Comments for the DNR

[BobT]

Personally I think the only reason for a point limit is to force everyone to adhere to the preferences of those that hunt more for the rack than anything else. I think this is unfair and does nothing for the health of the herd. The buck only seasons have proved to be beneficial for the herd and that is the intent.

I for one enjoy hunting for the sport as well as for the meat. I only have opportunity to hunt deer for four days every year. The area I hunt is too far for me to prescout and no I do not want to find an area closer to home because part of my hunt is for the comaraderie with my brother and other hunting partners. In those four days my hope is to spend some time enjoying friendships, nature, wildlife and eventually put a little meat in the freezer. Happening upon a nice racked buck is a side benefit but not the goal. Point restrictions/limits force me to participate in trophy hunting of which I have no desire and should not be required to do.

Sure, I could take a doe instead but when the population requires no antlerless permit I will be forced to trophy hunt and leaving smaller bucks does nothing for the herd. Actually, leaving the smarter, bigger, and more advanced bucks is far more beneficial in terms of gene pool.

Bob

[sportfish]

So most of you must just hate going to fish lakes with a slot limit if you don't like point restriction. I'm just saying in a few years with a restriction everyone would have better odds to get a buck of a lifetime, even the people that don't make time to scout.

[walleye101]

With multiple topics going on this is a hard thread to follow.

Back to the 220 issue. I don't know how this turned into a pheasant hunter/trapper debate. Or how it came to banning the 220 or not. I was the one suggeting earlier that maybe folks that have some understanding of trapping look at some reasonable restrictions on the use of 220's (the type of set not the trap) so we do not end up loosing the tool.

Then folks suggested that few dogs get killed anyway, so it is no big deal. The hunters should be more careful, etc.

My question:

In your opinion just how many dogs (pheasant dogs, coon hounds, beagles, grouse dogs, whatever) would need to be killed in baited cubby sets before it is a big deal?

I am a trapper. I own at least 4-5 dozen 220's that I use responsibly in dry land sets. I have no interest in seeing the 220 banned.

Kas2611 said he would be P...ed if his dog stepped in a trap. Understand that animals don't step in 220's, they stick their heads in! If that happens to your best hunting dog you are more than a little p...ed.

The answer to the earlier question is that it does not take many dead dogs to make this a big deal. It is huge for the one who lost the dog. Just a few incidents like this across the state each year is too many.

As mentioned earlier, the 220 has a 7x7 jaw opening. Set these things responsibly at ground level on coon trails and this is an extremely effective and very selective coon set. I have taken 100's of coon in this set with the only non-target species a very occasional skunk or opossum. I have hunted my own hounds in the same areas I have traps set and dogs will go right over the top and never know they are there.

A dog would have to try to stick his head into a 220 with the 7x7 opening. But that is the priciple behing the baited cubby. The bait is in the cubbie, only accessible through the opening. A dog can and will not hesitate to reach in for an enticing piece of bait.

[kaz2611]

sorry i guess i shouldve done my homework had it in my head a 220 was a leghold trap silly me like i said im not a trapper.

[poutpro]

Banning the 220 came about because that is one of the topics that these DNR meetings are discussing. There are people, even if not on here, that want to ban not only 220's but trapping all together. One trap at a time would be fine with them. The problem I have with you is that you are coming off as this high and mighty trapper, and portraying me as a slob trapper. Did I ever say anything about how I set traps in an unethical way? I was just saying that pheasant hunters think that the laws she be there to simply improve their sport, without regards to trapping. How many ppl here have actually had a dog in a 220? Some people on here don't even know what a 220 is and the seem to be chiming in on the topic.

[kaz2611]

so because i dont know what a 220 is i cant post a comment? If you would read my post it wasnt bashing trapping or pheasant hunting if i had time to trap i would but since i presently live in the metro area im not able to trap. like i said in my post i dont think as many pheasant hunters' dogs get in the traps as it is dogs that are dumped off by people because they dont want them or cant get rid of them. There i chimed in again!

[J48jake]

Quote:

---

so because i dont know what a 220 is i cant post a comment?

---

Nobody was saying you were bashing trapping or pheasant hunting. Its just the issue with 220's is all about conibear style traps that are made to kill the animal that gets caught in them. This wouldnt be as big a deal if it was just a foothold because the dog would come out with minimal injuries. It helps to know what you are talking about before voicing your opinion for the sake of our sport, because even though you said you helped on a trap line once you now labeled yourself a "trapper" in the eyes of the general public.

[walleye101]

Poutpro,

Don't mean to compare trapping skills.

As I have said I do not want to see the 220 banned.

But, we cannot continue to pretend that there's no problem.

DNR needs some rational comments on this issue. Not just finger pointing and denial.

What would be some reasonable ways to regulate how this trap is used to significantly reduce the chances of taking non-target animals?

I agree there are those who would like to see all trapping banned. I doesn't take 100's or even dozens of unfortunate incidents with hunting dogs or someones pet, to give the anti's plenty of leverage in our always anxious media.

[gorrilla]

From Walleye 101 to:

Quote:

---

Poutpro,

By your logic, trappers should have the right to make any type of set anywhere if it is effective at taking predators and provides the trapper a source of income. If it is indiscriminant set that kills non-target animals as well, I guess that is just part of the business. Heck, trappers loose a few traps every season, hunters should just expect that they may loose a dog now and then, just part of the business.

I am a trapper myself and member of the MN trappers association. It is just your type of narrow minded logic that will likely mean the end of the sport for the rest of us responsible trappers.

No one is suggesting that 220's be outlawed. They are a safe and efficient tool if used correctly. That is not setting them in baited cubbies where hunters with dogs have every right to be. If that is the only set you can catch racoon in you should invest in some trapping lessons.

---

Then you go on to say in a later post lets keep this civil???

I've been reprimanded on this site for sarcasm before, yeah I couldn't believe it either...

I think this is one of many good topics so lets keep it going in the right direction. I think Poutpro is making great comments.

If we spend a little more time and effort educating trappers and hunters (as well as any dog owners) ALL the details about 220 sets and especially WHEN to expect to see them in the woods, hopefully we can avoid the word restriction.

I love my pooch, and used to trap, so I understand what could happen to him on public land if he encountered a 220 or a snare or thin ice or a car or a bear. I'm willing to invest a little more effort to support the Minnesota Trapper's Association to continue there efforts to educate new trappers with there membership funded trainings. Maybe more adults and non trappers need to learn too.

The 220 is the best, most efficient, and humane tool for predator control. It just needs to be put in the hands of responsible educated trappers, not taken from them...

Lord knows I can be disagreable at times, but us sportsmen need to stick together without falling into the dreams of PETA and start taking away our own rights!!!!!

[J48jake]

I agree that education is and excellent tool and the DNR is headed in the right direction in that aspect. However, I dont know why the MTA is in charge of the certification training and not the DNR? The DNR does all the other classes but the trapping class. As a member of the MTA I am glad they are so eager to help further the sport but maybe our member fees could be used on other things then the trapping classes. If the DNR took it over they could then charge the 5-10 dollars like all the other classes they offer. I think that if the DNR did offer it along with their other classes it would attract more people to our sport. I didnt even know of the classes till last year when congress was trying to make it manditory for any one born after 89. Just my thoughts for the night.

[BobT]

Not an accurage comparison. Slot limits are not designed to limit the harvest to the "fish of a lifetime". Point restrictions would be more akin to setting a statewide miniumu 30" size walleye restriction.

I don't feel it is appropriate for force everyone to adhere to trophy hunting or fishing across the board.

Bob

[gorrilla]

J jake...

I totally agree with you on that one. Its like the DNR doesn't want to step up for the trappers. I didn't even know MTA had this on their shoulders until I attended a trapping convention in Isle this year with my cousin.

Moose season - DNR session, turkey season - DNR session, elk season - DNR session, but trapper training - MTA funded. Funny, even though the DNR requires the certification(which I don't mind being required). Why don't they(DNR) at least fund MTA to do it since they are the leading resource on the topic anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed to me from how they talked at the convention, it was the MTA's $...

[wallegator]

6) Deer regulations, especially point restrictions. I’m against point restrictions, in the farm lands where I slug hunt, that four point might be the only deer you see. Don’t let a vocal minority, the trophy rack hunters, dictate our deer hunting regs.

---

One thing to consider is that the antler point restriction might be a tool with the goal of increasing doe harvest not trophy production. This can be used to more effectively reduce the herd. The thing I like about antler point restriction is that it can be used rather than earn a buck. Also, I don't believe the antler point restriction should be used in farmland areas, where overpopulation is not such an issue.

I think we all agree that we hope it doesn't have to come down to either of these regulations, and I dont think it will as long as us hunters or the weather can effectively control the population.

[BobT]

Quote:

---

One thing to consider is that the antler point restriction might be a tool with the goal of increasing doe harvest not trophy production.

---

I could understand this point but is that what is being proposed? It would seem that a more controlled harvest would be gained by doing what we have been doing with antlerless permits only in reverse. In other words, an antlered permit would be more effective than a point restriction and it would be less likely that mistakes would be made since we are already accustomed to identifying a legal antler.

It would be interesting to see the results in those zones where either sex was permitted last fall and how it affected doe harvest. My guess is that a majority of deer hunters will take a doe as easily as a buck because most of us are in it for the meat more than the trophy. It's only a select few that will wait for that big buck.

Bob

[wallegator]

BobT,

Here is some data on the 2005 deer harvest. Hopefully the link works and the information is of use if you are interested in the harvest in each zone.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/populationstatus2006/populationstatus2006.pdf

As far as the antler point restriction is concerned, I dont think it is being proposed, its only being used currently in state parks. That along with earn a buck and early doe seasons are being researched to find out what it most effective and which might be supported by the public if any of the three are ever considered.

Wallegator

[jparrucci]

Interesting post. One of my good hunting buddies lost his dog to a trap on state land (WMA)in West Central MN 2 years ago. Somebody posted earlier that they doubt it happens often, but it happening once is too much for me. I support trapping 100%, but as somebody who spends many hours on public land pheasant hunting, knowing that it could happen to my dog scares me. My dog means the world to me, and having to worry about something like a trap killing him is unacceptable to me. I would gladly take the reduced number of pheasants over a better chance of him being killed by a trap. Is there not some happy medium in this? I do not know trapping at all. Somebody please enlighten me as to what can be done to keep dogs safe, and also keep trappers successful? What education is required right now? Do traps have to be posted with bright markers of some type? Do traps have to be posted with names on them? I think a trapper would be much less likely to leave a trap in a bad spot or improperly set if his name was on it. I sure wouldn't wanted an armed hunter showing up at my front door with his dead dog in his arms! Do conibear traps have to be set in cubbies? Is there a way that even a smaller dog like my brittany could still get caught in one while it was in a cubby? Would much stiffer penalties for illegal trapping practices make a difference? Please, somebody enlighten me on some of these details. I think many avid hunters like myself still know very little about trapping.

[poutpro]

Traps need to be tagged with your name, and if you were born after a date, im not exactly sure but I think its like 1986, you need to take a trapper's education class in order to get a liscense. Traps do not need to be in cubbies. With trapper education, trappers are going to learn which sets are going to be high risk for making incidental catches, and will be encouraged not to make these sets. The sets I put on public lands where a dog could get at, are made as cubbies with the trap set back into the box about 6 to 8 inches. These boxes are dogproof. I don't know if flagging trap sets is the answer either. This would lead to a HUGE increase in trap theft, which is already a huge issue for trappers now.

[gorrilla]

Quote:

---

What education is required right now?

---

Trapper education/certification is required for new trappers born after a certain year(not sure which) currently. As mentioned earlier, I believe the MN trapper's association is stepping up and taking the financial responsibility on their shoulders(why not the DNR?)

Quote:

---

Do traps have to be posted with bright markers of some type?

---

No, and that would not work either, unfortunately since dogs can't read or interperet ribbons and it would be like marking $10-$300 dollar bills thoughout the wilderness. Some unethical types would like nothing more than to steal all the $25 dollar traps with $200 dollar furs in them...

Quote:

---

Do traps have to be posted with names on them?

---

Yes, and ALL trappers do it. Its the law. If you want to debate that with me, I'll say if you aren't tagging your traps or placing traps where they don't belong then you don't deserve to be called a trapper and you are nothing short of a criminal deliberately or stupidly giving the good guys a bad name.

Quote:

---

I sure wouldn't wanted an armed hunter showing up at my front door with his dead dog in his arms!

---

Just because we are often carrying guns while hunting, it is NOT to be confused with weapons and ANY person threatening another in that manner would also be a criminal, NOT A HUNTER. GET IT STRAIGHT!

Quote:

---

Do conibear traps have to be set in cubbies?

---

No. They often are for raccoons, fisher, mink, and bobcats. If you have those animals in your area, there is a possibility that conibears are around since they can often work best in a cubbie. Knowledgable trappers(through experience or training classes) have developed conibear sets that are less likely to catch hunting dogs. Elevated cubbies for bobcats and fisher work well. The use of non dog attracting baits(sweet smells versus meats or glandular lures) for raccoons can work as well. I've even seen cubbie designs which have an entrance area before trap is contacted to allow only smaller target animals into the 7"(220 conibear) opening. Larger dogs would be safe, although ankle biters might be at risk yet.

Basically through education trappers should be aware that on public land or private land where hunting dogs may be, it is very prudent for the sake of the practice of trapping that all sets be made in safe locations and if not possible to avoid bodygriping sets in locations not suitable.

This is NOT to say trappers shouldn't be allowed to set on public land. If done properly, hunters and trappers can coexist. They need to. Hunters also need to take some responsibility on their shoulders too and be aware of the trapping seasons up north for fisher and bobcat (late November through parts of December) and protect their grouse dogs since IMO this is a poor time to have a pooch in the woods anyway with all the Muzzleloader deer hunters still sitting on stand.

Quote:

---

Would much stiffer penalties for illegal trapping practices make a difference? Please, somebody enlighten me on some of these details. I think many avid hunters like myself still know very little about trapping.

---

Do stiffer penalties stop deer poachers? Notice I didn't say illegal deer "hunters". Poachers are poachers whether doing illegal things with guns or traps, they don't get to be called hunters or trappers and we don't want to have them lumped in with us either.

For all the avid hunters that have questions about trapping and/or conibears, I suggest get yourself enrolled on a trapper education course and learn about it thoroughly. It'll do everyone some good to learn how to manage our critters better and will help keep our hunting dogs safer too.

[BLACKJACK]

poutpro, what makes those cubbies dogproof?

A couple years ago a local trapper caught a couple of dogs - kids pets - by putting conibear traps in buckets and the dogs stuck their heads in - two dead dogs was the result.

[BLACKJACK]

When my dog almost got caught in connibear trap - it nicked her nose - I was a lot younger and dumber and hot headed. I've always wondered how long I would have waited - with a baseball bat - for that trapper to show up. Hopefully it would have been a couple of days so I had time to cool off!!!!! Don't underestimate the consequences of catching and killing someones friend!!!

[gorrilla]

BLACKJACK, I don't know why you asked poutpro about the dog proof cubbies?

And why you don't simmer down, you always have such extreme post on here. A few less !!!!! would allow people to get something out of this post and get along better.

As far as the dog proof cubbie boxes go, they have long entrance areas like 8" squares of about 24" in depth, so a large animal like a dog can't get his head far enough into it to to trigger the trap, but a raccoon or fisher will squirt right through. Like I said previously, it won't protect the yapper breeds, but it sure does a good job on the larger sporting breeds.

The only down sides to this set, is that they are very labor intensive, heavy, and sickout like a sore thumb(trap thieve magnets) because of their size. When a trapper assesses and area as one that is remote and especially if it is private or land locked, he will usually opt for a much more open cubby such as a notched pail or natural cubby. They often work better on trap shy animals as well.

[frogtosser]

I would like to see the posession limit for roosters increased but not the daily. I like the idea of point restrictions for deer, how will we be able to see the potential for deer if they are taken when they are 4 or 6 pointers. I would like to have a no point restriction for youth though. That's just my opinion.

[slotlimit]

I also would like to say I'm not a trapper unless trapping a few pocket gophers counts, but i'm all for trapping. I am a big time pheasant hunter. Could a solution be to not allow trapping on public land during the months of Oct-Dec unless it is done under the water or in muskrat dens ect. Then allow trapping after the hunting season is over. Then if you have your dog out on public land between the months of January-September then it is your own problem to watch out for your dog. Like I said I don't trap so maybe this isn't a viable situation. Just a thought.

[walleye101]

Gorrila,

I believe he asked poutpro about dog proof cubbies because poutpro brought it up in his post. He uses cubbies where the trap is set back 6-8 inches and said they were dog proof. I am also curious, what makes that a dog proof set?

[gorrilla]

Like I was trying to explain in my previous post, the conibear is set back in a constructed tunnel or entry way far enough the dog can't get beyond his head and neck to reach the trap. Smaller target animals on the other hand can fit their whole bodies through and whammo.

As far as the suggestion on who gets to use the public land when, the trappers already are very limited as to when they can target some species like fisher, bobcat, otter, marten.

I think its just as prudent to be aware of these seasons as a dog owner and avoid them for the short duration of the season(hunters get three months and trappers about 3-6 weeks as it is for these species).