# Sticky  MN dog owners please sign this petition *Mar 20/2016*



## fishhead

After Penni was killed in a body grip trap baited with beaver meat last month I decided to put a stop to the killing. I should have kept fighting for the change 20 years ago when I saw my first bucket set. If I had Penni would be sleeping next to me now dreaming of chasing grouse.

Nine days after Penni was killed a hunter lost his setter named Sue to another body grip trap. He reached her within seconds but she was already dying.

Here's the story in our local paper about Penni and Sue.

http://brainerddispatch.com/outdoors/2011-12-30/traps-can-pose-threat-hunting-dogs

Trappers (I was one) don't have to set these dog killers on the ground where they are killing dogs. They can be set off the ground on poles like is done in other states or we can use footholds. 

I've started a petition to get the law changed. Trappers should not be able to legally kill our dogs in body grips set on the ground. I know of 5 that have been killed and that's without even looking reports.

Here's the petition. Please sign it and send it to everyone who loves dogs in MN. We need to stop the killing.

http://signon.org/sign/safe-public-lands?source=c.em.mt&r_by=1905165


----------



## Minelson

I'm not in MN but my sister is...I'll forward it to her to sign!


----------



## fishhead

Thank you!


----------



## tinknal

Fishhead, I would prefer to see the petition apply only too the larger traps. The way your petition reads it could be construed to include water sets for rats and mink.


----------



## fishhead

That's only the petition. 

The bill won't address using body grips in water sets. They are legal now and that's the way it should stay.

The intent is only to get the dog killers off the ground onto pole sets or into the water.


----------



## jen74145

I'm nowhere near MN, but I am sorry about your dog. What an awful way to find your buddy.


----------



## fishhead

jen74145 said:


> I'm nowhere near MN, but I am sorry about your dog. What an awful way to find your buddy.


Yes it was. I knew she'd been killed before I even started looking for her and it took me 1/2 hour to find her so I had lots of time to dread it.


----------



## Ross

Would you like this made a stickie thread for a while?


----------



## SageLady

I'm not in MN either, but just wanted to say how sorry I am for what happened to your dog. How terrible...you have my deepest sympathies.


----------



## farmerj

if your dog is where a trapper is setting traps, I would say you don't have control of your animal.

and I know that most of even rural areas in Mn have some sort of leash laws.

Just one of the typical COUNTY pet ordinances in the state.


> No pet shall be permitted to run at large within the area of application of this Ordinance at any time.


I am trying to learn how to snare/trap as well as our families own dogs. It ----es me off to no end that people blame others for failing to control their own animal.

Sorry for the loss of your pet. But look in the mirror for your blame. Not to the trapper.


----------



## fishhead

Ross said:


> Would you like this made a stickie thread for a while?


Yes. Please do.


----------



## fishhead

farmerj said:


> if your dog is where a trapper is setting traps, I would say you don't have control of your animal.
> 
> and I know that most of even rural areas in Mn have some sort of leash laws.
> 
> Just one of the typical COUNTY pet ordinances in the state.
> 
> 
> I am trying to learn how to snare/trap as well as our families own dogs. It ----es me off to no end that people blame others for failing to control their own animal.
> 
> Sorry for the loss of your pet. But look in the mirror for your blame. Not to the trapper.


I think you will fit right in with some of our trappers with that attitude. That is why trapping will probably be illegal in the future.

FYI on MN county and state land dogs do NOT need to be leashed because we hunt in this state. It's also legal to let your dog run while you enjoy a walk on the public land.


----------



## farmerj

I did read the news story AND the 61 comments to it.

By your own admission it took you over 1/2 hour to find your dog. THAT is not having control of it.

I have had to put down enough animals as a result of hunting/trapping accidents. To include my cousins pet of 12 years who had his muzzle blown off in his hands by his brother.

I don't blame the hunter or the traps.


----------



## SunsetSonata

There's no excuse for conibears to pose an unneccesary risk to bird dogs which are also legal on public property. Some of these trappers are using target birds as bait, too. No way is it the fault of bird dog hunters. Bird dog hunters are not planting unmarked death traps that do not discriminate in areas where bird dogs work.


----------



## Shygal

farmerj said:


> if your dog is where a trapper is setting traps, I would say you don't have control of your animal.
> 
> and I know that most of even rural areas in Mn have some sort of leash laws.
> 
> Just one of the typical COUNTY pet ordinances in the state.
> 
> 
> I am trying to learn how to snare/trap as well as our families own dogs. It ----es me off to no end that people blame others for failing to control their own animal.
> 
> Sorry for the loss of your pet. But look in the mirror for your blame. Not to the trapper.



Suppose a small child stepped in it? "Sorry for the loss of your kid, but look in the mirror for your blame". Do you ever have ANYTHING nice to say? yeesh! :grump:


----------



## 6e

They're legal in Kansas too and there has been instances of dogs being killed in conibear traps. They're mostly used for predator type animals like coyotes and bobcats. I don't know if you'll succeed in getting a law passed about them, but I can understand. I'd never forgive myself if one of my dogs was caught in one. Until then, probably best if people don't take their dogs hunting on public land, but stay on private land where no one is allowed to trap during trapping season. There was a story here not too long ago in Salina, Ks of someone's Beagle that got into one of those traps and the guy knew how to get the trap off, but couldn't get it off fast enough before it killed her. Sad, sad story as he watched her die and just couldn't get her out in time. Seems leg traps would be better.


----------



## 6e

Shygal said:


> Suppose a small child stepped in it? "Sorry for the loss of your kid, but look in the mirror for your blame". Do you ever have ANYTHING nice to say? yeesh! :grump:


I would hope most children aren't running at large on public hunting grounds especially during hunting season and on a person, it would catch your leg, not your head.


----------



## fishhead

It's not an accident when a trapper places a killer trap on public land and baits it with meat. It's reckless behavior and nothing less. Feel free to support it if you want but you aren't doing trapping any favors.

The trapper who killed Penni said he prefers to use grouse parts when he can get them. He uses them as bait in killer traps set on the ground on public land during grouse season when hunters and their grouse dogs are after grouse.

The man who lost Sue to a killer trap baited with beaver on a WMA reached her within seconds and watched her die.

Penni died about 50' from my car while I was about 100 yards away.

We will change the law to allow trappers to continue to trap without killing our dogs and people to hunt and walk their dogs on public land. Trappers like fj are making our job easier because rational people are outraged that it is legal for trappers to act in such a reckless manner.


----------



## 6e

fishhead said:


> It's not an accident when a trapper places a killer trap on public land and baits it with meat. It's reckless behavior and nothing less. Feel free to support it if you want but you aren't doing trapping any favors.
> 
> The trapper who killed Penni said he prefers to use grouse parts when he can get them. He uses them as bait in killer traps set on the ground on public land during grouse season when hunters and their grouse dogs are after grouse.
> 
> The man who lost Sue to a killer trap baited with beaver on a WMA reached her within seconds and watched her die.
> 
> Penni died about 50' from my car while I was about 100 yards away.
> 
> We will change the law to allow trappers to continue to trap without killing our dogs and people to hunt and walk their dogs on public land. Trappers like fj are making our job easier because rational people are outraged that it is legal for trappers to act in such a reckless manner.


I hope you can get a law to at least get them up off the ground. I am sorry about your dog and I do understand had it happened to my dog.  I would think it would matter to the trappers as you don't want to be catching non-target animals, so trapping domestic animals is not in the trappers favor either.


----------



## Shygal

6e said:


> I would hope most children aren't running at large on public hunting grounds especially during hunting season and on a person, it would catch your leg, not your head.


It was a rhetorical question. 

Even the DNR says it is not the dog owners fault. Both have a right to be on the land doing what they are doing. They both have to make sure they are using the land in a safe manner. It seems the trappers COULD make it safer for the others to be there.


----------



## JasoninMN

farmerj said:


> if your dog is where a trapper is setting traps, I would say you don't have control of your animal.
> 
> and I know that most of even rural areas in Mn have some sort of leash laws.
> 
> Just one of the typical COUNTY pet ordinances in the state.
> 
> I am trying to learn how to snare/trap as well as our families own dogs. It ----es me off to no end that people blame others for failing to control their own animal.
> 
> Sorry for the loss of your pet. But look in the mirror for your blame. Not to the trapper.


I love this mentality. Here is a reality check for you. Public land belongs to all Minnesotans not just trappers. The trapper community is rather small and I get tired of the argument that rights are being taken away when nobody here is trying to end the sport. Do you ever think of other peoples rights? There are far more people in MN that enjoy hiking, birdwatching, grouse hunting, running hounds, etc then their are trappers so don't forget they have rights too. Everyone should be able to enjoy public land with out the fear of losing a pet animal or even a human getting hurt. To say that if your walking a trail and a trapper was their first you shouldn't be on it is ridiculous, especially when most trappers place their traps with in 20 feet of a road or trail so they can check them from their vehicles. There are not leash laws in most counties so you may want to get your facts straight and even where there are most state a dog can be off leash as long as its in the verbal control of its owner. Then to say a dogs not under control because its not on a leash is ridiculous, my bird dog is always under verbal control but we aren't hunting in a field so you do lose visibility for a minute or two. Comparing that to a dog running at large is hardly the same thing and especially on public land where I have the right to hunt with my dog.


----------



## thaiblue12

farmerj said:


> I did read the news story AND the 61 comments to it.
> 
> By your own admission it took you over 1/2 hour to find your dog. THAT is not having control of it.
> 
> I have had to put down enough animals as a result of hunting/trapping accidents. To include my cousins pet of 12 years who had his muzzle blown off in his hands by his brother.
> 
> I don't blame the hunter or the traps.


I read all the comments as well including the ones the man who claimed he has killed over 3,000 in one season. Nice guy, and if true I doubt that is what they mean by population control. 

Anyway a few points I would like to make:
-If no one is saying they cannot use the traps what is the big huge deal about putting them up a pole? There really is none except lazy people who do not want to do the extra effort to be safer on public lands. 

-His dog was hunting with him, not some housepet running wild through the forest. She is was a member of his family but she was also a working dog. 
If your dog is out flushing birds I would like to see you find it quicker, and even if you had, I doubt the dog would have made it anyway. 

-Never once has Fishhead said here or in the news article that he wants to ban traps or stop trapping. All he wants to do is have the rotten things up a pole. I also doubt the guys who say they never killed a dog, cat etc in their traps are being totally honest, I bet if they find them there they would toss them in the woods and say nothing. 

-If you happen to be cavalier about the death of your animals it does not mean everyone else feels the same way as you do. His dog was important to him so cut him some slack.


----------



## farmerj

Shygal said:


> Suppose a small child stepped in it? "Sorry for the loss of your kid, but look in the mirror for your blame". Do you ever have ANYTHING nice to say? yeesh! :grump:


Because there is such a thing as personal responsibilty.

We have enough laws to already deal with. It's a an education issue, not needing another law.


----------



## farmerj

Reality check?

Traps are designed to do one thing.



Kill.

Do I want to see a family pet killed, hell no.

But an animal 100 yards from its owner is hardly under verbal control either.

As to being cavalier. Right. It hit all of us hard enough we put the guns away for a long time


----------



## Otter

farmerj said:


> Reality check?
> But an animal 100 yards from its owner is hardly under verbal control either


A trained bird dog most certainly IS under verbal control of it's owner at that distance.The _entire purpose_ of having a bird dog is for the dog to go out a distance from it's owner, into brush and cover a human can't crawl through, and flush out birds.

To say that obviously fishhead was at fault because it took him a half hour to find a small, still, brown body is not only cruel, but unrealistic. If it took him a half hour to find a dog in a leghold, that could yelp or move, might, MIGHT, have meant that the dog was too far from him in the first place, but in any kind of cover at all, how can you think he'd be able to just magic up his poor springer's little corpse?

NOT THAT IT WOULD HAVE MATTERED. The pointer, Sue's owner was at her side within seconds and could only watch her die.

Fishhead is not trying to ban trapping, he is trying to SAVE trapping AND dogs. Just like the cruel, barbed leghold traps of the past were banned in favor of the more humane legholds of today, he wants the killer traps where they can't kill non-target animals. Because irresponsible trappers have killed too many dogs (and one is too many) and are looking to get trapping banned for _everyone_. Birddoggers and beaglers and coonhunters outnumber trappers, and people who go out to state land for the sole purpose of letting their pets off leash outnumber even those who hunt with dogs. *None* of them care about your right to trap as they hold the still warm body of one they loved, who'd still be alive if you had taken a simple precaution of setting a trap off the ground.

If YOU want to save trapping, you'll realize that you are in the minority, a minority who is currently destroying other people's right to the use of public land. Yes, you have the right to trap, but they have the right to have their dogs on state land. 
As my Dad used to say, "Your right to swing your fist ends an inch before the other fellow's nose begins." You can rail about how you have the right to keep swinging and everyone else just needs to duck, (I don't think you'll win that fight) or you can trap in a way that doesn't destroy other people's pets, property, or use of public land.

Or you can go on callously blaming others and destroy any sympathy that anyone might have for trappers. Yes, I'm sure _that_ will work to save your right to trap. You should keep doing that.


----------



## Shygal

farmerj said:


> Because there is such a thing as personal responsibilty.
> 
> We have enough laws to already deal with. It's a an education issue, not needing another law.


Yes, and the trappers have the responsibility to set their traps in a safe manner. These are not. 

The dogs have a right to be there. The trappers know that setting them in that manner, can kill dogs. Therefore it is their responsibility to set their traps safely.


----------



## fishhead

I finally got the stats from the DNR. This year puppy died in Albert Lea and another dog was killed in this area and the DNR staff that I've been contacting said he has no idea how many dogs die each year. Their stats don't even report Sue and she was in the newspaper. The puppy died in a culvert so that meant it was caught in a killer trap even smaller than the one that killed Penni.

As others have pointed out this is NOT about banning trapping or even about banning killer traps. It's simply requiring those deadly traps be placed where they cannot kill more dogs just like at least 18 other states require. We have safe options that are as good or better so there really isn't any justification to continue killing our dogs. There never was in the first place.


----------



## jen74145

Otter ITA.
And I would think an injured kid woould lead to stiff legal penalties/jail time for negligence. For that alone I would think trappers on public land would be more careful.

I'ge lost a dog in a violent way and doubt I will forget that sight. Fish, take care of yourself too, okay?

Farmrj, if you oppose, then I suggest a counter petition rather than attempting to increase the pain of another.


----------



## farmerj

Otter said:


> Or you can go on callously blaming others and destroy any sympathy that anyone might have for trappers. Yes, I'm sure _that_ will work to save your right to trap. You should keep doing that.



OR you can say enough with the foolish laws and making MORE of them and start advocating education instead.

If there is a better way to do it, then present it to the state trapping association so that they can get the word out to their members.

Just what we need. MORE game laws that make an already complicated situation MORE complicated.

Seems to be contrary to the very premise that people are here.

The supposed frustration of having TOO MUCH government in our lives.


----------



## fishhead

Tell me how you would educate a bird hunter? I'd like to know how you would educate him to keep his dog out of a killer trap hidden in the brush and baited with grouse?


----------



## Pops2

farmerj said:


> OR you can say enough with the foolish laws and making MORE of them and start advocating education instead.
> 
> If there is a better way to do it, then present it to the state trapping association so that they can get the word out to their members.
> 
> Just what we need. MORE game laws that make an already complicated situation MORE complicated.
> 
> Seems to be contrary to the very premise that people are here.
> 
> The supposed frustration of having TOO MUCH government in our lives.


most laws come about because a small percentage of people are too selfish, irresponsible or just plain stupid to do the right thing to NOT harm or infringe on the rights of other people.
your standard of "control" would ban ALL use of dogs to hunt, INCLUDING retrievers picking up ducks.
i respect your right to trap & have done a bit myself. I have & will continue to argue the value of it to deer shooters & petaphiles. I will fight & vote to keep trapping as a viable tool for wildlife management.
HOWEVER your right to trap does NOT trump my right to take a dog to the woods to chase a rabbit, ****, cat, fox, coyote, deer (where legal), hog or bear.
if your connibear is 5 ft off the ground the chances of one of these dogs getting killed is next to zero. how much does it reduce your catch by 10%, 30%, 50%? DO YOU EVEN KNOW? how much does it increase your man hours in the woods? DO YOU KNOW? you can offset that by putting out more steel, learning to make a better foothold set, finding a better call lure to draw your critter up the pole & into the set or ALL OF THE ABOVE.
YOUR unwillingness to ACCEPT MY RIGHTS (very much like most deer shooters i've met) is what is putting trapping at risk PERIOD.
trappers can either allies w/ doggers or they can be enemies. if they're allies their combined numbers can help protect both activities. if they're enemies they'll both go down eventually in the face of an increasingly urban electorate. but trapping will likely go first & they'll both go much faster.


----------



## akane

Maybe trappers should be educated to put their traps in ways that are unlikely to catch dogs. Then we wouldn't need a law.

100 yards is not far. Dogs stay under verbal command farther than that unless there's a bad wind. My arena fence is double 100' and I have no problems telling my akita what to do while I'm riding at the other end. The dog park yard is probably 250-300' and we still have no trouble. If she were quietly laying in the corner though and somehow died instantly it might take me 30mins or more to walk the entire fence line to find her and that's not a wooded area. Many more dogs stay under command by whistle or shock collar (I've relied on just the beeper on a 100 yard range collar) when hunting at 200-300'. I've also seen falconers employ dogs with gps on dog and falcon to hunt and cover a quarter mile with the ability to call the animal back still. Far too rich of technology for my blood there but interesting stories.

Then there are dogs being reported as dead much closer to their owners and within seconds. Is a bird dog to be taught not to check out a bird smell in a trap that is probably disguised? You are concentrating on this one incident in this one thread that has minimal chance of proving negligence when so far many more cases that you can't prove the dog was not under visual and verbal control have been brought up. All so a trapper doesn't have to expend a little more effort. Not even to keep them from trapping but a little responsibility and care. Where is the trappers education, responsibility, lack of negligence...? I would think rule 1 of setting a lethal trap would be to make sure it is a safe location to trap, every precaution to prevent harm to nontarget species has been taken, and then take responsibility for what happens with your trap. That is my rule when I have to resort to rodent poison or pull out a gun and when we had people trapping raccoons nearby they would inform us every night they were putting out traps or sitting with guns so we could collect all the animals up close. 

Despite all that even if someone else does not take responsibility for their actions when they are wrong you still take responsibility for yours.


----------



## JasoninMN

What makes a lot of these traps even more dangerous is the placement. They are placed along rural roads,entrances to wma, boat landings, logging roads, etc the places numerous people hunt and recreate. The closer to the road a trap is, the easier to check, especially if you don't have to get out of your vehicle. That is the way the majority of its done here on the "range", too lazy to get 30 feet of the road. The DNR does not keep valid records of dogs being trapped because they are not required too. I am not sure if the puppy killed in Albert Lea is the same puppy I read about previously, but someone placed a 220 conibear in a culvert. The owners walked out to the end of their drive way and the puppy was killed in front of them.


----------



## fishhead

I got some info from [email protected] but it didn't specify the size of the killer trap or if was an illegal size or if the trapper complied with the written permission they needed to set a killer trap larger than 6 1/2"

We are gaining steam and I've asked everyone especially responsible trappers to send an email to [email protected] saying they support changing the regs to require body grips to be set over 5' or underwater. I'm also asking that they copy their legislators and Governor Dayton.

Here's the latest article in our newspaper.

http://brainerddispatch.com/outdoors/2012-01-13/trapping-and-dogs-theres-got-be-better-way


----------



## fishhead

A film crew from a WCCO is supposed to drive up and film me showing how body grip traps are set today. Hopefully the bitter cold won't stop them. It's -17 this morning and it's supposed to be windy.

If everything falls into place it might be on the 10 pm news.


----------



## SunsetSonata

Good luck to you, fishhead. It really annoys me that ONE PERSON can ruin the outdoors for everyone else. Not only that, but that someone would choose to do so simply because the law allows him to, never mind the unnecessary risk posed to pets AND people. Some people's sense of morality is ONLY dictated by law, and it's too bad that it will take a change in laws to make it fair for everyone else. 

Outside of hunting season, who wants to be on the lookout for booby-trapped danger, not only for hunting dogs but kids and others who would like to explore the outdoors without threat of bodily harm? It doesn't matter that no one is purposefully targeting dogs. What matters is these traps are dangerous and a threat that shouldn't exist for the vast majority of us. The fact that someone can make a little money on a pelt pails in comparison to public safety.


----------



## farmerj

dogs are hit by cars on a regular basis as well.

We should start a petition to outlaw cars then too.


----------



## wolffeathers

I think it's great that you are only looking to make it safer, and not trying to ban the traps use all together. Everyone deserves equal opportunity to use public lands safely. 

There are laws protecting a trappers traps; one would hope they would give you the same service and set their traps proactively, in a way to protect others property and companions. Especially if they want to preserve their use of public lands.


----------



## fishhead

I spoke with a man who lost a 100 lb lab a couple of years ago in a legally set body grip trap. He said that he had to watch his dog thrash around until it died. It still haunts him.

Yes, we are only interested in getting trappers to change the way they set these dangerous traps. 25 other states have more restrictions on them than MN and at least 18 ban the use of the ones used in MN on the ground completely. Many trappers don't set them on the ground and realize how it hurts trapping whenever another trapper kills a dog. Hunting or walking your dog should not be like playing roulette with your dogs life. Especially when trappers have dog safe and very effective alternatives.

So far the petition has over 600 signatures.


----------



## Otter

Hi Farmerj.
I couldn't help but notice how you ignored lots of questions directly posed and related to the subject matter at hand.
Would you mind explaining how going off on a totally irrelevant tangent that targets completely different circumstances is supposed to help educate me about keeping the dogs that I have a legal right to have off-leash in the woods safe from unmarked 220 traps on the ground?
I'd appreciate that.
Thanks.


----------



## farmerj

Otter said:


> Hi Farmerj.
> I couldn't help but notice how you ignored lots of questions directly posed and related to the subject matter at hand.
> Would you mind explaining how going off on a totally irrelevant tangent that targets completely different circumstances is supposed to help educate me about keeping the dogs that I have a legal right to have off-leash in the woods safe from unmarked 220 traps on the ground?
> I'd appreciate that.
> Thanks.


Please explain to me how a dog going INTO a 5 gallon bucket on the ground is UNMARKED?

As I said earlier.

If there is an education issue. Then address it. But there are enough laws already on the books. I am tired of everyone having a special interest for one aspect of something effecting them in their life in a way they don't like the outcome so they feel a need to push for a law over it.

This group I would think as a whole would understand that but apparently feel it's only appropriate when it doesn't apply to them.

Maybe some of these trappers aren't aware of better ways to set a 220. If so, educate them.

I deal with dogs in the field as I take my parents boxers for walks in the woods where I know there is both trapping AND snaring. I pay very close attention to where they go and I also pay attention to where I take them. If I realize that I am in an area that holds (or likely could hold) traps, for the safety of the animals, I avoid it. How hard is that to do? If I see signs there are snares or traps, it tells me I am likely to interfere with someones sets and I avoid them. It's a two way street. Forcing a law on someone for a situation like this is putting an undue hardship on someone else for the short period of time THEY can be in the field legally as well.

I also know and expect that traps are designed to KILL. I would prefer that they do it quickly for the animals sake. I would be more accepting of outlawing a foothold trap that causes undue pain and suffering to an animal than to one that kills quickly.

Apparently people are not willing to set emotion aside and see and understand what it is that I have said or expressed.

Two reasons for laws ---- me off...

"For the kids"
"for the animals"

If that is the only reason that one can articulate, then there is something missing in the logic.

I can't help but wake up in the morning without the realization that I am likely breaking any one or more of over 10000 laws on the books already.

You will be hard pressed for anyone to convince me that 100 yards is verbal control command distance for any dog. 100 feet maybe, but not 100 yards. I am not a novitiate when it comes to dogs either. I have had both boxer and labs as well as taken care of beagles and other breeds.

ETA:
You talk about "controlling" your animal. Controlling it means not just having it within verbal range to hear your commands. It also means that you have the ABILITY to step in and CHANGE it's actions and have a direct impact on what it is doing. This means you must be able to SEE what it is getting into at any given time. You physically cannot do that at 100 yards. Not even at 100 feet. I am seriously unsure if you can do it as 20 feet.
/eta


So you're saying YOUR right to take YOUR dogs to the field anywhere YOU want to take them at ANYTIME, overrides another persons right to set a trap where he has a higher probability to successfully succeed at their task in the limited time that they are allowed to do their legally licensed activity?


And to ensure that, you are willing to create a new law that puts another undue restriction on an otherwise legal activity?


We have had two dogs recently in the last two years killed run over by cars. Both in our own driveway. The last one not 5 feet from us as we watched her slide on the ice and under the tire of the garbage truck crushing her hips. I think cars and ice should be outlawed to keep the dogs safe.


----------



## farmerj

fishhead said:


> I got some info from [email protected] but it didn't specify the size of the killer trap or if was an illegal size or if the trapper complied with the written permission they needed to set a killer trap larger than 6 1/2"
> 
> We are gaining steam and I've asked everyone especially responsible trappers to send an email to [email protected] saying they support changing the regs to require body grips to be set over 5' or underwater. I'm also asking that they copy their legislators and Governor Dayton.
> 
> Here's the latest article in our newspaper.
> 
> http://brainerddispatch.com/outdoors/2012-01-13/trapping-and-dogs-theres-got-be-better-way




Thanks,

Now I know who to send this in opposition to.


----------



## Otter

Because I DO respond when people ask specific questions...



farmerj said:


> Please explain to me how a dog going INTO a 5 gallon bucket on the ground is UNMARKED?


When the bucket is in the heavy brush I expect my hunting dog to go into to flush out game. Though the first example that comes to mind is the family that lost their puppy to the trap set in the culvert at the end of their driveway.



farmerj said:


> If there is an education issue.


YOU were the one who said that it was the responsibility of dog owners to educate themselves too keep their dogs out of traps = Do you want me to pull that up for you? It's on the other page



farmerj said:


> Maybe some of these trappers aren't aware of better ways to set a 220. If so, educate them.


Well, they seem to not like the answer of "Set your traps off the ground"



farmerj said:


> Apparently people are not willing to set emotion aside and see and understand what it is that I have said or expressed.


You are the one being emotional and illogical here. No one is looking to so much as ban the traps in question. Just to have them set in a different way.



farmerj said:


> Two reasons for laws ---- me off...
> "For the kids"
> "for the animals"
> If that is the only reason that one can articulate, then there is something missing in the logic.


So, by your "logic" we shouldn't have any laws that protect children or animals? What should we have laws for?



farmerj said:


> You will be hard pressed for anyone to convince me that 100 yards is verbal control command distance for any dog.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Cyx_ru46k[/ame]
See also; Bird dog trials, sheep dog trials, field trials for labradors.
If seeing isn't believing, I don't know what to tell you. I, personally, cannot lift 150 lbs - does that mean that it can't be done?



farmerj said:


> So you're saying YOUR right to take YOUR dogs to the field anywhere YOU want to take them at ANYTIME, overrides another persons right to set a trap


 On PUBLIC ground - yes. Your use of PUBLIC land may not destroy another person's use of PUBLIC land


farmerj said:


> where he has a higher probability to successfully succeed at their task in the limited time that they are allowed to do their legally licensed activity?


Yeah, see except putting your traps in such a way as they can't kill dogs does NOT interfere - as is proven by trappers in many other states.



farmerj said:


> And to ensure that, you are willing to create a new law that puts another undue restriction on an otherwise legal activity?


 Yes, particularly as the law does NOT put "undue" restriction on your activity.



farmerj said:


> We have had two dogs recently in the last two years killed run over by cars. Both in our own driveway. The last one not 5 feet from us as we watched her slide on the ice and under the tire of the garbage truck crushing her hips. I think cars and ice should be outlawed to keep the dogs safe.


Sorry about your dogs. If you think there should be a law, start a petition. Good luck with the ice one. I bet a lot of people would be on your side with that, but enforcement would be heck.
Me, personally, would wonder why there was a garbage truck in my private driveway. My dogs used to like to chase the garbage truck too. I got a shock collar rated at well over 100 yards and taught them that I really, really mean it when I say Leave It from over 100 yards away.


----------



## fishhead

I don't waste time trying to reason with unreasonable people like fj.

The film crew came up today and the story will air sometime next week. They said they would let me know when.

It occurred to me today that instead of giving the DNR cover by calling these dog killers "legally set" they really should be described as "DNR approved". 

Today the MN basically told hunters and dog owners that the number of dogs killed in DNR approved sets is not significant enough to warrant making irresponsible trappers change the way they set dog killing body grips or to make them check their traps daily.


----------



## farmerj

CURRENT MN Trapping Regulations. Page 45
From the MN DNR website.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/hunting/2011/full_regs.pdf



> *
> Traps ​​​​​​​​​(Note: modified trapping regulations are in place in the lynx
> management zone. See pages 50 and 51.)​
> *A person may not set, place, or operate:​â¢ any foot or leghold trap with a jaw opening greater than 8Â¾ inches;
> â¢ any body-gripping or conibear-type trap with a jaw opening greater
> than 7Â½ inches, except as a waterset*; or
> â¢ any body-gripping or conibear-type trap with a jaw opening greater​than 6. inches in or within 3 feet of the opening of a six-foot wide​or smaller culvert, except as a completely
> submerged waterset**.
> â¢ any body gripping trap with a jaw larger than 6Â½ inches in the road​right-of-way within 500 feet of a building occupied by human or
> livestock without written permission of the landowner, except as a​completely submerged waterset**.


So those traps set in a culvert at the persons driveway are already illegal. You are trying to pass a law that already exists.

http://www.enasco.com/product/C09123N

A conibear 220 is 7" in size.


----------



## fishhead

Where did I say the puppy was killed in a 7" 220? 

A 160 (6") is entirely legal to use to kill a puppy in a DNR approved body grip trap set in a culvert.

The puppy could have also been legally killed in a MN DNR approved body grip trap set using a 155 (5") or a 120 (4 1/2").

If you are a MN trapper you really need to spend a few minutes reading the regulations.


----------



## farmerj

Straight from the news article YOU posted in your original post.



> Both dogs were reportedly killed by *Conibear 220 traps*, which are commonly baited and set inside a 5-gallon bucket, which in turn sits on the ground. A lightweight and compact body-gripping trap *with a jaw spread of 7 inches,* it&#8217;s popular for trapping bobcat, fishers and otters in this area &#8212; Crow Wing County and Cass County were among the trapping harvest leaders for each of those species in 2010-11, according to the DNR. And the traps can be placed almost anywhere on county and state land. The fisher season ended Dec. 4; the bobcat and otter seasons runs until Jan. 8.



And maybe you need to READ and follow the link I just posted ....


It's directly to and FROM the MN trapping regulations.


----------



## thaiblue12

FarmerJ you keep coming back to this thread and saying nonsensical things like outlaw ice and cars. Well why were you not in better control of your dogs to keep them from getting hit?? That is what you stated caused the death of the dogs in traps; their owners were not in control of them, so why weren't you in control of your dogs? 

You prefer that we were a lawless society and had no rules? That worked well in the centuries past and the Wild West didn't it? That is why our society still lives like that. 

You do not like having rules or people telling you what to do go live on a private island where there are no cars or ice and you make up your own rules. 

*Since you are so verbal about this issue answer this one question:
What is the harm in having a trap on a pole instead of off the ground?*

There really is none except for laziness of the trap setter. This way everyone can enjoy and use the PUBLIC land without fear of these traps. Traps baited with the very thing the bird dogs are trained to flush out, hidden from view, yea that is fair. 

You do not like change, oh well stop :bdh: in this thread and being snarky to Fish who lost his dog and is not asking to ban hunting. It is people like you who will be it's downfall then will whine about how trapping is now banned. Yet you could have saved it by giving a little, being considerate to others who also use PUBLIC land and simply putting a trap on a pole. Oh well some people never learn do they.


----------



## farmerj

Now he is contradicting his OWN story he stated to his local newspaper in an attempt rouse support for his cause.

So which is it?

His dog was killed in a Conibear 220 as stated in the newspaper?

Or it was killed in a 160? Or was it a 155? or a 120?

I never said I wanted a lawless society. But enough already. There are so many laws added every year because people scream for a new law every time they have a perceived wrong to them.

http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/08/01/30463/new_minnesota_laws_take_effect_today

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/Newlaws2011-0.asp



> You keep coming back to this thread and saying nonsensical things like outlaw ice and cars. Well why were you not in better control of your dogs to keep them from getting hit?? That is what you stated caused the death of the dogs in traps; their owners were not in control of them, so why weren't you in control of your dogs?


Because I see his desire to ban ground set traps as sensible as banning cars and ice. It's not a needed law. Our dogs died. I seek no one to blame for their deaths, nor do I allow their loss to control my life. I miss them dearly and count their time with us for the blessing it was. And leave it at that.


----------



## fishhead

farmerj said:


> Straight from the news article YOU posted in your original post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And maybe you need to READ and follow the link I just posted ....
> 
> 
> It's directly to and FROM the MN trapping regulations.


Penni and Sue were killed in DNR approved body grip sets using 220's. The Dispatch article was about our two dogs not the puppy in Albert Lea.

I do not know what trap the reckless trapper used to kill the puppy in Albert Lea but if he used a 160 or smaller it was entirely legal for him to kill their puppy right in front of them at the culvert in their driveway.


----------



## thaiblue12

farmerj said:


> Now he is contradicting his OWN story he stated to his local newspaper in an attempt rouse support for his cause.
> 
> So which is it?
> 
> His dog was killed in a Conibear 220 as stated in the newspaper?
> 
> Or it was killed in a 160? Or was it a 155? or a 120?
> 
> I never said I wanted a lawless society. But enough already. There are so many laws added every year because people scream for a new law every time they have a perceived wrong to them.
> 
> Because I see his desire to ban ground set traps as sensible as banning cars and ice. It's not a needed law. Our dogs died. I seek no one to blame for their deaths, nor do I allow their loss to control my life. I miss them dearly and count their time with us for the blessing it was. And leave it at that.


The puppy who died in a trap in the culvert was NOT Fish's, his was a young adult dog that died in a 220 and he has never said different. You make yourself look foolish when you post stuff like the above and start accusing people of lying to further there cause when you mis-read. 

Making stupid laws or keeping them on the books like in so and so state it is illegal to ride side saddle on a donkey except Sundays is one thing, making public lands safer for all is another. You fail to make any valid point that lawmaker would take into consideration instead you keep yellling about no more laws and want only your side and feelings taken into consideration. Again this type of attitude and I will do as I please when I please will be the downfall of trapping.


----------



## JasoninMN

I trap and I use #220's off the ground. Farmj is exactly the type of trapper I do not want representing me but from the posts I think its obvious he has never actually trapped. Just wants to argue and throw "facts" out there that are not facts at all.


----------



## Ed Norman

We once had a skunk visiting the greenhouse at night, trying to get to the chickens on the other side. I set a 220 in a bucket with some eggs in the greenhouse, and went to work. Then along came the toddler DS, 3 years old, who for reasons only know to him, stuck his little rubber boot right in the trap. He knew what traps were and had seen me set them and catch things. It clamped on his upper boot and he squalled for momma. She had no idea how to get it off and was upset and frustrated. She looked for a hacksaw but found the meat saw first. It wasn't ideal for cutting metal but she attacked and was really getting worked up. DS realized she was his only hope and she had to remain in control so he started saying, You can do it momma. Keep going momma. She got it cut off finally and freed him.


----------



## SunsetSonata

farmerj said:


> Because I see his desire to ban ground set traps as sensible as banning cars and ice. It's not a needed law. Our dogs died. I seek no one to blame for their deaths


There's a big difference between an unfortunate accident and an accident waiting to happen. An accident caused directly by someone choosing to place hidden booby traps on public property where people and pets wander. If one of your traps ends up killing someone's bird dog, are you saying you will just shrug it off as an unfortunate accident? Personal responsibility, indeed.


----------



## farmerj

Guess we all have opinions.

I choose to speak out against this and a lot of other things that people see as valiant. Like using public funds to repair a bridge damaged by a reckless driver.

And so long as I live in America, I will continue to speak out against making more and more laws whenever it is possible.

This is just one of many I choose to speak out against.


----------



## fishhead

If reckless trappers were not killing our dogs by setting these killer traps baited with meat on the ground there would not be any need for a regulation change.

It's THEIR behavior that is forcing the change and it WILL get changed.

I'm very pleased with the momentum that is building.

Next week WCCO will air the footage they shot yesterday.

The Mpls Star Tribune is doing a dog story on Wed. I will call the writer Monday morning.

I've got a table at the annual Pheasants Forever convention this weekend and the place is packed with people.

I met a guy who has his own outdoor TV station and is heavily involved in the legislature. He gave me a great idea that I will be following up on soon.

Word is spreading and that's all it is going to take.


----------



## Otter

Thank you fishhead for doing so much to bring this to public attention.
It's made me check out the laws, or lack thereof, in _my_ state. Because while the area I live in is all 5 and 10 acre parcels, so not what one would think of as "wilderness", my mailbox is _well_ over 500 feet from any residence for man or beast and before you brought this to my attention it never would have occurred to me that someone could legally set a trap near it.


----------



## fishhead

The convention was a success.

People were leaving our table in shock that this is legal and how much danger their dogs are in each time they take them hunting or for a walk.

We met some very influential people and a promise to from one to work behind the scenes on fixing this problem.

One person gave me a great suggestion; make a Youtube of the trap in action. It will get done and it will be sent multiple times to all 202 members of the legislature, the governor, news stations, the MN DNR Commissioner and of course the web.

On a sad note at least 2 more dogs have died in MN DNR approved body grip trap sets.


----------



## tinknal

I seen you quoted in the Minneapolis paper today, Fishhead, and just saw a blurb on the news. Looks like your movement is gaining some traction!


----------



## fishhead

tinknal said:


> I seen you quoted in the Minneapolis paper today, Fishhead, and just saw a blurb on the news. Looks like your movement is gaining some traction!


Yes it is. I expect it to reach 1,000 signatures today. I'm going to be on the 10 PM WCCO news tomorrow. They shot about 45 minutes last week so I'm not sure what will air. It was so cold my teeth were almost chattering. So far it looks like I'll be embarrassed but I'm willing to pay that price.

If this doesn't get changed by next grouse season I will NOT be hunting.


----------



## fishhead

Another dog was killed in a MN DNR approved killer trap set. A trapper on Trapperman attacked the dog owner for not having it on a leash even though the dog was only 10' from the owner when it was caught. The poor guy had to watch it die.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/01/28/dog-owners-speak-out-against-killer-trapping-method/

My rep is meeting with the DNR this week to discuss changes to the regulations. I expect the DNR to attempt to "reduce" the number of dead dogs instead of eliminating the cause with that being killer trap sets made on the ground with their approval.


----------



## JasoninMN

I would like a DNR official to answer the following question. How do they track the number of dogs killed in traps each year? And how are they so sure its not a more common occurrence? 

I would like to ask the MN Trappers Association the same questions? The president is making the claim it rarely happens. How do they keep track of these incidents? Do they honestly believe their members would report these accidents to them? If they want to make the claim its a rare occurrence then provide some data that shows that's the case. 

If you haven't already started a facebook page, you would get a lot of attention that way.


----------



## fishhead

Thanks for the suggestion. I have been posting on my wall and the (group?) wall.

We are also going to make some Youtubes.

As far as the DNR tracking dogs killed in killer traps Jason Abraham said they don't have any way of doing it but he would like to start. I think most dogs simply 'disappear'. Each fall we see posters with lost dogs that 'disappear'. I think a lot of those get killed in DNR approved body grip trap sets and tossed into the brush by the trapper.

It's sad to see the owner of Phillip get beat up on by trappers accusing him of not having Phillip on a leash. He said in the video that he was 10' away.

18 people so far have said they have lost (or) know of dogs that have been killed in DNR approved body grip traps. I am still getting emails and cards from dog owners who have lost dogs and never reported them or if they did they got the brush off "it's a legally set trap".

My representative has taken the lead on this issue and is meeting with the DNR soon at the direction of the DNR commissioner. We are forcing the DNR to deal with the mess they made.

The number one 'justification' for using these deadly traps on the ground is that they only have to be checked every 3 days.


----------



## JasoninMN

Is there a group already on face book?


----------



## fishhead

Not for just this issue. I don't know FB very well so I was referring to the group of people that somehow post on a wall that I can post on. If you know how to put one together for just this issue please do. 

A woman from Pine County just emailed me to say her dog was killed on a morning walk in late December. That brings it up to 19 but I'm sure there are many times that number that no one outside of close friends ever hears about.


----------



## fishhead

Here's an interview I did yesterday for our public TV station. We are picking up steam every day. Hopefully the MTA will come forward with some support and not dig in it's heels. If the changes don't happen this session they will happen the next session or the one after that one or the next one...... Any delay means the death of more dogs and more negative publicity for trapping.

http://www.lptv.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=97&show=3&newscast=1388


----------



## JasoninMN

With the wolf season being planned it looks like larger snares may be approved too. 

Sec. 43. RULEMAKING; USE OF SNARES.

(a) The commissioner of natural resources shall amend Minnesota Rules, part
18.276234.0100, to include a subpart that prohibits the use of carcasses of domestic animals for taking wolves on public lands.

(b) The commissioner of natural resources shall amend Minnesota Rules, part
18.306234.2400, subpart 5, to provide that when taking wolves, snares may not be set in trails.

(c) The commissioner of natural resources shall amend Minnesota Rules, part
18.326234.2400, subpart 7, to provide that a snare set by a licensed wolf trapper to take a wolf may not be set so that the bottom of the loop is more than 18 inches above the first surface beneath the bottom of the set snare loop, and the top height in that subpart does not apply to snares set for wolves.

(d) The commissioner of natural resources shall amend Minnesota Rules, part
19.46234.2400, subpart 8, to provide that during the wolf season, licensed wolf trappers may use snares, provided:
(1) the diameter of a snare loop does not exceed 16 inches when fully open; and

(2) the cable includes stops affixed to the cable to ensure that the portion of the cable that makes up the noose loop may not be less than six inches when fully closed.

(e) The commissioner of natural resources shall amend Minnesota Rules, part
19.106234.2400, subpart 9, to provide that during the wolf season, licensed wolf trappers must use snare cable at least 7/64 inches in diameter.

(f) The commissioner may use the good cause exemption under Minnesota Statutes,
19.13section 14.388, subdivision 1, clause (3), to adopt rules under this section, and Minnesota Statutes, section 14.386, does not apply except as provided under Minnesota Statutes, section 14.388.


----------



## fishhead

I like the idea of putting a 'stop' in the snare if it means what I think it means. That should be done to all the rest of the snares.

I see that the Bemidji Pioneer editorial board is backing the changes to body grip trap regulation.


----------



## fishhead

We have a bill introduced!

It's HF 1736 in the House and SF 2243 in the Senate.

Now we just have to convince the chairs of the 2 environmental committees to let the bill be heard. They would be [email protected] and [email protected]

The DNR met with the 3 trappers associations on Saturday about dog dying in body grips and other issues.


----------



## Minelson

You sure are doing a great job with this Fishhead!


----------



## fishhead

Thank you but it's far from just me. About 2,100 people have signed the petition and many are contacting their legislators and the DNR. We're also getting some good coverage by WCCO and now KSTP TV stations. I'm giving another radio interview in about 20 minutes. I think those came from someone contacting the radio stations and alerting them to the issue.


----------



## mnn2501

forwarded to my brothers in MN.


----------



## fishhead

Thank you!

The Chairs of the Environmental committees in the House and Senate refused to hear our bill. Two legislators have told dog owners just to "accept it" when our dogs are killed. The DNR is writing a bill and I would expect the Chairs will allow it to be heard. The draft that I've seen will continue to allow our dogs to die but maybe it can be strengthened once it gets away from the Enviro committees.

Basically the draft I saw just moves trappers to smaller killer traps set on the ground. They can still set killer traps in the culvert at the end of our driveway without notifying the property owner. The added restrictions on killer trap boxes won't stop a large dog from reaching the trigger of the trap and a smaller dog can go all the way past the opening. There is a video showing full sized beagles going through a 6"x6" hole. The bill draft only reduces the hole to 7"x7". A 100 lb lab can reach it's head through the hole at least a foot but the draft only moves the trap back about 1/2 that distance.

If it isn't strengthened more dogs will die and the focus will be back on trapping next season. That's not good for anyone.


----------



## fishhead

Senator John Carlson (GOP) from Bemidji just introduced a bill (SF 2265) to allow the use of 330's on land. His bill immediately got on the list of bills to be heard tomorrow. Meanwhile the chairs of the environment committees refuse to allow our bill to be heard.

He showed his bill to MOHA last week.

There's some speculation that this is for wolf trapping. So now we are going to have to try to keep our hunting dogs away from 330's set for wild canines and baited with meat.


----------



## Pops2

sad to say, but until some turd catches the legislator's pet in the culvert in front of his house, well y'all are screwed.


----------



## JasoninMN

I don't see anywhere in the bill that 330's are mentioned?

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

1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to game and fish; modifying restrictions on certain traps;proposing
1.3coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 97B.
1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.5 Section 1. [97B.903] USE OF BODY-GRIPPING TRAPS.
1.6A person may not set, place, or operate, except as a water set, a body-gripping
1.7or conibear-type trap on public lands and waters that has a maximum jaw opening
1.8when set greater than seven and one-half inches measured from the inside edges of the
1.9body-gripping portions of the jaws, unless:
1.10(1) the trap is in a baited or unbaited enclosure with the opening no greater than 81
1.11square inches and the trap trigger is recessed seven inches or more from the top of the
1.12opening;
1.13(2) no bait, lure, or other attractant is placed within 20 feet of the trap; or
1.14(3) the trap is elevated at least three feet above the surface of the ground.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2265.0.html&session=ls87


----------



## fishhead

It's this language. "greater than seven and one-half inches". That targets 280's and 330's and doesn't affect 220's.

Carlson changed his bill last night at the hearing to target JUST 220's if my information is correct. His ineffective restrictions (36" off the ground, 9"x9" opening, 7" recess) were left in the bill.

The amendment that got slapped onto an existing bill in Denny McNamara's comittee in the House may not have been changed to exclude the largest traps.

I'll bet that a 40 lb dog can crawl completely through a 9"x9" opening. Even a 5"x5" opening allows the trap to be reached 12" into the box without any effort.


----------



## fishhead

I've been told that after refusing to hear our bill Rep. Denny McNamara asked the DNR to write a bill after consulting with trappers. They did and then he refused to hear the bill he requested. 

Then he or someone else in his committee amended a bill similar (or identical) to Carlson's bill onto an existing bill and passed out of McNamara's committee.


----------



## JasoninMN

I see now. I read it wrong.


----------



## fishhead

I read it wrong several times because it's so......

The senate amended it with a 'larger than and less than' change. 

The House did not so they legalized 330's set unbaited on the ground or baited but 36" off the ground.

The senate environment committee is going to vote on a big bill containing Carlsons amendment today in Senator Ingebritsen(sp) committee at 3 pm.

I'm sending you a PM with a short Youtube showing how ineffective Carlsons box restrictions are at preventing our dogs from being killed.


----------



## fishhead

The language has been amended to exclude 330's but doesn't do anything to protect dogs as these videos show.

SafeDogMN - YouTube


----------



## JasoninMN

I was out walking yesterday and Ace found a box on the ground. No telling what would happen if there was a trap in there. Of course the box is placed right at the entrance of a minimum maintenance road 3 feet off the road.


----------



## fishhead

I find them while hiking too. Some people are too lazy to pick them up at the end of the season.

As soon as my new camera gets here we'll be making more videos to add to the SafeDogMN channel.


----------



## lonelytree

Trappers are lowering the populations of wild animals that could attack a pet, child or even adult. I believe that limiting the trapping will increase the likelyhood of a pet getting attacked by a wild animal. We had several wolf attacks on pets last year. In towns and on nearby roads and hiking trails. Alaska has marking requirements for all traps. Seasons and requirements to remove traps at the end of the season. I won't take my dogs out in the woods during trapping season. The trappers around my place know that I won't go on or near their traplines unless I find their traps on my land. 

Eliminating trapping will create more problems than it fixes. 

Sorry for your loss. I am a dog person too.


----------



## JasoninMN

Lonely tree, the point isn't to eliminate trapping. Maybe its different in Alaska but here 220# are set during grouse season and often baited with grouse. Fishhead traps and I used to trap. When I did trap, I used to only use #220's. There is no reason they can't be placed off the ground and that is why I support the bill.


----------



## fishhead

lonelytree said:


> Trappers are lowering the populations of wild animals that could attack a pet, child or even adult. I believe that limiting the trapping will increase the likelyhood of a pet getting attacked by a wild animal. We had several wolf attacks on pets last year. In towns and on nearby roads and hiking trails. Alaska has marking requirements for all traps. Seasons and requirements to remove traps at the end of the season. I won't take my dogs out in the woods during trapping season. The trappers around my place know that I won't go on or near their traplines unless I find their traps on my land.
> 
> Eliminating trapping will create more problems than it fixes.
> 
> Sorry for your loss. I am a dog person too.


This has absolutely NOTHING to do with banning trapping or even banning body grips. They are good traps and we should be able to continue to use them in ways that don't kill dogs.

Look at the videos and you'll see that no one is advocating banning trapping in my videos.


----------



## tom j

mn state has no leash law BUT every city ,, town does ..


----------



## fishhead

In some cases verbal control is considered leashed.

I've seen many cases where some trappers try to put the responsibility for the traps they hide on public land onto the dog owner and shirk their own responsibility for setting it. That ain't gonna fly. If anything it's going to further damage the image of trapping beyond a few trappers killing our dogs with their reckless behavior.


----------



## fishhead

WCCO just did another news segment on the body grip trap bill. The bill that passed is worthless so we are forced to go back to the legislature next session. By then more dogs will have been killed in body grips set exactly to the new laws specifications.

Dog Owners Concerned Over Traps Even After Legislation Passes Â« CBS Minnesota

Our videos on SafeDogMN - YouTube show just how ineffective the new law will be at protecting our dogs.


----------



## fishhead

Our group is up and running. We have non-profit status in place.

Here's our website. DogLovers4SafeTrappingMN

We'll be sending out press releases soon to all the major news organizations across the state.


----------



## lilmizlayla

isnt it better to just BAN trapping in that manner? If you think your dogs suffer...think about how those animals died. Pretty gruesome.


----------



## fishhead

lilmizlayla said:


> isnt it better to just BAN trapping in that manner? If you think your dogs suffer...think about how those animals died. Pretty gruesome.


Body grip traps are the most humane method of trapping that we have and if we are going to kill an animal I believe it should be done as humanely as possible. Our group is completely focused on ensuring that those traps are set where dogs cannot reach them and be killed.


----------



## JasoninMN

Another dog caught and it wasn't a 220. 

Chiweenie, caught in body gripping trap.


----------



## fishhead

JasoninMN said:


> Another dog caught and it wasn't a 220.
> 
> Chiweenie, caught in body gripping trap.


The season opened at 9 am and the first dog was dead before dark. We were told by the MN Trappers Association, Rep. McNamara and Senator Ingebrigtsen that no more dogs would be killed. As expected it hasn't even slowed the slaughter of our dogs.

So far I know of 6 MN dogs that have been killed in body grips since the season started. That's a total of 13 for 2012 so far and the traps are still baited with meat and on the ground.


----------



## fishhead

Another MN dog was killed in a recklessly set body grip trap yesterday. That brings the yearly total to AT LEAST 14.

It sounds like the trapper is going to get sued this time.


----------



## JasoninMN

Was it placed on private land?


----------



## fishhead

Yes it was on private land. That will not exempt the trapper from the lawsuit because he created an attractive nuisance that attracted the dog. If they sue and it goes before a jury it should be easy to show that a dog cannot read and can easily be enticed to trespass. Also, body grip traps baited with meat have a long history of killing dogs.

The attorney we spoke with was very confident that the trapper could be held accountable even if the trap was legally set.


----------



## fishhead

A second dog was killed last Sunday. That brings the total of just the ones we know of to 15. Undoubtedly there are dogs lying in the brush after the trapper who killed them found them in his trap. There may also be dogs that were quietly buried by the owner.

It was killed on a trail that I had recently considered taking my new dog to run. I would not have turned my dog loose if there ATV tracks around the gate and I would have kept the leash on for the first 1/2 mile.


----------



## fishhead

After combining the DNR report and ours. The body count has gone up to 16.


----------



## Joshie

Wouldn't the problem end if pet owners kept their animals inside on their own property? I'm sure a lot of people shoot animals that come, uninvited onto their property.



fishhead said:


> I think you will fit right in with some of our trappers with that attitude. That is why trapping will probably be illegal in the future.
> 
> FYI on MN county and state land dogs do NOT need to be leashed because we hunt in this state. It's also legal to let your dog run while you enjoy a walk on the public land.


Doesn't one bear some of the responsibility for their dog's demise if they don't keep their dogs under their control? If you know these traps are set, you are knowingly taking the chance your dog will be killed. Trappers are trying to making a living and/or feeding their families. What would you do if they fight for laws requiring pet owners to keep their dogs leashed? 

Wouldn't people and animals be at risk if the traps were put up on poles? How would that keep pets from being hurt? I'm not a trapper and don't understand what difference a pole would make. How would one make a pole stay in the ground?


----------



## fishhead

It's taken 4 legislative sessions but we finally got a hearing for our bill in the senate. The bill number is SF 1325. So far it's gone through 3 committees with a unanimous vote in all 3 committees. Now it's being blocked.

The chair in the house has refused a hearing for the companion bill HF 1655 twice.

We've got tons of support but if key legislators refuse to the let the bill be voted on it doesn't matter.

If the bills don't pass more dogs will be killed this fall. Last fall another 7 dogs were killed and that's only the ones that were recorded.

If you live in MN please contact your legislators and ask them to support SF 1325/HF 1655. If you don't know your legislators use this link. 

http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/ 

The bills have the support of the Ruffed Grouse Society. Many of their members have quit hunting grouse or only hunt grouse before trapping season starts. The trappers association oppose the bills but offer no solutions.

If you don't live in MN but come here to hunt or vacation you still have a voice.


----------



## Ross

Thanks for the update. Frustrating as it is!


----------



## fishhead

This dog lost both eyes and the hearing in one ear after being caught in a body grip. Our law allows the trap to be left unchecked for up to 3 days. Somehow Kobe survived the trap and laid there with the trap clamped on his face until the trapper returned. When the animal control officer came to release him from the trap Kobe wagged his tail.

http://www.kare11.com/story/news/po...ed-dog-at-center-of-trapping-debate/70748126/


----------



## wiscto

I was catching up on this thread. Great job to all you guys for promoting this effort, I hope this ends up your way and your dogs stay safe. This is what I found on the Wisconsin site. No idea if it's relevant, because I never came across a trap. I've seen trappers close to where we were working our dog for pheasants and I definitely wondered about this. 

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/trap/documents/bodygripbrochure.pdf

Here's the actual regulations from last season.

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0002.pdf


----------



## fishhead

Thanks. WI regulations are much better than MN regs but dogs are still being killed in WI. They need to regulate 160's.

Lots of MN hunters stop hunting in MN once trapping season opens and hunt in WI because it's safer. It's not safe but it is safer.


----------



## wiscto

Definitely gives me something to talk about at Thanksgiving. I haven't hunted with dogs in so long, kind of wondering if my uncles have had friends lose dogs in traps, we usually just talk deer but they're more "in" the hunting network than I am.


----------



## fishhead

The new session has started and SF 1325 was activated. Now we are trying to get the chair of the committee in the House to give HF 1655 a hearing.

If we fail to get the bill passed more dogs will be killed this fall. At least 7 more MN dogs were killed in 2015 and that number is very likely under the actual number because reporting is still voluntary. We are also preparing to launch a much larger and more widespread campaign to reach the 2 million dog owners in MN. Most haven't heard of this issue but that's about to change.

There is a huge amount of pressure building and the longer the solution is stalled the greater the chance that trapping regulations will be much more restricted than our commonsense bill. Lots of hunters are now saying "I used to support trapping but...." That's because of the uncompromising position of our trapping associations.


----------

