Comments for the DNR

[swampman]

racoons are usually in there dens in jan-feb unless you get a real warm spell.

[slotlimit]

Thanks Swampman, That puts an end to my suggestion.

[walleye101]

So boilerguy,

If I am running my foxhound, rabbit hound or coonhound and he is not in my sight, then he is "out of contol" and deserves what he gets?

[Eric Wettschreck]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are many different ways to look at a particular issue. When people say there dog was injured on public land and a trapper owes him, for example, 2000 dollars that's just silly, especially if the trap set was legal. If the coon hound chases a coon into water on public land and then drowns, does the state owe him for the hound??? Or, if the GSP rips his belly open on barbed wire does the DNR have to pay for the dog?

We all need to remember that it's public land. Not just land for phesant hunters, or duck hunters, or trappers, or rabbit hunters. And being public means everyone is able to use it.

[walleye101]

Right, it is public land and everyone has the right to enjoy it. But what if the two legal activities are incompatable? Does the trapper have the right to exclusive use of the public land for the duration of the open trapping season by setting a baited cubbie?

Again let me say I am not opposed to trapping, I am a trapper, and I am not suggesting that 220's be banned, I own and use dozens of them. I am only suggeting that some common sense solutions be considered for regulating their use on public lands.

Forget about who is liable. It does no one any good when a hunting dog or pet gets whacked in one of these sets. It P...s off the hunter and everyone he tells about it. But worse yet it gives all trappers a bad name, and more bad PR is the last thing we need.

[poutpro]

No one said the trapper should get lone privleges to the land, just that hunters need to be aware and be cautious with their dogs.

[Eric Wettschreck]

Agree. I no longer trap, but I used to trap a bunch. I also did not grow up where I live now. It amazes me how a certain group of phesant hunters actually think the entire world should cater to them, especially on public land. I'm sure the same could be said for a percentage of any group.

[walleye101]

So, if I know there are baited cubbie sets on a piece of public land where I want to run some rabbits with my beagles, exactly how would I do that cautiously? My options are to not hunt that land, or risk a dead hound. And since it is a legal set how do I know the next spot I try won't have baited cubbies as well?

[gorrilla]

I think, as a pheasant hunter, grouse hunter, deer hunter, waterfowler, former(maybe future) trapper, etc - we need to be very careful how we go about this topic. All encompassing statements like "banning use" and "public land" are too broad and other considerations must be looked at.

Is there an allowable time frame?

Is southern MN public land different than central and northern???

Are certain uses of the 220 acceptable to dog owners (ie dog proof cubbies and baits)???

Are hound owners exposed to more hazards of loosing ones dog than other breeds??? Unfortunately yes, if you have a breed that is often out of eyesight, than yes it runs the risk of getting into more problems. Maybe they should be restricted to private areas during prime trapping weeks... (why isn't that discussed as well?)

SIDENOTE: I am often irritated by guys "attempting" to run hounds on land and the dog accidentally getting onto private posted land to run predators. Its so common nowadays and nobody ever considers the other predator hunters, cattle, deer, non target game, in fact I'm seeing more and more hound club contest throughout the state with less and less land to do it on...

--No, I don't think a 220 should await bird dogs or hounds 10 feet from the parking lot at the WMA...

But should 220's be BANNED from being used on the tons of miles of land for bobcats or fishers??? I don't think so.

I believe we can accomplish a lot of the same goals with intensive education and without taking away sportsmans rights, no matter what side of the fence you are on.

[Eric Wettschreck]

Yup. And there is a certain amount of common courtesy involved also.

Trappers should be aware of the fact they are on public land and set "Dog proof" cubbies whenever possible. Also, yes, 20 from the road is prolly a bad spot for a 220.

Hunters also should be aware of the fact there are probably traps set in this area. Know that going into the land. Maybe keep the dogs a little closer and keep a better eye on them in these areas.

I don't know about centeral and northern MN public land. I don't know why it would be any different except maybe southern land is more prairie and northern is more wooded. But that's just a hunch.

[poutpro]

Well, on Northern public a lot of trapping is done for marten and sets can be elevated in trees, so dogs cannot get into them.

[walleye101]

They certainly can be, and it is a good logical solution. It works for fisher as well. But it is not required, so it is generally not being done.

[poutpro]

I guess I don't know about marten and fisher trapping because they aren't present where I trap, but I thought that most of the sets were made in trees. Can anyone give some insight as to the most popular marten and fisher sets up North?

[walleye101]

Gorrila,

I will say it again. I am not suggesting 220's be banned. Yes, There are acceptable uses that pose very little risk to dogs. How about using baited cubbies only on private land where trapper has exclusive permission. There are other, more forgiving options (sets) to use on public land where the risk of other users is high. Dog proof cubbies, trail set 220's, foot hold cubbies, dirt holes, flat sets, etc. Plenty of options.

[walleye101]

By far the most popular and most effective set for martin and fisher is the baited cubbie guarded with a 220. They are effective in elevated sets, but most are set directly on the ground because they are more likely to pick up an occasional bobcat when set on gound level.

[HunterLee]

220's are dangerous and need to be set with care. I ran about a dozen this year mostly for coon's, otters, and tried my luck with fishers. We don't have many but i did see one during bow hunting. My dog checks traps with me and she is yet to get into one, she has ran over the top of them, and this year we were looking for some beaver sets and she found someone's baited bucket set, she sniffed it but i think she know's not to put her head in it, but she woulda really had to try, she is a fair sized lab, i don't worry about her getting caught. I think most dogs no enough to steer clear of them. Trail sets to me don't seem like a threat to dogs, as they would have to have their heads down and with a few guide sticks dogs should just jump over the set. I did manage to snag a few cats that had no reason to be out on my trapline, but its one way to save the local birds. It doesnt sound right, but cats belong at home or in the barn.

[gorrilla]

Walleye 101, I wasn't aiming my comments to one guy in particular. I just want sportsmen to be careful when using the terms restricting and banning when it refers to trapping.

There are enough wacko's out there trying to keep the anti-trapping BS going until all of the U.S. is closed to anything short of a wooden box with a stick propping it open...

Several of the sets you described were what I would term as reasonable or acceptable to most trappers, I just was trying to point out we could get to that point with education NOT legislation.

As a side note, I don't quite see the blind unbaited trail set as a cure-all nor as efficient harvester of larger target furbearers(ie, raccoons, fisher, bobcats). Not to say they don't have their place but to totally replace a baited cubby isn't reasonable IMO.

Like any educated trapper will tell you, every set has its proper time and place and you need to know when to apply it. This train of thought is more and more important for several reasons on multi-use land...

[walleye101]

gorrila,

I wish I could be as optimistic on eduction over regulation. Unfortunately, I will respectfully disagree.

There is always a segment that will not be educated, and will continue to do the unethical thing even if they know the risk. As long as that set is a legal set in that location some will continue to use it regardless of the potential consequences. And that will continue to give trappers a bad name, and the Wackos you refer to, more ammunition against us.

I know some will argue that legislating a solution will not work either, because the unethical trapper will just break the law. But I see a huge difference. If this is no longer a legal set, for the time or place, and the unfortunate thing happens, the unethical trappers actions no longer represent the rest of us.

[walleye101]

Quote:

---

As a side note, I don't quite see the blind unbaited trail set as a cure-all nor as efficient harvester of larger target furbearers(ie, raccoons, fisher, bobcats).

---

Just a tip: I suspect you are right on bobcat and fisher given their habits, but if you are not using the 220 in blind trails for coon you are missing out on an extremely efficient and very selective set. I hate to give away secrets but this fits well with your education suggestion.

When running land lines the blind trail 220 set produces the majority of my coon. By being observant you can easily learn to spot the locations. The set is quick, no bulky plastic buckets or heavy boxes, no messing with bait, low visibility, no attracting junk (skunks, possum, house cats, etc.), and nice clean dry coon for skinning. Start using it and you will quickly see the advantages over cubbie buckets.

This safe and efficient set is why I absolutely do not want to see 220's banned for land sets.

[gorrilla]

W101, its not that I haven't used the blind sets your describing, its just that I don't think they can replace cubbies. Like I said, the if the time and place is right, either set can be "the" set to use. I also don't think it makes much sense that you are recommending legistation and also thinking trail sets with 220's are ok. Yes I know about jump sticks, personally I didn't set larger body grips on public growing up in southern MN. I just think restricting them on ALL public land is a broad dangerous brush. We need to be responsible trappers, hunters, and educators when it comes to this topic IMO.

[walleye101]

I am doing my best on the education part. The blind trail set 220 is a safe set, because it is very selective for coon. I run my own hounds on the same land where I run blind trail set, with no worry. A 220 properly set in an open trail, with a stabalizer will sit only 8-9 inches high. The smallest rabbit hound or lap dog will go over the top every time, no jump stick necessary.

It is the bait in the cubbie set that causes a dog to try to squeeze his head through the 7x7 opening.

Trappers know what the problem is. It is not the 220 trap, but the type of set it is used in.

This problem will not go away on it's own. If trappers don't fess up to the problem and suggest practical solutions to reduce this risk, others will. If others dictate the solution we will stand a much higher probability of loosing the 220 option on land.

[terryt]

Raising the daily pheasant limit would not take effect until after the 16th day of the season so u will have to worry about it effecting the first two weeks

[BLACKJACK]

Quote:

---

This problem will not go away on it's own. If trappers don't fess up to the problem and suggest practical solutions to reduce this risk, others will. If others dictate the solution we will stand a much higher probability of loosing the 220 option on land.

---

I like your attitude Walleye 101!!! Responsible trap setting willl go along ways!! Unfortuantely, all it takes is a few bad apples/lazy trappers to make a bad name for all trappers. The encounter I had with my dog and a conibear trap - and it was bigger than 7x7 - was a cattail fringe along a gravel road where the guy had set it up in a 'cattail run' where the coons were going thru, it bloodied my dogs nose. I learned my lesson, I realize that its an easy spot for trappers to cover by vehicle, since then I put my dogs on heel when I'm hunting near a road. I've also learned since then that it was an illegal set....

[gorrilla]

Blackjack, your not even talking about a legal set currently (poacher not a trapper)...

How would changing laws, help change someone who already doesn't follow the laws??????

Don't punish, the vast majority of trappers for these stupid ignorant peoples' actions...

Do we ban driving because some idiots decide to drive drunk??

Do we close deer hunting because some jerks decide to shine lights and poach??

That story and logic don't apply to this argument....

The debate is about changing LEGAL use of the 220 body grip trap.

[walleye101]

That is exactly the point gorrilla,

If Blackjacks dog were killed by the illegal set, it is extremely unfortunate for Blackjack, but it is the result of an illegal act and is not representative of legal and ethical trappers. If authorities are called the poacher gets a ticket, and since the set is illegal he is also liable for possible litigation.

But, if some novice or lazy trapper and sets a 220 baited cubby set in a high use public area and whacks someones dog, it is just a poor decision. When the impending confrontation occurs the trappers logical excuse is "sorry but it is a perfectly legal set, and this is public land". If authorities are called they can only confirm that it is a legal set.

The second incident reflects poorly on all legal and ethical trappers.

[gorrilla]

What I keep seeing is the "easy" route...

If we choose to limit or ban trapping it seems easy for the non trappers. Problem solved. I hoping from this thread some guys realize that proper use of the great trapping tool(220 body grip trap) will ensure its leagality for the future.

The problems of restricting use is, the antis are gaining in leaps in bounds throughout the country in putting a halt to trapping. My biggest point is ALL PUBLIC LAND IN THE STATE IS NOT THE SAME.

To say something like limiting the 220 to only private land scares me. It would be taking away another major tool from the trappers arsenal. I would guess the next step is all conibears to protect cats, then large legholds, etc. If a fellow sportsman cannot see that this is the so-called "easy" route and not the best solution, then they have blinders on to only their hobby. Which IMO is not smart.

I will stand by my opinion of more education and not regulation being the best route to take to reduce the conflicts between sports and risks to dogs. With less and less trappers out there, we need to do an even better job of passing down wise use of trapping knowledge to combat the growing problem of intensive use of public land.

[protrapper]

As a full time trapper, tournament angler, and grouse guide, I have to say it's really great to see sports folks blasting each other. This is the exact topic PETA folks jump on. Believe me I have been to the DNR meetings and they have been heated, and they brought up the fact it's dog owners against trappers {hunting dog owners}. Wasn't to long ago the duck and pheasent hunters were crying for preadotar control. Where all in this together don't give the anti's more ammo. Also I have had dogs caught in traps before and where all released, though none where 220's but I have had close calls with 220's. Trust I know the feeling I had thousands of dollars invested in a lab I had Dokkens train and my vet overdosed on meds and tried to cover it up..

[BLACKJACK]

protrapper, following your line of reasoning, no matter what issue comes up, no matter how absurb, if its put forward by a hunter/fisherperson, we shouldn't disagree with it or debate it, just accept it as good. Crossbows - good, bring them on. Two lines, good. Three lines, sure. Four lines, sounds good, it won't hurt the fish resource any more than one line, thats why we have limits right? A four month pheasant season, great. Heck it only takes one rooster for every ten hens, lets have a six month pheasant season!!!

My point is that not every issue is black and white, it needs to be discussed, what makes sense to one person may be ridiculous to another person, by discussing it we can educate each other. Thats the way this trapping debate has been so far, as a non-trapper I've learned about proper methods of setting conibears and trappers have learned that it only takes a few bad apples to ruin their reputations, education may be needed of future trappers.

As far as the antis getting ammunition from this type of discussion, if all hunters and trappers and sportsmen got together and held hands and sang the benefits of trapping, would it make a difference to the antis? No. They already have all the info they want to see and believe.

[BLACKJACK]

protrapper, I was thinking about this some more last night.

1) By discussing connibear traps and promoting proper trapper education, you make beginning trappers aware that there is a right and wrong way to set connibear traps. Hopefully when that young trapper, whether they are 12 or 22 gets a connibear trap for the first time, they won't go out and just set it anywhere, they'll think back to what they read or learned about proper trap setting.

2) Speaking of anti-hunters, nothing we say here will sway their minds, but I guarantee you that when Joe Hunter from Lakeville, the guy that doesn't hunt much but talked his better half into getting a hunting dog, takes his bird dog and family pet out to hunt and it gets killed by a connibear, you've made the wife and kids into big time anti-hunters. Lets not be making any more antis if we can help it!

[gorrilla]

Its funny Blackjack, when nobody argues back you start to debate your self.