Oregon trap and fur ban
Oregon trap and fur ban
Im sure most already know or have heard but trap free oregon and HSUS are trying to not only ban trapping here but also the fur trade as well, oregon outdoor council as well as oregon trappers association are fighting a heck of a fight.
cant never could
-
al baldwin
- Babble Mouth
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:50 pm
- Location: OREGON
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
If this is passed, would snares also be banned? Al
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
Attempt to ban Trapping in Oregon
"Trap Free Oregon" is circulating petitions to get on the ballot in 2014 a measure that will ban ALL civilian trapping (with minor exemptions).
The group is based out of Bend, Oregon. This is their 3th attempt for such a ban.
Their bill requires that the state trap any animal except exempt animals:
mice
rats
gophers
moles
ground squirrels
non-furbearing rodents (undefined).
So it'll require the state to trap any tree squirrels, raccoons, possums, nutria, beavers, otters etc which are causing damage to structures, levies, embankments, canals etc.
OR
By an ODFW 30 day permit AFTER a "publicly available study has been completed (also undefined)".
So all the extermination businesses will likely be severely hurt or go under and ODFW will likely end up spending HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS to trap problem animals all over the state.
Even for someone who doesn't like trapping this initiative (not I, but for someone on the fence) is HORRIBLY structured and will cost the state with an already lopsided budget loads of money.
HSUS RAT BASTARDS are back at it!
"Trap Free Oregon" is circulating petitions to get on the ballot in 2014 a measure that will ban ALL civilian trapping (with minor exemptions).
The group is based out of Bend, Oregon. This is their 3th attempt for such a ban.
Their bill requires that the state trap any animal except exempt animals:
mice
rats
gophers
moles
ground squirrels
non-furbearing rodents (undefined).
So it'll require the state to trap any tree squirrels, raccoons, possums, nutria, beavers, otters etc which are causing damage to structures, levies, embankments, canals etc.
OR
By an ODFW 30 day permit AFTER a "publicly available study has been completed (also undefined)".
So all the extermination businesses will likely be severely hurt or go under and ODFW will likely end up spending HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS to trap problem animals all over the state.
Even for someone who doesn't like trapping this initiative (not I, but for someone on the fence) is HORRIBLY structured and will cost the state with an already lopsided budget loads of money.
HSUS RAT BASTARDS are back at it!
Ignorance and not getting involved is the biggest enemy to a Houndsmen!
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
Al: This bill would band all traps and snares including live traps and the sale of all raw hides no matter how they were caught as I understand it. No hunter or outdoor user should support this bill. Hounds will be next. Them bird hunting. They are out to stop all hunting, just taking one at a time. If they keep us divided they will win one at a time. Dewey
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
i believe there main objective is to try to get rid of the fur market in oregon if this passes no one will be able to sale fur no matter how it was caught/treed road kill nothin cant sell it. and all forms of traps would be out. they even want to outlaw poisoning wich i might add is already illegal for anyone but the government to do. this is not a good bill this will close down everyone because if they pass this then there next fight will be after hounds
cant never could
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
HSUS = ONE PIECE AT A TIME!
Ignorance and not getting involved is the biggest enemy to a Houndsmen!
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
That was my thoughts as well, however some of the local boys here think that you'll be able to sell cats still because they weren't trapped. Really need to get this point across to these guys. Dewey, you might have some pull being in OUSDA rep.
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
yeah we need to get the point across i have talked to acouple guys here that though it was just to ban trapping till i told them they to wount be able to sell hides this doesnt just effect trappers it effects anyone who hunt for fur be it with hounds or a caller if this passes there wount be any more fur trade then they will say hound hunting is pointless and we are killing the poor critters for no reason
cant never could
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
Anytime the HSUS gets behind or sponsors a bill/law it should make all of us nervous!
Ignorance and not getting involved is the biggest enemy to a Houndsmen!
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
very nervous they have money coming out of there ears from false advertisments on tv and people thinking they are donating to a animal shelter when really they are donating to all the wrong causes.
We all need to stand up to this one weather we trap or not because in the end this will effect all houndsmen as well.
We all need to stand up to this one weather we trap or not because in the end this will effect all houndsmen as well.
cant never could
-
mike martell
- Babble Mouth
- Posts: 1468
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:30 pm
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: oregon
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
Below is the actual bill from the web page of Trap Free Oregon.....Who wrote this bill? HSUS or Odfw & USDA? Read from three down to the bottom and take the time to let this sink in! There appears to be a cozy relationship between the Government and the Enemy....You decide!
.............BEGIN BALLOT INITIATIVE.............
A MEASURE RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PETS
1. Notwithstanding ORS 610.060, ORS 610.105, and ORS 498.012, it shall be unlawful for any person:
a) To trap any animal for commerce in raw fur or body parts, or for recreation;
b) To buy, sell, barter, or otherwise exchange, or offer to buy, sell, barter, or otherwise exchange, the raw fur or any other body part of any wild animal that has been trapped;
c) To poison or attempt to poison any animal using sodium fluoroacetate (also known as Compound 1080) or sodium cyanide.
d) To kill or attempt to kill any mammal with poison, except as provided in subsection (12) of this section.
e) To use or authorize the use of any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap.
2. Notwithstanding subsection (1)(e) of this section, a person is permitted to use a Conibear trap in water, a padded leg-hold trap, or a non-strangling foot snare on private land, subject to existing state and federal laws and regulations.
3. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from granting a special permit to state or federal employees or their agents to use a Conibear trap in water, a padded leg-hold trap, or a non-strangling foot snare on any public land including state owned or state leased land, lands administered by the United States Forest Service, the Federal Bureau of Land Management, The National Park Service, The United States Department of Defense, The State Parks Board and any county or municipality if it is established that there exists on the public land in question an animal problem that has not been and cannot be reasonably abated by the use of nonlethal control tools, including but not limited to changes in livestock management practices, the use of guard animals, barriers, alarm devices, hazing, or human supervision or if such nonlethal means cannot be reasonably applied. Upon making a written finding, freely available to the public, that the animal problem has not been abated by the reasonable use of nonlethal control tools and cannot be reasonably abated by nonlethal control tools or if the tools cannot be reasonably applied, the director may authorize the use, setting, placing, or maintenance of the traps for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.
4. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from granting a special permit to federal, state, county, or municipal employees or agents to use any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap for the purpose of protecting people from threats to their health and safety.
5. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from issuing permits to use padded leghold traps or non-strangling foot snares for the conduct of legitimate wildlife research by credentialed professional biologists.
6. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from granting a special permit to department employees or agents or other state agencies to use any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap where the use of the traps is the only practical means of protecting threatened or endangered species as designated under ORS 486.182.
7. Nothing in this section prohibits the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, it employees or agents, from using any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap where the Service determines, in consultation with the Director, that the use of such traps is necessary to protect species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.).
8. When legally employing any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap, the immediate area where such traps are deployed, on public land or private property legally accessible to the public, shall be prominently marked with highly-visible, durable warning signs.
9. Any legally employed Conibear trap, body-gripping trap, or cage trap shall be checked at intervals not to exceed 24 hours.
10. A violation of this section is a class A misdemeanor.
11. Nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner to affect the taking of wildlife with firearms, with fishing equipment, with archery equipment, or other implements in hand as may be defined or regulated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, including the taking of wildlife pursuant to a hunting or fishing license issued by ODFW.
12. Nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner to affect the ability of any person to trap or poison mice, rats, gophers, moles, ground squirrels, or non-furbearing rodents.
13. Definitions:
a) "Trap" for purposes of this section incorporates the definition in ORS 496.004(18). For purposes of this section, this definition and the terms defined in subsection (b), (c) and (d) do not include lariats, head gates, catchpoles, or methods used to temporarily detain livestock.
b) “Conibear trap” means any trap of various manufacturers having design and operational characteristics essentially the same as or like that developed by Frank Conibear and designed and set to kill an animal instantly.
c) "Body-gripping trap" means a trap that grips an animal's body or body part.
d) "Cage trap" means a trap that allows the animal to be lured into an enclosure and closes the entryway to prevent escape and is intended to capture an animal alive.
e) “Padded leg-hold trap” means a trap designed and set to grip the foot or limb of an animal, both jaws of which are covered with rubber pads having a minimum thickness of one-eighth inch.
f) “Non-strangling foot snare” means a cable or wire designed and set to encircle and hold an animal’s foot or limb without tightening down as the animal’s limb moves.
g) "Raw fur" means the hide or pelt of any animal.
h) “Animal" means any nonhuman warm-blooded vertebrate.
i) “Person” as used in this section means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or public or private organization of any character.
................END OF BALLOT INITIATIVE..............
.............BEGIN BALLOT INITIATIVE.............
A MEASURE RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PETS
1. Notwithstanding ORS 610.060, ORS 610.105, and ORS 498.012, it shall be unlawful for any person:
a) To trap any animal for commerce in raw fur or body parts, or for recreation;
b) To buy, sell, barter, or otherwise exchange, or offer to buy, sell, barter, or otherwise exchange, the raw fur or any other body part of any wild animal that has been trapped;
c) To poison or attempt to poison any animal using sodium fluoroacetate (also known as Compound 1080) or sodium cyanide.
d) To kill or attempt to kill any mammal with poison, except as provided in subsection (12) of this section.
e) To use or authorize the use of any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap.
2. Notwithstanding subsection (1)(e) of this section, a person is permitted to use a Conibear trap in water, a padded leg-hold trap, or a non-strangling foot snare on private land, subject to existing state and federal laws and regulations.
3. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from granting a special permit to state or federal employees or their agents to use a Conibear trap in water, a padded leg-hold trap, or a non-strangling foot snare on any public land including state owned or state leased land, lands administered by the United States Forest Service, the Federal Bureau of Land Management, The National Park Service, The United States Department of Defense, The State Parks Board and any county or municipality if it is established that there exists on the public land in question an animal problem that has not been and cannot be reasonably abated by the use of nonlethal control tools, including but not limited to changes in livestock management practices, the use of guard animals, barriers, alarm devices, hazing, or human supervision or if such nonlethal means cannot be reasonably applied. Upon making a written finding, freely available to the public, that the animal problem has not been abated by the reasonable use of nonlethal control tools and cannot be reasonably abated by nonlethal control tools or if the tools cannot be reasonably applied, the director may authorize the use, setting, placing, or maintenance of the traps for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.
4. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from granting a special permit to federal, state, county, or municipal employees or agents to use any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap for the purpose of protecting people from threats to their health and safety.
5. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from issuing permits to use padded leghold traps or non-strangling foot snares for the conduct of legitimate wildlife research by credentialed professional biologists.
6. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from granting a special permit to department employees or agents or other state agencies to use any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap where the use of the traps is the only practical means of protecting threatened or endangered species as designated under ORS 486.182.
7. Nothing in this section prohibits the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, it employees or agents, from using any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap where the Service determines, in consultation with the Director, that the use of such traps is necessary to protect species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.).
8. When legally employing any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap, the immediate area where such traps are deployed, on public land or private property legally accessible to the public, shall be prominently marked with highly-visible, durable warning signs.
9. Any legally employed Conibear trap, body-gripping trap, or cage trap shall be checked at intervals not to exceed 24 hours.
10. A violation of this section is a class A misdemeanor.
11. Nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner to affect the taking of wildlife with firearms, with fishing equipment, with archery equipment, or other implements in hand as may be defined or regulated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, including the taking of wildlife pursuant to a hunting or fishing license issued by ODFW.
12. Nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner to affect the ability of any person to trap or poison mice, rats, gophers, moles, ground squirrels, or non-furbearing rodents.
13. Definitions:
a) "Trap" for purposes of this section incorporates the definition in ORS 496.004(18). For purposes of this section, this definition and the terms defined in subsection (b), (c) and (d) do not include lariats, head gates, catchpoles, or methods used to temporarily detain livestock.
b) “Conibear trap” means any trap of various manufacturers having design and operational characteristics essentially the same as or like that developed by Frank Conibear and designed and set to kill an animal instantly.
c) "Body-gripping trap" means a trap that grips an animal's body or body part.
d) "Cage trap" means a trap that allows the animal to be lured into an enclosure and closes the entryway to prevent escape and is intended to capture an animal alive.
e) “Padded leg-hold trap” means a trap designed and set to grip the foot or limb of an animal, both jaws of which are covered with rubber pads having a minimum thickness of one-eighth inch.
f) “Non-strangling foot snare” means a cable or wire designed and set to encircle and hold an animal’s foot or limb without tightening down as the animal’s limb moves.
g) "Raw fur" means the hide or pelt of any animal.
h) “Animal" means any nonhuman warm-blooded vertebrate.
i) “Person” as used in this section means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or public or private organization of any character.
................END OF BALLOT INITIATIVE..............
-
meagain
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:45 pm
- Location: California
- Facebook ID: 1395811165
- Location: On a levee somewhere in
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
100% prejudice. This is a direct attack on civil rights! Separation of people and government. It allows the governing body rights that have absolutely no bearing concerning public health and safety.
What I mean is that this bill is another attempt at denying the public of a legal act while empowering the government the same physical act or process.
This has me mad as hell
For the record: I don't trap! I do run dogs. I guess we need to propose a bill to outlaw the following. Jogging, bicycling in public, eating granola, and skinny jeans! All of those in my opinion are safety issues. Haha.
What I mean is that this bill is another attempt at denying the public of a legal act while empowering the government the same physical act or process.
This has me mad as hell
For the record: I don't trap! I do run dogs. I guess we need to propose a bill to outlaw the following. Jogging, bicycling in public, eating granola, and skinny jeans! All of those in my opinion are safety issues. Haha.
Lloyd Close
-
mike martell
- Babble Mouth
- Posts: 1468
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:30 pm
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: oregon
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
Lloyd
You are spot on!
The passage of this bill results in growth of more Government. Has nothing to do with banning squat. Simply stated it just gives Government the job instead of the utilization of sport hunters/trappers as a management tool for the State as intended decades ago. How about the Pittman-Robertson act? Our dollars from license and tag fees? Tax revenue from the sale of firearms and ammo?
Last year the Oregon House & Senate passed H.B. 3636. This bill was intended for funding Government?
WTF? We pay our own way! How ironic.....This bill went through both party lines with 100% yes votes.Every one of our solid Republican members on both floors supported passage of this bill to fund Government....And I listen to the bullcrap Odfw can't involve itself in politics? Government is Government.......The Oregon House and Senate is State Government and Odfw is also State Government while Usda is Federal Government....
Get the picture folks?
I have been saying this for many years and now we are living in the new Government controlled era.If you don't get this, reference the National scene!
Here is another classic example of why the passage of this trapping ban bill will be a win win situation for the chosen few....Pay attention.....Odfw has its players situated with hounds for cougar (The lanfill plan)and snares for bear ($180.00 to feed the homeless per butcher bill) and properly funded by our dollars to eradicate both species....
The president of the Oregon trappers association will be the biggest winner should this trapping ban pass....Same man owns a wildlife services trapping business and also happens to be the single largest contract bear snare man in Oregon under the direction of Odfw.
Conflict of interest? Once more, you decide!
The argument to support snares is supported by the claim the timber producer is picking up all cost associated, There are a few producers who pay their own way, but if you want to understand the relationship Odfw shares with the corporations, simply read the latest Black Bear management plan, over a decade late of being published? Once more by design of none other than Odfw!....If corporations payed their own way their would be no need to pass H.B. 3636 to fund Government or double our license and tag fees now would there?
Why would any timber producer want your yapping hounds on their ownership and dealing with them running off the ownership when they simply set a stealthy quite rank bait and a mechanically fired ankle catch snare set to a gps coordinance that a kid could monitor funded by your dollars? Oregon Timber producer to Oregon hound hunters....You all can go to hell! Provisions are secured in the anti trapping bill to protect us and our interest....Do you understand how this bill is written?
H.B.2971 was passed in 2007.....Provisions are still in place for Odfw to utalize sport hunters as a management tool for Odfw.Denied by Odfw but supported by the simple facts! The resistance is Odfw not Hsus....Who is the real enemy to sport hunters?
Overview.
Looking at the decline of sport hunters across the land equals declining revenue. Lands are being locked up to access. This leads the law makers to look for alternative solutions like the money pit supporting the wolf introduction by U.S. Fish and Wildlife not the environmental groups as suggested. This is simply the retirement plan for both State and Federal Government employees. Liberalism is the trend and Government is the money tree.
Mike Martell
You are spot on!
The passage of this bill results in growth of more Government. Has nothing to do with banning squat. Simply stated it just gives Government the job instead of the utilization of sport hunters/trappers as a management tool for the State as intended decades ago. How about the Pittman-Robertson act? Our dollars from license and tag fees? Tax revenue from the sale of firearms and ammo?
Last year the Oregon House & Senate passed H.B. 3636. This bill was intended for funding Government?
WTF? We pay our own way! How ironic.....This bill went through both party lines with 100% yes votes.Every one of our solid Republican members on both floors supported passage of this bill to fund Government....And I listen to the bullcrap Odfw can't involve itself in politics? Government is Government.......The Oregon House and Senate is State Government and Odfw is also State Government while Usda is Federal Government....
Get the picture folks?
I have been saying this for many years and now we are living in the new Government controlled era.If you don't get this, reference the National scene!
Here is another classic example of why the passage of this trapping ban bill will be a win win situation for the chosen few....Pay attention.....Odfw has its players situated with hounds for cougar (The lanfill plan)and snares for bear ($180.00 to feed the homeless per butcher bill) and properly funded by our dollars to eradicate both species....
The president of the Oregon trappers association will be the biggest winner should this trapping ban pass....Same man owns a wildlife services trapping business and also happens to be the single largest contract bear snare man in Oregon under the direction of Odfw.
Conflict of interest? Once more, you decide!
The argument to support snares is supported by the claim the timber producer is picking up all cost associated, There are a few producers who pay their own way, but if you want to understand the relationship Odfw shares with the corporations, simply read the latest Black Bear management plan, over a decade late of being published? Once more by design of none other than Odfw!....If corporations payed their own way their would be no need to pass H.B. 3636 to fund Government or double our license and tag fees now would there?
Why would any timber producer want your yapping hounds on their ownership and dealing with them running off the ownership when they simply set a stealthy quite rank bait and a mechanically fired ankle catch snare set to a gps coordinance that a kid could monitor funded by your dollars? Oregon Timber producer to Oregon hound hunters....You all can go to hell! Provisions are secured in the anti trapping bill to protect us and our interest....Do you understand how this bill is written?
H.B.2971 was passed in 2007.....Provisions are still in place for Odfw to utalize sport hunters as a management tool for Odfw.Denied by Odfw but supported by the simple facts! The resistance is Odfw not Hsus....Who is the real enemy to sport hunters?
Overview.
Looking at the decline of sport hunters across the land equals declining revenue. Lands are being locked up to access. This leads the law makers to look for alternative solutions like the money pit supporting the wolf introduction by U.S. Fish and Wildlife not the environmental groups as suggested. This is simply the retirement plan for both State and Federal Government employees. Liberalism is the trend and Government is the money tree.
Mike Martell
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
Mike i agree with alot of what you say but i do not think how ever that the biggest winner if the ban was passed would be the president of oregon trappers, just because the guy has his own buisness doesnt mean he is pushing for this in fact i know for a fact that he is fighting this with all he has. the last 2 times the anti's have tried to ban trapping he has helped put a stop to it all. and just because his buisness snares bear doesnt mean nothing because your average joe blow cant go out and snare bear LOL. you might forget that he is also a fur trapper and welll if he wanted this to pass he would be cutting his own throat.
we all need to stand up agianst this bill weather you trap or run dogs because it effects us all if you want to sell oregon fur this bill can not pass. if this passes they will more then likley come after the hounds full force saying there is no reason to run hounds when you cant sell fur or anything.
we all need to stand up agianst this bill weather you trap or run dogs because it effects us all if you want to sell oregon fur this bill can not pass. if this passes they will more then likley come after the hounds full force saying there is no reason to run hounds when you cant sell fur or anything.
cant never could
-
al baldwin
- Babble Mouth
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:50 pm
- Location: OREGON
Re: Oregon trap and fur ban
bluedogs wrote:Mike i agree with alot of what you say but i do not think how ever that the biggest winner if the ban was passed would be the president of oregon trappers, just because the guy has his own buisness doesnt mean he is pushing for this in fact i know for a fact that he is fighting this with all he has. the last 2 times the anti's have tried to ban trapping he has helped put a stop to it all. and just because his buisness snares bear doesnt mean nothing because your average joe blow cant go out and snare bear LOL. you might forget that he is also a fur trapper and welll if he wanted this to pass he would be cutting his own throat.
we all need to stand up agianst this bill weather you trap or run dogs because it effects us all if you want to sell oregon fur this bill can not pass. if this passes they will more then likley come after the hounds full force saying there is no reason to run hounds when you cant sell fur or anything.
Where, in this bill posted by Mike Martel, does it state if passed, fur caught by hounds can/t be sold in Oregon? Did I miss something? Just an honest question. Thanks Al