Thoughts On 220's

[JBar]

I think that the pheasant regions of the state are where the problems arise more frequent I'm not from there, only can assume. Actually I've never heard anyone from where I grew up in Kooch county to where I live now in Beltrami county talk about the issue of dogs getting into a conibear very rare occurance. I will also say that the dog proof type traps have taken on with coon trappers like wildfire if you're looking for lil grizz or duke DP's at the trappers convention you'd better get on it or the vendors will be sold out some of the coon longliners strickly run DP's on their lines. The 220 is very important part of trapping and one of the most versitile traps ever made imo. I can only speak for the nothern region of the state but more restriction to already short seasons and limited time to a trapper like myself who does not have full days besides weekends, weekday mornings and nights before and after work, the loss of the 220 could force me to make sets that take more time consuming measures and push me out of something that I have enjoyed doing since I was 8 years old. Keep in mind I'm not trying to take down the guys in the south I only know the problem's in the northern parts of the state and I'm shure trapping methods are much different as ways species are trapped.

[sheepheadslayer]

I still can't believe that hunters want to side with anti's and limit anything in this regard. How many of the dogs lost out there could have been saved by being educated?? for sure the dog that the owner had his son go get a gun to be put down while in a 220 as was the article in the Star Trib. This person had they had some knowledge of the 220 could have twisted the springs in the upright position and woud have ample time to remove the trap. Shoot your own dog because you are uneducated? [PoorWordUsage] Any ban on anything outdoors related on public property or not is no good for anyone. The number one thing is education. Rather than be educated just simply ban something so you don't have to worry about it. Go figure.

[gixxer01]

The conversation will be on wcco news again tonight.

Legislation will be proposed next wed. to elevate 220s.

[MuleShack]

I'm not against trapping, I'm just worried for my dogs while hunting on public lands.

So with that, I'm going to throw out a somewhat simple solution. Bird hunters hunt during the daylight and most traps are filled over night with nocturnal creatures.

The traps could be placed an hour prior to sunset and need to be removed/released before shooting time in the morning. Hunters get 8 hours of free time and trappers get 16 hours a day.

We share the land, we share the time and take any risk out of it. the trappers can still use the 220 and the hunters can not worry that their dog may find a box or bucket in the ditch.

Most trappers that do this as a hobby should have no problem setting an area each night. The guys that set 300 which in my opinion is more of a business/commercial run outfit probably wont be able to get their stuff set over night.

I guess it wont work for everyone, but just throwing it out there as an idea.

[Random guy]

And this is how it goes. Wiger has proposed that ALL body grip traps not just the 220 have to be 5 feet off the ground OR COMPLETELY SUBMERGED in the water! So now we have to figure out how get animals to dive into a trap or climb up five feet. It went from 220 ground sets to ALL body gripping traps not only elevated but submerged, not halfway submerged as the current 330 law states but completely submerged as in fully under the water.

Quote:

Wiger, along with Rep. John Ward of Brainerd, aren’t asking to ban the trap, but rather change how it’s used. They want the traps moved 5 feet off the ground and placed in a way that dogs can’t get to them. Also, if the traps are used in the water to catch muskrats and other animals, they would have to be completely submerged.

Yet another kick in the teeth. People ask us for compromise and want us to understand!? Ya that just went out the window with another sucker punch from behind. Better look out hunters as soon us trappers will be gone and your next.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

I guess it wont work for everyone, but just throwing it out there as an idea.

I don't see that as a workable solution for anyone.

There are three main issues here, as I see it:

1.) The use of the 220 as a trail/dry land set for coon. This would primarily be in the south zone. There are other alternatives available.

2.) The end date of grouse season in the north conflicts with the start date of fisher/marten/bobcat season. These dates could be moved to Dec. 1st.

3.) The use and established methods of 220s for watersets should not be an issue at all, and shouldn't be changed.

[dcraven]

Johnny P. - Where do you market your fur up your way? The nearest furbuyer I can find to hear (Walker) is Fosston, G. Rapids and Detroit Lakes...

DC

[Random guy]

Some to Park Rapids, some to Grand Rapids and some goes direct to auction. Although after I got the call last night I really think I may be hanging it up. They ban the current water set for fully submerged I will not bring in enough plus need to buy a ton of pan traps to replace the 220s,330s. If it passes its all over for me.

[RangerJack]

Is there anything we can do to make a compromise? Or is the voice of the bird hunter(s) too big?

I'd gladly make a call to a legislator.

[Eric Wettschreck]

I won't say the bird hunters voice is too big, but it's huge. I'm guessing it's due to there are a lot more bird hunters in my area than trappers.

"Thoughts on 220s" Here's mine, it's the most valuable tool I have for trapping coon and skunks. I live, hunt, and trap in SW MN, pheasant country. Land trail sets is where I get over half of my coon and skunk. Yes, footholds would work but the 220 works a LOT better. If I have to elevate these, the trail set is gone. I don't want to walk up on a live skunk who's not happy cuz his foot is in a trap, and I trap a lot of skunks.

For fox they work, but not real well.

One thing pheasant hunters (I'm one of them) need to understand is skunks will do more to decimate the bird population than a bad winter will.

All the WMA and WPA's here have signs all over the place saying it's public hunting land. Another sign on the same post saying "Traps in the area, watch your dog" is a great idea so the hunters realize the risk.

I trapped a dog once. On my property. It didn't die. I felt badly for the dog but didn't have a lick of anything nice to think about the guy trespassing on my land.

[jparrucci]

The current proposal is not a fair solution I would not support it. The is no need for any changes on or in wetlands

[Random guy]

Quote:

Gentleman,

I have come to realize I am being faced with what may be an end of a 100 year legacy, a livelihood and just a way of life in Northern Minnesota. Sen. “Chuck” Wiger and Rep. John Ward plan to propose a bill intended to protect dogs from being harmed in the body gripping traps after a tear jerker news broadcast on WCCO TV.

Now I can understand the plight of dog owners as some 220 “body gripping” traps can be set in MN for raccoons in a manner that dogs can enter them and can be harmed. An original suggestion of elevating the 220 or utilizing dog proof boxes for raccoon bait sets has its merits.

Where this has over stepped the bounds is this proposal appears to be targeting ALL sizes of body gripping traps. Not only shocking but what will be a devastating blow to the trapping community, is the request also includes ALL water set body grip traps to be completely submerged, contrasting the current half submerged law that is currently in place for the 330 size body grip trap. These traps will be banned from performing as completely submerged and highly elevated works with very limited success.

Now I can debate the rights of trappers’ verses the rights of dog owners until the cows come home, but another larger problem for Minnesota will start small and grow out of proportion.

This proposal will not only greatly reduce the efficiency of the trappers that attempt to continue to trap, but will be the final straw in pushing many trappers out of the sport. Not only will Minnesota lose licenses and outdoor recreation dollars but our varmint and predator control systems is going to list and capsize. Currently the DNR in conjunction with the trapper work to keep these populations in check, what we will see is a swing in the favor of the varmints and predators. This will include raccoons, coyotes, skunks, muskrats, beavers and many other animals that will become overpopulated becoming a nuisance problem. Senator Skoe I do not need to explain to you the problems that can be created when beaver and muskrat grow over populated or go unchecked; your agriculture background has shown you that first hand. I also will hate to see what happens to small game populations as ground bearing furbearers grow in numbers and start gorging on nesting birds and eggs. Grouse, Sharp-tail, Pheasant, Ducks and a long list of target species for the Minnesota sportsman will come under attack like they have never seen. Lake home owners will lose shoreline due to overpopulated muskrats, road crews will spend endless dollars clearing beaver plugged culverts and flooded roadways. What is the scariest is damage to protective ring dikes, flood diversions and other water control systems. The burrowing of uncontrolled beaver, otter, muskrat and skunk populations will become very apparent when the integrity of flood diversion mechanisms fail. Sadly this will happen when they are needed the most.

This issue as minor as it may be for many is very important to Northern Minnesota. With the body gripping trap only allowed completely submerged or 5 feet off the ground it renders the trap basically useless. Trappers will be forced to return to 1940’s methods of foothold trapping and snares, a very inefficient method that will greatly reduce harvest numbers. Or many trappers will just give up the sport as many have already stated they will do. Loss of efficiency and the cost to replace the body gripping traps with other methods will be too much for many to absorb. I as a full time trapper that utilizes Minnesota trapping as a part of my professional income fear this will be too great of a burden, I myself will not be able to continue trapping if this proposal passes.

Please help protect the trapper in Minnesota, we need them.

Jonthan G. Petrowske

Outdoors With Jonny P LLC

[dcraven]

Good letter! That is the kind of stuff it is going to take - counter-constituency - letting them know that not all voters out there agree w/this.... I encourage all to write/email their local representatives about this in a simliar fashion. It does not have to be long - just long enough to let them know that you disagree with an upcoming bill.

If you don't mind me asking (JP.), who in Park Rapids have you found? I live 25 minutes from there, is all...

DC

[Random guy]

DJ Bujarski, he's a great guy prices very fair.

[swamptiger]

Jonny - send a copy of that letter to Tony Cornish, too. Don't know if you know him, but he was a former CO and I believe he also has done some trapping, so I'm sure he has a better grasp of a lot of the trapping issues

than most of those guys.

[sheepheadslayer]

Contacted Tony this morning. He has been arguing with Wiger over the bill for weeks. He told me to contact the MTA and have them on top of this ASAP. Im sure they are but anybody that doesnt belong this a great time to join. He will fight it but he's only one voice. We need to contact all reps ASAP.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

He told me to contact the MTA and have them on top of this ASAP. Im sure they are but anybody that doesnt belong this a great time to join. He will fight it but he's only one voice. We need to contact all reps ASAP.

+1..

[jparrucci]

Well written letter jonnyp. Just so we are all on the same page here, let's get a few things established. Body gripping traps 220s and maybe 160s are dangerous to dogs, and the problem is not going away. Hunters and trappers both want the same thing, to enjoy the outdoors. None of us here want body gripping traps to go away. A happy medium is changing some season dates around and not allowing ground set 220s on uplands during a certain timeframe. They will be allow on private grounds at any point, and in wetlands at any point (not the dumb wording in the current bill). This would give bird hunters a window to hunt without worry of dogs getting into traps, and give trappers the right to continue to use an effective trap. Any arguments with this?

[JBar]

To whom it may concern,

The proposed usage ban of the body gripping trap in Minnesota from Rep. John Ward & Senator Chuck Wiger will affect many legal and ethical trappers negatively across our state.

The usage of body gripping traps only allowed in sets higher than 5’ off the ground or completely submerged under water will be a blow to many trappers that will push them out of the sport forever. A way of life that has been in our state since the early days of settlement.

The northern region of our state that traps for marten, fisher, bobcat the 5’ restriction will drastically reduced harvest numbers and with the bobcat a high value fur species that do not readily climb will all but take most trappers out of the sport as the 220 conibear is the most effective and sometimes only means to harvest these animals in short seasons and heavy snow conditions. Without harvest of these highly efficient predators sporting bird numbers will plummet in time. Disease will affect many numbers of animals that could have been avoided. Starvation will come into play as predator numbers rise and prey species numbers decline, Domestic predation will increase with the decline of prey for these predators. Trappers along with their essential equipment are the front line of defense for correct management and well being of many animals in our state.

With use of completely submerged body gripping traps around waterways will make harvest on beaver, muskrat, mink, raccoon, otter also a futile attempt. Without control on species such as muskrat and beaver our roadways, lake shores, river banks will deteriorate and produced damage that in some cases will be non reversible. The non or limited harvest of these animals will effect a wide spectrum such as spawning of sport fish, valuable timber sales will be lost to flooding, farmers will suffer crop damages. This change will not only be on a ecological level but also a economic level to the state.

The use of the body grip trap in the state has a wide use and is an essential tool to the ecosystem and trapper of Minnesota. This will affect some full time trappers in a way that will not allow them to produce an income to support their family’s needs. Trapping is not a thing of the past but a part of our present and needed in our future. I am a 3rd generation trapper in my family, If a proposal of a non efficient way to use the body grip trap is passed, our only land set allowed with a 3 day tending period I will be forced to put my trapping heritage aside for most parts of the year as time constraints will not allow me or other part time trappers to enjoy a tradition passed down from generation to generation.

The states trappers have been at the fore front of education on trapping, mandatory education prior to legal trap setting and license purchase, adding education into our game law booklet on proper release methods of the body gripping trap. We are a proactive and conscientious group passionate about our sport and way of life. The proposed changes to our methods of uses on the body gripping trap look to mirror those of other states why follow when we can lead in better applications to benefit all. Our state is one of the most diverse in our nation for outdoor sporting activities a cookie cutter style of management will not address our issues or opposing parties concerns.

This change I feel will be a detriment to our ecosystem, economy, and way of life for many honest families in Minnesota. Please keep these people in mind with this concerning issue.

Sincerely,

Jon Dahl

Bemidji, MN, 56601

Letter I have sent out this morning to as many government contacts i can think of I'm no poet by anymeans but hopefully a bug in an ear.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Any arguments with this?

That sounds workable to me. And if they forget about the airborne part...

[swamptiger]

Looks good.

[Trapper J]

Can someone point me in the direction of where I can see the Bill that Ward & wiger are going to propose ?

[Trashguy]

You are probably going to get arguments from "non hunters' who use the woods/resource for other reasons all through out the year. I for one love to hunt sheds come snow melt, but am more worried now than ever about my Springer ending up in a trap. Changing the trapping/hunting seasons, won't effect their use of the resource. Still think flagging the area where traps are set would help. I know it has been said that it didn't fly with bear baiting (I still saw those signs in the woods last fall by the way) or may lead to more theft, but I'm not going venture into that area, so I'm not going to rip off your traps. Maybe you would end up with less theft/traffic.

Another thing I was thinking about. Some trappers are saying that having the proposed change of setting off the ground, that it is not near as effective and they may just give it up. Won't less trappers/harvest end up with more demand and higher prices? Maybe end up with same or close to $$ coming in? Bet if the proposed changes come about, the first trappers to give it up, would be the novice/sport or lazy ones. Again leaving more areas open and more game to trap.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Won't less trappers/harvest end up with more demand and higher prices? Maybe end up with same or close to $$ coming in?

It would be nice if it worked that way, but it really doesn't. Wild fur is dependent on market conditions and demand - mostly from foreign markets, and the competition is with ranch fur.

Quote:

Bet if the proposed changes come about, the first trappers to give it up, would be the novice/sport or lazy ones.

When prices rise is when you get the inexperienced trappers.

[RangerJack]

I'm upset that in the Star Tribune, two of the people complaining about their dogs getting killed are people that have or still trap. If my dog gets caught in someone's conibear, I'm not going to complain to a bunch of lefties about it. good grief.

Also, before this all happened I purchased hundreds of dollars of conibears....if I can't use them next fall I'll be [PoorWordUsage] off. And I didn't get a single 220. Just 110's and 160's. If I can't use those tiny little harmless traps, I won't know what to think about the state of Minnesota anymore.