Body Grip Trap. MN SF1325

[1pheas4]

Why trappers are so against holding themselves to a higher standard, I do not know.

In part, I think it's the slow "bleeding out" effect each passing/new reg puts on trapping sportsmen that's the problem. One state at a time, one trap at a time, and, in due time states will follow in the way of Colorado and their trapping regs. I suppose it's similar to the handgun fight. Not all sportsmen have handguns, yet we overwhelmingly support them. We know, in time, increase regs/laws/and bans on handguns today will lead to the same for our semi-autos tomorrow. It's a "writing on the wall" type thing.

Just curious, do you hunt MN fields and grouse woods with your dog often?

Mutthunt, If I say "no" are you going to use that as an outlet to excuse my points/posts? If so, I'm going to ask respectfully---please don't do that to me

Again gentlemen---remember, issues like this tend to carry with it some emotion. Try not to get too wrapped up in this thread. At this point, points have been made. It's Saturday. Time to spend some time outdoors and enjoy the day:cheers:

Nick

 

[birdshooter]

I really have no iron in this fire, only a couple of comments on what's been said here.

2) The car argument is just a distraction. It's comparing apples to oranges, and really doesn't do much to further the conversation.
The Car analogy is completely lame. Come on... Cars are not going to be outlawed anytime soon. Cars drive on roads. Dogs should not have free access to a road unless under your control, simple as that. Dogs running on public hunting land and coming upon a Trap is not even a remotely good comparison. Sorry...

4) I would be okay with more liberal regs on private property. On the millions of acres of public land, that is a different story.Private property is one thing, but Public is quite another, I agree. If this new proposal would indeed make it hard for a dog to get caught, yet should not affect wild critters ,then I don't see what the problem is? It's a win win for both parties, especially if it has been proven successful in other states

 

[1pheas4]

If this new proposal would indeed make it hard for a dog to get caught, yet should not affect wild critters ,then I don't see what the problem is? It's a win win for both parties, especially if it has been proven successful in other states

A win-win. Seldom is there ever such a thing in this life.

Taking a pack full of conibears, deep into the woods or a mile from your truck is one thing. A pack full of conibears built into an enclosure, not really possible. Same goes for live traps.

Nick

 

[birdshooter]

A win-win. Seldom is there ever such a thing in this life.

Taking a pack full of conibears, deep into the woods or a mile from your truck is one thing. A pack full of conibears built into an enclosure, not really possible. Same goes for live traps.

Nick

Like I said, I have no iron in this fight nor am I a trapper, but it would seem that other states have adopted some kind of alternative to this issue. Do we know if it has been successful?

 

[birddemon]

A win-win. Seldom is there ever such a thing in this life.

Taking a pack full of conibears, deep into the woods or a mile from your truck is one thing. A pack full of conibears built into an enclosure, not really possible. Same goes for live traps.

Nick

WI guys don't seem to have a problem doing it. Heck it was their idea

In part, I think it's the slow "bleeding out" effect each passing/new reg puts on trapping sportsmen that's the problem. One state at a time, one trap at a time, and, in due time states will follow in the way of Colorado and their trapping regs. I suppose it's similar to the handgun fight. Not all sportsmen have handguns, yet we overwhelmingly support them. We know, in time, increase regs/laws/and bans on handguns today will lead to the same for our semi-autos tomorrow. It's a "writing on the wall" type thing.

Nick

WI traps have not had any new restrictions since the trappers there helped put their regs in place 17 yrs ago.
Michigan has had their regs for over 5 yrs...no new restrictions. Just two examples.

 

[1pheas4]

WI guys don't seem to have a problem doing it. Heck it was their idea


WI traps have not had any new restrictions since the trappers there helped put their regs in place 17 yrs ago.
Michigan has had their regs for over 5 yrs...no new restrictions. Just two examples.

Birddemon, with all due respect--you can't possibly speak for all the WI trappers in that state.

At this point we've reached a point where we've put the bumper of the truck against a brick wall and begin to spin our wheels over and over again.

Have a good day gentlemen.

Nick

 

[birddemon]

Birddemon, with all due respect--you can't possibly speak for all the WI trappers in that state.

At this point we've reached a point where we've put the bumper of the truck against a brick wall and begin to spin our wheels over and over again.

Have a good day gentlemen.

Nick

I respect your desire to have the last word and you are right, I can't speak for them but neither can you.

the simple facts that their fur harvest reports are as strong as ever and that their license sales have not decreased, but increased...it would be pretty safe to assume that the regs they put on their bgs have not killed their sport.
In a recent survey of the WI trappers, over 50% who responded used body grips.
And of course we all know that there are multiple types of traps that are effective for almost every animal. Many trappers will tell you that leghold/foothold are very effective for coon, beaver and bobcat. But with the 50% responding that they are using BGs and 3 dogs deaths reported---compared to 17 here, I would further assume that the BGs are still effective over there with their regs.

 

[gunflint charlie]

As for the automobile analogy -- hard to think of anything more regulated, and without loss of fundamental freedoms. I'd be glad to accept a proposal for new regs on autos accepted in other states and proven effective to reduce the number of dogs and/or people killed.

 

[BRITTMAN]

Anyone with any common sence would know your car is a great danger to my dog. You've killed 2 already. Lady, and Roxie. My families dogs you killed were, Latea, Willow, Bandit, Shilo, Dude, Gege, and Britt. That's 8 in my family alone. Just from you driving past our property. So forgive me if I politely think this thread is a pile of rubbish.

If your family has lost 8 dogs to vehicle kills - your family is so irresponsible it is shocking . Guess you are lucky that your socialist state government does not come and take all your animals away for their safety.

And I don't believe a trapper gives a hooie about your public lands as pretty much 99% of us never trap them

Maybe not in Alex, but as you move further north ... trappers utilize public land as a primary source of income. Do you have an official source to back up this "statistic" you present to us ?

If you are correct wit the comment above ... then the solution is to implement the changes immediately on public land ...


Where is your Canada Wild Rye thread ??

 

[BRITTMAN]

If my dog is hurt or killed by a car, it would be my fault for not controlling the animal ... sometimes controlling a dog is not simple and do accidents happen.

When hunting in farm country even my kids know the first thing we do when back to the truck is unload the guns and get the dogs secured in the vehicle if we are on an approach with any traffic what so ever. I will even leash a younger dog to make sure "accidents" won't happen. Typically I try park in areas where vehicle conflicts may happen.

Grain trucks and farmers do not slow down for dogs.


Blue-green algae, heat exhaustion, wolves, porkies, skunks, hypothermia, barb wire fences, deer ticks - also may pose serious risks to dogs (sorry and Canada Wild Rye). Bird dogs are high performance athletes often working in harsh (if not dangerous) environments ... the owner should try be as knowledgeable on these factors to minimize risk.

 

[BRITTMAN]

A win-win. Seldom is there ever such a thing in this life.

Taking a pack full of conibears, deep into the woods or a mile from your truck is one thing. A pack full of conibears built into an enclosure, not really possible. Same goes for live traps.

Nick

You get that far from the truck you will run into few if any conibears. Most trappers are not too prone to walking far and fewer yet move far from their trucks. Body-grip traps are preferred by many trappers because they do not need to be checked daily (leg holds must be checked in MN).

Traps are often set in ag country is spots where the trapper can drive into a pasture, down a fence line, a rarely traveled road or trail and either drive right by the trap or use their binocs to see if an animal is caught. Getting out and walking takes time and quite a bit of extra effort.

The largest expense for long-line trappers that actually make a livelihood out of this activity is gasoline.

 

[1pheas4]

You get that far from the truck you will run into few if any conibears. Most trappers are not too prone to walking far and fewer yet move far from their trucks. Body-grip traps are preferred by many trappers because they do not need to be checked daily (leg holds must be checked in MN).

Traps are often set in ag country is spots where the trapper can drive into a pasture, down a fence line, a rarely traveled road or trail and either drive right by the trap or use their binocs to see if an animal is caught. Getting out and walking takes time and quite a bit of extra effort.

The largest expense for long-line trappers that actually make a livelihood out of this activity is gasoline.

Sure. Machines are great but hardly effective when the land owner doesn't want packed ground/trails through his fields. A few weeks of muddy conditions during the trapping season and leaving deep ruts throughout his nicely groomed field is hardly a welcome option.

I have an idea. Let me know what you think. Essentially what you are trying to do is eliminate/limit trappers' use of conibear traps as they are used today right? Here's one of those rare win-win situations; Our dogs--like the conibear is to a trapper--is a vital tool in pursuit of game right? Let's block out sections within the trapping season where conibears can be used as they are today, but your essential "tool" i.e. your bird dog can not. Then, we'll block out sections of the season were conibears can not be used as they are today, but your dog can. I know this would be an inconvenience to us seeing our dogs are effective "tools of the trade" if you will, but we are asking trappers to basically give up their tools for the sake of eliminating (as much as possible) the razor thin chance one of our dogs get's caught in a conibear.
Nick

 

[mutthunt]

Sure. Machines are great but hardly effective when the land owner doesn't want packed ground/trails through his fields. A few weeks of muddy conditions during the trapping season and leaving deep ruts throughout his nicely groomed field is hardly a welcome option.

I have an idea. Let me know what you think. Essentially what you are trying to do is eliminate/limit trappers' use of conibear traps as they are used today right? Here's one of those rare win-win situations; Our dogs--like the conibear is to a trapper--is a vital tool in pursuit of game right? Let's block out sections within the trapping season where conibears can be used as they are today, but your essential "tool" i.e. your bird dog can not. Then, we'll block out sections of the season were conibears can not be used as they are today, but your dog can. I know this would be an inconvenience to us seeing our dogs are effective "tools of the trade" if you will, but we are asking trappers to basically give up their tools for the sake of eliminating (as much as possible) the razor thin chance one of our dogs get's caught in a conibear.
Nick

Regarding the bold: False. We are not eliminating the use of a trap. We are pursuing rules that have been effective in other states...and conibears are still used frequently in those states (as has already been stated).

And since you are rightly comparing traps to dogs in regards to tools of trade, how about this comparison:

A hunter vandalizes/breaks a trap (the trappers personal property), that is a criminal charge.

A trapper maims/kills a dog (the owner's property), it is perfectly legal. Before last year the DNR didn't even care if it was reported.

Trappers have it pretty good if you ask me.

 

[1pheas4]

Regarding the bold: False. We are not eliminating the use of a trap. We are pursuing rules that have been effective in other states...and conibears are still used frequently in those states (as has already been stated).

Very good then. What your proposing is a decrees in an already extremely low probability of RISK to your dog right? Wouldn't it seem fitting and worth while to decreased risk to us? What I mean is this; There are members on this site who have been shot. My father was dropped by his best friend with a shotgun (not a bow w/flu-flu arrows) while in the field. Hospitalized for days. Still caries lead in his gut to this day. To decrees the ever small chance/risk to others possibly getting shot, hence inuring bodily injury or even death, should we not bring about regs on our shotguns too? Possibly a reg that allows the use of our shotgun in pursuit of game ONLY when we are hunting alone/without others in the field? Why not add our dogs into that one too. The pooch in my avatar (Hauss) was nearly shot point blank twice by a slob hunter. Shouldn't we then alleviate such a risk by implementing regs on our shotguns? I know of dogs that have been shot. It's a terrible sight for the dog owner!

So then, why can't you and I use a nice camera instead of our gun? There's decreased risk to our dogs, our hunting buddy, ourselves, and the bird/mammal we chose to shot and kill. With a camera you can still use your dog to flush birds/game, get outdoors, if we're lucky maybe get a beautiful photo or two, plus the bird/game get's to live on for another day. "but I want the meat?" Well, hunt alone so you can use your shotgun or just simply hit the grocery store

Better yet, why don't we hunt without dogs altogether? Can you not kill game birds/mammals without a dog? Of course you can. "Other state implemented regs on conibears and still get the job done". So can we---You and I can kill game without a dog right? So instead of telling trappers what they can and can't do why not leave our "tools" behind?

A hunter vandalizes/breaks a trap (the trappers personal property), that is a criminal charge.

A trapper maims/kills a dog (the owner's property), it is perfectly legal. Before last year the DNR didn't even care if it was reported.

Intentional vandalism is different from our dogs running into a trap.

Trappers have it pretty good if you ask me

And so do you and I as hunters. No you don't have a right to destroy someones property/trap, but with fellow sportsmen taking the "high-road" on this issue I'm wondering (in time) will state's find themselves in the same position as CO If so, at that point they'll (anti's) focus an immense fervor towards our "tools/shotguns" and use of public/private lands. They too will have their sights on decreasing RISK to our dogs and the wild critters they lay claim to by defending their "rights".


Nick

 

[birddemon]

"Other state implemented regs on conibears and still get the job done". So can we---You and I can kill game without a dog right? So instead of telling trappers what they can and can't do why not leave our "tools" behind?

explain to me how my "tool" is impacting a trapper's sport




Intentional vandalism is different from our dogs running into a trap.
Our dogs? You live and hunt in MN? The bottom line is that risk can be minimized. Explain to me why a body grip set for a raccoon, beaver or bobcat has to allow access for a dog




And so do you and I as hunters. No you don't have a right to destroy someones property/trap, but with fellow sportsmen taking the "high-road" on this issue I'm wondering (in time) will state's find themselves in the same position as CO If so, at that point they'll (anti's) focus an immense fervor towards our "tools/shotguns" and use of public/private lands. They too will have their sights on elevating RISK to our dogs and the wild critters they lay claim to by defending their "rights".


Nick

there is no reason to ignore that WI has had their BG regs in place for 17 yrs with no further restrictions placed upon them. Heck, they are still even allowing bird dogs and shotguns over there

 

[1pheas4]

explain to me how my "tool" is impacting a trapper's sport

EDIT; I misread your question---you mean your dog as the "tool" right? I suppose it effects trappers sport by fellow sportsmen pushing for increased regs placed on trappers to decrease a already highly unlikely accident to happen. As I've said in the past, emotion is powerful. So much so it often pushes facts and stats aside. In this case, your working to prevent a tremendously slim chance of your dog getting caught.

Our dogs? You live and hunt in MN? The bottom line is that risk can be minimized. Explain to me why a body grip set for a raccoon, beaver or bobcat has to allow access for a dog

I see. If I hunt in MN that grants me the "ok/green light" to continue expressing concern over this issue--despite hunting in states that allow 220's to be used as they are in MN. Which states will be next in line to propose such regs? IL, SD, etc.? At that point can I speak on the matter?

As for "allowing access for a dog", are trappers intentionally targeting your dog? Are they asking that you hunt and run your dog next to their 220's? Why don't you work your dog where they are not trapping? Is that too much of an inconvenience to you? Of course it is. Therefore make trappers change their ways so you can continue on the way you chose.

there is no reason to ignore that WI has had their BG regs in place for 17 yrs with no further restrictions placed upon them. Heck, they are still even allowing bird dogs and shotguns over there

Ignore? What's being ignored is the limitations put on WI trappers with the passing of such laws--by the way, you speak often on behalf of WI trappers. Do you hunt or live in WI?

Nick

 

[birddemon]

One simple and brief example was made in my post #63, refuted in post #71, response to the refute in post #72.
you are absolutely right, there is no reason why a trappers job should be harder or opt to use a different trap just because it would prevent a dog catch. Trappers have more of a right to public land no reason to try and coexist. Ahh..I see you now call it an accident, too bad accidents can be prevented for the most part


I see. If I hunt in MN that grants me the "ok/green light" to continue expressing concern over this issue--despite hunting in states that allow 220's to be used as they are in MN. Which states will be next in line to propose such regs? IL, SD, etc.? At that point can I speak on the matter?
SD has a reg in place stating that the trap recess distance cannot be measured from the awning. The email I received from their agency stated "measuring from the awning is ineffective at reducing dog catches"

As for "allowing access for a dog", are trappers intentionally targeting your dog? Are they asking that you hunt and run your dog next to their 220's? Why don't you work your dog where they are not trapping? Is that too much of an incontinence to you? Of course it is. Therefore make trappers change their ways so you can continue on the way you chose.
are trappers doing anything to increase the selectivity of the trap. Restrictive openings to the enclosure? Trap recess depth of 7" or more. I have spoke with many MN trappers who freely show off their sets that already go above and beyond our current regs. Why do some do that on their own? Because they don't want to catch a dog and because it doesn't hamper their efforts. I don't think you understand the personal responsibility one should have when operating a lethal tool...I need to be sure of my target when hunting, I'm the operator of that gun. To actually think and state that a person setting lethal trap does not have to have any personal responsibility to be sure of their target....REALLY?



Ignore? What's being ignored is the limitations put on WI trappers with the passing of such laws--by the way, you speak often on behalf of WI trappers. Do you hunt or live in WI?
please go and look at their fur harvest reports from 1994-2014. They changed the regs in 1998..you will see it hasn't impacted their fur harvests in the least. Then go and look at their license sales for the same time period..again no negative impact.
No reason to reply, you've made it clear that anything where trappers can't do what they want is a unacceptable to you and they have no responsibility when setting a lethal tool

 

[mutthunt]

Wouldn't it seem fitting and worth while to decreased risk to us?

Possibly a reg that allows the use of our shotgun in pursuit of game ONLY when we are hunting alone/without others in the field? Why not add our dogs into that one too.

Shouldn't we then alleviate such a risk by implementing regs on our shotguns?

So then, why can't you and I use a nice camera instead of our gun?

Better yet, why don't we hunt without dogs altogether?

Nick

(I abbreviated your post to cut down on the quote)


I see you're well versed in the straw man argument. It works well when pandering to those who already believe in what you're saying, but it never stands up to real debate.

This thread isn't about hunting without guns or without dogs or with cameras (or cars, in FC's case). It's about putting restrictions on conibear traps in an effort to keep MN dogs out of MN traps. Period.

What you have done is sensationalized the argument. You built it up so that it resembles nothing like what I am arguing for, make me seem silly for wanting such a thing, and giving yourself a little win. Most discerning folks see past that.

 

[1pheas4]

I see you're well versed in the straw man argument. It works well when pandering to those who already believe in what you're saying, but it never stands up to real debate.

Nice insult.

This thread isn't about hunting without guns or without dogs or with cameras (or cars, in FC's case). It's about putting restrictions on conibear traps in an effort to keep MN dogs out of MN traps. Period.

That's right. It's about pushing an agenda to put restrictions on conibears". So why then have you made it about me/abilities to "debate?" My points (in hopes) were to bring light to the other side of this issue. Obviously my inferior debate abilities failed.

There's two sides to this issue. Not just yours.

I know when we believe something is too good to be true, and let's face it, you and a couple others keep echoing WI the perfect example, anyone who say's otherwise sounds ridiculous.

At this point, I believe what you want is platform to say what you want without anyone making points otherwise. For one, that's not fair to the other side, plus it's not going to happen.

What you have done is sensationalized the argument. You built it up so that it resembles nothing like what I am arguing for, make me seem silly for wanting such a thing, and giving yourself a little win. Most discerning folks see past that.

Making you, or anyone else feel silly has never been my intentions, nor do I feel you look silly in anyway to anyone. I'm not sure where this is coming from




Nick

 

[birddemon]

I know when we believe something is too good to be true, and let's face it, you and a couple others keep echoing WI the perfect example, anyone who say's otherwise sounds ridiculous.

At this point, I believe what you want is platform to say what you want without anyone making points otherwise. For one, that's not fair to the other side, plus it's not going to happen.

Nick

The problem is that you haven't brought any facts or data into your side of the debate.
You have stated that it was an inconvenience for trappers to lug cubbies a mile out, but never once acknowdged that a leghold is just as effective for coon or bobcat. I asked you to go through WI's fur harvest and license sales before and after their BG regs so you could see for yourself it hasn't impacted their fur take. That was ignored.

Your other point is MN will turn into CO...I've already pointed out the WI has not had any new restrictions on BGs

No data or facts from you
Just "it's not fair" to the trappers..well right now it's not "fair" to the dogs.