Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Trapping Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 07-17-2016, 09:34 AM
Big Grey Wolf Big Grey Wolf is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 6,224
Default

You might want to scroll down to June 18 posting by Rem78 a friend of Widow asking for help to transfer the trapline from her husband who passed away. Now the Biologist will be taking over her husbands line with no chance of her saving it for her son or help her to have a few dollars to make ends meet without a husband.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-17-2016, 06:00 PM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf View Post
You might want to scroll down to June 18 posting by Rem78 a friend of Widow asking for help to transfer the trapline from her husband who passed away. Now the Biologist will be taking over her husbands line with no chance of her saving it for her son or help her to have a few dollars to make ends meet without a husband.
I know of a transfer that happened in the 1980s where the line holder lost his line to a retired farmer from south of Calgary, McLeod area I believe.

I knew that trapper and he was trapping the line, but had reduced his take because he believed the fur populations was getting too low.

Meanwhile this farmer came along and struck up a friendship with the regional SRD manager. Some say they did a lot of drinking together.
This farmer let it be known that he wanted a registered line, but no one was interested in letting theirs go.

Next thing we hear is that the trapper was accused of not trapping his line properly and the line had been taken away and given to this farmer.

My dad reluctantly helped teach that farmer a bit about trapping. In the process we learned that said farmer had never trapped anything before moving to this area. But he had a dream and more money then most of us.

He became the butt of many jokes, and never really learned to trap, although he did trap some till the month he died.

Point is, this has been happening for a long time. It was never common so far as I know. Most conservation officers are fair and reasonable people in my experience and I don't expect that to change any time soon.

But I will grant you this, it is clear to me that times are changing. It could well be that you all have good reason to worry, and I could be right that what you see is not what will bring about an end to trapping.

It could be that habitat loss and development is a bigger threat.

Before most of you were born I was trapping and back then we faced similar threats. Our big concern was government regulations that limited what we could do and that added cost and time to our work.

We saw and heard the fuss made by the hippies of the day, about how cruel we were to animals and how trapping was a blood sport.

We knew they were living in a fantasy world, that trapping was nothing like they claimed it was. So we ignored them believing that people would see through their lies.

We were wrong. They were the bigger threat.

If you want to tilt at windmills, be my guest. Meanwhile I shall prey that I am wrong, for your sake.
__________________
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-17-2016, 07:28 PM
northerntrapper northerntrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Slave Lake, Alberta
Posts: 386
Default trapping changes

I have little to contribute at this point until we have our meeting this week to go over this proposed mess, hopefully with the biologist for our area in attendance. Hopefully, all other locals are doing the same.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-17-2016, 09:17 PM
TBark's Avatar
TBark TBark is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Sask, AB
Posts: 4,910
Default

Not good, This will divide trappers as I see it.
Those trapping outside RFMA and res trappers, and those who own lines.
Res trappers who want a line some day can see it a possibility now.
Those who own a trap line and just previously bought have the most to lose.
Resale to recoup investment won't happen, but recoup in fur, well maybe in time.
Simple for line owners, enjoy trapping, and don't die.
And biologist being involved it the process, well I hope it isn't a conflict of interest because some bio's are RFMA holders,
and I hope they are active trappers. Those would be the first lines I'd like to see forfeited if they are misused.

TBark
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-18-2016, 03:15 PM
209x50's Avatar
209x50 209x50 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
I think this is in the very early stages as Rob has stated. A while ago the government of Alberta sued a trapline owner for the proceeds of the sale of his line. If it was considered an asset that they could sue for the revenue over it gives us a lot more rights than what the document posted here outlines. I think I will wait to see the outcome of the discussions before I load my gun. LOL
OK, it is bound to happen and it seems I crossed up a couple of conversations so I'll set the story straight. here is how the precedent setting case actually goes:
A trapline was forfeited in a bankruptcy and the creditor had it auctioned off where it was sold to the highest bidder. The government allowed the auction to take place and signed off on the deal setting a very interesting precedent.
My apologies for getting it wrong the first time, however even I understand the precedent set in the case.
If you have any points you would like to be brought up at the upcoming discussions on this put them in writing and email them to you local president or district director. They are very interested in getting all your feedback on the proposed changes.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-18-2016, 04:32 PM
antlercarver antlercarver is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,391
Default Who is a TRAPPER

Owning farm land does not make one a farmer.
Owning a trapping lease does not make one a trapper.
I suspect the greatest push back against new regulations will not be
from real trappers but from people who say I`m a trapper because I
own a line and I spent $ xxxxk.
A real trapline after all travel and other expenses should show a profit
from sale of fur, at least most years.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-18-2016, 04:57 PM
jawa jawa is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KegRiver View Post
Pandering to the complainers again are they.

They are understaffed and overworked as it is. This is just another "from the top" decision that the front line people have no time or resources to enforce.

The biggest offenders, outfitters who buy trap lines as exclusive hunting territories have friends in high places and they will get a pass for obvious reasons.

A few honest trappers will loose their lines and the problem will continue unabated.

Am I jaded, you bet. After sixty years of seeing how it works I absolutely am jaded.
I've seen too many little guys get spanked for a little of nothing while the big offenders go about their business untouched. And the biggest of them all are top government people.

Paying top dollar does not buy the best of the best, it only buys the most successful crooks.
This is in my opinion the most accurate statement as to what the purposed changes will amount to
A lot of what is being purposed in my opinion is intended to appease some special interest groups tighten up requirements in regards to experience training etc so the most qualified person gets the line smell a lot like everyones favorite wolf critic and cronies at work
think keg summed it up best when he said a few honest trappers will loose there lines I will take it a step farther and say I bet they wind up in the hands of friends of government
time will tell if im right or wrong hopefully wrong and no one looses
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-18-2016, 05:39 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jawa View Post
A lot of what is being purposed in my opinion is intended to appease some special interest groups tighten up requirements in regards to experience training etc so the most qualified person gets the line smell a lot like everyones favorite wolf critic and cronies at work.
I'm going to disagree with that. Our little friend would be happy to see all traplines not being used. The government didn't come up with this initiative on their own though, IMO it was Alberta trappers that pushed for it. Read post #51. It sucks for guys who recently purchased a line and/or made costly improvements but for non-RFMA holders, affordable lines is good news. That's the way that I see it.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-18-2016, 06:07 PM
martinnordegg martinnordegg is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
OK, it is bound to happen and it seems I crossed up a couple of conversations so I'll set the story straight. here is how the precedent setting case actually goes:
A trapline was forfeited in a bankruptcy and the creditor had it auctioned off where it was sold to the highest bidder. The government allowed the auction to take place and signed off on the deal setting a very interesting precedent.
My apologies for getting it wrong the first time, however even I understand the precedent set in the case.

They didn't set any precedent. Maybe a bad decision from someone that isn't there anymore..LOL. Or maybe the previous Govt.. You haven't given enough information as to when or really any information. So what was the result of this so called "auction". Did the trapline change hands or? Could be the result of some drinkin thinkin at the Rendezvous. Probably the same Legal Advisors chiming in that attempted to get the ATA "missing money" back. (Over $200,000.00) That really happened didn't it.

In any case there is a new Fur Management Team formed and sanctioned by the Govt. of the day and there are new guidelines. Maybe Mellon you've never seen the Govt. change rules and regulations to suit their objectives but if you watch the News it might update your thinking.

If you have any points you would like to be brought up at the upcoming discussions on this put them in writing and email them to you local president or district director. They are very interested in getting all your feedback on the proposed changes.
Well Sept. is a long time away but this is the only constructive point you've made. Trappers stand up for yourselves!! The other point I will make is they are not proposed changes they are in effect NOW!!
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-18-2016, 06:32 PM
209x50's Avatar
209x50 209x50 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
I'm going to disagree with that. Our little friend would be happy to see all traplines not being used. The government didn't come up with this initiative on their own though, IMO it was Alberta trappers that pushed for it. Read post #51. It sucks for guys who recently purchased a line and/or made costly improvements but for non-RFMA holders, affordable lines is good news. That's the way that I see it.
We came within a whisker of losing it all a few years backs. The GOA was getting rid of the RFMA system south of highway 16 and creating a free for all. The ATA had to agree that traplines must be utilized for trapping. That was the agreement but as usual a few years, a few round table discussions and we see the abortion that came out of the simple premise. I don't see this changing the prices or how traplines change hands. The GOA fears litigation on this and know they can't win in court.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-18-2016, 07:02 PM
martinnordegg martinnordegg is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
We came within a whisker of losing it all a few years backs. Backs?? That's the old Klassen fearmongering. The GOA was getting rid of the RFMA system south of highway 16 and creating a free for all. Where is your evidence? The ATA had to agree that traplines must be utilized for trapping. That was the agreement but as usual a few years, a few round table discussions and we see the abortion that came out of the simple premise.Well the ATA never conveyed what you are saying.. more BS
don't see this changing the prices or how traplines change hands. The GOA fears litigation on this and know they can't win in court.
Fear litigation?? That's such a joke. Where in heck do you get your information? Trapping is not a right. It is a priveledge.

Just for the record Mellon this isn't about trapline prices it's about transfers and why a Junior or Family member may be beat out in a competition for the right to be the Senior Holder on a trap line.

And Mellon maybe you don't quite get it but your time line on your statements encompass two different Governments. Maybe do some real research intead of using heresay and posts you have to correct because your "facts" are bogus.

Last edited by martinnordegg; 07-18-2016 at 07:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-18-2016, 08:09 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,207
Default

I suspect that this is the case 209 is referring to.

With a cursory read, it appears that the government agents made some mistakes in process that ended up biting them. I don't see how this is precedent making. There sure seems to be current and Valid legislation for the government to make such decisions.


https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...&resultIndex=1

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Citation: Cooper v. Ganter, 2012 ABQB 695


Date:20121123 Docket: 0713 11300 Registry: Fort McMurray


Between:

Gary Cooper and Marvin Boucher Plaintiffs
- and -


Brenda Ganter as Personal Representative of Bertha Ganter, deceased,
Stephen Ganter, and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta Defendants


From the decision.

"[35] I note I have some discretion under Rule 1.5(1) to convert the Amended Statement of Claim to an originating application for judicial review. I decline to exercise this discretion as there was no application by the Plaintiffs for such relief. Further to do so would circumvent the operation of the six month limitation period for judicial review under Rule 3.15. With respect to the Crown the Plaintiffs are not seeking a broad interpretation of their legal position (declaratory relief) but rather in essence they seek to challenge and set aside the Crown’s administrative decision.

[36] The Crown has met the high onus of establishing there is no merit to the Plaintiffs’ claims against it. There are no genuine issues for trial in the Plaintiffs’ action commenced by Statement of Claim against the Crown and their claim has no reasonable prospect of success in its present nature and form against the Crown."
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-18-2016, 08:10 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
We came within a whisker of losing it all a few years backs. The GOA was getting rid of the RFMA system south of highway 16 and creating a free for all. The ATA had to agree that traplines must be utilized for trapping. That was the agreement but as usual a few years, a few round table discussions and we see the abortion that came out of the simple premise. I don't see this changing the prices or how traplines change hands. The GOA fears litigation on this and know they can't win in court.
That's kinda like I said isn't it? The GOA didn't come up with this on their own and Alberta trappers had a hand in it. Maybe it backfired? Who knows.....Who'll tell?

I don't have a dog in the fight so I am not as passionate about the RFMA issue as people that do. What I do have an issue with is that all of this is coming to light on a thread on AO when it appears to me that this has been talked about for several years. I shouldn't have to know the right people and/or attend picnics in order to know what the major trapping issues are in Alberta.

I'll take your word for what you stated because there is no where to find any information about any of what you wrote. Not trying to be an ass, just pointing out how little info is available to us peons.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-18-2016, 09:22 PM
expedition expedition is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 584
Default

The whole thing just stinks. Not being represented by our government. Being attacked by our government..
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-18-2016, 10:03 PM
expedition expedition is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
I suspect that this is the case 209 is referring to.

With a cursory read, it appears that the government agents made some mistakes in process that ended up biting them. I don't see how this is precedent making. There sure seems to be current and Valid legislation for the government to make such decisions.


https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...&resultIndex=1

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Citation: Cooper v. Ganter, 2012 ABQB 695


Date:20121123 Docket: 0713 11300 Registry: Fort McMurray


Between:

Gary Cooper and Marvin Boucher Plaintiffs
- and -


Brenda Ganter as Personal Representative of Bertha Ganter, deceased,
Stephen Ganter, and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta Defendants


From the decision.

"[35] I note I have some discretion under Rule 1.5(1) to convert the Amended Statement of Claim to an originating application for judicial review. I decline to exercise this discretion as there was no application by the Plaintiffs for such relief. Further to do so would circumvent the operation of the six month limitation period for judicial review under Rule 3.15. With respect to the Crown the Plaintiffs are not seeking a broad interpretation of their legal position (declaratory relief) but rather in essence they seek to challenge and set aside the Crown’s administrative decision.

[36] The Crown has met the high onus of establishing there is no merit to the Plaintiffs’ claims against it. There are no genuine issues for trial in the Plaintiffs’ action commenced by Statement of Claim against the Crown and their claim has no reasonable prospect of success in its present nature and form against the Crown."

I think the one 209 is referring to is a trapline that was seized by rev Canada in a bankruptcy . the line was then put in an sealed bid auction and was sold to a guy who had never held a trapping licence (not resident licence or a junior or a senior permit holder licence) . He also never took the course before the auction . the three top bids were 20 000.00, 40 000.00, and 177 000.00. the whole deal was bad but the court approved it.

If this does set a precedent than so does every sale of a trapline that sold for cash. Problem is the government has the right to change the law. But I thought it had to go through the legislative house. Does any one know if it did go through the legislature??

a better precedent would be why oil leases can still be bought and sold to the highest bidder but a trapping lease cannot. A lumber lease can still be bought and sold why not a trapping lease. a gravel pit on crown land can still be bought and sold why not a trapping lease. Same with natural gas . same with gold leases. we are being singled out for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-18-2016, 10:52 PM
Torkdiesel's Avatar
Torkdiesel Torkdiesel is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Kakwa
Posts: 3,973
Default

I don't see the prices of lines going down at all, in fact I see them rising because not many will take a chance on losing it.
Now we'll all just keep them until we die. Then I guess after my boy has been my junior partner for 30 years or so the Bio won't have a choice but to let him have it. That or end up in court to prove why he shouldn't give it to the trapper with 30 years experience on that line. Then 40 years after that if Traplines still exist I assume he'll do the same with his boy.

So other then the few, and I mean very few people that luck out when somebody dies nobody new will be getting a line.

And if by some chance somebody ever did "get" my line, it would definitely be without my cabin, bridges, trails or anything else I've ever done out there. As long as I wasn't dead I guess :/
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-19-2016, 08:10 AM
martinnordegg martinnordegg is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf View Post
You might want to scroll down to June 18 posting by Rem78 a friend of Widow asking for help to transfer the trapline from her husband who passed away. Now the Biologist will be taking over her husbands line with no chance of her saving it for her son or help her to have a few dollars to make ends meet without a husband.

His line just came available for open application. It's started already.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-19-2016, 08:23 AM
jim summit's Avatar
jim summit jim summit is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Birch Mt to Fort Vermilion
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torkdiesel View Post
I don't see the prices of lines going down at all, in fact I see them rising because not many will take a chance on losing it.
Now we'll all just keep them until we die. Then I guess after my boy has been my junior partner for 30 years or so the Bio won't have a choice but to let him have it. That or end up in court to prove why he shouldn't give it to the trapper with 30 years experience on that line. Then 40 years after that if Traplines still exist I assume he'll do the same with his boy.

So other then the few, and I mean very few people that luck out when somebody dies nobody new will be getting a line.

And if by some chance somebody ever did "get" my line, it would definitely be without my cabin, bridges, trails or anything else I've ever done out there. As long as I wasn't dead I guess :/
These are my thoughts as well, not taking a chance at letting it go. Just sign on junior partners till a ripe old age, or till the next Gov in a few years and things could change again. I'm not to happy about this being pushed in like this, reminds me of bill 6 and farming.
Wonder who is next?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-19-2016, 01:14 PM
pikeslayer22 pikeslayer22 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,701
Default

Look what happened to the Commercial Fishing in AB...Know a guy that bought the gear and allocations to for 2 lakes and 2 years later they pulled the plug on it
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-19-2016, 02:48 PM
nube nube is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In a house
Posts: 7,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeslayer22 View Post
Look what happened to the Commercial Fishing in AB...Know a guy that bought the gear and allocations to for 2 lakes and 2 years later they pulled the plug on it
But they did get bought out from the Gov't at least from what I heard did they not. At least if you got your investment back then it's at least something
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 07-19-2016, 08:58 PM
6tmile 6tmile is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 931
Default

These changes look like they were talked about back in 2004. This is a pretty good read.



OUTDOOR PURSUITS
with Rob Miskosky

Trapline Troubles

I’m not sure how or when it all started but I’m guessing it was like a festering sore that just wouldn’t go away, eventually leading to the point where something had to be done to mitigate an unwanted end. The sore had been left too long, perhaps ignored because correcting the problem would likely bring it to the forefront, and nobody really wanted that. But then it just couldn’t be ignored any longer; people were starting to notice and it was getting ugly—it was surely going to leave a scar that would require corrective measures to repair.

And here we are today, where that scar is quite visible and quite ugly but still quite repairable if those in charge accept the challenge placed before them. Because there is no room here for dispute or petty differences; a 250 year history is at stake and with that an honourable time-proven, sustainable profession and invaluable knowledge that must be preserved at all costs.

And as such, in 2004 Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) began “working through a review and improvement process of trapping in Alberta.” There was little choice; fix it or get rid of it. Scary enough, getting rid of it was considered.



Abandoned? Apparently not, unless of course you read the Wildlife Act.
It began more likely from complaints of abuse of trapline privileges where claims of traplines being purchased for uses other than trapping were being confirmed. Others had become mere eyesores, blights on the landscape and as such blind eyes were turned to their existence. Others were virtually abandoned, yet licences were renewed by Fish and Wildlife staff at leisure, regardless of mis-use.

And the Alberta Trappers Compensation Program, a program designed for compensating trappers for trapping business losses related to industrial activity on Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMA’s) and administered by the Alberta Trappers Association (ATA), had become a dinosaur that nobody wanted, at least not the administration of it in its current form.

Recognizing this, both SRD and the ATA sat in earnest and drafted the “Detailed Business Case for Alberta’s Trapping Program”. A paper that set before it a detailed path that would correct much of what was wrong and how trapping in Alberta should move forward in the 21st Century. And although no paper is perfect, this one is close. So close in fact, there is no reason I should be writing this column in its current context.

The “Business Case” is the end result of two separate working groups who were “charged with the responsibility of fully reviewing the fundamental policy and regulatory structure that is the foundation of today’s trapping industry in Alberta” and to review and recommend “how trapper compensation should be managed”.

The end result brought forward a proposal to “have the ATA take a larger role in Alberta’s trapping program through an expanded Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)”.

It would also give SRD, in conjunction with the ATA, further ability to remove delinquent RFMA holders and those who use traplines for purposes other than trapping through an active trapper designation that would be fully enforced, and those that failed to meet those standards would “be ineligible to hold a licence”.

According to Gordy Klassen, president of the ATA, there may be several hundred RFMA holders who would be in peril of losing their traplines, some immediately. And rightfully so. Both SRD and the ATA want real trappers on the ground managing the resource, not simply RFMA holders who probably couldn’t find their way across their RFMA if they tried.

The Business Case also lays out quite clearly the minimum standards by which a trapper would have to abide to retain his “active” status, including the submission of an RFMA plan by April 30th of each year that shows the trapper is active and utilizing his RFMA to its sustainable harvest potential. Fur harvest records that include the signing of a statutory declaration confirming the fur report is correct, must be submitted each year along with fur receipts/returns as well.

Trappers must also maintain a “minimum level of competency” that includes upgraded training, ultimately enhancing the image of trappers and their professionalism and “force non-trappers or inactive trappers to make decisions regarding their involvement in the program”.

And the illegal or inappropriate use of trapline cabins will come to an end as a minimum set of standards will be adopted and enforced.



Sights like this are soon to be a thing of the past. Notice the abandoned truck sunk in the muskeg.

Funding for the new trapping program would become the responsibility of the ATA and would come from education and training fees, existing grants to the ATA and a liberal licence fee increase to RFMA holders from the current $40.00 to $300.00. The increase in monies to the ATA would be substantial but so too would be their responsibilities, which appears to be what everybody wants with the eventuality of a Delegated Administrative Organization (DAO) that would become the delivery tool for the new trapping program in Alberta. According to the ATA there would be enough funds to administer the program effectively, including the hiring of staff.

But for one reason or another the “Trapping in the 21st Century” train was derailed and now, six years later, that derailed train still sits idle and frustrations lay everywhere; from the Alberta Trappers Association through to Alberta’s Fish and Wildlife head office in Edmonton. In between are Fish and Wildlife enforcement officers, resident trappers with little to no hope for ever holding an RFMA without paying a King’s ransom, as well as registered trapline holders who have faced the wrath of a timber harvest that leaves them with little or no room left to trap on their current line, but stand by while their neighbour RFMA holder has little regard for trapping and ignores the rules in place within our Wildlife Act.

Many believe the derailment of the trapping train was brought about purposely by factions within SRD who would rather see trapping removed from the landscape. It is much easier to access public land for resource extraction when there isn’t a forest guardian standing in the way.

Others believe a dispute between biologists and trappers on how predator control should be undertaken may also be playing a part. It appears that groups like Defenders of Wildlife may have infiltrated the ranks of a respected biologist regime; perhaps growing a fear that their services may not be required should trappers institute their own programs with SRD encouragement.

As a resident trapper standing by and watching the turmoil unfold I can only shake my head. The program is in place and it’s a good one. But it can only be good if the dust gets kicked off the proverbial “paper” and maybe a few others standing in the way get kicked in the proverbial you know what.

Frustrated at my own lack of ability to secure a registered trapline without giving up my first born, I requested a meeting with both ATA president Gordy Klassen and Assistant Deputy Minister of SRD’s Fish and Wildlife Division, Dave England, a former fish and wildlife officer and an honourable man by any standards.

My hope was to explain the frustration many trappers feel when so many traplines across the province sit vacant or mis-used. The solution to many of the problems both the ATA and SRD face is a lack of legitimate trappers on the landscape. And it’s not as though there aren’t real trappers out there; they are there and they are ready and willing to step up to the plate under whatever guidelines are presented to them. They just need the support of their government—funny thing is that support already appears to be in place, it’s just never been given.

In our meeting we were told that trapping in Alberta would soon be sporting a new look and gone would be the pretenders and real trappers would soon be put back on the landscape. In fact England said he needed two months in which to set things right.

Coming from a man in Dave’s position I have new hope for trapping in Alberta. I know that the ATA is ready to move forward and have high hopes SRD is as well. I also believe that any differences can be worked out quickly, because I also believe that is exactly what everybody wants to see.

It’s time to put the train back on the track and get it rolling. The track is in place and the train is upright; we just have to fire up the engine. ■


For previous Outdoor Pursuits click here.
__________________
CAVEAT EMPTOR!
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-20-2016, 09:28 AM
Big Grey Wolf Big Grey Wolf is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 6,224
Default

A trapper that has actively managed his line as a business, built good cabins
(Not lodges) built many bridges, cleared many trails, bought expensive quad, snowmobile, truck, traps etc has more "Skin" in the game than a biologist that gets two cheques deposited in his bank twice a month.
The trapper must have a say in the "line transfer" as it has a significant dollar impact on him and his family. The 1992 F & W document was very clear on how both parties would be represented during line Transfers. Now all the power is being placed in the hands of a bureaucrat, most just a couple years out of school. The sale of the assets that cannot be removed from the line must be dove tailed into the line transfer process.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-20-2016, 01:42 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6tmile View Post
Trappers must also maintain a “minimum level of competency” that includes upgraded training, ultimately enhancing the image of trappers and their professionalism and “force non-trappers or inactive trappers to make decisions regarding their involvement in the program”.
Am I reading this right? To me this sounds like the requirement to attend fur handling workshops, etc on an ongoing basis. If so, I can't see this only applying to RFMA holders and will most definitely apply to resident trappers as well. You can't have two standards ".....enhancing the image of trappers and their professionalism....", one for RFMA trappers and one for resident trappers.

Being that this particular issue could potentially effect virtually every trapper in Alberta, was this discussed with the membership and a resolution drafted reflecting the desires of Alberta trappers? If not, the system is broken IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-20-2016, 03:54 PM
martinnordegg martinnordegg is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,271
Default

Today I went in and renewed my Junior status on the RFMA and got a Resident Licence.

Under the Terms and Conditions on the Resident Licence:

"1. The holder of this Resident Fur Management Licence is required to complete a Resident Fur Harvest Report on Fur Harvesting upon renewal."

On the handout the Administrator gave me which SPRUCE posted it goes further than that saying " Starting in 2017 (next year) both Resident and Registered Trappers will be required to submit fur sales receipts. Please retain all fur sales receipts from this upcoming 2016-2017 trapping season to bring in when you renew your licence in 2017." Just to clarify by going further I mean it doesn't state on the licence itself having to bring in receipts to accompany your harvest report

I discussed a few things as well today with a fellow trapper who is Senior on an RFMA and had gone in to renew. The administrator would not renew his line as the Biologist had not yet reviewed his past documents. So looks like renewal may not be a given either.

Last edited by martinnordegg; 07-20-2016 at 04:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-20-2016, 04:04 PM
martinnordegg martinnordegg is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Am I reading this right? To me this sounds like the requirement to attend fur handling workshops, etc on an ongoing basis. If so, I can't see this only applying to RFMA holders and will most definitely apply to resident trappers as well. You can't have two standards ".....enhancing the image of trappers and their professionalism....", one for RFMA trappers and one for resident trappers.

Being that this particular issue could potentially effect virtually every trapper in Alberta, was this discussed with the membership and a resolution drafted reflecting the desires of Alberta trappers? If not, the system is broken IMO.
Well the ATA gets a whack of taxpayer cash every year in their MOU with AEP to administer and deliver trapper education in Alberta. I guess they're going to get a bit busier.

Last edited by martinnordegg; 07-20-2016 at 04:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-20-2016, 05:21 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinnordegg View Post
Well the ATA gets a whack of taxpayer cash every year in their MOU with AEP to administer and deliver trapper education in Alberta. I guess they're going to get a bit busier.
I'm aware of the MOU but I have no idea of the amount or how it is used.

As it is now the ATA can't conduct enough Trapping courses to keep up with the demand. There are currently 11 courses scheduled and of them 6 are being conducted by the ATA. The other 5 courses are being conducted by the two privately owned trapper training companies.

On the list of courses on the application form that you posted on your thread there are courses listed that the ATA currently doesn't even conduct! I highly doubt that they'll be able to start conducting them now. The privately owned companies will be a lot busier though.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-20-2016, 05:30 PM
martinnordegg martinnordegg is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
I'm aware of the MOU but I have no idea of the amount or how it is used.

As it is now the ATA can't conduct enough Trapping courses to keep up with the demand. There are currently 11 courses scheduled and of them 6 are being conducted by the ATA. The other 5 courses are being conducted by the two privately owned trapper training companies.

On the list of courses on the application form that you posted on your thread there are courses listed that the ATA currently doesn't even conduct! I highly doubt that they'll be able to start conducting them now. The privately owned companies will be a lot busier though.
The demand will be huge. As we speak 209 is monitoring and reporting back to headquarters. Maybe he'll open up a franchise school and take some of the heat off the demand. It would work well with the TV show and educate some trappers as well. Things are looking up. We need people with lots of experience to get trappers through this transition.

Last edited by martinnordegg; 07-20-2016 at 05:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-20-2016, 06:21 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

This whole thing makes me sick and I think that it would be best if I requested a voluntary time out. THIS is the type of thing that I'd expect to happen in a third world country, not here! Unbelievable!
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-26-2019, 02:19 PM
yycyak yycyak is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 17
Default

I'm going to bump this, just for a status update.

Did this every get resolved or settled down? Or are things still up in the air regarding the gov's ability to "okay" the sale of a Line to a willing buyer?

Does anyone have any recent experience with a sale being good to go on paper, only to have the SRD biologist say no?
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-26-2019, 04:46 PM
drake's Avatar
drake drake is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,553
Default

It’s quite painless actually. Seller and buyer work out deal. Submit the conditional relinquishment paper work to GOA bio. As long as buyer meets minimum criteria (experience on the line, standard trapping course etc) the RFMA gets transferred.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.