Back 
It was, Gerald Noska said, a perfect day to be grouse hunting. Sunny and in the mid-30s, only a trace of snow covered the ground on Noska’s property about 10 miles south of Staples.
But there would be no hunt Thursday. And probably not any day soon. And that’s understandable, even for a hunter who said he spends 30 to 60 days a year afield with his two dogs, hunting ruffed grouse.
There is only one dog now. And while Noska said it’s a good dog, a good hunter, he is still mourning the loss of his prized hunting dog, Sue, an English setter killed in a trap Monday at the Dry Sand Wildlife Management Area north of Staples.
While that’s fairly rare in the greater Brainerd lakes area, Noska’s dog was the second killed by a trap in the area in less than 10 days. John Reynolds of Merrifield said he lost his springer spaniel, Penni, to a trap near Emily Lake just outside of Emily on Dec. 17.
Noska and Reynolds both said they have trapped in the past — Reynolds in the last year — and have nothing against trapping. It’s the type of traps being used that “terrifies” both as dog owners.
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’s popular for trapping bobcat, fishers and otters in this area — 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.
“I’m absolutely terrified,” Reynolds said of the traps. “I spend a lot of time out in the woods. It’s my favorite thing to do. I go out at least once a week from fall to spring. But I’m seeing those buckets (with the traps) and seeing evidence of more and more every year.”
Reynolds, who said he’s heard of four dogs being caught in 220s — and only one surviving — in Crow Wing County in recent years, said he had seen the traps while out with his dog, but never in the area it was killed.
“We had been past that spot two or three times, but the wind was in the wrong direction and didn’t bring the scent (of the bait) to her. That day it did.”
Noska said he never even thought about the traps when out with his dogs.
“It never entered my mind,” he said. “I didn’t think this kind of stuff was legal. It terrifies you.”
Jason Abraham, season setting/fur bearer specialist for the DNR in St. Paul, said he’s only had seven reports of dogs killed by traps since 2007, although “I’m sure there have been more (that haven’t been reported).”
“We’re sympathetic toward the dog owners,” Abraham said. “We definitely understand it’s no fault of their own. It’s a hunting situation. But on the other hand, you have trappers who are legally trapping on state property who bought a license who expect and deserve the right to enjoy their sport.
“These things happen. I know a lot of trappers. I set traps. If it happened to me (a dog killed in his trap), I’d feel terrible. Two user groups in the woods can cross over and the results can be tragic.”
In 2010, Abraham said the DNR enacted rules restricting the placement of 220 body-gripping traps near houses and buildings occupied by livestock and said the DNR will continue to discuss regulations aimed at limiting accidental catches of pets.
According to Reynolds, it’s the traps themselves, not the rules, that pose a problem.
“I’m not against trapping. I’m absolutely against taking unnecessary risks with someone’s family member,” Reynolds said. “This thing (220 trap) is not necessary. There are footholds and snares. The alternatives have worked for hundreds of years. We need to force trappers to stop doing this. They have alternatives.
“It’s basically the dumbing down of trapping,” he added of 220s. “Anyone with a bucket and a 220 can call themselves a trapper. They (220s) are very effective.”
Reynolds enjoyed hunting grouse with Penni, who was about 2, and brought her to work with him, so spent “24 hours a day” with her.
“She meant the world to me,” he said in a recent letter to the editor in the Dispatch.
He and Noska both said they plan to “replace” their dogs — someday.
“I wouldn’t have sold her for $10,000,” Noska said of Sue, who he said was about 6 years old. “She was at her peak. She had another five years (of hunting). “And there’s no reimbursement (for a dog killed in a trap).
“On Monday afternoon ... We spent four to five hours hunting and (the dogs) flushed 18 birds. She (Sue) flushed 16. It (a hunting dog like Sue) is a once-in-a-lifetime deal — if you’re lucky.
“I don’t know when I’ll go out again. Probably not this year. And (Thursday) would have been a perfect day to be out. I want to go out again someday, but I don’t want to have to worry about this (traps). I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.”
BRIAN S. PETERSON may be reached at brian.peterson@brainerddispatch.com or 855-5864. To follow him on Twitter, go to www.twitter.com/brian_speterson. For his blogs, go to www. brainerddispatch.com.
Comments (66)
Add commentThey don't need to kill our family
Trappers do NOT have to use killer traps on the ground. Footholds and snares work as good or better than these dog killers. They've worked for hundreds of years.
Fisher and marten climb like squirrels and if a person wants to use a killer trap for them it can be set 5' off the ground like they do in other states.
There are dog proof coon traps that are short pieces of small pipe with the trigger inside. It's impossible for a an averaged dog to reach in the small pipe. Even if it could reach in the trap would only hold it by the foot and not crush it's windpipe like killer traps do.
Bobcats can be caught in foothold and snares and most experienced bobcat trappers will admit that bobcats walk by many of their bucket sets.
Responsible trappers should lead the way to a ban on ground setting killer traps. No one should have to go through what we did and what our dogs did but it WILL happen again and again and again until trappers show some responsibility.
“We’re sympathetic toward the dog owners,” Abraham said." But they intend on letting the slaughter continue.
It's NOT a hunting situation because dogs are killed while walking with their owners on public land. I've seen buckets within 6' of the trail and many trappers bait their killer traps with grouse and hare parts during grouse season.
All dogs are at risk not just hunting dogs
Of the 4 local dogs that I know of that have been caught in killer traps none were hunting at the time they got caught. The only one that survived was rushed to the vet with it's eyes bulging out and the trap was cut off it's neck with a bolt cutter. I don't know if it survived beyond that day or if it had permanent injuries.
One dog died while it's owners were launching a boat to go fishing. They searched and searched and put up fliers. Undoubtedly they spent many nights lying awake worrying. The trapper hid the dead dog in the brush. It was entirely legal to kill their dog at a public landing.
One dog died while it's owner was going for a relaxing walk in the evening on a local heavily used hiking and biking trail. It was entirely legal to kill the dog next to a busy hiking and biking trail.
Penni died while sniffing around the shoreline while I was busy on nearby on the lake. She died within 100' of my car so it wasn't like she was running across the countryside. It was entirely legal to kill my Penni anywhere on public land.
Representative Ward and Senator Gazelka need to stop the slaughter by restricting the use of killer traps. Trappers have other good options.
sure fish, got any pictures for proof?
Your rubbish is constantly ignorant. If they were using parts of wild game, how come you didnt turn them in?
My take on the regulations I just read is you can not use any part other than a small piece of fur or feather for flagging.
If you didnt turn them in, then you are just as ignorant as the trapper using it. And if you would have turned them in, I know you would have went off on your soapbox and said so.
As for trapping, as long as it is legal, then it is legal, even if it is a terrible tragedy that 2 dogs got killed. My next statement isnt assuming this is what happened but it is the facts of the matter. Trapping is legal and on public land, you better maintain control of your pets.
I hate to say it, but somebody has to...my dog would never be out of my sight while hunting or walking on private or public property. Why you may ask? Because if he/she isnt in your vision the dog is not hunting properly and if walking and you lose track well maybe its time for a leash.
Another close Call
I have no problem with legal trapping as well, but I nearly lost my Lab two years ago to one of these ground placed bucket traps with a 220 inside. And, it was on my property, which is adjacent to State land. I found another such trap this fall. My dog, the same day had wandered into a snare and luckily I was there to release her before she choked to death. I don't know what can be done, but someone needs to really look into this problem in more depth. Everytime I go on that property, I'm wondering if the dog is safe or not.
common sense has been lost on us I believe
Fishhead, clearly you are Mr. Reynolds, the fellow who wrote the scathing commentary in our local paper this week. I have seen you spread lies and mistruths in our local paper and now this one, and it is time for you to cease this nonsense. AS someone who makes their living trapping both animal control and fur trapping, I believe I speak with some authority on this subject. You couldnt be more wrong in your assesment about the use of conibears.
Yes, we as trappers need to use common sense in placing our traps, but pet owners also need to use common sense as well. You need to understand that there are others out in the woods in the winter and you need to maintain control over your pets. It is no different than walking down the side of the highway. Do you allow your dog to run loose, or do you maintain control of it so it doesnt get run over by a car?
I have taken over 3,000 furbearers in the past 12 months by trapping them, and many have been with conibears and have not taken a single incidental animal or pet in them. With a little common sense it is a very valuable tool and one needed to help control the critter population. I for one would appreciate it if you got your facts right before you come on a public forum and start speaking as you are some sort of authority on this subject.
First of all, you could not be more wrong about footholds and snares being much more effective for taking Bobcats. A simple visit to the MN DNR website will tell you that more than 75% of all Bobcats trapped in MN are done so in conibears. Secondly, fisher and marten trapping is much, much more effective when you are on the ground, not 5' up a tree as you suggest and claim that most other states have as laws-which is simply untrue. You are either lying or misinformed so please get your facts right.
I fully understand the bond between dogs and their owners, we have a beloved Yellow Lab in our family and I would too be devistated if she were killed in a trap. When we go into the woods during trapping season I am very careful about her getting too far out from me.
Sincerely,
M. O'Brien
Breezy Point, MN
Sad but common commentary from a trapper
I have long supported trapping but continue to see trappers respond to dog kills exactly like Mr. O'Brien has.
An appropriate response--certainly a better one--for someone purporting to represent a group whose practices enjoy a very thin line of popular support might be to express sympathy. Perhaps inquire into the specifics of what happened to determine if the sets involved where very poor.
But no, have to attack someone who had his dog killed. I see this from trappers responding to dog kills frequently.
And you had to suggest the dog owners did something wrong by not having the dog closer to them. This is pure nonsense, yet is something else I have seen in the typical response from trappers to dog kills. As any knowledgable hunting dog owner knows, a good dog isn't under foot all the time. In fact, a nice setter like Mr. Noska's was bred and designed to find birds at some distance from the hunter--and then stay there pointing them until the hunter comes along.
Congratulations. I still support trapping. But I know quite well how MN's regulations differ from all our surrounding states. Specifically, they are weaker on the allowed placement of conibears than all the others except one.
I will be pointing this out to our elected representatives and the governors office, asking them to support legislation to ban all ground use of 220's and up. I'm tired of hearing about these horror stories and then seeing how trappers just like you respond to them.
michael obrien
Three thousand in 12 months? I doubt you could even catch that many squirrels in 12 months.
You certainly are some kind of super trapper aren't you.
Obviously you know NOTHING about about dogs and I'm surprised that a super trapper like you hasn't killed them by the dozen.
Trappers in other states trap bobcats and fisher without slaughtering dogs like irresponsible trappers do in MN. Are they smarter? How do they do that?
I think you are a fraud. I know a bit about trapping and what you say isn't true. Many trappers find that a lot of bobcats walk by their bucket sets. The latest issue of Trapper and Predator Caller had an article by a MN trapper who said just that. Is he lying?
I spoke with Mr. Noska and his dog had a beeper that went of when the dog stopped moving. He reached his dog within a very short time expecting to find it on point. Instead he found her dying in the trap. Most people will find their dog dying in the trap IF they are able to find it within minutes. Even if they do reach them when they are still alive chances are they will still die.
Responsible trappers need to lead the effort to ban ground setting these dog killing traps. There is NO EXCUSE for killing dogs when other safer alternatives are readily available.
That is fact and I can back it up. I'm surprised that a super trapper doesn't know about dogproof coon traps.
drama queen?
http://www.trapperman.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2881510/2/Breezy_P...
after reading that trappers post now I'll ask my legislator
to ban those traps.
By your nasty response, you may have just galvanized casual readers to support fish
and that poor man in the article.
Congrats on that.
no kidding, mike
you killed 8 furry things a day on average last year? without incident? Hmmm...
your kidding, right?
Fishhead,
First of all you might be surprised how many people catch that many critters. There are guys who take this very seriously and if you want you are free to stop by anytime at my place and ill show you some catch pictures that might surprise you. I do have sympathy for you and others who have lost pets, but we all need to use common sense. AS i stated, ive never caught a dog and there are places every year i have to pass up cause there are too many people using that area. It seems everyone needs a scapegoat, and go ahead and use me if you need to, but you should be honest about your situation in particular. Not to be calus, but were you or were you not actually trapping when your pet was caught by someone else? I heard the story through a friend and it is indeed a bad deal, as anyone of these are, but as i said, we all need to use common sense when in the woods. Go ahead and search the internet all you want, that is fine, but again, we are in this together and if you think if antis succeed in taking away trapping that they will stop there you arent thinking clearly. they will then work on reducing hunting opprotunities till we have given up all those rights too.
m obrien
Trapping Law Needs to Change
After reading the articles, comments and doing some research online, I too am convinced that something needs to change. I am not a trapper and this does not seem to be about a request to ban trapping by any means. What I am learning about here is that one law needs to change and that is to require that Body Gripping Traps not be allowed to be set on the ground in Minnesota where our beloved family members, pets, hunting dogs, whatever you want to call them, cannot be at risk of getting killed in one. I understand that Mr. Obrien is making a living from trapping and it would seem that he could continue to do so while reducing or eliminating this horrifying risk to dogs in Minnesota. How many dogs have to be killed in one of these Body Gripping Traps? ONE is all it takes for me to take action. I have written a letter to my state representatives and it will be sent out tomorrow. I do not plan to stop there. I will follow this issue and support it in anyway I can until the law is changed in Minnesota. All outdoor enthusiasts should be able to enjoy our public land without fear of having a family member killed right in front of them. Trappers can still enjoy and profit from trapping if Body Gripping Traps are not allowed to be set on the ground, but rather up and off the ground. I am glad that Mr. Obrien wrote on this forum causing me to get involved, get the word out to my hunting club, to my family and friends who hunt all over the state. I am now on a mission and I have not even lost my own dog, nor do I personally know anyone that has, but I never ever want to either.
Fully Determined.
That's right. This is NOT
That's right. This is NOT about banning trapping. It's ONLY about eliminating the unnecessary risk of killing our dogs. Is that too much to ask?
We hear the empty meaningless words "be careful" and "commonsense". Empty and meaningless because they mean nothing.
What exactly do you mean by "be careful" and "commonsense"? Tell me. Does it mean hunting grouse with your dog on a 6' leash? Is that being careful? Or should hunters avoid all trails with any sign of people in case there's a trapper setting dog killing traps? Should we just stay out of the woods period? Is that "being careful"?
The one thing that trappers who have never killed a dog and trappers who have killed a dog have in common is that up until the moment the latter finds out they killed a dog BOTH will say that they are "being careful".
Is it really too much to ask trappers to switch back to foothold and snares and dog proof coon traps or to put the traps up so that dogs can't get killed in them? Is that too much to ask so that we can get along together in the woods? If it is too much then you really can't say that you are willing to get along at all.
Just because a trapper wants to only check his trap every three days is NOT a reasonable excuse to kill our dogs. Is it?
Here's a story of a Pine River dog that died needlessly in a killer trap in 2009. That should have been more than enough for the MTA to take action and admit there is a very serious problem that needs to be fixed and fixed now.
When I wrote to Outdoor News clear back in the 90's when I first encountered bucket sets along a heavily used grouse hunting trail the trappers attacked me and people came forward with stories of how their dogs were killed by these traps. Now almost 20 years later and many good dogs killed it's still happening and my Penni is now lying buried in my yard.
I WILL NOT GO AWAY!
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/80121777.html
ON PUBLIC LAND
These three words would go a long way.
Providing a hazardous situation where others and their pets can be exposed to them should be discouraged.
But, I would not encourage an outright ban statewide.
Yup, there are a few
Yup, there are a few irresponsible trappers out there. Just as there are irresponsible dog owners, ATV riders, snowmobile riders, drunk drivers, and parents. There are even irresponsible grouse hunters. Responsible trappers like Mr. Obrien and myself don't catch dogs in body grip traps because we take pains not to. I really feel for the guy that lost his dog. I'd be crushed if I was in the same situation. It seemed as a read the article that the guy was a very dedicated, responsible hunter. I bet he would not want to be lumped in with all the ATV grouse hunters that cruise miles of logging roads and shoot grouse from a running ATV. He just didn't seem like that kind of guy. Responsible trappers don't want to be lumped in with the dregs either. A legally set trap has to be tagged with the owner's name and address. The guy that lost his dog knows exactly who set the trap if it was legal. His gripe is not with me or Mr. Obrien nor should it be. Please leave us responsible trappers out of this. If you hunt, trap, fish, or practice any form of consumptive outdoor recreational activity, you live in a glass house and the anti's are just waiting for you to start throwing rocks. This story is tragic for the dog owner and the dog, but it is also an opportunity for education for dog owners and trappers alike. It would be a greater tragedy if you all formed up a circular firing squad with trappers in the center. You all may be aiming at the trapper, but you are shooting each other as well.
traps
It sounds like your saying that trappers are trying to target dogs when out running a line.using the word like slaughter thats a bit strong.I am a life long trapper and have never caught a dog in my life,also the 220 conibear has been used for years along with the cubby set on the ground.I bought a trapping license just like grouse hunters have to buy their license.and have every right to trap on the same pulic ground as they hunt so why should i be penalized for doing absolutly nothing wrong.
I have no doubt that both
I have no doubt that both trappers that are responsible for killing our dogs thought they were being careful but the fact remains our dogs are dead. These traps are deadly on dogs and it only takes one bad coincidence for the trap and the dog to meet and the dog to die. Even if you don't care about our dogs it's short sighted not to think of the impact this has on the future of trapping.
No one is saying that trappers are targeting dogs. And no one is saying they support a total ban on trapping.
What I am saying is that it is an unreasonable risk to set traps capable of killing dogs where dogs can reach them. I'm confident that most people think preventing the deaths by asking trappers to not set them on the ground and to use footholds and snares instead is not an unreasonable request. I also think most people will be shocked to learn this is even legal in MN. Trappers would be wise to voluntarily request this reasonable change to the regulations. They could do this and show Minnesotans that responsible trappers are concerned about killing our dogs and are taking steps to stop the killing.
I intend on informing as many Minnesotans as possible. If trappers want to dig in and go for all-or-nothing they might regret the outcome.
Given the choice between protecting our dogs and protecting your 'priviledge' of trapping which do you think dog owners will choose? And don't forget that dog owners out number trappers by at least 100 to 1.
traps
I too own dogs raised them from pups and consider them both part of the family.if i lost one of them to an unfortunate trapping incident,I wouldnt be happy about it but the way i look at it is you take a risk when ever you go into the woods.you cant tell me that you wouldnt have an idea that their are trappers out and about.especially when we have a winter as mild and so little snow as this year.like i said if i did loose one of my pets i would still continue to trap,and not ridicule other trappers or the legal methods or traps they use.it was and unfortunate accident for both dogs and nothing more.
john
non-working people and illegale people outnumber taxpayers too. does that mean taxpayers should just shut up? goodby America if so.
fishhead-
you are talking nonsense now. Are you going to elliminate anything that cvould possibly pose any sort of threat to anything in the woods? What about a couple coyotes attacking your dog? Are you going to try to elliminate all coyotes now too? there are many things we need to be careful of and trappers and dog owners need to work together and educate eachother. I cant tell you how many times ive ran into grouse hunters in the woods and i mention im trapping to all of them, and each and every time there is a positive response. I will take the time to show them my gear, explain how to set the traps if something should happen, and on and on. I understand your anger Fishhead, I do, but if you think you are going to create a safehaven for all animals in teh woods by getting rid of conibears you are mistaken. The antis came at us hard a few years back and we beat them in court, and you can bet we are still prepared to fight that fight all over again, well prepared.
I only speak for myself, and dont claim to speak for any other trappers, but you are trying to make us look like a bunch of neandrathals or something with the words you are using, and you again couldnt be further from the truth. Trappers are some of the most understanding, considerate people ive ever met, and ive never met a more dedicated, good hearted group of people as trappers. For you to come on some website and try to make it look like we are all a bunch of bloodthirsty dog killers makes you look silly. If you calculated the total number of hours that there were 220's set on dryland this year it would probably number into the millions of hours, and but for a couple tragic accidents they are probably one of the safest tools we have to manage Minnesotas predators.
mobrien
Mr. Fishhead, You talk of
Mr. Fishhead, You talk of "unreasonable risk". What in your mind would reasonable risk be? Every day in MN from late Oct. to early Jan. there are thousands and thousands of these so called "killer" traps set on public lands in MN (the correct term is body-grip). It is tragic and it seems like it leaps to the front page of the newspaper when a dog gets caught. But the bottom line is that it is extremely rare. Responsible trappers don't set body-grip 220 size traps where people or dogs are likely to be. They just don't do it. Catching a dog in any type of trap is bad for trappers and would likely hit the front pages of the BDD whether it was a body-grip 220 or a foot-hold trap. Besides the terrible and often misleading press that it gets, most trappers are probably also dog owners. I am and I'd feel awful if this happened to my dog. Also, if a dog is in your trap, you can't catch the fur bearer you've targeted. It is just bad practice all around. Right this minute, I have several dozen traps set on public lands in Crow-Wing county. Some of them are these dreadful "killer" traps you hate so much. When I check them in the morning there will be no dogs in any of them (probably nothing else either the way my luck has been this year) because I set them where no dogs or people are likely to be. Grouse hunters and dog-walkers or anybody else could go where I've set my traps, but I work extra hard to find places that they are unlikely to go. Most trappers do this. The bottom line is it is terrible what happened to this guy's dog. I feel bad for him and the dog. But people ought to know, most trappers go out of their way to avoid this kind of thing and but for a few extremely rare exceptions that happen to get a lot of press, trappers are very successful at not catching dogs. There are a lot of risks more dangerous to hunting dogs that body-grip traps. It seems to me that grouse hunters and trappers working together and educating each other will go way further to protect dogs and protect our outdoor recreation than a bunch finger pointing. Our common enemy is the anti's. They love it when we argue amongst ourselves and work against each other. They don't have to work as hard against us that way.
Loose with the facts again!
I'd bet that if Mr. O Brien is as active in trapping he is well aware of theww things he is refuting here. Three things that play a major role in dog deaths from larger conibears set on land.
One, they are designed to kill, not hold the animal until the trapper comes along. In fact, international best management trap practices call for high efficiency and speed of death in use of body gripping traps, to minimize any lingering pain/suffering to the caught animal. They do that quite well.
Two--and this is directly related to the above--dog owners have very little time to find their dog before it is dead if it happens to come across a conibear. Again, the trapping best management practices are instructive here--they call for "irreversible loss of consciousness within 300 seconds" as the standard for such traps. That's a good thing for target animals. It's not good at all for captures of non-target animals and pets. The BMP's and most state's regulations recognize this and place greater requirements designed to decrease issues with non-target kills on conibear style traps.
Third--conibears are not simple to open even for people who know how to do so. For people that don't, there's very little likelhood of figuring it out in time. And with a struggling dog dying in front of your eyes--which may actually scratch and bite you in it's fear--it can be impossible. I know of several people who rushed to their dog caught in a conibear almost immediately and tried in vain to get it out. One was a trapper himself, a big strong guy. He did his best in spite of being bitten badly by his dog but in the end watched it die right in front of him. A year or two ago, a Brainerd eye doctor failed to get his dog out in time and watched it die in front of him.
Again I am not calling for a ban even on body gripping traps. They have their place, but even good trappers can obey every law on MN's books and kill dogs with land sets of 220's and bigger.
These traps are killing dogs.
These traps are killing dogs. That is fact.
It is not necessary to set them on the ground where they can kill dogs. They can be set off the ground like is done in many states. That is fact.
Trappers have safe and effective alternatives (footholds, snares and dog proof coon traps) to setting these traps on the ground. That is fact.
No one is saying ban them completely. That is fact.
We can't do anything about eliminating threats like coyotes and wolves but we can make one simple change to the regulations to eliminate the threat of killing another dog in these traps. Responsible trappers should support this reasonable change.
Trappers in ME regularly catch 40-50 fisher a season in killer traps set off the ground. MN only allows 2 fisher per season so there's no reason that MN trappers can't set their traps off the ground to catch 2.
I have several books on trapping bobcats written by professional trappers with decades of experience and not one has a single set using these dog killing traps on the ground. Not one. Bobcats are no harder to catch than a skunk.
A perfectly legal MN set
Can be seen here.
https://sites.google.com/a/nocrueltrapsonpubliclands.info/www/_/rsrc/126...
Bait that smells great to the intended target--and your own dog--will be placed behind the jaws of the trap. The set is designed for the animal to stick it's head in between the jaws for a sniff. Then the jaws close around the animal's throat. Death within minutes.
Traps should be illegal
Conibear traps crush animals’ necks, applying 90 pounds of pressure per square inch. It takes animals three to eight minutes to suffocate in these traps. There is no reason in this day and age to have these things around. Only cowards who put these things down and walk away, with little to no regard, who or what gets caught by them, use them. Use all the arguments you want, but one day a child is going to get caught and not a dog, and then it's going to be too late!!
WOW
I have a 28 lb springer that I almost lost 2 years ago to a conibear in a bucket. Why are trappers allowed to use game bird parts as an attractant for trapping, particularly during open season for bird hunting? To me this is just asking for trouble. Why is it always the hunter and dogs fault? In my run in with this deadly type and size of trap, a pheasant wing was used as an attractant. Thankfully this was not my first experience with this set up and I was able to spring the trap with a stick before she got her head completely in the bucket! Of course than I was attacked for tampering with a trap. I'm sorry but my dog comes before any "damm trap."
Clarification please,
I'm not nor have ever been a trapper so excuse me if this is a dumb question. When you refer to a "bucket trap" does that mean that you place the conibear trap, I know what a conibear is, inside the bucket and put the bait in with the trap?
lying again fishhead
Does the truth seem like a reasonable concept to you sir? You come on here and attack me with ridicule and slandar, yet you seem like the actual truth doesnt mater. You might want to check the Fisher limits in Maine again, as anyone catching 40-50 Fisher will be in some serious trouble.
This issue comes up every few years and the state always sees through to the facts and sides with trappers here. The bottom line is responsible trappers are able to avoid almost all conflicts with pets. This issue is a nonissue compared to the other threats we as pet owners face.
Answer this question
What justification do you have for using a trap that will kill any dog that it catches when other safe alternative traps are readily available?
I was going by the fisher trapping video produced by Bob Noonan. I believe he is in ME and the trapper he showed was in ME also. Regardless whether it was ME or VT or some other state responsible trappers are catching fishers in killer traps set off the ground.
"...responsible trappers are able to avoid almost all conflicts with pets." Almost all????? It only takes one to break someone's heart and to give trapping a bad name. Would a responsible trapper do that? I don't think so.
llr, A "bucket trap" refers to a killer trap set in the opening of a 5 gallon bucket, or mail tube or plywood box. It's designed so that when the animal sticks it's head into the opening to reach the bait the trap springs out 7" and crushes the windpipe of the animal or breaks it's neck.
Here's a bucket set. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw0oCBVREz8&feature=related
Here's a safe alternative for coons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMDtc4Jrch4&feature=related
It's virtually impossible to catch a normal sized dog in one and if it did it would only catch the paw.
Safe alternatives to these deadly trap sets exist but there seems to be an attitude among trappers that it is their right to use these traps despite the annual death toll on our pets. And then they blame us.
Thanks for the info Fish!
For someone like me that didn't know anything about the subject this has been a very informative postings.