Change???? maybe a little.

[FCspringer]

Since the other thread got people arguing and closed, please stay off this thread if you can't keep it civil. If you want to scream at something, just do it in the mirror.

Here is a compromise I think works for all. Being that trappers depend highly on all traps used nowa days, and we need them out there. I recommend to place the 220 on a 5' off the ground level on public land... Hardly any one uses them on public land besides the northern grouse range any way... 2nd Change nothing on private land. Ground sets are fine, because your butt is not to set foot out there with out permission any way. So if your trespassing and something happens, it is that persons own stupidity. You can not legislate stupidity. 3rd if the trappers are to give up something, compromise requires both sides to give up something, right???? So here that is, All rights of ways are now off limits to hunting with dogs and trapping with out permission from land owners. This stops road hunting, and avoids the road hunters from finding a trap in a ditch. Leash laws should apply during open trapping season for walkers etc, when not in the act of hunting. If a irresponsible pet owner lets the dog run the country side with out permission, it is there fault the dog gets run over or hurt in a trap, or any other way. No 220 traps allowed within 100 yards of a public hunting,town, or residence on the ground with out permission.

This should take care of any issue, and is what is called compromise. I am not trying to stir up the negative feelings as was going on before. So just post ideas that are actually constructive. No more false stories about 20-30 Fido's killed etc. no one has those facts. The real truth is much of this is dreamed up by people that want trapping to halt and not hunters. The real truth is that this is so rare, dogs hit by cars are far far more dangerous. I know the changes I proposed will solve the issue if there even is one, but even then a few stories will continue to pop up. They always do.

So please just stick to proposed change, not bashing, false un documented information and fictitious stories. Every one is sick of that. Stick to a compromise and solution.

[Saw557]

Huh.....I tried opening this back up for discussion last week and my post didn't last one day before they were deleted by the mods along with a spanking on not to re-open a subject thats been locked......So as long as you want to talk compromise hows this.

Grouse season closes Dec. 1 (or maybe a 60 day season like waterfowl) trapping opens after that

No dry land conibear sets in road right of ways

dry land conibears 5 feet off ground except on private land

3 day check on snares....for bobcat trappers

Keep the current water set rule of half submerged conibears(I've never heard of a dog being caught in a water set)

If anybody has paid attention to my other posts they would know I hunt with dogs as well as trap and have offered up similar compromises before and nobody wanted to discuss any of them.

[FCspringer]

My bad, I will run it by Rick, but not now, he is going through a tough time. I think a solution is an important topic. So if people stick to that, and not thoughts on any traps please, this is the trappers forum, so lets let the ones that have experience discuss this please. If someone has never set a trap, you basicly have no clue. If this is closed I am sorry you feel it is too related.

You have some ideas that are fine for snares and so on, but the trapping season must remain the same. Coon are our main stay in sth MN. And most private land in much of rural MN have no trees. So we need ground sets. Coon devastate corn and the body 220's are needed and the most humane. On private land and right of ways with the permission only rule, that should work fine. Most of this trouble seems to be in the grouse range. But what people don't know is many trap where there is no trees etc as well for other fur. We basicly in the non grouse range, where the big woods stop, don't set them on public any way.We avoid them because of hunters. Only small body traps for rats and mink. Those are harmless. I also thought that since this seems to be a grouse range problem. Possibly draw a line est to wst across the state on the south edge of the grouse range and focus change there.?

[FCspringer]

I also have trapped and ran dogs my whole life. The important thing as pointed out, is to not change any season. Coon and many fur, are prime at the time we trap now. And late season would just result in empty traps for coon trappers in most of the state. I never want to give up access for any one. I have walked some ditches my self. But if that solves the problem as well, I am willing to keep knocking on doors and asking like I have for years. The trappers have a good working relationship with land owners that many hunting/non trappers do not realize. Many would rather a trapper be out there then a guy hunting. So if the real belly ache is about public land then I would be all for the 5' rule for 220's but not on private ground. That would basicly wash me up and be done with trapping forever. I would also go along with a Gov exchange program, funded by pheasant stamps or grouse stamps. That would supply the trapper 1 live trap big enough to trap coon, for every 220 brought in. They are expensive and trappers can not afford to buy a couple hundred live traps. I would gladly do that. But if hunters want that change, funding the change may be a good idea for everyone to think about as well. It would keep trappers out there, and no one would have to worry any more about any thing. But you may have to pay for a grouse stamp or a buck or 2 more for pheasant. ????

[Saw557]

I am up north in the grouse range where it seems a lot of the problems are coming from when I mentioned closing grouse season and opening trapping season Dec.1 ( I know this wouldn't be popular but at this point the season has been open for 60 plus days...remember everyone is going to compromise) what I meant was fisher, martin and bobcat and then extending the season the number of days it was delayed. I understand where the coon trappers are coming from but there are other options for them if it came to that (which I don't think it has to).If they want 220's off the ground completely they are going to have to make a compromise and give us a 3 day check on snares. Bobcats have way too big of range for a 24 hr snare check practical. I think where many trappers drew the line was at all water sets having to be submerged there is just no sound logic for this if people had any idea how things actually worked.

[FCspringer]

Well to draw a line est to west for a north zone and south zone is most likely the only option. They simply have to be on the ground in rural farming MN. There is no trees in most areas. Also no grouse, and also no trouble to speak of. I wonder who one would talk to in orde to present a idea to? I would think if the so called north zone was dealt with, this issue would not be talked about much.

Your always going to have those antis that will want trapping stopped completly. But I also think someone reporting false information should face stiffer penalty as well. A year in jail and a 5,000$ fine should do.

[creepworm]

I would venture to guess that most of the dogs caught in 220's were caught in baited cubbies. I would say banning baited cubby sets on public ground would basically solve the issue.

[Saw557]

I would venture to guess that most of the dogs caught in 220's were caught in baited cubbies. I would say banning baited cubby sets on public ground would basically solve the issue.

Theres the ban word again with no mention of a compromise so here we go again

[FCspringer]

I don't see that I guess, but to answer his thought, Trappers need to use bait or scent to draw in preditors. So no bat, no fur. The ideas above are the type of ideas we would like experienced trappers to think of.

[Random guy]

This has elevated way past forum discussions. Big names pushing big programs have got involved. Once it went to all body grips on all lands including water sets it crossed a line. Many groups that rely on trappers took offense, such as major waterfowl programs we all know and recognize. Also on board is the massive new flood diversion work federal funds went to, yes they are protected by the conibear. Those in charge of that are not big on letting the burrowing critters take over millions and millions of dollars worth of dikes and darns designed to save lives and homes for the sake of a few documented dogs. Many sportsmen groups have also seen the bigger picture as the beginning to ban trapping and came to arms. This has gone into full battle of politics and names now. If they would have stuck with just the 220 on public dry land they may have got it done but now they got greedy and might not get any of it now.

So you can debate this on a public forum until you are blue in the face but it doesn’t mean squat. Politicians and special interest groups are in charge of it now.

[Saw557]

This has elevated way past forum discussions. Big names pushing big programs have got involved. Once it went to all body grips on all lands including water sets it crossed a line. Many groups that rely on trappers took offense, such as major waterfowl programs we all know and recognize. Also on board is the massive new flood diversion work federal funds went to, yes they are protected by the conibear. Those in charge of that are not big on letting the burrowing critters take over millions and millions of dollars worth of dikes and darns designed to save lives and homes for the sake of a few documented dogs. Many sportsmen groups have also seen the bigger picture as the beginning to ban trapping and came to arms. This has gone into full battle of politics and names now. If they would have stuck with just the 220 on public dry land they may have got it done but now they got greedy and might not get any of it now.

So you can debate this on a public forum until you are blue in the face but it doesn’t mean squat. Politicians and special interest groups are in charge of it now.

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

[eric29]

I dont know much about trapping but im am a bird hunter with 2 dogs. One thing i could maybe see working is just some sort of sign at the parking areas of state land that would let me know that there are traps out there. Nothing fancy but a NO/YES this land is occupied. I know that would discourage me from even hunting the land. So to make it fair maybe a map with the location then i know to just stay away from that area. I know its a long shot but an idea that would work for me and trappers arent losing anything either.

[monstermoose78]

eric if you hunt public land there may be traps there. Everytime you get into your truck to go hunting your risking your dogs lives and yours. Just as the trappers do on the way to set and check traps. Posting signs will invite unwanted people to go mess with traps or steal the trap with the animal. I cant wait for all game populations go down and then listen to the people complain that they want trapping back. By then it will be to late!

[jentz]

I havent read any of this BUT This is a exceptional year, allowing the general population to walk their dogs in places they NEVER would go with a normal winter.If the dog walkers would think and stick to their normal winter places.The trappers would have no problem.I am no trapper,I am a dog owner and live in the country.I have not taken my dog out where I normally dont.I stay out of WMAs WPAs I do every year have a trail I walk the dog,One year I met a trapper he told me he had sets out, all in the water and on the edge of a creek.I normally walked the creek.I didnt I avoided the area.Its simple.Dont take the dog where you normally wouldnt when there snow.

[9339za]

I think there are some good ideas here.

One thing I think that needs to be considered is a buffer around public land. I think hunters would be on board if they had some protection for accidental trespass which every hunter knows happens.

For ground sets we can usually go to dog proof coon traps. I'm starting to really like those traps.

[Random guy]

One thing I think that needs to be considered is a buffer around public land. I think hunters would be on board if they had some protection for accidental trespass which every hunter knows happens.

[9339za]

The reason for the buffer is that it's impossible to know exactly where the property line is when you are in the woods. Putting a buffer around public land doesn't seem unreasonable to me and it only needs to apply to body grips. If we don't compromise in a way that stops killing hunting dogs we will lose all support from hunters. We've already lost a lot of support that we used to count on when anti-trapping bills hit the legislature.

[jparrucci]

No buffer is needed. I fully support private property right, don't trespass.

[9339za]

FC have you contacted your MTA district guy? That would be a good place to start.

Jonny, I haven seen any added restrictions on water sets. Where did you see that? It sounds like more hysteria to me.

[Random guy]

Jonny, I haven seen any added restrictions on water sets. Where did you see that? It sounds like more hysteria to me.

Its in print, see below, see item (3)

[swampman]

If there has been any hysteria it is right there in that bill, no mention of bodygrip size,public vs private land,etc, ,just lump them all together, you could'nt set a 110 for a muskrat in some places the way this is worded let alone what it would do to beaver trapping. And people wonder why trapppers get defensive, do these guys do anykind of homework before they even introduce something to the legislature?

[Ybone]

According to the Strib the DNR is offering their proposal to the legislature this week regarding 220s. Also stated that their proposal doesn't go as far as some would like. Of course the lawmakers can do what they want and go beyond or not as far as what the DNR suggests.

[9339za]

Got a link?

Jonny, this just sounds like a bargaining position to me. They have to start somewhere. That's what committees are for.

[Ybone]

I guess it was a legislator that said the law probably wouldn't go as far as some would like. Doesn't state what DNR proposal will be. Type in Star Tribune and go to sports and down to outdoor sports to read the article, it's in todays paper.

[9339za]

Thanks.