|
Post by mole on Feb 23, 2007 7:42:33 GMT -5
It is my understanding that the NYS BOD voted to support the new 160-220 restrictions. If this is the case,my question is. Whose side are they on and who do they represent? It sure isn't me. Ed
|
|
|
Post by timwilcox on Feb 23, 2007 7:47:48 GMT -5
Probably the same bunch that screwed us on our 330's !!!
|
|
|
Post by redknot on Feb 23, 2007 9:23:55 GMT -5
Ed, they did not vote to support the proposed reg...They voted to support the premise of not catching dogs, but had deep concerns about the language in the proposal, and how the proposal came to be in the first place.
Tim, I don’t remember seeing you at the meeting, but that “Bunch” has been working pretty hard on trying to get this proposal corrected. We don’t need a public bashing among us now, we need unity!
|
|
|
Post by bobsamuelson on Feb 23, 2007 9:39:11 GMT -5
"At the meeting the BOD voted to support the IDEA of the regulations, but DO NOT support the language that is being used." - David Leibig, NYSTA President as stated in the T&PC Association report for March, 2007.
What this means, and someone else may clarify, is that the BOD feels that something needs to be done, or we will lose trapping, PERIOD. The wording of the draft proposal has many problems on both wording & scope.
Unfortunately, Tim, we have people who trap who totally disregard common sence! They feel if the trap is legal, it can be set anywhere, regardless of the potential problems this may create with the non-trapping public. So as a result of dogs being caught, something needs to be done. And, no Tim, we weren't screwed on our 330's. We can still use them, can't we? There were recommendations put forth so as to avoid catching otters, but some disregarded these precautions. As a result, we now have the trigger mods. This is the same type of problem. We can try to educate the trappers of safe but still effective methods, but they are being ignored!
So, in a sence, Ed, the BOD voted to agree that something needs to be done, but do not agree with the language of the draft. The 160 was included because of the switch to 280's when the trigger mods were put into place, so in the future we won't be revisiting this problem again.
Do I believe we need to do something? Yes. Is this draft the right way to go? Not in my opinion. Restricting 220's state wide is a broad over reach by the DEC. But then again, can you legislate common sence? Their will continue to be problems as long as we have unethical people (or uneducated trappers). The states population is expanding and we need to be aware of what we are doing. How will what I am doing, effect others? If I were in the middle of no where, then its not such a problem. But when I am in suburbia, I need to think about what I may catch, besides the coon, fox and coyotes.
Bob Samuelson
(Wayne, you may want to move this to the members area!)
|
|
|
Post by mole on Feb 23, 2007 10:15:51 GMT -5
Thank you for your responce; common sense can not be enforced. The BOD agreeing that something has to be done is like saying that something has to be done about drunk drivers on the highway. they have regulated that to death and it still happens everyday. even 16 year olds are caught DWI/ this trap issue is just another regulation that will be broken by the same ones that caused the problem in the first place..and we as a whole will pay the price. Ed
|
|
|
Post by zippythecoon on Feb 23, 2007 11:00:16 GMT -5
If only "everyone" used "Common Sense"!!!! Education is the key! Smarten up!
|
|
|
Post by timwilcox on Feb 23, 2007 11:27:28 GMT -5
I stand corrected. Yes we can still use our 330's but this regulation has now made a humane trap a not so humane trap.
Redknot ... unfortunately I could not make any of the past meetings due to lack of funds due to my medical problems at the time. Now I am at a new job where I work all weekends & can not use any vacation or PL time for my 1st year of my employment. I sincerely hope that this "bunch" can get things done for the trappers of NY State & I will give ya credit for at least trying. Sorry some were offended by my prior post.
|
|
|
Post by charlielambjr on Feb 23, 2007 13:08:25 GMT -5
there was a roll call vote made at the meetin as to where each member voted yes or no it passed 9 to 7 in favor of doing somehting. i know for a fact that soem of the people i was sitting with voted in favor of doin something did so against there better judgement because this is what there clubs wanted. nothing has been written in stone. but befor e you start pointing fingers at those who sit at the tables remember u all knew this was happening at the meeting how many took the time to express there opinion to your representative. we the bod are not giving up on this at all and as for the 330 deal well i was told thats why the 160 was included in this proposal waqs people went ou and bought 280 to skirt the law which hey its legal so its kinda sour grapes on the part of who wrote the reg
|
|
|
Post by herm on Feb 23, 2007 21:01:30 GMT -5
Mole,I can say that I generally agree with your opions on just about everyone of your post that I have ever read on this forum.However your last post on here I strongly disagree with.You are correct that you can not regulate common sence, but the state is doing something about drunk drivers and law breakers are being prosecuted.I also believe that if these 220 regs pass some trappers will keep on trapping the way they want to just like some still are with the 330s.The big differance this time with the 220s will be once someone kills someones dog in a trap that was not set under the new regulations and it can be proved that the operator of the trap set it that way and the trap is responsible for killing someones dog look out.This time when the courts get done with the man that thinks it is ok to ignore the regulation and set traps anyway he feels like wait and see what happens when everyone sees a good law suit. I think the rest of the law brakers will fall in line in short order. Again the men and women that are willing to do the work and try to do the best they can to try and promote trapping and defend our trapping rights and use their own time and money to attend the meetings will be the ones blamed by the ones who sat back and did nothing.
|
|
|
Post by seandicare on Feb 23, 2007 22:59:45 GMT -5
ok i wasn't going to post into this, but feel the need now. it has been said before, but the trapper in many cases weren't the ones at fault in alot of the dogs' deaths. it was the dog woner themselves. letting their dog run free whereever or trespassing while walking there dogs.
i think there needs to be more stringent/enforced laws for the dog owners as well. i know at least one case where the dog owner was trespassing and don't think anything happened to them over it, but the trapper was in deep crap.
|
|
|
Post by coonman on Feb 24, 2007 7:55:35 GMT -5
Guys, Theres still a chance to get ajustments to this draft, as I've posted in the past the DEC missed one of the most important uses of the 220 & 160 and thats blind sets and trail sets no lure or bait. They even admitted it at the meeting. The way this drafts written raccoons trappers might as well sell thier 220s. Make good sound statements to the DEC during the comment period, it still amazes me that this wasn't addressed when they came up with this proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Itrapny on Feb 24, 2007 8:20:16 GMT -5
Charlies correct on the roll call vote, it was a close vote with many Director's voting the way their respective county organizations wished. If you want to find out how your Director voted please contact him/her and ask them. This issue is quite a bit different than the 330 trigger issue up to this point as we have a chance to fight it together before we have this forced upon us. Even if there were mistakes made in the past, this time most are on the same page and the DEC basically told the JTI & the BOD that this was how it was and there wasn't going to be any changes. They admitted they made mistakes in drafting it but told us that there wasn't anything that could be done to it unless the comment period had an overwelming negative public reaction to it. The fact that it still hasn't made it to the public register is a good sign that maybe they once again, they hadn't been altogether up front with us and they may be modifying it before the comment period. Their initial reason for fasttracking this was to get it in the new sylabus and that was going to be printed in March/April of this year. There is no way that they can have the 45 day comment period and still get it in this year's book so the BOD meeting may very well have made a big impression on the DEC.
|
|
|
Post by deepsleep on Feb 24, 2007 10:41:50 GMT -5
I don't agree with the wording of the proposal but warned all of you when they opened the "extended" Fisher season that those regs would come back to haunt us..... here they are. I think that the DEC should then also revist the season dates for Fisher. Here in the Catskills we have a rapidly expanding Fisher population. Fisher trapping on a pole is the most effective when food is hard to come by. Here we sometimes get NO snow or very little snow to make food hard to find and to make Fisher run poles like they do in the north. I personally tried the suggested bucket with a hole and got to many refusals to make it an exceptable option. The new reg would only force those "style" of useless boxes on us. I also think the DEC is a uesless organization these days. They rule by public opinion not by sound wild life management. So I beleive that the "Comment" period is more of a bells and whistles thing then of any value. If they didn't have this "PERIOD" for comments then trappers would cry foul. Even if "we" were successful in getting the wording modified some one will not follow the regs and a dog will get killed and then we know what would happen. Especially if and when Grannis takes over.
|
|
|
Post by herm on Feb 24, 2007 17:35:47 GMT -5
Deep Sleep,I agree you are correct as far as your opinion that the DEC rules by public opinion.Public opinion also rules trapping.If we loose the favorable public opinion trapping is done in this state.We all must do our best to keep traping in the general publics favor.
|
|
|
Post by otter04 on Feb 24, 2007 22:36:02 GMT -5
. i would love to see a 12 month ban by all sportsman on buying licenses for 1 year. the state generates 37.2 million dollars from sales. so if we didnt buy deer licenses, fishing,trapping, bow, turkey permits, atv fees then the state would set and listen to us. we would have better deer management. atv trails provided for the high registration you all pay, we would have our traps back,lower boat registrations. the wallet is a all mighty powerful thing, especially to a politician.
|
|
|
Post by otter04 on Feb 24, 2007 22:38:39 GMT -5
why is the 160 being questioned. there is no dog/ incident anywhere in the state. or ever been. so why are we in jeopardy of losing that on land. hmmm
|
|
|
Post by charlielambjr on Feb 24, 2007 22:55:23 GMT -5
ok once again the 160 was included because as i mentioned eariler in this post when the 330 reg went into effect a group of guys went out and bought 280's this is there(DEC) way of getting back at us as trappers i just find it hard to swallow that the 3 guys who supposedly came up with this reg call them selves trappers but decided upon themsleves to make these recomendation without input from the trappers as a group. thats what really chaps my a$$
|
|
|
Post by mole on Feb 25, 2007 12:23:37 GMT -5
How many are speaking for outside interests? Herm, if you are pointing a finger at me for not attending a BOD meeting there is a good reason. I am not on the Bod, or the Past Presidents Club. These people are supposed to be representing my best interests. How many on the Bod or Officers For NYSTA are speaking for some other group, like the Houndsman for example. This is the second big issue in as many years, people are losing every day. They have reduced my land trapping down my water trapping down. Why? Look at the maps. No people up here.
|
|
|
Post by otter04 on Feb 25, 2007 13:41:16 GMT -5
Since they wont enforce the leash laws in westchester and suffolk county then why dont they make Long Island off limits to 220's and 160's and leave the rest of the state alone. I for one have trapped for over 40 years and have seen them take and take and take. i for one dont care about the threats. let them stop trapping and theyll have the same problems they have in mass with rabies, distemper, over population etc. im sick of living under fear from the dec and there deal making processes. i have even written a letter to nysta that stated i wouldnt support a group that doesnt support me. the writing is already on the wall when they appoint an anti to head encon in New York State. enough said.
|
|
|
Post by deepsleep on Feb 25, 2007 17:00:40 GMT -5
Well said otter! If DEC in added the 160 because of what "we" did with the 330(use the 280) what did they expect us to do? the 330 with the Law the way it reads makes the 330 inhumane!So much for the BMPs. If they add the 160 to spite us, trappers will look for a way around that to... so does that mean they make it harder to use footholds? I for one think that this fight is useless! So what happens next a guy switches to footholds and catches a dog so they decide they they need to make the laws tighter for footholds? Make you use smaller ones? Where does it end? No trapping? If they are so worried about dogs then they should give us snares. They can be more selective. NO NO don't give us any thing. Why doesn't NYSTA or the JTI publicly push for snares? I sometimes think they are NOT looking out for "our" best interests. Both of them are always looking to be defensive, how about some offense?
|
|
|
Post by pockets on Feb 25, 2007 17:07:50 GMT -5
Otter04, Why would you suggest that they outlaw the 220 and 160 on just long island? Why don't they enforce the law that is already in place THE LEASH LAW?
|
|
|
Post by charlielambjr on Feb 25, 2007 22:38:52 GMT -5
deepsleep i know your upset as well as alot of us are,but i can reassure you that he snare issue "cable restarint" is pushed every year but it aint gonna move with out people callin ther represntatives that are elected in albany and get them to back it. as for your thoughts on the footholds well how did u think we ended up with conibears to start with people were catching dogs and cats so they went the way of conibears to be more selective. ironic huh! i can tell ya i think they need to follow suit with other states and lay it out for the dog owners and say tough cookies, your dog and u are in the wrong sorry
|
|
|
Post by herm on Feb 26, 2007 16:49:38 GMT -5
Mole,I was not refering to you and can recall seeing you at meetings in the past.This is what happens when one talks about more than one issue in a post.Started out on one thing and ended up on something else,sorry. As for BOD reps that are looking out for another group,cant answer that one,but I can tell you for a fact that no one is there representing the NYS Houndsmen on this issue becouse the houndsmen have not as an org.taken a stand on the 220 proposed regs.
|
|
|
Post by charlielambjr on Feb 26, 2007 21:55:14 GMT -5
most of them are in favor of this reg the president of there group is holding them at bay no pun intended due to the fact he is a trapper aswell
|
|
|
Post by johnrockwood on Feb 28, 2007 9:27:09 GMT -5
I don't even know where to start here. There are some of you who don't feel that the NYSTA BOD and the JTI Committee are looking out for your best interests. You are dead wrong. There are a handfull of dedicated individuals working their butts off on this issue. Mostly at their own expenses, on their own time, and with sometimes questionable trust and support from the trappers they represent. We have over 10000 trappers in NY again now - NYSTA has around 2000 members. There are far fewer than that that are actively working to not only save the use of body gripping traps on land in the best form we can, but also just to keep trapping alive in the State of NY. Most of those that are working the hardest are your NYSTA officers, BOD members, and the JTI Committee. There are some very complex issues here. There is a lot at stake. Does DEC realize that with their proposed draft, that was written without NYSTA's help, there are several areas of ommissions and oversights ? Yes they do. They have publicly admitted that. But, is DEC really interested in what we have to say or not ? Some are, but some aren't - the way I see it. I am sure that there are some in the hierarchy of DEC that would just as soon say "No more body gripping traps on land - period". That would solve all their pet issue headaches quickly. But they aren't doing that because some, especially those on the furbearer team, realize the need for trapping to control animal populations in NY. There are hundreds of thousands of dog owners in NY but again, there are 10,000 of us with only 2000 belonging to the group that has supported and promoted trapping and your best interests for longer than I have been alive. Why doesn't every trapper in NY belong to NYSTA to help in these battles ?
A few weeks ago I was asked to fill a vacancy on the JTI Committee. I was proud to accept that invitation and I am even more proud to work with the people that are trying so desperately to save our way of life. I am gaining a whole new understanding of what it takes to try to preserve trapping in NY. I am gaining a whole new perspective on the politics involved and the complexity of working within outlines we have no control over. There are a handfull of us who are working many, many hours a week on this issue agressively trying to get DEC to work with us on the wording of this regulation. We need your trust, your help and your support. If we can do little to change the wording of this draft regulation, and there will be a new regulation - like it or not, then we have done the absolute best we can and we all are going to lose.
|
|