Jump to content


we are 'the leading edge' I Share on HSO
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by Saw557

  1. Why even start that rumor I've seen the proposal and that's not what it's about. Stick to the facts. Out of all the people on this forum you are the only one that continually cries bogey man at every idea that comes up. It really makes person wonder what it would take to make you happy so why don't you spell it out
  2. The extended check on foothold has no chance if we are afraid to even discuss it. What we are dealing with here is trying to find a rational solution to an emotional issue. But an honest discussion of this problem will lead us directly to the extended check as the most rational solution. I am referring to cat trapping on public land in the northern fur bearer zone. Anyone interested in participating in that discussion?
  3. I don't expect everyone to agree to my ideas but a little discussion would be nice 9339 has offered ideas that really make a person question which side of the fence he's on
  4. I am with you on this one they should just delete the entire thread. I put up up I thought was a reasonable solution for debate and it just got ignored. I am with Johnny P on this one. I think there are a couple of individuals that are trolling and posing as trapppers/hunters that have other things on their agenda rather finding a solution. There have been posts made about limiting openings to beer can sized holes and including 160's in the ban it really makes me wonder what it would take to make some people happy. Lock-delete and put a filter on any threads that mention the words conibear body grip or any other reference to the issue. Enough of this C*#@
  5. Well now I understand why your posts read as they do!
  6. Despite what some may think I have more than an 8th grade education.... There has been way to much bickering and stories of the bogey man and what ifs. How about a little discussion. Here are my ideas...again.That as a trapper and a dog hunter I think are more than reasonable to anyone that is open to compromise remember both sides have to give up something 1)Elevate 220's on public land 4' and restrict openings to 50sq.in. 2)Allow a 3 day check on snares to make up for the loss of 220's on the ground to help bobcat trappers 3)Close grouse season Dec. 15 and delay the opening of Fisher/Martin and Bobcat season until then. Extend Bobcat the number of days it was delayed Pretty simple and painless for everyone involved. I am sure closing grouse season 2 weeks early wouldn't be real popular but it will affect far fewer hunters than further restrictions to trappers. Everyone has given up something its a COMPROMISE!!!! Rather than flame my ideas or insult my education I would like to see constructive comments and rational responses why they may or may not work. At the end of the day it isn't going to matter what happens here anyway it's going to be settled in St. Paul and isn't going to make everyone happy anyway.
  7. ...Really? It will never be enough until trapping is dead and gone.
  8. I kinda figured that's what he was talking about but brood boxes and effective cubby boxes are two different things and of not much use for what were trying to talk about
  9. The problem is there is no compromise its take from the trapper. I have my doubts about your box sizes and unless I don't understand something about your marten boxes it makes no sense you said you limit the size so the male fishers don't kill the female Martin well if the Martin is in the box isn't it already dead As far as 220 and bobcats it's a matter of the three day check law change the law so it applies to snares and leg holds for that matter and you may have something remember it's about comprise right
  10. Really 3.5 x 3.5 thats 12.5 sq in. As far as the decline in the fisher population the DNR thinks it may be related to the increase in bobcat so if you take away 220's on the ground (cats don't like to climb) what's going to happen to the fisher population. Doesn't take much more than my 8 th grade education to figure that one out
  11. Yup I want to close grouse season December 15 it's called compromise rember that's what this is about not take from one group. I have yet to hear one bird hunter complain about the 16 day big game season and why is this it's because there are a half million deer hunters. How would it go over if i turned my dog wirh a beeper on loose opening day of deer season you dont need much of an imagination to figure that out there are some things you dont do just because you can There are only 8000 trappers so it's a lot eaiser target I have yet to hear one bird hunter give a good reason for a 120 day grouse season other than that's the way it's always been. Using the same logic I should be able to set a 220 on the ground also. If this was about compromise then what is giving up 15 days out of a 120 day season but it's not about compromise its about banning trapping As far as using conibears for bobcats if you have ever done it or know anything about it a 3 day check is a huge deal give us a 3 day check on snares and it might be considered a fair compromise Unlike a lot of people here I know what I am talking about on both bird hunting and trapping and I am not buying into the media hype phantom dog deaths or near deaths as the latest story. I have no time for the ignorant people who don't know what they're talking about and seem to think they need their hand held every time they go potty or venture outdoors
  12. Of. course WCCO ran the story it will be in the Star this weekend and back on WCCO next week it's been said many times the metro are wants a solution for rural situation. They want to reserve the entire northland for their playground. I live and work here and at some point there has to a line in the sand you can only back up so far. I find it hard to believe thah some people think the DNR plan doesn't go far enough if they really believe that then you know what their solution is .....ban all trapping. I think the DNR plan has gone far enough although it doesn't leave a bobcat trapper many options. There is a reason they require elevated sets in the lynx zone they don't climb and neither does a bobcat. If bird hunters really wanted to work towards a solution they would be more open to closing grouse season mid December as I've mentioned before but comprise isn't on their agenda
  13. No point getting mad at anyone I understand possession limit I also know how it works in the real world I know many bird hunters that shoot many times their possession limit in September and October and still have them in the freezer come December and fish for that matter. I also firmly believe no matter what the limit is the birds that survive until December deserve a break. Or maybe we should just kill them all and then there would be no reason for a dog to be in the woods .... Problem solved
  14. I've been around and trained dogs for a long time also I have also set many many many 220's and have never caught a dog.....just saying. As a bird dog hunter I am willing to compromise with a shortened season ( I've already got my legal possession limit) so why aren't other bird hunters willing to compromise. It's because they don't want to and deep down although they hate to admit they want to see the out right banning of trapping or they would be more open to change. Just admit it
  15. Hmm foliage on birch trees in December. I've said it many many times here I run two pointing dogs the possession limit is 10 grouse season opens mid September close grouse season Dec 15 you've had 90 days to harvest your 10 birds. How many people are really hunting grouse in Dec. not many so now you are in the minority just like trappers make a compromise like we have. Now give me some time to harvest my fisher and bobcat. Fair is fair as a dog hunter and a trapper I don't think this asking too much. Problem solved
  16. Read in the Star this morning what the DNR proposal is it makes no mention of compromise by anyone other than trappers...imagine that and it goes on to quote Sen Chuck Wiger of Maplewood (a metro suburb) one of the authors of the original proposal as saying "its a start but I am not sure it adequately protects dogs" I think the DNR's proposal is reasonable although it doesnt help bobcat trappers. DNR PROPOSAL All 220's on public land elevated 4 feet except for vertical sets which would have the opening no more than 6" off the ground Cubby opening limited to 50" sq. in trigger of the trap recessed 7" from opening unless its a vertical set than its 4" there is no mention of water sets being completely submerged If this is not "adequate" enough to protect dogs what does Sen Wiger have in mind and what are his real intentions. Its funny how all this stuff originate from Metro area law makers that have more than likely never set a trap in their life.
  17. That's what will happen anyway at this point. Just pointing out that hopefully, for once, they won't come up with a southern solution for a non-existent northern problem.
  18. Bicker on...... its not going to settled here Big Brother will take care of it in St. Paul where they are always looking out for our own good. Maybe the moderators should just lock and ban any talk of trapping on the forum and be done with it because after all thats what the general public and the majority want.
  19. So we're back to the no compromise just take from the trappers. As Ive said more than once I run a pair of pointing dogs myself and by the time December gets here I have my legal limit and am done hunting I also feel at this point the birds that have survived this long deserve a break
  20. FYI I've been in contact with one of the authors of the proposal along with my Rep. The email I received today said they were going to met with the DNR on Thursday and go over the proposal. I guess we'll see if common sense rules or the media hysteria....I am not holding my breath
  21. Iam all for discussion and a reasonable compromise but I have yet to see anyone here willing to debate the ideas myself or anyone else has offered. The way this headed nothing is going to get accomplished other than another thread locked
  22. I dont think thats the thinking at all. Anybody that goes through the trouble and expense of harvesting a wolf is not going to leave the animal in the woods. And even if that was the case the number of wolves that would be is far less than the number of deer lost during firearms season. I think what's going here is a case of someone having absolutely no clue or they are trying to delay or stop the hunt or maybe both. It's just frustrating to see how the system doesn't work
  23. As I was reading my new Outdoor News I noticed a proposal(HF 2278 And SF1828) written by Rep. Linda Slocum of Richfield and Sen. Linda Higgins of Minneapolis that would prohibit firearm hunters from possessing or using lead shot while hunting wolves. My first question is why are two law makers from outside the wolf zone writing this proposal.The way its reported its not clear if lead shot means shot shells or bullets containing lead.Whats the point? Is this another attempt to delay or stop the wolf hunt? or a step towards banning the use of lead for all hunting...once the door is opened it'll never be closed. If my memory is correct there will be 6000 licenses issued with a harvest of 400 animals. Compared to the number of hunters and animals harvested during the firearm deer season this is less than minimal and should be of no concern. Just another prime example of our lawmakers with no grasp of reality wasting tax payers time and money trying to protect us from a problem that doesn't exist. It really makes me wonder whose interest they're looking out for
  24. I made that point several times on the locked thread. Common sense and a willingness to compromise on both sides would have gotten a deal that would work for all involved. Its gone beyond that and is in the hands of those who know little or nothing about the issue but have our best interests in mind....not so hang on and dont bend over
  • Create New...