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 commentResponsibility in the Woods
I find myself laughing at some of the defensive comments by the trappers who have responded, who somehow have talked themselves into believing we should live in some "wild west" sort of existence with them. The comments of we as bird hunters assume the risk of our dogs being killed by traps as just some ho-hum thing is really maddening. Given that logic I guess the next time some little kid gets shot deer hunting we all should just say "o'well he knew the risks when he entered the woods. Come-on man, we all know that isn't right. Don't kid yourselves guys when a trap kills a dog the trapper who placed it is responsible, just like a hunter is responsible for every shot that leaves his gun.
As far as I know in our society we try to avoid letting one group, industry, business, person or what ever, benefit at the expense of another. Money is being made selling the furs of trapped animals, what recourse does one have if they loose their dog? Some guys spend thousands of dollars on the training of their dog, to say that some piece of fur is worth more is insulting. Before people knew any better industries treaded on their neighbors all over this country. To me that is what this feels like, it feels like some guy who lives down the road who decides he wants to make some extra money can place a hidden booby trap that I have to somehow stay clear of without knowing where to look. Not fair in my opinion.
I have also read in several places that some trappers use the remains of game birds as bait, is that really true? Is it legal? If it is, really... and you are saying it's my fault if my dog gets caught in a trap by doing what I have spent 100's and 100's of hours training him to do, track and flush those same birds. It sounds like the old Halloween horror stories I heard as a kid of some freak putting razor blades in candy bars but rather than just getting a cut tongue my dog gets killed. Again, not fair play in my opinion.
Is there a compromise?
Mr. O’brien, hans, and DarkArcher - This is not about banning trapping in Minnesota. The request of myself and other dog owners and hunters is to reduce the risk “further” to our beloved pets. Other states have put regulations in place making trapping safer for their dogs and other unintended animals. Why are you so against Minnesota doing the same? All outdoor enthusiasts should be able to enjoy public lands and not have to worry about traps that can immediately kill a dog. How can it be safe to have a body grip trap in a bucket lying on the ground baited with dead animal parts where a dog is hunting a bird? Dogs are trained to be out in front of their owners a little ways while hunting. If the hunter does not even know there is a trap in those woods or land, how can the hunter know to avoid it? These traps are not even marked in a way that a person will know it is there. There is no blaze orange, there is no warning sign. If you have not caught a dog in a trap that is great for you and I hope you never do, but many trappers have, or we would not be hearing about dead dogs in body grip traps – 2 in the last week! Why can’t trappers agree to a compromise in which they can still trap all they want on public land, but not with body grip traps on the ground. No one seems to be attacking “you” with ridicule and slander as you have suggested. Rather, people who have lost or fear losing their pet unnecessarily are looking for alternatives. How would you suggest that hunters and their dogs and traps coexist in the same space on public land? The key is coexist. Trappers can still trap and hunters can still hunt with their dogs. Trappers get to kill animals and collect money for their work, and hunters kill birds, enjoy recreating and go home with their dogs and eat their birds. How can we make sure this can happen without risk of a dog dying in a trap? Is there another way? Why not consider another way? Looking for legitimate suggestions. I have written to my state representatives and Governor Dayton and others and will continue to write, but would like legitimate suggestions from trappers on how to make this safer.
I guess they can't come up with a legitimate reason
What justification is there for using traps that kill dogs on public land in a way that allows dogs to reach them and be killed when other safe alternatives are available?
Anyone?
If there isn't why don't we change the law and save our dogs?
Fish,
I know I disagree with you on many issues but from what I've read and the links posted here I think you are right on the mark!
Thank you llr
I hope that you will write your legislators and ask them to change this law.
bertman, yes it IS legal to use gamebird parts for bait. Not only is it legal but it's common to use wild game for bait. The trap that killed Penni was baited with beaver. The trap that killed Sue was also baited with beaver. The trapper that killed Penni once told me that grouse was his favorite bait.
This brings up an obvious question. If a trapper participating in a legal activity, setting dog killing traps on public land, but does it in a reckless manner ie. using meat and grouse feathers for bait and setting in areas that are open to hunting dogs or dogs being walked is he legally liable for damages?
As it turns out ME trappers are not currently allowed to catch 40 fisher in a season. They are however allowed to catch 10 fisher and 25 marten (5 times as many fisher and 5 times as marten as MN) using killer traps set a minimum of 4' off the ground on poles that must be sloped at least 45 degrees and no larger than 4" in diameter.
MN trappers can only catch 2 fisher and up to 5 marten. Once again we see there is no legitimate reason for setting killer traps on the ground.
I don't expect anyone to answer my question on finding a legitimate reason to continue to kill our dogs with these traps set on the ground.
Bad Situation
Had a friend lose a dog last year to one of these traps, dog died in his arms as he did everything in his power to free his best friend, but failed. AS an owner of 2 hunting dogs that frequent the woods I hope something can be done. One thing is that every trap should have a quick release on it, granted it may cost the trappers an animal or 2 but well worth the dogs it would save. I know if my dog was killed by a trap I would not leave the area until the trapper returned, at that point Im not sure what would happen.
IN MI
IN Michigan all Conibers have to be in Dog proof boxes or 4 fett off the ground!!
I've yet to see a dog proof
I've yet to see a dog proof box design that would catch bobcats AND stop a dog determined to reach the bait. The more you restrict the opening the less likely it is that a bobcat will stick it's head inside and get caught. Beagles have died in 120's with only a 4 1/2" jaw spread.
Even with no restrictions on size trappers already see "refusals".
"I think you are right on the
"I think you are right on the mark!"
Couldn't agree more, llr. Mr. O'Brien and his cohort's opinions have been thoroughly discredited.
More interesting information
Had this pointed out to me today.
The MN trappers association produced information for it's members on trapping ethics.
Under a category of "things to be avoided", one of the items is:
"Use of inappropriate sets in areas of high human or domestic animal use. In general, LAND SETS with foothold or KILLER TRAPS should be avoided in areas such as parks, HIGH USE RECREATION OR HUNTING AREAS, and residential developments. Livetraps, water sets and various types of "DOG PROOF" sets are more acceptable in these areas."
It seems that many are calling for something to become law that even the state trappers association discusses as a potential problem best avoided by trappers.
interesting information
the information you got from the mta is correct and the majority of trappers abide by that but i cant speak for everybody.but let me ask you this i trap in a area that is 67 thousand acers is that considerd high human or domestic use? i try my very best to get off the beaten path to do my trapping but as much as you try to avoid other hunters and trappers you still run into them. thats just the way it is,thats life in the woods unfortunate things do happen, outlawing the use of traps or guns or whatever is not the solution. but i can say this what has been written on this forum is totaly blown out of porpotion its just ridiculous. their are factors that alot of the people that are replying to on here dont even know about so dont be so quick to judge the trappers or the traps that we legaly use.
Hans
What stops you from using traps that won't kill dogs?
Crow Wing County has 104,000 acres of public county land open to hunting and hiking. Virtually all of it gets visited by hunters and hikers and dogs.
What if
his dog would have been killed by a deer hunter, thinking the dog was on the scent of a deer? When you hunt public lands, you also take the risk of encountering others that are using the land for their own purpose. I feel for the dog owners but when public lands are for multipurpose recreation and seasons overlap as they do, it is hard to control who is using the land and for what purpose.
Big difference Myeye08
It is NOT necessary to set dog killing body grips on the ground. Trappers have options that are just as effective that don't kill dogs. It's irresponsible to use body grips on the ground.
Fish once again....
when you hunt public lands, you take the risk of encountering others using the land for their own purpose. If a ground set is legal, then no law has been broken and the quarry is taken by ethical, responsible means.
I learned many moons ago that hunting public lands, expect the unexpected . A "dusting" from a grouse hunter in September, the whizzing and smack of a stray bullet against a tree two feet from my head during firearms season, neighbors dogs barking under my tree stand during full rut all made my list of irresponsible actions from those who I shared the woods with at the time. This helped me to make better decisions when to hunt public lands... like only when I have to or in December when most are safe by their fireplace.
Opening of Conibear traps.
The DNR provides in the 2011 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Handbook on page 34 two ways of opening a conibear trap.
Perhaps if being prepared before going into the field is too much to ask of nontrappers we can get the laws changed to make it illegal for nontrappers to be on public land during trapping season. Would that solve the problem Fishhead? I'm not asking for special privileges but I think it is ridiculous to go after the trapper for using public land. I wasn't there. I don't know if the trap was set legally and Fishhead you weren't there either (were you?), all I do know is that when two or more groups of public land users go head to head during their seasons accidents happen. In this case it was a fatal accident could it have been avoided? Maybe, maybe not, there isn't an answer that will please everyone. Animals are curious and very good at staying hidden. They see you many times more than you see them and if given the chance to get a free meal, pet or not, they will take it, even when working a field for their master. Ever have your dog eat part of a dead animal or scat while out hunting or hiking? I have and they smell bad the whole ride home. Who's fault is it that the hunting dog ate the feces or the rotted animal? Is it my fault for picking that particular trail or public area or is it my animal's fault for being an opportunist? Animals by nature put their noses into places that smell like food. Banning a certain trap won't make all nontarget animal catches go away. Snares are just as unforgiving even with a safety stop on them. So what is the answer, shorten upland bird seasons to not include trapping season is the only real solution since it was trapping that opened this nation up to settlement in the first place over 200 years ago, trappers were here first.
No difference Fish...
in both situations the dog ends up dead. Take a step back and re-read the second sentence of my post. If the trap is a legal set, how can you blame the trapper for being irresponsible? Maybe Trooper has the best solution... regulate who uses the woods at what time might be the best for all that use public land for their pleasure.
Or they could be responsible
Or they could be responsible and use traps that don't kill our dogs. They have very effective alternatives.
Trappers in Maine catch 5 times as many fisher and 5 times as many marten in killer trap sets (4' off the ground on small poles) that don't kill dogs.
We have new dog proof coon traps that don't catch and couldn't kill dogs available.
I would like another trapper to tell me why they can't use those safe alternatives?
Hans says he tries to avoid
Hans says he tries to avoid hunters but can't.
"i try my very best to get off the beaten path to do my trapping but as much as you try to avoid other hunters and trappers you still run into them."
Shouldn't that be a wakeup call NOT to put out traps that kill dogs when safe alternatives are available?
no matter what it falls on the dog owners if its legal
You control your dogs and do not let them roam free and without control you do not have an issue. It really is that simple.
If the trap is set legally, then the only one to blame is yourself and this shouldnt even be a news story, PERIOD.
If it was set illegally sue them for the loss of the dog, make sure they get fined the right amount and lose their trapping rights. And by all means make a HUGE news story out of it, then its deserving.
The best part of this is wolves are killing pets all the time and NOTHING is ever in the paper on that. Maybe there was but I must have missed it if it was.
YOU GUYS ARE SO MISSING THE POINT
MYEYE08, I DISAGREE WITH DEMS AND TROOPER, YOU GUYS SEEM LIKE YOUR SMART GUYS BUT, YOUR COMPREHENSION MIGHT NEED A LITTLE WORK. I HAVE NOT READ THAT ANYONE IS SUDGESTING THAT TRAPPING BE BANNED NOR ARE WE SAYING TO BAN THE USE OF THE CONIBERS ENTIRELY, WE ARE ASKING FOR A COMPROMISE IN HOW THEY ARE APPLIED (PLACED)IN THE FIELD(IE PLACING THEM OFF THE GROUND). SOMETHING, ANYTHING BUT WHAT IS ALLOWED CURRENTLY, BECAUSE ITS KILLING OUR DOGS. TO YOUR POINT IF THE TRAPS WERE LEGALLY PLACED I HAVE A HARD TIME BLAMING THE TRAPPER, ALTOUGH IN MY OPIONION IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT! AS TROOPER MADE REFERENCE TRAPPING IS 200 YEARS OLD, OLD LAWS ARE AMENDED ALL THE TIME TO MAKE THEM RELEVANT TO THE TIMES AND THE TIMES ARE A CHANGIN. THERE ARE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE IN THE WOODS EVERY DAY, THIS KIND OF STORY IS NOT THE FIRST NOR WILL IT BE THE LAST BUT EVERYTIME IT COMES UP IT JUST [filtered word] OFF AN ENTIRELY NEW SET OF PEOPLE TO NO END. THE TRAPPER WOULD BE SCREWED.
WHAT ELSE YOU GUYS ARE MISSING HERE IS THAT OUR DOGS BY AND LARGE ARE FAMILY MUCH LIKE THAT OF CHILDREN AND WE CHARISH THEM MUCH LIKE YOU MIGHT CHARISH YOUR KIDS, IF YOU HAVE ANY. IF YOUR CHILDREN WERE GOING OUT INTO THE WOODS AND ONE OF THEM WAS KILLED BY SOMETHING SOMEONE WAS DOING AND YOU FOUND OUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD BE SO CAVILEER ABOUT IT. YEARS OF TRAPPING 3000 PLUS ANIMALS A YEAR LIKE MR O’BRIEN MIGHT HAVE DESENSITIZED YOU TO THE FACT THAT AN ANIMAL MIGHT HAVE WORTH OTHER THAN IT'S MEAT OR FUR, BUT IF I WERE THERE I WOULD BE SCREAMING THIS RIGHT NOW "THEY DO!!!" I READ ONE GUY SAY "IT'S A NON ISSUE" WHAT MAKES IT AN ISSUE FOR YOU 1,5,10,100 DOGS. THE FACT IS 1 DOG IS TOO MANY WHEN IT'S YOURS.
I HAVE ALSO WORKED IN AN INDUSTRY THAT POSSED A SEVERE RISK TO THE PUBLIC, IF WE AS THE LEADERS DID NOT WORK TO MAKE OUR OWN INDUSTRY SAFER (POLICE OURSELVES) SOMEELSE WOULD HAVE AND THE RESULTS IM SURE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE LIKED. I THINK IT WOULD BEHOUVE YOU GUYS IN THE TRAPPING INDUSTRY TO STEP FORWARD AND HELP RATHER THAN TAKE SUCH A HARD LINE. BY NOT DOING SO YOU GIVE TO MUCH POWER TO THE "ANTI'S" AND YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE RESULTS! THAT WOULDN'T BE GOOD EITHER.
I started an online petition
I started an online petition asking that body grip traps be kept off the ground. Please sign it and pass it on.
http://signon.org/sign/safe-public-lands?source=c.em.mt&r_by=1905165
When it fills up I will hand deliver it to Governor Dayton, Rep. John Ward, and Senator Paul Gazelka.
I'm also asking people to contact their legislators and ask them to make this commonsense change to the regs.
traps
fish head you claim to be a trapper also ,so your telling me that you have never used or set a 220 conibear on the ground? and another question were you or were you not tending traps when your dog got caught in a trap. was wondering if you had your dog in sight the whole time? if my info is incorrect i apolagize. if not to me you are hipocritical. as far as you askig me about a wake up call to me not at all i will continue to use the 220 its just another tool that works well.
hans
No. I have never nor would I ever use a 220 on the ground anywhere because I know that there is no safe place and no safe way to do it. I did have some 160's and 220's set on poles. Trappers in other states use poles sets and catch up to 5 times as many fisher and 5 times as many marten as MN regulations allow.
Now answer my question. What stops you from using traps that don't kill dogs on land?
ME trappers
Trappers in Maine set the traps 4' feet off the gound because when it snows the traps would be covered and useless if they were set any lower. By setting the traps at 4 feet above the ground the traps can stay effective for the entire winter which to a long liner is important when running a hundred mile line. Has it been determined, Fishhead, that the person that caught the nontarget animal was trapping marten and/or fisher or are you just introducing information to strengthen your case? New dog proof traps must great if you can afford them. Will you help everyone with the costs of the new traps and the dyeing and maintenance of it?
Bertman: I see you found the caps lock button. Did you know you had it on the whole time? The laws for trapping much like the laws for using lead in hunting have changed with the times. The unfortunate problem is that whenever a person's property in this case a dog is killed due to interactions with other people using the same PUBLIC LAND it becomes an emotional issue instead of a rational or logical issue. Emotions are telling you that the dog is part of the familiy and as much as you try to make them like children, THEY ARE NOT, they are animals and animals have limited rights in society. If all animals had the same rights as humans then the dog that was caught would never have been in the field hunting in the first place as it would be guilty, same as the hunter, of attempting to commit murder of the targeted species for which they were hunting. Grouse in this case.
I too would like to know if Fishhead had a dog on his trapline since it is illegal to have a dog along on a trapline in Minnesota.
And I'll answer the last question: What stops you from using traps that don't kill dogs on land? Did you mean public land only or public and private land? Nothing stops me from using traps that don't kill dogs on public land except I haven't ran a trapline for 16 years now. I trapped on private land when I trapped and the issue here is PUBLIC LAND. As for starting a petition to ban something on public land what stops that ban from spilling over onto private land too then? Did you think this through logically or did you let your emotions take over?
You just aren't getting it, but thats okay.
Trooper, sorry about the caps button. Anyway, again what you are failing to understand is that regardless of the emotion, the fact remains that these traps placed like they are currently allowed, poss a serious risk to peoples (as you put it "property") dogs while on public land. I don't think any amount of discussion will help you see it from my point of view but thats okay, I recently read the numerious posts on a trapping forum that really impressed me. There are some very smart trappers out there who get it. They see that this form of trap placed on the ground the way it killed Johns dog is causing a seriuos problem for them and that some compromise may need to be excepted for the longevity of the trapping sport. Hmmm... rational, logical? They refernence other states that have gone thru the same process and see that numbers are not on your side. They also know that every time a trapper gets real hardlined and goes on about how a persons dog is not worthy and that it isn't the trappers fault that it's the dog owners fault, they know as well as I do it only strengthens the resolve of the people trying to change it. So, I guess keep saying what your saying, it's okay. Your just making my job easier.
Trooper
Boy. You are just a wealth of misinformation.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/hunting/2011/full_regs.pdf
Trappers in ME are required by law to set at least 4' off the ground on poles no larger than 4" in diameter to protect dogs AND TO PROTECT THE PRIVILEGE OF TRAPPING. Using those dog proof improvements they are allowed to catch 5 times as many fisher and 5 times as many marten as MN law allows. By not killing our family members they are protecting trapping for future generations. That investment in good will seems to escape many trappers in MN.
Here's an interesting thread on killing dogs in MN on Trapperman. I'm heartened to see that 'some' MN trappers are responsible and understand the value of cultivating good will towards trapping.
http://www.trapperman.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2919017/1.html
Laziness is not a valid justification for killing our dogs
I've asked several times what justification trappers have for using dog killing body grips when they have safe and effective alternatives that don't kill our dogs but no one will answer that question. They all avoid it like the plague.
State statute says that trappers only have to check body grips once every 3 days so I guess the "justification" for using dog killing body grips that no one wants to admit is laziness on the part of the trapper who only wants to check his trap every 3 days.
"Boy" really, didn't think you'd go there, Fishhead!
bertman: Can you admit to seeing what I am saying? Animals are not PEOPLE and don't have the same rights as PEOPLE because they are animals.
Fishhead: Why would you call me "Boy".
Where is the misinformation at?
What does Maine have to do with Minnesota? They both start with "M" but that's about it. Instead of comparing two states so far away from each other why don't you worry about your own state.
I did answer your "avoided it like the plague" queston in my 01/06/12 statement but since you didn't read it, here it is again for your reading pleasure you wanted to know, What stops someone from using traps that don't kill dogs on land? My answer: Did you mean public land only or public and private land? Nothing stops me from using traps that don't kill dogs on public land except I haven't ran a trapline for 16 years now. I trapped on private land when I trapped and the issue here is PUBLIC LAND. As for starting a petition to ban something on public land what stops that ban from spilling over onto private land too then? Did you think this through logically or did you let your emotions take over? Do you really think the trapper/s that set the traps were hoping to catch a dog or did they want to catch a prime raccoon? I don't believe for a second that the traps were set specifically to catch a hunter's dog.
Now if you can avoid calling me "Boy" again, fishhead, feel free to respond.
I wasn't calling you boy. It
I wasn't calling you boy. It was more on an exclamation at your misinformation filled post. I'm not going to take the time to dissect it other than to say that MN gets lots of snow in a normal winter too and it's doubtful that Maine trappers would ask their legislature to write a bill requiring them to set off the ground because of snow. They could do that voluntarily if snow was the reason for the legislation.
I'm researching all 48 state trapping regulations and although I've got a lot left to do so far 15 states ban the use of 220's on the ground. Many also ban 160's on the ground.
No one is saying that trappers are deliberately killing our dogs. If you would slow down and read the posts we are saying that trappers should move their killer traps up off the ground out of reach of dogs and use other types of traps that don't kill our dogs. That seems reasonable doesn't it?