|
Author
|
Topic: Mn. D.N.R
|
TA17Rem
Hello, I'm the legendary Tim Anderson, Southern Minneesota Know it all
Member # 794
|
posted June 06, 2009 10:26 AM
In the last couple of years the Mn. gov. and the D.N.R. have been moveing forward to protect our hunting rights and to make hunting more enjoyable for those that hunt.
A few years back Mn. passed a hunter Harassment bill which protects hunters from harassment from none hunting groups such as PETA and so on.
Mn. also did away with the double lic. required for Non-*** . to hunt coyotes. Now just one lic. is required and also cheaper than before.
A lite can now be used one month out of the year for nite calling coyotes.
The 17 HMR can now be used at nite when hunting coon or while a deer season is going on..
Mn. just passed the Gun case bill which now allows us to have a rifle or shotgun in the vehicle and uncased while traveling from one hunting area to the next..
Dogs chaseing big game may now be shot on site by a hunter as long as the dog is caught in the act of doing such. Dog owners willbe held accountable for there dogs and any damage they may cause.
Mn. is still a FREE BAITING state, in other words no baiting is allowed for any protected animals such as Deer, Turkeys, Ducks and Geese and so on..
The DNR purchased more land for hunting last year and is also makeing improvements to the land they already own.
We now also have a limited Elk season and Prarie chichen season..
Things are looking good for Mn. hunters and if other states want to follow in our foot steps or get some things changed the hunters need to get off there butts and talk with their area Rep.s and get some changes made cause it is'nt going to happen by itself..
Here is a copy and paste i got from the Mn. webb site on the shooting and possably the hunting of wolves in Mn.
Minnesota DNR assumes management of state’s wolf population (May 7, 2009)
Minnesota’s wolves have been removed from the federal endangered species list, allowing the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to manage the state’s wolf population.
Wolves in Minnesota, considered part of the Great Lakes population of wolves, were delisted in March 2007, but a federal court ruling last September reinstated the wolf’s status as threatened, based on technical questions about procedural aspects of the delisting rulemaking. After re-examining its legal authority, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reissued its delisting decision in March 2009 with an effective date of May 4.
“After the initial 18 months of state wolf management, Minnesota demonstrated the effectiveness of ensuring long-term survival of the wolf in Minnesota and resolving conflicts between wolves and humans,” said Dave Schad, DNR Fish and Wildlife Division director. “Wolf recovery is a great conservation success story.”
Minnesota’s wolf management plan is designed to protect wolves and monitor their population while giving owners of livestock and domestic pets more protection from wolf depredation. It splits the state into two management zones with more protective regulations in the northern third of Minnesota, which is considered the wolf’s core range.
“The major change with state management is that it allows individuals to directly protect their animals from wolf depredation, subject to certain restrictions,” said Dan Stark, DNR wolf management specialist. “In addition, the state-certified gray wolf predator control program will be available to individuals as another option to deal with livestock depredation.”
Minnesota’s management plan establishes a minimum population of 1,600 wolves to ensure long-term wolf survival. The state’s wolf population, estimated at fewer than 750 animals in the 1950s, has stabilized at about 3,000 wolves. Under state law, no public hunting or trapping seasons on wolves is allowed for at least five years after delisting. Federal law also requires USFWS to monitor wolves in Minnesota for five years after delisting to ensure recovery continues.
Similar to federal regulations, the state plan allows anyone to take a wolf to defend human life. Pet owners also may shoot or destroy a gray wolf posing an immediate threat on any property as long as the owner is supervising the pet.
Owners of livestock, guard animals or domestic animals may shoot or destroy wolves that pose an immediate threat to their animals on property they own or lease, in accordance with local statutes. Immediate threat means the observed behavior of a gray wolf in the act of stalking, attacking or killing livestock, a guard animal or a domestic pet under the supervision of the owner.
In the southern two-thirds of the state (Zone B), a person may shoot a gray wolf at any time to protect livestock, domestic animals or pets on land they own, lease or manage. A detailed description of Minnesota’s wolf management zones is available online.
Regardless of location, a person shooting or destroying a gray wolf must protect all evidence, report the incident to a DNR conservation officer within 48 hours and surrender the wolf carcass.
Unlike federal regulations, state regulations allow harassment of wolves that come within 500 yards of people, buildings, livestock or domestic pets. Activities that discourage wolves from contacting people and domestic animals are allowed, but wolves cannot be attracted or searched out, and harassment activities cannot cause physical harm.
To ensure a seamless transition from federal to state wolf management and to address immediate conflicts between wolves and livestock, the long-standing wolf depredation control program managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services office in Grand Rapids will continue under a cooperative agreement with the DNR.
Additional details as well as the complete wolf management plan, zone maps, population survey information and frequently asked questions are available online.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ June 06, 2009, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: TA17Rem ]
--------------------
What if I told you, the left wing and right wing both belong to same bird!
Posts: 5613 | From: S.D. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted June 08, 2009 03:15 PM
Aside from the wolves and nite hunting, it sounds like stuff Kansas has had for years. You can thank Randy Buker for the night hunting season. He was the sole soul that stood up in defense of that request and got it passed on a trial basis that went so well that they made it a new season for hunters to enjoy. Randy was a big help in my first unsuccessful attempt to get Kansas to allow us a season, and I'm supposing that his input will further assist me in future attempts until I get it passed.
To that, here in my own state, back in February, a dimwit was bunny hunting public ground with his dogs and a bow and one of his dogs stuck its noggin into a 220 coni in bucket. All the other seasons had been closed except for trapping and this guy admitted publicly, after he'd dragged trapping and traps through the mud to the front steps of some animal rights group out of Canada, along with the help of a local newspaper, that he knew the traps would be there and that they posed a risk to his animals. Two points need to be understood before you properly judge the direction this matter has taken.
First, the guy's dog died deader than hell. he carried the dog, with the trap still on its head, for two hours back to his pickup, then to town where the trap was cut off with a hacksaw because he couldn't figure out how to remove it.
Second, regardless of your feelings toward conis in buckets, the state of Kansas came to us in the state trapping association in the mid-90's asking for our input on how we could help them control predator numbers on public hunting rounds as a means of increasing upland game, etc. At that time, our season closed the same day as bird season and, at our request, they extended trapping for fifteen days to the middle of February so that trappers could hammer those public grounds without the risk of catching bird dogs. Until now, there have been no instances of dogs being caught and the effort has been very successful in improving bird numbers, etc..
I have been on radio talk shows defending the right to trap public grounds when done correctly using conis and all other legal traps, I have gone nose to nose with greenies on regional online discussion boards concerning this matter, I have been in contatc with legions of state authorities and shared my opinions, and will appear before our agency commissioners on the 25th of this month, and despite all that, District 5 of the Kansas Fur Harvesters Association, in a show of total cowardice and lack of foresight, publicly voted to NOT put any effort into defending trapping in this instance and to NOT support the use of conibears on public hunting grounds, regardless of secondary regulations that would make that possible. I about crapped my pants when I read that in T&PC.
For years, I begged and pleaded that group to create a "wish list" of regulatory measures that we could try to get in place because I figure that the best time to gain momentum is when you're running downhill and with the wind at your back, and that the more rules and regs we got passed in our favor, the more hurdles the antis would have to get over and through in order to outlaw fur harvesting in Kansas. Those people just looked at me like I was crazy. This is the exact strategy that the liberals are using on this country today - make hay while the sun shines, because in time, it will get cloudy again. Look at everything they're doing to us, and think fort a minute just how hard it's going to be to UNDO all this crap. See my point?
Congrats, Tim. Sounds like MN and your sportsmen and women are doing good things and being proactive in their own defense.
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5440 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
3 Toes
El Guapo
Member # 1327
|
posted June 08, 2009 05:43 PM
I'm about as pro trapping as you can get, but conibear bucket sets on public land is simply asking for trouble. Water sets are fine and unlikely to catch non target pets. But common sense has to prevail somewhere and even in my job where I use all kinds of lethal equipment, I never set a snare or M44 in areas I know or even think may be frequented by JQ Public. Nobody needs the bad publicity.
--------------------
Violence may not be the best option....
But it is still an option.
Posts: 1034 | From: out yonder | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jrbhunter
PAYS ATTENsION TO deTAIL
Member # 459
|
posted June 08, 2009 05:49 PM
Cal, how often have you seen/heard of a 220 recessed into a bucket set catching a K-9?
EDIT: If we're talking 330's (IE: Wolf Sets) then please disregaurd my comment.
[ June 08, 2009, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Jrbhunter ]
Posts: 615 | From: Indiana | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.Shaw
Peanut Butter Man, da da da da DAH!
Member # 73
|
posted June 08, 2009 05:59 PM
I agree with Cal. Bucket sets with 220's set anywhere are asking for trouble. I speak from experience that they will catch dogs. Just lucky all were alive when I got there. Learned my lesson early.
Randy
Posts: 567 | From: Nebraska | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted June 08, 2009 06:32 PM
In some ways, I can agree with you guys about the inherent risks of using 220's in buckets. But, that is when set indiscriminantly where and when dogs will get into them. But, as I stated, this is on public ground where dogs are not allowed to run freely unless being used for hunting. It was after every hunting season had closed and the only thing left to do was trap. For over ten years, we have vocally discouraged trappers in Kansas from trapping public hunting grounds outside the fifteen day period allotted to us in the extension following the close of upland game season. And even during that period, we have emphasized that, when using any types of traps but especially killer traps like conis and lock snares, that you travel as far off the beaten path as you can, then go again as far further - just to be sure. In this particular instance, this is exactly what the trapper here did. The trap was a 2-hour hike from the parking area. We have not suffered a single dog kill, as far as I know, during the upland game season. I know of dogs that have been caught in various traps, but all have survived unscathed. Granted, you might say that it is only a matter of time, but this is on intensively hunted areas shared amongst various user groups.
Our suggestion to Wildlife & Parks, when they first came to us asking for trappers to help regulate and reduce predator numbers in these areas, was that they, at the very least, place signage at all parking areas advising users that trapping activity would be enhanced during the February 1-15 time period and to use these areas at their own risk. A good step further would be to restrict any dogs off leashes during that period.
Sadly, and ironically, the owner of the dog has continued to rally for banning conibears in Kansas under the pretense that they pose a risk to hunting dogs. In his misguided attempt to serve the interests of his non-trapping brethren, he has, in fact, hurt them more than he has hurt trapping. A growing percentage of Kansas hunters are becoming increasingly dependent upon these public hunting areas as huge tracts of the state are leased up and out for guided deer hunting. This leads to increased pressure on these limited acreages and, in order to ensure a sustainable population of pheasants and quail, W&P very much needs the help of trappers in controlling coons, skunks, possums, bobcats, and coyotes. If this guy is successful is his endeavor, he'll be hurting the hunters he's trying to represent because the trappers that trap those grounds generally trap private ground, with exception of that 15-day period where they provide something of a public service.
Nobody ever complained of too many pheasants, or an excess of quail. In my humble opinion, trappers and predator hunters are to the hunting industry like the Second Amendment is to our Bill of Rights. What we do, and our role in the big scheme, serve to ensure that the other groups have something to hunt next season.
Would pheasant hunting go to hell if we didn't trap? Maybe not, but it sure wouldn't be as good in localized hunting areas like we have here in Kansas.
At this point, our commissioners don't seem too inclined to do anything as far as further regulating trapping, on private or public hunting ground. That is our hope, and I will be one of several who will be there to further defend not just conibear traps, but trapping in general because this issue, shortly after it went public, became an assault on trapping in general, not just that one isolated incident. And anyone whose been in this battle over the years knows for a fact that an incident like this soon devolves into an assault on all trapping and rarely stays within the lines of just that one incident.
My point in presenting this specific case was to point out that our state trapping association - whose members pay their dues with the reasonable expectation that if and when trapping of any kind comes under attack, their group - the group they pay - will step up in trapping's defense.
Rather than taking the point on this issue (where I think they should be), our group has publicly supported efforts to take a bite out of trapping as a whole, and what defensive action they've taken has been limited to making a few calls to the NTA, FTA and their affiliate groups so that others can carry their water.
Maybe when the dust clears, they, and we, will have lost our right to use conis on public ground. But I am personally incensed that these so-called leaders in the state trapping community have sherked their responsibilities and allowed the lies and half-truths of animal rights interests and anti-trappers to stand unchallenged when they were presented with a great opportunity to educate the public on the truths about trapping and furbearer management. I guess what's-his-name was right - Never let a good crisis go to waste.
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5440 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TA17Rem
Hello, I'm the legendary Tim Anderson, Southern Minneesota Know it all
Member # 794
|
posted June 08, 2009 07:25 PM
I would also have to agree with others that conibear bucket sets used on land is asking for trouble..
Here a box or cubby set with a conibear is legal and they do catch dogs from time to time. The trap dose'nt get the dog by the head or neck but rather around the jaws.. We even have a law here where no snares canbe used for a land set below state highway #2 thats about 3/4 of the state..
--------------------
What if I told you, the left wing and right wing both belong to same bird!
Posts: 5613 | From: S.D. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
3 Toes
El Guapo
Member # 1327
|
posted June 09, 2009 06:34 AM
Jrb, I have never seen a dog caught, but have heard of a few, and common sense tells me that a dog will stick his head into a baited bucket. Whether or not the dog is big enough to avoid being neck caught by a 220 is up to the size if the dog. Some people hunt beagles and jack russels. CDog is correct in trying to encourage trappers to set away from the public, but as with any group of people, some of them are morons and will set where they damn well please because "it's their right". That makes it bad for the rest of us.
--------------------
Violence may not be the best option....
But it is still an option.
Posts: 1034 | From: out yonder | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kokopelli
SENIOR DISCOUNT & Dispenser of Sage Advice
Member # 633
|
posted June 09, 2009 07:51 AM
I've set a few traps, but am no expert by any means. Just out of curiosity........ What is being targeted with 220 bucket sets and why is a 220 chosen over something like a #3 longspring for dry land trapping??
When I catch a dog in a leghold trap, I have the option of releasing it; as per collar, tags, demeanor, ect. With a 220, seems like there might be some 'splaining to do. "Right" doesn't always mean much when a man's dog is in a trap. Less so when it's neck is broke.
--------------------
And lo, the Light of the Trump shown upon the Darkness and the Darkness could not comprehend it.
Posts: 8231 | From: Under a wandering star | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted June 09, 2009 10:38 AM
Locally, bobcats and coons on these sites.
Right or wrong, I appreciate everyone else's opinions, but as long as the right to use them on public ground exists, I will fight to defend it. I just don't see any wisdom in opening the door for "them" in today's politically overcharged environment.
There are those with whom I have spoken who go so far as to say that they trap, but they don't see the need for conis. Again, they're legal to use, and saying that is, to me, akin to saying that I use a bolt gun and just don't see the need for these semi-automatic assault rifles. Then, taking things so far as to naively think that I can let my opponenets have the assault rifles on nothing more then their word that they're not interested in the rest of my guns.
Again, as long as they're legal, I'll do everything I can to defend their use. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that I have not run a trapline for most of five years. To have conis and buckets - hell, to have all traps - outlawed would only benefit me as a caller as it would mean more animals available to me. But, I don't roll that way. I guess to me, being a trapper is like being a Marine. Even if you don't trap, you'll never really NOT be a trapper.
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5440 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kokopelli
SENIOR DISCOUNT & Dispenser of Sage Advice
Member # 633
|
posted June 09, 2009 12:19 PM
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one CDude. Large Conibears are water traps.
It is my understanding that the loss of public land trapping here in Az. started with a dufus walking an unleashed dog on State Trust Land, where he didn't belong. The trap was legally set. The publicity killed us.
Ask the average person (voter) to describe a trap and you will likely hear something about 'teeth'....... and you're setting KILLER BODYGRIPS???
I agree about not caving in to the antis, but this is just asking to hand them a'cause'. No good can come of this.
--------------------
And lo, the Light of the Trump shown upon the Darkness and the Darkness could not comprehend it.
Posts: 8231 | From: Under a wandering star | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jrbhunter
PAYS ATTENsION TO deTAIL
Member # 459
|
posted June 09, 2009 03:20 PM
Cal, I understand the common sense theory. I also understand "anything can happen". Shaw points out obvious experience with the worst case scenario unfolding. I have no doubt you fellas are correct.
I just cannot shake the instruction and advice I was given by a credible conibear man, Matt Jones of KY, a few years back. His concept was, with a 220 inset 3-4 inches it would block the periphrial (sp) vision of a K-9 and therefor make it fairly uncomfortable reaching for the bait.
I understand domestic mutts may not have the same instincts and dispositions: but their phylosophy seemed logical to me and I'd never (until now) heard of examples to the contrary.
I believe that bucket sets are more target specific than a standard trail set. In other words, if as you say, bucket sets should be prohibited on public land... then so should trail sets IMHO.
Koko, with all due respect, 220's are being used on land with great success in many states. 330's are another story. I'm not sure how you define "large". To me, large is about 4-1/8". ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 615 | From: Indiana | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.Shaw
Peanut Butter Man, da da da da DAH!
Member # 73
|
posted June 09, 2009 03:31 PM
Jason.....My buckets were set-up with the 3 inch notch to allow for the springs to be slid in and then bent up to lock in place. Baited with chicken feathers and Milligans Coon Creek. Buckets were a long ways from any houses or activity. I only caught two, but both were around the neck, both were alive, and both were very happy to see me.
Randy
Posts: 567 | From: Nebraska | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
newbomb
Knows what it's all about
Member # 888
|
posted June 09, 2009 06:00 PM
An example
Posts: 66 | From: southern indiana | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Roede
"It's Roede, like in Yotie
Member # 1273
|
posted June 09, 2009 09:13 PM
What it all comes down to IMO. Is this, the neutral voting majority is easily swayed to vote for ANTI trapping legislation when it has the fuel from a wondering dog killed by a trap or snared and killed.They, the middle, don't hunt, don't trap but they do vote. Headlines read dog killed on public land by trap, legislation to ban trapping on public lands need your vote. End of trapping on public land!!
It may be the most legal of all legal sets on public or private, should dog owners be more responsible for their dogs, hell yes!! Let that roaming dog wonder out on the highway and cause a wreck.
I do not think a trapper should give up his or her right to trap public land but also must use some common sense in what and where he uses for equipment.
I also think whatever state it is should better inform the general public on what may be present on public lands, educational pamplets, classes, signs on public areas stating traps and snares may be present.
We have had this topic a time or two here at some meetings and it seems the trapper is just expected to not use the public area an area he has just as much right to as the next guy.
Should he throw out a bunch of buckets with 220's full of bait and lure in an area known for its birdhunting, hell no, he is sharing it with the birdhunters. Relaxing lock snares and legholds and educated birdhunters and there should be some hope of a compromise. No mandatory regulations just common sense on both sides.
Most hunters don't have a clue how traps or snares operate. Most think a snare is like in the cartoons and will launch their dogs skyward. Any lead broke dog will settle down and be sitting there with the loop around it's neck, couldn't count the number of times I have caught my dogs in them and they are not what I would call lead broke.
Teach them to stay out of trap sets, dig a mock dirt hole in your backyard, lure it up, put a couple mousetraps around it. Most dogs figure it out.
Expect traps and snares to be present on some lands. A different mindset! That trapper doesn't want your dog in his stuff anymore than you want him in it.
Carry a cable cutter, etc just in case.
It's a tough deal, you don't want to knuckle under and give up trapping but you don't want to risk hurting the future either.
I don't believe the benefits of trapping to the hunting world has been used by the state and national trapping assoc. to aide in this coexistence. We have some excellent information from the Delta Waterfowl programs and from Fish and Wildlifes programs out west on fawn crops,along with numerous other studies, but it just never seems to get any momentum.
Didn't mean to soapbox,
--------------------
The only person dumber than the village idiot is the person who argues with him!
Posts: 669 | From: Pierre SD | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted June 10, 2009 08:35 AM
Good soapbox, Randy. Thanks for the input.
I especially want to agree on your point that the state and national trapping groups don't promote trapping to the hunting groups in the sense that trapping can and is a very important part of managing other forms of game. Like I said, no one ever asked for help with too many pheasants.
The times are changing. When I got my degree in wildlife management, there was still some semblance of emphasis on wildlife management. Today's managers are people managers, and they'll admit that to you up front. The resource is secondary, and therein lies the biggest part of the problem.No one is willing to make the tough decisions that put the resources first and which would require them to educate the public as to why they need to do certain things.
I guess that I should clarify what I mean by "public ground". Kansas doesn't have BLM or Forestry ground. I had the opportunity to finally make this point on the radio. In my initial appearance on this subject - an hour-long program - although I was being baited by the liberal host who was trying to get me to say something she could corner me on, she didn't use the term "public hunting ground" very much, if at all. A week later, during another program where they allow callers to call in and discuss anything covered in the week prior's programs, my name came up, I called in and, in that discussion, was able to bait the lib into returning that term back to me. I saw an opening and I took it by explaining that in my opinion - an opinion shared by a growing number of sportsmen - the term "public hunting ground" is a misnomer since the "public" didn't pay to acquire the ground, nor do they pay to manage the ground.
The lib was a bit shocked about this and she asked the questions I wanted her to ask. I informed her, as well as about 200,000 listeners, that in Kansas, public hunting grounds are acquired using money derived from hunting/ fishing/ trapping licenses and that dog walkers/ bird watchers/ dead beats have - for all intents ands purposes - no claim to taking part in the creation and management of that property, thus making us wonder why their opinions are even being considered. She then went on to state that because tax money is used for other areas of the agency's management, that people like her DO have a say. I then advised her that wildlife and fisheries management operations are funded by user fees and excise taxes from the P-R and D-J funds going back as far as 1937 and 1951, respectively, and that, in fact, NO general fund tax dollars are appropriated for KDW&P, except for the park funds and that state parks and PHG's are different in every way. I then reiterated that people like her continue to claim that they helped build it and that they have a right to use it, too, when in fact, they did NOT and, in our opinion, DO NOT.
To clarify, I have heard of only one trapper in Kansas who traps exclusively on public ground, and that's just outside Kansas City. Every other trapper I know traps private ground, except for that 15-day period when we - trappers - have answered KDW&P's request for the past 10 years - and move onto public ground to blitz those areas for coyotes, bobcats, and more importantly, coons, skunks and possums.
The timing of this effort has been critical to the success of other user groups. Being right on the cusp of nesting season, trappers have successfully reduced the numbers of ground nesting predators just as those birds are getting ready to get busy. The result has been a higher survival rate for pheasants, quail and turkey, as well as fawns, which translates into a better quality experience for hunters, which in turn, means increased license sales, and revenues for the agency.
Again, what we've always asked for, and what I think is more than likely to be highly effective at reducing this problem, is for KDWP to do two things.
First, include a paragraph in the hunting regs pamphlet that goes out across the state each year which states, in bold print, that during the February 1-15 period, trapping activities may be increased and accelerated on public hunting grounds as a means of controlling predatory species which reduce the numbers of other game species. And, that the user should exercise due caution when traversing these areas. We have also asked that they prohibit dogs in these areas during this time.
Second, we have asked that they post signs at all park points - even if nothing more than a printed sign on a bulletin board - advising users of the same information posted above.
The trappers will take care of discouraging ourselves and one another from trapping these areas during the bird seasons, although I wouldn't be opposed to creating a special trapping season for PHG for that 15-day period and not allowing trapping during the regular bird seasons.
I think that this is a compromise that could work for all involved.
KDWP has been pretty tight lipped on what they plan to do, but the responses I got back from Commissioners indicated that, at that point, they were going to side with trappers. We are hopeful, but I hold no delusions that things could just as easily go the other way.
[ June 10, 2009, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Cdog911 ]
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5440 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
nd coyote killer
HUNTMASTER PRO STAFF
Member # 40
|
posted June 10, 2009 10:12 AM
Signs posted at the corners of the pastures and park points would solve a lot. This would at least give the trappers more credibility in the argument when there was train wrecks like this. Showing that the dog owners didn't take any responsebility for themselves with the warning signs up.
This is however bad for all trapping and has happened before.
I'm like Cal with bad devices for dogs i don't set ANY M-44's on public ground or where there MIGHT be a problem with a dog from the public, but snares i haven't seen a dog that fought one hard enough to get it locked down.
I haven't used bucket sets much but i know they are effective. I would hate to see trappers lose them.
--------------------
"Sure are cocky for a starving pilgrim" - Bear Claw
Posts: 385 | From: On a hill | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tim Behle
Administrator MacNeal Sector
Member # 209
|
posted June 10, 2009 10:54 PM
JRB,
I've seen it. More than just a couple of times. A 220 with or with out a recess in a bucket, is the perfect size for a beagle. Anything that will attract a coon, will attract a Beagle.
--------------------
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take
an ass kickin'.
Posts: 3160 | From: Five Miles East of Vic, AZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Craig
Lacks Opposable Thumbs/what's up with that?
Member # 12
|
posted June 11, 2009 10:49 AM
The 220 conibear is a wonderful land trap for coon, fisher,otter, and bobcats on dry land. Been using them for over 30 years. In that time, i have killed 1 dog(a poodle) with them. A mile away from any house too!
Saying the problem is the trap on dry land, is like saying the gun is the problem when a person gets killed!
It is the lack of knowledge about how and where to use this great tool. No 160,220,280,or 330 should NEVER be used in a bucket with bait, for crying out loud. EXCEPT if used on a leaning pole breast high off the ground would be an exception.
When used in a good coon trail, set blind, WITHOUT BAIT, a dog will simply jump over them.
If, for some reason a beagle gets whacked, then it is simply an accident at that point. Most of the time, the trapper has PERMISSION to be there on that particular farm in the first place.
Most dog men I know always asks if a trapper is working the area, and will go somewhere else until the trapper is done.
In all the years i have been a trapper, it has always been OTHER TRAPPERS or HUNTERS, that has caused me to loose trapping privledges, and not so much anti's. Mostly due to a lack of understanding or ignorance about the traps and trapping, and the how's and wherefores about the tools used, on both sides of the cause.
Many of the comments on this thread are bearing this out.
Very good post Randy Roede!
[ June 11, 2009, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Steve Craig ]
--------------------
Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction. - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 442 | From: Cottonwood,Az, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted June 11, 2009 05:57 PM
quote:
Most dog men I know always asks if a trapper is working the area, and will go somewhere else until the trapper is done.
As is the case with me. And, in this instance, the gentlemen whose dog was killed publicly admitted on an episode of the same radio program I appeared on that he looked at the state's website, acknwledged that trapping season was still going on, and even looked at pictures of conibears in case he would come across one. He then admitted that he felt the risks were acceptable, yet when things went into the crapper, he used his position as the Assistant Police Chief of a major Kansas community as his bully pulpit with the regional news media to further his agenda.
I should note that the state has looked at this incident in terms of user hours for both hunters and trappers and has determined that when you look at the number of dogs and hunters that frequent these areas each year and compare this with the number of incidents that have resulted in the death of dogs on public hunting ground (1 in 10 years) and, at one point, had determined that the risks were acceptable when weighed against the benefit of trapping on those hunting areas. I hope they maintain that sense of rationalism on the 25th.
Now, for the really important question. Everyone who has commented has offered up great input and all of it is valid. But,...
What would you do?
These traps are legal on public hunting grounds.
These traps have been used extensively for the past decade with only one documented instance of a dog being caught and killed.
KDWP requested that trappers help them to control and reduce predator populations and the evidence to date has been that the effort has been very successful.
Therefore, do you, as a trapper, do nothing and essentially give away a right to trap, actively and publicly take the position that these traps have no place on public hunting rounds, or fight for their use as long as they're legal, and be prepared to seek a compromise agreement in the event that things go south? Let's say that the decision rests with you and Kansas trappers are looking to you for a solution.
What would you do?
[ June 11, 2009, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Cdog911 ]
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5440 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Craig
Lacks Opposable Thumbs/what's up with that?
Member # 12
|
posted June 11, 2009 06:34 PM
"These traps have been used extensively for the past decade with only one documented instance of a dog being caught and killed."
"What would you do?"
You just answered your own question! And this is what I do and continue to do not only here but elsewhere as well. These are the facts. Use them and FWIW fight for them!
Compromise is a last resort and should never be used in negotiations.
Compromise is why we are in the messes we are in right now.
Call the FTA, the NTA, The USSA, and seek help.
The USSA will always FIGHT for trappers and hunters, and have a long track record for doing so.
[ June 11, 2009, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Steve Craig ]
--------------------
Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction. - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 442 | From: Cottonwood,Az, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
nd coyote killer
HUNTMASTER PRO STAFF
Member # 40
|
posted June 11, 2009 08:39 PM
Fight for them to be kept. They have rules on the traps if the traps are being used properly and LEGALLY then fight tooth and nail to keep them!
As was already stated it's fairly easy to train a dog to stay away from prepared baits ( mouse or rat traps, letting them get caught in foot holds until they learn ect) If i was running bird dogs i would do the same as i have with my Curs on trap baits. I would definetly rather have my bird dogs encountering baited sets instead of blind sets. My older dog is getting real good at staying out of snares but still gets caught her fair share.
--------------------
"Sure are cocky for a starving pilgrim" - Bear Claw
Posts: 385 | From: On a hill | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted June 12, 2009 04:50 PM
Steve,
I knew what I plan to do. I was just asking what everyone else would do. Yeah, it's not such a good idea to put them out where someone may get a dog caught in them. But, they're legal, and as along as they are, I'll do what I need to do to keep them that way. I agree that compromise is a last resort, and any compromise proposal won't be put on the table until it appears that maintaining current regs has been exhausted. Nevertheless, I feel it wise to go into this meeting with an acceptable and defensible compromise proposal in mind. Just in case. One would be foolish to go there with only an all-or-none mentality and have them say that they don't really like the way things are now, that they would like to see some changes, then ask you what you think might work out and keep all sides happy, and then it become obvious that you didn't come prepared to take the discussion in that direction. Be prepared.
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5440 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted June 12, 2009 06:29 PM
Yeah, but.
The other side never loses anything, concessions are always given by the trapping and hunting interests. When was the last time trappers won a concession from the anti's? More trapping, more areas, longer seasons, less regulation?
That's the problem with these assholes, they never make concessions, they never suffer any loss. It's always a win, win situation. Trapping interests seem to always be on the defensive. Wonder why?
One word. Appeasement.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if one time, those that are involved with animal control issues told the bunny huggers to butt out? Well, they don't. And that's why they keep coming back for more, because they always win something while trapping and hunting always conceed some ground, to make them happy. It will never make them happy until trapping and hunting are maginalized into oblivion.
Good hunting. LB
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 32361 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted June 12, 2009 08:00 PM
Correct, Leonard, and this is because state and federal wildlife agencies have taken a people management approach, rather than managing wildlife for the benefit of the resource.
When this issue first went public - I was advised of it the day after it happened and waited to see just how it would devolve - I caught the online discussion thread on the paper's website and decided that I was tired of sitting on my hands. I tackled the freaks head on and took their argument apart piece by piece in a public forum lasting over 20 pages long. Thanks to Jason Bruce for joining in. Between the two of us, we summarily marginalized every argument they trotted out (same old 30-year old bullshit). When the dust cleared, several non-trappers, and even a couple anti-trappers commented that our rational, information/ fact-based approach to the issue had taught them things that they never knew before, that they may not agree with trapping but that they (then) better understood the need for it, and several of those same people told the originator of the thread - an anti-trapper - that she had been OWNED from the time we entered the fray. It was a damned good feeling to not sit back and wait for the matter to die, but rather, jumping on it and killing it ourselves. We had a choice - let the lies and mistruths stand for public consumption, or take a stand and set the tone of the debate. We did, and we won.
It can be done.
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5440 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
