Maine Trappers Association

JULY 2010

New Administration Will Impact Traditional Outdoor Activities

Another gubernatorial election is just around the corner! When Maine voters elect a new Governor on November 2nd, we’ll be starting a chain reaction resulting in the replacement of many bureaucrats who’ve been making policy decisions about our natural resources. The departments of Fish and Wildlife, Conservation, Agriculture and Marine Resources will likely have new commissioners and deputy commissioners. Even some Bureau Directors will be replaced. The new Governor will have new advisors in his or her office making recommendations on issues related to the outdoors.

Many of us who represent groups and organizations whose members rely on natural resources for their livelihood or recreation have been looking forward to this election with enthusiasm. While there are a couple of high-ranking officials we’d like to have stay where they are, a major change in philosophy among top Administration officials is a top priority. For too long we’ve been fighting to keep the current Administration from consolidating our small constituent-focused natural resource agencies. For too long we’ve been fighting to keep our public lands open to all user groups, both consumptive and non-consumptive. For too long we’ve been trying to keep the State from deciding what forms of outdoor recreation will be allowed on privately owned lands. Even as I’m writing this article, we’re trying to make sure that the Administration in Augusta and the Administration in Washington DC don’t “cut a deal” behind our backs that gives the Feds regulatory authority over millions of acres of Maine’s working forests. Maybe 2010 will bring the change in direction that we’ve been working toward. Maybe this will be the year we elect a Governor who understands and appreciates the economic impact of hunting, fishing, trapping and guiding and is willing to commit the funds necessary to properly manage the natural resources that these activities require.

When was the last time we had someone in the Blaine House who actually hunted? My best guess is that it was back in the 50s when Ed Muskie was Governor. We missed a chance to place an avid hunter on the November ballot when Steve Abbott failed to win the Republican primary last month. Word on the street around the Augusta area is that the gubernatorial candidates who survived the primary elections, Senate President Libby Mitchell (Democrat) and Waterville Mayor Paul LePage (Republican), will have a tough time getting elected this fall. Mitchell is viewed by many as too liberal and LePage as too conservative. If that thinking holds true, the stage will be set for Maine to have another Independent Governor (the third Independent of the six most recent Governors).

Three Independent gubernatorial candidates will appear on the November ballot: Shawn Moody of Gorham (owner of Moody’s Collision Centers), Kevin Scott of Andover (owner of a high tech employment firm) and Eliot Cutler of Cape Elizabeth (an attorney who was born and raised in Bangor and who began his legal career working in Washington DC for Ed Muskie). Of the three Independent candidates, Cutler appears to be the only serious contender at this point in time. In my next newsletter report, I hope to be able to give you information about how each of the five candidates feels about our way of life and the natural resources that make our life-style possible.

Elowe Leaving Fish and Wildlife

Dr. Ken Elowe is leaving his position at the Fish and Wildlife Department, effective July 30, 2010. Ken has been with the Department for more than 20 years. When he first joined the Department, he served as project leader for the bear and furbearer groups. Over the past 12 years, Ken has served as the Director of the Bureau of Resource Management at the Department – the top fish and wildlife biologist in the State. Ken is leaving the Department to accept a position as Assistant Regional Director of Science Applications at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 5 Headquarters in Hadley, Massachusetts.

Earlier in life, Ken trapped and hunted with hounds and, throughout his stint with the Department, has remained a strong advocate of trapping and hunting with the use of dogs. He played a key role in helping defeat the 2004 ballot initiate that would have banned bear trapping as well as hunting for bear with dogs and over bait. More recently he was the State’s expert witness in the lynx lawsuit that threatened to shut down trapping in the northern half of the state. In deciding the lawsuit in favor of the State and Maine trappers, Federal Judge John Woodcock stated that he had relied heavily on the testimony presented by Dr. Elowe.

While the MTA may not have agreed with every furbearer related decision that Ken made over the past two decades, we always felt that our concerns were considered, and our working relationship with Ken has remained strong. We’re going to miss Ken and the role he played in helping to keep our trapping heritage alive. I personally have enjoyed a long positive relationship with Ken, and I'm going to miss being able to give him a call at any time, at work or at home, and get the help I need. We all wish him well in his new endeavor and expect to hear a lot of good things about his accomplishments at the federal level.

SAM Looking For New Executive Director

George Smith is also stepping down from the position he has held at the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine for nearly twenty years. He will remain at SAM for the remainder of 2010 and help train his replacement.

Over the past 18 years, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine has withstood its share of controversy. Several times throughout that period I’ve been thoroughly convinced that George Smith would either be forced out or walk away in frustration. Needless to say, I’ve been wrong every time! I frequently refer to George as a survivor. Not only that, he’s a heck of a lobbyist! Whether you agree with him or not, you can’t help but admire his passion, his tenacity and his intense desire to come out on top.

I’ve known George for longer than either of us probably cares to admit. I got to know him really well when we worked side-by-side, day in and day out, for a year-and-a-half leading up to the 2004 bear referendum. We were part of a larger team of decision makers, but George was clearly the “top dog”. I doubt we’d have defeated the referendum without him. A short time later, George and I were on opposite sides of the contentious Sunday hunting battle. We’ve been on opposite sides of the fence a few other times. Through it all, our relationship has remained the same. I’ve always considered George to be a good friend even when we were at odds.

Whenever a really tough trapping bill would come along, George was usually one of the first to volunteer his help. Several times he reminded me that he didn’t know a lot about trapping, but if I would tell him what needed to be said, he’d say it. Then he’d jump in with both feet, and work really hard to do what was best for the future of trapping. George has done a lot for the sportsmen and sportswomen of Maine. Things won’t be the same at SAM after he’s gone. The MTA wishes him well wherever he goes and whatever he does. I’m personally going to miss watching him in action in the halls of the Legislature next winter.

Department Rule-Making Agenda Includes Muskrat Trapping

Last fall when the F&W Department filed the 2009/10 beaver trapping rules with the Secretary of State, some of the language related to the winter trapping of muskrats was mistakenly left out. As a result, as I reported in the April newsletter, we inadvertently lost the use of foothold traps for taking muskrats during January, February and March. When I brought the error to the attention of Mark Stadler, Director of the Wildlife Division, Mark took responsibility for the mistake and promised to fix it prior to another trapping season. I recently touched bases again with Mark on this issue. He assured me that they are already working on the beaver trapping rules for the coming season, and the new rules will restore the use of footholds for muskrats from the end of December through March 31st in areas open to beaver trapping. Mark also indicated a willingness to pursue the use of footholds for muskrats on covered floats after the end of March in areas that remain open to beaver trapping. I’ll be working with Mark, as well as the furbearer biologist, John DePue, on an understandable definition of “covered float” that can be incorporated into the rule. Unless something unforeseen happens, it looks as if we’ll finally be able to use covered floats for ‘rats in the spring of 2011.

Governor Creates Task Force To Review ATV Law

If Governor Baldacci has set any records during his nearly eight years in office, one of those records would almost certainly be the number of Task Forces he has created. In fact, I’ve heard him referred to more than once as the Task Force Governor. Most of those Task Forces have been well intentioned, have involved a lot of hard work by a lot of dedicated volunteers, have produced a tremendous number of outstanding recommendations and have resulted in relatively few changes. The reason is obvious. Most Task Force recommendations cost a lot of money to implement, and there hasn’t been a lot of extra money in the State’s checking account in recent years.

One Task Force that resulted in numerous beneficial changes was the ATV Task Force that Governor Baldacci brought together in 2003, early in his first term. At that time, problems associated with the misuse of ATVs were so bad that some folks were actually calling for a ban on the use of these machines. Several Task Force recommendations were enacted into law, and the future of ATVing in Maine was soon looking a lot brighter. The Task Force recommended change that seems to have helped the most is the requirement that ATVers must have permission before operating on someone else’s land.

People seem to have short memories, however, and in 2009 the Legislature enacted a new law that made it virtually impossible to enforce that landowner permission requirement. Many landowners were extremely upset with this new development and threatened to post their lands against the use of ATVs. As a result, Representative Ralph Sarty submitted LD # 1536, An Act To Amend The Standards By Which Game Wardens May Stop All-terrain Vehicles When Operating On Private Property, in hopes that it would resolve the landowner relations problems that the newly enacted law has created. His bill would have given law enforcement officers the same authority to stop an ATV being operated on privately owned land that was in place prior to 2009 – the same authority that currently exists for stopping snowmobiles. .

Unfortunately, LD # 1536 didn’t make it. The bill proved to be extremely controversial and, after bouncing back and forth between the House and the Senate, it eventually died between the two Bodies for lack of agreement. Failure of the Legislature to enact LD # 1536 was, in my opinion, a huge mistake. It has already resulted in more posted land.

This recently heightened tension between ATVers and landowners has caught the attention of the Governor, and it’s like “deja vu all over again”. The Governor has assembled a 16 person Task Force to look into the matter and report back to him by December 15th, a couple of weeks before he leaves office. According to a recent article in the Kennebec Journal, the Governor is concerned the law enacted in 2009 will cause ATV riders to lose access to property because “Law enforcement officers are no longer authorized to proactively address safety and landowner relations issues”. Too bad he hadn’t just vetoed the troublesome bill when it hit his desk in 2009.

I’m predicting that a new Legislature, working with a brand new Administration, will resolve this problem next winter. Let’s hope so. Otherwise all of us stand to lose access to a lot of privately owned land that we’ve previously been allowed to use. The MTA will continue to work with landowners to get this issue straightened out.

Charges Against “Wronged” Trapper Will Stand

In March, I told you about an MTA member who was cited by a game warden because he set a trap within 200 yards of a dwelling without the permission of the homeowner. The trapper had caught the homeowner’s cat and released it. The trapper did not have permission from the homeowner to set the trap. He did, however, have permission from the owner of the land where the trap was set. The trapper did not believe he had violated the law, but he chose to handle the matter in what he considered to be the easiest and cheapest way out. He appeared in court, pled guilty and paid a hefty fine.

I found out about the incident after the case had been settled. Based on the information available to me at the time, I didn’t think the trapper had done anything wrong either. As I’ve explained several times in past newsletter articles, the law only requires permission from the owner of the land on which the trap is set. You are never required to get permission from an abutting landowner regardless of how close the trap is set to the abutting landowner's home. Consequently, I contacted the two top officers in the Maine Warden Service, Colonel Wilkinson and Major Sanborn, and asked if they’d look into the matter. I received a quick response from both, and the Colonel’s email message assured me that one of the Lieutenants would be “gathering the facts on our side of the shop and we will get back to you on this one”.

In late March I received a very nice letter from the involved trapper thanking me for all my efforts on behalf of Maine trappers. Included with the letter was a copy of the report he received from a warden sergeant outlining the sergeant’s investigation into the incident. In a nutshell, the Warden Service determined that the violation would stand. The investigation showed that “The verbal permission that was granted on the land where you had set the trap did not conform to the statute. The permission you had to trap was not in writing by your own admission.”

I’m disappointed at the way this all played out. Here was a trapper who had been trapping on a farmer’s land for the past eight years with that farmer’s permission. Here was a trapper who thought he was doing things right. I can’t fault the findings of the sergeant who investigated the incident. He was technically correct in his findings – the permission was only verbal and not in writing. What the investigation failed to show, however, is that the trapper was cited for not having permission from the abutting landowner, a violation that doesn’t exist. Had the warden fully understood the law at the time the incident took place, I doubt that a citation would have ever been issued The trapper did have permission from the person who was supposed to give it – the owner of the land where the trap was set. Unfortunately that permission was not in writing and, as a result, the warden is off the hook. In the meantime, the statistics simply show another trapper that broke the law, received a citation and was found guilty as charged.

I recently had a long telephone conversation with the involved trapper. He continues to believe he was wronged, but his attitude remains good. He can’t wait to go trapping again! His permission from the farmer is now in writing, and, come October, he’ll likely be placing another 1.5 coil spring at the same set that got him in trouble last year. His conviction is now water over the dam, but, in my opinion, this was a case that was handled poorly all the way around and is not consistent with the goal of the Maine Warden Service to catch and prosecute intentional violators.

No Change In Status Of Lawsuit Appeal

Nothing has changed since my last newsletter report with regard to the plaintiff’s appeal of Judge Woodcock’s decision in the lynx lawsuit. We (the interveners) filed the last of our required paperwork with the US Court of Appeals in Boston at the end of March. Since that time we have heard nothing from the Court. Our attorneys still believe that it will be September, at the earliest, before the Court moves ahead with this appeal

What’s The Holdup On The ITP For Lynx?

In the April newsletter I reported that the US Fish and Wildlife Service was on the verge of publishing in the Federal Register their intent to issue an Incidental Take Permit for lynx to the State of Maine. They had hoped to do it sometime in May. That didn’t happen, and it doesn’t look as if they’ll get it done in June either. During a recent telephone conversation with Ken Elowe, he told me that he was doing everything within his power to get the Feds to publish the ITP proposal in the Federal Register before he leaves his current position. If he’s successful, we’ll get to see the proposal before the end of July. The word Ken has been getting from the Feds is that it’s taking their lawyers longer than they thought to get all the legal issues resolved. When they get it done, as I said in April, we’ll be contacting all MTA members, describing the trapping restrictions that are included in the proposed permit and explaining when and how to submit comments to the Feds.

Have a great summer.

See you at the Rendezvous in September! Skip

APRIL 2010:

Saint Patrick’s Day finds me sitting at my computer working diligently to get my report completed before the March 20 deadline. Spring is in the air, and I’d much rather be outside cutting wood or in the fur shed getting the last of my fall ‘rat pelts on the boards. Looking out over Cobbossee Lake, I can see large areas of open water. A strong wind will remove the remainder of the winter ice within hours. The lake will be ice free about a month earlier than usual. Most streams are already free of ice, and I was thinking about setting out a few floats and catching some of those heavily furred spring muskrats. Unfortunately, I recently learned that we somehow lost the use of footholds for taking ‘rats after the end of the regular trapping season.

Other trappers are also beginning to find out that the footholds they set on platforms under the ice in January and February were illegal. I’m starting to get lots of calls. Trappers are wondering how this could have happened without anyone knowing about it. My copy of the current law book here on my desk clearly states that after the end of the general trapping season I am allowed to continue to trap for muskrats in any area of the state that is open to beaver trapping (Section 12 of the trapping rules). It also says (Section 18, subsection H) that muskrat trapping in areas open to beaver trapping is restricted to the underwater use of killer-type traps and colony traps after March 31st. That indicates to me that, as in past years, I’m allowed to use footholds for ‘rats until April. The old language, which was adopted several years, reads as follows:

“After the close of the Regular Statewide Trapping Season (#2 below), muskrats may still be trapped but only until March 31, and only in areas that are open to beaver trapping. After March 31st muskrats may be trapped only with the use of killer-type traps and colony traps, and all traps must be set so as to remain

completely under water at all times. In addition, in any township of the State that is open to beaver trapping, any mink or otter taken in a beaver or muskrat set, so- called, may be lawfully possessed by any licensed trapper.” In 2008, an amended version of this same language was filed with the Secretary of State. The amendment only changed one word and allows trappers to legally possess mink taken incidental to beaver trapping – a change adopted by the Department at the request of the MTA.

This year, with no notification to trappers, the old language was replaced with new language and was filed with the Secretary of State on October 15, 2009, as part of the beaver trapping rules. Here’s the new language:

“After the close of the Regular Trapping Season (paragraph 2 below), muskrats may still be trapped in those Wildlife Management Districts open to beaver trapping, using killer-type traps or colony traps.”

As you can see for yourself, the language previously in effect was poorly written and needed to be cleaned up. Unfortunately, the new wording did a lot more than just make clarifications, it changed the meaning completely. As a result, we lost the under-ice use of footholds for muskrats for the entire winter (January, February and March). When this was brought to my attention by MTA member John Sewell from Washington County, I immediately contacted Mark Stadler, Director of Wildlife at the Department, to find out what had happened. After a little research, Mark got back to me to explain that, as I had suspected, the language that was adopted was not what was intended. It was a mistake, pure and simple. Mark was extremely apologetic – he wanted to be sure I conveyed to trappers that it was not his intent to “screw things up for us”. He also promised that prior to another trapping season the old language will be put back in place. Between now and then we’ll also be trying to convince the Department to allow the use of footholds for muskrats on covered floats after the end of March in areas that are open to beaver trapping.

Lawsuit Appellants File Opening Brief With US Court Of Appeals

As I reported in the last newsletter (December 09), the plaintiffs in the lynx lawsuit appealed Judge Woodcock’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. The Court of Appeals consists of a panel of judges that has appellate jurisdiction over the lower courts, meaning that it has the power to review decisions and change outcomes. The plaintiffs/appellants have hired a new law firm to handle their appeal. They will now be represented by Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal with offices in Washington DC. On February 22nd, they filed their opening brief with the Court of Appeals. This “brief” contains 127 pages, although much of it consists of photocopies of material from the trial in Bangor last summer and from the Federal Register. We (the interveners) are still working on our response and will be filing it before the end of the month (March).

The time-table for a hearing on this appeal is still up in the air. Our attorneys are telling us that it is unlikely anything more will happen until sometime this fall at the earliest. One thing that could change the picture dramatically is for the Feds to issue the State of Maine an Incidental Take Permit for lynx. If that were to happen, the plaintiff’s argument that the State is violating the federal Endangered Species Act (by allowing trapping practices that result in the incidental taking of lynx) would no longer be valid, and the appeal would likely be thrown out – case closed.

ITP Application Moving Ahead Ever So Slowly

What are the chances that the State will receive an ITP for lynx anytime soon? The good news is that the Feds appear about ready to publish in the Federal Register their intent to issue an ITP to the State of Maine. That may happen as soon as sometime in May. That posting will be followed by a public comment period, consisting of probably 90 days, when just about everyone in the country will have the opportunity to support or challenge the issuance of this document.

The bad news is that the proposed ITP is rumored to contain 150 pages, give or take. If that is true, attorneys for every protectionist organization out there are certain to find lots of issues to challenge. I cannot imagine why an ITP for lynx in Maine would require more documentation than the listing of lynx as a threatened species in the lower forty-eight states. I hope the rumors are false and that the Feds are not planning to use the ITP to micro-manage our furbearer harvesting methods. Whatever it contains, when the ITP finally appears in the Federal Register we’ll get our first real chance to go through it in detail. Then we’ll decide how to respond. We’ll then be contacting all MTA members, describing the trapping restrictions that are included in the proposed permit and explaining when and how to submit comments to the Feds. When that time comes, every trapper needs to participate.

Governor’s Merger Attempt Shot Down Again

In early January I represented the MTA at a legislative hearing held by the Appropriations Committee to consider Part DDD of the Governor’s Supplemental Budget. This section of the budget was the third attempt in three years by the Governor to consolidate the natural resource agencies into one super agency. For the third year in a row, there was no public support for combining these agencies, which begs the question of why this Administration has barged ahead relentlessly in pursuit of a merger that nobody wants. Anyway, that’s strike three, and the current Administration won’t get to the plate again with their misguided proposal. Let’s hope that the next Governor and his or her top advisors will understand the value of maintaining the small, unique natural resource agencies that oversee and protect the various outdoor interests of Maine people.

Green Party Candidate First Casualty In Run For Governor

How many candidates are competing for the chance to replace Governor Baldacci? I’ve used all my fingers and toes and still haven’t counted all of them. It’s safe to say that somewhere around two dozen candidates have thrown their hats into the ring. Some of them will soon drop out when it becomes obvious that they can’t raise enough money to run a viable campaign. In fact, some have already fallen by the wayside.

The first casualty was Green Party candidate Lynne Williams, an attorney from Bar Harbor. Some of our members met her last summer at the federal courthouse in Bangor. Ms. Williams was one of two attorneys that represented the animal activists in their bid to take away our trapping privileges. She was forced out of the race for Governor because she was unable to get 2000 signatures from Green Party members by the March 15th deadline. I’m sure that MTA members could care less whether Ms. Williams is on the ballot or not, but I found it somewhat encouraging that WAM and their membership couldn’t muster up enough support to get her there.

Next Governor A Key to The Future Of Traditional Outdoor Activities

I don’t usually dwell on political issues in my newsletter reports. However, the upcoming elections (June and November) will, in my opinion, play a critical role in determining the future of traditional outdoor activities in the State of Maine. I’m talking about such things as trapping, hunting and traditional types of guiding. Anyone who has been paying close attention has seen the current Administration walking hand in hand with environmental activists down the road to protectionism. They have supported the creation of eco-reserves on publicly owned lands – large areas where the use of motorized transportation would be denied and consumptive use of wildlife would be prohibited. They traded away prime parcels of state owned land (public lots) in exchange for an addition to Baxter State Park. Those public lots were open to hunting and trapping. Most of the Baxter parcel is not. They have championed the idea that government should decide what types of outdoor recreation are allowed on privately owned land. This Administration, more than any other that I can remember, is out of touch with our rural population – ask folks in rural communities across the state how they feel about school consolidation. In a nutshell, the “Maine” that appeals to most rural folks cannot stand another four years of the same policies that have been promoted in Augusta during the past eight.

If we are going to start to regain the ground we’ve lost, we need to search out and elect a candidate that fully understands and appreciates the gigantic economic impact associated with traditional fish and wildlife related recreation. Every sportsman and sportswoman needs to be paying attention to who is running for Governor. We need to find out how each candidate feels about things that are important to us and our families. Whether Republican, Democrat or Independent, we need to find a candidate with a vision for Maine that includes lots of room for our way of life, and we need to do everything within our power to get him or her elected. Whoever moves into the Blaine House next January will determine whether we change course and head in a better direction or continue down the road to more government control and protectionism.

Outcome Of ATV Bill Will Impact Trappers

The public hearing on a controversial ATV bill drew overwhelming support from just about every member of the Natural Resources Network - from farmers to forest landowners and from blue berry growers to guides. I testified in support of the bill on behalf of the MTA. No one testified against the bill, although the ACLU eventually submitted a letter of opposition because they believe the bill infringes on the rights of ATV users. The bill would allow wardens to stop an ATV being operated on privately owned lands without “reasonable and articulable” suspicion to believe that a violation of law has taken place.

Prior to last year, state law allowed “routine” stops of ATVs to check registrations and make sure that the machine and operator were in compliance with all regulations governing the operation of these machines, including the landowner permission requirement. Last session, while the Maine Supreme Court was reviewing the constitutionality of these “routine” ATV stops, the Maine Legislature passed a law saying that wardens could no longer stop ATVs unless they had reason to suspect that a violation had occurred. The Supreme Court later upheld (as constitutional) the “routine” stops allowed under the old law. The Legislature, however, had already enacted tougher standards, and those new standards make it virtually impossible to enforce the landowner permission requirement.

When landowners found out that wardens could no longer stop an ATV being operated on their property to determine if the required permission had been granted, many of them were outraged and threatened to post their property. Representative Ralph Sarty, working with SWOAM, the Forest Products Council and individual landowners, submitted LD # 1536 in an attempt to resolve the landowner relations problems that this new law has created. In spite of overwhelming support at the hearing, the bill was voted out of Committee with only a 7 to 6 “ought to pass” report. The debate on the bill has become very contentious, and the fate of the bill is far from settled. Depending on the outcome, ATV users may see a big decline in the amount of land available for them to ride. The impact on trappers could also be substantial. If this issue doesn’t get resolved, the signs that land owners start nailing up will simply say “No Trespassing”, and we’ll all pay the price. The MTA will continue to work with landowners in an effort to get this bill enacted.

Permission Requirement Continues To Confuse Trappers/Wardens

In mid-February, we (the MTA) received a call from one of our members complaining about an incident that happened to him this past November. This individual had received a summons to court from a game warden because he set a trap within 200 yards of a dwelling without the permission of the homeowner. The trapper had caught the homeowner’s cat and released it. The trapper explained to us that while he didn’t have permission from the homeowner to set the trap, he did have permission from the owner of the land where the trap was set. The trapper did not believe he had violated the law, but he chose to handle the matter in what he considered to be the easiest and cheapest way out. He appeared in court, pled guilty and paid a hefty fine.

This situation really bothers me for several reasons. First off, if the incident happened exactly the way it was explained, the trapper was summoned to court for a violation that doesn’t exist. Secondly, the trapper compounded the problem by pleading guilty when he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong. Under this scenario, when all is said and done, the statistics show another trapper who was apprehended and convicted of violating the law. It also reinforces the perception shared by some trappers and wardens that an abutting property owner can override a landowners decision to allow trapping on his or her property. That perception is false, and I’m not sure how we are ever going to get it straightened out. I don’t mean to beat on the trapper. He’s the one that was wronged, but taking the easiest and cheapest way out is not the right answer – especially when every one of these types of “violations” reflects badly on all trappers. When I learned of this incident, I immediately fired off email messages to both Colonel Wilkinson, the Chief Warden, and Major Sanborn, the Assistant Chief. Here’s some of what I said:

“I know that there are always two sides to every story. However, if this incident happened exactly as indicated, Mr. ------ did nothing wrong. The violation in question is a law, not a rule (Title 12, section 12253, sub-section 2). This is how it reads:

2. Trapping near occupied dwelling without written consent. A person may not trap any wild animal within 200 yards of an occupied dwelling without first obtaining the written consent of the owner or occupant of the land on which the trap is to be set. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to beaver trapping or trapping with drowning sets on state-owned land or public rights-of-way."

“At least once a year I hear from trappers who allege that they were either cited or warned for not having the permission of the abutting landowner when setting a trap within 200 yards of that person's house. There is no such violation. You are only required to get permission from the owner or occupant of the land on which the trap is set. You are never required to get permission from an abutting landowner regardless of how close the trap is set to the abutting landowner's home. Over the years, I've explained this law several times in the MTA newsletter and on two occasions have had wardens call me on the phone or send an email message to tell me I was wrong. In both cases, after I sent them a copy of the law, they got back to me and apologized. I haven't yet checked the wording in the lawbook - maybe it needs to be written differently. The law itself, however, is very clear.

“Hopefully we can get this straightened out so that it doesn't create problems every year. Thanks for your help.”

Within a day I received a response from both the Colonel and the Major. The incident is being investigated, and I’m still waiting to hear the results. In defense of the wardens, I think they do an outstanding job enforcing the law. I believe that more than 99.9% of the time, the person they summon to appear in court deserves to be there. I also know that there are always two sides to a story and that things do not always happen exactly as they are portrayed by the person on the receiving end of a citation. On the other hand, I have heard too many similar complaints from trappers with regard to the law requiring landowner permission to believe that all their complaints are without merit. I also know that the law itself is extremely confusing. In short, the MTA will be reviewing the trapping laws that deal with landowner permission and comparing the language with the condensed version that currently appears in the hunting and trapping law book. If the problem cannot be “fixed” by changing the wording in the law book, we’ll be discussing the possibility of submitting a bill to the Legislature next winter. In the meantime, please do not go to court and plead guilty to a trapping violation if you honestly believe you have done nothing wrong!

Trappers Legal Defense Fund – What Do You Think?

Ever since I became aware of this latest incident involving a trapper who believes he was unjustly summoned to court, I’ve been giving it a lot of thought. I know from experience that people charged with violations often prefer to pay a fine and get the matter settled rather than face the expense of hiring an attorney and going to trial. Most of the time that makes sense – take responsibility for your actions and accept the penalty!

Once in a great while, however, a trapper winds up in court when he probably shouldn’t be there. Even though the trapper believes that he did nothing wrong, he doesn’t think he can afford an attorney. He goes to court and pays the fine but never gets over that feeling of resentment for being wronged – not a good situation.

I’ve been toying with the idea of asking the MTA to consider setting up what I would term a Legal Defense Fund for MTA members. In the unlikely event one of our members were to be wrongly cited for a violation of the trapping laws, this fund would be available to reimburse that individual for some or all of his or her legal fees. To ensure that a violator did not try to take unfair advantage, the fund would be set up in such a way that legal fees would only be reimbursed following a decision by a district attorney or a judge that the trapper did not violate the law.

Would something like this be a good idea or not? Do you have other suggestions for how we might deal with these rare but significant incidents? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this before I go too far. You can email me at strask@prexar.com. I’ll talk more about this in the next newsletter.

Hope to see you at our Annual Spring Meeting in May!

Skip