Go Back   Alberta Outdoors Forum > Main Category > Trapping Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-30-2024, 11:10 AM
Rob Miskosky's Avatar
Rob Miskosky Rob Miskosky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,062
Default Furbearer Limits (Quotas) have been removed for 2024-2025

For the 2024-2025 trapping season, all furbearer limits (quotas) for wolverine, river otter, Canada lynx and fisher have been removed where there is an open season. Please see the updated trapping regulations and limits at https://albertaregulations.ca/trappi...ns.html#quotas
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-30-2024, 10:19 PM
treeroot treeroot is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky View Post
For the 2024-2025 trapping season, all furbearer limits (quotas) for wolverine, river otter, Canada lynx and fisher have been removed where there is an open season. Please see the updated trapping regulations and limits at https://albertaregulations.ca/trappi...ns.html#quotas
Would be cool if they allowed residential trappers the odd year to get a couple animals they normally can not target.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-30-2024, 10:29 PM
aarjay aarjay is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17
Default Quotas

Great news. Thanks to all who worked on making this happen. Quotas were never a management tool anyways.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-31-2024, 08:51 PM
Outlaw2277 Outlaw2277 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2024
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by treeroot View Post
Would be cool if they allowed residential trappers the odd year to get a couple animals they normally can not target.

Buy a trapline, make the investment like the rest of us and you will get quota.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2024, 08:36 AM
treeroot treeroot is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw2277 View Post
Buy a trapline, make the investment like the rest of us and you will get quota.
Not my point...

Limits and what you can target needs to be able to change over time. As pop go up and down, rules need to change with it.

There was no otter in my WMU, or very little, on both RFMA's and private.. now the population has exploded.. F and W has confirmed this with me. So why not let residential trappers take one?

What's the reasoning behind allowing RFMA's to have no limits this season?

I'm sure the same reasoning for allowing RFMA's to have no limit this year can also be applied to residential trapping.

If the reasoning is to allow trappers to make a bit more money this season, can this not be applied to residential guys?

You don't think residential trappers have to invest? It's not nearly the same as a RFMA (which I have also done in the past), but its still an investment. Not many ppl are trapping anywhere right now because of fur prices, including residential trappers.

Seems like some people are only in favor of helping out trappers if it only benefits them? Or maybe some people think RFMA holders think they are better than residential trappers?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-02-2024, 11:45 AM
3blade's Avatar
3blade 3blade is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,353
Default

The reason is to hold onto the current system

If registered lines go unused, the provincial government faces pressure to turn it over to the more-equals. As it stands the provincial government can prove conclusively that registered trappers are a useful wildlife management tool. Removing quotas helps increase harvest. If there is little to no harvest or data, that argument fails.

The courts (heavily influenced by federal politics) will give the more-equals everything they want and more. So you don’t go to court against them without overwhelming evidence

Resident trappers are viewed as recreational (or problem wildlife control), and will never be a higher priority than more equals or registered. No it is not fair, or right, but the wildlife management world rarely is.

If the more-equals get their way there will be no (non-treaty) trapping, and most low information urban voters would be happy to see it that way. Stop fighting amongst yourselves.
__________________
“Nothing is more persistent than a liberal with a dumb idea” - Ebrand
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-02-2024, 01:07 PM
treeroot treeroot is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3blade View Post
The reason is to hold onto the current system

If registered lines go unused, the provincial government faces pressure to turn it over to the more-equals. As it stands the provincial government can prove conclusively that registered trappers are a useful wildlife management tool. Removing quotas helps increase harvest. If there is little to no harvest or data, that argument fails.

The courts (heavily influenced by federal politics) will give the more-equals everything they want and more. So you don’t go to court against them without overwhelming evidence

Resident trappers are viewed as recreational (or problem wildlife control), and will never be a higher priority than more equals or registered. No it is not fair, or right, but the wildlife management world rarely is.

If the more-equals get their way there will be no (non-treaty) trapping, and most low information urban voters would be happy to see it that way. Stop fighting amongst yourselves.
I agree. I never started the fight, but I don't agree with someone's idea of entitlement. Either way, a trapper is a trapper and should back each other up, not divide.

Not doubting you, but where did you learn the reasoning behind the quote removal?

If we actually let the system do exactly what it is supposed to do, unused lines would be taken and given/sold to trappers willing to trap them.

If you don't catch your quota, and have no justifiable reason why you didn't, you should loose your line to the long list of trappers eagerly waiting to have a line of their own. The list of trappers wanting their own line is quite long depending on the area.

Justiable reasons would have to be set in stone reasons such are logging, fire etc.. saying "I was working too much this winter" should only be acceptable with proof and only acceptable for a couple of years.


This just doesn't happen though.

I know dozens of lines that do not get trapped. It's been in the family for years... The older trapper no longer can trap and no other family have any interest but they don't want to let their cabin in the woods go.. If you talk to these families they openly state they don't trap it anymore because they themsevles often don't understand the contract the trapper has with the government to trap it.

99% of the time I ask the senior sign on as jr, I get no.. and the reason given is they believe if they sign on a jr, the jr will take the line from them.

This is the problem... yes fur prices suck, but lets be honest, trapping is just a hobby these days.. a wildlife management tool for the government, but to the line holder, just a hobby..

If the government started seeing lines for a couple years, those family line holders will likely step up and trap.. Which is what should happen.

They have policies, but they don't want to enforce them..

And then we have the issue of lines being sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars.. You should be able to get your money back (including improvements you made on the line), but line prices have gotten out of hand for a long time now.

My point is, untrapped lines are easily fixed if they ever decide to enforce policies..

It would be hard for a family to loose a line that's been in the family for decades, but start trapping it or loose it to someone who will. If I was in their shoes, it would be a crap situation, but that is the contract the trapper has with the province.


I should add, I can not state how many times RFMA holders have asked me if I would sell my furs (trapped on residential land) to them so they can claim them.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-02-2024, 10:57 PM
antlercarver antlercarver is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,461
Default Trap lines

Every often when a residential trapper does get a UNUSED trapline soon they also do not trap it because the fur prices are to low to cover expenses and they themselves are doing what they complained about. A residential tapper usually traps less than 10 miles from home with minimal equipment , not 2-4 hours drive from home.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-03-2024, 06:53 AM
treeroot treeroot is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by antlercarver View Post
Every often when a residential trapper does get a UNUSED trapline soon they also do not trap it because the fur prices are to low to cover expenses and they themselves are doing what they complained about. A residential tapper usually traps less than 10 miles from home with minimal equipment , not 2-4 hours drive from home.
I've honestly only known a couple ppl who got RFMA's recently..

1 is just a rich guy who bought a cabin in the woods.. HE doesn't trap it.. He is well known for asking residential guy's to buy their target animals (coyotes/fox/wolfe) and incidental catches like lynx, fischer etc

2- an actual person who wants to trap. and they are trapping it.



When they tried to get bio's to take over RFMA's one of the stipulations they wanted to put in place before a line was transfered is that it's close enough to the owner that they will likely trap it. I think this is a good idea, but some lines are no where near where people live.. And some ppl are willing to drive. My dream would be when I retire I get a RFMA and I would be fine if its a 2-4 hour drive because I would be wanting to live there for the trapping season.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-03-2024, 01:07 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3blade View Post
The reason is to hold onto the current system

If registered lines go unused, the provincial government faces pressure to turn it over to the more-equals. As it stands the provincial government can prove conclusively that registered trappers are a useful wildlife management tool. Removing quotas helps increase harvest. If there is little to no harvest or data, that argument fails.

The courts (heavily influenced by federal politics) will give the more-equals everything they want and more. So you don’t go to court against them without overwhelming evidence

Resident trappers are viewed as recreational (or problem wildlife control), and will never be a higher priority than more equals or registered. No it is not fair, or right, but the wildlife management world rarely is.

If the more-equals get their way there will be no (non-treaty) trapping, and most low information urban voters would be happy to see it that way. Stop fighting amongst yourselves.

What is the connection between an unlimited bag limit and the discussion here regarding quotas?

They are not the same thing.

Have quotas also been eliminated?




How is an unlimited bag limit going to be argued in court as evidence of effective "wildlife management"?
For some species, such as wolf at peak populations, sure, that could possibly be successfully argued...
As for Otter or lynx or martin....
This would be a difficult legal argument requiring a pile of new science and a potential media fight in the public realm.


Regarding evidence of increased Trapping line value due to a short term increase in harvest based on unlimited harvest having legal power in the courts to prevent transfer to First Nation control, think again.
The more valuable the resource is, the greater the potential a demand to "share" and for the courts to require more "sharing" of the resource.


-----


What is the government's reasoning for this change?
__________________
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
  #11  
Old 11-05-2024, 09:33 AM
3blade's Avatar
3blade 3blade is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,353
Default

My understanding, based on what I know of the current back room discussion, is the more equals are taking the “rich white guy in the woods is preventing us from trapping” argument to their legal teams to test the waters. Thus the current intense focus on quantifiable harvest.

It’s all hearsay, I’m hardly the authority on this. But a quota regulation change following a hearsay rumble indicates there’s some legitimate concern.
__________________
“Nothing is more persistent than a liberal with a dumb idea” - Ebrand
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-05-2024, 10:37 AM
antlercarver antlercarver is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,461
Default Trapping

Everyone sees any situation as how it affects them. I am hungry for fish- get a fishing license. I WANT to drive to town- get a drivers license. I WANT to trap for animals on a quota- get a RFMA. Many people think the world revolves around them.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-08-2024, 04:18 PM
Marty S Marty S is offline
AO Sponsor
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,501
Default

One thing at a time

Rome wasnt built in a day

This quota elimination is progress. In due course such species could be taken on a resident licence. But aint gonna happen if you just complain on line, get involved with the ATA and join up with like minded trappers
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-08-2024, 06:51 PM
treeroot treeroot is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 427
Default

https://edmontonsun.com/news/alberta...to-gather-data
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-08-2024, 07:15 PM
trapperdodge trapperdodge is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 624
Default

I'm on board. Let's get some some data and see where were at.

Out here on the AB/SK border I've seen 7 otter this summer/fall. They are in the lower SSK, RD and local creeks.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-09-2024, 06:46 AM
South west trappin RG's Avatar
South west trappin RG South west trappin RG is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Black Diamond
Posts: 821
Default Quota

The quota system was put in place because of the extreamly high fur prices late 70s eairly 80s I don’t know the exzact time but fur barrer populations were greatly affected by over harvest due to the price of them. The no quota system has been talked about for a long time since, essentially letting the trapper who solely traps an area decide what the harvest capacity can be for said RFMA. Fur barrer populations fluctuate an so should harvest.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 03:48 PM.


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