Change???? maybe a little.

[swamptiger]

The first signature on the petition is a woman from South Africa. There is one unnamed person on the entire first page of 50 signatures from Minnesota. Do you really think someone from South Africa or Italy or somewhere in Europe really has any clue about this issue?

[Trashguy]

Wrong petition. That one is for banning, but not this one: Can't post a link, so search for "SignOn.org Beta - Safe public lands" Probably 95% or more MN

[swamptiger]

Ok - looks like it's coming from all directions .

When I type in "petition to ban trapping", I get 3,680,000 results in Google search. When I type in "petition to ban hunting," I get 7,580,000 results. So it still looks like there's only about half as much opposition to trapping as there is to hunting overall..

[FCspringer]

"The goal of the group who started the petition is to ban trapping. Do a little research, and you will see."

You can say that about some but not all.Truth said I never wanted to ban trapping as I also did it years ago. But after reading all these posts about the way trappers are responding to this issue I now no longer support trapping in any manner! This is only my opinion and is solely due to the trappers post here.Bad apples,maybe? It looks like I will not be grouse hunting or shed hunting next year. (Compromise?)

Why are the last few of you even on this thread.? It blows my mind how you act,LOL, it's pathetic at this point. seriously? Are we suposed to believe some of you are actualy trappers? Come on. Just go away.

[walleye101]

Walleye the extended foothold has no chance of being extended IMO, the anti's pushed that years ago as the foothold was deemed "inhumane" we were told to use more bodygrips as they caused less "suffering" and so here we sit today.

The extended check on foothold has no chance if we are afraid to even discuss it. What we are dealing with here is trying to find a rational solution to an emotional issue. But an honest discussion of this problem will lead us directly to the extended check as the most rational solution. I am referring to cat trapping on public land in the northern fur bearer zone. Anyone interested in participating in that discussion?

[FCspringer]

Since it is clear that this will most likely not work. I decided to post one last bit of logic for all the ones who believe the stories about all the so called dogs killed in traps, and want you to believe a kid will be killed and other rubbish.

First off it is clear that these people are good at getting sportsmen to fight against each other. Because thats exactly whats going on. Pretty good anti tool, the public forum. Now if we think rationally. A dog is more likely to get hit by a car or lightning. Now if I wanted to, as people accuse me. I could set a trap at every parking lot on public huntings and catch 100's of dogs opening day of pheasant season. Why has that not happened if you all think we target public land so much???? Hmm, maybe because we don't. It is not who we are. Think about it, seriously. If they truly wanted to they could autopsy a dog to see if it was in fact caught in a body trap. We trappers know what it does to the skin. Are there stories made up all the time to stop hunting and trapping? Sure, it has been the tactic of antis for a long time.

Now getting back to the possible solutions to settle some folks down. The changes out lined above by me and a couple others are truly feasible solutions that work for all. Anything more is resulting in the end of something people have done for generations of sportsmen. So don't come on this thread and expect people to just lay down and play dead while you ask them to give up their freedom and passions. If you again are not here to have an educated idea from your trapping days, and a good plan because you earned loads of knowledge from avoiding human and dog contact for years. The I really don,t care to hear about your ideas. As the original poster, thats what I asked for and for LOL, yes the final time. If it is not clear after this then perhaps you wanted to derail rational thinking to begin with, and that you are in fact an anti sportsman.

[FCspringer]

Your right on that, and it is one of the ages that will never return. And even if it did, I think it would cause so many trappers to simply quit just because they lost the other trap any way. We also know that if we dont use drown sets, (which are not possible every where) we stand a good chance that our fur will be gone for known reasons,as we all have seen. Any thoughts on 220's for live trap trades from any one? They certainly work for coon. But we all know having to buy them and quit the other would be too expensive for trappers, so several will quit. But if the state can give 50$ to any one who brings in a old crappy gun, as they did. Then why not help fund a trade in deal. Then if you wish to keep any for other restricted use you can. I mean, what would they work on? would they work for you guys up north for bobs and other sets? Not that the state would go for it but just a thought.

[Saw557]

The extended check on foothold has no chance if we are afraid to even discuss it. What we are dealing with here is trying to find a rational solution to an emotional issue. But an honest discussion of this problem will lead us directly to the extended check as the most rational solution. I am referring to cat trapping on public land in the northern fur bearer zone. Anyone interested in participating in that discussion?

[swamptiger]

Quote:

The extended check on foothold has no chance if we are afraid to even discuss it. What we are dealing with here is trying to find a rational solution to an emotional issue. But an honest discussion of this problem will lead us directly to the extended check as the most rational solution. I am referring to cat trapping on public land in the northern fur bearer zone. Anyone interested in participating in that discussion?

I'd like to see an extended check on footholds and snares for bobcats, but if my memory serves me correctly, one the main reasons people went to body grips to begin with was because of the antis position that animals were suffering in the footholds, so a quick humane kill would be better. Not sure I even remember or ever knew the reason for going to a one day check on snares..

[Eric Wettschreck]

I'm not sure how some of the partime guys that have other jobs could run a daily line and make it work.

I won't speak for anyone else but as for myself, I couldn't make it happen.

[walleye101]

I'd like to see an extended check on footholds and snares for bobcats, but if my memory serves me correctly, one the main reasons people went to body grips to begin with was because of the antis position that animals were suffering in the footholds, so a quick humane kill would be better. Not sure I even remember or ever knew the reason for going to a one day check on snares..

We went to a one day check on snares in MN because that is all we got when they were legalized. Prior to that you could not use them at all.

Trappers went to body grips as they became available as just another trapping tool. While the animal rights folks may prefer that method over foothold, there was never any organized effort in MN to replace footholds with body grips.

I don't know when daily check laws were implemented, but they have been in effect at least 40 years. Drowning sets were an exception to this law. Initially body grips on land were daily check as well, and I do recall special legislation (possibly between 1970-1980) to move them to 3 day check.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

We went to a one day check on snares in MN because that is all we got when they were legalized. Prior to that you could not use them at all.

They must have been legal before they were illegal, because I remember my uncle using them exclusively for wolves back in the wolf bounty days.

[walleye101]

A little more on body grips.

They were developed in Canada as a "more humane" alternative to footholds. Recent modifications from the original design have been done to make them more lethal (kill quicker). Those modifications were for animal welfare concerns, and are much more applicable for remote Canadian trap lines than they are where trapping and other outdoor recreation activities overlap.

[walleye101]

They must have been legal before they were illegal, because I remember my uncle using them exclusively for wolves back in the wolf bounty days.

Good point, everything was legal before it was illegal. Not sure when snaring was first regulated. Anyone?

[swamptiger]

I think some of the last wolf trapping he did must have been in the late 1950's or early 1960's, because I have a photo of him and I posing with some wolves he had taken. I was just a young lad - maybe 7 to 9 years old, so that was at least 50 years ago.

[walleye101]

So we have taken a tool that was developed to kill wild animals quickly in remote wilderness areas because of animal welfare concerns, and due to it's widespread use in more densely populated heavily used areas, we now have an issue with this tool killing domestic animals.

It is time to reconsider priorities between wild animal welfare and domestic animal safety.

There are a number of reasons that the currently proposed regulations will not work for bobcat trapping, and the unintended consequences will actually make matters worse for hunting dogs.

A three day check law for footholds during cat season would solve this problem.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

A three day check law for footholds during cat season would solve this problem.

I really wouldn't have a problem going to footholds and snares for bobcats if there was a three day check on snares also. This doesn't resolve anything for the coon trappers, however.

I'd also be interested in hearing some rationale for the one day check on snares.

[Ray1]

For I-need-to-improve-my-english-language-skills sake close this I-need-to-improve-my-english-language-skills thread.

[Ray1]

Thank you Kelly and Jonny for everything that you guys have done for the outdooors. But this I-need-to-improve-my-english-language-skills thread is [PoorWordUsage] me off it needs to be locked.

[swampman]

The wheels are already in motion, the proposed bill, the dnr proposal and what the trappers assoc is proposing is going to come down to some kind of changes, no doubt. We might just as well wait and then deal with what they come up with. I don't think what any of has to say here is going to make any difference other than give us a place to vent.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

The wheels are already in motion, the proposed bill, the dnr proposal and what the trappers assoc is proposing is going to come down to some kind of changes, no doubt. We might just as well wait and then deal with what they come up with. I don't think what any of has to say here is going to make any difference other than give us a place to vent.

+1.

As far as walleye 101's comment about reassessing or balancing wild animal welfare with domestic animal safety priorities, the important thing to remember is the only balance that would be acceptable for some of the animal rights crowd is to shut down trapping completely. And hunting, too, for that matter. And a lot of that opinion is simply based on ignorance.

[Random guy]

Well somebody is having fun as I was signed me up to PETA and the humane society with the information listed on this site. Even my fake birthday I use on this forum.

Sorry guys but now I'm PETA so I guess the traps are for sale...anti clowns, so uncreative.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Sorry guys but now I'm PETA so I guess the traps oare for sale...anti clowns, so uncreative.

So I guess you are now an official "double agent"...

[Random guy]

Guess so, like several of the posters on this thread.

[Random guy]

Ya know I was thinking that was a bad move on somebodies part...could you imagine me and my ways inside the ranks of peta or the humane society, be like a ticked off bear in a china shop.

I would be the first banished PETA member.

Just goes to show you the level these groups will stoop to in attempts to achieve their agenda.

[FCspringer]

So we have taken a tool that was developed to kill wild animals quickly in remote wilderness areas because of animal welfare concerns, and due to it's widespread use in more densely populated heavily used areas, we now have an issue with this tool killing domestic animals.

It is time to reconsider priorities between wild animal welfare and domestic animal safety.

There are a number of reasons that the currently proposed regulations will not work for bobcat trapping, and the unintended consequences will actually make matters worse for hunting dogs.

A three day check law for footholds during cat season would solve this problem.

OK so your agenda here is pretty clear. Why not go fishing? LOL

[FCspringer]

Thank you Kelly and Jonny for everything that you guys have done for the outdooors. But this I-need-to-improve-my-english-language-skills thread is [PoorWordUsage] me off it needs to be locked.

Simply don't read it? That might be of some help.

[FCspringer]

Ya know I was thinking that was a bad move on somebodies part...could you imagine me and my ways inside the ranks of peta or the humane society, be like a ticked off bear in a china shop.

I would be the first banished PETA member.

Just goes to show you the level these groups will stoop to in attempts to achieve their agenda.

LMAO, Now there is a thought. I might be on there too, LOL That is unbelievable. It would be fun to organize an outing with the gang.

[BrettH]

The latest Body Grip Bill, went up today on the Senate website.

I also included a copy of a proposed bill for extending snare check time.

Any thoughts?

S.F. No. 2265, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Mar 02, 2012

1.1A bill for an act

1.2relating to game and fish; modifying restrictions on certain traps;proposing

1.3coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 97B.

1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.5 Section 1. [97B.903] USE OF BODY-GRIPPING TRAPS.

1.6A person may not set, place, or operate, except as a water set, a body-gripping

1.7or conibear-type trap on public lands and waters that has a maximum jaw opening

1.8when set greater than seven and one-half inches measured from the inside edges of the

1.9body-gripping portions of the jaws, unless:

1.10(1) the trap is in a baited or unbaited enclosure with the opening no greater than 81

1.11square inches and the trap trigger is recessed seven inches or more from the top of the

1.12opening;

1.13(2) no bait, lure, or other attractant is placed within 20 feet of the trap; or

1.14(3) the trap is elevated at least three feet above the surface of the ground.

S.F. No. 1820, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Feb 10, 2012

1.1A bill for an act

1.2relating to game and fish; modifying requirements to tend snares;amending

1.3Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 97B.931, subdivision 2.

1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.5 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 97B.931, subdivision 2, is amended to read:

1.6 Subd. 2. Body-gripping traps; snares. A body-gripping, conibear-type trap or

1.7snare need not be tended more frequently than once every third calendar day.

[Ybone]

220s are only 7 inches I believe so they wouldn't be restricted under this bill at least the way I read it. Signed up for Peta, now that's funny, I would suspect friends or family, that's the way my family is anyway. Like the time we called my brother in law pretending to be the priest and wondering why he wasn't going to church more or had him up at the local police station because he thought they wanted to talk to him about the rubber marks coming out of his driveway and the party his kids had when he was gone, needless to say they didn't know what he was talking about and looked at him like he was nuts and he realized he had been had.