Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: Body Grip Trap. MN SF1325

  1. #1

    Default Body Grip Trap. MN SF1325

    Please contact your representatives for support on this bill. The rules as written parallel other states such as Wisconsin. Experienced trappers will be able to adjust quickly and efficiently.

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/tex...ssion_number=0


    The DNR is in support of this bill and the Senate recommends a do pass as currently amended.

    Ruffed Grouse Society has come out in support of the body gripping trap restrictions.
    Last edited by BRITTMAN; 04-09-2015 at 02:46 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Thank you so much for posting this.

    I've been following this Bill closely and am actively supporting it.

    It's about time for MN to catch up to other top upland states on dog safe regs on these traps

  3. #3

    Default

    I currently have two NAVHDA tested Vizsla. I also have a friend who is paralyzed from the waist down,how would he trap raccoons(on private ground only) with conibear type traps with those regulations? I run my dogs all the time where conibear/baited boxes are being used and do not worry about at all.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Wow good for him! He must be using baited cubbies?

    Trap recess just has to be measured from the front of the cubby instead of the awning, no difference.

    Every bird hunter I've spoke with in the past few yrs who had their dog caught never worried about it either..till it happened to them

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vizslaowner View Post
    I run my dogs all the time where conibear/baited boxes are being used and do not worry about at all.
    Welcome to UPF.


    The regulations parallel Wisconsin. They have no problem harvesting furbearers in that state. The DNR supports this legislation by the way.

    While the risk is relatively low, not to worry at all is an ignorant position at best. Even MN Trappers Association recognize the risk and provide education to both trappers (setting) and hunters (releasing). AT A MINIMUM YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW TO REMOVE THESE TRAPS. Even then you may not get through it in time - especially if you do not have the "tools" needed.

    Anyone (not just hunters) need to understand the risk if they have dogs off leash.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Here in MN we are having a conflict with body grip traps and dogs. I know that most of you live out of state and you have safer regulations on the BG trap sets than we do. Your states have proven that trappers and dogs can coexist on public land. We currently have bills that call for safer placement regs and they need to hear support.

    There's been several high profile deaths of dogs-- including bird dogs--in the Body Grip traps this yr, as well as Kobe who was blinded surviving 2-3 days in one. The only thing that saved his life was the trapper who reported it and the fact that he started wagging his tail when the CO approached him while he was in the trap.

    If these bills fail in this legislative session, we will NEED to have more high profile dog deaths the next hunting/trapping season to gain momentum again on another bill.

    SF 1325 and it's Companion Bill HF 1655 are stalled. The legislative session ends May 18th.
    Nothing is going to happen unless PF comes out in support like RGS did and ppl contact their district's reps. You can keep it simple and short. And also contact the ppl listed below.
    http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

    Non Residents and residents can send letters to the following ppl. I've had many of my out of state friends write them and state that they will choose to hunt WI and MI over MN because they have safer regs to minimize the risk to bird dogs.

    HF 1655

    House Rep Tom Hackbarth. Chairman of the Mining and Outdoor Recreation Policy committee, has refused to hear HF 1655
    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sen....aspx?id=10229

    House Representative Dave Dill
    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sen....aspx?id=10761

    House Rep Denny McNamara. He took part in the "awning" regulation. A reg that no other state tried----South Dakota Regs on Body Grips specifically state trap recess distance CANNOT be measured from the awning, ours are.
    Here's McNamara's quote in 2012 on the ineffective "awning" reg that he played a huge part in putting in place
    "We've got to be honest: We don't know how it's going to work," said state Rep. Denny McNamara, R-Hastings, who chaired the House committee that held hearings on the issue and who supported the restrictions proposed by the trappers. "We're going have to see if they provide adequate protection. I don't know how we define that, but we're going to have to figure it out. We'll re-evaluate if need be."
    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sen....aspx?id=10776

    SF 1325
    Senate Majority Leader Senator Tom Bakk. Longtime MN Trappers Association member, has stalled the bill in the Senate.
    http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/me...em_id=1003&ls=


    Thank you for anything that you can do.

  7. #7

    Default

    Please post the Wisconsin regs so people can decide for themselves if these changes " would parallel" , or is that slick wording in order to outlaw the 220 bodygrip trap from being used on the ground. Four feet off the ground is not as efficient as trail set. Much like anti hunting groups target dove hunting or bow hunting(because they are lower participation forms of hunting) these new bodygrip trap regs appear to be a way to fracture trapping by reducing the effectiveness of the equipment, raising costs and time required to run traps and ultimately disenfranchise trappers from other sportsman.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    26

    Post

    hmmm..don't tell the WI guys that 4' up isn't efficient. Since their elevation is 5'


    Still trapping with that reg that THEY put in place in 1998. Fur take has not been negatively impacted..and have not had any more trap restrictions or bans since then. Made them stronger..didn't frature anything. But thanks for implying that.

    Common sense will tell anyone that dog deaths aren't good for a trapper's image.
    Once the dogs deaths aren't all over the media...business as usual, judging from their fur take reports on the last 17 yrs, it looks like business is better.
    Last edited by birddemon; 05-04-2015 at 10:12 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    26

    Default

    And surely you do know that the MN trappers in the Arrowhead region have strict regs on the body grips--- restricitive openings and 7" trap recess depth on their body grips-- to avoid trapping a Lynx. No Awning there..their traps recess distance has to be measured from the front of the box.....like every other state, including WI. They are not allowed to just nail an "awning" on top of their cubbies and call it safe..18 MN DNR confirmed dog deaths in 18 months proves its not safe.

    WI has restrictive openings and recessed trap setbacks on their body grips. They reported 3 deaths from body grips in that same time period.

  10. #10

    Default

    Hey Vizslaowner, post up some pics of your dogs and tell about your pheasant hunting exploits. There are some other threads on this site that would welcome your participation too.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •