Minnesota LIGHT law LOOK HERE

Thanks, Rick. Yup, we've got a lot of education to do in order to get this thing rolling.

One thing, guys. We need more help. A handful of hopefuls that we have here will do almost nothing. We need more people on board.

I'd encourage you all to get as many people signed up as possible. I mean sign them up here at Predator Masters. More ideas, more voices, more choices.

First step is for all of us to email both our senators and reps. Not just one. Send them both emails. Get people in other districts to do the same for you. Copy and paste the note to them in the first post of this thread. Ask them to either call you to discuss this or to call me. I'll be happy to talk to any of them or even meet with them. (1-800-930-0761) We have some momentum going now and can't lose it.

Do everything you think you should and a little more.

If all goes well, we'll have all kinds of statewide dialog once the commentary I wrote hits the outdoor news. And, I don't know how many people are up at 6:20 AM. but my five minutes to state my case is awfully nice of the show's host.

It would be nice if one of you could get a landowner who is good with words to start a campaign to write their legislators asking for this.

Rednek, You talked of a petition. Can you get one going via email? Send it to everyone you can think of and ask them to forward it to me to compile after the signatures reach 100.

Also, can you write up a petition and post it here that we can all copy off and print and get it signed.

Thanks
 
DeadeyeMN,

I was surfing the house of representatives page the other day and I saw your bill there.
Click to expand...
Randy I was wondering if you had a web link for that information you found about that bill.

Thanks

Deadeye
 
Buker and Others,

Had my meeting this evening and came away more informed than I thought. I don't know much about the legislature, house or senate, but now I've got a guy who needs info and is willing to do whatever it takes to get our mission accomplished.

Concerning the Bounty Bill:

First he needs the article numbers of the submitted bills.

Secondly he asked for the author of the bill along with the SN preceeding it (Senate Number) or HS preceeding it (House Number).

He also needs the bill under which the bounty bill is attatched.

He needs to know who has the bill, The House or Senate.

He stated that he'd find a Co-Author for this bill to help insure that it tracks down the correct avenues to have a higher degree of legitimacy for passing.

He asked for a copy of R Bukers proposal (found at the beginning of this thread).

He stated that we would have more leverage right now getting the bounty bill nixed.

He also stated that at this late stage of the legislative session we have NO chance of getting anything going as far as Light laws are concerned: However, being we're starting now, we have ample time to get a thunderous ball rolling for next years session.

One more item he asked for was the president of the Mn. Chapter of Predator Hunting Club. That name I can provide him! He feels that this person has legislative ties in St. Paul.

He feels rather confident that we could attatch this to an existing bill that could override existing laws that fobid Any type of night lighting.

Some of this info has already been posted so I'll gather the info so he can get started with his research. He said that he'd keep me abreast of anything he finds out.

He will also find out if this Lighting bill was spawned by the DNR or the House. I asked if that would matter and he repled not if we have a sbstantial number of people on board and can make perfect sense as to why we want this law changed.

Speaking to a fello Pred hunter last evening, he felt that we would have a higher degree of specie Identification versus Monnlight or night vision optics. What do you think?

By the way, I polled 52 outdoorsmen at work today and all responses were favorable in our defense. When asked if they'd be willing to write a letter or sign any type of petition pertaining to the use of artificial lights the response was 100%.

Randy
 
Great job Randy.

I need to look over your post a bit more in depth. If I can help with ANY of it, let me know. I'll do anything I physically can.

I'm heading to bed shortly so I can get up and have a clear head for my pitch on KFAN radio in the morning. As soon as I get off the phone, I'm heading out to kill a day time coyote. Seems some farmers North West of here are having some problems.

I also heard back from a top CO at the state today. He said their main stance on it is that it would be hard for CO's to enforce shining laws if it were legal at all. He also said the DNR is against this because it's not seen as "Fair Chase."

Later,
Randy
 
Fair Chase.
Is it fair chase when groups of hunters surround
a woods and push all the deer out to waiting hunters on the other end???????

Is it fair chase when a group of hunters surround a slough and drive the fox, coyotes or what ever is in there to one end to waiting hunters??????

I feel that is crap just another excuse...the whole thing is if poeple are going to poach they will do it anyway....If there were more legal night hunters out there they may help stop some of that poaching........
lets keep working at it guys........stump
 
Guts,

The State C.O.'s have a weak case at best! I mean think of it for a minute, If the law were changed to accomidate artificial light use for preds, There would be actually fewer Poachers out there because they have a greater chance of being seen by US! the actual increase in unlawful activity would be minimal at best! If the C.O.'s are reluctant to respond to a call regarding a poacher, that is not our problem nor should we or anyone be punished for someone elses shortcomings.

This issue WIIL WORK!! I'm not resting Till we have a successful bill in the house that can pass the Senate!!!

Supper Time.

Randy
 
Well, this is what we have so far....
1. we might mistake a wolf for a coyote. (the light would actually help us make positive ID)

2. It would make the CO's job harder. (It would. But, is that a reason to restrict law abiding hunters?)

3. It's not fair chase. (Fair chase is somewhat of an individual ethics call.)

4. People will use this law as a loophole to poach deer. (Some one who wants to poach will do so anyway. Remember they are breaking the law!)

The problem I have with this is that it's going to be a major up hill battle and there's no GOOD reason for not allowing it. Very frustrating.

I got about 10 minutes this morning on KFAN radio. I don't think I came off sounding too stupid. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Randy,

From Me, I have to say thank you for getting up early and going on the radio for our cause.

I didn't get to hear it, I was at work. But way to go just the same!!

I agree with your last post, If you really think about it I'd say the DNR was the main driving force behind signing a biil not allowing lights after dark. I can't say if it has ever been refuted but they are going to get an earfull backed up by present day thinking and Cold Hard Facts. I'm going to be keeping a log on the calls, the who's, whens, who said what ect.. Plus I'm going to dig for any scientific data that we may need. I think the interest is there, we just have begun to tap this thing with amazing results so far. This is going to be an education for me as well. Lets learn, learn, learn.

When is the next issue of Outdoor News coming out? I'll be looking for a write up.

Randy
 
Outdoor news comes out every thursday. I'm not sure when or even if my commentary will be in there. When I spoke to the editor, he seemed to indicate that he'd put it in there though.

We'll see.
 
With some state experience under my belt, the main reason COs are concerned about making their jobs much harder and more time consuming is becuase they are already currently spread very very thin. Within the next couple of years there is going to be roughly 90 new COs pumped into the system. They are going to be filling vacancies that have been open for quite some time. Being spread so thin already (and they are) I understand their concern about the increased workload if this becomes legal. When these new recruits start hitting the field, some have already, I think views may change. Instead of having to cover an entire county, a CO may now need to cover half or a quarter of a county.

I think this will have a hard time passing because of the current CO shortage, but I think as these recruits hit the field the odds of this passing get better. I would love to see this passed thats for sure, but I just thought I'd share the other side of the coin.

MNpurple
 
MNpurple21,

I couldn't agree with you more. Their jobs will become more difficult. And, I can see what they oppose it for that reason. But, that's still not a reason not to allow law-abiding hunters to use a tried and true message.

It's kind of like them saying some of the cops wouldn't like not knowing who was carrying when our concealed carry law passed. I'm sure a lot of cops thought there's be a million new guns on the street and crime to go with it. But, that didn't happen. And, are their jobs harder and more dangerous? I don't know. All I know is that law abiding citizens can now carry a weapon for self-protection.

I'm not disagreeing with anything your said or trying to argue with you. But, no matter how short the state gets with it's CO's is still no reason not to allow this.

Later
Randy
 
I understand where you are coming from. I'm one of those law abidding hunters who have been wishing to use lights for sometime, still do! I was shedding some light one where the COs are coming from. I think you may see some attitude change when the new recruits hit the field.

I think along with trying to get this bill passed to allow use of lights, IT IS HUGE TO TRY AND DEFEAT THE BOUNTY BILL. If they start paying a bounty, I dont think you will ever see a lights law passed because with the increase in hunters looking for a coyote, you then have everyone using lights. I see a law enforcement nightmare, because the guys the bounty brings out hunting, arent going to be your law abidding citizens. I almost think initially it is more important to get this bounty bill defeated.

Buker, your piece at the start of this thread, very good writing, nice job, but I think that piece carries greater power if you have sources to back your facts. I know they are facts, you know they are facts, we all do, but a non hunting representative probably doesnt, and may question "is this even true". If you could cite some authors or some papers or studies to go with your facts, the writing becomes very powerful. I guess I'm having a flashback to a college professor telling me, unless you have articles to back up your facts, it means nothing to me, man I hated her...

MNpurple

Some sites I found with articles and research, I dont know how much is relevant as far as facts to back up the argument.

http://www.coyoteaction.org/coyote/index.htm
http://www.coyoteaction.org/coyote/coyoteresearch.htm
 
Mn Purple,

I think that we could work hand in hand as a Mgt. Tool (so-to-speak) along side the Mn C.O.'s. Our presents affield when illegal activities could be occuring may help Law Enforcement officials trim the numbers of folks who even consider poaching.

I have a good friend who is one of the new recruits. I knew he was taking up this type of career so immediately I got him into pred hunting and now he's hooked. We,ve shared conversation on the spotlight issue and he felt something could be done to make everyone happy. We simply need the numbers!

As far as nixing a bounty, Sounds as though it would not be much of an issue to perhaps change it. Did you read the latest Outdoor News? Interesting read. Coyotes have the ability to rear larger litters pertaining to population densities. This alone is one huge argument as to why Bounties have never been a very effective Management Tool!

Allowing the use of artificial lights for the predator hunter would be more beneficial as far as numbers management is concerned.

Thanx for all your help.

Randy
 
Howdy Fellas

Ron Schara had a good article in the paper today on the bounty issue. Glad to see that he calls it for what it is. He also might be someone to get more info to for a more broad audience.

I am embarrassed to admit I'm from Swift county where this whole fiasco started. I will attempt to get some of this information to the county commissoners who are suddenly afraid of coyotes. It seems that when a group of people start crying wolf, (pun intended) there are a bunch of politicians ready to pull money from our pocket to give to someone else. OK, I'm off my stool. I do believe that these politicians should realize the amount of money the farmers and ranchers out west pay each year to hunters/trappers to keep their livestock safe. Here in MN they seem to feel they are doing us a favor by allowing us to hunt for coyotes on their land.

I'm done rambling now but if you fellas think it would help for me to approach these commissioners here I will certainly give it a try.
 
Haystack,

Welcome to Predator Masters and welcome to this thread. We are most glad to have you!

YES, YES, YES! We want you to talk to your commisioners. One or all obviously has the ear of a legislator who was willing to introduce a bounty bill even though it's been proven time and time again that bounties are not effective.

Copy and paste the info in the first post on this thread. It's a good starting point to try to inform someone of the issues at hand. If they have more questions or need some more info, feel free to have them call me. 800-930-0761.

As for Ron Schara, that's a good idea. I know him fairly well. I'll give him a call in the morning and see if he wants to do another controversial coyote piece.

Thanks for the idea. Let us know how it goes with your county guys.


Randy
 
I spoke with Gary Meis this morning. He is the president of the MN Trappers Association. Their board is having a meeting on March 5th to talk about this and other issues. He said to give him a call after that to find out what the board thinks of this and what approach they will be taking.

Haystack
 
Back
Top