Repeal Petition Filed to Remove Trapping Restrictions

The following petition to repeal 3 trapping restrictions was filed with the GFP Commission on May 2, 2014.  By law the gfp has 30 days to either deny the petition or to initiate the repeal process.

Please support your trappers by sending a quick email to the GFP Commission stating your support for the petition and your support for our trappers.  You do not need to be a SD resident to send your email or to voice your support.

With your support we can begin to rebuild our pheasant population.

Thank you,

Brian

ps.  I will post the GFP responses to this petition here as I receive them so please check back in see any new updates.

May 6.  Received letter from one of the gfp's attorneys (Dick Neal) stating that the petition has been sent to the House and Senate members of the Interim Rules Review Committee and the Director of the Legislative Research Council.

The Effect of Trapping Restrictions on SD Pheasant Numbers

The following document was sent to the Pheasant Task Force and the SD GFP today.  



From the charts you can see that our brood count went from 2,500 before the trapping restrictions to 500 after the trapping restrictions were put in place.  This means we had 5 times as many pheasants before the gfp implemented these two trapping restrictions as we have today.  

That is a 500 % reduction in our pheasant population in just 4 years which can be directly attributed to the sd gfp implementing restrictions which prevented our fur trappers from harvesting our nest predators.

We are hopeful that it will be effective in showing the effect that two of the most recent trapping restrictions put in place by the sd gfp has had on our pheasant numbers and the resulting decline in our pheasant numbers.

Now, if only we can get the SD GFP to take some action to correct their mistakes and repeal these two trapping restrictions.  If they were to pay our businesses and trappers back for the $250+ million they cost them in lost revenue and fire some of their staff that would be alright too.  

In just 4 years the wildlife division of the sd gfp has virtually destroyed our pheasant hunting and our trapping industries.  We can not afford 4 more years of this kind of management.  

And we are not buying the gfp's excuse about a wet spring in 2013,  we have lived in South Dakota all our lives and we have had a wet spring here every single year.  There is no amount of spin that the gfp can put on it that will convince our residents that the gfp and the gfp commission were not responsible for destroying our pheasant population by implementing these trapping restrictions.

In case you are thinking that I am being too hard on the gfp you must remember that our states resident fur trappers opposed this rule and sent a 20 page report to the gfp and the gfp commission warning them that our pheasant population would suffer if they proceeded with this restriction.  The gfp and the gfp commission proceeded anyway against our trappers recommendations and the predicted decline in our pheasant population is now a reality.  

By their own hands the gfp and the gfp commission destroyed our pheasant population and they should now be held accountable for ignoring the recommendations of our states expert fur trappers.  Everyone in the gfp who had a hand in implementing these restrictions should be fired.  Everyone on the gfp commission who voted for these restrictions should be dismissed and they should forfeit their bond.  If they are not capable of managing our pheasant resource they are not capable of managing any of our resources.

Please send your request to repeal the trapping restrictions to the pheasant task force and the sd gfp and demand that these restrictions be removed so that you will have pheasants to hunt.

Another restriction put on our trappers.

One of our states fur trappers contacted me with another concern related to trapping and the SD GFP.  The sd gfp implemented a rule ( ARSD 41:08:02:14 ) in 2010 that restricts our trappers from placing traps (set or unset), stakes, cables, and other equipment used for trapping within 30 ft of water prior to the opening of the mink season.  

As you may know some of the best trapping for raccoons can be a short period in the fall when there is still open water.  This period runs from about October 1st to November 10th most years.  However with this restriction that the gfp put in place our fur trappers may not place a trap (set or unset), a stake, a cable, or any device used to attach a trap or attempt to claim a location within 30 feet of water until the opening of the mink season which is normally around Nov 4th.

This restriction prevents our trappers from preparing their trap lines, eliminates one of the best periods, one of the best locations, and another method our trappers had for harvesting raccoons in the fall.

This restriction is not due to the raccoon fur not being prime yet.   In fact the fur from these October raccoon are usually preferred by the garment manufacturers because these early fall furs have better color (raccoon fur turns yellow as the season progresses which is not desirable).  These October furs also have less damage, and the pelts have not begun to shed or lose fur.  Therefore they can bring a premium price at auction.  In 2013 October raccoon were bringing up to $35 each, in December they were bringing around $14.  

As sportsman we want to encourage our trappers to remove these predators and one way of doing this is to enable our trappers to receive a good price for their fur and to be able to catch a lot of fur.

As it stands our fur trappers may use only raccoon specific traps within 30 ft of water during October, such as dogproof traps, live cages, and snares, by  ARSD 41:08:02:01   Even these types of traps may not placed (set or unset) nor may any stakes, wires, or cables be placed to secure them on any public land, public water, or roadside Right of Way prior to the opening of the mink season which is around Nov 4th by ARSD 41:08:02:14.  

If you are a farmer or rancher with predators causing damage you can not trap them near your stock dams, creeks, marshes, or lakes in October.  It is perfectly fine to trap these predators near water in June, July, August, and September.  Just not in October.  I don't know what is so special about October either, other than the fact that predators trapped in October have fur value.  

This would indicate that this restriction is not about restricting trapping until later in the fall when the fur "may" be in a technical state called "maximum prime" at all.  The only thing I can see different about October is that there are domesticated hunting dogs running around since our pheasant season starts in Oct.  

But, as we know, the gfp has no authority and is not allowed to make rules for the protection of any domesticated animal by SDCL 41-2-18 (unless the Wildlife Division of the GFP can somehow break our laws and manipulate the system to get their rules in place in defiance of our states law).

Our farmers know that they must prepare their fields by plowing them before planting if they want to get a good harvest from their land.  Likewise our trappers must prepare their trap-lines by preparing their sets before setting their "seeds" so that they may realize a good harvest of fur-bearers.  They are both small business operators and they are both trying to make a living and to maximize their profits.  

Why would the sd gfp want to try to interfere in someones farming or trapping business?  Why would the gfp think that they have the right to interfere in someones farming or trapping business?

If we allow the SD GFP to keep taking away the methods our trappers use to harvest fur-bearers our trappers will soon have no methods left to control our predators.  

And you as a pheasant hunter will soon have no pheasants left to hunt.

You can help.  Please contact the gfp and the pheasant task force and tell them to repeal the trapping restrictions that prevent our trappers from controlling our predators.

How and Why.

What is even more troubling than having this rule in place is that this rule (restriction) does not seem to be authorized by our states codified law.  The controlling statute is SDCL 41-2-18(14). 

In this statute it clearly states that equipment can only be restricted if the use of the equipment "would adversely effect the health, safety, or welfare of people or wildlife resources".  The GFP only has that authority which has been specifically given to them by statute.  Therefore the rules that they establish must also conform to statute or our states codified law.

How exactly can an "unset trap, stake, cable, or any other device used to attach a trap effect the health, safety, or welfare of people or wildlife resources"?    The answer to this is simple.  

It can't.  

An unset trap can not capture or injure any person or animal, and a stake or cable certainly can not injure any person or animal.  Therefore no restrictions can be placed on these items according to our state law.

And yet this rule (restriction) exists and was implemented and established by the SD GFP.  This brings up the question "How was the SD GFP able to establish this rule which conflicts with our SDCL ? ".  

The answer to this is troubling.  

The SD GFP either made a mistake when they implemented this rule and did not consider our laws, or, they implemented this rule on purpose knowing full well that the rule was in conflict with our states laws.  There are no other options.

Could the SD GFP simply have made a mistake?  Seems unlikely.  They have at least two attorneys on staff.  And they have the Legislative Research Council (which has around 10 attorneys on staff) available to assist them in drafting their proposed rule.  They also have the gfp commission which is supposed to be there to prevent the gfp from establishing rules that restrict our rights to harvest our wildlife.  The commission is supposed to be the people's voice in preventing the gfp from abusing their authority. 

They also have Senior Level Administrators such as the Secretary of the GFP and the Director of the Wildlife Division who are paid a very generous salary to oversee the departments actions.  If a layperson such as myself can see that an unset trap or stake can not effect the welfare or safety of people or wildlife resources certainly they can see this also.  After all we are both reading the same words (our statute) and the statute is very clearly written in common language.

If they did not make a mistake then they must have implemented this rule (restriction) on purpose knowing that the restrictions were not allowed by law.  

But how and why were they able to implement this rule which is not authorized by our states law?  After all the GFP staff, their attorneys, the Legislative Research Council, and the GFP Commission are there to make sure that the public is protected in our rights to harvest our wildlife and that all of our rules conform to only those powers that have been given to them by our state laws aren't they?   After all we pay their salaries and they report to us don't they?

I have been pondering this and researching this issue for a couple of years now.  This is what I have come up with.  

First of all someone in the Wildlife Division must have an agenda which includes eliminating trapping.  Whether they are opposed to trapping because someone might make some money off of "their" wildlife, are animal rights activists who oppose trapping on principle, or are opposed to trapping because they think that our pheasant hunters are opposed is unknown.  Regardless of the reason, someone is opposed to trapping and has set up a secret policy to restrict trapping to the point that our trappers will no longer trap because the rules they will have to operate under will make their sport un-rewarding.

This person (whoever it is) has been able to coordinate with their attorneys to submit "draft" rules to the Legislative Research Council to be checked for compliance with our state law which do not contain any content that is not allowed under our statutes.  This person is able to then to rewrite the "draft" rule by inserting language into the rule before presenting it to the GFP commission for approval.  At the same time the GFP Commission themselves can amend (or change the wording) of a proposed rule without having the amendment checked by our Legislative Research Council for conformance to our state law.

When this rule then goes to the Interim Rules Review Committee for final approval the GFP staff attorney can then testify that the rule he reviewed was in conformance with our statutes.  He can truthfully say this because he did not review the rule after the language has been changed by the GFP Dept or amended by the GFP Commission.  He only checks the rule for conformance with our laws during the draft stage.  The IRRC can then move on and approve the rule since the gfp's attorney stated that the proposed rule conformed to our statutes (even though it currently does not). 

The Wildlife Division is also responsible for the enforcement of the Wildlife Divisions rules.  This is very convenient for them because if one of our fur trappers complains to much about the rules they must operate under the Wildlife Division can have them arrested for a rules violation (either real or setup) and the fur trapper can then lose his "business" license completely.  I am not saying that this has ever happened but one does hear some convincing stories that this may have happened.  This is an inherent problem with having a Dept that makes the rules that the same Dept enforces.

This points to at least six flaws in our current system,  

1. The rule can be changed after being checked for compliance with our state law (at the Legislative Research Council) by the GFP Dept.
2. The commission can change what has been checked for compliance with our laws by amending the rule.
3. The IRRC does not engage an independent review of the rule for compliance with our statutes and the GFP's authority to initiate the rule by their own attorney.
4. There is no penalty for nor any crime committed in manipulating the system in this manner. 
5. The gfp dept enforces the rules that they themselves implement.  There should be a separation of power between legislation (rule making) and enforcement.  Either rule promulgation should be transferred to the Dept of Ag or enforcement transferred to Sheriff's Dept, or both.
6. A rules violation should not be able to result in the revocation of the trappers "business" license.  A person should not be able to be deprived of the ability to earn a livelihood because of a simple misunderstanding of the meaning of a rule.  The punishment does not befit the crime.

As you can tell I believe the SD GFP implemented this rule knowing full well that the rule did not conform to our states laws and that the rule was implemented in violation of our states law regarding rule making authority. 

The SD GFP implemented the unset trap rule in 2010.  They implemented the body grip restriction (which provides for the protection of a domesticated animal which the SD GFP is not authorized to do ) rule in 2012.  That makes two occurrences of the SD GFP implementing rules that are not authorized by our laws or statutes.  That also makes this a pattern.  A pattern of repeatedly disregarding our state law in their pursuit of adopting trapping restrictions.

It would be interesting to find out who came to be in a position to accomplish this manipulation sometime shortly before 2010 wouldn't it?

I am working on this problem.  And I have told our Governor about this problem.  The Gov. responded that if I have any questions or concerns to ask the Sec. of the GFP and that he (the Sec. of the GFP) would answer any questions that I have or that may come up in the future.  

Currently I am trying to get some answers out the Sec. of the GFP but am meeting resistance getting our questions answered.  The last response I got from the Sec was that he had already answered my questions (he hasn't) and that he was getting tired of my repeated requests for answers.  I believe he is currently drafting a letter (and having his response reviewed by his attorney) to me stating that he will not answer any further questions.  I will post a scan of this letter to this web log when I receive it for the whole world to see.

At some point in the near future I will have to meet with the Gov. and let him know what progress I have made.  I truly think that the Gov is trying to get to the heart of the problem and that once we identify the problem that he will take swift action to correct it.

Once we get to to bottom of this I will be asking for accountability and will be looking for someone to get fired and for new personnel to be put in place.  I will also be looking for legislation to be enacted to change our process so that this can not happen in the future.

I will keep my progress posted on this blog so please check back once in a while for updates.

SD Pheasant Numbers Decline

 Jan 31, 2014

Is the SD GFP responsible for the decline in the states pheasant numbers?  Some of it's states fur trappers think so.

In 2012 the gfp proposed a restriction on the use of bodygrip traps that required that all raccoon and skunk sized traps be recessed at least 7 inches in any baited box cubby.  This restriction took away one of the best tools our states fur trappers had for harvesting raccoon, skunk, and opossum. 

The restriction went into effect in the fall of 2012 and resulted in our trappers catching fewer raccoons, skunks, and opossum.  These unharvested predators took their toll on our pheasant population in the spring of 2013 by raiding the nests of our pheasants and destroying our pheasant hatch.  By the fall of 2013 our pheasant numbers had been decreased by 65% and this was due only to the trapping restriction that the gfp put in place that took away our trappers best tool for controlling our predators.  Pheasant numbers for the year 2014 are not looking that bright either due to the reduced hen count and colder than normal winter which may lead to increased hen predation and even less hens available to lay eggs this spring.

This restriction was put in place under the guise that requiring the traps to be recessed would help prevent any free roaming dogs from being injured in this type of trap.  In 2012 the gfp received 14 complaints (according to Fisk) and had two reported incidents of dogs being injured.  The two dogs that were injured were both illegally being allowed to run uncontrolled (one on private land and the other unleashed at a water access area).  Fourteen complaints out of 250,000+ hunters is a miniscule complaint ratio and actually shows that the majority of our hunters want these types of traps to be used to control our predators.

No one wants any dog to be injured but hunters must use some common sense.  It only takes 10 minutes to train a dog to avoid cubby traps.  If the hunter is too busy or too lazy to train their dogs they have other options such as leaving their dogs in the truck if traps are present, hunting on a private preserve,  keeping their dogs under control so they don't run wild, or learning how to release a trap or snare.  It makes no sense to try to protect hunting dogs if we destroy the pheasant population in the process by failing to control our predators.  In addition many more dogs are injured by raccoons while hunting then in any trap.

The trapping restriction was devastating to our raccoon trappers.  In South Dakota we have a very large subspecies of raccoon and they may exceed 40 lbs in weight.  This is nearly as large as a full grown coyote.  It has been suggested that our raccoons need to be this large and put on this much weight in order to survive our cold winters.  These large raccoon simply can not enter into a trap which is required to be restricted in size and recessed 7" into a box cubby.  Our trappers have reported refusals (which means that the raccoon have investigated the trap but refused to enter the trap) when trying to comply with the recess requirement by observing their tracks in the mud and snow. 

Due to these refusals our trappers have had to fall back on other less effective methods to capture raccoons such as foothold traps and dogproof traps (in a dogproof trap the raccoon must put its foot into a pipe type trap and pull on the trigger).  These traps are much less effective because foothold traps become frozen to the ground and do not operate when the weather is in a freezing / thawing state.  Dogproof traps do not work when the weather is cold because the raccoons front paws lose dexterity in cold weather and they can not grasp and pull the trigger.  These dogproof traps are also less effective in taking skunks and opossum because skunks and opossum do not reach into holes (such as in a dogproof trap) and pull on the trigger.  In a baited box cubby trap it is not uncommon for our trappers to catch 5 or more skunks or opossum for every raccoon they take.

The 7" recess applies to all public land and road right of ways.  These public lands and ROW's are very important to our pheasants as nesting habitat and yet the gfp has prevented our trappers from effectively removing predators from these areas.  This is especially true when more farm land is being tilled for production and with crp acres being put back in production.  Without effectively trapping these predators from these remaining areas these public lands and ditches become death traps or predator corridors for our pheasants who have no other areas to nest.

We have been trying to get this rule repealed and we want the gfp to voluntarily propose a rule to remove this bodygrip restriction.  But we are being met with resistance.  It seems that the gfp does not want to admit that they are the ones who are responsible for causing the decline in our pheasant population and for costing our state tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. In 2012 the SD GFP reported that the pheasant hunting had an economic value in excess of $172 million dollars.  With a 65% decline in numbers it is no wonder that the gfp does not want to admit their mistake in recommending the trapping restriction.

We do not think the gfp has the authority to provide for the protection of any domesticated animal including dogs.  We can not find anything in our SDCL (see Chapter 41-2-18) regarding rule making authority which would give the gfp the authority to provide for the protection of any domesticated animal.

If the gfp did have the authority to protect domesticated animals then they would be able to put in place restrictions to protect cats, chickens, pigs, goats, and laboratory rats.  And if the gfp put in restrictions to protect these animals they would be able to take away all of the traps that our trappers use to capture predators and furbearers. 

We have brought these very issues up with the gfp and Sec Vonk but the gfp seems very reluctant to admit their mistake and has actually even engaged their attornies to try to find ways to defend the dept's decisions and actions.  To us it seems the gfp is just compounding the problem by failing to admit their mistake and failing to take action to correct it.

 
Clearly something has run afoul in the gfp's wildlife division.

I have attached a few documents which support the beneficial effects that trapping has on increasing pheasant numbers by increasing nest survival rates, hen success, and decreasing predation.  The benefits of trapping are supported by Pheasants Forever, Delta Waterfowl, USFWS, and our states hunters and sportsmen.

What can the Pheasant Task Force do? 

1. First and foremost the current bodygrip trap restriction must be removed so that our states fur trappers can once again begin to get the upper hand on our predators.  The task force should recommend that the bodygrip restriction be repealed and removed.
2. Recommend and encourage the expanded practice of trapping on public lands including walk-in area's.
3. Recommend that a bounty be placed on nest predators such as fox, badger, raccoon, skunk, and opossum to encourage the removal of these predators.
4. Recommend that the license fees for trapping and predator hunting be waived temporarily to encourage more trappers to participate in the removal of our predators.
5. Inform the public of the benefits that trapping has on our pheasant populations.

What can you do?

Contact the Pheasant Task Force and the gfp commission and demand the the repeal of the trapping restrictions and tell them to let the trappers do their job to control our predators so that you will have pheasants to hunt.

It will only take a few minutes but it will provide a lifetime of hunting opportunity.