This may be old news to some of you , but I just read about it today in the local newspaper. Must say I was surprised to see pelts that valued.
https://lfpress.com/news/world/that-...a-7b733010c7f8
Printable View
This may be old news to some of you , but I just read about it today in the local newspaper. Must say I was surprised to see pelts that valued.
https://lfpress.com/news/world/that-...a-7b733010c7f8
Note that the value for eastern coyote pelts was MUCH lower ($19-$46).
Always something hard to get across to people westerns and easterns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All I can say is good on ya. Only reason I don't shoot any fur is because I first can't process it( no tools or place), and second I hate to see it go to waste even without it being illegal to waste it.
But if anyone around london wants free pelts just PM me. I could even try to get you on a farm or two so you can run dogs.
It is illegal to waste a pelt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/97f41#BK42
Abandonment or spoilage of pelts
(3) A hunter or trapper who kills a furbearing mammal shall not abandon the pelt or permit the pelt to be spoiled or destroyed. 1997, c. 41, s. 36 (3).
Scroll down to Sub.Sect.4 and you'll see that there's exceptions found in the Ontario Regulations. Search those and you'll see the regs apply to "viable" (keyword) pelts. Pelts that are mangy or damaged don't need to be kept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Read first...understand...and then "ONLY" then type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
How cups are you into your corn squeezings?
Nor if they are shot as 'nusiance' by a land owner or his agent...Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
What I like about them is they haven't backed down to the pressures by the activists. And....they buy directly from local trappers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
That Standard: https://www.canadagoose.com/ca/en/fu...wn-policy.htmlQuote:
We monitor compliance to The Canada Goose Fur Transparency Standard™ through a third-party sample audit program of traplines. These trappers are strictly regulated by state, provincial and federal standards, and play an important role in properly managing abundant coyote populations that are known to endanger pets and livestock.
Really, where is there an exception to this in the link that I included. You stated that you do not want to waste it even though it is not illegal to, which is inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1997, 36.3, this is right out of the act.
(3) A hunter or trapper who kills a furbearing mammal shall not abandon the pelt or permit the pelt to be spoiled or destroyed. 1997, c. 41, s. 36 (3).
If the pelt is a viable pelt, does not have mange or a summer shot animal and therefore has no value, then it shall not be abandoned or allowed to spoil or be destroyed.
How can that be in interpreted any other way?
Trimmer added the exception but hunting coyotes is not destruction by a landowner or their agent.
Thanks for the attack though, very nice to see first thing in the morning.
Fox you need to brush up on your english.
How about this sentence?
" I do not believe in murder even without it being illegal to murder."
What do you think I am saying? That Murder is not illegal?
You are using a double negative sentence, it does come off as you saying "I do not believe in murder, even with it being legal"Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
The punctuation would help you too, the comma makes a big difference in understanding the sentence.
A double negative would be two negatives directly following each other in the sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
"Murder isn't not something I believe in, even though it is illegal." Both negatives directly follow each other in the first half of the sentence and the comma signals a change in though between the first half and the second half.
There is no need of a comma in the original two sentences, and the punctuation is correct.
There has been no change in thought from the first half and the second half of the sentence.
The sentence above is a double negative and contains two different and contradictory thoughts.
Now if you cared to share a few cups of that there corn squeeze, we could sit down and work on our english together.:joker: ( comma used because the though has changed between the first half and the second half of the sentence. )
After a few we may have to work quite hard for it to be english. ;)
WOW!! This forum is awesome. Not only does it have great information,but,we can get free grammar lessons,to boot. :rolleye:
It started out fine, until post #5? Then it went south.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Your welcome.:joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
But I am still looking for a guy to donate pelts to.
Lol, who decides if its damaged or not.
Is blowing a football size hole in it's back damaged? I seemed to think so and got stopped by a CO and he gave me the gears about not utilizing the pelt. He must have been in a sour mood that day, asked me if I heard of a needle and thread then after checking me out and me promising to skin it he let me off the hook.
I had about 35 pelts in the shop that I showed him to tell him that i used them. This is about 10 years ago when pelts were worth nothing, i had a cheque from fur traders for .20 cents from the previous year
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
One can argue when they have NO perceivable market value then they are NOT 'viable'...ergo, not worth processing beyond SSS.Quote:
Originally Posted by SongDog
I rarely start a thread, but when I do I like it to stay on topic please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
I don't know about that, as this just doesn't make sense;Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
" Read first...understand...and then "ONLY" then type.
How cups are you into your corn squeezings?
We all know who posted that remark!
Sorry about the above Sharon, as it is still not on topic.
I am really quite amazed by the number of Canada Goose coats you see people wearing downtown in the major cities. I figure the Starbucks crowds would rather go naked than be associated with a garment with real fur attached. Good on Canada Goose for sticking with the real thing and giving trappers a glimmer of hope.
I wonder how many pieces of hood trim they get out of the average pelt.
Youbetcha and at $1K a pop,too.Quote:
Originally Posted by warpipe
Quote:
Originally Posted by warpipe
I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that they don't even know it is real fur. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
( Better Sharon?)
Coyote stew anyone?
There must be a lot of rich people in China to pay this kind of price for a coat;
" Canada Goose’s first Beijing store draws crowds willing to wait an hour in freezing cold to pay 9,000 yuan (US$1,300) for a parka "
I don't think many here would pay that kind of money for a parka, at least I wouldn't .
True dat! Can you imagine pounding through the woods wearing one of those? One sharp branch and POOF,no more $1K coat.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
When you say "here" do you mean in Canada or on this forum? Seems like every second person on the street has one of these parkas, at least in the city. And they aren't much cheaper in Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
Cant speak to the quality of the newer ones Trimmer but I have had one since 1992 when they were first introduced under the brand name Snow Goose by metro sportswear out of Toronto. They had to change the Name cause Snow Goose was already branded in Norway or ...? and they have been Canada Goose since then. They are tough as nails as mine has seen numerous hunting trips as well as ice fishing trips and still has all zippers, buttons ect functioning as new and I don't think it would be easy to puncture the outer fabric as it's quite thick. They are far too warm for most weather we see especially if you are walking but open air ice fishing or -20 sits in a tree stand they are great. They are not bought for the intended purpose by most folks as you are aware as they are way overkill for running errands around town but hey, they are a great Canadian product and I am sure we all like seeing Canadian companies doing well.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I recall that I paid $492.95 at LeBaron's back then.
Now they are 2 1/2 times that price plus tax.Quote:
I recall that I paid $492.95 at LeBaron's back then.
But as RF2 pointed out, there are no shortage of people wearing them. Different priorities for different folks I guess.
They also have quite the assortment compare to years ago, there’s one for any temperature. You can even buy a tuque for $500.00? I also have a old Snow Goose, love it.
Yeah there original attic expedition line is awesome, military gave us some to try out.
Was in Niagra Falls and my wife was laughing at me because that’s all I could talk about. Why do these people need a 1000 dollar parka when it’s minus 10.
Don’t get me wrong like the price of coyotes and makes me wish I was back out west but really everyone had one or a knock off on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk