More trapping of dogs...

[SneakAttack]

Well said Jonny P

[Gordie]

Well said Jonny P

+1

[mrklean]

well put Jonny

[lichen fox]

Well said JP... And thanks! You saved me a trip to the dumpster!

[PickAxe]

Please contact your legislators and let them know how Stupid Rep. John Ward is and his proposed legislation along with the bleeding hearts pulling his strings.

[Tinkhamtown]

Hope the new law passes so I can take my dogs and grouse hunt from October 15 thru end of December without worrying about them getting killed by conibear trap.

[InTheNorthwoods]

Banning traps is not enough. We must write our legislators today to demand that they pass a bill prohibing automobiles from operating on the roadways. This is the only way that we can protect our pets. We all know that the number of dogs killed by cars is much higher than the number killed by traps. If we really want to save our pets, this has to happen immediately.

Sarcasm aside, I have two labrador retrievers that love to hunt (mostly upland - pheasants and ruffed grouse) and to run the woods. I do not own a single trap, and have not ever trapped a single critter myself.

I find this discussion to be pure stupidity. There has to be some responsibility on dog owners. Trapping is a part of the outdoors, a way of life for some, and necessary for predator control, and we don't need reactionary laws to try prevent every unfortunate event (here, dogs that find traps). I mean really, what is next, are we going to push to ban cars/trucks next because they kill dogs that are near the roads? Trappers have a right to use the woods/fields just as great as hunters, dog walkers, etc. At the same time, most areas in which traps are placed are in locations that dogs either shouldn't be, or that dogs are in while accompanied by humans. If a dog ends up in a trap (a rather rare occurance), chances are it shouldn't have been there in the first place, or that a human will be there to try and save the dog (if it sticks its nose into a baited trap). There needs to be owner responsibility. Plain and simple.

[lichen fox]

Does someone know how to send a link to this thread to the PETA HSOforum? They would love the carp oughta this!!

"Bird hunters and Dog owners VS Trappers...

Now, we're getting somewhere!

Once we get rid of the trappers then we can move on to the "fair chase" ethics of using dogs to find wildlife for the purpose of hunting!! That can't be right! The poor birds, rabbits, raccoons, fox and bobcats don't have a chance of staying hidden from a trained dog! That shouldn't be allowed!!

Don't get me wrong...I'm not about disliking hunting dogs of any kind...but that comment is just how many of the Anti-hunters may think...

We as hunters and trappers are a mere 10% of the voting population...if we can't quietly stay "together" enough to not get involved with attacks against one another, how will we fair in convincing the 90% of non-hunting voters to see our point of view and vote for "our" cause...VS...the "other" cause?

[Mid-Lake Rock]

I have never trapped. I have been hunting for 30 years and have owned dogs. I am on the side of Jonny P and other trappers. Don’t outlaw the 220. My father has been pheasant hunting for 55 year and my brother for about 25. In all of the years of hunting, we’ve never had a dog get injured by a trap. They’ve been injured by a lot of other things, but never a trap. I have a few points to make and I’m not trying to argue or fight, I just want to add some things to the discussion.

First, we don’t know all the facts surrounding how the six dogs that died got into the traps. How close were they to their owners? Were they in areas that may obviously hold traps? Did the dogs listen to their owners? Were the owners being careful with the dogs? I could write a book of questions, but the bottom line is we don’t know if the dog owner could have done anything to prevent the deaths.

Second, one issue I see is hunters with dogs that are runners. I’ve hunted with a guy whose dog is a runner in the field. Flush a hen and that dog might chase the bird a mile. We’ve spent more time searching for the dog than hunting. If his dog ends up in a trap, hit by a car or shot by another hunter while out running, I really wouldn’t feel that bad. The dog does not behave well, the owner doesn’t take the time to work with the dog and it puts the dog in danger. I don’t blame the dog. I blame the owner. Dogs should not be working a field 100 yards in front of the hunter. I have a lot of respect for the guys that train their dogs well and keep the dogs close to them while in the field.

Third, I’ve always had cooperation from trappers while hunting. I ask where they have traps and avoid those areas. Mutual respect goes a long way to make sure the dog is safe and the traps are not disturbed. The trapper doesn’t want a dog messing up his set or the dog getting injured. It is a two way street.

This has become a hot button topic based on the death of six dogs. There are hundreds of thousands of dogs that end up in shelters, are abused, trained to fight, euthanized, starved, drowned and just treated poorly. I wish the public put as much effort into stopping those problems and CRIMES from happening as they do in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the use of the 220 because six dogs died.

On a side note, Jonny, if you want support on this, don’t belittle the “city boys” too much. I’m your age and grew up in western Hennepin County. A lot of friends and neighbors trapped in Hennepin County. My friends had traps set about 300 yards from my house. My girlfriend’s dad trapped in Scott County and my buddy’s grandpa still runs lines in the suburbs. I agree that a lot of garbage comes out of St. Paul and is pushed by people who know nothing about trapping or the outdoors. There are also a lot of people who live down here that love the outdoors, spend money up north and support trapping.

Not trying to ruffle any feathers or argue with anyone. I respect both sides of the argument. I’m going to log out now and head to Mille Lacs.

[SapperACE]

Here's a little more southern MN perspective from a hunter and a trapper:

I really think barbed wire should be illegal. My dog got caught in a barbed wire fence this fall and she got cut up pretty good

I wish they would close those darn gravel roads around all of the public hunting areas in SW MN during pheasant season. Opening day my lab chased a bird out into the road and almost got hit by one of those darn farmers hurrying to get his crops out.

I think there should be a sign up sheet in the parking lot of every public hunting area allowing only 1 party of hunters to use a pheasant field at a time. One day, another grop of hunters was shooting directly towards my dog as she was trailing a bird.

Come on guys! We are hunters! Hunting can be dangerous and very hard on us and our dogs. Stuff happens! I love my dog as part of my family too, but I understand and except the risks when we go afield. All of those above scenerios happened to me THIS pheasant season. I did my best to prevent them all, but they still did. I don't plan on quitting hunting anytime soon, and my Bella would likely be very disappointed if her hunting days were over, even after sustaining many hunting related injuries.

I have been hunting pheasants on public land with dogs for 15+ years. To this day, I have never had or seen a dog get caught in any trap. Not to say it will never will happen, but it hasn't. I know that it can though, so I am prepared. Would I be [PoorWordUsage] if it happened within yards of the parking area at the WMA... You're darn right I would be, but I would direct my frustrations towards the one bad trapper that acted irresponsibly, instead of insiting that all trappers were that way, and all of their sets are dangerous. I realize that there is little we can do to sway Suzie Suburbinite, but we as hunters need to except the risk of our chosen activity, and support our fellow outdoorsmen.

We as outdoorsmen need to realize the priciples at stake here. 95% of trappers are responsible and respectful of other's activities. To throw an entire group (which is a sub-group of our own group, fellow hunters) under the bus, is dangerous for all outdoormen.

Many folks read about the guy who shoots a record book 8 point buck with a rifle, and then lies and says he shot it with his bow. Come to find out, he not only shot the deer with a gun out of season, he has several unregistered deer hanging in his garage Many of those folks read that and say:

"I can't understand those darn firearms deer hunters. They're ALL a bunch of booger eating morons. What do we even need deer hunters for any way. Heck, with all of the accidents I hear about on WCCO during the firearms season, it doesn't sound like deer hunting with a gun does any good for anyone. I hunt with a bow so I think firearms deer hunting should be illegal because its far too easy to be irresponsible with a gun, and it is obviously far to dangerous!"

Life is dangerous guys. There are lots of scarry things out there in the world. Many far scarrier that a #220 body gripping trap.

[Trashguy]

SapperACE You said "I love my dog as part of my family too, but I understand and except the risks when we go afield" Being you like to use analogies how about this one: So if you took a member of your family afield and something bad happened to them that could have been avoided, you could except that? My dog IS a member of my family and I couldn't/won't except that, not when something can be done to help prevent it. I realize that some of us love our dogs more than others and that this is at the heart of our disagreement. That has to be it, or I wouldn't feel the way I do. You can hold that against me, but you have to know where I am coming from and if you can't, then so be it. Believe me their are more dog lovers than hunters (includes me) and trappers combined. Guess I should stay out of the fields and woods then period and become PETA member. After reading some of the comments on this subject, maybe I will. and I wasn't going to post today. (-:

[SapperACE]

Trashguy,

It is highly unlikely that you care for your dog more than I do mine. It seems like you are implying that I am an irresponsible pet owner because I except the fact that bad things happen in the world.

What is your response to the posts about traffic being about 1,000 (not a scientific number) times more likely to kill your dog than a body gripping trap?

My point is that we can not protect ourselves and our "family" members from every possible thing that may happen in the world.

"So if you took a member of your family afield and something bad happened to them that could have been avoided, you could except that?"

Yes I could. It's called life.

Am I an irresponsible dog owner who does not care about my dog because I transport her from place to place in an automobile? She is far more likely to be killed in an auto accident than a body gripping trap. Heck that goes for my wife and son too. I suppose I'm a bad husband and father because my family rides in cars and are exposed to a preventable risk.

Do you ride in or drive a car trash guy? It's highly likely you and your family could be harmed if you do. I hope you wouldn't expose them to that preventable danger.

Sorry trash guy, but never imply to an avid pheasant hunter that he does not love his dog or that you are a better dog owner than he. Except the risks in the world and live your life.

[B420]

Did anyone read Shawn Perich's article in OD news this week? I thought it was a good piece written by someone who has done some trapping. This quote I thought was excellent, "Trapping is widely accepted in MN. Killing other peoples dogs is not".

[jparrucci]

Almost all those other risks are something that can avoided. What we have here is a unnatural risk that an be reduced with some agreed upon laws. My dog works close, and I was lucky to see the trap that was right near the parking spot. I guess we can keep things how they are, and let dog owners sue trappers if their dog was killed. If I accidentally shoot somebody in the woods you can bet I will be criminally and civilly charged. I don't see how it is different.

[SapperACE]

Just read it. he said "...killing other peoples dogs by accident is not."

He's talking about using the trap reponsibly to avoid bad cathces. I agree with that 100%. When used responibly, and in the proper locations, these traps are very effective, and pose little to no risk to monitored pets.

[BrettH]

yes, I agree Hunting can be dangerous for our dogs and I have accepted the natural hazards we have encountered over the years. The thing you completely don't get is that these traps are placed by people intentionally to kill animals. The traps are not natural! They don't grow from trees, nor are they placed by some critter. They are completly hidden and are often baited. All of which is optional, it doesn't have to happen the way it is currently. I don't accept that I have to deal with it, as if we live in some "wild west" kill or be killed environment. When a dog is killed by a trap it was also killed by the person who placed it. If it wasn't there to begin with it wouldn't have happened period. With regards to the all to common comment about cars and dog deaths, once again you are completely missing the point. Yep cars kill dogs but last I checked roads are fairly identifiable and moving cars are an obvious death threat plus I haven't come accross someone baiting and camouflaging the the road to attact animals to become targets. One can plan to keep his dog out of the road when approaching it. These traps can be anywhere, there is no way to plan for their existence other than to be in a constant state of worry.

[SapperACE]

Driving a car is a natual risk? Cars passing on a highway is a natural risk?

The point is, almost anything is preventable. We can't regulate everything. Where does it stop?

[InTheNorthwoods]

Almost all those other risks are something that can avoided. What we have here is a unnatural risk that an be reduced with some agreed upon laws. My dog works close, and I was lucky to see the trap that was right near the parking spot. I guess we can keep things how they are, and let dog owners sue trappers if their dog was killed. If I accidentally shoot somebody in the woods you can bet I will be criminally and civilly charged. I don't see how it is different.

Lets ban automobiles. They are an unnatural risk that can be significantly reduced if we eliminate their presence on roadways. We'll save far more dogs than eliminating traps.

[Todd Caswell]

Well this has taken the twist that I figured it would, Although I am in favor and support a change in the way 220's are set ( I don't even think they need to be taken off the ground) if a total ban of the 220 as a land set is what is going to be proposed, I'm not in favor and will not support it, in fact I will go the other way and support no change befor I support an all out ban.

I know John Ward pretty well he was a HS football coach of mine, just did a electrical job for him a couple weeks ago at his house, Johns a good man and an avid outdoorsman, Iv'e got a call into him to talk about this subject.

Johnny I really think your onto something here.. And clean out your PM's tried to send you a note and it looks like your full........

Quote:

I keep thinking in my head of a way a quick release could be installed. Say a pin or cam lock that could be pulled or something thats breaks the trap open or in half if need be.

[SapperACE]

You intentionally point your shotgun at a bird and pull the trigger! Your shotgun was intentionally fired by you, a person, to intentionally kill an animal!

This is my point. If you are truly a hunter and a sportsman, how are you any different. Guys, I don't want to hear about a single dog getting hurt or killed. None of us here do. But trappers are not villans and these traps are not the threat they have been made out by the media to be, period.

[skee0025]

Let me start off by stating that i dont trap and know absolutley nothing on the subject. Now for my question. From reading the posts it would appear that the problem comes from other not knowing that traps are set in an area. Other then the obvious threat of piferage what would be the downside of marking the general area of trap sets by say using red tape or cloth to mark trees within a certain distance from a set? You would have no further restrictions on the types and use of traps and dog owners would be aware of the dangers present and could take the appropriate steps to protect their animals.

[Todd Caswell]

Let me start off by stating that i dont trap and know absolutley nothing on the subject. Now for my question. From reading the posts it would appear that the problem comes from other not knowing that traps are set in an area. Other then the obvious threat of piferage what would be the downside of marking the general area of trap sets by say using red tape or cloth to mark trees within a certain distance from a set? You would have no further restrictions on the types and use of traps and dog owners would be aware of the dangers present and could take the appropriate steps to protect their animals.

Theft, 220's aren't cheap if it was a perfect world and you could trust others, fine but we all know thats not the case.

[Trashguy]

"and these traps are not the threat they have been made out by the media to be, period" Tell that to the owners of the dead dogs. Get of the car hitting a dog analogies too, its getting old and sounds childish. I think most of us are tired of it. SapperACE if you did loose your dog to a trap and you could honestly say, well it was worth the risk, you have a much colder heart than I do. Plus you are missing my point. I/we have an opportunity to make things less risky and if you don't agree with that, nothing I say will change your mind. And on the subject who loves/cares for their dog more, how do you weigh that? Maybe thinking it is worth the risk or NOT!

skee0025, on flagging the sets, I mentioned this a few times and like I said, I think it would help, couldn't hurt. But haven't head much of a positive response from many. I would think marking the area would be a heck of allot better than what is going to be discussed in St Paul starting next week. I would like to the trappers too address that subject more. If the problem is the risk of loosing some traps, my God, wouldn't want anyone to take any risk would we!

[SapperACE]

You're right trash guy,

My arguments are childish and yours are all teeming with validity. You keep insisting that we are missing the point. I feel you are guilty of the same.

Also, none of the trappers on here are against compromise. The problem here is that never happens. These legislators called for this bill as a knee jerk reaction to a very localized problem. 6 dogs. As tragic as it is, that is such a tiny percentage. Could there be some reform in some trapping regulations? Sure. Nothing is ever perfect. Should it be done with some compromise and fair representation for both sides? I think so. There have been at least 3 stories on WCCO portraying trappers as villans, and not one dedicated to the other side of the argument. I guarentee if you saw mine or Johnny P's trapline, you might have a different opinion of all of this. If not, then you're right. It's hopeless.

Personally, I rarely set on public land, and if I do, it's during the week in areas I intentionally target to avoid non local pheasant hunters and their dogs. Most trappers are like this. I really feel for the guys up north like Johnny P. I imagine he's long lining in areas a domestic dog rarely ventures. Take away this trap and his life gets alot harder as he's said.

I still feel there are alot of ill advised folks out there, and it's getting worse for all of us sportsmen and women.

[jparrucci]

Have any of the trappers here spoken with the Minnesota trappers association regarding any of the ideas or compromises suggested here? The bill currently proposed leaves both sides at an all or nothing state. I am sure we can get somebody like cornish or mcnamara behind it if both sides support it.