Body Grip Trap. MN SF1325

Status
Not open for further replies.

BRITTMAN

Active member
Last edited:

birddemon

New member
Thank you so much for posting this.

I've been following this Bill closely and am actively supporting it.

It's about time for MN to catch up to other top upland states on dog safe regs on these traps
 

Vizslaowner

New member
I currently have two NAVHDA tested Vizsla. I also have a friend who is paralyzed from the waist down,how would he trap raccoons(on private ground only) with conibear type traps with those regulations? I run my dogs all the time where conibear/baited boxes are being used and do not worry about at all.
 

birddemon

New member
Wow good for him! He must be using baited cubbies?

Trap recess just has to be measured from the front of the cubby instead of the awning, no difference.

Every bird hunter I've spoke with in the past few yrs who had their dog caught never worried about it either..till it happened to them
 

BRITTMAN

Active member
I run my dogs all the time where conibear/baited boxes are being used and do not worry about at all.
Welcome to UPF.


The regulations parallel Wisconsin. They have no problem harvesting furbearers in that state. The DNR supports this legislation by the way.

While the risk is relatively low, not to worry at all is an ignorant position at best. Even MN Trappers Association recognize the risk and provide education to both trappers (setting) and hunters (releasing). AT A MINIMUM YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW TO REMOVE THESE TRAPS. Even then you may not get through it in time - especially if you do not have the "tools" needed.

Anyone (not just hunters) need to understand the risk if they have dogs off leash.
 

birddemon

New member
Here in MN we are having a conflict with body grip traps and dogs. I know that most of you live out of state and you have safer regulations on the BG trap sets than we do. Your states have proven that trappers and dogs can coexist on public land. We currently have bills that call for safer placement regs and they need to hear support.

There's been several high profile deaths of dogs-- including bird dogs--in the Body Grip traps this yr, as well as Kobe who was blinded surviving 2-3 days in one. The only thing that saved his life was the trapper who reported it and the fact that he started wagging his tail when the CO approached him while he was in the trap.

If these bills fail in this legislative session, we will NEED to have more high profile dog deaths the next hunting/trapping season to gain momentum again on another bill.

SF 1325 and it's Companion Bill HF 1655 are stalled. The legislative session ends May 18th.
Nothing is going to happen unless PF comes out in support like RGS did and ppl contact their district's reps. You can keep it simple and short. And also contact the ppl listed below.
http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

Non Residents and residents can send letters to the following ppl. I've had many of my out of state friends write them and state that they will choose to hunt WI and MI over MN because they have safer regs to minimize the risk to bird dogs.

HF 1655

House Rep Tom Hackbarth. Chairman of the Mining and Outdoor Recreation Policy committee, has refused to hear HF 1655
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sendmail/mailtomember.aspx?id=10229

House Representative Dave Dill
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sendmail/mailtomember.aspx?id=10761

House Rep Denny McNamara. He took part in the "awning" regulation. A reg that no other state tried----South Dakota Regs on Body Grips specifically state trap recess distance CANNOT be measured from the awning, ours are.
Here's McNamara's quote in 2012 on the ineffective "awning" reg that he played a huge part in putting in place
"We've got to be honest: We don't know how it's going to work," said state Rep. Denny McNamara, R-Hastings, who chaired the House committee that held hearings on the issue and who supported the restrictions proposed by the trappers. "We're going have to see if they provide adequate protection. I don't know how we define that, but we're going to have to figure it out. We'll re-evaluate if need be."
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sendmail/mailtomember.aspx?id=10776

SF 1325
Senate Majority Leader Senator Tom Bakk. Longtime MN Trappers Association member, has stalled the bill in the Senate.
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_emailform.php?mem_id=1003&ls=


Thank you for anything that you can do.
 

Vizslaowner

New member
Please post the Wisconsin regs so people can decide for themselves if these changes " would parallel" , or is that slick wording in order to outlaw the 220 bodygrip trap from being used on the ground. Four feet off the ground is not as efficient as trail set. Much like anti hunting groups target dove hunting or bow hunting(because they are lower participation forms of hunting) these new bodygrip trap regs appear to be a way to fracture trapping by reducing the effectiveness of the equipment, raising costs and time required to run traps and ultimately disenfranchise trappers from other sportsman.
 

birddemon

New member
hmmm..don't tell the WI guys that 4' up isn't efficient. Since their elevation is 5'


Still trapping with that reg that THEY put in place in 1998. Fur take has not been negatively impacted..and have not had any more trap restrictions or bans since then. Made them stronger..didn't frature anything. But thanks for implying that.

Common sense will tell anyone that dog deaths aren't good for a trapper's image.
Once the dogs deaths aren't all over the media...business as usual, judging from their fur take reports on the last 17 yrs, it looks like business is better.
 
Last edited:

birddemon

New member
And surely you do know that the MN trappers in the Arrowhead region have strict regs on the body grips--- restricitive openings and 7" trap recess depth on their body grips-- to avoid trapping a Lynx. No Awning there..their traps recess distance has to be measured from the front of the box.....like every other state, including WI. They are not allowed to just nail an "awning" on top of their cubbies and call it safe..18 MN DNR confirmed dog deaths in 18 months proves its not safe.

WI has restrictive openings and recessed trap setbacks on their body grips. They reported 3 deaths from body grips in that same time period.
 

BRITTMAN

Active member
Hey Vizslaowner, post up some pics of your dogs and tell about your pheasant hunting exploits. There are some other threads on this site that would welcome your participation too.
 

BRITTMAN

Active member
Please post the Wisconsin regs so people can decide for themselves if these changes " would parallel" , or is that slick wording in order to outlaw the 220 bodygrip trap from being used on the ground. Four feet off the ground is not as efficient as trail set. Much like anti hunting groups target dove hunting or bow hunting(because they are lower participation forms of hunting) these new bodygrip trap regs appear to be a way to fracture trapping by reducing the effectiveness of the equipment, raising costs and time required to run traps and ultimately disenfranchise trappers from other sportsman.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/trap/documents/bodygripbrochure.pdf

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0002.pdf

Other tidbits:

Fifteen states (WI, CT, ME, MD, MI, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, and UT) require trappers to set body grip traps elevated above the ground or in the water to protect dogs. Ten other states (AL, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, MA, OK, WA, and WV) prohibit the use of body grip traps large enough to kill dogs on land. Tens of thousands of trappers in those 25 states successfully use body grip traps set off the ground or use non-lethal foothold traps that allow the release of non-target catches.

Nine states (IN, MI, MO, NJ, ND, OH, PA, WV, and WI) allow non-lethal cable restraint snares. Eighteen other states don?t allow any snares for land animals. Trappers in those 27 states have adapted and it has not affected fur harvest.
 

Vizslaowner

New member
Thank you for the information on this possible change to current trapping regs I will contact my representative and tell him not to support this in any way.
 

birddemon

New member
Thank you for the information on this possible change to current trapping regs I will contact my representative and tell him not to support this in any way.
That's didn't come as a surprise.

Why would you support regulations that have been proven to work for trappers and Dog owners right next door...for 17 yrs
 

koja48

New member
Thank you for the information on this possible change to current trapping regs I will contact my representative and tell him not to support this in any way.
For the sake of both your dogs & the dogs of others, I sincerely hope that your attempt fails. "It can't happen to me" has always been a fool's credo.
 

FCSpringer

Super Moderator
Please do not support this bill. Enough loss of rights already. And enough lies about false alarms and propaganda against sportsmen.:rolleyes:
 

FCSpringer

Super Moderator
Why do you feel you should get to do as you please and tell others they cant?. Maybe we should not hunt dogs? Good lord already. Threads like this are just sad.
 

McFarmer

Member
Threads like this are just sad.
No, I for one appreciate learning about things I am not aware of.

I thought discussion was what forums were for ? If one side or another is the way to go, more discussion will only make that more apparent.

Odd to lament the disappearance of rights on one hand and then move to limit participation on the other.
 

birddemon

New member
The same body grip trap that is used to catch a raccoon, bobcat or beaver. Does not have to catch a dog. Restrictive openings and deeper recess of traps is working for many other states. For hunters and trappers.

In three trapping seasons-- 18 months. MN DNR has confirmed 18 dog deaths.
WI has reported 3. They have 3,000 more trappers and significantly less land.
They are still a top for producer, they have not experienced further restricitions on body grip trap sets since they-- the Wi trappers-- helped put in place their regulations in 1998.
 

mnmthunting

Banned
This is the way anti hunting groups go about their obsession.
One step at a time, if this bill passes it will be the leg hold traps next.
What better way to support their cause then to come on a forum where just about all of us have dog (dogs) and care very much for our companions.
I for one am VERY suspicious, you guys do what you like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top