coyote rule change

[rivertrapper316]

is open for public comment. Here is the link Let your voice be herd.


www.in.gov/nrc/2378.htm

[wayne]

Soooooooooo, six months of letter writing and emails had no effect ?

[rivertrapper316]

Are you surprised ?

[bobwendt]

the dnr needs to change state law if they want control of the coyote back ,and the ability to set seasons and bag limits etc on unprotected game . state law we have already says coyotes are unprotected with written consent, not i.a.c. , but i.c. , state law! that`s what it will boil down to. will state law prevail, or will dnr be able to overide state law that was originally put into effect specifically to trump their unco=operativeness in the states coyote problems 20 years ago, passed by the house and senate and signed by the governor. the way I see it you draw a line in the sand or forever be giving things up. they know that. we know that. this is all a scare tactic in my opinion and demeans the dnr and the legislature and the citizens of this state. either we have laws ort we don`t and either the dnr is answerable to the legislature or it is not. it can`t be both self serving and serving the citizens of the state at the same time.

[Chucker]

I agree Bob...

[wayne]

No, but there were rumours of a deal in the works.

[Tim Rose]

No deal wayne....we bent and hoped the dnr would also...so thats out the window now

ps...the emails and letter writting have worked and have put us in an interesting position.....

[SteveCraig]

Good!
Bending only works if you are bent at the waste and have ahold of your ankles!
Then you will get to see what happens next!

[trapperknox]

Well, then... I guess staying up to almost midnight writing that thing payed off then!

[gameboy]

I guess the DNR has decided that all trappers are just hobby guys and not doing it for profit. Just ask one of my friends that lives not too far from me that went from 200+ coyotes in a season to not even going to set one trap for them this next season. No economic impact?.....and that is only one of many. I'm guessing (yea right) that there was no study at all to substantiate what is stated below. Guys, it's time to get serious about what is going on. For them to say "none" is an insult and a statement of a definate adjenda for sure.

-IR- Database: Indiana Register IAC Titles Current IR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 312 NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION



Economic Impact Statement
LSA Document #07-749



IC 4-22-2.1-5 Statement Concerning Rules Affecting Small Businesses
The proposed rule amends 312 IAC 9-3-12 to prohibit the sale and possession of coyotes taken outside the hunting and trapping season. Also amended is 312 IAC 9-3-14.5, which governs the taking and possession of coyotes, to allow untanned hides and carcasses of coyotes to be possessed for not more than 20 days after the close of the season.


Estimated Average Annual Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other Administrative Costs Small Businesses Will Incur for Compliance:
None.


Estimated Total Annual Economic Impact on Small Businesses to Comply:
None.


Justification Statement of Requirement or Cost:
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources estimates that the proposed rule will not impose requirements or costs on small businesses.


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of Alternative Methods:
None.

[trappnman]

now thats a bunch of sh*t.

[tonymalone]

ain't that something.
guess it's like my dad said, as good as we've got it here on trapping laws, w/ our game and fish, alls it would take is to get a head guy w/ anti sentiments and everything would start crashing.

[bobwendt]

it appears that is exactly what happened. I urge every one of you to go to gappas and read the article fws posted with comments by our director carter and also the hsus. buddies to the core it appears to me. talk about a conflict of interest. the governor needs made aware. he may not realize at all what our dnr is up to.

[Ross]

www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS01/804060340/1002

The Humane Society of the United States says traditional hunters have nothing to fear from the organization.
By SETH SLABAUGH
Star Press
4-6-08

INDIANAPOLIS -- "We're in business to do one thing," Rick Story, senior vice president of U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA), told members of Hoosier Outdoor Writers during their annual conference earlier this year.

"That is, to meet, to beat, to defeat, to knock the living daylights out of the anti-hunting movement," which Story described as a $350-million-a-year group of animal-rights organizations controlled more and more by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

To hunters, HSUS is the "most dangerous outfit" because of its $135 million annual budget, its political action committee to get political candidates elected, its lobbyists to get laws changed and its one dozen full-time attorneys "who do nothing but sit around and dream up problems they can create for users of animals," Story said. "And more and more, we (hunters) are the principal target."
HSUS officials disagree, and they accuse USSA of representing the corporate hunting industry, not rank-and-file hunters.

Michael Markarian, executive vice president of HSUS in Washington, D.C., said in an interview that USSA receives the largest share of its money from one foundation, and it does not receive substantial support for its work from individual citizens.

"It also receives money from archery, firearms and ammunitions makers and the makers of other forms of hunting equipment," Markarian said. "In short, the organization is a hunting industry trade group that falsely represents itself as a widely supported membership organization."

USSA claims HSUS has targeted hunters for extinction, and it blames the society for banning dove hunting in Michigan, outlawing trapping in California, prohibiting black bear hunting in Colorado, suing to stop hunting on federal lands and encouraging school children to promote federal legislation to ban polar bear hunting.

"It's all a game of dominoes," Story said. "If you give them one thing, they're going to come back for something else."

USSA fought efforts of the HSUS several years ago to convince the Indiana community of Beverly Shores to experiment with deer birth control. USSA supports culling urban deer herds with bowhunters, sharpshooters and shotguns, a safe solution used in Detroit in 1997. The project also sent 8,000 pounds of meat to the local food bank.

Hunters who operate within the bounds of sportsmanship and fair chase and who favor traditional hunting practices have no reason to feel threatened by HSUS, Markarian said.

HSUS has never advocated any bill in any state Legislature to ban deer hunting, duck hunting or any traditional form of hunting, he said.

HSUS has worked to outlaw inhumane and unsportsman-like practices, such as canned hunting of tame, exotic creatures in fenced enclosures; bear baiting; use of steel-jawed leghold traps; hound hunting of coyotes in enclosures; trophy hunting of threatened and endangered species like grizzly bears in the contiguous 48 states; and Internet hunting.

Gentle and inoffensive mourning doves are not overpopulated, do not cause nuisance problems and provide little, if any, meat for hunters, Markarian said. "They are simply shot for target practice," Markarian said.

"In short, USSA represents a fringe segment of the hunting industry, and is out of step with rank-and-file hunters and mainstream Americans who find certain practices to be inhumane, abusive and unacceptable," he said.

In his talk to Indiana's outdoor writers, Robert E. Carter Jr., director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, expressed agreement with the humane society's position on hunting ethically.

"Probably 80 percent of the public doesn't hunt and fish," Carter said. "That 80 percent is the sleeping giant. . .We've got to behave ourselves, folks. [We need to] teach our kids the way to hunt and fish in an ethical manner. We've got to behave ourselves or we're going to wake up the sleeping giant, the 80 percent, and they're going to put it on a ballot. . .and start taking our rights away."

[wayne]

Comments from Markarian are in quotes, but the comment about traps being inhumane and un-sportsman like are not. Does that paper have an anti slant to the editorial page? Because that looks like THEIR opinion.