# Michigan NR trapping regs



## Jason L. Grimm (Nov 18, 2010)

From what I read on the trapperman site, there is a memorandum to the NRC recommending changes to the NR trapping regulations. NR trappers will not be allowed to trap fur bearer's with a limit, this would include badger, otter, bobcat, fisher and marten.

Any members here know if this is true or not?

I would absolutely hate to see this become law, as other states would most likely enact reciprocating laws, limiting the opportunities for Michigan residents in other states.

I would love to trap bobcats and otters in southern states, it would be a dirty shame to lose the ability to do so.


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

What does "NR" stand for??


----------



## Jason L. Grimm (Nov 18, 2010)

Non Resident


----------



## Dave Lyons (Jun 28, 2002)

Just another dumb idea Jason. But I haven't heard that one yet.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## 2 Kids And I Trap (Jan 5, 2010)

Yes it is true they were discussing it at the last NRC meeting! Because there is such a imited amount of these animals. They want the residents to have first dibbs.


----------



## Watersmt (Jan 28, 2011)

I'm sure the nonresidents are really tapping into our fisher/marten population with a one per season limit.

A better focus for the NRC would be to limit the native harvest of these. Unfortunately that is one of those untouchable regulations. 

The dumb laws never cease to amaze me. Hopefully this will not pass. I am sending my reply to this proposal, hopefully others do also.


----------



## backroadstravler (Jul 12, 2006)

If the DNR in all their infinite wisdom wants to limit NR trapping why not do it by species. They already have stopped NR trappers from ND. Why a trapper from ND would want to trap In Mi. is beyond me, but because of this restriction I cannot trap in ND. Leaglly I can not trap on my own property in ND. ND does not have the Doing or about to do damage clause in their game laws. I would think that the NR ban was for marten , fisher and cats. What is Adam Bumps thought on this as he is the furbearer guru?


----------



## maurob (May 3, 2013)

I would think that most NR interest would be in cats. Wis and Minn are already not allowed to purchase a fur harvester permit and unfortunatly that means I cannot purchase one there either. I would think that the Ohio, Indiana, Illionois NRs would be spending money on tags, gas, food, and lodging. I cannot imagine why we would limit ourselves to having less people enjoying our sports and also not being allowed to enjoy the same pursuits in their respective states. I would think that with all of the other things that are half done or lacking effort - the NRC and DNR would do much better for themselves and the state if they focus on bettering some of the messes they already started then starting a new mess. Just my $.02


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

I always cringe when I see this topic come up again- because it takes so long to type up the background and because I know that all the DNR and NRC haters will be jumping up and down hammering on folks who have little or nothing to do with our current situation. I think this time I'll save my response in a Word document so next year when this topic comes back around I can just copy and paste.

Ok, where should I start....

First off, the DNR and NRC have no control over the states that have reciprocity on trapping privileges with Michigan. The Legislature put the specific list of states with reciprocity in the law when they last revised it (I'd guess about 12 years ago). To change the list requires action of the Legislature.

If a state currently doesn't have reciprocity with Michigan (Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota...) its because they didn't offer reciprocity to Michigan residents when the law was last changed. Wisconsin and North Dakota only began offering non-residents trapping licenses 4 years ago or so; and Minnesota still doesn't allow any non-resident trapping (at least they didn't six months ago). About four or five years ago, the DNR and NRC began working on this issue- trying to build a reciprocity law that would work as these other states started changing _their_ laws. It was as we were working this issue that we all discovered how the law was structured.

The original proposal was just to make it that if a state or province offered trapping license privileges to Michigan residents, their residents could trap here. Then the UP Trappers Association and Northern Great Lakes Fur Harvesters raised concerns about folks from Wisconsin coming here to trap fisher, bobcats, otter and marten; and Ontario residents coming to trap beaver (potentially leading to over-harvest). Wisconsin has lotteries for fisher, bobcats, and otters; and doesn't allow marten trapping at all. Remember, both Wisconsin and Ontario have more trappers than Michigan and at that time we had a two bobcat, three otter, three fisher and one marten limit in the western UP. 

When this possible issue was raised, I checked with some friends in the Wisconsin Trappers Association to see if they thought it had any validity. They felt it _was_ a real concern! They believed that a significant number of Wisconsin trappers _would_ cross into Michigan to take advantage of our more liberal regs. The more I thought about it, the more sense it actually made. After all, I (and a lot of other Michigan trappers) live within 70-100 miles of Ohio. Hypothetically, would we likely drive that far to trap species over-the-counter that Michigan had under lottery? I would. I drive twice that far to trap at our camp and I'm currently 43 miles from my nearest trapping location when I'm home.

That is when the discussion got going about how to allow some type of reciprocity with Wisconsin but still protect our limited species. The thought was to allow reciprocity on all species except the limited ones. It didn't address NGLFH's concern about Ontario beaver trappers, so this was still an issue. There was also a discussion about how we might word a recommendation that would state something that if a state has over-the-counter licenses for a species, their residents could buy ours (including limited species); if they had a lottery, they couldn't. And then there was discussion about states that didn't have certain species and should they be able to trap our limited species? For example, Florida doesn't have marten but their otter are unlimited (with snares and cage traps only)....

All this discussion became academic when it became clear that without legislative action nothing would change anyway. I have heard that there is now a legislator that is willing to bring this issue up in the House. This is probably why the DNR and NRC are talking about it again- I suspect this Representative has asked for guidance.

So I guess the DNR and NRC are trying to come up with a reciprocity solution to recommend to the Legislature that protects our limited species while increasing trapping opportunities for Michigan residents. 

What idiots!!! How dare they?!?


John


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Watersmt said:


> I'm sure the nonresidents are really tapping into our fisher/marten population with a one per season limit.


If you believe you only have enough to support one per season combined (and the DNR does), do you really want to increase harvest (at all)?



Watersmt said:


> A better focus for the NRC would be to limit the native harvest of these. Unfortunately that is one of those untouchable regulations.


You're right- it is untouchable. By Federal Court Order, the DNR and NRC don't control native harvest. Fortunately, the natives control themselves (a little). As I understand it, under the Treaties of 1819, 1821, and 1836 they could pretty much take as much as they want, whenever they want by, any means they want. Scary, huh? 


John


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

Great post, John! I will add this one to my growing lists of good info posts on the topic also. I have two I already draw from when the haters leave here and travel to another site or FB. It's amazing how many people want to chalk this one topic up as governmental blundering rather than the procedural consequences of a system which exists to insure rights and a free, represented society. What most may not be able to grasb is that procedural governing of society doesn't exist without its limitations of conveniences. 

2014: Vote Yes For Conservation


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> If you believe you only have enough to support one per season combined (and the DNR does), do you really want to increase harvest (at all)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The info above is not exactly accurate. Under the Treaties listed above, we could basically make our own rules, but we don't. We do have limits just like anyone else, limits that were agreed upon with the DNR when the Consent Decree was created. These limits may be different from the State of Michigan, but the impact on the resource is far less. It's the Consent Decree that sets our seasons, limits, etc. The Consent Decree was agreed upon by all sides, not just the Tribes making their own rules. The DNR, and Biologists from the Tribes meet regularly to determine if our limits should be changed due to the impact Tribe Members may have on the resource. A handful of Tribal hunters have far less impact on the resource than the Trappers that fall under DNR regulations.


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

Thank you for the clarification, Bigbear. I have heard a lot about the fish reg meetings, however, not much is widely publicized about Native American furbearer reg procedure. Are you saying these regs are enforceable to an individual or are they recommended guidelines?

2014: Vote Yes For Conservation


----------



## Wolverick (Dec 11, 2008)

I`ll admit to going to my fail save position when I first heard about it. That is "governmental blundering". Why not? I have been pre-conditioned to it!

Beaverhunter2, seaarkshooter is right on. Great post. Thank you for enlightening us.


----------



## W.E.T BULLDOG09 (Sep 28, 2011)

If anyone is wondering about the Native harvest regulations, all you have to do is look them up. They are not kept under lock and key. It is not the no limit, free for all most people think it is.


----------



## backroadstravler (Jul 12, 2006)

And yet it was so easy for those rat trappers on the East side of the state got an extra month to trap rats and mink because it was good for them.


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

backroadstravler said:


> And yet it was so easy for those rat trappers on the East side of the state got an extra month to trap rats and mink because it was good for them.


Prioritizing the wants of residents of the state over non-residents whom may possibly COVET the natural resources of the state held in trust for ALL RESIDENTS! How dare my representatives SELFLESSLY think of my tax paying right to share equitably in the economic commonwealth of the state's renewable resources! Why would they dare do that!!!

That's it, I am packing up and moving to a state with a history of being slow to respond (like ND, MN or WI) in guaranteeing my secured future to hunt, fish and trap without for-profit fur grabbers making off with my leisurely ability to lose money enjoying a weekend hobby. 

2014: Vote Yes For Conservation


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

Seaarkshooter said:


> Thank you for the clarification, Bigbear. I have heard a lot about the fish reg meetings, however, not much is widely publicized about Native American furbearer reg procedure. Are you saying these regs are enforceable to an individual or are they recommended guidelines?
> 
> 2014: Vote Yes For Conservation


The regs are enforceable, violate one and we'll end up in Tribal Court. Many think the fines and punishments in Tribal Court are a joke, they would be misinformed. We have kill tags, and mandatory reporting for every fish, rabbit, deer, furbearer etc. that we take. We have to get our furbearers sealed for possession with either the Tribe Conservation dept. or the DNR, and we have to provide a tooth sample and harvest info just like everyone else.
We can also be stopped and checked by both Tribe LEO's and DNR CO's.


----------



## Watersmt (Jan 28, 2011)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> If you believe you only have enough to support one per season combined (and the DNR does), do you really want to increase harvest (at all)?
> 
> I do believe that one per season is an appropriate limit right now. In 2011 we dropped the limit of fishers from three to one. I feel let's give this some time to work.I have noticed a drastic drop in the fisher population and agree with the DNR.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Biggbear, I didn't say the natives had no limit. I said the NRC and DNR can not control their limits. I know the Tribal folks and the DNR meet to establish limits and seasons, but ultimately it is based on the voluntary agreement of the Tribes. I'm not sure what it is now but the last I heard the tribal limit on fisher was 5 per season per trapper. Also, not too many years ago I saw salmon traps set by natives in rivers of the Lake Michigan watershed.  (Keep in mind that there were never any salmon in Michigan waters until the 20th Century.) The tribes do control their harvest because I think they honestly want to protect the resources. However, some folks think they take more than they should. I think any restraint on the part of the tribes is a concession on their part because the Treaties that BOTH sides agreed to say they can do what they wish. And I applaud them (the Tribes) for it.

Watersmt,
The law that affects who can trap here is driven by reciprocity. Across the country, states try to establish equitable rules for their residents if they are going to allow non-residents to trap. There are a few exceptions (e.g. Florida that wants everyone that is willing to trap to do so- because their poor quality fur and restrictive laws have all but eliminated trapping there.)

I certainly understand your thoughts on non-resident "tourist" trappers, Those aren't the concerns. It's 150-200 Wisconsin guys crossing into the Western UP and increasing the fisher harvest by 10%+. The tough part is increasing opportunities while protecting the resource. That is why there are discussions about dealing separately with limited species.

I know some folks are concerned that if we restrict access to our limited species, other states may put similar restrictions on our trappers on similar species there. This is a risk. But many of those states are in a very different situation than Michigan. I have a couple friends from New York who used to trap every winter in Mississippi. One season I remember they took 250 beaver, 99 otter, 40 some bobcats, a similar number of gray fox, and a bunch of coyotes. The beaver were only worth $5 each but the landowners required that they trap beaver to access the other stuff. Now a lot of guys are sitting there reading this with bug eyes- but these folks are LOOKING FOR people to trap (all of these species). And these guys aren't tourist trappers. They are there to make money. They essentially buy only gas and licenses because the people they trap for provide food and lodging. These are the kinds of folks that the NGLFH was concerned could devastate the beaver in the EUP- guys who know what they are doing and are going to catch as many as they can. In 2012 there were just over 14,000 beaver taken in all of Michigan. How many more could the area support without a declining population? 

Our DNR can be conservative to a fault, but if the choice is overly conservative or overly reckless with our furbearer resources, I guess I'd vote for conservative. I remember when there was no marten or fisher trapping, the bobcat limit was 1 and the UP otter limit was 2, the NLP- 1, and the SLP- 0. I trapped beaver in the NLP when the limit was 8 and you couldn't set within 50' of a beaver house, hole, or dam (and the SLP season was closed). I'd hate to see those days again!

John


----------



## Wolverick (Dec 11, 2008)

Biggbear, I am wondering if the trapping limits of the tribe work the same way I understand deer hunting works. That is that you can take whatever regular residents can take plus the tribal limit. Is that correct? 

I would also vote to err on the side of the resource. In fact the states that limit the catch of certain species may have an interest in restricting 
non-resident take in their own favor.


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

Wolverick said:


> Biggbear, I am wondering if the trapping limits of the tribe work the same way I understand deer hunting works. That is that you can take whatever regular residents can take plus the tribal limit. Is that correct?
> 
> I would also vote to err on the side of the resource. In fact the states that limit the catch of certain species may have an interest in restricting
> non-resident take in their own favor.


Unfortunately, that is correct. I personally don't use that loophole, but I'm sure there are people who do. The only State License I've bought for the last few years is for Small Game and Waterfowl, I live downstate and in order to hunt down here I need a State License.

I don't agree with that loophole, but I don't see a practical way to do away with it either.

For what ever it's worth, the vast majority of Tribe Members do only hunt/fish/trap under our system when they're in the 1836 Treaty area. Most of us don't want to do anything to harm the resource, unfortunately just like in every demographic, there are bad apples.

I can't stand it when I see court cases against Tribe Members for poaching. It makes things tougher on those of us that are operating within the system legally.


----------



## Wolverick (Dec 11, 2008)

I know what you are saying is true for most and I wish the inequities could be corrected as well. 

Just as an aside, one of the tribes was helping pay for research on pine martens in the NLP as late as 2011, according to what I have been able to find out. There is no reason they can not be an asset to wildlife and the environment in Michigan. Their unique status gives them a certain amount of political clout in Lansing. More of this type of action on the part of the tribes could help improve relations among the outdoor community.


----------

