HB 3932 prohibiting the taking of beavers on Oregon's public lands passed the Senate committee on Natural Resources and Wildfires along party lines 3-2 today. It will now go to the Senate floor where the Democrats hold a super majority.... and then it presumably will be on the governor's desk to sign into law.

Kudos to Republican Senator Todd Nash (District 29 in the northeast corner of the state) who gave eloquent testimony in defense of trappers in the state and who testified that even in areas of his district that have been closed to beaver trapping for over 60 years there has been no recruitment of beaver there. IN other words....not the trappers fault that there are areas with no beaver!


SIde note. This battle ain't over by a long shot. Stay tuned.

If anything like that passed in Alaska, beavers would be their last worry, I’d start trapping humans lol

(This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) democrats.

Yep

Why you guys picking on BP?

Democrats, Republican your problem is white people and there stupid ideas. If there is enough beaver for a season and the odd guy who wants to trap, let them. There going to have to be removed when they start flooding out roads and fields. Make more duck habitat and water storage. Not that you can drink that water, but at least it's good for flighting forest fires

Wow! That was racist!^^^^^^^^ I agree, we can't trust the urban white man. Maybe not even the urban Black white man?

Just about every anti-sportsman bill is Democrat driven !

Want to remove a recovered species from ESA protection you can bet Democrats will be seeking out a Liberal Judge to stop it !

This

What percentage of Oregon is public lands?

53% ....but the state's charter holds that all navigable streambeds are public up to the high water mark. Unknown at this point is if HB 3932 will include these waters. If so my beaver trapping is done (barring the lawsuits we will be filing).

Should mention that a few years back the Northwest Forest Accord took away beaver fur trapping on private timberlands (companies with holdings of 50,000 acres or more) in Oregon. That removed another 10 million acres for beaver fur trapping.

How did they get trapping stopped on private lands?

Swampy, it was a deal with the devil. The governor led accord got the antis and the timber interests together around a table to hammer out an accord that would result in less litigation over timber harvests. The timber interests were asked to ban "recreational beaver harvest" on their holdings as part of their compromise. In turn the antis aren't tying themselves to trees and suing to halt timber sales.

And from my understanding the timber companies have free rein to have paid trappers trap them, just not the general public.

Was it just beaver trapping they eliminated?

So, if I'm reading this right... your party banned your livelihood?

Yes.

I'm thinking you read that correctly. Lol

No money has to change hands technically, the public could do it for free if they chose too, but the beaver cannot be sold.

Because the sale of wildlife is not democratically correct enough in Oregon, but the mandated wanton waste of beaver is ok under these guidelines.

You can see this whole issue is just a guise, using/abusing wildlife management to give this issue democratic political clout, the real issue here is anti-trapping.

If our state govt. was serious about saving beavers in small streams, they would put a bounty on lions in these regions like we previously had when beavers were abundant.

It’s sad BP that no matter how many times sportsman and others have warned/told you and many other trappers and hunters that the democrat party of your younger years is gone, yourself and many like you had a hard time believing it is so. I hope this sad event, not the first sadly, will help to awaken and create a new fire burning in you to change your mindset and see who is actually on the outdoorsman’s team. The dems have let themselves, happily I may add, be taken over locally and nationally by a bunch of progressive idiots and pukes. I hope that the Midwest trappers here, that’s Mn & Wi mainly, who still can’t admit that they are voting themselves and future generations out of our great pastime will see this. The greatest greed, I believe, is to do something you love, then by one’s actions, make it impossible for others to find that joy also. Good luck BP in this next round of fighting, wishing you the best.

I hear what you guys are saying. Let me ask this: Can I potentially do more to affect wildlife policy as a Republican/Independant or as a Dem? When Ballot measure 97 (in 2000) reared its ugly head I was part of a team that visited the Editors of two large Regional Newspapers. These were in Democratic strongholds. That week the Eugene Register Guard came out in opposition to 97. I was directly responsible for the Editor taking that stance. He as much as said so in the Editorial. 97 was defeated while the identical measure in Washington state passed.

At the Senate hearing on HB 3932 on May 6th guess how many trappers came to testify in person? Me, Stan and Jeremy, our OTA prez. The "yes" on 3932 crowd had dozens there.

I see what your saying BP....you think you can make a better stand as a democrat when fighting democrats. Maybe so.

But, its the continued voting for them that some of us are confused by. From the outside looking in....it appears that anyone that voted democrat has created their own problems. We want to ask...WHY, would you do that? It's a concept that's odd to understand.

I get it Swampy. I really do. But I never said that I vote a straight party ticket have I? For example our current Dem Governor didn't receive my vote last election.

Who told the bunny huggers it was recreational? Not me.

I personally hate that term but what they mean is fur trapping. But if you read our regs it says “recreational”.

No...in fairness to you...I've never read that you have. I'm basing my opinions off comments you've made about national level dem-repub candidates and officials. So, I'm assuming that you lean left. My apologies.

No apologies necessary. I do lean left! Lol. I really don’t fit within any party though.

I'm sure the bunny huggers appreciate that term. I remember when I attended several Board of Game meetings in a row years ago, when the bunny huggers number 1 enemy were those non-resident sport hunters. Didn't bad mouth us resident subsistence users at all. It is all about public perception. The general public ( not the bunny huggers) does not actively support the idea of killing wildlife for fun. You gotta have a better reason then that. I did not make how things are, this is how things are.

What constitutes a "subsistence user".

Polling on the issues back what you're saying Dirt. Again, we are not well served using that term.

Beaverpeeler, it was my understanding that you were able to have a discussion with your Democratic Senator. He was the swing vote on the committee that could advance the bill or kill it. Three Democrats and two Republicans on that committee. I'm sure you laid out the reasoning against the bill in an fair and reasoned manner. Yet, he followed the party line and voted against you. Do you think he gave you a fair shake in considering your arguments and your viewpoint coming from real world experience? Or was he going to vote against you no matter what the data and science supported?

The Democrats that I have to tried to engage with in Minnesota on trapping issues (this includes the governor who portrays himself as an outdoors man) won't even talk to me. They hate and despise folks who make their living in the outdoors. Is there even one pro gun and pro trapping Democratic Senator or Representative anywhere in this country. I would say no.

Gerald, we spoke for about 20 minutes. I felt that I was listened to but in reality I had no chance to sway him. He has a A+ rating on environmental causes and he had also heard from many constituents who champion this bill. And you know how politics work. One party member votes against his party and he/she makes enemies within his/her own party and will have to deal with that moving forward.

For trapping in Alaska you have to be trapping to support your family. You need to be making money, eating the meat or making clothes, or making garments or handicrafts to sell to make money.

Perfect example of tyranny of the majority. If this senator had any integrity, he would have simply said: "I'm voting against this because the science and data show that it is a mistake." and let the chips fall where they may.

Kinda of like the old Russian saying, the defendant will be given a fair trial, after which he will be executed.

Urban versus rural divide (or Democrat versus Republican) in this country, and it is the urban that have no respect for the way of life that rural folks have. As bad as it has ever been and getting worse.

There are those from either party who don't necessarily agree with or fit in with their party of choice on all things either, but they still are branded by the actions of their party. I'd suggest if you don't fit in, it's time to move on. For the same reason I don't attend PETA conventions. I don't fit in, and I don't believe in their message or cause. Why be counted in their lot?

I'm of the opinion the person you visited with only took some time to appease you so now he can say, "I've listened to both sides of this issue," and then cast his vote how he had intended to all along.

No i dont believe you can, not after voting democrats into office. Your best chance is to not have democrat majorities voted in, but that cats outta the bag.

Kinda like shutting the barn door after you left all the cows out.

I just hope like someone posted above.....those who still vote for the new progressive democrats of today take note!

It can be complicated in a State where you know the Democrats will be in control because of a large urban vote. There are democrat Legislators occasionally who will support trapping. Tribes are a big component too. Almost always support democrats but also consumptive wildlife use. If you can encourage one of them to try for a committee that oversees these type bills it can be a block. All it takes is one democrat willing to vote with the Republicans. Easy to say it doesn't happen, but it does or really the vote never gets taken because they count the votes beforehand. It takes positioning.

Any politician, democrat or republican, is going to vote whichever way keeps them in power. The politicians that voted on this bill are the same ones who approve of filling in wetlands, clear cutting timber, developing prairies, and “rescuing, removing” wildlife to build new strip malls, golf courses and houses. The same ones who let Port of Morrow dump who knows how much wastewater into the river(with no fines) because they can’t keep up with the fines they’ve been getting over the last 10 years. The science is out the window. They will vote whichever way makes their constituents vote them in again next term.

5 Counties control this state to heck with the rest of the people, it is all about money and power!

Georgia has see-sawed similar to this in the past few years.....with those counties that make up metro Atlanta. Yall can guess the makeup and mindset of those counties.

Some states are doomed by the overpowering vote of the urban areas of their state. It appears to be the future for most of the East Coast and portions of the Midwest.....and has already happened on the West Coast.

…. There were those that warned of this

Ol'Nate!

That’s actually one thing that makes me laugh and also kinda ticks me off. They’ll say trapping is a savage abhorrent practice that needs to end, but then in the same breath say it’s okay for native people to continue trapping as it’s part or our history and culture….so they’re calling us savages is how I hear that.

Interesting take Ak. The sponsors of HB 3932 were quick to add an amendment protecting tribal take of beavers on public and impacted waterways. Actually pretty smart to make sure that we wouldn't come after them on that point. And we would have.

Keep giving them heck BP. We appreciate everything ya’ll have done.

Thanks Deafcaller, Stan and Jeremy are the ones that really deserve credit. I'm thinking some of us trappers oughta spring for a fifth of Eau de Musc castoreum infused Whiskey for Stan. He's really stood up and been there for us. And much more to come....trust me.

It is okay to be a savage, if you do it to survive. Even most Urban people understand killing stuff to survive. I have even had bunny huggers say what I do is O.K. because I do it to survive in the wilderness. I don't argue with them.

I'm pretty sure if I told them my culture and tradition was whacking animals for fun, they may not be quite as supportive.

What a world we live in. As a native I’d be happy to inform them that the bald eagles they so cherish taste like trash lol

If someone is trapping and utilizing the proceeds to pay bils, buy groceries, etc......aren't they doing it to survive?

… well you finally laid it out dirt … folks been waiting for that lol

….populations need to be controlled… that should suffice

Unfortunately, controlling populations is really not necessary in the wilderness this far north. Sometimes, but rarely. Damage control, not really an issue when they have few things to damage.

Beaverpeeler, sounds like you have an ace up your sleeve. Good luck in fighting this even though it is tough odds. Thanks to you and the others who are spending time and effort on this, if you lose at least you know you gave it your best shot, and can hold your head high.

I remember one Old Timer told me that he went to a ANTI TRAPPING BILL meeting and was asked to say a few words. The place was in the court house and the room was split...one side anti-trapping the other side pro-trapping. He stood up and he introduced himself as a LICENSED fur trapper of 45 years. He said he did some nuisance animal work for the public with state permission in the off season. He made it short and sweet. He asked if the state banned the legal trapping of wild fur bearers who would control the problems when they start up?
And then he directed his question to two ANTI TRAP people who he did trapping for...."Martha, who would remove those problem skunks from your shed?" And "Nancy who would remove those raccoon that were in your garden raising can with your vegetables?" Both ladies faces turned red from embarrassment. He finished up with "Wild animals have to be managed. Fur trappers will do what is necessary during the season but we need your support."

For the past two months I’ve been pretty dang busy and I soon to forget to update on all these different platforms. So for that I’m sorry. Looks like BeaverPeeler had her handled. I will make some corrections as I read through most of this conversation. I’m not the President in the Vice President. Oregon is going to loose trapping of beavers on lands that have impaired waterways. Not all waters are impaired but yes a very large portion of them are. We can still trap on private property just not on lands 5,000 acres or more that has harvestable timber. So basically the big timber companies. Can’t trap beavers on navigable waters on private to my understanding….. Oregon has like 12 navigatable rivers. 53% public lands and that’s all federal. Statistics show that ONLY 4% of Oregons beaver harvest was done on public lands. So why not. Only affects 115 trappers. But the outcome will be much more than 115 affected. Anyhow thanks for being there in Salem during the senate hearing. My mentality won’t allow me to pass this up so I have to mention it. If you and Stan would have been there during the hearing in the house us trappers had them activists outnumbered. I was pretty happy to see that. Anyhow have a good one
.

Thanks for chiming in Jeremy and for corrections in my banter where needed. HB 3932 as written is difficult to decipher at best. On the issue of navigable rivers I've been hesitant to bring it up 'cuz I wasn't sure I wanted the other side to know (via public forum) that it is something they might push for. I mentioned to Senator Floyd Prozanski my concerns about that and his understanding is/was that navigable rivers that run through private land would NOT be affected. It will apparently be up to ODFW and the Game Commission the unenviable task of mapping out open and closed areas. Navigable rivers in Oregon has long been a gray area. But any commercial activity prior to statehood in 1859 on a body of water made it an automatic qualifier. That is a lot more than 12 rivers because it would include every coastal tidewater stream as well. ( Also the task of mapping out impaired waterways is not even close to complete per my understanding. How long will it take for an undermanned state agency (DEQ) to do all the required testing)?

If the coastal streams and the Willamette and its tributaries are included as in being public to the high water mark....well, beaver trapping is essentially dead in this state.

Wished I could have been at the House hearing but my wife had a medical appointment I had to take her to.

And for the bizarro twist on all this...I trap the Willamette primarily and I have yet to ever see one single beaver dam or lodge on the 80 miles worth of it that I trap over the last 45 years. So much for beaver dams detoxifying the water!

What is the logic they are using to justify the closure of public waters?

I guess you already answered my question...............

There is no logic. It is an excuse because they don't like trapping or any other consumptive use of wildlife. Supposedly more beaver will bring back the salmon runs. No trapping will not mean more beaver where they want them because nobody put the word out to cougars they're not supposed to eat them.

They can’t go change it now so I don’t mind saying much. I do have some things I won’t put in the public forum like I knew why you couldn’t be there during the house meeting. I just wasn’t going to mention why. As far as the high water mark I hope you are right. But as far a beaver tapping in Oregon we still are just not as much as it was….. I hope your right so that way you and Donnie can keep hammering them.

Amen Bruce……..

Oh Carl. If it’s up to the commission we are good. They are very unhappy with this bill

Beaver dams are rarer in some very good beaver country than a lot of people realize. A lifetime invested in the waters and your opinion invalidated because of some armchair expert somewhere.

I only see dams on small creeks, and they’re usually generations old, with a big pond or swamp behind them. Beavers aren’t really out there damming up new water, they’re just maintaining dams that their great great great great grandparents built in locations that were favorable to being able to dam it.

BS……

Yep. However the excuse they're putting forth with HB 3932 is that beaver dams are removing toxic heavy metals and purifying water. Not much mention of Coho habitat in this bill. One could guess that most of the toxics that are impairing waterways would be where there is industry. Read that big navigable waterways where beaver can't build dams anyway.

Bizarro world.

Okay vinke. I’m sure you know more about our local beavers than I do lol

Purifying water? Would you rather drink out of a beaver pond or a fast running stream? Do they know what beaver do in the water?

I see them building new dams, but it is always on small streams and swamps. Occasionally you will see the beginnings of a dam in some backwater of a bigger creek or small river. But that is some dumb beaver that is just going on instinct, it will be gone come the first good storm.

This^^^^ must be an Alaska beaver thing. Maybe those beaver populations are not expanding.

You should see em here in southern Georgia.

Beaver are public enemy number 2 to salmon runs where I live. Dams block migration. True to an extent on some systems. Coho juveniles do need some slow moving rearing habitat, but I'm not sure they need beavers to supply it? Of course if they did, on a particular system, one could just regulate trapping on that system or build a dam. Your right though, need some excuses to ban stuff.

I am going to ask a simple question. Has there been any studies conducted in Oregon or Washington that have concluded that cougars are negatively impacting beaver populations?
Always helps to have a study behind an anecdote.

To that point I don't know of any. The Makah's did a study on cougar movement and what they eat. The synopsis is they cover the entire Olympic Peninsula and they eat about everything but beavers specifically, they found some cougar key on beaver almost to exclusion of other prey. Several studies past and one ongoing about cougar in Eastern WA but nothing tied to beaver. The Panthera groups has 90 cougars radio collared on the Olympic Peninsula right now and have for a long time. I personally think it is a grift as it is easier to get a grant for studying large predators.
I know of a couple studies done to see where relocated beaver ended up, but they didn't seem to categorize mortality.
Not a study but slightly better than an anecdote is the catch statistics. In the 60s,70s and early 80s in Grays Harbor County (where I live) there was an average of about 2000 beaver a year harvested. When the price dropped after 86 to 2000 slightly less than half that was the catch. In 96 they out lawed hunting cougar with hounds, and you could see the population melt away over about 15 years. Now the annual catch is in the single digits and that includes nuisance beaver.

Vanessa Petro with the Forest Research Lab at Oregon State was involved in a beaver relocation project in the Oregon coast range. She told me that mortality within the first year was around 90%. Of that the vast majority was due to cougar kills. The beavers had tracking devices in their tails.

I sure wish she could have been able to testify at the Senate or House hearings.

Even if cougars are the problem, what are they going to do about it?. In essence, if cougars are now reducing the population in some locations, then there is no harvestable surplus for consumptive users. This is a common situation where predator prey situations get out of balance. Trap those beaver or not, they are already doomed possibly to extirpation.


One other thing here that I think causes possible declines in population would be eat backs. If beaver populations get too high for their habitat they tend to have to eat back further and further from water protection. When they have to go so far they become easier pickings for predators. Everything loves to eat beaver here.

The Oregon coast range was only suitable beaver habitat about 50-75 years ago after large wildfire burns and extensive logging opened up the canopy. IN addition, large predators such as cougars had largely been removed from the landscape by the bounty system, hound hunting, and/or poisoning. IN the early 1800's it was reported that the coast range was barren of beavers. It has been returning to that state for the last 50 years with the 1971 Forest Practices Act which does not allow logging within riparian zones and the 1994 Ban on hound hunting for cougars.

Not really eat backs but a similar problem exists. Beaverpeeler touched on it. The riparian setbacks, they vary as to class of stream but 100 feet on each side of a stream is about what a smaller stream beavers might move into. More on larger streams. Even a very small trickle will have a setback so all that grows up to larger trees that aren't good beaver food. They are forced to travel farther from safety to find food.
I will say I don't believe it makes that much difference as a cat will set on the shore and wait for a beaver. On a smaller stream a beaver doesn't have a chance as a cougar will go right in after them. Even lakes and rivers the beaver population is way down. Cats are just patient hunters, and it is easy to tell where they are working.
There're three options; Get hound hunting back and up the permitted take of cougars. Not happening because it is politically unacceptable. Or move or trap something else. I've been doing the latter.

It is hard to imagine the Grays Harbor area without any beaver, but I haven't been over there in years. I will add that there is another reason that the reported catch is in the single digits. They outlawed the use of bodygrip and leghold traps. That lowered the number of trappers a lot, but it also caused anybody who does grab their old traps out of the barn and go get rid of the beaver flooding the sister-in-laws yard, to make sure and not report it. Logging practices can be rough of the beaver population, as you explained, but I see what Dirt terms as "eat backs" here, and remember seeing the same over in Lewis and Grays Harbor counties back when I was a kid. Of course there weren't any cougars there then, but when they have to travel away from water farther for food, there are plenty of predators that like beaver, coyotes and bobcats will both grab them (and they outlawed bobcat hunting at the same time they did cougar and bear).

I remember reading an article 2-3 years ago that floated the idea of ODFW allowing the use of hounds on lions for a 2 week season in Oregon. Talked to one of the local ODFW folks about it last year and they said the public opinion against it was too much.

Hippies ruin everything

Honestly, I’d rather have the hippies over the liberals any day. lol.

They were raised by hippies. I realize the actual hippies are long extinct, but their stupid ideology lives on in all kinds of blue haired nose ring freaks. Let’s set the beavers aside for a minute, and discuss when it’s appropriate to open a season on stupid people, I think that’s been a long time coming

I’d vote for that.

Boys boys boys...somebody need a hug?

I believe here, the riparian set back schemes are salmon protection related. They are probably a good idea? That is not going to change, probably. Everybody loves salmon. Beaver only have a few friends.

We only have set backs on forest service, state timber sales or private we cut right to the creeks, so long as we can keep everything out of the creek. Occasionally there’s gonna be a big red cedar that won’t cooperate, so those stay. And that only applies if it’s salmon bearing, if not it’s treated as a mud puddle and they don’t care if we put logs in it.

Here, the last 30 years or more. Personal use logging 100 to 300 foot from waterways ( depending on the manager at the time) All land sales along creeks and rivers have had setbacks. Even my trapline cabin permit required a setback. Personal use logging is more selective cutting of spruce which would really have little impact on the riparian forest of spruce, birch, and cottonwood, but such is life. All State land.

Ironically, In the end the spruce bark beetle took out all the spruce anyway.

That makes sense if you think about it, the state doesn’t gain anything from cabin permits or people harvesting their own firewood/lumber, they do gain from commercial timber sales. So I think the almighty dollar has something to do with it, they’ll happily tell you to cut your cabin logs or firewood away from the water, but when I have a 6 foot spruce next to the creek, they want to be paid for it, they don’t want it standing there (they estimate the value of a timber sales prior, but what ends up in the deck is what gets paid for) also could be an accountability thing, they know they can’t get blood from a stone if things get messy (personal user), but they know we have millions in commercial insurance to latch onto if we make too big of a mess

I think there are different standards depending if you are in region 1, 2, or 3.
ALASKA
FOREST
RESOURCES
& PRACTICES
ACT: AS 41.17

You’re probably right, I only know how we do things in SE. My time in south central revolves around the winter months, so trapping and firewood is all I worry about, I’m not doing anything resembling commercial forest practices that time of year (I have work available here all year, but in the winter we have more days sitting around because of weather than not, so my time is better spent doing other things)

I remember reading a study out of OR that talked about the effectiveness of riparian setbacks. It was temperature specific whether it was good or not. Some very cold streams opening up the edge of the stream helped salmon by increasing the amount of food produced in the stream.

It'll never happen as long as ODFW is allowed to have hired hunters slaughtering the lions. They like it that way, they don't have to deal with the antis complaining about the evils of hound hunting, or deal with John Q. Houndman, and they kill as many or more lions every year as the general public did when hunting them with hounds was legal, so they don't cause enough problems to raise too big a public outcry. If ODFW weren't allowed to use hounds and traps to control the population and get rid of problem cougars, we would have a chance of getting a cougar season back, because they would cause enough problems, eat enough livestock and kids to create an outcry big enough to actually get a season again.

Not really sure how the ODFW “program” works but I do know 4 different houndsmen here that are allowed to run bear, lions and bobcats all year except during spring bear season. No harvesting except for in season bobcat but they tree them, tranq them and collect dna samples and collar the lions and collect dna from the bobcats and bears. So at least over here, they are not removing them. Just watching them.

Bearcat, I know some biologists that wish we could have a season on them. It will never happen.

Actually it isn’t ODFW that has professionals killing cougars. It is federal wildlife services that respond to damage, safety concerns. ODFW actually places many restrictions and and hoops that need to be jumped through on WS.

Actually it is ODFW that is killing them preemptively. They are driving ODFW trucks, working out of ODFW offices. I'm sure you would have to file a request to force them to give you the info and stats (and who knows how accurate they would report the numbers). But I have run into some of them numerous times in the woods, in certain areas, and one guy in particular after several years and numerous encounters he became friendly enough to drop numbers in casual conversation. I knew they were high, I had seen the precipitous drop in lion sign and had seen him with dead cougars, to many times, but I was shocked at the numbers he mentioned. But they would choose a unit or area, and work on it for three or four years, and then be moved to another one. Yes they were regulated by whoever their boss was in ODFW (no idea on that score) and had to remain with the boundaries of the unit they were assigned. But within that unit they were given free rein, hounds, traps, snares, calling, they were expected to use them all. The couple guys I knew from one office were expected to kill every cougar they could come up with in their unit, year round, and the numbers were prodigous. Another guy I knew somewhat, and sold a young dog to before I found out he was going to contract (different office, different way of doing things) for ODFW was given a strict quota of how many he was to kill in his unit that year.

Hey beaverpeeler, did your state rep say anything about how this bill will affect otter trapping? I’m guessing they’ll close otter trapping wherever beaver trapping is closed like they have been?

Pretty certain the senators have very little info on how the bill will be laid out once passed. But since there are no provisions or mention of anything except beaver one would assume that otter, nutria, and all the other furbearers would be unaffected.

Are these programs still ongoing in the areas you referenced?

ODFW paid WS to kill them here with a similar protocol as you described and then also had private hound guys registered as volunteers killing them on regional quotas as well. The areas where the volunteers worked had a remarkable increase in deer numbers immediately.
The volunteer programs ended here in 2018 or 2019 I believe, deer numbers plummeted in those areas within a couple years.

Oregon has become a predator pit; there was a reason our predecessors managed predators differently in the past.

If you see your ODFW buddies tell them to come over to the coast range. We're overrun with longtails. For that matter, the Cascades opposite Eugene as well.

I wouldn't assume that.

You cannot trap at all on the West side of 101 now because of the coastal marten.

They {USFS} recently stopped the 2025 huge dune fest fall celebration, using the marten as the excuse of the day as well.

You could be right Wayne. But the bill itself only talks about a beaver closure. After it is passed the Game commission will have to draw up the areas affected and any rules associated with it.
I’ll ask Stan next time I talk to him about what he thinks.

If I recall correctly the marten closure didn’t come about through legislative action. It was the Game Commission after threats of litigation from the do-gooders.

That’s about what my rep said too, nobody knows all the info yet I reckon. I would bet the areas closed to beaver trapping will be closed to otter trapping as well. That’s how it has been anyways. If that’s the case, I’ll have to make a lure that can draw otter 201 feet away from the waterline. lol

Well Wayne, Stan thinks you're probably right. They will likely prohibit the types of sets that could catch incidental beaver in the closed areas.

Is there anyplace on the west side of 101 that ever had a marten? The few spots that are on the west side never impressed me as looking very marten like. Never imagined dunes and marten going together.

Dunes and marten go together very well in this particular region.

Plenty of marten are in that habitat and always have been. I see marten fairly regular when I am in that habitat zone.

The one or two guys that trap that area lost a lot of trapping opportunity by honestly reporting a few marten that were caught incidentally to ODFW.

There is a lesson to be learned here.

Well Wayne, Stan thinks you're probably right. They will likely prohibit the types of sets that could catch incidental beaver in the closed areas.
[/quote]

Carl,

Let's not forget the 50-mile buffer East of 101 that is now closed to marten trapping or any sets in trees on the Siuslaw national forest.

Furthermore, look at the new buffer on the trapping of red fox along the Cascade Range after the new pet name " Sierra red fox" was launched into this anti trapping effort.

All of these new listings are just the start of a negative domino effect for the trapping community.

You know and I know that these coastal marten and cascade fox have always been here and will likely always be here. We both know many generations of trappers that have harvested and interacted with these species. We as trappers have never overharvested these species in my time. I personally believe the whole trapping community appreciates these species more than any other demographic. The USFS and ODFW, and of course the democratic earth muffins are just looking for new tools to further regulate our activities out of existence.

Democratic earth muffins

Made me laugh out loud

[/quote]

Are these programs still ongoing in the areas you referenced?

ODFW paid WS to kill them here with a similar protocol as you described and then also had private hound guys registered as volunteers killing them on regional quotas as well. The areas where the volunteers worked had a remarkable increase in deer numbers immediately.
The volunteer programs ended here in 2018 or 2019 I believe, deer numbers plummeted in those areas within a couple years.

Oregon has become a predator pit; there was a reason our predecessors managed predators differently in the past.[/quote]
I am not sure, the one I ran into and talked to most often has retired. I know that they would target a specific area for three or four years and then move to another.area. I quit talking to some of the houndmen I knew involved in it, especially the ones involved in the volunteer program you mentioned, because I didn't agree with what they were doing. I am terrible with time, but I know I was married in 2018 and have ran into and talked to a couple of the ODFW guys with the wife. So it was since then, and last I talked to them they were moving to a different area that next year that I don't hunt. I don't do as much wandering willy-nilly hunting various areas and just staying in the truck since I got married. Now I tend to set up a base camp and hunt from there when I travel (the wife likes something a little more comfortable than the front seat of a Toyota to sleep in) and sort of assumed that it was still ongoing, just not in the areas I was hunting. I know the lion population is rebounding in a couple of the areas they had practically annihilated them in, but not back to the levels it was.

BP, back in the late 90s-early 2000s I had never seen a population of longtails so thick as in the coast range west of Eugene, at that the Cascades didn't have nearly the population. Since then I have seen areas in Eastern Oregon that actually had considerably thicker populations, but I admittedly haven't been over in that Siuslaw and Smith river country in ten years.

Far more marten killed crossing 101 than ever were caught by trappers in the last 50 years. The do-gooders claim that there are only 200-400 marten left. Also never fail to mention that a major limiting factor leading to their decline was trapping. Total BS.

Carl the Humbolt marten was a game commission decision. Same thing with the cascade red fox. As soon as the anti extremists start pushing fish and game rolls over. Oregon needs more folks grabbing oars. As you know ( I assume “ we had about 500 chime in in written testimony. The activists had 1400 or so. That room should have been full…… Or trappers or them that support us. You can’t play a baseball game with 4 people can ya??? Nope so you’ll have to forfeit the game. Well after so long they won’t even call your team cause they know you do t have enough players to come to the game. So eventually we won’t even have a team anymore. Hope that analogy worked for you folks. We can talk about water clarity and how beavers won’t help and salmon and public enemy number 2 etc but that’s not going to change anything here. We needed people there. Next it’s all public land trapping.

Good post Jeremy and well put.

Jeremy, I think you're 100% correct; ALL STATES "needs more folks grabbing oars," and yet we've all read the posts from the many trappers who refuse to join, support, or get involved with any trapping association. If the activists had 1400 or so written testimonies, how many did they really gain by our own fellow "trappers" not supporting or participating in submitting any testimony at all?

Silence is affirmation, and if we don't care enough about issues to get involved, then we get what we deserve.

Let me add this; if Oregon trappers (including myself) put in 25% of the effort that Jeremy and Stan do we would be GOLDEN!

No offense to those two but you wouldn't.

We gave the same problem you guys do Carl, too many Democrats, more specifically younger urban Democrats making decisions.

It's sad what the state of the DNR has become here.

It's turned into a DEI l, preservationist, environmental organization.

I didn’t mean to say we would win all our battles. But Jeremy is right in saying if we don’t stand up to them all is lost. Oregon, so far has won just as many or more battles than we’ve lost. The demographics have always been what they are now pretty much.

I agree

'peeler and Jeremy, does Oregon T.A. have a legislative lobbyist?

Demographics are much worse now than ever before. Look at the liberal game commission, and all the liberal indoctrinated State biologists, and then the blue haired general public in Oregon.

We've been losing ground on this front for years, statistically our hunting, fishing and trapping culture is being phased out of Oregon. Just look at the recruitment numbers Carl.

This is the result of democratic evolution in the West. Offer free food, free housing, free medical, no punishment for crime [ especially drugs}, and they come here to breed more of their kind just like rats. Our only hope is that they keep breeding men to men and women to women and slow down the infestation.

Unfortunately, it is a majority of the population rules system. Tough to be a non-disadvantaged minority.

As the NRA learned 40 years ago, its tough to stop losing when you always play defense.

Yes and no. Stan who is a life long trapper has been in this game for decades. Game as in politics. He has a pile of friends and connections within the capital building. We also have a great friendship with some other lobbyists who kick us back information when it’s justified. It’s definitely something I’d like to have so they can work directly with Stan and take a load off his back. But he’s about as hard headed as they get lol. Eventually I’ll talk him into it. He has a pile of valid points like no need to hire one I’m free etc. while wonderful and true he needs a break here and there. What so many people don’t understand is how much time it takes to make all these phone calls, heck I’m on the phone more than a 13 year old school girl after the school dance. Then. The meetings etc etc. the one gentleman had made mention about trappers not getting involved. ABSOLUTELY…… I heard so many times this spring. “ I don’t trap BEAVERS “ ……… to many don’t get the big picture. One thing that dawned on me yesterday was a bunch of folks join these organizations to support right???? Well they join because they hope that by joining that is their voice now is the association. I think another thing when your at these such events, in a capital building with senators and representatives etc it’s pretty real. (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) the first time I got up there I sounded like porky the pig. So that all being said I know some can’t be a the table and I get it. But……. When it’s a state wide ban basically everyone that can be should be.