want it to happen so they wont sponsor a non resident trapping bill, regardless of the makeup of the legislture.

It's easy to blame things on the legislature but the legislature changes every few years so if the want was there, a bill would have been introduced for a vote, by now.

A couple of our friends have given up and said that as long as a. Few guys are in office with the association, non resident trapping will never happen Iin MN.

It's been referred to in conversations with some MN trappers as "an old boys club"
That mindset is in lot of associations where change is resisted.

I feel like if MN won't let all trappers trap their state, that they shouldn't be picked as an NTA convention location.
Why would many non resident trappers want.to spend money where they're not wanted?
Just my .02

I swore I had washed my hands of all of this but I will throw this out as a suggestion.

Does everyone know what "HIP Certification" is when you buy a small game license? You answer YES or NO if you hunted migratory waterfowl last year and if so, roughly how many you harvested. Why not approach the MN DNR about asking a similar question to each trapping license sold? "Do you support or oppose NR Trapping in MN"? I can't believe the cost would be anything more than minimal at best and ALL trappers would be required to answer the question regardless of trapping association affiliation. The DNR and Trappers Associations (3 I believe) would ALL have access to the same, unbiased survey completed by ACTUAL trappers. Ok, I am out for good now.

Good idea

Rob, the DNR surveyed trappers this past spring/summer and compiled a 50+ page report on the data. It isn't on the DNR site that I can find but Erb might be able to provide it. I can't locate the link I had for it.

I never got a survey and neither did my Dad. A mail survey can be skewed by any mail carrier between here and St Paul. That is why I suggested the electronic survey.

I guess some people missed the part where goldy seems to be prioritizing saving the sport of trapping, not infighting among you sportsmen.

Lots of misinformation in this post. You have the Minnesota Forest Zone Trappers association (MFZTA) confused with the Minnesota Trappers Association (MTA). The Minnesota Forest Zone Trappers Association was basically formed to fight non-resident trapping. Read my original post again Catherine on why the MTA hasnt gone forward with a non-resident bill. Theres nobody in the MTA leadership trying to block non-resident trapping. Thats a cold hard fact. The Minnesota Forest Zone Trapping Association is another matter. They do have the reputation of not wanting even southern Mn trappers in their areas, but Ive never actually heard a member say it. And theres no "secret" voting going on on any issues. Thats ridiculous.

They dont care.

I threw out what I felt was an economical solution to get an accurate, up to date census on how trappers as a whole feel about NR trapping. On any voluntary survey you will get the hard core, both ends of the prospective responses. The vast majority will not respond. Make the survey mandatory and if it favors NR trapping then you have a FACT that you can use that can't be disputed. You need to remember that the vast majority of MN trappers don't belong to one of the 3 organizations but the opportunity is there to turn them into enemies if we don't solicit their input. It was a suggestion to try to help but I won't make that mistake again.

Well, goldy, whether it's warranted or not I do not know, but there is definitely a general consensus among trappers that the MTA ALSO does not want NR trapping allowed. You obviously don't believe that's true and has stated that it's not, but a lot of people still think it's so.

I feel your pain.

Actually theres not that many at all, definitely not close to a consensus. Theres a few making a lot of noise on here and other sites. You would have see all the texts and emails Ive been getting. Most hate the divisive arguments on social media so they keep quiet. Most, if not all, are in favor of non-resident trapping too

I wonder what the consensus is with the MFZTA? Or maybe their opinion doesn't matter. I'm not taking sides but it seems like the deck is being stacked a little here. Are you saying that most TRAPPERS support NR trapping or just the MTA membership?

Randy, under what basis would the MTA file a lawsuit to obtain NR?

We've looked at everything possible. I dont recall the exact discussions with the attorney but the best option would have had something to do with free trade. If you want I can find out for you

So how is that different from the 2013 lawsuit that was filed under the same basis, that the MTA stood against?