Comments for the DNR

[walleye101]

Simply trying to provide a little education of my own to point out that this is not just an issue between bird hunters and trappers that can be fixed by "properly hunting and superising your dog".

[protrapper]

Trappers could post topics all day to try to make people come to a compromise on the subject of 220's. Well folks it aint gonna happen. I have been to the DNR meetings, I am teaching a trappers education class right know. Whenever a trapper catches a dog or cat it is gonna ALWAYS be the trappers fault because he killed the animal. Legal set or not. Ten feet from the house or ten miles in the woods. The simple solution is commonsense on both sides of the fence. Debating on this forum gets nothing done for either side but make things worse. Most people don't read the posts correctly and take them totally out of context.

[gorrilla]

protrapper, I appreciate your help in educating trappers by conducting the courses. I really think that is the way to go if you really want to learn about trapping, whether your a trapper or not.

Your probably right, I'm just getting my self more frustrated with the way accusations are thrown around on the web and being anonomous doesn't allow for better learning. Its probably more conducive for people to take shots than to really be open minded.

[walleye101]

Quote:

---

walleye 101, I'll fall for your baiting taunt and waste my time typing a response.

Quote:

---

Don't be so negative, I was about to compliment you on a thoughtful post.

---

[/indent]

I'm guessing your close minded enough that any effort to get along would be wasted on you anyway, but here it goes...

Quote:

---

Not wasted at all. Your suggestions are actually some movement in the direction of some reasonable solutions.

---

[/indent]

As far as the rabbit hounds go. Believe it or not, I'd have a suggestion I'm sure your not going to like, but maybe during the relatively short duration on bobcat season (in comparison to rabbit season) you would be wise to hunt only private land or public land you know intimately and are able to observe any comings or goings of potential trappers such as landlocked, etc.

[gorrilla]

w 101,

I hear your pain, its tough running hounds at all on public land I bet, and very tough to find enough private either. I guess I personally think its tough for either side of the fence to budge. It you restrict trapping the already short prime furbearer seasons suffer, and the alternative makes hound guys mad. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I hope if nothing more, some young or inexerienced trapper or dog owner goes into a woods a little wiser after reading all our biyatchin'...

Just for the record, coons do now have a closed season and I believe most trappers wouldn't mind if they couldn't trap skunks on public land with 220's after that one closed. Maybe one minor solution would be to tie up bobcat and coon in the northwoods public land about the same time.

[Scott K]

To get off this subject and on to a different one. I have hunted the same river bottoms for many years, all private land! It was an awsome place to hunt, nice and quiet, I could listen to the deer walking into me. Sounds like a good spot huh? Well a few years back, we have geese season on the same time as deer opener. Now my nice quiet spot turns into 10 people sitting on the river banks blasting 100s of shells at geese, yelling back and forth to each other. I went down there one time and told them that I was hunting up here and this is private land, and asked if they could stop yelling! I think that only made it worse, because I think they bring down a couple extra cases of shells with them just to shoot at nothing, my old stand was about 25 yds from the river. I could see there were no geese that they were shooting at. I never had this problem before5-7 years ago, but it just keeps getting worse. Could the dnr have the 2 openers on different weekends. I know they are on public water, and they arent doing anything unlawfull, but they could be a little more considerate!

[hookset]

That is hunter harassment!! I dont care where or what they are doing. you should talk to your local CO before next season and get his take. If they are shooting at nothing, and decresing your chance of success, then what they are doing is wrong.

joe

[walleye101]

Now we're talking possible solutions, and a hint of compromise. I do understand the resistance to give in even a little because that can become a slippery slope. However the stakes are high on this and I am certain that if trappers don't suggest some reasonable solutions there will ultimately be unreasonable ones forced on us.

It is obvious there is no one size fits all solution to this. Northern MN with coniferous/aspen forest, tons of public land, and very different fur bearers and game species presents totaly different situations than southern MN, dominantly agriculture, limited public land and it's own unique mix of fur/game species.

Lets focus on N MN first, solve one problem at a time. There is a diverse variety of furbearers up north. Lets look at what would be reasonable and applicable by species. This requires some broad generalization, and there certainly will be exceptions, but lets focus on basics. Forget the aquatic species, beaver, muskrat, otter. There is little danger in properly made water sets.

Land animals include primarly fox, coyote, fisher, martin, bobcat, (some day maybe T wolves). Toss in the raccoon as a land/water species though this is not a primary furbearer in the coniferous zone.

The canines are not really an issue. They are a rare catch in a baited cubbie, most are far too wary to stick their head in. Totally opposite of domestic canines, having been fed in containers have no fear at all. Any serious canine trapper in N MN is using dirthole and flat sets(footholds)or snares. Both pose very little danger to domestic dogs.

The real primary application for baited 220 cubbie sets is for fisher and martin. Those species are where this set originated. Recent figures from DNR registration indicates 85% of these animals were taken in body grip cubbie sets. It would pose a tremedous hardship for tappers to loose the 220 for these species. But given the relatively short season it is not a tremdous hardship for hunters to avoid this time period completely or depending on breed keep a very close watch on dog. (that would mean no rabbit hounds, coon hunting is rare in coniferous zone, late season bird dogs that handle well could be hunted close).

Bobcat presents another issue. This is an issue that needs to be fixed regardless of dog issues. Ending F/M seasons on Dec 10, but leaving the F/M sets out for another month for bobcat is a joke, and all the trappers doing it know it. Any set designed to kill F/M in early Dec is just as effective and just as leathal for the rest of Dec and early Jan. There is no logic to defend this.

I suggest two possible solutions:

1) Make the two seasons concurrent so they end at the same time. That may mean shortening the bobcat season since the shorter F/M season is probably intended to reduce harvest on those species. That may not be acceptable to cat trappers since homeranges are large and it takes cats some time to come around to a trap location.

2) The other option is to continue bobcat season but limit the 220 cubbie to only F/M season. Some cats will be taken in 220 cubbies during F/M season, no problem, both are fair game. But after F/M season replace 220's with footholds. Sure it is some extra effort for the trapper who chooses to continue, but the set now becomes selective so non-target species (F/M in closed season) an be released. This only seems logical and ethical to reduce illegal harvest during closed season, while still being able to selectively harvest some cats during the extended season.

Either of these solutions are not perfect but allow the use of the baited cubbie for it's primary function and purpose, and does not pose unreasonable hardship on trappers. Both also require some restraint on dog hunters part to avoid the peak periods of primary furbearer harvest, but provides some releaf during the periods the 220 cubbies are restricted.

[gorrilla]

Walleye 101, that was one of your bests posts yet, short of misspelling relief, nearly a work of art...

Hopefully we aren't only talking to each other.?.?

Personally, that line of thinking wouldn't bother me much other than what you were saying about not giving an inch. In this day and age, giving an inch on restricting trap use usually ends up in the wrong hands and a mile gets taken away. If I totally trusted lawmakers, and it was worded and posed as eloquently as your post, I probably wouldn't loose sleep over your proposal.

Its just my sceptical side that thinks if we start depending on laws to educate trappers, we just see more and more laws as a result of neglect to true trapper education. IMO that only leads to the demise of trapping, a great conservation tool (for harvesting coon and other predators in the entire state), and one of north america's longest traditions.

Just being a devil's advocate here for arguments sake, but like most bobcat trappers know, in the tail end of the season when cats are most prime and cold and snow is common, nothing can compare to a baited cubby.

Sometimes wary, old bobcats are best fooled with a MB 750 coilspring leghold anyway, but 220's rarely sieze up in freeze/thaw conditions. By the way, your right, with the large home range and less dense population of bobcats, as well as tougher in general to get to commit to a set, its hard enough to get your 5 allowed bobcats in the limited season already. Shortening it wouldn't likely be welcomed into the trapper's convention.

[walleye101]

Spelin has nver ben mi storng piont. Surprised you only found one.

Even if we are just talking to each other I appreciate a good constructive debate.

There are times when you have to stand your ground on principle, but there are also times to objectively assess the firmness of the ground you are defending. You have to admit that unrestricted 220's anywhere anytime is a tough position to defend.

As far as bobcat go you are obviously no greenhorn. The better cat trappers around here understand the size selectivity of the conibear sets. They note the visits and refusals of big cats during F/M season by the tracks. They are quick to pull the 220 and replace it with a leghold after F/M season to increase their chances on his next trip around.

My choice would not be the shorter season either, but prefer the second option. But I'm sure that would not be very popular with those who only know the conibear cubbie set.

[gorrilla]

Walleye 101, on that note, don't you maybe agree that a wise trapper would not intentionally place a 220 where he thinks a trap might likely endanger a dog or for that matter even be seen by other people. Bad case scenario his trap get stolen, worse case it injures a dog and the trapper's image.

Don't you think if we make more trappers wise to this problem we can reduce the odds of this happening without taking anyones rights away.

Its simply a choice to trap the right way.

The benifit of this route:

- We don't give anti's a figurative leghold on restrictions

- Trapper's aren't "forced" to do something - they simply make the correct choice

- Legislators aren't given the option to screw it up and over tighten the regulations to the point of phasing out the 7" bodygrip land set forever, like in several current states...

- Lands like private or very remote public lands that never see someones precious beagles or labs or coonhounds can still be trapped at the descretion of the now much wiser, ultra educated trapper.

[walleye101]

Quote:

---

Walleye 101, on that note, don't you maybe agree that a wise trapper would not intentionally place a 220 where he thinks a trap might likely endanger a dog or for that matter even be seen by other people. Bad case scenario his trap get stolen, worse case it injures a dog and the trapper's image.

Don't you think if we make more trappers wise to this problem we can reduce the odds of this happening without taking anyones rights away.

Its simply a choice to trap the right way.

The benifit of this route:

- We don't give anti's a figurative leghold on restrictions

- Trapper's aren't "forced" to do something - they simply make the correct choice

- Legislators aren't given the option to screw it up and over tighten the regulations to the point of phasing out the 7" bodygrip land set forever, like in several current states...

- Lands like private or very remote public lands that never see someones precious beagles or labs or coonhounds can still be trapped at the descretion of the now much wiser, ultra educated trapper.

---

Agreed totally. A wise trapper would not, for all the reasons you listed. Yet it continues to happen. I certainly support eduction, but I am a bit more sceptical about the effectiveness of simply and eduction campaign to address this problem.

A few of the comments earlier on this topic did little to increase my optimisum.

As you stated "Its simply a choice to trap the right way." Many know the risks now, but simply choose to make irresponsible sets because they can.

As far as providing a foothold for the anti-trapping folks, you and I will just have to disagree.

You fear if we give an inch we make ourselves more vulnerable to further restrictions.

I fear that if we don't recognize our own problems and take steps to resolve them we play right into their hands.

Which really provides the most verbal rhetoric for the antis? When we support and propose some comon sense regulations ourselves to reduce non-target catches? Or, when we condone and defend irresposible trappers making lethal sets in poor locations just becuase it is legal?

[gorrilla]

I'm tired, I'm going fishing...