proposed DNR bill regarding 220 Conibere's

[Big-Al]

Quote:

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.

It should be illegal but it is not. As long as it is not a big game animal (or decoy), you can shoot anything you want from a road.

Quote:

Other Restrictions

• No person may discharge a firearm or an arrow from a bow on, over,

across, or within the right-of-way of an improved public highway

(including but not limited to federal, state, county, and township

roadways) at a big game animal or a decoy of a big game animal that

has been set out by a licensed peace officer.

[JayinMN]

n/a

[BLACKJACK]

So whats happening with this bill?? Where can a person find updates?

[9339za]

The bills passed and now go somewhere in the process.

What I've been told is that McNamara's bill to allow the use of 330's and 1216's on the ground passed out of his committee and got attached to the omnibus bill. There won't be any dogs released from those traps.

A friend sent me these links. Kind of destroys the argument that the legislature is fixing this problem. I guess we'll see more dead dogs in the news next fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIHfvspAmQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jloWqzmcXRs

[DonBo]

Oh yeah, that's gonna get things riled up again.

[rayguy]

That addition to the bill is just wrong. How many bird hunters are there in this state that hunt with dogs. Somewhere around 300000 I would guess, plus add in the Duck hunters and just plain old dog walkers and we are pushing at least 1/2 million. Now how many trappers are there? I bet not more than 40000. Who should have the most clout , and influence in the state house and senate? Hunters don't let them get away with this. Don't just complain contact your reps. and tell them this is wrong. Won't hurt to remind them this is a election year. Use your power, make them represent us.

[9339za]

There are 7,500 of us licensed this past season. I hope that you know that most trappers do not set anything bigger than a 110 on land. We have very effective alternatives to risking the life of a dog. I'd rather miss a $15 coon or a $100 cat than catch anyone's dog.

[Saw557]

The bills passed and now go somewhere in the process.

What I've been told is that McNamara's bill to allow the use of 330's and 1216's on the ground passed out of his committee and got attached to the omnibus bill. There won't be any dogs released from those traps.

A friend sent me these links. Kind of destroys the argument that the legislature is fixing this problem. I guess we'll see more dead dogs in the news next fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIHfvspAmQ

Yup here we go with the rumors and talk before you make a post why don't you get your facts straight. There is no way they will allow 330's on the ground so dont start the fear and mis information campaign again. Let the system work itself out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jloWqzmcXRs

[9339za]

"Here is the language of my amendment that got adopted:

A person may not set, place, or operate, except as a waterset, a body-gripping or "conibear" type trap on public lands and waters that has a maximum jaw opening when set greater than six and one-half inches measured from the inside edges of the body-gripping portions of the jaws, unless: (1) in a baited or unbaited enclosure with the opening no greater than 81 square inches and the trap trigger is recessed seven inches or more from the top of the opening; (2) no bait, lure, or other attractant is placed within 20 feet of the trap; or (3) the trap is elevated at least three feet above the surface of the ground.

Thanks, Denny

Representative Denny McNamara"

Do you see any maximum size? I don't.

[kelly-p]

Quote:

Do you see any maximum size? I don't.

Part of the same post that you posted might give you a hint if you read it.

Quote:

that has a maximum jaw opening when set greater than six and one-half inches measured from the inside edges of the body-gripping portions of the jaws,

[9339za]

200's have a jaw size greater than 6 1/2". So do 280's (8"). So do 330's (10"). And so do 12"x16" (12").

I don't see any maxium size restriction. Do you?

[kelly-p]

Lets try this again.

Quote:

A person may not set, place, or operate, except as a waterset, a body-gripping or "conibear" type trap on public lands and waters

that has a maximum jaw opening when set greater than six and one-half inches measured from the inside edges of the body-gripping portions of the jaws,

In case you still missed it.

when set greater than six and one-half inches

[Eric Wettschreck]

Good reply, Kelly.

And now I'm going to call a spade a spade and say poster 9339za isn't a trapper. He/She is a troll on the anti-trapping bandwagon.

There, I said it. I'm thinking a lot of guys out there are thinging it, but I'm not afraid to say it.

[Gordie]

Whew

[Random guy]

* original post deleted by Jonny P. That only took a few minutes for a reaction*

Yes Erik I do believe you are correct.

[Eric Wettschreck]

In all honesty, I'm in my mid-40's and I don't thing Lasik sugery would be all that bad. Especially if PETA paid for it.

I'm not a PETA fan but if they are willing to make my eyesight better, I'll let them foot the bill.

Back to killing dogs and bad legislation. Sorry to take things off track.

[9339za]

You're still missing it.

His bill places restictions on body grip traps larger than 6 1/2". 220's. 280's, 330's and 1216's are all larger than 6 1/2".

His bill does not include a "slot limit" that would place an upper limit to exclude traps larger than 220's.

[kelly-p]

Once again your own post.

Quote:

His bill places restictions on body grip traps larger than 6 1/2". 220's. 280's, 330's and 1216's are all larger than 6 1/2".

Isn't 6 1/2 inches the upper limit?

I went back and viewed the videos you posted the link to. #1 330's are already illegal to set unless in a water set and still will be under this bill. To me you and your "friend" seem more interested in spreading rumors and misinformation then anything. #2 The people that wrote this bill are trying to make things better but you and your "friend" are not happy. What would it take to satisfy you?

I've got to go now. My dog wants to take a walk and the ice on the river along the yard is rotten so I do not want to let him get out there on that rotten ice and go through. It is hard for me to believe that the Gov. allows rotten ice on the water ways and lakes this time of year. There should be a law against any rotten ice in the Spring.

[Ybone]

Legal jargon can be kind of confusing but the way it reads there are no restrictions on traps with a maximum opening of less than 6 1/2 inches such as 110s or 160s. Traps with a maximum opening greater than 6 1/2 which would be 220s and bigger can be set in several ways, on the ground with no bait or on the ground with bait in a box recessed 7 inches with the box opening 81 sq. inches or less or 3 feet off the ground with bait.

[9339za]

That's right. 6 1/2" is the minimum size to be subject to the "restrictions". Below 6 1/2" there are no restrictions.

I see no upper limit on size as long as they meet the restrictions oulined in the bill.

Even if the bill is amended to exclude 280's and up it will do almost nothing to stop hunting dogs from being killed and the conflict will continue until some legislators dog dies.

[kelly-p]

Quote:

I see no upper limit on size

Where in this bill does it repeal the law/laws already in place making it completely illegal to set the bigger traps on land?

With that I'm out of here.

[9339za]

I have no idea on how law making works.

There is no language changing existing 220's regs either.

[Random guy]

I'm in St. Paul right now and have discussed this topic with a few people. It is very surprising to me how much support for the trapper is in this area. Sounds like a lot of solid logic and truth about numbers of trapped dogs verses number of trappers compared to dogs in the woods is starting to become obvious. It appears the anti traps movement actually pushed so hard and fast it irritated people and alienated them.

As for this latest bill and the voiced discrepancies. I said it before and I will say it again, this is purely a anti sportsman movement and it will never be enough, at least not until trapping is dead and gone.

…of course I counted 29 muskrats hit on the southbound lane from Forrest Lake to St. Paul. Might need to promote trapping from the looks of it before the metro becomes the muskrat nation

[Gordie]

Yea jonny I noticed a lot of rats that were hit by cars yesturday from Zimmerman to Faribault and three yotes.

[Xplorer]

I have no idea

Sir (or Ma'am, not sure), on that alot of us can agree. Read what you posted S-L-O-W-L-Y. Then read it again. Then read current trapping reg's and put the two together, and you too Grasshopper will be enlightened

And here I had decided to try my hand next year at trapping cat's in my area, and maybe give wolves a try. I sure saw alot of cat tracks this year despite the lack of snowcover. Met a local trapper in Dec. and he gave me a few pointers and got me interested. Glad I didnt go out and buy traps yet. And yes I am a dog owner, and have had to pull her head out of a 220 in the past.