Third Party Wild Game Spoilage - Legality

This past fall I was out hunting a property where a few other hunters were given permission as well. I was recently talking to them about their success and found that each of them had harvested a deer as per their tag (whether doe or buck). However, they mentioned that they typically use a butcher who processes their wild game for them, and that this year was disappointing to say the least.

Essentially what had been explained to me, was that the harvested deer had been dressed and taken in for butchering. What apparently happened was that the butcher had processed the deer, and hadn't moved the meat into the walk-in fridge for holding until pick up. The meat then spoiled from having been left out, 3 deer total. I haven't had any updates regarding the results and do not have information on the butcher that they had been using. I am under the impression that they have taken action against the butcher, whether legally or pertaining to receiving the quantity of meat left to spoil, I am unsure.

I know it is illegal to allow wild game to be allowed to spoil by those who have harvested it, however I have not been able to find anything pertaining to the law in terms of a third-party (such as butcher) to allow game to spoil, whether intentionally or not. Any insight into the matter or the quote from any legislature/regulations that indicates the legality of this? I am curious out of my own interest while I await another update regarding the outcomes of their situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam94

This past fall I was out hunting a property where a few other hunters were given permission as well. I was recently talking to them about their success and found that each of them had harvested a deer as per their tag (whether doe or buck). However, they mentioned that they typically use a butcher who processes their wild game for them, and that this year was disappointing to say the least.

Essentially what had been explained to me, was that the harvested deer had been dressed and taken in for butchering. What apparently happened was that the butcher had processed the deer, and hadn't moved the meat into the walk-in fridge for holding until pick up. The meat then spoiled from having been left out, 3 deer total. I haven't had any updates regarding the results and do not have information on the butcher that they had been using. I am under the impression that they have taken action against the butcher, whether legally or pertaining to receiving the quantity of meat left to spoil, I am unsure.

I know it is illegal to allow wild game to be allowed to spoil by those who have harvested it, however I have not been able to find anything pertaining to the law in terms of a third-party (such as butcher) to allow game to spoil, whether intentionally or not. Any insight into the matter or the quote from any legislature/regulations that indicates the legality of this? I am curious out of my own interest while I await another update regarding the outcomes of their situation.

---

Just my own opinion I would say the butcher would be liable to charges of spoilage as he had a duty imposed on him not to let this happen in the same manner the hunters had that duty.The butchers defense might well be "the meat arrived and has already started to spoil" or words to that effect. I have heard of a number of cases where butchers refused to take meat in from hunters,or had taken meat in that then quickly spoiled.I think your friends would need to have all their dates and times down pat for the kill,s and exact drop off date (date,s) at the butchers.If they had this evidence I would think they could press the issue with the MNR .But from what you have told us they are either going after the butcher and perhaps not bringing in the MNR,unless your legally reference is the MNR.

This is a lot more common than is reported and some cases seem to be worse than others.

http://www.thealgomanews.ca/allowing...nce-suspension

Everytime I read one of these butcher gone wrong posts I'm even more glad I butcher my own game!!!

When I think back I am horrified at how my venison was handled at the butcher shop.

Butchers who are handling wild game are largely unregulated as opposed to commercial domestic cutters who are CFIA regulated up the wazoo. Under The FWCAct,it's illegal to sell,barter or trade wild game meat,therefore,butchers are only allowed to charge for their time and material they use for cutting and wrapping. When something like that happens,there really isn't a hell of a lot that can be done about,legally. Most people are generally honest and errors can happen. How can there be a value attached to something that has no monetary value? Sometimes,as maddening as it can be,you just have to chalk it up to experience and don't use the guy,again,don't recommend him to others.

Like many times many have said-it seems for many reasons ,it is truly the best way is to butcher your own game.

Second best-go to a Reputable and PROVEN butcher.

Quote:

---

36 (1) A hunter or trapper who kills game wildlife other than a furbearing mammal shall not abandon it if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).
Spoiled flesh
(2) A person who possesses game wildlife that is not a furbearing mammal and that was hunted or trapped shall not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).
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).

---

Above appears to be the section of the FWCA that would apply to spoilage of game, especially subsection 2 in this instance.

sub sec 2:

Quote:

---

that is not a furbearing mammal

---

...Deer are furbearing.

sub sec 3:

Quote:

---

A hunter or trapper who kills a furbearing mammal shall not abandon the pelt or permit the pelt to be spoiled or destroyed.

---

A butcher could be neither a Hunter or Trapper....so the FWCA reqs do not apply. Same as a farmer etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

sub sec 2: ...Deer are furbearing.

---

Deer are not fur bearing animals as defined under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act as listed in schedule 1.

Schedule 1
FURBEARING MAMMALS
Common Name
Scientific Name

Badger, American
Taxidea taxus
Beaver
Castor canadensis
Bobcat
Lynx rufus
Coyote
Canis latrans
Fisher
Martes pennanti
Fox, Arctic
Alopex lagopus
Fox, Grey
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Fox, Red (all colour phases)
Vulpes vulpes
Lynx
Lynx canadensis
Marten
Martes americana
Mink
Neovison vison
Muskrat
Ondatra zibethicus
Opossum
Didelphis virginiana
Otter
Lontra canadensis
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Skunk, Striped
Mephitis mephitis
Squirrel, Red
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Weasel, Least
Mustela nivalis
Weasel, Long-tailed
Mustela frenata
Weasel, Short-tailed (Ermine)
Mustela erminea
Wolf
Canis lupus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

sub sec 2: ...Deer are furbearing.

sub sec 3:

A butcher could be neither a Hunter or Trapper....so the FWCA reqs do not apply. Same as a farmer etc...

---

Wow! that's a new one to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Wow! that's a new one to me.

---

It makes total sense,though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It makes total sense,though.

---

Not really. That section deals with fur bearing mammals as defined in the Act. As Woodsman posted, deer are not fur bearing mammals as defined. It means, wolves, coyotes, etc.....deer are in the game mammal category.

The reqs: Para 2 : Spoiled flesh

Quote:

---

(2) A person who possesses game wildlife that is not a furbearing mammal and that was hunted or trapped shall not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).

---

White Tail deer are listed as 'Game Mammals'...see schedule 2:

Schedule 2
GAME MAMMALS

Common Name

Bear, Black
Caribou, Woodland
Cottontail
Deer, White-tailed
Elk, American (Wapiti)
Hare, European
Hare, Varying (Snowshoe)
Moose
Squirrel, Gray (Black)
Squirrel, Fox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

The reqs: Para 2 : Spoiled flesh



White Tail deer are listed as 'Game Mammals'...see schedule 2:

Schedule 2
GAME MAMMALS

Common Name

Bear, Black
Caribou, Woodland
Cottontail
Deer, White-tailed
Elk, American (Wapiti)
Hare, European
Hare, Varying (Snowshoe)
Moose
Squirrel, Gray (Black)
Squirrel, Fox

---

Yes, they are game mammals....as such, the spoilage section applies. It does not apply to fur bearing mammals. If it did, we would have to eat our coyotes, and any other critter normally trapped...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Yes, they are game mammals....as such, the spoilage section applies. It does not apply to fur bearing mammals. If it did, we would have to eat our coyotes, and any other critter normally trapped...

---

Yes, but that is applicable to Hunter or Trappers....butchers are neither (for the most part)

Quote:

---

36 (1) A hunter or trapper who kills game wildlife other than a furbearing mammal shall not abandon it if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).

---

OK ..now I get it....on reflection, I'm less confused.... sec 2...would be applicable for a 'person'.....ie not a hunter or trapper.

This exert for the Farm Permit program would suggest that Non hunters and Trappers are permitted but discouraged from letting a deer spoil.

Quote:

---

Carcass disposal

Carcasses may be kept by the owner or agent, or donated to others. Sections of the Fish and WildlifeConservation Act that prohibit the wastage and spoiling of deer flesh do not apply to removal authorizations [by virtue of S131 of Reg 665/98, S 31(6) of the FWCA exempts persons from sections 36(1) and (2)]. However it is recommended that all attempts be made to utilize any deer for human consumption. It is illegal to sell the carcass, or any part of it.

---

Quote:

---

134. A hunter who is licensed or authorized to kill a furbearing mammal is exempt from subsection 36 (3) of the Act and may abandon a pelt or permit a pelt to be spoiled or destroyed if the pelt is of no commercial value. O. Reg. 665/98, s. 134.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

OK ..now I get it....on reflection, I'm less confused.... sec 2...would be applicable for a 'person'.....ie not a hunter or trapper.

This exert for the Farm Permit program would suggest that Non hunters and Trappers are permitted but discouraged from letting a deer spoil.

---

Yes, now you got it !! Lol
At one time, it still may be the case, migratory birds killed authorized by Permits, had to be left to rot. Now that doesn’t make sense to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Not really. That section deals with fur bearing mammals as defined in the Act. As Woodsman posted, deer are not fur bearing mammals as defined. It means, wolves, coyotes, etc.....deer are in the game mammal category.

---

That's true we don't have to eat fur bearers meat,but, pelt spoilage is regulated by Sect 36(3). They key word in that section is "viable". To me,that means marketable which is not when infected by Mange or is damaged from shot pellets or bullets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

That's true we don't have to eat fur bearers meat,but, pelt spoilage is regulated by Sect 36(3). They key word in that section is "viable". To me,that means marketable which is not when infected by Mange or is damaged from shot pellets or bullets.

---

The key words are “ fur bearing mammals”....

Only fur bearing mammals have pelts......game mammals have hides.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

They key word in that section is "viable". To me,that means marketable which is not when infected by Mange or is damaged from shot pellets or bullets.

---

Seeing that the collapse of the fur industry in Canada is eminent and the value of the pelts/hides that are sold are so low, nothing much is 'viable' in the market place anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Seeing that the collapse of the fur industry in Canada is eminent and the value of the pelts/hides that are sold are so low, nothing much is 'viable' in the market place anymore.

---

We have a trapper take our coyotes. I was surprised that he got over 100.00 for a few of the pelts. Hopefully the same holds true this winter...

They don't think the NAFA will be in business in Mar 2020...so only a few places left where they can sell furs...one is in Thompson.

Some of the prices from the Thompson fur table last year:

The average trapper made about $2,000....(before the commission was taken out). Take out operational costs and the $2 K dwindles quickly.....not a viable living.

Quote:

---

Last year, almost 6,000 pelts with an estimated value of about $307,000 changed hands at the tables, which were attended by 161 trappers. The average number of pelts per trapper was 37 and the average value per trapper was about $1,910.

Marten accounted for about 80 per cent of all the pelts exchanged, either for cash or for money to be paid later, minus a commission, when the furs are sold to global buyers. The average price for a marten pelt was $58 and 4,765 were brought in, for a total value of about $276,000. About 6.5 per cent of the pelts were mink, which sold for an average value of $10. About 3.5 per cent were muskrat, with an average value of $2 each. The only other type of pelt accounting from more than two per cent of the total sales was lynx at about 2.4 per cent and with an average value of $70 per pelt. Beaver, otter and red fox made up between one and 1.5 per cent of the pelts sold. Beaver went for $15 on average, red fox for $20 and otter for $30.

---

Fur Harvesters Auction [formerly Ontario Trappers Association] in North Bay is still going strong , and according to news outlets , will be the only Auction House dealing exclusively in wild furs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

That's true we don't have to eat fur bearers meat,but, pelt spoilage is regulated by Sect 36(3). They key word in that section is "viable". To me,that means marketable which is not when infected by Mange or is damaged from shot pellets or bullets.

---

Sorry you can NOT throw away an other wise good pelt simply for having a bullet or pellet holes. Learn to sew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Yes, now you got it !! Lol
At one time, it still may be the case, migratory birds killed authorized by Permits, had to be left to rot. Now that doesn’t make sense to me...

---

Any migratory birds can be left to rot, once they are retrieved, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brent

Any migratory birds can be left to rot, once they are retrieved, unfortunately.

---

You better have the info ready. Your going to get it now..;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

You better have the info ready. Your going to get it now..;)

---

He is right, it's been discussed on here before, same as a nuisance bird kill permit, you shoot them/kill but by law you have to leave them lay where they are.
Doesn't say that someone else cannot pick them up.

They're talking about changing the law re: wasting Migratory birds but I don't think it has gone through yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

He is right, it's been discussed on here before, same as a nuisance bird kill permit, you shoot them/kill but by law you have to leave them lay where they are.
Doesn't say that someone else cannot pick them up.

---

As you say in the case of a nuisance permit, yes you can allow the flesh to rot. A permit does not allow you to take the meat. It's likely to prevent some from getting permits just for a few OUT of season geese breast or something.

His statement that "any Migratory birds" can be allowed to spoil once they are retrieved is not correct.

As for permits and having to leave them were they lay, I think you should at least move them out of sight. You don't want to make the local papers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redd foxx

They're talking about changing the law re: wasting Migratory birds but I don't think it has gone through yet

---

You may be thinking of the exception for Cormorants. ***edited***

I just saw that Bill 138 received Royal Asset on December 10th 2019.

Gentlemen I believe we have A CORMORANT season.

Anyone know if we can shoot the ones in Hamilton Harbor? The company trucks have hit/been hit by three in the last four years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

As you say in the case of a nuisance permit, yes you can allow the flesh to rot. A permit does not allow you to take the meat. It's likely to prevent some from getting permits just for a few OUT of season geese breast or something.

His statement that "any Migratory birds" can be allowed to spoil once they are retrieved is not correct.

As for permits and having to leave them were they lay, I think you should at least move them out of sight. You don't want to make the local papers.

---

Brent is correct, as it stands now. There are changes to the MBCA that would make it an offence, but I don’t think those have passed yet.

that list has 3 that I didn't know were fur bearing, red squirrel, skunk, and opossum. Could just imaging how many red squirrels it would take to make a coat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabmgb

that list has 3 that I didn't know were fur bearing, red squirrel, skunk, and opossum. Could just imaging how many red squirrels it would take to make a coat.

---

Were popular back in the day for trim on cuffs, collars and hoods...can't see they are a big seller now.

Need clarification if anyone can help.......that FWCA list Red Squirrels....but the hunting regs control hunting controls 'Fox' Squirrels (which aren't on the FWCA list)....which I don't think are the same beasty.

red squirrels are "Pine Squirrels". Fox, and grey squirrels are not listed as fur bearers.
I don't think there is much of a market for pine squirrels any longers, but they are still off limits for hunting in Ontario. Not that there is much to eat on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Were popular back in the day for trim on cuffs, collars and hoods...can't see they are a big seller now.

Need clarification if anyone can help.......that FWCA list Red Squirrels....but the hunting regs control hunting controls 'Fox' Squirrels (which aren't on the FWCA list)....which I don't think are the same beasty.

---

No they're not. Fox squirrels are big squirrels like a grey squirrel. We have grey/black around here, but I don't think there are fox. Maybe in southern Ontario.
Red squirrel tails used to be used quite a bit in fishing lures. I can remember Mepps advertising for them - I think it was a buck apiece for them.
I can't every remember squirrel used in clothing - but before the days of synthetics, I wouldn't be surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Brent is correct, as it stands now. There are changes to the MBCA that would make it an offence, but I don’t think those have passed yet.

---

As has been said, he is correct, the law only states that you must make very effort to retrieve your shot waterfowl, but what you do with it after is up to you presently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

You better have the info ready. Your going to get it now..;)

---

I think it is you who needs to show the info backing up your statements............like stated it has been discussed on here at length. i personally hope it does change with the new possession laws but as of right now there is nothing to stop someone from letting them rot after they have retrieved them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FishHog

I don't think there is much of a market for pine squirrels any longers, but they are still off limits for hunting in Ontario.

---

Is there a ref that says 'red' squirrels are restricted ?

I don't see it in the 'Hunting Regs' other than as a furbearing it's not allowed to be hunting in Provincial Parks and Crown Game farms...

The FWCA does have them on their protected list:

SPECIALLY PROTECTED MAMMALS

Common Name
Bat, Big Brown
Bat, Eastern Pipistrelle
Bat, Hoary
Bat, Little Brown
Bat, Northern Long-eared
Bat, Red
Bat, Silver-haired
Bat, Small-footed
Chipmunk, Eastern
Chipmunk, Least
Flying Squirrel, Northern
Flying Squirrel, Southern
Shrew, Arctic
Shrew, Least
Shrew, Masked
Shrew, Northern Short-tailed
Shrew, Pygmy
Shrew, Smoky
Shrew, Water

I think I found it....becasue the Hunting regs don't list 'Red Squirrels', there is no exception under para 6(1). But they aren't on the FWCA protected list. Seems odd.

Quote:

---

Requirement for hunting or trapping license

6 (1) Except under the authority of a licence and in accordance with the regulations, a person shall not hunt or trap,

(a) big game;

(b) a game mammal that is not referred to in clause (a);

(c) a game bird;

(d) a furbearing mammal;

(e) a game reptile;

(f) a game amphibian;

(g) a bird referred to in subsection 5 (2); or

(h) wildlife that is not referred to in clauses (a) to (g), the hunting of which is not prohibited by section 5. 1997, c. 41, s. 6 (1); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (7).

---

I think that is it Mike. They aren't "restricted or protected", but they are classed as fur bearing and there is no open hunting season for them. Licenced trappers can take them, but I can't see them being worth the effort.

now the one that chewed a hole through the side of my cottage had an unfortunate accident, but I wasn't hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Sorry you can NOT throw away an other wise good pelt simply for having a bullet or pellet holes. Learn to sew.

---

Nonsense! Define "otherwise good pelt" that's not all shot to shyte or has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. There isn't enough thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Nonsense! Define "otherwise good pelt" that's not all shot to shyte or has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. There isn't enough thread.

---

Like after a hit from a 58gr 243.....some pretty big holes to sew up there !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Like after a hit from a 58gr 243.....some pretty big holes to sew up there !!

---

Yep,or after a .270Win 130gr SST @ 200yds. Nothing left,but,red mist and chunks of fur. Some hunters are into cashing in pelts while others are more into pest control protecting livestock. Believe me,farmers don't give a flyin' fiddler's .... about what's left as long as they're gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Nonsense! Define "otherwise good pelt" that's not all shot to shyte or has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. There isn't enough thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Like after a hit from a 58gr 243.....some pretty big holes to sew up there !!

---

If I shoot a 20 lbs Coyote with a 458 vs a .223 the damage well be very different, but to try and say that a bullet hole or a couple holes made by buckshot makes a pelt useless is simple BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

If I shoot a 20 lbs Coyote with a 458 vs a .223 the damage well be very different, but to try and say that a bullet hole or a couple holes made by buckshot makes a pelt useless is simple BS.

---

I said "pellets",right? I don't remember anyone mentioning buckshot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Yep,or after a .270Win 130gr SST @ 200yds. Nothing left,but,red mist and chunks of fur.

---

I suppose there has to be some market for a Coyote patch quilt. [emoji57]

Is it not legal to trade a pelt? Could always trade them to the crows to hear one of their beautiful songs!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Sorry you can NOT throw away an other wise good pelt simply for having a bullet or pellet holes. Learn to sew.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I said "pellets",right? I don't remember anyone mentioning buckshot.

---

Just to jog your memory. The original post your replying to mentioned "Pellets". As in buckshot pellets, but even T, BB, #1,#2,#3 and #4 birdshot pellets are used depending on the size of the animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

As has been said, he is correct, the law only states that you must make every effort to retrieve your shot waterfowl, but what you do with it after is up to you presently.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckslayer

I think it is you who needs to show the info backing up your statements............like stated it has been discussed on here at length. i personally hope it does change with the new possession laws but as of right now there is nothing to stop someone from letting them rot after they have retrieved them.

---

Ok. Guys check with the great and mighty MNRF. You are Correct. Ontario does not include Migratory birds as "Game Birds" under the Fish & Wildlife Act, so the sections on Spoilage do not apply.

Seems strange, and disgusting. No other jurisdictions I have hunted allows you to let Migratory Birds spoil.

Maybe since Spoilage was covered by Provincial and State Laws, they never thought to include it in the Migratory Agreement.

cashing in on pelts? you can raise one from a pup,fox, yote, or any fur bearing pelt, or harvest a good one with a gun, you still wont be cashing in on anything accept for a good time out doors..... and that will cost you money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdog

cashing in on pelts? you can raise one from a pup,fox, yote, or any fur bearing pelt, or harvest a good one with a gun, you still wont be cashing in on anything accept for a good time out doors..... and that will cost you money

---

Anything that is fun cost money.

If you don't want to spend money on something, it must not be important in your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Ok. Guys check with the great and mighty MNRF. You are Correct. Ontario does not include Migratory birds as "Game Birds" under the Fish & Wildlife Act, so the sections on Spoilage do not apply.

Seems strange, and disgusting. No other jurisdictions I have hunted allows you to let Migratory Birds spoil.

Maybe since Spoilage was covered by Provincial and State Laws, they never thought to include it in the Migratory Agreement.

---

There was a proposal to change that in the MBCA, but I haven’t heard of any outcome yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

There was a proposal to change that in the MBCA, but I haven’t heard of any outcome yet.

---

Like I said, it is a weird thing. Every place I have hunted has laws against it.

Chalk up another "Mismanagement" point for Ontario.

It's not just Ontaio. Mbca is federal jurisdiction and probably the one main reason why it takes forever to initiate changes. Gotta please 10 provinces and the territories when you can't get one province to see eye to eye with itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

It's not just Ontaio. Mbca is federal jurisdiction and probably the one main reason why it takes forever to initiate changes. Gotta please 10 provinces and the territories when you can't get one province to see eye to eye with itself.

---

I was talking about laws at the state or Provincial level against allowing game to spoil. The State or Provincial laws include Migratory birds in their laws that prohibit allowing "Game" to spoil.

The regulations normally say something like with the Exception of Varmints, no animal fit for human consumption can be allowed to spoil.

I am surprised Ontario's laws did not extend to Migratory like other places.

As for holes in pelts a while ago the fur buyers complained that sewing up holes came apart in the tanning. I guess they would not bid on damaged goods.Ive retired after 69 yrs trapping and the way the trade is going i dont think i will miss any thing money wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trapper

As for holes in pelts a while ago the fur buyers complained that sewing up holes came apart in the tanning. I guess they would not bid on damaged goods.Ive retired after 69 yrs trapping and the way the trade is going i dont think i will miss any thing money wise.

---

That's been my information,also. In fact,I remember receiving a letter some time ago from a clearing house clerk advising not to send damaged pelts (ie: sew holes or slippage) due to the glut of pelts in the clearing house that weren't selling (commercial buyers won't touch them) and needed to be "held over" for following auctions. Dealing with them was a waste of their time and they won't buy them. If I can find the letter,I'll be glad to post it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

That's been my information,also. In fact,I remember receiving a letter some time ago from a clearing house clerk advising not to send damaged pelts (ie: sew holes or slippage) due to the glut of pelts in the clearing house that weren't selling (commercial buyers won't touch them) and needed to be "held over" for following auctions. Dealing with them was a waste of their time and they won't buy them. If I can find the letter,I'll be glad to post it.

---

I wonder if the letter would have any weight in the court if you got charged. It would seem clear that any pelt that was basically not perfect is of no value.

One of the reason I have held off doing any coyote hunting is that, I don't have the tools needed to process it properly.

If the weather would stay below freezing I could keep them till I had time to take them to someone that does. I don't mind donating to someone.

Yes I could pick up a used freezer, but there are more important uses for money right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

I wonder if the letter would have any weight in the court if you got charged. It would seem clear that any pelt that was basically not perfect is of no value.

One of the reason I have held off doing any coyote hunting is that, I don't have the tools needed to process it properly.

If the weather would stay below freezing I could keep them till I had time to take them to someone that does. I don't mind donating to someone.

Yes I could pick up a used freezer, but there are more important uses for money right now.

---

That's a really good question,but,somehow,I doubt a letter from some clerk would carry much weight. I'm not sure what evidence would need to be presented to defend a charge. I know of an incident in Peterborough County provincial offenses court where a CO had laid a charge. The hunter refused to plead guilty and elected to go to trial. The CO had to keep the hide frozen in it's original state for six months,thaw it before court and produce it as evidence on the hottest day of the summer. It stunk up the entire court room sitting there in a green garbage so bad that the JP tossed the charge and ordered a recess to air out the court. It was hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Yes, now you got it !! Lol
At one time, it still may be the case, migratory birds killed authorized by Permits, had to be left to rot. Now that doesn’t make sense to me...

---

I believe it still maybe the case, if the birds are killed out of season because of crop damage, they are to be left where they fall as a warning to other birds that might attempt to feed in the same area causing additional crop damage. That would seem to imply if you attempt to harvest them you are in fact hunting out of season, which I guess would be viewed as poaching.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

I'm just going to throw this out there,but,unless a pelt is garbage,it only takes about 10 minutes to hang a carcass from a tree branch,peel the pelt off and drag the skinned carcass out of sight.

Quote:

---

I'm just going to throw this out there,but,unless a pelt is garbage,it only takes about 10 minutes to hang a carcass from a tree branch,peel the pelt off and drag the skinned carcass out of sight.

---

Agreed!! Why not process the pelt, send it off and let the fur warehouse determine whether it's of value or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redd foxx

Agreed!! Why not process the pelt, send it off and let the fur warehouse determine whether it's of value or not?

---

If I could find some one to process and tan it, I would keep it myself. I have a few friends that would like a tanned pelt. Also with the fur places on the west coast selling pelts for close to $200, someone just wanting one for the den would be happy to cover the cost of processing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

If I could find some one to process and tan it, I would keep it myself. I have a few friends that would like a tanned pelt. Also with the fur places on the west coast selling pelts for close to $200, someone just wanting one for the den would be happy to cover the cost of processing.

---

You could process and tan it yourself. It's not expensive,but,it's very time consuming and except for scraping the flesh from the hide with a draw knife on a board,it's not too much hard work. YouTube has many "how to" videos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

You could process and tan it yourself. It's not expensive,but,it's very time consuming and except for scraping the flesh from the hide with a draw knife on a board,it's not too much hard work. YouTube has many "how to" videos.

---

Time...not too much of that at home right now. No shed to work in, don't think karen would let me do it in the house..

Skin and take home yup. Fleshing and tanning....not on your life. I have been to and driven by the tannery in Milwaukee. Not a smell I need in the backyard...or the house.

There is a tannery in BC called advanced fur dressers that a lot of taxidermists use to get stuff tanned. maybe they would supply price list to se if it would be beneficial to send your fur there to get tanned then process it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Also with the fur places on the west coast selling pelts for close to $200.

---

No quite accurate...a spectacular one might get you 1/2 that:

Quote:

---

Hughes will pay trappers an average of $75 to $105 and as much as $120 for a western coyote. He sells to operations that create trim strips, which sells to garment makers.

---

Since we are mostly talking about Eastern coyotes here, much less than that;

Quote:

---

At the Herkimer auction, eastern coyotes tended to sell for $19 to $46. Rutherford made more than $200 for seven coyote furs.

---

(from: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/coyo...ar-parkas.html

Viable means marketable and unless they are shot in the winter (Jan/Feb) most coyote pelts are not viable. Ever try to skin a yote shot in the summer ?? The tics alone make you walk away.

They are environmentally friendly though...chuck the carcass in the bush and a plethora of wildlife will feed off them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

No quite acculturate...maybe a spectacular one will get you 1/2 that:



Since we are mostly talking about Eastern coyotes here, much less than that;



(from: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/coyo...ar-parkas.html

Viable means marketable and unless they are shot in the winter (Jan/Feb) most coyote pelts are not viable. Ever try to skin a yote shot in the summer ?? The tics alone make you walk away.

The are environmentally friendly though...chuck the carcass in the bush and a plethora of wildlife will feed off them.

---

So far,Coyotes that have been shot on my friend's farms in south central Ontario where I hunt are in terrible condition. They were unsalvageable and got buried. As for shipping green pelts to BC,forget it. They won't accept eastern pelts because they have enough of their own to deal with (or so I'm told). Besides,shipping costs and royalties,alone,make it cost prohibitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

No quite acculturate...maybe a spectacular one will get you 1/2 that:

---

Just looked at the prices, top quality ones have come down about $50.

https://www.glacierwear.com/premium-...heavy-fur.html

I have been watching the price. Karen has said she would like a Coyote Fur coat. All the coats I have looked at are made for Women that are like 5' 8' to 6' 2" and would not fit her well. Sleeves too long etc.

I was going to buy the furs and give them to her at Christmas. "Here is your fur coat dear....Some ASSEMBLY required."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Just looked at the prices, top quality ones have come down about $50.

https://www.glacierwear.com/premium-...heavy-fur.html

I have been watching the price. Karen has said she would like a Coyote Fur coat. All the coats I have looked at are made for Women that are like 5' 8' to 6' 2" and would not fit her well. Sleeves too long etc.

I was going to buy the furs and give them to her at Christmas. "Here is your fur coat dear....Some ASSEMBLY required."

---

LOL You need to see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8uyi4KHHhU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

LOL You need to see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8uyi4KHHhU

---

Thanks for that Trimmer ....HaHa...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

LOL You need to see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8uyi4KHHhU

---

Funny, and there is a bit of truth to it...

Years ago I gave Karen a gift for Valentine's day at the weekly Ham radio breakfast. I waited till most people had done eating, and then I gave her a green felt covered Jewellery box like a Necklace or Bracelet would come in. Ruth ( an Ex girlfriend) was very upset that her boyfriend had not even gotten her a gift. Then Karen opened the box and was happy and smiling. Inside the box was a length of cord with loops woven into each end. Ruth to this day is Po'ed that she first did not get a gift and second mad because I could give Karen a piece of string for Valentine's day and Karen thinks it was a great gift. Ruth has no idea that it's a finger sling you use when shooting Archery.