proposed DNR bill regarding 220 Conibere's

[Todd Caswell]

[BLACKJACK]

1.b. is still a concern, wish it was deeper, like 10 inches. Going to have to go home and cut a 7x7 hole in a box, place some dog food at 7 inches, bet she gets it.

Any critter that going to crawl in to a 7x7 hole wouldn't hesitate to crawl 10 inches.

Thanks for the update Todd.

[Trashguy]

Good idea Blackjack. I will testing too with my Springer and see how far in she can reach. Will try on a 6x6" opening too. Bet I will still be carrying a bolt cutter with me when I'm in the woods.

[9339za]

I tested my 40 lb dog and she could reach 12" through a 25 sq in (5x5) hole and that was without any reward. The bill won't stop a dog from reaching the trap and will only make it less effective for bobcats. I'm pretty sure she could crawl all the way through a 81" hole that Carlson has in his bill. 5x5's are used in other states to kill 25 lb coon so they'll wack a dog too. Smaller coon can climb all the way through them.

The short version is the DNR bill is a dog killer.

[Random guy]

The short version is the DNR bill is a dog killer.

...Really? It will never be enough until trapping is dead and gone.

[DinnerPail]

Jonny, I agree with you!!

[TonkaBass]

I wish they would release a bill in the favor of sportsmen every once in awhile...

[jerkbait]

I agree with Johnny P also.

[9339za]

Not true. There are plenty of states that do not allow body grips to be set indiscriminately like we do in MN and those states have a thriving trapping industry.

Why is that? Are they that much better trappers than us?

[critterman]

Agreed Johny.

[Saw557]

...Really? It will never be enough until trapping is dead and gone.

[9339za]

And false.

Who honestly believes that we should expect hunters to support us if we keep killing dogs? Or the general public?

[swampman]

Agree Jonny

[Gordie]

And false.

Who honestly believes that we should expect hunters to support us if we keep killing dogs? Or the general public?

I'm a dog owner,a hunter and part of the general public and I support the trappers.

I also agree with Jonny P

[9339za]

I'm glad to hear that you support us but do you think that means you have to support methods that kill dogs when other safe methods are readily available?

Without a doubt there are plenty of people who want to end trapping AND hunting. IMO that's all the more reason to stop helping them.

[Trashguy]

Without a doubt there are plenty of people who want to end trapping AND hunting. IMO that's all the more reason to stop helping them.

+1 and how can you argue with that statement!

[Random guy]

I posted this in the trapping forum as I will paste it here also minus a question for 9339za:

Truth of the matter this is an anti sportsman movement plain and simple. This will be one of the first steps in Minnesota toward strict regulations, illogical reasoning and the further crusade to turn rural Minnesota into an upper middle/upper class outdoor playground or weekend destination. The delusional goal is one big park free from savages that kill animals, force dogs into intense labor with shock collars, wave around automatic shotguns and those ruthless trappers. My family has been trapping for income and guiding for over 75 years and we have seen changes the entire time, but nothing like the last ten years. The attack of the sportsman has begun and those that refuse to stand their ground and sit on the sidelines will have a front row seat to the end of an era. What is very interesting about this move is how the anti machine has been able to side the trappers against the bird dog owners and watch it all unfold. All it took was a dog, a crying man on TV and riling up a few 10k dog owners to fire off the stay at home activists to build a head of steam to generate this bill. They have found a soft spot do not think it will not be utilized to the fullest and the momentum carried.

[kelly-p]

It is horrible to have a dog die in a trap. It is horrible to have a dog killed by a Timber Wolf. It is horrible to have a dog hit by a car and killed. It is horrible to have a dog disappear and not return. If we do not feel very bad when our dog, our friend, our companion is gone then we most likely did not deserve to have that dog. When I am in the woods my dog is NEVER allowed out of my direct sight. Even if he just goes around the other side of a brush clump I am instantly nervous and alert because there could be a wolf waiting there to kill him or he runs off he could get out in a road and hit by a vehicle. Even around the yard my dog stays in my sight because as the wolves have lost their fear of man they are coming into places where they have not come for a century and again there is a road 200 yards away where he could be hit by a car. If I care for my dog it is my responsibility to watch out for my dog. This idea that the outdoors should be safe from all dangers is an unrealistic one. The outdoors is Mother Nature and she is not a gentle soul.

The way this 220 ban is going everybody will lose in the end. The first to lose will be the trappers. Across southern MN there are no trees to elevate their traps in. Here in the northern MN area where I live we have trees to put our traps in but 95% of the land is public. 95% of the land is a huge ban. Most of the trappers will cut back and some will quit even if it means losing a big part of their yearly income.

The bird hunters will be OK for a few years until the predator numbers increase. Soon they will not be seeing the same numbers of birds that they used to. The birds they were hoping to hunt died in the nests when the predators ate the eggs. The predators the trappers USED to trap. The bird hunters will clamor for more habitat not thinking that through because you can have all the land in habitat you want but it does no good if that land is full of predators eating the eggs and birds.

What good would it do me to manage my land correctly for better habitat and predator control if it is surrounded by the public land with the predators out of control? No, we all will lose.

By managing the outdoors piecemeal depending on which group they are listening to at that time MN is sliding down a very slippery slope. I could be wrong but it does not look to me that this slide will end until we hit the bottom of the slope and slam into the ground.

[creepworm]

Not only will the bird populations drop but dogs being injured from furbearers would also increase, along with diseases such as rabies. I don't know about anyone else, but my pheasant dog has had 2 run-ins with coons. One messed up her face pretty bad before I got there. I know I wish there were more trappers out on public land so it was safer for my dog.

[mattson]

[The bird hunters will be OK for a few years until the predator numbers increase. Soon they will not be seeing the same numbers of birds that they used to. The birds they were hoping to hunt died in the nests when the predators ate the eggs. The predators the trappers USED to trap. The bird hunters will clamor for more habitat not thinking that through because you can have all the land in habitat you want but it does no good if that land is full of predators eating the eggs and birds.] i guess i don't know how to copy and paste yet.

that is why i support the trappers and want to get into trapping myself we cant let some little traps make us scared of going into the woods. i know every time i go hunting in a wma there a chance that my dog will get caught do i dewell on it no. That what it for.

[SpitnArgueDuckClub*]

It's too bad that it has to come down to a hard fast law or regulation to keep some meron from setting a 220 in the wrong place / worst place possible. The best trappers don't get incidental catches; they get what they set for or they don't set. You will never see the best trappers because they can't advertise. They have too much invested in equipment (mainly traps) to be careless. The best trappers get their fur year in year out; they keep their gear out of sight and out of mind of the general public. If it comes to banning 220 conibear traps on the ground it will not be the end of the world. The best trappers will still trap with proper sized leg holds and pad catch their furs using drowning sets for water lines and staked or drag sets for land lines.

Will the catch rates go down, sure, will the number of trappers go down probably. But in the end the trappers still trapping will adapt and the trappers running lines staking 220 conibears on every trail along a roadway will be a thing of the past.

[BLACKJACK]

It's too bad that it has to come down to a hard fast law or regulation to keep some meron from setting a 220 in the wrong place / worst place possible. The best trappers don't get incidental catches; they get what they set for or they don't set. You will never see the best trappers because they can't advertise. They have too much invested in equipment (mainly traps) to be careless. The best trappers get their fur year in year out; they keep their gear out of sight and out of mind of the general public. If it comes to banning 220 conibear traps on the ground it will not be the end of the world. The best trappers will still trap with proper sized leg holds and pad catch their furs using drowning sets for water lines and staked or drag sets for land lines.

Will the catch rates go down, sure, will the number of trappers go down probably. But in the end the trappers still trapping will adapt and the trappers running lines staking 220 conibears on every trail along a roadway will be a thing of the past.

Good post Calvin!!! You've hit the nail on the head (see my underlining above), its a few trappers taking the easy way out - setting conibear traps where its easy for them to access (by roads and trails), and consequently easy to come into conflict with dogs and dog owners, that is causing the problem.

Good trappers will adapt but hopefully the rule changes will keep the moron trappers (as you called them) from making a bad name for all trappers.

[BLACKJACK]

A point that I wanted to address is the 'predators will overrun us' without trapping.

Here in south central MN, we already have lots of predators around, even with trappers and connibear traps and people shooting coytotes. Two years ago I shot and trapped 14 coons by my deck and bird feeders. I hear coyotes a lot this time of year, if anything coyotes have increased, even with trappers and shooters around.

Eliminating the the use of connibear traps is not going to lead to an abundance of predators - because there is already a lot of them around.

[Gordie]

I took a drive yesturday to the wonderful south western part of our state and most of what I saw that would be trapped is right of ways.

I was always under the impression that it is agaisnt the law to discharge a firearm off a of a road and or its right of way. I know that all right of ways are not puplic and that private land owners do own some of the right of ways.

I know that you can not take Big Game from a right of way. I would also think that this would apply to small game hunters but I do not read it that way in the regulations.

Yes trappers will adapt to the rules as they will be changed for them and it may weed out the so called moron trappers but It will not stop total killing of dogs and by this I mean dogs will be dogs and even the greatest handler in the world can not control that animal a 100 percent of the time.

When a dog decides to be a dog and get killed its is very sad but in the end we as sportsmen lose the battle because the next thing is well we got the trappers out of the right of way now lets focus on the hunters.

Yes I support the trappers and I also support the hunters and dog owners and trying to ban one thing to try and think that you bettering another is a total loss for all sportsmen mostly becuse you have now put sportsmen agaisnt sportsmen.

[swamptiger]

This should be interesting to watch this whole thing unfold, at any rate...

Quote:

Raccoon populations have grown twenty-fold in North American cities over the last seventy years.

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2011/raccoonnation/