# California bans fur trapping for recreation & commerce



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

U.S. News
California bans fur trapping for recreation, commerce
By ADAM BEAM

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California on Wednesday became the first state to ban commercial fur trapping, ending the practice nearly 200 years after animals like beavers and otters introduced the American West to international trade.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday he had signed a bill into law making it illegal to trap animals for the purposes of recreation or to sell their fur. It is still legal to trap animals for other purposes, including pest control and public health.

https://www.apnews.com/f398fcd03f1e48968aa1c49866e01dd0


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Scary stuff. A foot in the door. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

**** California! That state can fall in the ocean.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The ending of recreational trapping seems odd. I don't understand how that is different from other types of hunting other than it can often be less than lethal.

But could someone explain to me why commercial trapping of public wildlife is still legitimate? I ask as we as hunters largely ended market hunting a century ago because of it's inherent problems. I don't know much about how trapping has evolved over the last century.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> **** California! That state can fall in the ocean.


Perfectly worded IMO!!!!!


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I wonder if they did away with the "government Trappers" ? I can see it now, All kinds of critters creating chaos for Cal.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> The ending of recreational trapping seems odd. I don't understand how that is different from other types of hunting other than it can often be less than lethal.


I suspect all kinds of hunting will be next. It's certainly on the agenda.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Recreational trapping?? I know that a few people may set traps, mostly snares, to catch an occasional rabbit for the pot, but for the most part, trapping is done for profit. That is, catch it, shin it, sell it. 
Trapping and selling animals solely to sell their skins sounds a lot like market hunting to me.
It makes no sense to me that it is legal to trap and kill an animal, like a mink or beaver, etc, that is illegal to shot or kill by some other method. Why wouldn't it be legal to "trap" an Eagle, skin it and sell the feathers for example? There sure is a market for Eagle feathers. 
Maybe we should slow down a little, stop being so quick to play the paranoid card(whoe is me, they're coming after my guns) and give some of these things a good hard sniff and see if they really pass the test.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It’s not legal to trap eagles and skin them and sell the feathers because eagles are protected completely. 

Beaver and mink are not protected. Pretty easy differentiation there. Have any other questions? I’m sure someone on here can help you out. 

If you look at what California has done overall, with yotes, cats, now this, the trend is not hard to see. What do you think is next? Or do you trust those people to simply just stop here?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If you read the article you will see that they only sold 133 licenses and the trappers with those licenses only harvested 1568 animals. That right there shows that there isn't much interest in trapping in the state, at least in the recreational or money making side of it. Perhaps the reason for such low numbers is that the trappers went out of state to sell their furs with zero fur sales inside the state. 

This shows that it is just a iota of a percentage of those that live in the state participate in trapping. 

I also think that if they do try and stop hunting they will have a uprising on their hands. There are a lot of residents that do hunt and hunting isn't just a rural or urban type of thing but includes residents from both areas. 

But then again you get who you vote for to make the laws for you and the residents of that state have shown just what kind of person that they want to represent themselves in both the state and national areas.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> If you read the article .....


^^this^^


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Yeah, eagles aren't a good comparison as they have been federally protected by multiple federal laws for a century.

I definitely read the article and heard one criticism regarding agriculture but that doesn't seem to sum of the modern history of States allowing commercial trapping of state wildlife. Or does it?

And coyote are still considered non-game and legal take by other means, correct?

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Do...Type=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

I think the concerns about this being some slippery slope to eliminate hunting seem far fetched. There are a ton of hunters in CA who aren't just going to let that happen without a fight.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t think anyone believes that California is banning hunting altogether next week. But if you don’t think the same politicians that passed these laws don’t have that on their agenda, I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona I’d like to sell you. 

And a Patagonia coat as well...


----------



## Stickboy2 (Sep 6, 2019)

We have seen recent legislation that attacks hunting harder than this one. 

I just finished my first dove season shooting state mandated steel. Yea inside of 25-30 yards not much different...but out past 40, forget it. We can also no longer run dogs to hunt black bear. These just in the past few years.

Yes there are a number of folks that like to hunt out of the 35 Million or so, but with super majorities at the capital, they can pretty much eliminate what ever they chose.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla,

I'm not persuaded by cliches. I recognize the flaws of the California trend. But the whole slippery slope argument is flawed. We can't presume to know what the legislature has on their agenda beyond what they state. And even those that share anti-hunter sentiments are checked at so many levels it's ridiculous; I mean the cliche is they are one of the most bloated regulatory states in the US, correct? 

And to take a step back....you used coyotes as an example to support your claim about an obvious trend. What exactly is unreasonable and anti-hunter in having a year round, no limit season on coyotes?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Stickboy2 said:


> We have seen recent legislation that attacks hunting harder than this one.
> 
> I just finished my first dove season shooting state mandated steel. Yea inside of 25-30 yards not much different...but out past 40, forget it. We can also no longer run dogs to hunt black bear. These just in the past few years.
> 
> Yes there are a number of folks that like to hunt out of the 35 Million or so, but with super majorities at the capital, they can pretty much eliminate what ever they chose.


I get frustration with the lead ammo restrictions but that has been in the pipes for ages across the country. There is legitimate science to back up support for that regulation. It's not really anti-hunter even if it changes the dynamics with several species.

I can't speak to using dogs with bears.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I've trapped Fur for "profit" for more than 40 years. Once, there was a market for the Fur. China, Korea, Russia were the primary buyers of the Wild Fur. With the tariff wars and the declining value of those Countries money value, the market is slow. It will more than likely stay that way until the world economy even outs.


I see this to be the reason behind the low number of furs sold in California. Would you trade a stock, cash out a 401K, etc. when the value was at a low? NO! You wouldn't. 


Last winter I didn't lay steel down hardly at all. If the market changes, I'll be out catching as many "target animals" I can. 


Cal. has always been the leaders in radical movements when it comes to guns, hunting, and now trapping. As "Sportsmen and Women" we need to come together and stand up for our God given rights! What's next, we all have to drive electric powered vehicles? You might think that statement sounds crazy, but 30 years ago I guarantee you wouldn't have thought about chasing Bear with a dogs, or trapping would be a thing of the past.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t recall using the cliche of “slippery slope” in any of my posts. Am I missing something? I think if you’re going to say I should assume an agenda, I think it’s fair for me to ask you not to ascribe an argument to me in the very same post, no? 

I may have misunderstood the situation with coyotes. My memory was telling me that there was a giant fiasco in the last few years out there with coyote regulation, but I could be wrong. If so, I’ll own that. 

I know the ultra liberal tree hugger agenda. And they won’t stop until they stop us from hunting, period. That is the goal. You can say that there isn’t enough support for that and we are safe. That’s not an unreasonable position to take, and we are good. But don’t give me the crap about how I can’t assume it is there until they propose actual legislation. The train has already left the station if you’re waiting for that to do anything. The agenda exists. I know it. Any reasonable person knows it. It’s simply what are we going to do about it?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Your entire series of comments is based on a slippery slope argument. For instance:

"If you look at what California has done overall, with yotes, cats, now this, the trend is not hard to see. What do you think is next? Or do you trust those people to simply just stop here?"

Slippery slope: "a bad situation or habit that, after it has started, is likely to get very much worse"

Now we could debate if it qualifies as a fallacy or not (as it can have valid applications) but you are inherently arguing from that cliche. It's the heart of your claim.

Thx for admitting that your coyote claim currently appears to be unwarranted. I did see recent history of bills trying (successful?) to reduce opportunity to harvest other animals like bobcat. And my research today regarding banning the use of dogs leads me to believe that could actually be detrimental to bear populations and hunting.

Like I said before, the elimination of recreational trapping seems an unfortunate move. I am inherently against that. But I've yet to see someone explain to me why, as a recreational hunter, I should in anyway be concerned about the loss of commercial trapping permits. Especially since there are still depredation and nuisance opportunities to help those in agriculture, if I'm reading correctly.

I'm willing to be persuaded by someone willing to explain why I should support commercial trapping (which I wholeheartedly support for invasive creatures like nutria) in general. I was superficially anti-hunting up until 2 decades ago, when I was exposed to the science and history of wildlife conservation. But that same education has made me very skeptical of commercial harvest of wildlife.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t think anyone is trying to persuade you of anything. I know I’m sure not. It’s no big deal to me what California wants to do with commercial or recreational hunting. I’ve never hunted there and never will. You don’t have to be concerned about this at all. 

It was just a discussion.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> If you read the article you will see that they only sold 133 licenses and the trappers with those licenses only harvested 1568 animals. That right there shows that there isn't much interest in trapping in the state, at least in the recreational or money making side of it. Perhaps the reason for such low numbers is that the trappers went out of state to sell their furs with zero fur sales inside the state.
> 
> This shows that it is just a iota of a percentage of those that live in the state participate in trapping.


If it's that small and low interest, why make it illegal? Saying "small impact" doesn't really justify an action.

Seems like low hanging fruit. No crowd to fight them. Step 1, done.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

RandomElk16 said:


> If it's that small and low interest, why make it illegal? Saying "small impact" doesn't really justify an action.
> 
> Seems like low hanging fruit. No crowd to fight them. Step 1, done.


Yup, it's scary stuff for us sportsman and IS a slippery slope in my opinion. We can all hate on California and make fun of them as much as we want but we can't deny their influence on the majority of the US population. I don't like this one bit and am sick to my stomach about it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

RandomElk16 said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> > If you read the article you will see that they only sold 133 licenses and the trappers with those licenses only harvested 1568 animals. That right there shows that there isn't much interest in trapping in the state, at least in the recreational or money making side of it. Perhaps the reason for such low numbers is that the trappers went out of state to sell their furs with zero fur sales inside the state.
> ...


Actually it can if the regulatory framework ends up costing more than the tag fees they bring in, which was one of the primary justifications stated publicly.

I saw someone say "God given right"....there is an "easy" solution to avoiding this type of outcome in Utah. Lobby the Utah legislature to create an amendment to name an explicit right to hunting in the state. Many states have done it across the US and Utah seems a friendly state for it. In doing so just add trapping (and fishing) to the definitions. As of now, it's regulated largely as a privilege but a constititional right would add many protections.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

"California has determined itself to be a known hazard, and causes cancer.":grin:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> I saw someone say "God given right"....there is an "easy" solution to avoiding this type of outcome in Utah. Lobby the Utah legislature to create an amendment to name an explicit right to hunting in the state. Many states have done it across the US and Utah seems a friendly state for it. In doing so just add trapping (and fishing) to the definitions. As of now, it's regulated largely as a privilege but a constititional right would add many protections.


Now THIS could end up being a slippery slope. Ability to restrict and limit hunting "rights" would be different than privileges. Can the government tell me I can't kill a cow elk this year even though I don't draw if it's a constitutional right? (Yes, I know constitutional rights can be limited, but they trigger different standards.)

"God given rights" and constitutional rights are certainly different things.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I'm surpised they hadn't banned trapping years ago. As California goes, I think it's a cultural thing. It's predominately liberal, most live in the city, and things like hunting are passed down, from a very small minority of people. Mostly in NorCal because there is still some rural areas up there.

Here's something I noticed, California has what, 35 million people or something like that? Utah has 3 million or so (and growing); and yet, the number of licenses sold in California is only slightly more then Utah. That means that the number of people hunting In california is like, what, a single percentage figure? Less then that?

If California has an anti-management stance, they've gone full retard. It's why the majority of Coyote attacks happen in California, or why you'll see videos on facebook with 4 or 5 mountain lions drinking water out of some guys backyard. I was in that god forsaken state last year and I saw some sign at a park that almost made me die laughing. (EDIT: I don't think it's any coincidence I saw a yote just trotting down the side of the road in broad daylight not even 5 minutes after I saw said sign.)

Because of Californias "cultural values", id expect to see more then just a ban on trapping in the future. Hell, they just past a requirement for background checks just to buy a box of ammo. So trapping? Hardly surprising.


If anyone ever wants to get into a round of California bashing, i'm your man. :grin:


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> > I saw someone say "God given right"....there is an "easy" solution to avoiding this type of outcome in Utah. Lobby the Utah legislature to create an amendment to name an explicit right to hunting in the state. Many states have done it across the US and Utah seems a friendly state for it. In doing so just add trapping (and fishing) to the definitions. As of now, it's regulated largely as a privilege but a constititional right would add many protections.
> ...


Yep, constititional rights and "God given rights" are very different. But neither the state nor the federal government recognizes the claim that hunting and trapping as a "God given right" as it stands right now. Someone could try to argue it's an obvious unalienable/natural/fundamental right but given current law and precedent that seems highly uncertain. So constititional right seems the next best thing.

You posed the question "what are we going to do about" the alleged agenda to end hunting access? It seems to me seriously considering a legal means to explicitly protect those rights is one possible solution. 22 states have done it over the last few decades. I'm sure there'd be some evidence from them if the idea was so outright imprudent.

Heck, I don't even remotely believe the tone and tenor of the claims about California but I still see a benefit to at least starting the conversation about said amendment in Utah.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Vanilla,
> ...We can't presume to know what the legislature has on their agenda beyond what they state. And even those that share anti-hunter sentiments are checked at so many levels it's ridiculous;


Actually we can. The legislative body has not come out and stated it as a whole but, the individual candidates have. The legislature is a sum of it's individual parts. Even though they have checks at every level they are not dissuaded from their goal/agenda.



backcountry said:


> Actually it can if the regulatory framework ends up costing more than the tag fees they bring in, which was one of the primary justifications stated publicly.


Then ban just about every public service that the government is involved in. Nothing makes money, everything takes/costs taxpayer funds and then some.



Vanilla said:


> I don't think anyone believes that California is banning hunting altogether next week. But if you don't think the same politicians that passed these laws don't have that on their agenda, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
> 
> And a Patagonia coat as well...


next week is the million dollar term here. Keep your ocean front; I'll take the Patagonia coat. Is it down from trapped geese?


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

Lone_Hunter said:


> If California has an anti-management stance, they've gone full retard. It's why the majority of Coyote attacks happen in California, or why you'll see videos on facebook with 4 or 5 mountain lions drinking water out of some guys backyard. I was in that god forsaken state last year and I saw some sign at a park that almost made me die laughing. (EDIT: I don't think it's any coincidence I saw a yote just trotting down the side of the road in broad daylight not even 5 minutes after I saw said sign.)
> 
> If anyone ever wants to get into a round of California bashing, i'm your man. :grin:


i like that photo.

so how many people washed their hands after petting the coyote? i bet they cause cancer in CA.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

APD said:


> i like that photo.
> 
> so how many people washed their hands after petting the coyote? i bet they cause cancer in CA.


Not only is that sign laughable, but the washing hands sign in Spanish is all wrong. Wash is misspelled and the las part "departes de azar" is not spanish at all. They can't even pay for a half decent translator in a state with a majority hispanic population.


----------

