More trapping of dogs...

[RBuker]

There has been a lot of great comments made on this thread on both sides. Just so we know who's "side" I'm on, let me just tell you that I am not a trapper but do have retrievers that I hunt grouse with.

Anyway, the thing that bothers me the most is that people who should be standing up for trappers are not doing so. I hear all this talk of "compromise" but all that really amounts to is asking trappers to give up some of their privledges. Why don't some of you realize that the saying, "We must all hang together or surely we will hang apart" is valid in this case!!! Hunters should be the trappers best friend!

I'm not the least bit afraid of the 220 set and my dogs. I know how to use the trap should one of my dogs get into one, I can get it out. I'm far more worried about taking my dogs walking near traffice as one never knows when they may see a rabbit and dart in front of a car. (I had that happen once.)

People need to set their emotions aside and do what's best for their fellow sportsman. (although frankly I'd love to see spearing for northerns banned.)

PS. By the way, I loved the comment about the four foot leash. Talk about witty. Dogs would still work but not quite as effectively, just like the 220 that is forced to be set 4 feet off the ground. Seems like a reasonable "compromise" to me. HA HA HA

[randallt]

Nicely said RBuker

[Random guy]

PS. By the way, I loved the comment about the four foot leash. Talk about witty. Dogs would still work but not quite as effectively, just like the 220 that is forced to be set 4 feet off the ground. Seems like a reasonable "compromise" to me. HA HA HA

I just thought it was a great way to put it in perspective for the dog owners. Something that non trappers do not see is we have been regulated to death. Every year is more restrictions, less tags, shorter seasons yet the DNR tells us furbearing numbers are up. Heck our Fisher Martin season is only 9 days long now and I only had a week of open water between trapping opener and freeze up this year. The trapper is already rubbed raw by endless regulations and this last round is just salt in the wound.

I would have to say if the state said over the course of the last six years. Only 3 grouse per hunter, season will only be two weeks long, dogs over 40 lbs or those that run over 15 mph cannot be used. Only 2 ¾ steel loads can be used from single shot break action shotguns, so on and so forth the bird dog community would be in outrage. Trappers keep giving up rights and giving up rights and it never ends.

You want solutions here are solutions. I have already presented these and was told not good enough.

Vertical dog proof coon boxes, other states use them. Not good enough for Minnesota dog owners. As the worry was hybrid mini dogs could still get in.

220 by permit just like snares used to be. Areas of upland hunters and other dog users or wolves at the time where protected/restricted so snare permits had to applied for keeping snares out of high risk areas and monitored by local law enforcement. I was told a 220 permit was a waste of time because dog owners said the traps would still be on the ground in other places.

Change of seasons was rejected because trappers have already been pushed late into freeze up and bird hunters do not want to give up any part of a 3 ½ month long season. Plus the recreational dog users or those taking the house dog for a walk still want Fido to get in touch with his inner wolf and run free through the woods year round.

Bird hunters and trappers are required to go to training about traps. Nobody wanted to do that.

Once a group gets a hold of a anti trapping campaign there is not much one can do. We see it over and over.

We as trappers know this regulation will go through just as all the others have. We are used to seeing that what the metro wants the metro gets (this includes the suburbs). We will adapt and I’m pretty sure those methods as I have stated in previous posts will not be liked either. We tried to explain many times the current situation is good compared to what can be but everybody is so fired up as they have something to fight about in the off season they refuse to listen. Next year will be snares or jaw type, then special permits for “doggy” areas and the final blow will be marking of traps and that will be the end of it completely. I’m just glad I live in remote northern Minnesota and maybe see one bird dog a year up in the high country far from my line. I feel for the trappers south of me that have been labeled dog killing [PoorWordUsage] savages. I spoke with a DNR official (whom will not be named) again yesterday about this and he made a comment I found interesting. “They keep putting trappers in a corner it’s going to become a problem”.

He was correct on so many levels.

[creepworm]

I have a question. This is specifically aimed at jparrucci and trashguy.

What makes what you do in the outdoors more important than what others do?

I am not expecting an answer but would love to hear you try to come up with an explanation that makes even a little bit of sense. Sorry to say it, but just because you have a dog does not make you better than a person that enjoys trapping.

[Trashguy]

You can read our comments anyway you want. I sure as hell don't feel my time in the woods is more important than yours. I do cherish it very much and respect that resource (CNF) a ton. All it comes down to is I don't want to loose my dog to one of these traps PERIOD! What I do in the woods does not effect you, but what you are doing in the woods could affect me big time. Sure I could stay out of the woods during "your time", but what about that one trap that you forgot about and next spring my dog finds it. I guess if you don't love your dog as much as many of us do, it is hard for you to understand. That comment of Ranger Jack "I see no problem with a dog getting killed accidentally by a trap" Really isn't going to help the trapper's cause very much either. The comments about us hating trappers is just not true and is coming from your frustration with might be coming. No one likes change, especially when it might effect one's income, but life just sucks some times doesn't it!

[Tinkhamtown]

Split the upland and trapping seasons so dogs will not be out when trapping is going on.

[memyself@I]

Geez JP and some of you others, no one and I mean no one is suggesting that you don't have a right to trap and make money doing so. You might enjoy stirring the pot with over the top comments and being flip about it, so what? Do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem??

EVERYONE has the right to recreate on public land, from hunting to hiking to photography and yes bringing their dog with. And people are doing so more and more often including things like shed hunting.

So go ahead and drag your feet, and make smart over the top comments, and vow that the line is drawn in the sand. Or get involved in the dialogue and see what changes can be made so that you can trap and I can recreate my dog without it getting caught and killed in a ground set 220.

Your choice, there will be ramifications positive or negative.

[Eric Wettschreck]

get involved in the dialogue and see what changes can be made so that you can trap and I can recreate my dog without it getting caught and killed in a ground set 220.

[Eric Wettschreck]

No one likes change, especially when it might effect one's income bird hunting/dog/insert various recreation here, but life just sucks some times doesn't it!

The other side of the coin.

[Trashguy]

How about this then for a compromise. I will stay out of the woods during "your time", but you get the traps off the ground? We both give. Your response?

[Eric Wettschreck]

If you're not out there during "my time", and therefore your dog is in zero danger of getting caught in a trap, what would it accomplish by getting traps off the ground?

[Trashguy]

What no compromise?

I think the suggestion to post at the beginning of a trail, that the area is being trapped would really help. I know I would stay the hell out. Ran into this few times in the spring, when the DNR was trapping wolves and I was doing my "mushroom thing". I couldn't turn around fast enough when I saw those signs that wolf trapping was going on ahead.

[lichen fox]

Something similar to that was already outlawed in regards to bear hunting...some used to put "bear bait ahead" signs on side roads or trails leading up to thier bait site...according to the DNR, that was "pre-empting" a certain spot and taking away another's right to also place a bait there...so, they said putting up those kind of signs are illegal...for the purposes that most trappers use 220's as ground sets the window of opportunity is quite narrow...as JP said 9 day seasons for fisher & martin, a 2 week season for bobcats and when trapping season opens the ones using them for coons usually only have about a 2 week window before the temps drop and the coons hibernate...As mentioned earlier, the Grouse season is 3 1/2 months long...the limit is 5 per day...10 in possession...Most grouse hunters probably have eaten enough grouse and have thier possession limit in the freezer by late november so I think that if we just stopped the grouse season say, at the same time trapping for fisher, martin & bobcat opened...(around the end of Nov)...alot of these encounters would dissapear...for the "dog-walker" they could make it a rule that dogs would have to be on leash during the bobcat-fisher-martin seasons...Oh, but there would have to be an exception for the hunters that want to run bobcats, coyotes, fox, etc. with hounds at that time also...

[TimR]

A few comments to ponder:

Why, if you are making your living off of a public resource, do you expect that the public resource will remain as it was in the 1950's when the pulbic around it is changing?

If I am out utilizing a public resource, and I pull the trigger I am responsible for that action, and the resulting animals loss of life/injury. Why is the person who sets a 220 on the ground not held to the same standard?

Why are the concerns any less for "Suburban Susie walking fluffy" (when utilizing a public resource) than for trapper XYZ?

Do you understand the concept of incompatible use?

Tim

Who owns an aged, $110 rescue lab

[monstermoose78]

We all take chances hunting is a chance. Taking your dog into the woods is a chance it might come out alive because of coyote wolf or a trap. Maybe your dog chased a deer and i was out hunting and i shot it. If you dont want your dog to get trapped keep it in your house same goes with cats.

[lichen fox]

I don't think anyone is saying one kind of dog is more important than another or a hunter with dogs has more rights than susie who is walking her dog down a forest trail...The point is...both, or all are acting within thier legal rights...it is not currently illegal to use a 220 as a ground set...albeit that could soon change as could regulations for allowing domestic pets to run free on public lands...But in reallity, I really don't see susie walking fluffy in most area's that a trapper would trap for fisher, bobcat and martin, it's not like these critters really like hanging around area's with high human traffic...Hunters with dogs however will take thier dogs to such places realizing the risks whatever they may be...We all care just as much about fluffy as we do hunter....

[Random guy]

Tim I see from your information you are from a region very different then rural Minnesota. It is always hard to explain a different way of life to somebody not living it.

A few examples of utilizing a public resource or lands for profit:

Logging and the timber industry

Hydro power

The entire fishing industry

The entire hunting industry

Wind generated power

The entire hiking/camping

State parks

Boat ramps

Sate owned mining leases

Leased farm lands

Bait harvest

Hay crops of right away

ATV licenses

Snomobile licenses

…and trapping

As far as labiality I’m not sure what the penalty is for shooting or dispatching a dog on public land? That would be the basis for penalty if one was killed in a trap correct?

As for incompatible use we are in the starting stages of that by governing on public land a 220 cannot be set on ground. We are basically starting a situation where conflicting use and the method of use are to be decided and enforced by the trustee of the land.

Strict zoning is pretty good example of this such as some communities in Illinois attempted.Initail result was multiple civil disputes over the use of the land before all was given up and the land eventually zoned for growth and a safe prospering environment without the imposing threats of industry and the effects of such. End results is these now zoned lands hve become slums and lost all hopes rehabilitation. It takes some negatively perceived actions for an overall good sometimes.

[monstermoose78]

+1

[TimR]

We all take chances hunting is a chance. Taking your dog into the woods is a chance it might come out alive because of coyote wolf or a trap. Maybe your dog chased a deer and i was out hunting and i shot it. If you dont want your dog to get trapped keep it in your house same goes with cats.

Your response typifies those I'm trying to point out. Trappers would do well to recognize that burying your head in the sand and shouting "I'm legal, darnit!" will not get you your intended response in a changing world.

I'll humor you and take your comment at face value. So maybe you are out squirrel hunting and I am chasing rabbits with my old lab, and he runs off. You think he is chasing a deer and blaze away with your .22.

According to the MN DNR, you are legal.

"Between January 1 and July 14, a dog that is observed wounding,

killing, or pursuing in a way that endangers big game may be killed by

any person. A peace officer or conservation officer may kill a dog that

endangers big game at any time of the year. The officer or person is not

liable for damages for killing the dog."

Are you comfortable looking a dog owner in the face and saying "yep, that deer was getting tired, and in a snow year like this, that was endangering that there deer.".

If so - good for you, you and I are wired differently.

Tim

[monstermoose78]

When I take my dog to refuge ducking its on a leash not because he does not listen, but to protect him. I am a bird hunter as well. I dont trap any more but if i want to i should be able to. Just as you can hunt with your dog. You know its trapping season! Then you are rolling the dice taking your dog hunting. If trappers did not trap there would be less ground nesting game birds for both of us to chase. trapping season is very short small game hunting is a very long season so lets shorten them both to 9 days and see how that grabs people. I can get some grouse in 9 and would fine with a 9 day season.

During firearms season do you wear brown out into the woods? No because you know that you may get shot. Same goes with trapping season if you bring your dog you know it might get trapped.

[TimR]

Jonny P -

I live in the ex-urbs now, that is not where I was born or raised. I understand the rural way of life well.

I have no issues with making a profit off of a public resource. My question is there to elicit thought. I was suprised at your comments in this thread after reading what you write in other areas. It's usually a well thought out point of view.

A person who states they make part of their living off of a public resource should realize that diminishing the concerns of other users of that resource won't get you to a mutally benefitial end point. You have valid concerns, as does the visiting vacationer. You won't get that vacationer to listen to your valid points if you state that your livelihood is more important than their pets life, or that it has been done this way since the 50's, or that three legged rabid skunks will be defecating on the deck (I love that argument, btw).

I can see both sides of the debate. In the interest of all outdoor sports hanging together, I wish the ardent trappers would look at the overall situation and recognize the concerns of dog owners.

My only real question, which I truly don't understand, is why trappers feel they are not responsible for any death/injury caused by the traps they set?

The comment about incompatible use is that it appears the general public (who shares ownership of the resource) would be inclined to understand the side of the dog owner. The extreme end of that debate is incompatible use, does the trapping minority want to fight that battle?

What I see here, is that trappers are choosing to not have a reasonable discussion with what should be the section of public most closely aligned with their hobby/livelhood. How then is that going to go with Susie Suburbanite?

Tim

Tim I see from your information you are from a region very different then rural Minnesota. It is always hard to explain a different way of life to somebody not living it.

A few examples of utilizing a public resource or lands for profit:

<snip>hve become slums and lost all hopes rehabilitation. It takes some negatively perceived actions for an overall good sometimes.

[monstermoose78]

So tim because your hunting may have chased away that critter he was going to trap do you have to pay him for his loss?

[memyself@I]

Jonny P

There is plenty of intellect on both sides of this issue, its got nothing to do with where one resides in Minnesota. Public land is for ALL of us to enjoy and use, and you mentioned many. As a resident of Northern MN you have great hunting, fishing, trapping, berry picking, wild places readily accessible to you, that is an advantage you have. Never, ever take that for granted, please.

From what I can glean, 220s are very effective and in a run-n-gun world, efficient. Efficiency may be fine and convenient when it comes to making money but it also has a downside and that is in this case the killing of dogs of people who have every right to be on public land as well. Minnesota isn't this wide open wild area for a number of reasons including more people, more people traveling all over the place because of technology (the internet, smartphones, GPS and on and on) to pursue what they enjoy. So it is time for some reasonable change. Will it be good or bad?? The put downs and snide remarks do no good for anybody, just polarize. We already have plenty of that.

[Random guy]

Problem is not that trappers are facing a new issue but we are facing yet another issue. Years of being pushed into a corner have taken individuals that normally in tune to nature and the serenity it offers and flipping them. I would go as far as saying a trapper is the last one that wants to be noticed, heard or seen, but we have been bully slapped into a furious rage from years of being told we are lesser people our ways wrong and we must always succumb to the wishes of other groups. What you are seeing from the trapping community is a group of people that have just been pushed to the limit. Angst is running rampant right now among the guys in hip boots and to be honest I fully understand that feeling. I am a licensed bait dealer, bear guide and fishing guide that deals with ever changing regulations and absurd rulings on a regular basis. Granted change is a pain but we deal with it and go on. Now as far as the trapping regulations go it has finally reached the point of too much. I think this one is going to backfire big time as the trapping community may have finally had enough.

[memyself@I]

The pity card won't work. Put it away. Period.

[monstermoose78]

then let your dog die

[memyself@I]

Nice post. This is exactly the problem.............................

[Random guy]

The pity card won't work. Put it away. Period.

Well what in the heck is belly aching about a dog then? I have heard about the dog is part off the family, the dog cost 10k, the dog can't be on a leash, the dog cant run free, the dog this and the dog that. Is that not one HUGE pity party?

The pity card started all this with a grown man crying about his dog on TV.

[TimR]

Monstermoose78, I'll humor you one more time.

No - because there is no loss. There was no definite action.

A better comparison for you to understand is this: If I, or my old lab decided to gnaw on the 3 legged rabid defecating skunk that Trapper XYZ caught in his trap - why certainly - I would pay restitution to the trapper.

But, using your logic, the trapper should just deal with the fact that my old lab trotted off down the trail with the 3 legged rabid skunk and his trap. Why? Because as you put it, when you are utilizing a public resource with multiple uses, "you are rolling the dice".

I don't think I am getting through to you, and you didn't answer my questions, so best of luck and thank you.

Tim

So tim because your hunting may have chased away that critter he was going to trap do you have to pay him for his loss?

[memyself@I]

Take a look at monster mooses post please