The dangers of conibear traps

Status
Not open for further replies.
I started a thread on this subject last week and I felt it would hit a nerve with some.

I don't think anyone on this board is against trapping as it has proven to be an effective predator control method. However, I don't think it's out of the realm to at least talk about how it could possibly be used to make it safer for accidental capture of dogs.

Rep. Wiger's comment "I'm very concerned about the deaths of dogs that have occurred,'' Wiger said. "The goal is to allow the traps to continue to be used but to prevent the accidental trapping of dogs. ... I would hope this wouldn't be viewed as anti-trapping. We need to at least bring up the discussion.''

And I think he's right, we should discuss it. 6 dogs killed since last fall may seem insignificant to most in the grand scheme of things, unless your one of the 6 who's dog was killed... and those are only the ones that are reported.

I really don't see how you can compare it to dogs killed from cars either. In that sense we (dog owners) can be much more proactive by putting up fences or keeping our dogs in kennels or better yet, train dogs to not leave our property to prevent an accidental death from a vehicle. When we are out in the field we are essentially blind as to the placement of a trap, not to mention your dog many times is out of sight. so you really can't draw any comparisons to the two.

I for one am at least glad that the DNR and the Trappers association are at least going to be discussing this together. I would think that it would be in the best interest of both parties to discuss any viable solutions as the amount of negative press it generates when a another dog is killed hurts trappings image more and more from a PR standpoint.
 
Last edited:
It just seems strange that no one gets a dog caught in a 220 trap on public land. How many of you can come up with a documented case of any such incident on public land? To say that traps are all over the place especially on public land is not true at all. Most of the time when these topics come up it is people that live in a metro area and really have no real knowledge about the subject, this one being the habits of a trapper. I don't believe this story one bit. And I truely believe pet owners and hunters would be better off to worry about the pets and dogs getting run over. Because it is far more likely. Way Way Way more likely in fact. That guy, if his story is in fact true. Was his own worst enemy. Had he thought rashonaly, he would simply remove the trap from the dog. Not shoot it. It's a sad story for Polka Dot for sure. But the trap never killed his dog, He did. I would be for no use of 220's on public land if that would make people happy. Leave the rights and laws the way they are every where else then. I believe this would change nothing. Because the true fact is you won't find many or any on public land now. Trappers are not as stupid as people make them out to be. Yet the cars fly down the road at 80 hitting pets, cats, dogs, deer, you name it every few seconds.
 
Last edited:
FCSpringer said:
It just seems strange that no one gets a dog caught in a 220 trap on public land. How many of you can come up with a documented case of any such incident on public land? To say that traps are all over the place especially on public land is not true at all. Most of the time when these topics come up it is people that live in a metro area and really have no real knowledge about the subject, this one being the habits of a trapper. I don't believe this story one bit. And I truely believe pet owners and hunters would be better off to worry about the pets and dogs getting run over. Because it is far more likely. Way Way Way more likely in fact. That guy, if his story is in fact true. Was his own worst enemy. Had he thought rashonaly, he would simply remove the trap from the dog. Not shoot it. It's a sad story for Polka Dot for sure. But the trap never killed his dog, He did. I would be for no use of 220's on public land if that would make people happy. Leave the rights and laws the way they are every where else then. I believe this would change nothing. Because the true fact is you won't find many or any on public land now. Trappers are not as stupid as people make them out to be. Yet the cars fly down the road at 80 hitting pets, cats, dogs, deer, you name it every few seconds.
Click to expand...

Here's one. http://brainerddispatch.com/outdoor...-pose-threat-hunting-dogs?page=1#.TzFGKm3dLj4

I don't think anyone has stated that they are all over the place, but your right, we don't know the habits of a trapper and where he may place these traps, therein lies the problem.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on the analogy of dogs killed by cars. I think your comparing apples to oranges here. Pet owners/hunters can be much more proactive when it comes to preventing dogs being killed by a car vs a trap. You can put up fences, keep your dog kenneled, train it to stay on your property, or at heel when a car is approaching . How do you train a dog to not get caught in a trap? especially when your dog is not in immediate sight.

I believe that first and foremost it's in the best interest of all parties (DNR and trappers association) to find a viable solution that works for everyone.... as I don't think anyone likes seeing this brought to the forefront when a dog is killed by a trap. It certainly doesn't bring a very positive image to trapping when it does happen in the eyes of the general public.

As far as laws being changed, I doubt very much that this bill will even be heard unless and until the DNR and the Trappers association can in fact come up with a viable solution that works for both sides, otherwise don't look for it to hold any weight.
 
Last edited:
Sure. We can dissagree, but the poster above did say they are all over the place. It would be very simple for someone to print a study guide educating dog owners of areas to avoid. Which is 99.999% where you are not, when hunting. Thats the reason you don't get your dog cought in traps.:rolleyes: This is so rare its not even funny. I don't think most of these storys are true. Where is the real proof? And I think it is spot on that you are far more likely to have a dog ran over, even if you say just while hunting. If 220 traps were not allowed on public, but allowed else where, and the DNR printed an education section in the regs of avoidence, and removal. That should solve any issue. That change as said will change little usage because of lack of it now. Smaller body grip traps for mink and rats are basicly harmless to a dog. They get hurt more on barbed wire..
This whole thing is silly and is so over acted. The fact is if 220's are banned, made to be used 6' off the ground etc. It will hurt the trapper tremendously. They are the most humane trap to use. Placing them high is simply not possible in some areas. Lets say a compramize could be no 220 sized body grip within 100 feet of a puplic hunting, state or federal. Can be place as current every where else including right of ways and private land. Add the info in the regs, and that leaves you 2 options. Hunt public with out a worry, and maybe find a foot hold. Or that added with your new education for walking and hunting road ditches with out permission any way, as to where a set may be.

The private land off the right of way, well people have no excuse there. 1 simple ?, is there any one trapping out there sir? If he says yes, contact the trapper, he will most likely help you avoid the small spot he is using, if it is a concern. This sounds fair and simple to me.
 
Last edited:
It seems we get these stories every winter in some local paper around Minnesota. The trappers association knows it is enough of a problem to pay for a ad in the regulations on how to remove them from dogs. I think we need to put some restrictions on their use.

This December I was hunting on public land in SD when I came upon a 5 gallon bucket laying on its side. When i saw it my blood pressure rose as I imediately thought "bucket set". It turned out the set was not active with a trap but I am convinced if the set was baited and with a 220, I would have lost a dog that day. It's just not possible to know where these sets are going be.

I am not anti-trapping by any means. I have trapped myself in the past and still own several dozen traps. I just think it's time to make some restrictions on there use.
 
I had a black Lab male of mine get in a trap years ago, well we were hunting. Funny thing is, my family had permission to hunt this ground and post it. I was maybe 14-15 at the time. I was so upset that I took my 12ga and drove the trap a foot into the mud with one good magnum duck load.

A few days later, the owner of that trap tried to run over me with his truck when I was on my bicycle, run me down in the ditch and was nearly on top of me with his truck. He got out and started threatening me. I may have been 15 but I gave it back to him and told him he best go read the trespass laws and if I come across anymore of his traps they would get the same medicine. He's damn lucky my old man never caught up with him.

That Trespass things goes both ways.

Nearly every trap I have come across in the last 10 years, has been unmarked..no stake, no flag, nothing. Is it or is it not the law that a trap must be marked with a stake and or a flag? also I.D on the trap, to who owns it?
 
mnjimmer said:
It seems we get these stories every winter in some local paper around Minnesota. The trappers association knows it is enough of a problem to pay for a ad in the regulations on how to remove them from dogs.
Click to expand...

I don't think just having a diagram/instructions on on how to remove a trap is enough. Most people and I would bet 90%, would either not remember, even if they had read it or would be in such a panic state of mind combined with a thrashing dog, that they would not be able to remove it in time to save a dog.

I spoke with a guy I work with who has a place up north. He is out on public land all the time and comes across these 220's rather frequently. In fact he said I could take you out and show you one right now if we were up there. So I think they do exist on public land more than some here may believe.

As I have stated numerous times, this is NOT about anti-trapping, it's simply about being able to hunt with your dog safely without the risk (however slight it may be) of a dog encountering a trap. That's all.....;)
 
Last edited:
onpoint said:
Nearly every trap I have come across in the last 10 years, has been unmarked..no stake, no flag, nothing. Is it or is it not the law that a trap must be marked with a stake and or a flag? also I.D on the trap, to who owns it?
Click to expand...

FCSringer could probably answer this better, but I think it is the law that they have to be marked with some sort of identification at least...
 
Name address etc. on a tag. Thats how the one tresspasser got a hold of me. Every trap should have that tag. If not report it, as they are most likely tresspassing, or breaking a law, causing this BS to begin with.
 
I just started trapping this past fall. The trapper who's showing me the ropes talked with land owners prior to setting our traps.

He asked if there were any guys hunting with dogs, neighbors dogs roaming onto their land, ect.

If so, he would ask the land owner to contact the neighbors and/or hunters w/dogs to inform them as to where the traps were set, or we would contact them.

All traps had I.D. tags and were flagged. This was common practice for my buddy and all the other trappers I've talked to.

I was impressed with how cautious he and other trappers are with saftey and keeping dogs out of our/their traps. I believe this is the case for the vast majority of trappers out there.;)
 
I am not anti trapping at all. A friend of mine lost a dog 2yrs ago in a 220. They are designed to kill instantly. Trapping starts one month into grouse season and lasts till March. We don't hunt grouse when trapping season starts, so we lose out on 2 months of grouse hunting. I've experimented with a 220 and I don't feel confident that in a panicked situation with a struggling dog (if I get to her in time) I would be able to save her. I just feel that if 20+ other states have tighter regs on the 220's, why can't MN? Is there any reason not to compromise on this?
 
birddemon said:
I am not anti trapping at all. A friend of mine lost a dog 2yrs ago in a 220. They are designed to kill instantly. Trapping starts one month into grouse season and lasts till March. We don't hunt grouse when trapping season starts, so we lose out on 2 months of grouse hunting. I've experimented with a 220 and I don't feel confident that in a panicked situation with a struggling dog (if I get to her in time) I would be able to save her. I just feel that if 20+ other states have tighter regs on the 220's, why can't MN? Is there any reason not to compromise on this?
Click to expand...

If your story is true, it sounds like the others to a T;). There is no reason on private land to change any thing. It is the land owners land to let any one hunt fish or trap the way they choose. If public land needs compromise thats another. If I own land I dam well better be able to have a trapper out there if I choose. The 220 is the most humane trap and most affective way to target coon. Raccoon are one of the worst problems for a farmer. If any one had a clue, they would have seen the devastation in a corn field. It looks like straight line winds came through. Coon destroy many acres of crop every year. They knock the plants down eat little off the tips of the ear and move to other plants until huge areas are destroyed. To use strictly leg holds or restrict trappers any more on private land is just one more step for antis to close trapping all together. If 220's are outlawed, they and these same people you here about now, will simply whine and complain about the inhumane cruel leg hold trap. I know it's me, and it really doesn't matter to any one, but here is what I would suggest.
First: restrict the 220 on public land, they must be 5' off the ground. No ground body grip sets larger then 120 (a small rat and mink trap). Leg holds are legal any where. Flag and tag all traps. ( If you are caught tampering without true cause, you pay a 1,000$ fine to the trapper and a 1,000$ to the state.) second offence, you loose your hunting rights forever. It is stealing, stealing is a felony. Same goes to the trapper for not following guidelines with a stiff penalty.
2nd
No more hunting road right of ways for small game pheasants etc. That is a sore subject for land owners any way. People walking roads with there dogs. You must now have permission from the adjacent land owner. On these grounds and all private land use, 220's can still be used on the ground... Ground sets are the only option in most areas. Many places in rural MN do not even have trees other then a few groves etc. So to make them use them up in the air would require magic tricks. And private land is no concern to a hunter if you can not go out there any way. If you choose to tresspass, you do so at your own risk. Which is still very little. Then it is your responsibility to learn if there is traps out. Trappers can trap the road right of way as well, and also with land owner permission.
Then these changes should be set in by laws that no more change or restriction can be made , "ever" enough is enough.
3rd: All counties must set fourth leash laws. Dogs and cats can not be let loose to roam the country side. A penalty as well for this which is irresponsible pet ownership. Jogers, walkers and so on must keep dogs on lead while walking road sides trails etc.( At least during set trapping dates made public knoledge by "media") Again pet owners must have permission to let fido run all over.
4th No 220's can be set within 100' of public use land with out following the 5' rule. Also no trapping is allowed within city limits accept it be live traps.

This will require the hunter to give up freedom as well but would solve all issues. Anything after that can only be called a true rare accident.
 
FCSpringer said:
If your story is true, it sounds like the others to a T;). There is no reason on private land to change any thing. It is the land owners land to let any one hunt fish or trap the way they choose. If public land needs compromise thats another. If I own land I dam well better be able to have a trapper out there if I choose. The 220 is the most humane trap and most affective way to target coon. Raccoon are one of the worst problems for a farmer. If any one had a clue, they would have seen the devastation in a corn field. It looks like straight line winds came through. Coon destroy many acres of crop every year. They knock the plants down eat little off the tips of the ear and move to other plants until huge areas are destroyed. To use strictly leg holds or restrict trappers any more on private land is just one more step for antis to close trapping all together. If 220's are outlawed, they and these same people you here about now, will simply whine and complain about the inhumane cruel leg hold trap. I know it's me, and it really doesn't matter to any one, but here is what I would suggest.
First: restrict the 220 on public land, they must be 5' off the ground. No ground body grip sets larger then 120 (a small rat and mink trap). Leg holds are legal any where. Flag and tag all traps. ( If you are caught tampering without true cause, you pay a 1,000$ fine to the trapper and a 1,000$ to the state.) second offence, you loose your hunting rights forever. It is stealing, stealing is a felony. Same goes to the trapper for not following guidelines with a stiff penalty.
2nd
No more hunting road right of ways for small game pheasants etc. That is a sore subject for land owners any way. People walking roads with there dogs. You must now have permission from the adjacent land owner. On these grounds and all private land use, 220's can still be used on the ground... Ground sets are the only option in most areas. Many places in rural MN do not even have trees other then a few groves etc. So to make them use them up in the air would require magic tricks. And private land is no concern to a hunter if you can not go out there any way. If you choose to tresspass, you do so at your own risk. Which is still very little. Then it is your responsibility to learn if there is traps out. Trappers can trap the road right of way as well, and also with land owner permission.
Then these changes should be set in by laws that no more change or restriction can be made , "ever" enough is enough.
3rd: All counties must set fourth leash laws. Dogs and cats can not be let loose to roam the country side. A penalty as well for this which is irresponsible pet ownership. Jogers, walkers and so on must keep dogs on lead while walking road sides trails etc.( At least during set trapping dates made public knoledge by "media") Again pet owners must have permission to let fido run all over.
4th No 220's can be set within 100' of public use land with out following the 5' rule. Also no trapping is allowed within city limits accept it be live traps.

This will require the hunter to give up freedom as well but would solve all issues. Anything after that can only be called a true rare accident.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure more and more increasing layers of rules and laws is the answer to anything. It seems like a little common sense would solve a bunch of these problems. I have only seen one dog trapped in my life. i was a boy trapper, and caught a lot of cats, up to no good anyway. The one dog was a night hunting coonhound caught in a coyote cablelock snare, while going under a washed out fence, it wasn't my set, but I saw him from the road, and released him to carry on, more or less none the worse for wear. I like trappers, I never set a 220 anywhere but water, it's illegal to set one anywhere else here, and you have to go to trappers school to use snares, like hunter safety training. There are seminars all over the state. Of course this is opposed to the experience as a boy, when I read trapping magazines, books, consulted other trappers, to learn the craft, nobody reads anymore, and learning to do it right is to much trouble, but any kid can scrounge up the money for a trap these days, and I suspect that is a lot of the issue. Still I hate to see more and more heaps of regulation on anything, just sucks the joy out.
 
OK - I will be civil with my response so it doesn’t get deleted. First off - this is not a new situation. I have found references to this type of discussion concerning an article in the Pioneer Press 5 years ago, so it hasn’t just come up. In response to fcspringer’s comments - Why not keep traps off of all public hunting property such as WMA and WIA’s. If most of the trappers are legal, they can find private property to trap on and help the farmers out. If the raccoons are that much of a problem, and I’m not saying they are not, the farmers would be happy to have trappers help them out. Also, according to Minnesota statute - theft is only a felony if the item is worth over $1000 and this doesn’t include potential earning capability. So, using your numbers, let’s enforce the penalty to the other side too - if a trapper causes the death of a dog caught in an illegal trap - they owe the owner 100 times the value of the dog using your numbers (I checked and a 220 trap runs around $10 each) and also the same number to the DNR. Using my numbers, that could come to $200,000 and up for a fully trained dog. Fair is fair.

I’ll give you the part about ditch hunting - I understand the land owners problem with people trespassing. But the last section about leash laws - that would mean that no one could hunt with their dog off a leash - including you fcspringer. You can’t say that the only time it is in force is when you want it to be - so no more dog hunting - PERIOD. You can’t say that it only applies to joggers and walkers - it must apply to hunters too. Must cities have leash laws that prevent peoples dogs from running all over, but, if you read them carefully, most of them state that the dog must be on a leash or under complete control of the owner.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have contacted Doug Smith from the Star and heard from him that he interviewed 4 of the dog owners - all were hunters and some were trappers too. This is not a conspiracy - this is fact and the trappers group along with other hunting organizations (and the DNR) must get together and figure out a reasonable solution to this issue. Also - there is no possible way that any law, other then a constitutional amendment would include any language stating that this is the final law on this subject.
 
Last edited:
I know that 220's are pretty stout to open up but wouldn't a few 12 or 20 guage shells at point blank range do a pretty good job on it and allow it to be opened up?
 
jaytee said:
I know that 220's are pretty stout to open up but wouldn't a few 12 or 20 guage shells at point blank range do a pretty good job on it and allow it to be opened up?
Click to expand...


Risky option for sure
 
birdshooter said:
Your joking right ?
Click to expand...

No kidding. Just spend a few bucks on one and practise if your worried about it. Every one is so worried about something that most likely will never happen in there life time.:rolleyes:

I think you would end up with a dead dog, or with one that is gun shy and deaf. Me, I worry more about lightning.
 
FCSpringer said:
If your story is true, it sounds like the others to a T;). I
3rd: All counties must set fourth leash laws. Dogs and cats can not be let loose to roam the country side. A penalty as well for this which is irresponsible pet ownership. Jogers, walkers and so on must keep dogs on lead while walking road sides trails etc.( At least during set trapping dates made public knoledge by "media") Again pet owners must have permission to let fido run all over.
4th No 220's can be set within 100' of public use land with out following the 5' rule. Also no trapping is allowed within city limits accept it be live traps.

This will require the hunter to give up freedom as well but would solve all issues. Anything after that can only be called a true rare accident.
Click to expand...

didn't come on here to tell stories, not PETA in disguise.
Raise the 220's, not foolproof but a little safer. Maine, New York, the list goes on have this reg in effect ---for yrs. Trapping season starts one month into grouse and ends 3 months after it. Anyone wants to come trap my 30 acres of lowlands while I'm up grousing go ahead. Course I'll be back home when trapping season starts, because the 220's will be set up in the public land. So I guess that's a no. Private land is private land, you want to set off landmines to get the coons go ahead. And please don't tell me that 5' is unreasonable, my deck is 10' high and they scale that.
Not asking for extreme scenarios here, just a compromise. Not trying to make it my world. I don't agree with roadhunting, shining, etc. but if that's the way you gotta hunt, just stay on the other side. Twenty some states have some type of reg on the coni's. Trapping is not tightly regulated, in some states you can't trap on public land. Wouldn't it be smarter for the trappers to offer a realistic compromise to pacify people like me than have everybody jump their stuff? I respect peoples deer stands and traps when I see them in the woods....SOME trappers can't respect my dogs? KUMBIYA:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top