http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/hunting/2014/full_regs.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=bookmarks
The Mn trapping regulations start on page 47. If what I read compared what some are requesting, these laws are already on the books. Body grip traps are required to be in “bucket” sets with a minimum of 7″ set back on land or submerged in water.
What am I missing? Now, for the slobs that don’t follow the laws, well, we all pay the price for them.
Thanks for the homework Kooty,,, Now its off to work and after that to go pull my traps from a marsh and put them out on the river bottom tomorrow.
I feel for the dog’s owner, that is by far a true tragedy and I’m sure everyone would agree that they wish it never happened. That also leads to the discussion here and now, how to avoid it and yet allow both parties use the public land equally.
Its similar to the school shootings in that the media is able to distribute information on these incidents is such a mass blanketed way. This heightens the awareness, but does not give a perspective to the number of traps/snares set Vs. the amount of dogs running fields, sloughs, lakes, rivers….. In the grand view of things, these incidents are very rare compared to the number of traps set.
As for the suggested “3 block” or what ever it was, NO WAY. What am I to do when a home-owner association hires me to clear all the beaver out of a neighborhood retention pond? Not every situation is going to be black and white and no matter how good the intent and awareness + the methods used by a trapper, these occurrences will happen. The goal is to minimize them to the least amount possible.
I asked our local vets (husband and wife) that both practice vet services on canine how many incidents a year they encounter. They have had paw injuries that the dog owner claims were traps, but the reality is they are unknown. In their careers, they have had a few ligament trapping incidents.
Ironically, the most treated injury for canines they encounter with all hunting dogs combined (water & Field) is puncture wounds from sticks, plant stems, or other. This includes being impaled while running through brush and corn fields. By far, the worst in dogs jumping off a pier or out of a boat. Landing on unseen cattails or sticks beneath the water line and ripping their abdomen open. Often its not the puncture, is the infection they get afterwards.
So, I’m not trying to lighten the situation for any individual that has lost a pet this way. Just emphasizing how rare it is nationally amongst all trappers/hunters. Your dog would have a much higher chance of getting hit by lightning
I feel for the dog’s owner, that is by far a true tragedy and I’m sure everyone would agree that they wish it never happened.
So, I’m not trying to lighten the situation for any individual that has lost a pet this way. Just emphasizing how rare it is nationally amongst all trappers/hunters. Your dog would have a much higher chance of getting hit by lightning
+1
If ur dog is running down the road and gets hit by a car … I’m guessing you blame the driver. Its certainly not the owners fault for letting the dog run down the highway right? Yeah I don’t think I’m missing anything…. Its always someone else’s fault and THEY should change for you.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/hunting/2014/full_regs.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=bookmarks
The Mn trapping regulations start on page 47. If what I read compared what some are requesting, these laws are already on the books. Body grip traps are required to be in “bucket” sets with a minimum of 7″ set back on land or submerged in water.
What am I missing? Now, for the slobs that don’t follow the laws, well, we all pay the price for them.
Kooty, I’ve read both the Minnesota and Wisconsin trapping regulations. I would like to see MN change their regulations to read what WI has. Here’s that link. http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0002.pdf Page 11
The main thing is to get the body traps 5 feet off the ground and the baiting of said traps to be similar if not identical to WI regulations. Is it going to eliminate dogs caught in traps, most likely no. Will it decrease the number of dogs that are killed by body traps, most definitely YES and that’s all that I am asking.
Keep in mind that I am not trying to eliminate trapping and I am not an anti trapper, but those of you who do trap have to ask yourself what type of image does this present to the general public? As trappers you need to be at the forefront of this discussion and be proactive in making the change. Otherwise when the media presents this to the general public its not going to be good for trapping, as the general public does not look favorable upon trapping as it is. The MN trappers association should be pushing for these changes to preserve trappers rights but at this point they are not.
OK one more post then off to go deer hunting. Here are the facts from Wisconsin once they changed their trapping regulations.
Minnesota’s situation sits in contrast to Wisconsin’s.
Since 1998, Wisconsin has had trap restrictions similar to those proposed by Minnesota’s DNR. The entire Wisconsin process was led by its DNR.
In 1997, a few game wardens cobbled together a list of likely dog trapping deaths they had seen over the years, recalled John Olson, furbearer specialist for the Wisconsin DNR. That unofficial tally prompted Olson and his colleagues to act.
“We said, ‘Gosh, there might be a problem,’ ” said Olson, who, like Abraham, is also a trapper. “So myself and the president of the trappers association whipped together a trap incident report form for the fall 1997 season. The wardens used it.
“Knocked our socks off. We could not believe
the number of incidents out there.”
Twenty-seven dogs were caught in the
body-gripping traps that fall, and 18 died.
“And what was really bewildering is that nobody was complaining,” Olson said. “Most of the incidents were hunting dogs, and hunters over time had accepted that as a risk of being out and about.”
The WI DNR wasn’t willing to accept that, and Olson suspected neither would the public — nor the hunting community if they knew how many dogs were dying each year.
After a series of meetings and hearings with trappers, hunters and other stakeholders, the agency enacted emergency rules that took effect the next season.
DEATHS PLUMMET
The affected traps are known as Conibear 220s and generally have an opening between 6.5 and 7.5 inches wide — the largest traps that could be baited and left on the ground anywhere trapping is legal, which includes most public hunting grounds. The new rules forced the traps to be raised off the ground or recessed in a cubby.
That season, 1998, five dogs died in Conibear 220s. In 1999, the number fell to three. In 2000: one. In the following eight years, 11 dogs were killed.
“In virtually every one of those where a dog was killed, it was the result of an illegal set,” Olson said, meaning the new rules weren’t followed. “Or, it was a beagle or a small dog or a puppy.”
While some trappers, especially those seeking large raccoons, objected to the traps, Olson said data show the traps have not hampered trapper success — “not a bit” — although many trappers were forced to learn new techniques. “
Good luck hunting, hope you get a good one.
Glenn,
Few things I question? Source?
Dates seem very close but not accurate to all the involved events. My first conversation with a few guys involved was either in 1995 or 1996. I’m inclined to believe it was 1996 because my oldest daughter was still a baby…(memory tool thing) Anyways, the statement “As trappers you need to be at the forefront of this discussion and be proactive in making the change. Otherwise when the media presents this to the general public its not going to be good for trapping, as the general public does not look favorable upon trapping as it is. is a little backwards. It should read THANK YOU TRAPPERS FOR BEING AT THE FOREFRONT…… Because in reality, it was all lead by trappers, to be proactive. In general, people have no clue as to how many hours Lee and others had calling other trappers like me to discuss ideas. Mike W. tinkering with concepts AND preparing an entire trappers education program. These guys didn’t jump up on the soapbox, pound their chest, and seek recognition – they just acted upon what they needed to do.
Now here is the sad part – When hunting clubs, dog owners, breeders, and others were invited to be involved to help spread the education and contribute with ideas – they stuck their head in the sand and hid. Why? (This is a rhetorical question)
I agree with you Randy on the 3 block suggestion, it was just an approximate number. Up where you guys live there’s alot more rural housing areas with maybe 50 homes, and a 1/2 to an acre water retainment pond, that’s just starting to happen here with expansion so I didn’t think of that.
If there is a problem with beavers or muskrats dening into the banks, and they eventually fall in and create bad spots along the bank, then its up too the local housing area to put fliers in everyones mailboxes to let everyone know that theres going to be a trapper coming in to keep the damage down. Its not only ponds, its creeks and marshes being dammed up and filling drain tiles, that cost thousands to put in. Muskrat love to bring food up into those draintiles and store it for winter, like corn and soybeans, then their plugged, especially when the seeds start sprouting in the spring, then they really plug the tiles.
A guy told me the other day that an old boy that lives up in N.E. Iowa has quit trapping beavers and the area is looking for someone to replace him. I guess since hes quit trapping theres alot more damage to the areas he was trapping in. Farmers have to rent backhoes to take dams out because they flood fields etc. There is a place for trapping but I don’t think I can go along with the 3′ or 4′ height as being the bottom limit where a trap can be set. Underwater sets for beavers is already safe because their under water. I hope that if a line is drawn and rules aren’t already in place, in certain states that it doesn’t infringe on anyones rights, trappers and dog owners both. I haven’t read a complete list of rules from Wisc. or Minn. but I’m sure there are rules to keep the danger down for dogs.
I think it’s important to put the hysteria aside and look at the facts.
Killing dogs in body grip traps isn’t necessary in order to trap.
Tens of thousands of trappers in MN, other states, and Canada have proven every season that body grips can be effectively used in ways that are safe for dogs. The states that have moved to commonsense body grip trap regulations have shown that it has not hurt the fur harvest.
There is no basis for the false choice argument that it’s either accept our dogs being killed or effective trapping. None whatsoever. Making that claim is hurting trapping because we do not want to put dog owners in a position of supporting trapping OR protecting their dogs. The trappers associations who are fighting to “not give an inch” are damaging the image of trapping. Many hunters have told me that they USED to support trapping but because of the behavior of the trapping associations they no longer extend that support. Can we blame them?
The sham bill that the associations slipped through the legislature with the help of Rep. Denny McNamara and Senator Bill Ingribritsen were not effective and they were told that but refused to listen. Since then Rep. David Dill has refused to hear the dog protection bill in his committee effectively killing it and many more dogs. At least 20 more dogs have been killed since Oct 20, 2012 when the new regulations took effect.
Place a grouse wing 7″ under your couch and see if your dog will reach it. Now place the same wing 36″ off the ground and see if your dog will reach it.
Does your dog walk or run with it’s nose down? If it does it can run into an unbaited trail set and be killed.
Those 3 tests prove that the 2012 regulation changes weren’t effective and the trappers association wasn’t serious about protecting dogs. That needs to change.
Welcome to IDO John and a good passionate conversation.
I just want to be clear what “you” are asking for.
Change 36″ minimum height to 60″ no matter the body grip size. Today’s regs require them to be surmerged and not baited within 20 feet or in a bucket set with a 7″ setback.
The only other difference I see vs. WI – 330’s are not legal anywhere on land, only in water across the river from us. In SD, they have to be submerged or buried to be legal.
Partially.
Change the 36″ to 60″ for all body grips 155 and up or submerged. It’s currently not required to completely submerge any body grip at this time and 280’s and above cannot be set on land even in a tree. A partially submerged 330 is probably the type of set that killed the 95 lb lab on Nov 1st this season. 220’s can be set on the ground (baited in a box with an awning or unbaited 20′ from bait). The latter set is responsible for the bulk of the dog deaths and is what killed the dog near Foley recently. There are no restrictions on 160’s or smaller even though they’ve killed brittany’s and other mid-sized dogs.
Very well said!
So many ways dogs die each and every day…One killed in a trap, and it’s end of the world…
BTW, i’d save the stranger lONG before a cat/dog.
At present THERE IS A RISK of bring an animal into a trapping area and having that animal that you brought into the danger zone, get trapped.
Now you’ve heard it. You’ve been warned. I’m not arguing against a positive solution for all; but i am stating that it is entirely within your hands to protect your dog; and you now know there are risks involved in hunting upland land.
WOuld you let your young child run aimlessly through the private land; knowing the dangers…Well, if you REALLY care about your dog….Try keeping it out of harms way. OR take the risk and go hunting.
Learn about the traps; keep your dog fairly close; and you’ll be that much more prepared in the event of an incident.
Can’t always be a victim…SOmetimes we need to take care of ourselves/property.
Though just popped into my mind…Wonder how many broadheads are laying around public lands. That’s a razor blade waiting for a dog’s artery.
We should ban archery hunting.
Stickycat just an fyi just tripping a trap and leaving it be would also fall under this law.
FYI – If your referring to WI, please be aware that the following law is enforced
Stealing or molesting traps, cable restraints, snares, animals or the contents
of any lawfully placed trap, cable restraint or snare is a criminal act and is
punishable by fine ($300-$1,000), imprisonment (up to 90 days) or both and
a mandatory 5-year revocation of license.
For the record I was just being sarcastic. I have never removed a trap/taken/stolen or any thing else except When I do find one, body grip, on public land I trip the trap and leave it be.
I am still firmly against leaving killing machines unattended on public land that can kill a dog right in front of the owners eyes. Trappers could fix that one little issue on their own or keep pushing the masses and risk losing more.
The difference between those examples and this unnecessary problem is trappers are knowingly placing a lethal device on the ground within reach of a hunters dog and many times baiting it with grouse or some other meat. The same cannot be said for the straw arguments of sticks and highways.
We need to accept personal responsibility for the traps we set and stop putting all the responsibility on the hunter to avoid our hidden traps.
We can’t use set guns where you place a loaded gun facing a bait or a trail so why should we expect to do something very similar with traps that have been designed to kill anything that sticks it’s head between the jaws?
Glenn,
Few things I question? Source?
Dates seem very close but not accurate to all the involved events. My first conversation with a few guys involved was either in 1995 or 1996. I’m inclined to believe it was 1996 because my oldest daughter was still a baby…(memory tool thing) Anyways, the statement “As trappers you need to be at the forefront of this discussion and be proactive in making the change. Otherwise when the media presents this to the general public its not going to be good for trapping, as the general public does not look favorable upon trapping as it is. is a little backwards. It should read THANK YOU TRAPPERS FOR BEING AT THE FOREFRONT…… Because in reality, it was all lead by trappers, to be proactive. In general, people have no clue as to how many hours Lee and others had calling other trappers like me to discuss ideas. Mike W. tinkering with concepts AND preparing an entire trappers education program. These guys didn’t jump up on the soapbox, pound their chest, and seek recognition – they just acted upon what they needed to do.Now here is the sad part – When hunting clubs, dog owners, breeders, and others were invited to be involved to help spread the education and contribute with ideas – they stuck their head in the sand and hid. Why? (This is a rhetorical question)
Randy,
Sorry as I haven’t had a chance to get back on IDO until today. You asked about a source for my info on the Wisconsin trapping regulation changes and study. It was from the Pioneer Press in October of 2012. Here is the link. http://www.twincities.com/ci_21812576/will-minnesotas-new-trapping-rules-mean-fewer-dog
Unfortunately here in MN the MTA and trappers are not at the forefront of getting the rules changed to protect domestic animals from getting caught or killed in body gripping traps, if they were then we most likely would not be having this discussion as few if any dogs at all would be killed by traps.
While I am a dog owner no one has asked my opinion on trapping or regulations. My knowledge on how to remove a dog from a trap has come from searching on the internet and MN DNR web site. Personally I wish I did not have to educate myself and others on how to remove a dogs head from a body grip trap. Just change MN regulations to match WI reg’s and remove / greatly reduce the possibility or another dog being caught or killed in a trap.
I see that you are from WI and most likely trap there as non-residents are not allowed to trap in MN. Have the 1998 WI regulation changes diminished your yearly furbearer totals? Thanks for you input Randy.
Have the 1998 WI regulation changes diminished your yearly furbearer totals?
Diminished is very harsh in trying to describe the reduction of trapped furbearers. Has my totals been reduced? Yes Diminished – No In the couple years following the changes, it had a dramatic impact on how many refusals I noticed Example – coon walks up and sticks its front leg/paw in a recessed coni instead of its head. Some were caught this way and some pulled out. But successful trappers learned why they were getting refusals and made adjustments.
I run a lot of culvert tube sets with coni 160’s. If a coon can not see through it, it is very hesitant to stick its head in. So using an open back or open mesh, it works better.
cubby-woods.jpg
Here is the first dog to be killed this season. His name was Bronco. He was a 95 lb yellow pointing lab and his owner said he was at the top of his game. They were hunting grouse when Bronco went off the trail a short distance and was caught in a 330. They tried to release the trap but couldn’t and Bronco died in his arms.
You can see that the trap broke his nose loose from his skull and if you look hard you can see how the trap compressed his muscular neck down to about an inch.
Bronco.png
John – Like many of us have said, it’s really sad Bronco was lost. My stance really hasn’t changed, I don’t understand why it’s the trappers who have change their ways? Public land is for everyone, right? Every time you go into the field your dog faces many, many dangers. Wolves, porcupines, fences, heck even just hay seeds can have severe impacts on dogs health.
Now saying this, I could probably get on board with some minor tweaks to what exists today. 48″ minimum height and fully submerged 220’s & up in size. Even with these tweaks, I suspect some dogs will still get killed. Then what, do the trappers have to sacrifice even more?
simple answer…yes. they are the minority and we live in a democratic society. If they are staunch in their stance, they will lose more than they will gain, simple numbers. you mention wolves, porcupines, fences etc. some are put there by nature, some by man, but none were put there to kill indiscriminately (maybe 1 was)… the trap sets are a big difference. (would you agree with better regulations to reduce wolf populations so the chance of a dog or a deer being killed by one would be reduced ?) same thing being asked for here.
John Reynolds – that is a horrific picture. It sickens me.
The connection I can not make is how current trapping laws have anything to do with that? A 330 on land is illegal in any set, period. That dog was killed by a violated and has NOTHING to do with current trapping laws whatsoever. (Assuming this was in the upper Midwest – I am unaware if a 330 is allowed on land somewhere else)
The current laws allow 330’s to be set partially submerged as this trap was set. It was a legal set that killed Bronco.
Of course trappers are the ones that need to change. Trappers (I’m one) are the ones killing people’s dogs so it stands to reason that we are the ones that need to change the way we use this deadly tool. It isn’t necessary to use the body grip sets that kill dogs and forcing 2 million dog owners to choose between allowing trapping and their dogs is a no-win deal.
The current regulations are killing dogs. That needs to change by adopting commonsense regulations. Five foot elevation or completely submerged would protect dogs so that trapping and hunting can co-exist. One dog safe way of effectively using body grips is to mount the box so the opening is 4′ above the ground and the trap recessed down into the box 12″. Coons like to come in from the top so it uses their natural instinct to our advantage AND protects dogs. What is wrong with that?
Other states have made the change, trappers adapted, and fur harvest levels weren’t affected. Why can’t OR WON’T MN trappers do that here?
Randy, your culvert set would kill my dogs.
Kooty, That is what we are asking for…tweaking body grip trap regulations so that trappers can continue to use this valuable too and protect our dogs at the same time.
Some people automatically assume any change is an attack on trapping or will be a ban. That’s not the case here. We just want trappers to stop killing dogs. We’ve asked the trappers associations to work with us and they gave us that ridiculous 7″ awning that many trappers were already using to keep snow out of their boxes. We asked for credible solutions and they gave us zip ties.
If we end up losing body grips in MN the blame will rest on the “don’t give an inch” attitude of the extremists within those organizations.
John, Just to be clear, on public land or on private too?
I am a trapper and a bird dog owner. I feel there is a problem with 220 and 330 body grips. I don’t use either. I perfer snares w/o drowners for beaver. If a dog gets caught they will act like they are on a lead and can be let out without any harm. As far as the “box”, this is generally a dry land set for coon. The trap should be in the box far enough so a dog can’t get its head in the trap. But I know of a smaller dog that get into one and ran around with a 160 around his head for a week. This trap was set by a trespasser on land that I was trapping. My personal feeling is if the state of WI would allow cable restrantes for coon there would be alot less of this happening.
I’m only focusing on public land. If your dog is loose on private land, I have no sympathy for you or the dog.
Dogs don’t see property lines and neither do most humans for that matter. There is no justification for splitting public property from private property because we have effective dog safe methods of using body grips. No foothold trap is regulated differently based on property ownership. No body grip trap is regulated differently based on property ownership except the dog killing 220 and that has only been changed 2 years ago. For the first 56 years of body grip traps the 220 was not excluded. MN law has a long standing precedent for not allowing the killing of trespassing dogs unless they are doing damage.
In 2012 a lab was killed after being lured from her property by a baited body grip trap set for bobcat. Many dogs have suffered the same fate after being encouraged to cross onto private property by an attractive scent placed near the trap.
Even if a trap is legally set the property owner can be sued in civil court for killing a dog in a body grip trap. Also since trappers are unable to see invisible property lines continuing with statewide regulation of body grip traps makes it less likely for a trapper to accidently violate the law. It also makes it easier for enforcement to do their job.
Bottom line. It isn’t necessary to use sets that kill dogs anywhere.
I have to disagree John, what about coyotes and the farmers who don’t have the time to try to trap them. And what about the farmers who don’t let people on their farms because of previous bad hunting experiences that want to get rid of the coons on their property. Now it kinda seems like a farmer or landowner has to learn how to trap, and too someone else’s standards besides, just to keep the unwanted animals out of his fields and corn before he goes to sell it. So let me get this straight,,, hunting dog owners want to be able to tell farmers how to trap on their land to get rid of pest animals,,, and they want those things just so they can be sure their dogs won’t be hurt,,,and now those dog owners want permission to hunt those farms?,,,just so their dogs will be safe? someone’s got to be kidding. There’s very little public land down this way and its almost all owned by farmers. Some farmers want guys to trap their property to get rid of unwanted animals that get their grain dirty to keep from getting docked at the place their selling it.
So now some want the farmers to have to follow what hunting dog owners want to do, forcing their rules onto farmers? Down here no farmer is liable for what another person is doing on his property if that person wasn’t givin permission to be on his property including his dog. So when it comes to his dog getting caught in a body hold, do you think its the farmers fault because the owner of the dog couldn’t keep his dog from crossing the fence from another farm, I don’t think so and if it went to a jury trial I know the way Id vote and it wouldn’t be for the dogs owner, I don’t care how much the dog costs or how much the dogs owner cried on the stand. That’s just putting that farmer into a spot because of the dog owners mistake.
Heres a story you may have heard of way back when. A farmer got tired of someone breaking into a house he owned. So because he wasn’t using his head he rigged up a shotgun to the front door. You guessed it, the burglar was killed. It went to court because the killing was premeditated and the farmer lost the case. This situation isn’t the same as a dog getting trapped in someone else’s trap on someone else’s land. The shotgun was set for a Burglar and the trap was set for a furbearing animal on the farmers property, private property. Once the dog breaks all the rules its fate is in the owners hands, not the hands of someone else that’s not premeditated and directed tward’s his dog, that’s the difference, If it was directed twards the dog that would be different, but trapping isn’t directed tward’s that dog, on public and especially on private property.
You sound like an ok guy John but I can’t see it your way or any dog owners way when his dog isn’t where he’s supposed to be. Its the dog owners responsibility to keep his dog where he’s supposed to be and not the guy trapping legally on someone else’s farm.
If the dog bolts its not the dogs fault, or the trappers fault, its the responsibility of the dog owner because he’s the one that took him out of the house, into his vehicle and into the field. The dog didn’t know the trap was there, the Trapper didn’t know a dog would be there, only the dogs owner knew there may be a possibility someone might be trapping when he intended to go to where he did.
Its the same with children and dogs, the owner or grownup is supposed to be responsible for his dog or children. Since when is it someone else’s responsible for another persons inability to know where the lot or boundry line is. He can and could always get out before season opens and walk the property and look for those boundaries and ask the farmers if there’s anyone trapping next to the land he would be on, for the dog owner to say to himself, Id better stay away because I don’t want to see my dog get hurt.
I understand where your coming from but too many people in too many different situations would have to change when it comes to an owner of a hunting dog or hunting dog accident, their not done on purpose, its an accident because it wasn’t intended to be that way. Its the same way if a dog bolts and bites someone or get hits by a car, the dog didn’t know but the owner did and its the owners responsibility to know what his dog doesn’t.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
