Post by: Humptulips on January 31, 2025, 06:42:58 PM
This Bill is back. Seen a similarly worded Bill for the last 4 years. It would ban fur farms and fur production (manufacture of any fur product). Even has some onerous record keeping requirements for the use of used fur products. Of course anything made out of leather is OK. :dunno:
Just dropped today. Sent to the Committee on Consumer Protection and Business
Here is the page where you can see the members the Committee
https://leg.wa.gov/about-the-legislature/committees/house-of-representatives/cpb/
You can call or click on their District which allows you to click on their name and takes you to a page where you can leave them a written message. Confusing? If I can figure it out, you can.
I'll come up with some talking points and a better link to leave a message in a day or two.
Post by: big wood on January 31, 2025, 07:37:40 PM
Post by: Cougartail on February 01, 2025, 06:19:55 AM
What a bunch of pussies
You have hunters in this State who actually vote for these "ussies". Be sure to thank them. :bash:
Post by: trophyhunt on February 01, 2025, 07:07:12 AM
100% and on this site! The dems have lost their minds!!What a bunch of pussies
You have hunters in this State who actually vote for these "ussies". Be sure to thank them. :bash:
Post by: big wood on February 01, 2025, 08:53:05 AM
Post by: JakeLand on February 01, 2025, 12:16:21 PM
Post by: Humptulips on February 03, 2025, 08:24:37 PM
Post by: Humptulips on February 03, 2025, 10:28:00 PM
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill/1775
Also, here are links to Members of The House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. This is the Committee that this Bill has been referred to. Please ask the Committee members to oppose and hopefully it might die in Committee. Keep it simple and respectful.
Talking points: Hurts small business, sends business out of State, Culturally insensitive to Trappers, Native Americans, Mountain Man enthusiasts, reenactors, Why is fur bad but not leather? Why should the State be deciding a business is not worthy of existence because it is a small part of the economy?, Furs are natural unlike synthetics that never break down.,
Kristine Reeves Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/30/2
Melanie Morgan Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/29/1
Tom Dent Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/13/1
Andrew Engell Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/7/1
Adam Bernbaum Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/24/1
Stephanie McClintock Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/18/1
Greg Nance Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/23/2
Ed Orcutt Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/23/2
Adison Richards Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/26/1
Joe Schmick Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/9/2
Larry Springer Washington State Legislature - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/45/2
Here is a letter I wrote for example not necessarily to copy. Better to write your own but use it if you have to.
Please oppose HB 1775. This Bill targets the Community of fur users (Native Americans, trappers Mountain Man enthusiasts and reenactors and the businesses that support them. Yes, Native Americans even though the Bill tries to exempt them. If a small business loses half its customers, it won’t be there for Native Americans either. Why should the State be in the business of choosing which businesses are worthy based on their size which is what this Bill purports to do? Fur is bad but leather OK. That logic escapes me.
Post by: redi on February 04, 2025, 04:39:16 AM
Post by: EnglishSetter on February 04, 2025, 09:29:30 AM
Post by: timberfaller on February 04, 2025, 11:47:17 AM
Any bets these clowns don't know what "lined" all the WWII bomber clothes?? And what "really" works in cold/wet weather!
Post by: Cougartail on February 04, 2025, 02:36:44 PM
If you haven't figured it out yet, EVERY bill being introduced by the D's has only one goal, close business's down, especially any Ma and Pa business. They haven't "lost their minds" they didn't have one to begin with! LIV's are the only reason they got elected!
Any bets these clowns don't know what "lined" all the WWII bomber clothes?? And what "really" works in cold/wet weather!
All democrats are anti-man. They want compliant wimps who are no threat to their goal of Marxist nirvana.
Post by: Humptulips on February 07, 2025, 05:32:43 PM
https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Agenda/32738
Post by: Frank The Tank on February 08, 2025, 12:04:14 AM
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1775.pdf?q=20250131175835Bruce, What's HHC and WWC position/statements on this bill?
This Bill is back. Seen a similarly worded Bill for the last 4 years. It would ban fur farms and fur production (manufacture of any fur product). Even has some onerous record keeping requirements for the use of used fur products. Of course anything made out of leather is OK. :dunno:
Just dropped today. Sent to the Committee on Consumer Protection and Business
Here is the page where you can see the members the Committee
https://leg.wa.gov/about-the-legislature/committees/house-of-representatives/cpb/
You can call or click on their District which allows you to click on their name and takes you to a page where you can leave them a written message. Confusing? If I can figure it out, you can.
I'll come up with some talking points and a better link to leave a message in a day or two.
Post by: Humptulips on February 08, 2025, 12:26:36 AM
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1775.pdf?q=20250131175835Bruce, What's HHC and WWC position/statements on this bill?
This Bill is back. Seen a similarly worded Bill for the last 4 years. It would ban fur farms and fur production (manufacture of any fur product). Even has some onerous record keeping requirements for the use of used fur products. Of course anything made out of leather is OK. :dunno:
Just dropped today. Sent to the Committee on Consumer Protection and Business
Here is the page where you can see the members the Committee
https://leg.wa.gov/about-the-legislature/committees/house-of-representatives/cpb/
You can call or click on their District which allows you to click on their name and takes you to a page where you can leave them a written message. Confusing? If I can figure it out, you can.
I'll come up with some talking points and a better link to leave a message in a day or two.
Strongly oppose.
Post by: Frank The Tank on February 08, 2025, 11:20:31 PM
Response to HB 1775
In reading the proposed bill to stop all fur farm as well as production of fur related products, I have found so many errors, fallacies, and untruths to make this bill a proposal of ideology than are real legislative production. To those actually open-minded and willing to listen, I will stick to one main point: To be anti-fur and anti-trapping is to be Anti-Native American. There is a poor attempt in the proposed bill to use the Native community as an unwitting pawn to achieve the goal of destroying the economies of fur related businesses. However any basic understanding of the Native community in relation to the culture of fur and trapping, or the negative impacts economically as well as socially would show that this bill is in fact an ATTACK on the Native communities.
(b) A fur product used for traditional tribal, cultural, or spiritual purposes by a member of a federally recognized Native American tribe…
This sounds like it is protecting the Native communities, but as mentioned before, any basic understanding of the Native communities’ gathering and uses of fur and fur related products would see the truth. I work closely with Native tribes, mainly the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Yakima Nation. I am a second-generation fur buyer. This means I am dealing with multiple generations within the same communities. These Natives trap furbearers as a part of culture, just like their non-Native neighbors. What this proposed bill will do is destroy these Natives’ ability to trade, sell, or process their harvests. The vast, vast majority of fur taken by Natives leaves their respective tribes and reservations. One Native customer shared a picture of her great, great grandfather of the Moses Lake band proudly displaying his furs across his horse on his way to sell them to a non-Native fur buyer. This continues to this day.
As a fur buyer, I see Natives almost daily bringing in their harvests to sell or trade. Many work seasonally so they can trap during the fur season and depend on the sale of their furs for their home economics. As a fur buyer I grade the fur, offer a price, then find a way to use the fur in a variety of ways. Many people in the craft and manufacturing industry actively seek out Tribal furs. Other Natives will trade one species for another. Many a native has traded a recently trapped bobcat for tanned otter pelts. These pelts, tanned under strict US EPA guidelines within the USA, may come from a variety of places, such as the Native majority owned Fur House in Canada. Otters are used in headwear due to its long, black silky fur. Other Natives may trade for porcupine hair or quills. These porcupine will regularly be bought by me from non-Natives off reservation specifically to supply these Tribal members. Other Natives will seek me out to have fur headbands or hats made by one of my skilled textile workers on the East Coast. In short, the fur trade is an appropriate term. Furs move in and out of Tribal and non-tribal persons and businesses. Even the ranch furs are sought out by Natives due to their quality that the wild cannot reproduce. These ranch furs usually come from the same Native owned fur house in Canada I mentioned earlier. Any negative legislation regarding furs or trapping will end up targeting the Native community and hurt them economically and culturally. It will target Native owned businesses internationally. In conversation with my Native customers and neighbors, I explain that if this bill passes I and any other fur buyer will be out of business. It only takes a few seconds before they realize the negative effects. “What would you do?” I ask. “Well, I guess I will just have to stop trapping. So much for tradition.”
Post by: Katalla on February 09, 2025, 08:43:18 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 09, 2025, 09:41:30 AM
100% and on this site! The dems have lost their minds!!What a bunch of pussies
You have hunters in this State who actually vote for these "ussies". Be sure to thank them. :bash:
But you don't usually find them on posts like this.
Commented to all 3 but mine are all from the sensible side
Post by: dwtraut7 on February 09, 2025, 11:20:27 AM
Post by: Humptulips on February 09, 2025, 05:58:14 PM
Wouldn't a bill like this even effect certain fishing flies? Sometimes this state feels like a prison the way it is runYes it would.
Post by: Ric0 on February 09, 2025, 06:48:38 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 10, 2025, 04:58:14 AM
Post by: Humptulips on February 12, 2025, 09:38:55 AM
It is easy to critique our testimony but consider they only gave a person 90 seconds. You can't make all the good arguments that come to mind. You pick something and try to get across your argument the best you can in the time allotted.
What's next?
The Committee will, at some point vote on whether to move it to the House floor for a vote or not. The Chair can hold it in Committee without a vote and it holds over till next year. If they move it to the floor and it gets a yes vote it goes to the Senate and starts all over again.
You can still send in comments.
Post by: Humptulips on February 19, 2025, 01:07:50 PM
I also gave testimony on HB 1685 and HB 1930. Those are the restructuring of the F&W Commission Bills in the House. I don't think I made any impact but from hearing what I did and reading faces I think neither Bill is going far. Overwhelming sentiment against 1685 and for 1930 if you go by pro/con voting by the public. Seemed like the hearing comments were heavily by anti-hunters and they hate 1930 but not fully behind 1685.
Post by: Frank The Tank on February 19, 2025, 07:11:33 PM
I went up this morning to see The House Ag and NR Committee's Executive Session on 1775. They passed a substitute Bill on a straight party line vote Dems, aye/ Rep, nay. I'm not sure what all is in the substitute Bill as they have not published it yet that I can see. It sounds like they did make changes to accommodate fur farmers and fly tiers. I can't say the same for furriers, but it doesn't sound good from what I heard. Not sure until I can read the Bill. On to the full House with a do pass recommendation.Bruce, here's the substitute bill text. This is NOT good at all. If this passes I (and many others) are done, business wise.
I also gave testimony on HB 1685 and HB 1930. Those are the restructuring of the F&W Commission Bills in the House. I don't think I made any impact but from hearing what I did and reading faces I think neither Bill is going far. Overwhelming sentiment against 1685 and for 1930 if you go by pro/con voting by the public. Seemed like the hearing comments were heavily by anti-hunters and they hate 1930 but not fully behind 1685.
"Replaces the prohibition on fur farming with a requirement that a fur farm be a member of an organization recognizing a professional certification program that includes animal welfare and environmental standards and requires fur farms to be fully in compliance with inspection and certification requirements. • Requires the production and manufacture of fur or fur-related products made from farmed fur to be sourced from a farm that is a member of an organization recognizing a professional certification program that includes animal welfare and environmental standards and fully in compliance with inspection and certification requirements. • Exempts products used in fishing gear from the prohibition on producing and manufacturing fur products. • Deletes the intent section"
OK my questions...
Requirement on fur farms may not be a high hurdle to pass as just about all if not ALL fur farms belong to a professional organization. Fur Harvesters may have this requirement. What this WILL stop is any ranch fur-say I buy one at Glenn's Ferry sold by another private person. This hangs in my shop. I buy something manufactured by another business in New York etc. We all know that furs change hands many times, and anyway, fur doesn't come with a tag showing origination. Even CITES tags can be removed once the hide is tanned. What nightmare administrative burden does this require that can never be met?
"exempts products used in fishing gear from the prohibition on producing and manufacturing fur products". First, this shows the power of some outdoor groups. Great, just NOT US. However this implies that any other activity/manufacture with fur, wild or ranch, is prohibited.
"Deletes the intent section" What's this?
All of this, BTW will seriously impact the economics-and by default severely restricts-Native American use, pruchase, movement of furs outside of their inner tribal use, in effect a law against them.
I look forward to yours and other's response as I draft my letter to my Reps.
Frank
Post by: Humptulips on February 19, 2025, 08:10:37 PM
What is the intent section? That is section 1 where they say why they are doing this. Basically, furs are bad, climate change, cruel, small part of economy, pollution so we are outlawing them.
Effect? I'm no lawyer but I think it ends making anything out of furs in WA.
Frank,
You selling tanned furs would be OK, having something made out of furs out-of-State and bringing them back and selling them, OK. Any of your customers that sew furs, no can do unless it is for a Native American of a federally recognized tribe and you would have to keep records on those sales. I guess not only Native Americans, anything for religious proposes so a shtreimel would be OK too. Someone like D. Stanley, out of business.
Post by: Ric0 on February 20, 2025, 08:31:52 AM
Post by: Humptulips on February 24, 2025, 11:20:58 AM
https://app.leg.wa.gov/BillSummary/?BillNumber=1775&Year=2025&Initiative=false
You can read the Substitute Bill there and there is a link to send comments. Please take the time. It matters. Best to write something of your own but I have provided a few talking points below.
Commented earlier? Doesn't hurt to do it again since the Bill had been modified.
Talking points for HB 1775 rebuttal
State gets to decide what is traditional, cultural
Will put small crafters and furriers out of business because a significant portion of their business is ranch fur.
Majority of these crafters making fur items are female or minority owned businesses.
Even if fur farms are part of a certification program there is no labeling program that carries with it proof of certification through the levels of brokers and auctions, ranch furs go through before they reach the manufacturer.
There is no allowance for current inventory of ranch furs that will be impossible to document as coming from a certified fur farm.
The proposed Bill covers fur farmed mink, marten, fox and chinchilla and yet we legally harvest wild mink, marten and fox that are acceptable to use in fur production under this Bill. How are those to be differentiated?
The Bill originally was purported to champion animal welfare and environmental pollution but now only impacts crafters trying to make a living sewing.
If passed it will be an unenforceable mess.
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 24, 2025, 11:45:21 AM
Post by: Humptulips on March 03, 2025, 09:23:48 AM
Thanks for everybody's help in killing this Bill by writing to their Reps.
Post by: greenhead_killer on March 03, 2025, 10:37:48 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on March 03, 2025, 12:17:00 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 03, 2025, 07:03:24 PM
So either some anti trapping group emailed them and/or donated money to their campaign. It would take more digging into that than I have time. Surely this is going to be a yearly attack on trappers rights. It's awesome that people are made aware of this so they have the ability to contact their legistlatures.
Post by: Humptulips on March 03, 2025, 07:56:54 PM