# Potential Change for Trapping Within Safety Zone



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

It was really not an anti trapping issue my understanding is that the NRA did not realize the unintended consequences to trapping when this was written. The definition of hunting that includes trapping is very important to us as this is how we get the few protections under the law that we have. This is what was used to allow trapping on CFA land that was approved last year. The timing is a huge issue for the NRA they have been trying to get this group of bills passed and signed into law for quite some time and they are not going to take any chances on these bills being held up. The NRA supported us with the SF&WA that we collected signatures for last winter and is generally supportive of sportsman and sportswoman issues but their agenda comes first with them as we all know and expect. MTPCA and MUCC fought hard to get this fixed before it gets passed by the Senate which will probably happen next week but the NRA put up a roadblock that we did not expect. MTPCA has increased it political clout in the last few years significantly but we do not even come close to the NRA. There is a meeting with a Senator this afternoon at a fundraiser to discuss this issue but I expect that what will come out of it will be discussions on a bill we will be asking to have introduced to fix this issue. I could easily blow smoke and make it all sound good but that is not going to happen I am going to be honest weather it is good or bad news and we will keep fighting for trappers.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Black Powder Trapper said:


> It was really not an anti trapping issue my understanding is that the NRA did not realize the unintended consequences to trapping when this was written.



Exactly. If the definition of the word hunt did not originally include trap under the licenses section of the law, this would not be an issue. 

Requiring written permission to "hunt" within a safety zone has long been the law.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

dead short said:


> Exactly. If the definition of the word hunt did not originally include trap under the licenses section of the law, this would not be an issue.
> 
> Requiring written permission to "hunt" within a safety zone has long been the law.


Exactly my point! So now, who do you think IS happy with the wording change? Come on now, who do you think is happy with the wording???? Oh, the NRA wasn't thinking and it was just an oversight? Please! I may sound as if I just fell off the turnip truck but I can guarantee I didn't! 

Folks on this very board told me the exact same thing back in 2004 " oh, they (the DNR) know the cable restraint Regs are wrong BUT they'll get'em fixed" and look what the trappers got stuck up their butt along with a couple of pillow cases! Oh, the NRA know they screwed-up the wording BUT they'll get it fixed"! Ya, right, look out to see if you're dragging the sheet!!!!!:SHOCKED:


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

Seldom said:


> Exactly my point! So now, who do you think IS happy with the wording change? Come on now, who do you think is happy with the wording???? Oh, the NRA wasn't thinking and it was just an oversight? Please! I may sound as if I just fell off the turnip truck but I can guarantee I didn't!
> 
> Folks on this very board told me the exact same thing back in 2004 " oh, they (the DNR) know the cable restraint Regs are wrong BUT they'll get'em fixed" and look what the trappers got stuck up their butt along with a couple of pillow cases! Oh, the NRA know they screwed-up the wording BUT they'll get it fixed"! Ya, right, look out to see if you're dragging the sheet!!!!!:SHOCKED:


My thoughts exactly... better to the point is who wrote the bill? Who is sponsoring the bill? Does that particular legislator have a past history of voting against us? Do they have been vocal in the past about the need to place further restrictions on trapping? 

And again I ask, how hard is it to remove 'and trapping' from the wording as it pertains to the safety zone? Two words and the NRA doesn't want to touch it? That leads me to believe whomever put the verbage in there knew exactly what they were doing.

No offense Dead Short, as I know you're only responsible for enforcing the law ~ but this is utter crap. There are 4 locations that I run a small rat line that my 8yr old daughter can wade without making her miserable that if this passes, will be up to the neighbors discretion whether I can continue trapping ~ regardless of permission from the owner of the ditch. Again ~ utter crap!

How would a 110 or colony trap be a 'safety violation'? I could understand not being able to use a firearm for dispatch due to safety concerns... but trapping as a whole???

And of course we have no recourse other than to roll over and take it...

Looks like the laser range finder will get a good workout going forward....:rant:

-Chris


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Seldom said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Exactly my point! So now, who do you think IS happy with the wording change? Come on now, who do you think is happy with the wording???? Oh, the NRA wasn't thinking and it was just an oversight? Please! I may sound as if I just fell off the turnip truck but I can guarantee I didn't!


I have to agree. I am generally not a conspiracy theory type of guy but this smells fishy. it seems hard to imagine the adding words for trapping as an oversight. Things being left off accidentally is believable. but how do you add in the wording that wasnt there prior and call it a mistake??




_Posted from Michigan-sportsman.com App for Android_


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

This would include live cage traps also.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

DirtySteve said:


> I have to agree. I am generally not a conspiracy theory type of guy but this smells fishy. it seems hard to imagine the adding words for trapping as an oversight. Things being left off accidentally is believable. but how do you add in the wording that wasnt there prior and call it a mistake??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lol::lol::lol:I don't think I am either BUT since that fatefull deal was struck in 2004 making MI having the worst and most non-commonsensical cable restraining Regs in the entire nation AND the Regs are still as such today, 10 years later, I don't trust anyone! I figure to keep doing it every frigin time I smell another stinker being shoved up my butt!

Yes, I'm sure as I intend to be, a broken record continually repeating history and pointing the dirty finger at the dirty batards that committed the agreious act!


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

DirtySteve said:


> I have to agree. I am generally not a conspiracy theory type of guy but this smells fishy. it seems hard to imagine the adding words for trapping as an oversight. Things being left off accidentally is believable. but how do you add in the wording that wasnt there prior and call it a mistake??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They didn't add trapping to the wording in licensing with this bill. It's always been there. 

By removing the "discharge of a firearm within 150 yards" from that section of part 401, it essentially got rid of the confusion some people have had in relation to target shooting close to a house. Since there was an attorney general opinion in place that allows for target shooting already, there was apparently, in the sponsors opinions, no need to have that wording in the law anymore. 

The one common factor these bills all have in common is they somewhat changed the restriction/regulation of firearms. I know some are skeptical, but I honestly think trappers got in the mix only because of the wording that was pre-existing in part 435. 

Here's the state reps if you want to check out their history. 

Introduced by Reps. Brett Roberts, Kesto, Barrett, Cole, Inman, Sheppard, Lucido, Glenn, Runestad, Franz, Iden, Maturen and Kivela


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

thank you for clarifying dead short. I think I have an understanding now. I misunderstood before. 

so the nra and authors of the bill are trying to make it more clearly understood that you can target shoot within a safety zone but you cannot hunt. the changed to wording from discharge a firearm to hunt...... trapping was effected because there was already previously an association of hunting and trapping by defintion.

thanks for your work on this.....I am no longer hearing the black helicopters!!






_Posted from Michigan-sportsman.com App for Android_


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

Nope, not for one second am I buying it! Is the definition of "trap" cast in stone?? Unchangeable, untouchable, too big a hurry?? Please!! Is the definition such that it couldn't have or shouldn't have been changed??? Someone wrote the Bill didn't they, they made changes didn't they, they wrote and changed words didn't they?? But someone wants me to believe they couldn't change the definition of "trap" amoungst and during the drafting of the Bill???


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

Seldom said:


> Nope, not for one second am I buying it! Is the definition of "trap" cast in stone?? Unchangeable, untouchable, too big a hurry?? Please!! Is the definition such that it couldn't have or shouldn't have been changed??? Someone wrote the Bill didn't they, they made changes didn't they, they wrote and changed words didn't they?? But someone wants me to believe they couldn't change the definition of "trap" amoungst and during the drafting of the Bill???


Isn't this just the rough draft


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

The new language does not really change anything as a matter of fact someone just plead guilty to this last month and was fined $275 cost and fines. I do not have all the particulars on this but an individual was rehabbing raccoons and letting them go. The guy next door was catching and dispatching the raccoon. This was the first case like this that I am aware of. The DNR has not been enforcing the law this way with the Safety Zone but if there is a complaint they have no choice but to issue a ticket. We are working to introduce legislation to fix this issue for the trappers with the other groups as well because this will affect most of the groups. I will keep you posted on the progress but understand it will take some time to get this done. We do have support for fixing this problem.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

I do not know the particulars on that one, but in that circumstance, it could have had something to do with the way he was dispatching it. If he was shooting it to dispatch it and was with a safety zone, then technically it probably was illegal because the old verbiage said "discharge a firearm" or "hunt" and in that kind of circumstance they would not fall under a target shooting exception. 

Now, with this change, a trapper will not even be able to place a trap without written permission. I know some trappers don't carry a firearm with them at all. They use, we'll say, more primitive ways to dispatch an animal. 

What will change now is that even if a trapper is using a live trap, conibear, foothold, etc, even in the bottom of the ditch (drowning set, conibear, colony, etc) , within 450 feet of an occupied building, house, dwelling, etc, he/she will need written permission before even placing the trap.


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

According to the news, he was ticketed because he was discharging a firearm within 150 yds of the house... I remember that story because I actually thought the guy had some pretty brass tacks doing what he did... but I'll bet the fur was in good shape, and surely most were well fed 3XL's :lol:

Back to the issue at hand ~ thank you Dead Short for keeping the info coming, and Dale as well. Please don't confuse my skepticism for unappreciation ~ I just have a hard time believing this is strictly coincidence when the NRA doesn't want to address 2 little words in the bill. I also have a serious issue with my trapping freedoms trampled on for a GD pellet gun... I'm all for expansion of opportunities and loosening of firearm regs... just not at the expense of another's freedom or opportunity.

I guess the next time the NRA calls looking for more of my hard earned money I'll have to go tell them to pound sand until this is fixed...

-Chris


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

magnumhntr said:


> According to the news, he was ticketed because he was discharging a firearm within 150 yds of the house... I remember that story because I actually thought the guy had some pretty brass tacks doing what he did... but I'll bet the fur was in good shape, and surely most were well fed 3XL's :lol:



That makes sense then. . They probably were huge.


----------



## motorcityhtps (Mar 1, 2010)

Any news on this ordeal??


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Referred to committee of the whole on March 12, 2015. 

Not through the Senate yet.


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

motorcityhtps said:


> Any news on this ordeal??


I was told late last week that it would be voted on this week.

I had some discussions with the DNR late last week and anyone working with a ADC License would be exempt while trapping under that license. They are looking into a private individual trapping on a damage permit from Wildlife or Law Division. I should have the answer to that question this week. The DNR will look on this issue like a trespass issue in other words they would have to have a complaint from the land owner or their agent before the DNR would investigate. However unless we can get this through the Legislature and signed by the Governor before season with immediate affect you will need written permission to trap within a safety zone until we can get it changed. 

We will be having a separate bill introduced to fix this issue and are presently talking to other sporting groups and Legislators to get their support to change the language. This is going well and we should have a coalition of sporting groups to help move this through the Legislature. There will also be a resolution that will be introduced at MUCC's convention supporting this. All this will take some time just know we are doing everything we can to get this done.


----------



## motorcityhtps (Mar 1, 2010)

So we need to be contacting our reps in the Senate??


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

You can always contact your Senators but you will find it will not get you far in this case. I have talked to several along with others where the conversation started out with we can do this followed with a call saying we need to do a stand alone bill a day latter. We are already working on a stand alone bill that will address this not only for trappers but for other groups also building a coalition to move this forward. We are not only looking at this as a trapping issue but also as a property rights issue.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Not sure how it is a property rights issue when the "safety zone" often extends beyond one's property onto someone elses.


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

FREEPOP said:


> Not sure how it is a property rights issue when the "safety zone" often extends beyond one's property onto someone elses.


Exactly if that safety zone extends on my property from a neighbor and it restricts or makes it more difficult for me to protect my property from damage that animals such as raccoon, muskrat or beaver can cause that is a serious property rights issue in my opinion.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Oh, I see where we're on the same page


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

The property rights issue will also bring in legislators that may be on the fence.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Black Powder Trapper said:


> The property rights issue will also bring in legislators that may be on the fence.


That'd be the fence that they own but can't trap near because it's in the neighbor's safety zone?


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

FREEPOP said:


> That'd be the fence that they own but can't trap near because it's in the neighbor's safety zone?


HB 4239 passed the Senate today and now goes back to the House for concurrence then on for the Governor's signature. It was passed with immediate effect so if all goes well this could be fixed before season starts. This is the bill that fixes the safety zone problem. We changed the restrictions by changing the wording for the restriction from Hunting to Hunting with a firearm. You will still have to have written permission to use a firearm to dispatch but it has always been enforced that way.


----------



## Watersmt (Jan 28, 2011)

Great news! I had two ponds that were going to be an issue if this wasn't changed.
Thank You.


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

Watersmt said:


> Great news! I had two ponds that were going to be an issue if this wasn't changed.
> Thank You.


There were many involved in this being fixed and it is not done yet but like I said it looks real good. The DNR was very supportive and MUCC did a lot of the leg work and lobbying as they have a firm that does this. It was also one of the key items for MUCC's "Camo at the Capital" this year.


----------

