|
Post by walleyed on Apr 26, 2014 19:24:07 GMT -5
I received my Yearly Cornell University Trapper's Survey on Friday and was a little Spooked by The Seemingly Innocuous Question #7: "If a Fur-Bearer Species is experiencing significant population declines, wildlife managers have various options to address the problem." "Review the list below and rank the management options from "1" through "4", with "1" being the best option and '4' being the worst option, in your opinion. Do not use a number more than once. For example, two options cannot both be ranked "4". -Temporarily close the season. -Establish a bag limit. -Reduce the season length. -Establish a permit quota (lottery). 1 = 1st choice (most acceptable/my most preferred option) 2 = 2nd choice 3 = 3rd choice 4 = 4th choice (least acceptable/my least preferred option) By my way of thinking, I'd pick "Establish a bag limit" as my LEAST ACCEPTABLE option #4. I'd pick "Establish a permit quota" as option #3. I'd pick "Temporarily close the season" (with a mandatory sunset clause written in.) as option #2. I'd Pick "Reduce the season length" (with a LATER STARTING DATE) as my NUMBER #1 option. I'd hate to see bag limits which would reduce opportunity for trapping any of the tagged species such as fisher, and instead change their Designation to a "Trophy Status", and remove Incentive to trap them to nothing more than at a hobby level; kind of like Our American Marten are trapped now. while possibly acceptable to the Hobby Trapper, This option would disenfranchise and penalize Trappers who choose to Run Fisher Long Lines with the intent of Harvesting fisher in greater numbers. A permit lottery system would also potentially disenfranchise some deserving, hardworking Local Adirondack Resident Trappers whose prime target species is fisher and subject them to the luck of the draw even though they live and trap in prime fisher habitat, and instead award a permit to someone who might live hundreds of miles away, and may or may not utilize the permit. This would also potentially lead to a further decrease in harvest data as fewer qualified fisher trappers would be afield participating and also resulting in a further decline in Actual Harvest statistics. I would be more apt to support a Temporary closed season being utilized with a mandatory sunset clause and targeted date for reopening. Although there would initially be loss of opportunity to trap fisher during the closure, it would be more acceptable than permanent bag limits being initiated. This Bag Limit Scenario has already occurred with American Marten which are Now being overprotected by Token Bag limits. This is a Text Book Case Situation Where a Valuable, Renewable Fur Resource is being "stockpiled"; A situation where the Conservation Principal of "Wise-Use" is being violated by Our Own Bureau of Wildlife by not expanding the Marten Bag limit or opening additional WMU's for trapping Marten. So clearly, Adding a Bag limit for fisher would not change or reverse the Declining Harvest rates, as it is obvious that the current decline is a result of Environmental Issues and rather than excessive Trapping Harvest Pressure. DEC Fur-Bearer Biologists could assess the results of any closure in a Timely fashion when the season reopened, and quickly ascertain whether it had a measurable affect on increasing the Fisher Population within The Central Adirondack WMU's. Personally, I have my doubts as to whether this would actually be effective in obtaining a Fisher population increase as Wildlife Management 101 will teach you that: "YOU CAN'T STOCKPILE WILDLIFE". Environmental Factors within Fisher's Home Range Such as Decreases in Suitable Habitat, Prey Species Availability, and Trapper Access Limitations within the Forest Preserve play a far great role in the Harvest Decline Data Statistics than does the Trapper's Impact on Fisher Populations I'd choose "Reduce the Length of the season" as my Number one #1 Option with a Shorter season but a LATER starting Date say November 15th to December 15th. There would be no loss of opportunity for anyone, and pelt quality would increase and offset the loss of available trapping days with an increase in pelt value. Future Fisher Season lengths could be adjusted as the fisher resource "Recovers" enough to sustain an increase in harvest. As a Reasonably Informed Trapper, I'd venture to say that this survey question being included in this year's Cornell University Survey is spurred by the apparent declining FISHER harvest rates in the Central Adirondacks WMU's, and the subsequent Increased harvest rates in the Peripheral edges of the Adirondack Park. It's No secret that the DEC has been Buying up loads of Privately Owned timber acreage for the Adirondack Forest Preserve, and then by-in-large restricting access to said acreage to all but foot traffic, effectively eliminating the ability of Fisher Trappers to efficiently trap large swathes of formerly Trapper accessible habitat. Case in Point is the Recent Acquisition by New York State of the Finch-Pruyn holdings along the Upper Hudson River where reasonable Motor Vehicle access has now been largely eliminated. The Forest Preserve keeps growing but Continued restrictions on timber/Logging operations have reduced the Wildlife carrying capacities of the Fisher habitat in the Forest Preserve to the point where Fisher are gradually migrating outward to find better range with more edge cover; something that is sorely lacking in the climax forest cover that dominates the Current Forest Preserve. ("Forever Wild- Forever Dead") The Department of Environmental Conservation's "Forever Wild" Forest Preserve Policies within the Adirondack Park together with Reclassifying large chunks of Wild Forest to "Wilderness" classification, and Continued Draconian Restrictions on Logging/Timber operations within the Forest Preserve while severely Restricting Trapper's Motor Vehicle access to Fisher habitat have Created the Perfect storm of Causal Environmental Factors for a Perceived Trapping related decline of the Fisher population. Since politically, Bureau of Wildlife cannot Alter Adirondack Park/Forest Preserve Policies on Logging, Restricted Motor Vehicle Access, or Reclassification of Wild Forest Lands to Wilderness Areas; the only available option to Fur-Bearer Biologists is to attempt to manage the Trapping Harvest of fisher. In the final analysis, This is a "Only Available Option", "Feel Good" Attempt By Bureau of Wildlife to Manage the Fisher Resource for a Population Increase, since their only truly effective options are severely limited by "Political Expediency". This will almost assuredly be doomed to Failure as Ultimately, there are Other Greater Environmental Factors besides Trapping Pressure at play here. All this in My Humble Opinion. If you have received a survey to fill out, I'd be thinking LONG, HARD, and CAREFULLY about your choices and answers to question #7 as the Results of THIS SURVEY have the potential to drastically affect how DEC Bureau of Wildlife Fur-Bearer Management Biologists Let us trap, For what, and how many, and for how long. What does everyone else think ? walleyed
|
|
|
Post by brandonh on Apr 26, 2014 19:54:35 GMT -5
Very well said, walleyed!
|
|
|
Post by rendezvous on Apr 26, 2014 22:08:10 GMT -5
"Reduce the season length" #1 option.
"Establish a bag limit" option #2
"Establish a permit quota (lottery)" as option #3.
"Temporarily close the season" as option #4
As an elderly gentleman, life is short, closing the season would be the least preferred option.
Lottery, I never win. And again "life is short", not preferred.
Bag limit, I'm not in it for the money nor into numbers. I guess I fit in that "hobby level"
Reducing the season length would probably be the practical choice, a balance of wildlife management and opportunity.
PEACE
|
|
|
Post by silverfox on Apr 27, 2014 6:43:20 GMT -5
the whole thing wreaks of Anti claws being dug in!!i will not answer #7 on mine but attach a long explanation that doesnt include any of their options and why (although in all likely hood it will be ignored, but ill be able to sleep better at night), this is nothing more than feeling the waters to see what potential restrictions trappers would be the least "resistant" to in my opinion, other wise why ask when theres currently no "endangered" (in reality not on paper)fur bearers in NY that im aware of
|
|
|
Post by Itrapny on Apr 27, 2014 7:46:43 GMT -5
Let's stop the conspiracy theory's right here before this thread gets out of hand.....Just because a question is on the survey doesn't mean anything stated in the question will happen. The issue at hand in the dramatic decrease of fisher in the core Adirondack region and the DEC is looking for trapper's opinions to certain options. The NYSTA's stance always has been and always will be no bag limits on furbearer harvest in NY and we will continue to work with the DEC Furberer management team to provide the best possible outcome for ALL trappers in NY.
|
|
|
Post by newfox1 on Apr 27, 2014 8:13:57 GMT -5
I couldn't find anything on the survey about fisher populations,i think we should be thankful that they are asking for our input.it would seem to me it would be hard to effectively manage anything without factual data.i think we should be as cooperative as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Lonny Mattison on Apr 27, 2014 10:23:40 GMT -5
WELL PUT BOB!
|
|
|
Post by walleyed on Apr 27, 2014 11:09:06 GMT -5
I couldn't find anything on the survey about fisher populations,i think we should be thankful that they are asking for our input.it would seem to me it would be hard to effectively manage anything without factual data.i think we should be as cooperative as possible. You couldn't find anything about Fisher populations on the survey because there was no specific mention of Fisher populations in question #7, just a generic inquiry about how to handle a hypothetical declining Furbearer population and what options trappers think would be the best course of action. You have to read between the lines, and realize that they are setting the groundwork for dealing with a steadily declining fisher harvest in the Central Adirondacks. They are soliciting trapper input in an attempt to make a case for one of their preferred options. Since the Bureau of Wildlife can't tackle the Real Issues creating problems for the Fisher harvest decline in the Central Adirondacks Range due to political restraints, the only factor they can ATTEMPT to manage is the Trapper Harvest. New York State DEC is the Architect of their Own Demise Regarding the perceived Decline of the Central Adirondack Fisher harvest through their Own Land management policies in the Forest Preserve. Instead of Modifying their Adirondack Land Management policies to bring about better, more productive habitat conditions in the Central Adirondacks to rejuvenate the Fisher populations, they are forced to resort to people (trapper) management rather than habitat management. It won't work because Fisher Range/Habitat rather than Trapping Regulations will determine what the carrying capacity of the Central Adirondacks will be. It is all about Fisher right now but once the "Bag Limits Genie" is out of the bottle, expect future limits on Fisher, Otter, Bobcat, and possibly even Muskrat statewide in the Not-Too-distant-Future. You may not even trap fisher, or may not have a dog in this hunt, but make no mistake about it, if you are a trapper, it will most assuredly affect you and your preferred trapping species production in the future. I am not advocating not cooperating with the Survey, but I AM urging you to think VERY, VERY CAREFULLY about answering question #7. I receive and fill out the Cornell survey each and every year religiously because it is important that my views are represented for consideration to the Fur-bearer Biologists and Managers. Bag Limits are a very slippery Slope to start Down and once we have them We will NEVER be rid of them. Just look at the Marten Bag limits established in the 1970's as an example, they are still with us. I'd urge you to look at the Big Picture here. You might think you'd be willing to accept bag limits in New Trapping areas where the Fisher, or Bobcat season is Due to expand or has already expanded. But what's to stop The DEC from instituting Bag limits statewide On all Species on the basis of different limits in various WMU's. I can just imagine the headaches and complications that would result to Our trapping seasons if that Boondoggle ever came to pass. Will Bag limits be a Beneficial Regulation to bolster Our Trapping Heritage, or will they be another Nail in our Collective Coffin resulting in the virtual elimination of Commercial, Consumptive Use Fur Trapping here in our state. How long do you suppose your season will last if you are only able to take two of every species except for skunk and opossum which will have a Liberal, Unlimited Bag Limit. all I'm Saying is: Think about it Long and hard before you answer Question #7 on your survey. walleyed
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Apr 27, 2014 11:19:23 GMT -5
in the eyes of a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Fisher don't even cross my mind... a general question like this can be leverage to use against trapping for ANY species. Such as muskrats, which immediately come to mind.
if I get said survey in the mail, I will x-out all four choices and write in, "spend money from the DEC coffers on habitat improvement that Cuomo said was in excess balance. He proposed license fee reductions in part because there was excess money in reserves already. Sounds good... now get busy spending that on habitat improvements across state WMAs and ALL OTHER PUBLIC LANDS thru the entire state for benefit of all furbearers and incidental wildlife alike"
that will be my written response, verbatim
|
|
|
Post by Itrapny on Apr 27, 2014 11:30:52 GMT -5
You can write all the comments you wish but they will not be read as Cornell only take the responses asked for in the survey....Remember, while the DEC provides the contact information to Cornell and gets the results of the survey, they don't get the actual surveys.
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Apr 27, 2014 11:31:13 GMT -5
Mr.Walleyed, Thank you for alerting trappers to this devious question. Your comments are right on the money and very well thought out. I have no faith in the DEC/Cornell survey because of this type question that "baits" trappers. Without question this question is directed towards the decline in fisher in the Central and Eastern Adirondacks. The JTI Committee met just this week with the DEC Fur Management Team regarding their formulation of a 5 year Fisher Management Plan. In response to the situation in the Adirondacks we were told that there would be "regulatory changes", however we were not told what those options might be. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure them out and question #7 on the survey well reveals what they are thinking. There is no need for me to repeat what Mr.Walleyed has so well stated. He also is correct in stating that wildlife, such as Pine Marten can NOT BE STOCKPILED! The New York State Trappers Association has voted to oppose ALL QUOTAS or limits. The position was reaffirmed at our Board of Directors Meeting yesterday. Trappers need to think long and hard about the implications of an imposed quota! We already have one on Pine Marten, will fisher be next, and what species after that??? I consider myself a conservationist and this is not wise use of a natural resource. The truth is that these surveys do not accurately reflect the proper thing to do. People will always have varying opinions. I, for one, feel that a trapper's catch should be rewarded by the time and effort that they put in, not controlled by a quota. As Mr. Walleyed so well points out, the primary reason that fisher can no longer sustain themselves in the central and eastern Adirondacks is because of an over mature forest, decline in prey species, and reduced logging thanks to "forever wild". Also classification of more and more newly acquired former paper company lands as "Wilderness" severely limiting acess for trappers and others, and out of season illegal trapping. Without question the best option, in my opinion, is to shorten the season, at the beginning of the season, cut it in half opening November 15 thru December 15.,providing fisher trappers to still have opportunity, fisher an opportunity to rebound if they will, provide sound biological info for the affected areas, and drastically improve quality of pelts taken. DEC did provide info at the meeting with JTI that shows the majority of the catch happens within the first three weeks of the season, clearly providing justification for closing that portion of the season. Above all the welfare of the species must be foremost and we must not over react with knee jerk reactions. Living in WMU 5G I believe this unit should be included in a season shortening. I also feel that trappers in other areas, such as the St.Lawrence Valley, and Tug Hill should not be punished with season closures or shortenings,for a situation not pertaining to them. The season shortening should only pertain to the central Adirondacks and WMU 5G. Again, I caution trappers what you wish for, you might get more than you bargain for. Season quotas are out of the question and do not work. Wildlife can not be stockpiled. Thank you Mr.Walleyed for bringing this to our attention.
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Apr 27, 2014 11:49:36 GMT -5
You can write all the comments you wish but they will not be read as Cornell only take the responses asked for in the survey....Remember, while the DEC provides the contact information to Cornell and gets the results of the survey, they don't get the actual surveys. as with any write-in vote, it's a waste of time other than moral victory
|
|
|
Post by newfox1 on Apr 27, 2014 12:28:35 GMT -5
any old timers here,my grandfather told me years ago the limit on beaver was 6 havn't seen a limit in my lifetime and there is a healthy beaver population.maybe we need someone to explain how it worked with the beaver.
|
|
|
Post by walleyed on Apr 27, 2014 13:06:31 GMT -5
You can write all the comments you wish but they will not be read as Cornell only take the responses asked for in the survey....Remember, while the DEC provides the contact information to Cornell and gets the results of the survey, they don't get the actual surveys. Actually Wayne, The Cover letter from Cornell accompanying the Trapper's Survey Solicits addition comments about trapping in New York, and encourages Trappers to write Down their thoughts for submission: Quote: "Your comments about trapping in New York are welcome. Please write your comments on a separate sheet of paper and return that separate comment sheet with your questionnaire." Unquote. Now whether they take time at the DEC Bureau of Wildlife, or by Cornell to compile and pass on to The DEC to be read is another Story but It would seem logical that they wouldn't solicit additional comments for submission if they didn't want them. I, for One Plan on Bringing this Issue up under New Business at the Tuesday May 6th meeting of the Oswego County Trapper's Association for discussion. Anyway, Our various NYSTA Affiliate Trapping Associations should be all be initiating a serious dialogue or discussion in VERY NEAR FUTURE on this survey question #7 prior to Trappers providing their individual responses to it due to the potentially far reaching consequences it has for our Trapping Heritage, Our Sport, and Our Commercial Trapping Activity. Not all trappers are Small, Hobby Operations, and this Issue has Real Potential to push us all towards Small, Token, Hobby Style trap-lines in the Very Near future. IMHO, of course. walleyed
|
|
|
Post by walleyed on Apr 27, 2014 13:37:51 GMT -5
The JTI Committee met just this week with the DEC Fur Management Team regarding their formulation of a 5 year Fisher Management Plan. In response to the situation in the Adirondacks we were told that there would be "regulatory changes", however we were not told what those options might be. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure them out and question #7 on the survey well reveals what they are thinking. The New York State Trappers Association has voted to oppose ALL QUOTAS or limits. The position was reaffirmed at our Board of Directors Meeting yesterday. Question for you Papabear ? Did the JTI Committee Agenda include Information on this survey, and Question #7 and did The JTI Team Hear from the DEC Furbearer Managers about the purpose of posing this Question #7 to Individual Trappers and what they hoped to learn from the responses to this question. What was the reaction to this Question #7 at the Recent NYSTA Board of directors Meeting. Did it provide cause for concern among The Board of Director Membership ? walleyed
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Apr 27, 2014 15:48:34 GMT -5
questions phrased like that are never for the benefit of trappers, period
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Apr 27, 2014 16:53:10 GMT -5
The JTI Committee made it clear to the Fur Management Team that NYSTA opposes ALL quotas. Both at the JTI and BOD meetings we were unaware of the Cornell/DEC survey coming out this week and JTI had no prior knowledge of question #7. I am a committee member and I first learned of this today. At the JTI/FMT meeting this past tuesday we expressed optimism between the two groups in a spirit of cooperation, however it was made Very Clear to DEC at that time of our positions and in particular our opposition to all quotas. JTI had no knowledge at that time, nor did DEC inform us of a new Cornell/DEC survey coming out or in particular question #7. The NYSTA Bod's had no knowledge of Question #7 either.
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Apr 27, 2014 17:30:40 GMT -5
If for any reason the DEC has population concerns for a species, we don't want to hear about protectionism plans which only serve to maybe, possibly slow the demise. We need to hear definitive plans about how to improve habitats that foster renewed populations instead. This survey question is of the wrong mindset. They need to ask what steps we'd prefer be taken by the DEC to improve habitat conditions instead.
|
|
|
Post by walleyed on Apr 27, 2014 17:48:55 GMT -5
The JTI Committee made it clear to the Fur Management Team that NYSTA opposes ALL quotas. Both at the JTI and BOD meetings we were unaware of the Cornell/DEC survey coming out this week and JTI had no prior knowledge of question #7. I am a committee member and I first learned of this today. At the JTI/FMT meeting this past tuesday we expressed optimism between the two groups in a spirit of cooperation, however it was made Very Clear to DEC at that time of our positions and in particular our opposition to all quotas. JTI had no knowledge at that time, nor did DEC inform us of a new Cornell/DEC survey coming out or in particular question #7. The NYSTA Bod's had no knowledge of Question #7 either. Thank you Painted Paw for updating Us fellow Trappers on who knew what and when they knew it regarding this now Infamous Survey Question #7. It is Certainly sounding like Someone is performing that old Mis-Directional football play: "End Around".....End around the NYSTA JTI Team Members, End Around NYSTA board of Directors, and Now with this Cornell Survey with this LOADED QUESTION #7 now in the hands of at least 40% of New York State's Licensed Trappers, an End Around of Trappers in General. Something Stinks Out There in The DEC Woodpile. We'd All better start networking with fellow trappers on this Issue by all means possible and "Get Our Ducks in a Row" on How we feel about this. How many of these surveys have already been filled out and returned already without any real thought given to the implications of This question #7. I don't really want to know, but I'm glad I personally initially took the time to think very carefully about what my answers might be. The survey still sits on my desk as yet, not filled out, at this point and hasn't yet made a move towards the mailbox on it's own. There is something Not Good about all this. Stay Tuned. walleyed
|
|
|
Post by walleyed on Apr 27, 2014 17:49:30 GMT -5
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Apr 27, 2014 18:32:57 GMT -5
I did network via E-Mail this afternoon to as many trappers as I know how to contact. We are upset about this question #7 popping up at this time. I would however, in DEC's defense, like to state that DEC's wildlife biologists are caught between the rock and the hard place. I have regard for all of them and many of the old school are gone. That job is tremendously under political pressure from above. They can't even fart without getting approval. A lot of the factors in the decline of Adirondack fisher are beyond the ability of these biologists to control.Frankly this Forever Wild (Correctly Forever Dead) policy is so detrimental. Additionally the acquizition of thousands upon thousands of acres of paper company lands and then locking them up to most people because of political pressures from the off the wall environmentalists is removing more and more access to hunters, fishermen, and trappers. Again, this is outof those biologists hands. Illegal trapping, out of season trapping, also is taking it's toll and it's not only happening here in the 'dacks, but elsewhere where there is no season at all. Those $ 100 dollar or more fisher are just too much temptation for some and we as responsible trappers should turn them in. Those people are stealing from you and I. A law enforcement issue. So what options are left for these biologists? I like all of these men,even though I often disagree with them.They are dedicated from what I see and they are stretched tight working on other things than furbearers. I do still feel that question #7 is devious in the manner of presentation. I would love to know how that question was given to Cornell and who wrote thge wording.
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Apr 27, 2014 18:34:03 GMT -5
I did network via E-Mail this afternoon to as many trappers as I know how to contact. We are upset about this question #7 popping up at this time. I would however, in DEC's defense, like to state that DEC's wildlife biologists are caught between the rock and the hard place. I have regard for all of them and many of the old school are gone. That job is tremendously under political pressure from above. They can't even fart without getting approval. A lot of the factors in the decline of Adirondack fisher are beyond the ability of these biologists to control.Frankly this Forever Wild (Correctly Forever Dead) policy is so detrimental. Additionally the acquizition of thousands upon thousands of acres of paper company lands and then locking them up to most people because of political pressures from the off the wall environmentalists is removing more and more access to hunters, fishermen, and trappers. Again, this is outof those biologists hands. Illegal trapping, out of season trapping, also is taking it's toll and it's not only happening here in the 'dacks, but elsewhere where there is no season at all. Those $ 100 dollar or more fisher are just too much temptation for some and we as responsible trappers should turn them in. Those people are stealing from you and I. A law enforcement issue. So what options are left for these biologists? I like all of these men,even though I often disagree with them.They are dedicated from what I see and they are stretched tight working on other things than furbearers. I do still feel that question #7 is devious in the manner of presentation. I would love to know how that question was given to Cornell and who wrote thge wording.
|
|
|
Post by md74 on Apr 27, 2014 19:42:49 GMT -5
On the cover letter there was a number to call if you had questions. I already recycled the cover letter but still have survey in hand. Maybe someone on the other end may enlighten us all?
|
|
|
Post by papabear on Apr 27, 2014 21:01:54 GMT -5
Dear Friends, The ONLY responce to question # 7 ; Improve the habitat by managing the forests.........they can wipe their a$$ with this survey! ......another, neat & tidy, " machine tallied", survey to beat us over the head with. Let them know what us trappers really think and throw this survey in the trash where it belongs! Regards
|
|
|
Post by johnrockwood on Apr 28, 2014 0:03:52 GMT -5
Walleyed, THANK YOU for bringing this issue to my attention last night and for bringing it to the attention of the NY trappers and forum members here. You have echoed my sentiments and beliefs regarding this issue better than I could have ever expressed them myself.
Paintedpaw, THANK YOU for addressing this from the JTI/NYSTA perspective. It is important for all to know that NYSTA was totally in the dark regarding this survey and the questions asked.
Wayne, I would ask that this thread be pinned to the top of the page as this is a priority issue that will affect the future of trapping for decades to come.
Papabear, IF we could be absolutely certain that every single trapper that receives this survey would refuse to answer it, your thoughts regarding how to deal with it would have great merit. However, that will not happen so answering this survey properly is imperative. We need all the support we can muster against bag limits as the Department feels that the results of these DEC/Cornell surveys are much more valuable and accurate than those presented from any NYSTA surveys. Also, the Department rightfully feels that all trappers, NYSTA members or not, should be canvassed for their input.
To All NY Trappers, I would ask that you CAREFULLY READ, AND READ AGAIN, EVERYTHING that Walleyed and Painted Paw have stated here. The statements they have made are absolutely true and correct. I would like to add some more facts to this thread, hopefully without duplicating things that have already been stated. Informed trappers will make better decisions!
1. FACT - This question #7 on the survey is being asked at this time because the DEC FMT is seriously considering setting bag limits on fisher in NY. They are hoping to get overwhelming support for bag limits (via this survey) rather than shortened seasons or temporarily closed seasons. There is no doubt that there has been a declining fisher harvest in the Adirondacks. The harvest data supports that fact. However, the DEC has no population density information to actually prove that the population is in decline. They can only prove that the harvest has been declining. There is no science to support a population decline due to trapping pressure. Although the FMT acknowledges decreased access and degradation of habit could possibly be the main factors for a decreasing harvest over the past decade, they have stated that they can do nothing about those issues but that they can, and will, address the harvesting of fisher as it is the only thing they have control over.
2. FACT - We have been advised that individual species management plans are going to be the norm for making regulatory decisions from now on. A fisher management plan is being developed now, only awaiting the results of this survey for the FMT to make their final decisions on regulatory changes that will affect all of us who trap fisher. The initial plan(s) were designed to be 5 year plans whereby each plan would be reviewed, and revised if and where necessary, every five years. We are now being told that these plans require so much time and effort that they may be designed as 10 year plans from now on, including the presently developing fisher management plan. I assume that this means that whatever changes are made with this plan, when approved, will be in effect for 10 years before we can even think about trying to make any adjustments or changes.
3. FACT - NYSTA's position remains the same as it has always been. We are adamantly opposed to harvest limits on ANY furbearer specie. However, we accept the fact that marten are a unique specie and that there is no practical way to regulate them separately from fisher except by institution of a bag limit (which we believe could be increased at this time without detrimentally affecting the populations).
4. FACT - The JTI Committee met with the FMT last week and there was absolutely no mention of this survey or the questions on it. The opinion of the JTI Committee, at the conclusion of this meeting, was that the FMT is strongly considering imposing bag limits on fisher. They seemed to favor that option over the others. The FMT also made the statement that once new regulatory tools are in place (bag limits), they would not hesitate to use those tools in the management of other species or in any other regions of the state as they deemed necessary.
5. The JTI Committee was of the belief that we would be presented with a preliminary view of the draft fisher management plan, including the decision regarding what option the FMT had chosen to address their concerns regarding the decreasing harvest of fisher in the Adirondacks. Now we know why we were told that a final decision had not been made as yet. It is our opinion that they are awaiting the results of the answers to question #7 on this survey. The Department does NOT have the support of NYSTA regarding implementation of bag limits and they are hoping to gain support for bag limits from individual trappers.
FACT - NYSTA is extremely concerned about the proper management of wildlife in NY. As Walleyed stated, wildlife cannot be stockpiled. Any habitat has a certain carrying capacity. Populations cannot exceed that capacity without detrimental results. Degrading habitat leads to lower populations and thus decreased harvest numbers. Lack of practical access limits harvest, yet protects inaccessible populations, potentially leading to an unjustifiable perception of a decline in population densities.
FACT - The Department would have the full support of NYSTA if they would choose to shorten the season, preferably by eliminating the earliest portion of the season to allow for the harvesting of better quality fisher, until such time as proper science could prove whether or not a normal length season was justified.
FACT - The choice of a shortened season is the best option for NY's trappers to choose, preferably with a three year sunset clause that would allow the FMT to properly evaluate population densities BEFORE implementing any longer term solutions provided such science indicates a necessity for such. The choice of bag limits is the absolute WORST option for NY's trappers to choose.
FACT - This is NOT an attempt by antis to stop or limit the harvesting of any furbearers. This, in my opinion, has to do with caving to political pressure which has no place in wildlife management to begin with. It also, again in my opinion, has to do with taking the easiest option to implement.
FACT - Bag limits do not work, especially when only implemented in portions of the state. Therefore, to make them more "successful" (sarcasm)we could eventually be looking at implementation of statewide bag limits. This is a slippery slope down the wrong path when relative to proper furbearer management.
I believe that NYSTA members and the members of this forum are generally better informed trappers than most of those that are not members and/or do not participate on this forum. We have far more access to regulatory and legislative information as a rule. Most nonmembers will not even realize why question #7 is even being asked. Some will answer selfishly, rather than thinking of the future and/or of those whom bag limits would adversely affect the most. PLEASE do your part to contact as many trappers as you know and help us educate them as to the reasoning for this survey question and it's far reaching implications that could adversely affect the future of trapping as we know it in NY today.
As soon as I can, I will post more information as to how you can help NYSTA and the trappers of NY preserve our heritage and insure our future by opposing bag limits on furbearers in New York State.
John
|
|