|
|
Post by furbuy46 on May 8, 2008 10:50:28 GMT -5
Tim since were dancing here, you still missed a step. You ignored my question on the Lacy act. You will never get past the Lacy act, I don't care what you do. It trumps all other catds my friend.
Tim ya can't make me mad. If Lonnie didn't make me mad this week, you sure as heck ain't going to. I consider you a friend and figure we can discuss this as far as you want without bad blood between us.
Now when it comes right down to a situation that I feel real threatened by, I will continue to fight tooth and nail to uphold my rights as a trapper. I don't honestly think that the yote issue is going to lead to anything more than it is.
My personal thoughts on the yote issue is, I wished I would never see another yote in my life. I personally think the state should put an open season on them. I also would like to see a live mkt. I have no problem with yotes being harvested at all times of the season and being able to do with them as you please. But I still say, you will not beat the Lacy act, try as you may my friend. If you do, I will personally give you a public thanks for I know your heart and soul is in this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Rose on May 8, 2008 11:50:46 GMT -5
Yep, I agree that me and you can speak openly, without either one getting upset and still respect each others ideas/thoughts.
Lacy act..driving through states that don't allow live market etc.
I'll answer the question and have many times (maybe not on the net, don't remember if I have).
You are in violation of the lacy act if the destination or place of pickup/purchase wasn't a legal transaction/state that allows for such practice.
Lets say, I bought live coyotes off you furbuy and then I drove them to Alabama and sold them. I would be in violation of the lacy act because it is not legal to import coyotes to Alabama. (ps...for the snoops....I have never driven coyotes across a state line).
Opposite example.....Joe comes to the house from (***** Legal import state). His state has guidelines that he must follow to allow importation. If Joe follows his guidelines and I follow mine (can only sell to a furbuyer or gamebreader/equivalent)...than it is a LEGAL transaction and is recognized as so (by the lacy act) and can drive down the interstate (even if that state your driving through doesn't allow importation) keep in mind you are not importing to that state.
the one person that got his butt in a ringer was in violation of the lacy act......he was trying to import into a state that doesn't allow it and was illegal.
No one is trying to beat the lacy act..........the lacy act gives guidelines for legal transportation of wildlife and if followed there is no violation.
I beg anyone to prove/disprove the above.
No dance on my part.....and didn't see myself dancing on the last post......
dancing is what the teeth kickers are doing............and they are dancing to the sweat song of the Anti's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Rose on May 8, 2008 12:00:09 GMT -5
ps...furbuy.....
I also say the same thing.....To heck with the coyotes, I have no interset in them at this point and the anti's can have all they want.
But, I still think that if even 1 trapper has a legal Market to sell a coyote too, then that 1 trapper's market should be defended....as we would would defend any other market.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxcatcher1 on May 8, 2008 16:29:25 GMT -5
In all the conservation law classes I took at Vincennes University that is exactly what they teach. There MUST be an illegal transaction somewere in the trip. Simply entering the state with wildlife is not a violation. Pat Jennings beat this into our heads for 2 years. As far as paprework I have a vet here in Vincennes that would more then likley do it..........I trap his deer hunting ground so he better hehe.
Guys I don't want this to be a pissing contest between trappers. I was trying to let others know and it has been blown out of proportion. (And poor ol' Wolfie got caught up in it.) I just feel we should not have to go at this alone and think the houndsman and pen owner should be in the fight too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jtrapper on May 8, 2008 17:51:37 GMT -5
If your pen owner's have the mentality our's do here once they get involved you may as well go back home and forget it!
At any rate I think all of you missed the entire point I was trying to make about it all going down hill. So far all ive seen is everyone reacting to whatever the anti's toss out, in other words you've already gave them control of this entire situation!
The focus has now moved away from state law and into the cruelty aspect of the pen's theirself!
You guy's need to lawyer up, provide him with the facts he needs, seek financial support to pay for him then let him do your talking and muzzle everyone else!
Id not even worry with the DNR meetings other than to let them know they can either enforce state law or meet you in a court of law, whichever they wish to do!
Should of contacted NTA Tim, they probably could of helped you!
|
|
|
|
Post by foxcatcher1 on May 8, 2008 22:34:52 GMT -5
J I hate to admitt this but I think you might be on to something there. We are our own worst enemy at this time.
Don
|
|
|
|
Post by foxcatcher1 on May 8, 2008 22:38:59 GMT -5
Also from what I have gathered the pen owners are why we are here. They had the chance to keep this issue up and running but would not settle on a deal wich was a fair one from what I have heard. No deal no fenced hunts or running pens.......some think it is still in litigation but I'm not sure about that.
Don
|
|
|
|
Post by jtrapper on May 8, 2008 23:13:42 GMT -5
Don I spent two solid weeks several years ago just to get Game and Fish to even agree to meet with the running pen owner's and trappers only to have a few hot headed pen owners come in and tell game and fish to go F theirself they would do what they wanted!
Fast forward, operation foxote! Even after this big bust they still won't budge! There's more heat in the background here right now over all of this coyote bs than there ever has, no way anymore pressure can be put on the game department and they WOULD negotiate something all of us could live with but again, the pen owner's have no organization, cannot get along with one another, can't agree on anything and several feel any meeting with the game dept. is just one more chance for them to rip them a new one, which once again put's everything right back at the back of the bus and we all start over again!
Everyone involved here DON'T WANT no coyote trapping in this state, that includes some of our state legislator's! But no one is going to allow a free for all like we had before with animals coming and going all over with no one knowing what is going on. But the pen owner's won't settle for anything less!
And I know why they are that way! They don't want to have to stop bringing in cheap coyotes from MS. every winter!
At any rate, I learned in all of this nothing has changed since the 70's between the fox hunters and the trappers! When push came to shove here they showed they are no friend to trappers! I'll never forget that either.
In the mean time coyotes are moving into all urban area's and already causing all sorts of problems here! Imagine IN. is heading in the same direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on May 9, 2008 16:41:16 GMT -5
fur buy, you have no clue what the lacy act is about. it has to do with transporting animals across state lines that were taken illegally. it has nothing to do with health certifiates unless the end state requires health papers. which are a dime a dozen from any vet.. horse, cattle and dog folks get them all the time, thousands and thousands and thousands. standard price $25-50 a load. and it is under the state board of animal health, not the dnr. dnr has not one single vet in their employ. and there are presentlyt several states left that do allow the importation of live fox and coyotes if certain rules are followed.
|
|
|
|
Post by furbuy46 on May 9, 2008 18:09:45 GMT -5
You guys ought to read this. Only thing it says about endangered is plants. On fish and wildlife it says all.
Lacey Act
Statute Details
Printable Version
Citation: 16 USC 3371-3378
Citation: 95 Stat. 1073
Summary:
The Lacey Act provides that it is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law whether in interstate or foreign commerce. Violation of this federal act can result in civil penalties up to $10,000 per each violation or maximum criminal sanctions of $20,000 in fines and/or up to five years imprisonment. All plants or animals taken in violation of the Act are subject to forfeiture as well as all vessels, vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment used to aid in the importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring, or purchasing of fish or wildlife or plants in a criminal violation of this chapter for which a felony conviction is obtained where the owner should have known of the illegal transgression.
Statute in Full:
§ 3371. Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter:
(a) The term "fish or wildlife" means any wild animal, whether alive or dead, including without limitation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, whether or not bred, hatched, or born in captivity, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof.
(b) The term "import" means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
(c) The term "Indian tribal law" means any regulation of, or other rule of conduct enforceable by, any Indian tribe, band, or group but only to the extent that the regulation or rule applies within Indian country as defined in section 1151 of Title 18.
(d) The terms "law," "treaty," "regulation," and "Indian tribal law" mean laws, treaties, regulations or Indian tribal laws which regulate the taking, possession, importation, exportation, transportation, or sale of fish or wildlife or plants.
(e) The term "person" includes any individual, partnership, association, corporation, trust, or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or of any State or political subdivision thereof, or any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(f) The terms "plant" and "plants" mean any wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, and other parts thereof (but excluding common food crops and cultivars) which is indigenous to any State and which is either (A) listed on an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or (B) listed pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species threatened with extinction.
(g) The term "Secretary" means, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as program responsibilities are vested pursuant to the provisions of Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 1970 (84 Stat. 2090); except that with respect to the provisions of this chapter which pertain to the importation or exportation of plants the term means the Secretary of Agriculture.
(h) The term "State" means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and any other territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States.
(i) The term "taken" means captured, killed, or collected.
(j) The term "transport" means to move, convey, carry, or ship by any means, or to deliver or receive for the purpose of movement, conveyance, carriage, or shipment.
§ 3372. Prohibited acts
(a) Offenses other than marking offenses
It is unlawful for any person--
(1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law;
(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce--
(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law, or
(B) any plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State;
(3) within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in section 7 of Title 18)--
(A) to possess any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law or Indian tribal law, or
(B) to possess any plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State; [FN1]
(4) to attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) through (4). [FN2]
(b) Marking offenses
It is unlawful for any person to import, export, or transport in interstate commerce any container or package containing any fish or wildlife unless the container or package has previously been plainly marked, labeled, or tagged in accordance with the regulations issued pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 3376(a) of this title.
(c) Sale and purchase of guiding and outfitting services and invalid licenses and permits
(1) Sale
It is deemed to be a sale of fish or wildlife in violation of this chapter for a person for money or other consideration to offer or provide--
(A) guiding, outfitting, or other services; or
(B) a hunting or fishing license or permit;
for the illegal taking, acquiring, receiving, transporting, or possessing of fish or wildlife.
(2) Purchase
It is deemed to be a purchase of fish or wildlife in violation of this chapter for a person to obtain for money or other consideration--
(A) guiding, outfitting, or other services; or
(B) a hunting or fishing license or permit;
for the illegal taking, acquiring, receiving, transporting, or possessing of fish or wildlife.
(d) False labeling offenses
It is unlawful for any person to make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any fish, wildlife, or plant which has been, or is intended to be--
(1) imported, exported, transported, sold, purchased, or received from any foreign country; or
(
Maybe I don't know what I am talking about, but this kinda says it all don't ya think.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on May 9, 2008 18:55:39 GMT -5
read it again don. there has to be an illegal act occur. it is not illegal to capture or sell live coyotes in indiana or many other(some- not all) states, or export them into many other(some- not all) states. we want that saved as is. specifically YOU tell me what part of the lacy act applies to a legal transaction or shipping across state lines of live coyotes taken legally , shipped legally and to a legal end destinaton? I`ll tell you, NONE!
|
|
|
|
Post by furbuy46 on May 9, 2008 19:05:59 GMT -5
Funny how the government always finds something illegal when they want to. a lot depends on how you want to read things and if you know all the laws that perain to all states. I would just about bet that some place, some time, there are laws we all break and never know it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jtrapper on May 9, 2008 19:10:10 GMT -5
So this actually ISN'T about out of normal fur season live trapping of coyotes BUT about being able to ship live coyotes all over the country?
Sorry for misunderstanding what the problem was, i'll stay out of it from here on out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on May 9, 2008 19:12:32 GMT -5
true. anyone in the live biz from here forward needs his ducks in a row. but if they are in a row, the state should not be hassling us out of a legal operation based on bogus ethics reasons of the poor coyotes get treated bad. #1 they don`t, and #2 they`d kill your kids if they got the chance. so even if they are treated bad , SO WHAT!!!! heck, just watch tv or read the news. there is a reason most states have year round seasons and many allow live capture, sale, and it is even encouraged. there is a reason our federally funded w.s. spends millions and millions of tax payer dollars to kill coyotes summer or winter. every one removed free is just a little less burdon for the taxpayer. I`ve said before and will say again, I`d much rather kill coyotes for $100 each. if idnr wants this to fly with (I`m guessing)absolutly no objection from any indiana trapper and in fact full backing, just get your (their) pocketbook out of THEIR budget and pony up the $100 a coyote we have all gotten the last 25 years. simple as pie cure where everyone is happy as a lark. and then we can all hitthem in the head and make hsus happy too. or the coyote lady could get her money out and buy them too. heck , for 1/2 price she could just pay me not to trap.
|
|
