Minnesota...

[Dcoy]

Hopefully my final comments on this since the law in question is none of my business.Here in Sodak I think we'll work it out as well.
As to Nodak,I doubt the issue will ever come up unless it involves 'urbanized' areas and trappers fail to regulate themselves.People and congestion/urbanization cause these problems and few places in Nodak face this.
Wherever it comes up,IMO trappers will eventually have to compromise if they don't self regulate.There are NO absolute rights.Even Federal and State constitutional rights give way for 'public safety','general welfare' and other vague constitutional arguments.The second amendment doesn't protect your 'right' to own fully auto weapons,to 'carry' anywhere/anytime you want or a host of other things.
The NoDak constitutional right to 'trap' doesn't mean you can use whatever you want,can trap dogs,wolves,people,whatever.LIFE is TOTALLY regulated,right or wrong,by the general public.UNDENIABLE,UNCHANGEABLE fact.Live with it and if smart finesse it.
Some time ago I saw a Twin Cities news cast where a dog was killed by a bucket trap set near a walking path(commonly people walking dogs there as well)in some sort of 'Reserve' or something.Apparently it was legally there.When you have a trapper that stupid to put a trap there,what would one expect?Ditto with ignorant newbies here putting 220s in culverts 200 yds from farm houses.Stupidity breeds stupid laws.

[Tim Anderson]

Are you saying my dog has no business on public hunting land?

If the dog is being supervised or in other words out hunting with its owner you both have the right to be on public land and private if you have permission, same canbe said for a lic. trapper.... If its just your dog out running around then its a dead dog walking..

[cb186]

Are you saying my dog has no business on public hunting land?

If the dog is being supervised or in other words out hunting with its owner you both have the right to be on public land and private if you have permission, same canbe said for a lic. trapper.... If its just your dog out running around then its a dead dog walking..

Of course.

[barebackjack]

Are you saying my dog has no business on public hunting land?

Absolutely not.

But you are apparently eluding to the idea that trappers have no business there. And as such, your activity has more precedence than anothers.

[barebackjack]

Regulate yourselves if you can-if not,know full well others will.

Ahhh, so trappers are the only ones that are to give anything up?

I see.

Trappers need more regulation while everyone else remains unscathed? Is this how this works?

[barebackjack]

Your rights end when what you are doing infringes on my rights.

Do you even see the hypocrisy here?

Lets break down what you said.

"Your rights end when what you are doing infringes on my rights". In your statement, "your rights" would be trapping, and "my rights" would be hunting with a dog.

Lets swap it around and call "your rights" hunting with a dog and "my rights" to be trapping. So....."Your rights end when what you are doing infringes on my rights". Get it?

Wouldnt scared dog owners further regulating trapping (by taking away trapping tools and/or lands) fall fully under that statement? Dog owners regulating or banning trapping in favor of their own activity, one "right" (hunting with dogs) infringing on another "right" (trapping).

Please tell me you see the hypocrisy here!

[barebackjack]

BBJ,
We've moved beyond punji pits and spring guns.If you can't trap without killing dogs and unintended targets give it up.

Whats your point?
We've also moved past brown cotton duck or red and black plaid wool hunting duds in lew of blaze orange from head to toe, and yet, every year, people accidentally shoot others out hunting.

Accidents happen NO MATTER WHAT precautions we take.

Im not against efforts to keep non-targets safe. But banning the use of 220s on land completely (which is what the MN bill would do) is not reasonable at all. Would you call regulation that will affect well over 6,000 MN trappers and completely eliminate a trapping tool reasonable? All because half a dozen dogs accidentally died?????




Id seriously like to know how many dogs were accidentally shot by their own owners in MN last year. (Didnt hear, did Ed Schultz go home to hunt a few weekends, he outta be good for three or four!) We need to ban those darn bird hunters!

[Dcoy]

BBJ,
I don't doubt you don't see the point.Not for a second,more or less a minute.Thats the problem in a nutshell.

[barebackjack]

BBJ,
I don't doubt you don't see the point.Not for a second,more or less a minute.Thats the problem in a nutshell.

By that logic (your original statement about punjis and spring guns) we should ban hunting too because someone is going to accidentally kill something or someone they dont intend to.

But we dont outright and completely ban, we enact REASONABLE regulations and we accept the risks associated with those activities. And try as we may, there is and always will be associated risks with some activities. Hunting being one of them.

The MN 220 ban is not a REASONABLE regulation. It is no different than if someone was to say "hey, someone or something got shot accidentally with a gun while hunting last year, so we're gonna pass a bill to ban hunting with a gun in MN". Absolutely no different.






"Six dogs were reported killed in traps last year in MN and it is believed that up to 25 MAY have been killed in the last two years." (bold added by me)

This statement by and large tells me that dogs in 220s, by and large is a non-issue. 25 MAY have died in the last two years, compare this number to the overall number of sporting dogs that went afield last year, and the number that accidentally died by other means, and I think it would put what this trapping ban really is into perspective. And quite frankly, it concerns me to see other sportsmen jumping on the band wagon with it. The non-issue "dog threat" is just the means to an end. Get the heart strings a plucking by conjuring up images of fido's all over the state locked in a death struggle with a "mean barbaric trap". And the end in question, is the end of trapping as a whole.

Today its 220s on land.
Tomorrow its snares and all kill traps.
Next week its no foothold traps with greater than X" jaw spread.

Before you know it, you end up like the cage states of Colorado or Kalifornia where all they're allowed are cage traps (good luck catching coyotes).

[barebackjack]

Dcoy,

Would you say the MN bill, which would effectively ban 220 conibears for dry land use unless placed at least five feet off the ground or in four inches or more of water is a reasonable form of regulation that the trappers of MN should embrace (or as you said, "self regulate" themselves with)?

[barebackjack]

And of course, the TRUE anti's are ALL OVER this one.

“For every target animal trapped at least two non-target animals are brutally captured."

[Prairie Ghost]

Touchy subject around here i guess. I won't tell either of the states or the residents on how to vote because i don't live there or trap there. However if I had a $2-3000 dollar phesant dog or coon dog i would TRAIN them.

My work dogs are trained to find M-44 killed coyotes with live M-44's in the area. My dogs are around lots and lots of foothold sets a year, and my dogs run around more trail snares than is worth saying and if they are a year old they have NO i repeat NO problems getting caught or pulling an M-44 or getting caught in a snare or foothold. I start with mouse traps with bait and work up to rat traps and then various trap scents on a bush with a beep on the caller after that i take them out to "dummy" trap sets. If you are truly aware that you are on PUBLIC ground and your dog might be exposed to someone trapping in the area than train them to aviod the traps. They are family right? You would teach you kid to stay away from drugs?

I train my dogs not to chase and kill antelope or mule deer becasue when on the trail they jump them but if a big game hunter seen my dog "chasing" a deer they would shoot them on site and i "know" this so i train them accordinginly

Put as much time into your bird dog as you would on your kid and you will have no problems. Skimp on it and be ready to bury the dog wheter it's in a coniber or the neighbor rancher shooting it for chasing wildife or livestock your choice

[Dcoy]

Guys,
Lifes to short to argue about ridiculous shit-at least at my age.Keep killing dogs and see what happens I guess.
Sad damn deal but it is what it is.And of course the anti's are all over it.So keep on spoon feeding em.Brilliant.
Good hunting.

[cb186]

Are you saying my dog has no business on public hunting land?

Absolutely not.

But you are apparently eluding to the idea that trappers have no business there. And as such, your activity has more precedence than anothers.

No, what I'm saying it is the reponsibility of the trapper not to catch non-targeted game, especially dogs.

[cb186]

Your rights end when what you are doing infringes on my rights.

Do you even see the hypocrisy here?

Lets break down what you said.

"Your rights end when what you are doing infringes on my rights". In your statement, "your rights" would be trapping, and "my rights" would be hunting with a dog.

Lets swap it around and call "your rights" hunting with a dog and "my rights" to be trapping. So....."Your rights end when what you are doing infringes on my rights". Get it?

Wouldnt scared dog owners further regulating trapping (by taking away trapping tools and/or lands) fall fully under that statement? Dog owners regulating or banning trapping in favor of their own activity, one "right" (hunting with dogs) infringing on another "right" (trapping).

Please tell me you see the hypocrisy here!

Our rights to use that land does not extend to you killing my dog any more than it does to allow me to steal or destory your traps that I find on the same land. Again, I never said anything about trappers not being able to use public land. What I said was that if your activites on that land end in the death/harm of my hunting dog because you use traps capable of killing non-targeted game, then we have an issue.