I don't disagree with the set backs, I just don't want it to become a slippery slope

Hardly anyone disagrees with the concept of large traps being set in these areas.

And that is exactly why ATA (and individual trappers who support the proposal) come out looking "smart and reasonable" by supporting it.

Were ATA to oppose the proposal, ONLY because it is a "slippery slope," or the "camels nose under the tent," or because of the group who sponsored it, ATA would just look completely unreasonable to the general public. That is NOT an image we should wish to cultivate or encourage.

Sooner or later,, ATA will need the public's support on some issues or proposals. If the public recalls ATA as being reasonable in this case, that support might be more easily forthcoming.

Pete

So I grabbed my proposal book this morning and read the proposal. It is 50 yards, not feet and it appears some of these trails are located in legal off leash areas?

What page is that on Dirt ?

86

Thanks

At face value it certainly seems reasonable and even common sense however if this is being put it place to stop dogs from getting caught then both sides are fooling themselves. Loose dogs WILL still find traps at 50 yards if the wind is right and they will also follow the trails into the set as will anti trappers/ trap thieves. This is a feel good solution that won't work and in the end will be ultimately used towards pushing a no trapping solution. The anti's don't try to take trapping away in one fail swoop they chip away at it a little at a time and everytime you bend a knee to compromise you are just one step closer to trapping being banned.

Hopefully, you will explain your 50 yard distance won't work idea during your public testimony at the BOG meeting.

The way I read the proposal in the book.........it seems as though the 50 yard setback would apply anywhere along the trail......regardless of the distance from the trail head. Not opining on whether that is good or bad....just saying that some very clear definitions are needed.

Notice the last sentence in that proposal.

"All other forms of lawful trapping would also be allowed NEAR the below-listed trails, provided they are placed FARTHER than 50 yards from the trail."

What is the definition of :near: and why are we now using the term "farther than 50 yards" from the trail. How much farther ???
Bait & switch ??

If this wasn't Alaska Wildlife Alliance proposing this..........I might not be so suspicious.

How is that magical 50 yards measured? 90 degrees from the closest part of the trail to the set? Or to the trap itself? How far away can bait be? Can I put lure any old place? How about a grouse wing? What if I use 10' of chain and another 10' of cable, make a catch, and the animal gets wrapped up at the end of all that, resulting in an encroachment?
It goes on and on. I dealt with such arguments. Of course one would think common sense would prevail, however you would be wrong!

Pete you are spot on with your reply.

Trooper also can't enforce borough and municipality ordnances for unethical and unleashed dogs. But they will enforce trapping regulations.

That sounds good on paper, but reality is. The antis and the liberal press, never care how much you compromise or try to be workable. Our lifestyle is just barbaric! Maybe someone could answer this? What has AWA come to the table with? AWA is not going away and nether are the more restrictive regulation on trapping, if you keep working with them in good faith.

According to F and G, there are 20 people signed up to trap creamers field.

What percent of the land mass of the State will be removed from the privilege of trapping?

Do you understand you really comprehend and understand, the decision the Alaska Supreme Court made in the ATA vs Valdez?

I’ve brought this up with ATA when I was on the board, but it was shut down, however, something to throw in the pot. I think a mandatory trappers ed for areas like the Fairbanks management area and similar (throughout the state in sensitive areas) require a trappers ed certificate. If the board accepted this then ADFG would be responsible for it, and ATA could try to provide the instructors if interested, but if they can’t the state would have to, either way would be the states responsibility. I don’t see why even trap tags, if required, in the permitted area, would be a problem since the trappers would be legal and there wouldn’t be anything to hide

instead of reinstructions comprise with community specific

The problem with putting the ownance back on ADF&G is that they are more into handling it by expanding regulations. Trail set backs, trap tags, subdividing GMU’s into micro controlled use areas, etc.

AV was successful in bringing expanded opportunities in SE Ak. Elevated sets becoming legal, under his proposals amongst a few other successes for trappers, near our previous 1/4 mile exclusion of traps being set within “defined trails”. And not while his, we got trap tags removed from the requirements in the GMU here. Point being, there can be gains made vs. concessions given.

I would say if you offer any sort of appeasement, you are giving them another inch. To me unacceptable, as we all know full well what comes after that one inch given.

That's where I'm at with it. I'm not personally setting that close to any trail I didn't make anyways, but more laws are never the answer. It all smells very similar to gun control...

As the valley fills up with humanity, we are just going to try to maintain the status quo? 33 year Mat Su resident here.