406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,245
No thanks
H.R. 8828 introduced -Leghold and conibear traps
- Thread starter Brandon270
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Another thing to consider is that these bird seasons used to shut down the end of General season, end of November (talking Montana). Funny thing is, I used to actually be able to find a few grouse when the season didn't run for 6 months as well. Now, every area I used to hunt for grouse has a couple fancy pants bird hunters with 2K shotguns and pack of bird dogs going through like a hoover vacuum cleaner...for 6 months. Cant hardly find a bird after they get done.
This opportunity at all costs and these huge season extensions pushed from bird hunters IS the cause of a lot of the conflict. Those saying that trappers must compromise are not willing to compromise a single day of opportunity on their end.
That's not how compromise is supposed to work, that's one side getting their way, the other side getting it broken off in their ass...
Shorten bird seasons, wouldn't hurt to have a few more birds around at the end of the season anyway.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,245
I do not know when you hunted in Montana. But for the thirty plus years I've hunted here, the season for upland birds ran thru December and a short extension for chukars in Carbon county.
You are just wrong on the length of the bird season. It runs roughly four months from the earliest to latest.
I do like your smear concerning the pants and shotguns some hunters choose. I don't think it helps your argument.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Then your memory either isnt very long or very good.
I sat at a commission meeting and season setting meetings when the extensions were proposed and passed.
Started hunting in Montana in 1979, My dad in 1957, and my Grandfather in 1927...
We shoot mountain grouse with single shot 410's and .22s...when there used to be a few around.
Like or not, its not the guys hunting upland birds in levi's and 870's, single shot .410.s and .22's that pushed the season extensions...I was there...seen it.
Shangobango
Well-known member
I have decided to join the trapping association in Minnesota. In spite of the fact I can’t trap there.
I am tired of seeing trappers pushed around.
Might make a donation to their association a part of my charitable giving for the year as well.
I’d like to know how avid of a trapper the fellow pushing this up there really is.
I am tired of seeing trappers pushed around.
Might make a donation to their association a part of my charitable giving for the year as well.
I’d like to know how avid of a trapper the fellow pushing this up there really is.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Not all of us are taking that position. In the relatively population dense, pulic land limited places we really should do more to seperate these seasons for the safety and enjoyment for all.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Bingo...big point that hasn't been brought up.
Go ahead, push trappers out, predator numbers go up...bird numbers decline.
Cut nose off to spite face...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, wait until its proposed that bird hunters are asked to give up a week or two of season...get back to me on that.
Outlaw99
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 206
Vikingsguy, and 406, and anyone else in their boat; how many of you have actually trapped? By trapped, I mean actually put out and ran an extensive line for any period of time? I’m not talking trapping the random chicken thieven vermin either, I mean a truck load of traps, miles on the truck, fur producing line for profit? I’ll also state that I’m not asking this question with any level of sarcasm or maliciousness; rather I’m trying to get a handle on where you’re coming from with your point of view? It’s hard to have this dialog over a keyboard and understand exactly where everyone’s coming from.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Does it matter? I have followed this thread and it is basically a bunch of trappers arguing about how not to kill someones pet dog. The optics of that is horrible. We all have to understand that we (trappers or hunters) are the minority and need to gain broader support to win anything in any state legislature. If trappers are trying to get me (a non-trapper who supports trapping) to stand with them, they need to take a more flexible position and make cogent arguments. Again, this ain't a hill i'm going to die on, but I might stand behind them in the negotiation.
Shangobango
Well-known member
I agree with you to a point, especially about the optics being horrible.
I think how much knowledge one has about trapping when that person is lobbying for changes to trapping regulations is very pertinent. I am not out here telling a doctor how to do surgery or a pilot how to fly a plane.
The argument against banning bodygrips on land is simple: It is very easy to set bodygrips, even large bodygrips, on land in a manner that does not endanger pets of any kind. This is done by common sense sight selection and also the way that the bodygrip is placed. Also not using bait in conjunction with a bodygrip set on land just seems like a no brainer to me, at least in areas where domestic pets or working dogs are likely.
Can we really call it negotiations when it’s the trapper that is the only one giving anything up?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yes it does matter, IMO.
You cant get to a conclusion until you draw from all the facts.
The fact is, if you're asking trappers to give up an already short fur season, so that a handful of bird hunters can EXTEND their season another month, after already having 90 days to hunt, that's problematic.
Anyone that's trapped a bit knows the window to trap some species when they're prime is pretty short. As in, maybe only a couple months, tops.
Not all species, but certainly some.
Pretty tough for me to ask trappers, even if they are in the minority, to give up more and more of their opportunity to trap fur when its prime, just so some other minority group, that likes to pound on upland game ANOTHER 30 days, after already having 90 days of opportunity. Why, so a handful of bird hunters can kill their 20th, 30th, 40th limits of bird a year?
Here's where I'm at, 3 easy choices to make.
1. Change nothing and take a risk with your dogs getting hung up in a coni or snare, keep your 4 months of pounding on upland birds and trappers get to use snares and coni's during bird season.
2. Give bird hunters 90 days to hunt birds, Sept-November 30...trapping starts Dec. 1. This is a compromise on both ends, as most trappers want to start earlier for some species and some bird hunters want to hunt longer than Nov. 30. Both give a bit to get a bit.
3. Educate both on how traps work, maybe work on some compromises in high use areas, again, giving on both sides and getting on both sides.
All or nothing and asking one group to give it all up...that no worky-worky for me.
A few thoughts on this, with the disclaimer I am NOT a trapper, I HAVE been through a trapper's ed course, and I AM largely supportive of trapping:
1) Grouse numbers are much more sensitive to early hunting than late, so if your intent is to burgeon forest grouse numbers by limiting hunting you'll likely have far more affect by starting the season later.
2) By and large, the length of season on upland birds has little bearing on overall bird numbers. It certainly CAN under the right conditions, but as a rule it not a significant factor in next year's brood counts.
3) I think it is incumbent upon bird hunters to know how to release a foot hold and a snare, and have the tools to cut a snare if need be.
4) The effects of trapping on upland bird populations varies widely by the area, habitat, and species trapped. Taking out bobcats and coyotes will not have near the same results as a heavy focus on skunks and raccoons will.
5) I fully expect at some point I'll have a dog stumble into a set. As long as it's legal, I'll have no hard feelings about the sets, nor will I hesitate to cut a snare if I need to. If it's an illegal set, I'll be mad as hell.
6) I've known more than a few trappers. Some are excellent at their craft and can coexist with the public just fine because they use common sense. Others are absolute assholes and don't help themselves or anyone else out. In the court of public perception, it really doesn't matter if you think the dog should have been on a leash. The damage from incidents like that is IMO far greater than a legal but questionable set could ever be worth.
7) This appears to have largely devolved into a binary and tribalistic argument, which is too bad. Trappers can and do provide a very valuable service to communities, and should also be a part of the regulated take of furbearers. They don't IMO get the benefit of the doubt, and they also have some bad apples that taint the hell out of the barrel.
1) Grouse numbers are much more sensitive to early hunting than late, so if your intent is to burgeon forest grouse numbers by limiting hunting you'll likely have far more affect by starting the season later.
2) By and large, the length of season on upland birds has little bearing on overall bird numbers. It certainly CAN under the right conditions, but as a rule it not a significant factor in next year's brood counts.
3) I think it is incumbent upon bird hunters to know how to release a foot hold and a snare, and have the tools to cut a snare if need be.
4) The effects of trapping on upland bird populations varies widely by the area, habitat, and species trapped. Taking out bobcats and coyotes will not have near the same results as a heavy focus on skunks and raccoons will.
5) I fully expect at some point I'll have a dog stumble into a set. As long as it's legal, I'll have no hard feelings about the sets, nor will I hesitate to cut a snare if I need to. If it's an illegal set, I'll be mad as hell.
6) I've known more than a few trappers. Some are excellent at their craft and can coexist with the public just fine because they use common sense. Others are absolute assholes and don't help themselves or anyone else out. In the court of public perception, it really doesn't matter if you think the dog should have been on a leash. The damage from incidents like that is IMO far greater than a legal but questionable set could ever be worth.
7) This appears to have largely devolved into a binary and tribalistic argument, which is too bad. Trappers can and do provide a very valuable service to communities, and should also be a part of the regulated take of furbearers. They don't IMO get the benefit of the doubt, and they also have some bad apples that taint the hell out of the barrel.
Last edited by a moderator:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
To you and the previous responses (although Buzz keeps bringing it back to shooting birds for too long, but whatever). It is super hard to make an argument that we need trapping. This is not absolute, of course, as beaver and muskrats can cause serious damage in the wrong places. But you need to try to persuade a suburban wife in St Louis or Omaha that trapping is beneficial to them, or at least should be allowed. That is super hard to do, and it is probably super hard to pursue them that hunting benefits them directly, but with hunting you have other arguments like organic meat, crop damage, etc, that they can relate to. Hard to argue that trapping a bobcat is beneficial to anyone who doesn't buy winter coats made of bobcat (and I suspect that most coats made of bobcat are from cats raised on farms). Try making an argument on leg hold and conibear traps when you know someone else is going to explain the process from the animal's point of view.
I think this same problem applies to hunting. It doesn't matter what we think or feel, it matters what argument gets the majority of people comfortable enough to continue to allow it to happen.
Hopefully that makes sense. Didn't mean to derail the thread.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
When the other group is 99.99% of the population, your BATNA is not trapping. Bitch about it all you want, but we all have to realize our starting position.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am not a trapper, but rather a concerned grouse hunter. I have never said otherwise, although some day I may have interest in trying my hand at beavers the damn a creek on our land up north.
This is probably worth re-reading. I don't think I'm alone amongst a number of bird hunters who support trapping. Some of the attitudes and comments in this thread give me a lot of pause, even though I'm very much a do my own thing and coexist with other public land users.
If I were a trapper, I'd be very leery of drawing battle lines and pitting sides. The court of public opinion will ultimately decide the fate of trapping, and if you think the REI crowd will choose snares and body gripping traps over bird dogs and bird hunters, we should probably make a wager.
