# What are your views on a Michigan Trappers and Predator Callers Association?



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

The board of the Michigan Trappers Association would like to know if there is any interest in the predator hunters of this state in us setting up a callers district in our club. 

This would help the callers on issues with the Dnr. It would also help give you a voice in Mucc. We know of no clubs in Michigan doing any of this. Are we wrong?

Let me know what you think and I'll see what we can work out.



Griff


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

I think its a great idea. I for one would like to see some things revised so I would be all for it........


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

I think if it were to happen, it should be two seperate entities. Mixing trapping and hunting orgs could be a bad move IMO. I have a feeling MTA wants more money, that's all. I'd be all for giving my membership dues to two different orgs though.

I mainly say this because sometimes the hunters and trappers don't get along....sort of like the houdsman and trappers on the issues of bear and cat hunting that come up in recent years. I really wouldn't want to see the MTA get caught up in all of that. They may even lose a few trapping members because of it too....many would be ticked off I believe.


----------



## gogoman (Mar 7, 2008)

count me in Griff, I also like the idea.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

uptracker
(I have a feeling MTA wants more money, that's all. I'd be all for giving my membership dues to two different orgs though.)

Since we lose money on our memberships and I don't think any callers are going to be bringing much fur to our sales this was never brought up.

What was talked about was that no one has stepped forward to get a club going. Plus how to address some of the regs that need to be changed. How can a trappers org push for changes when it's members have no stake in the issues to be changed.

Were a trappers org and trappers are going to run it. But since no one has come forward to get this going I'm willing to let them have a district and get the ball rolling.

In a couple years if they want to go on there own we'll have some new allies to work with the Dnr on furbearer issues. 


Griff


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

Perhaps Mike was a little too broad in the term predator hunters. It should be more directed to callers. Those hunting with dogs have various avenues/associations to belong to for representation. But to our knowledge there is no association in the state that addresses the concerns of callers. Mike is right on when he says it is not about money. I know of no association that makes any money just on their dues. We have a common interest in pursuing predators and know that there is strength in numbers in dealing with antis as well as regulators. At our convention we already have dealers that sell items directed to callers and we have been asked to expand our demos for calling predators. There is some interest already, we are just trying to determine if there is enough to seriously look at changing our structure to include caller representation. THIS IS A FEELER ONLY! so don't make assumptions or try to read more into this. Thanks


----------



## SNAREMAN (Dec 10, 2006)

I like the idea.Many of us trapper's have been into calling for year's anyway.Also,I feel many of them would probley catch the trapping "bug" once they had some help getting started.Sound's like a win-win for everyone


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

to me. how do I sign up?


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Guys,

I understand that there isn't money made on dues...but it's used to fight off anti's, work with the DNR etc.

I just feel that the money should be completely seperate...as in a seperate org all together.

To me, sometimes I don't like callers and sometimes I don't like houndsman. I know MANY others feel the same way and that's why I feel it should be seperate in itself. By the way, I am a caller, I do belong to the MTA and I wouldn't mind trying for cats with hounds.

In the end, I think that there could be some battles once again between the few different groups. I really wouldn't want something to come up where there's a fight between the MTA and the callers association and have them both be one in the same. I'm saying this as an opinion after what happened with the houndsman and the trappers on the bobcat trapping issue in the LP. It was basically them vs. us....Trappers vs. Houndsman and it wasn't good as we all know.

I also understand that it would be an association just for callers....but still hold my beliefs.

Just My Opinion!.....bad idea.


----------



## HunterHawk (Dec 8, 2005)

sounds good to me... dont get a big head hear griff but you know more than i do :lol: if you think it would help us... which i do believe it would, i dont see it being a bad thing in any way what so ever....any connections between the dnr and the sportsman is a good idea....and it is always good to have voice... you have a big mouth.... i mean a big voice :lol: i say get the ball rolling


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

for being slow,uptracker I dont get your point.you dont like callers? how do you mean that?you dont like some guys that call. or you dont like calling in general.
To my way of thinking the more we can add to the group, the better off we all are.It aint about money, Its about numbers. the bigger the number the better.


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

I think I would want to see how it all would be layed out before I (as a MTA member) would vote yes (if I was asked).

I joined and have no problem paying the (highest dues around) for the MTA to be a standup organization for Michigan Trappers. If it was to meld into the Mighigan Trappers and Predator Callers Association, I would not have a huge problem with that, *if we keep all the bases covered.*

As we (MTA) stand now, each member cares deeply about the sport of trapping and are willing to fight for it. If we gained the support and lend our support to the predator callers, that is great, however, I forsee gaining some members who could care less about trapping than calling/hunting. This could potentially leave a ***** in the armor of the membership come battle time.

Like I said, I understand you guys are just putting feelers out, and I agree, I would like to see how it would work before agreeing or not.


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

OK if one is set up will the calling branch be affiliated with the MUCC? 

Second will all members (callers) be required to join the MUCC?

SKinner


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Skinner 2 said:


> OK if one is set up will the calling branch be affiliated with the MUCC?
> 
> Second will all members (callers) be required to join the MUCC?
> 
> SKinner


Good question....


----------



## jaywkr (Apr 7, 2008)

I'm a MTA member and think it's a good idea. I also call and think there are some rules that need to be changed, but who at the capitol is going to listen to a hand full of random hunters. Callers need to be organized in order to get some help.


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

The way Griff and I talked, it would not make sense for it to be a separate organization. How it would go together all has to be worked out.

A few ideas:

1. We could develop some additional districts with callers represented from these districts on the Board.

2. We could use existing districts and just allocate so many seats on the board to callers.

3. We could just blend it in and have the same districts that could be represented by a caller or a trapper depending on what the district elected. (Most are not aware that the district is supposed to elect their director, but since no one volunteers the board has to recruit and nominates someone for the position.)

The whole concept is open to discussion/organization.

As far as being a member of MUCC, if callers were added to MTA, that would be yes. MUCC is going through some reorganization and all clubs involved with MUCC will have to be 100% affiliated.

The trade off will be that they will be lowering the dues. You will see more about this in the form of a survey in the next issue of MTA's Trap Line publication.

As to MTA being the highest dues club, not true. We currently have the highest for trapping associations, but that will be changing. UPTA just voted to raise their dues to $15, which is what the MTA dues are with the other $15 being your MUCC dues.

We are the only trapping association in Michigan that has districts covering the entire state.

We also take the lead in many issues such as forming the United Trappers Council of Michigan.

We also spend more time at MUCC and the DNR than the others combined. Part of that is because we are the closest and have developed more networks with both enitities in Lansing.

Do not misunderstand. The other three trapping organizations are great and I encourage you to join one, I belong to them all. I do think that you do get more representation on the state and national level - more bang for your dues, but the most important thing is that you belong to one or as many as possible.

We are united and speak as one. That is why if the callers became part of MTA, we would represent more sportsman and the bigger the numbers the more we are heard.


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

Gary A. Schinske said:


> As to MTA being the highest dues club, not true. We currently have the highest for trapping associations but that will be changing. ............We are the only trapping association in Michigan that has districts covering the entire state. We also take the lead in many issues such as forming the United Trappers Council of Michigan. We also spend more time at MUCC and the DNR than the others combined. Part of that is because we are the closest and have developed more networks with both enitities in Lansing. ...........I do think that you do get more representation on the state and national level - more bang for your dues


Like I said, "I joined and have no problem paying the (highest dues around) for the MTA to be a standup organization for Michigan Trappers."

You guys do a great job and I am all for more members, however, I think a lot of thought should be put into it.


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

You had me right up to including the MUCC.

Being a single income family I can find better organizations to represent me. Would be interesting to see who would stand up for who when calling ***** at night comes up? I sure the MTA would but I'm not sure about the hound guys....then who would MUCC support?


Skinner


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Skinner 2 said:


> You had me right up to including the MUCC.
> 
> Being a single income family I can find better organizations to represent me. Would be interesting to see who would stand up for who when calling ***** at night comes up? I sure the MTA would but I'm not sure about the hound guys....then who would MUCC support?
> 
> ...


 
If Mucc doesn't have a policy voted on by the clubs they wouldn't take a stand. 
Thats why it's important to have a club in Mucc to make sure we have a favorable policy statement or that a unfavorable one doesn't get voted in by another club.

Smta started working on getting us trappers clout in Mucc back in the 80's and Mta has continued it. We also have a good working relationship with many clubs in there.

I agree Mucc has fell on hard times and lost it's way at times but the best thing to do is fix it not bury our heads. We need a strong statewide org. to protect our interest. We can't clone Tom Washington so it's up to us.

If this ever gets off the ground I hope you won't let a single issue stop you from helping us out.

Griff


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

You are right, if two Sportsmen organizations have a different view on a topic/situation AND MUCC does not have an approved policy statement on that issue, they will not take a stand.

Their stance on issues are all determined at their convention as Griff has said. This way of operating may not be to your liking, but it is the same as others including US Sportsmans Alliance.

This is the same group that jumped in to help Minnesota with their suits brought on by the antis. We contacted them, when the problems with snaring in Michigan started. They were all for us and ready to jump in until they heard that the the Hound Group was on the other side of the fence. They didn't even have the guts to tell us that they wanted nothing to do with the issue. They sent word to us through Fur Trappers of America.

Put these individual conflicting situations aside and look at some of the other things they have done:

1. led the charge to stop tankers from emptying their blasts in the great lakes and introducing more invasive species

2. led the charge to stop regulators from raiding the funds set aside from gas and mineral royalties

3. met directly with the legislator from Kalamazoo that tried to put an end to using footholds, when one of his big contributors got his dog pinched in one

4. is the only TV media that occasionally runs positive TV spots on trapping including coming to our convention last year, as well as, the Ravenna Fur Sale 2 years ago

5. keeps their ear in Lansing to alert any group who may be in danger of having some detrimental legislation passed

6. actively lobby in Lansing for various Sportsmen issues and concerns

7. has organized a conservation coalition made up of various sportsmen groups (which MTA is one of) to address various issues, form a position, and then pursue with appropriate legislators, NRC or DNR.

While I do not agree with some of the things they do or maybe how they do them, they do a lot of good for all sportsmen in Michigan and currently is our only united sportsmen voice in Michigan. You have to weigh their strengths against their weaknesses and see which one weighs the most. To me it is their strengths.

Putting MUCC aside, the one poster is correct that there would be an enormous amount of work needed to be done to bring the callers in with the trappers. While it appears to be a very large task, if the potential benefits were not there, Grif and I would not be putting this "feeler" out for comment.


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

I feel this would be a great venture and we should not loose a chance to bring more voices that support our views to the legislators of Michigan. Callers are harvesting some of the same recource as trappers. We need unity in both of these activities. I would also recommend that a "callers" group does not spin off and go independent. Better to have one big group with slighty different objectives that is unified, working togeather for the same good. I also would not reccomend a separate callers position on the board. For the reason that is in this word "separate" because that is what may happen. As aboard member one needs to be open minded enough to work through the good and bad, and be able to compromise. To be able to comunicate to the trappers and callers he/she represents. To come to a solution that is right for both recourse users. I would fear a US vs THEM positioning on topics and possible clicks within the group. Neither of those are good.


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

seem to be able to get all of our trapping groups under one tent. I would think that mite be something to look into also.I think a group to take care of callers issues is a great Idea.IF things work out for the MTA to be the parent group wondreful, if not, still needs to get done.


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

gilgetter said:


> seem to be able to get all of our trapping groups under one tent. I would think that mite be something to look into also.I think a group to take care of callers issues is a great Idea.IF things work out for the MTA to be the parent group wondreful, if not, still needs to get done.


I'd rather see this happen!


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

Gil:
The trapping associations are under one tent so to speak. We have formed the United Trappers Council of Michigan, which the President of each association sets on.

We have a formal rules and procedures document that each association has signed. One of the most important items in that document is that we agree to work/negotiate until we can stand united on any trapping issues.

It has been a little tense at times, but we have been able to do it with no hard feelings afterwords.

All these guys understand that we can not always do what is best for someone or some area if we want to protect the privilege to trap state wide. We always look at the big picture on issues and it has and is working.

Does this mean we are one organization - NO. BUT we are ONE VOICE!

We are not that far away from being one organization, like Minnesota, where they have the Minnesota Directors that run the state. Each Director is the President of a District and I think they have the state broke down into 8 districts.

I think in time, we can do the same thing, with somewhere between 4 and 8 districts that would cover the entire state.

Only Michigan Trappers and UPTA has districts currently I believe (not totally sure).

MTA has 17 districts and UPTA has 5. Someday we may all be a member of one state wide association with your representation being your District President, with one convention in the lower and one convention in the upper.

Some of us have talked about this type of arrangement and believe it can work and would be the best for the future of trapping. For now we have some trappers that just can not leave the past and look into the future. Some scars are really deep. We have come a long ways and are not ready to stop yet. We do not want to rest on our accomplishments of yesterday, but want to be better prepared for the future. That is why we are looking at the possibility of representing the callers. The more sportsmen we can get to stand united together the better chance we have to succeed.


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

In a earlier post,Its about numbers. the more trappers we have that support the group the better.the history of the problems that caused the break up, depend on who you talk to.and like you said some wont let go.thats up to them.
Im all for callers being represented.how that is done, and who does it.that remains to be seen.what are your and griffs Ideas? Im sure you have a process in mind.aside from numbers what do you think callers can add to the MTA? and what can a group of trappers do for callers? this merger would have to offer something to both groups to make it fly. 
I think the Idea is good.but the details will make the difference.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

I either trap or snare one day then the next day only go after the coyotes with my .22-250. The second day I go back seperate from my hunting area and trap some more. What i'm saying is I do both, and only both, with the occasional beaver or otter. With the price of gas the way it was I stopped setting for other furs.

I would like to see it happen here on the west end. We're already 5-6 hunts ahead of the rest of the state so far these past 2 months. I know at least 100 predator hunters on this side. I'll bring it up at the U.P. Predator Challenge.org next week.


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

ttt


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

griffondog said:


> If Mucc doesn't have a policy voted on by the clubs they wouldn't take a stand.
> 
> I agree Mucc has fell on hard times and lost it's way at times but the best thing to do is fix it not bury our heads. We need a strong statewide org. to protect our interest. We can't clone Tom Washington so it's up to us.
> 
> ...


Griff it is not just a single issue for me. I was a member for quite a few years. The club I belong to was also affiliated with MUCC. In this time I never once recieved any kind of survey asking for my input. I cannot afford to take time off and go to every meeting they have. Same as any club a person belongs too. 

A few people are however to do this and many sit on boards. This is where the Good ole boys nick comes from. The MUCC as a 2/3 rule to get anything to happed wether it if for MUCC or the State. They has been time when the majority of the people wanted something but yet didn't make the 2/3 ruling. MUCC has stated this is outdated and needs to be corrected. Has this happened no! 

Sure MUCC has done some good things. They could have done a lot better IMHO. The NRA and SCI promote all opportunities. I may never own a assult rifle or a .50 Barret but at least they fight for my rights to have this choice.

Times are hard right now and will get worse. Where I spend my monies has a bigger roll now more then ever. MUCC has not earned that right and being that they are forcing 100% participation from club member will keep me from joining said clubs. I am not renewing my Steelheader membership when it expires either. Same reason as above. 


Call it sticking my head in the sand or what ever one likes. I don't the operation of MUCC and don't feel I should be forced to belong. If said calling group was National based or free standing from the MUCC I would be all for it. Right now it would be like giving money to the HSUS to help out a homeless pet and have a big portion of my money also fight to remove my hunting privlages.

Skinner


----------



## oaks (Feb 10, 2002)

Well said.


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

I agree with alot of what you say in your post.what you dont say is how you would improve what we have now.

MUCC is a problem? how would you fix that problem?
good ol boys, may not like the way they do things, BUT they are doing something.
nobody asks for imput, Im asken.what In your opinion Is needed?
the 2/3rd rule is a by-law, they can be changed.
I dont think there is any thing that cant be done, but you have to play the game.


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

gilgetter said:


> I agree with alot of what you say in your post.what you dont say is how you would improve what we have now.
> 
> MUCC is a problem? how would you fix that problem? I can't fix the problem. People were told in another post if "you" don't like the way the MUCC is run now then join and change it. I say change first then "They will come". The MUCC IMHO should support and promote every opportuninty for the peple to use this state and what it provides. EVEN when 2/3 or more may be against it. AS LONG AS THIS DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT on what ever it may be. To me it's a carblanch policy.
> good ol boys, may not like the way they do things, BUT they are doing something. Does not always mean it is for the better!
> ...


 I choose to stand on my own or support organizations that support Pro Choice for everybody not a select few.

Lets look at the raccoon calling issue. The night rules were originaly set by dog hunters. Hounds get a jump start on the trappers. My guess would be hound guys will be against. Trappers for it for a grater support by callers. Now both are affiliated with MUCC. MUCC gathers some people( FAR from the total members) in a meeting and asks for a vote. What side would the MUCC be on.

In my opinion a vote on this matter should not be needed and already be a part of the MUCC policy. SUPPORT raccoons being shot at night by callers because the callers will NOT have a negative impact on the resource. Instead it will devide two groups.

Another example since it was just on TV. Pike spearing. I hear many people against it. A few for it. Many have never tried it. Some places Muskey can be taken. Lets say this come up for state ruling. State Musky guys are against spearing( I DON"T KNOW IF THEY ARE this is an example). Musky club is MUCC affiliated and say no. Will MUCC support a minority for a outdoor recreation that so far has not been detrimental to the resource. NOPE.

Like I said I may never own a AK 47, .50 Barret nor ever go to Africa. BUT I applaude the effort by the NRA to provide me with teh choice. I applaude the SCI for supporting opportunities I may never try but then it is to me then to do so. 

I used to use a .223 at noight for coyotes. This got stopped not because of safety but beause of people being affraid a deer may get poached. Will the MUCC support the use of a centerfirre at night. NO deer hunters will outnumer the callers and trapper and vote it down. Many who have never tried this claim it is also not safe. To my knowledge nobody was ever injured by a caller in Michigan Last year or two a guy was killed in Ohio. If we base a decision on this then every hunting season should be cancled.

The MUCC should IMHO stand strictly on a resource issue and make decisions based on that. Can the enviroment and resources handle what is being proposed! Yes support NO don't support. 

Hey I'm at work and this was quick so I hope it makes sense. I will reread later and see for myself LOL

Skinner


----------



## Cashew (Sep 4, 2008)

Skinner 2 said:


> The MUCC should IMHO stand strictly on a resource issue and make decisions based on that. Can the enviroment and resources handle what is being proposed! Yes support NO don't support.
> 
> Hey I'm at work and this was quick so I hope it makes sense. I will reread later and see for myself LOL
> 
> Skinner


For the record, not a member of MUCC, but a new hunter thinking of where my money is best spent and who to affiliate with.

My understanding the Michigan United Conservation Club is supposed to be about our resources here in Michigan. I agree with Skinner on standing on enviromental/resources instead of putting one group's requests/issues ahead of another, regardless of group size.

Cashew


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

no one can say you didnt think out your response.I do respect your opinion. but have to disagree.MUCC is working well enough for the majority of sportmen and women in the state. can it work better? I dont know. no person, or group can please everyone.no matter how hard they mite try.

on centerfires at night. your right it is not about saftey. its about need.IMO there is no need for a centerfire at night.my shotgun has been working just fine for about 45 yrs.but thats me.

calling **** at night. I would love to see that.I think with the proper presentation it can happen.you could be an asset in that. if you chose to be. thanks for your time.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

You guys ought to start your own social group.


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

See, everyone is already complaining about this or that.

You heard it first, if this goes through, my membership dues won't be paid.....and my times alomst up to pay up, so make a decision.

BTW, why wasn't this topic ever on the MTA forums to ask all those guys some questions?


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

" Plus how to address some of the regs that need to be changed. How can a trappers org push for changes when it's members have no stake in the issues to be changed."

Interesting question.

Who (what orgnization) is speaking for you now??

Merge/expand the trappers assn, join, get on the board and help merge ideas-and power as the politicians say. Strength in numbers..


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

uptracker said:


> See, everyone is already complaining about this or that.
> 
> You heard it first, if this goes through, my membership dues won't be paid.....and my times alomst up to pay up, so make a decision.
> 
> BTW, why wasn't this topic ever on the MTA forums to ask all those guys some questions?


Since this would have to go through the board and membership no decision can be made.

Since the Mta forum doesn't get used much and I wanted to see if the callers wanted to work on this thats the reason for the post on here and the other calling sight.

But what i want to hear is what problems are the guided calling hunts causing in the UP? How many fox, coyotes and cats are these people taking. From what I've seen in the lower their success rate is pretty low.
Maybe the guys from the UP are better at this than the people I talk to down here.

Should we do away with guiding for cats is that the problem? I want to see the big picture.



Griff


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Well, seeing that a guy I talk to on the Predator Masters forums quite a bit, they take quite a few cats by calling in the Cheboygan area... guiding. They have pictures to prove it. Look at the post on the Trapperman forum that came up recently. Seems like quite a few are PO'ed about it. They're houndsman, yes. Now think about a caller doing the same thing...NLP or UP. Would you be ticked that the resource is being treated this way? The numbers are already quite low as it is. This is what I'm talking about, some trappers may see some of this stuff and be a bit peeved, someone may bring the issue up to the NRC and the fight is on...just like what happened with the houndsman.

BTW, did you know there's a lot of callers out there that call coyotes and shoot them just because they don't want them around? A lot of these guys are deer hunters using deer rifles and blowing big ol' holes in them and not using the hide or other parts of the animal. Some even let them lay where they were shot. How do people feel about that...wasting a resource? While I was growing up, I was taught to eat what I shoot. Now granted I wouldn't eat a coyote, I would at least use the resource. On top of that, many people don't understand how coyotes reproduce. They get sick of them chasing the fawns and end up shooting the coyotes at every chance. They think they're doing their deer herd good, but in all reality, the coyotes reproduce to carrying capacity, in turn regaining the same numbers in a certain area over the course of a few months. Basically, if you shoot one, the alpha female will have an extra pup the next spring to fill the void of the lost dog. Shoot two, and she has two extra....and so on.

These are the social issues that can come up in the future.


Let's start with this:

What are the benefits of belonging to the MTA as a trapper? We'll go from there.


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

For any that might read 'The Trapper', it seems I have read various clun 'news' items in the back-some of which are trappers/hunters in the same assn. I dont think this is an invention but a reinvention. Check with some of them and see how they do!!


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

I support equal opportunity for all hunters. I cats can be hunted then let everybody hunt them. If numbers need to be controlled to a small harvest then let people apply for a kill tag. Way the cat would be taken is up to the owner of said tag. Trap, dogs or calls. What would it really matter to me how you filled your tag. Why should it matter to other if this were the case.

As far as guides go. IMHO they should all be licensed through the state, same as charter boats!
. 
Now far as joing a group seem like the caller should join the MBHA. They are a larger group and more vocal. ( THIS was meant as a joke so please take it that way).

We need and organized group that seeks equal opportunity for all huners, fisherman....... So far from what I ahve seen only two groups promote this and both are a national based group. Some with state chapters. This would be the NRA and the SCI.

I take my hat off to these two groups for their support. Many groups here could learn a thing or two from them.

Bottom line if (example) if the lower can support 100 cats harvested this year give out X number of tags to applicants to achieve this goal. The season starts January 1 and ends on February 2 so have at it with what method you like!

My 2 cents! OK now let fly!

Skinner


----------

