You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of Homesteading Today!    
Homesteading Forum

Go Back   Homesteading Forum > Livestock Forums > Working and Companion Animals

Working and Companion Animals From Kittens to Homestead hounds, bring your dog and cat questions here!


Like Tree8Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #41  
Old 01/19/12, 04:30 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otter View Post
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.

Last edited by farmerj; 01/19/12 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01/19/12, 05:03 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishhead View Post
I got some info from Jason.Abraham@state.mn.us 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 Jason.Abraham@state.mn.us 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...-be-better-way


Thanks,

Now I know who to send this in opposition to.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01/19/12, 05:13 PM
Otter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 4,545
Because I DO respond when people ask specific questions...

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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"

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
You will be hard pressed for anyone to convince me that 100 yards is verbal control command distance for any dog.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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.
__________________
A ship in the harbor may be safe, but that's not what ships are built for

Last edited by Otter; 01/19/12 at 05:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01/19/12, 10:23 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: northcentral MN
Posts: 14,962
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.
__________________
"Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbs
"I'm not sure that man needs the help." Calvin
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01/19/12, 10:48 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,081
CURRENT MN Trapping Regulations. Page 45
From the MN DNR website.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/reg.../full_regs.pdf

Quote:

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:
any foot or leghold trap with a jaw opening greater than 8 inches;
any body-gripping or conibear-type trap with a jaw opening greater
than 7 inches, except as a waterset*; or
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**.
any body gripping trap with a jaw larger than 6 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.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01/20/12, 11:03 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: northcentral MN
Posts: 14,962
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.
__________________
"Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbs
"I'm not sure that man needs the help." Calvin

Last edited by fishhead; 01/20/12 at 11:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01/20/12, 11:07 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,081
Straight from the news article YOU posted in your original post.

Quote:
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.

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


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

Last edited by farmerj; 01/20/12 at 11:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01/20/12, 11:52 AM
thaiblue12's Avatar
Enabler!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: CO
Posts: 3,865
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 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.
__________________
You may not copy my posts or pictures without my consent on this board or any other.

Last edited by thaiblue12; 01/20/12 at 11:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01/20/12, 12:04 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,081
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/politicalage...e_effect_today

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hin...laws2011-0.asp

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01/20/12, 01:30 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: northcentral MN
Posts: 14,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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.
__________________
"Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbs
"I'm not sure that man needs the help." Calvin
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01/20/12, 01:35 PM
thaiblue12's Avatar
Enabler!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: CO
Posts: 3,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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.
__________________
You may not copy my posts or pictures without my consent on this board or any other.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01/20/12, 06:12 PM
JasoninMN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,859
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.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01/20/12, 06:49 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Idaho
Posts: 4,332
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.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01/20/12, 08:51 PM
SunsetSonata's Avatar
Broken Dreamer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerj View Post
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.
__________________
Wise enough to know I'll never be wise enough to know it all
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01/20/12, 08:56 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,081
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.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01/20/12, 10:59 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: northcentral MN
Posts: 14,962
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.
__________________
"Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbs
"I'm not sure that man needs the help." Calvin
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01/21/12, 01:52 AM
Otter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 4,545
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.
__________________
A ship in the harbor may be safe, but that's not what ships are built for
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01/22/12, 08:56 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: northcentral MN
Posts: 14,962
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.
__________________
"Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbs
"I'm not sure that man needs the help." Calvin
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01/25/12, 08:00 PM
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 17,225
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!
__________________
Flaming Xtian
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mahatma Gandhi


Libertarindependent
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01/25/12, 09:50 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: northcentral MN
Posts: 14,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinknal View Post
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.
__________________
"Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbs
"I'm not sure that man needs the help." Calvin

Last edited by fishhead; 01/25/12 at 09:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) Petition tailwagging Homesteading Questions 0 08/16/12 09:50 PM
RUSH!! Sign Petition to make sale of Raw milk legal...Ends soon! Farmrgirl Dairy 0 10/18/11 09:35 AM
Please sign petition! Theront Countryside Families 3 02/25/09 01:54 PM
Sign Petition for a reformist Secretary of Agriculture! deb Homesteading Questions 4 12/14/08 11:27 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:52 AM.