Sportsman Alliance?

[MNH20FowlHunter]

Whats everyone's opinion on the sportsman alliance? I heard them on the meat eater podcast. They seem like another worthy organization.

 

[TrickyTross]

I have had the pleasure of talking with Sean Curran with the Sportsman Alliance a few times. Great guy and a really good bunch!! Started when trapping was threatened in Ohio and they have been pretty vocal on other issues, like hound hunting, laws for protecting hunters from harassment and so on.
Good group, I highly recommend joining and also picking up one of those sweet Huntervationist shirts

 

[406LIFE]

Im a member. You should join.

 

[woodsman]

Great group. I have been a member for several years and they never disappoint.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am not anti-trapping per se, but IF Sportsman Alliance is pro-conibear traps I would never join. Trappers up here put them in the same areas guys bring their dogs to hunt grouse and a number of dogs get killed or maimed every year. Trap all you wish, but it should be done in a way that doesn't kill other hunters' dogs.

 

[MTGomer]

I am not anti-trapping per se, but IF Sportsman Alliance is pro-conibear traps I would never join. Trappers up here put them in the same areas guys bring their dogs to hunt grouse and a number of dogs get killed or maimed every year. Trap all you wish, but it should be done in a way that doesn't kill other hunters' dogs.

I’m sure you see the difference between you not liking connibear and hoping the fish and game make them illegal, and an anti hunting group using ballot box biology to completely ban all trapping- and say they plan to move on to hunting next, and SA opposing them.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I do not support banning all trapping. But unnecessarily unsafe trapping can and should be reasonably regulated. Conibears cause too much collateral damage and should be banned - they didn't even exist until the 50's so centuries of trapping worked just fine with out them. One of my neighbors at our cabin up north traps and he refuses to use them because of what he has seen. He wants them be to banned before the bad press steam rolls his other trapping. In MN I can't use multi-lured lines to fish walleye, I can't use .17HMR for deer hunting, and a trapper shouldn't be able to use a conibear -- not a big deal in any of the three cases in my opinion. As for "hunting is next", I don't buy the slippery slope argument (on just about any topic) - it is a red herring.

 

[npaden]

Most states do require conibear traps over a certain size to be used in a submerged setting or on private land. I thought VikingsGuy must have been mistaken in the number of dogs being killed but a google search confirmed it. A popular December grouse season coupled with land use large conibear traps on public land probably isn't a very good idea. The big conibears can be tough to set and unset without a tool as well.

This is coming from someone who does trap occasionally, and I have some large conibears in my barn right now that I use on land occasionally but I use them on private land where there shouldn't be any loose dogs roaming around. I use mine in conjunction with a 5 gallon bucket to trap raccoons.

Snares are actually safer for domestic dogs because they tend to stop fighting them and will just wait to be released.

With all that said, I still have yet to find any group of any kind that I agree with on 100% of the issues. I don't think my group of 1 is going to be as effective in addressing issues.

 

[MTGomer]

I do not support banning all trapping. But unnecessarily unsafe trapping can and should be reasonably regulated. Conibears cause too much collateral damage and should be banned - they didn't even exist until the 50's so centuries of trapping worked just fine with out them. One of my neighbors at our cabin up north traps and he refuses to use them because of what he has seen. He wants them be to banned before the bad press steam rolls his other trapping. In MN I can't use multi-lured lines to fish walleye, I can't use .17HMR for deer hunting, and a trapper shouldn't be able to use a conibear -- not a big deal in any of the three cases in my opinion. As for "hunting is next", I don't buy the slippery slope argument (on just about any topic) - it is a red herring.

My post was specifically in regards to SA coming to the defense of trapping when it was put on the ballot for an all out ban on public lands by a group that stated that hunting would be next on their list. There’s nothing for you to ‘buy’. They said it.

Again, since I’m not sure you caught it the first time.
There is a difference between you, as a person who buys licenses and contributes to conseravtion, wanting to see your FG department restrict connibear usage and an anti trapping and hunting group putting forward a ballot box biology initiative to ban hunting and SA opposimg them.

And just in case you are stuck on nobody wants to ban hunting... California mountain lion, Colorado spring bear, multiple eastern black bear seasons and BC grizzly have been banned relatively recently

Arizona almost had an initiative to ban all cat hunting, the Minnesota wolf hunt got shut down, etc.

There are plenty of people that don’t want hunting. But the greatest threat to hunting is probably still other hunters.

 

[VikingsGuy]

My post was specifically in regards to SA coming to the defense of trapping when it was put on the ballot for an all out ban on public lands by a group that stated that hunting would be next on their list. There’s nothing for you to ‘buy’. They said it.

Again, since I’m not sure you caught it the first time.
There is a difference between you, as a person who buys licenses and contributes to conseravtion, wanting to see your FG department restrict connibear usage and an anti trapping and hunting group putting forward a ballot box biology initiative to ban hunting and SA opposimg them.

And just in case you are stuck on nobody wants to ban hunting... California mountain lion, Colorado spring bear, multiple eastern black bear seasons and BC grizzly have been banned relatively recently

Arizona almost had an initiative to ban all cat hunting, the Minnesota wolf hunt got shut down, etc.

There are plenty of people that don’t want hunting. But the greatest threat to hunting is probably still other hunters.

Aside from conibear - I think we are fairly aligned in the end. Just a few clarifying comments.

I understood your post. And I extended it to the concept of checking to see if their defense of trapping in general (which I would support) extended to defending conibear traps (as the trapping orgs here in MN do), because that issue is relevant to some of us when it comes to who we are going to join/support.

My 'buy' comment was commenting on the broader use of "we have to defeat any hunting/gun/public lands limitations or we will lose all our rights" that pops up frequently in these threads, but now better understand your point about specific ballot item.

I do believe folks want to ban hunting - that's one reason I am very leary of hunting/outdoorsmans groups joining with "big-eco" as they tend to also side with the PETA-types. I just don't think every reasonable rule means a full ban is next.

 

[406LIFE]

I just don't think every reasonable rule means a full ban is next.

You should really listen to the OP podcast he referenced. Chipping away is exactly the MO of groups like HSUS. "Reasonable" is subjective; if conibears are your litmus test on joining a group or not, youll find a narrowness that will preclude you from more in the future. If you cant hold hands with a trapper who uses conibears, youre more likely to see other hunting heritage erode. I understand your sentiment; i hunt birds with my dogs in areas where conibears have been present in the past. However, when I177 came up in MT, i did all i could to help defend those same trappers. That group clearly stated when they defeated reapping, they were coming for bear hunting. Consider this your clarion call to join with hunters, all hunters.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You should really listen to the OP podcast he referenced. Chipping away is exactly the MO of groups like HSUS. "Reasonable" is subjective; if conibears are your litmus test on joining a group or not, youll find a narrowness that will preclude you from more in the future. If you cant hold hands with a trapper who uses conibears, youre more likely to see other hunting heritage erode. I understand your sentiment; i hunt birds with my dogs in areas where conibears have been present in the past. However, when I177 came up in MT, i did all i could to help defend those same trappers. That group clearly stated when they defeated reapping, they were coming for bear hunting. Consider this your clarion call to join with hunters, all hunters.

I respect your opinion, but I personally reject “you are with us or you are against us, hedge-row to hedge-row, slippery slope” political fighting. It is the problem, not the solution. Add to that I view conibears as unconscionable when used on public lands at “dog-height”, so we will have to agree to disagree on this. And I do so without surrendering my personal commitment to huntings, fishing, trapping, the 2nd amendment and public lands - they are not incompatible views in my opinion.

 

[Rifles And More]

Chipping away is exactly the MO of groups like HSUS. "Reasonable" is subjective;

Is this true for a ban on lead hunting bullets also?

 

[TrickyTross]

I’m sure you see the difference between you not liking connibear and hoping the fish and game make them illegal, and an anti hunting group using ballot box biology to completely ban all trapping- and say they plan to move on to hunting next, and SA opposing them.

Boom

 

[nturpin]

The NRA very effectively treats any issue on guns as a war cry and gets all members involved. If hunters don’t get behind each other we will be cut off from our opportunities to be able to hunt. I used to be the opposite. I didn’t think that an issue for hunter in Maine would effect me. But I have changed. Cause one day they will come after my style of hunting. We hunters have an uphill fight. The media is against us. The deep pocket Hollywood crowd is against us. So the voting majority can be swayed against us. The media today isn’t not about facts or checking. It’s about what story can get the most hits to our “insert medium” what is buzz worthy is more important than is it factually correct.

We have to stand for each other in fights against us. We should decide our own fate in our hunting realm not an Anti.

 

[huronmtns]

Add to that I view conibears as unconscionable when used on public lands at “dog-height”,

I am glad you are clarifying your stance with the use of conibear traps. Conibear traps are very safe and effective tools for wildlife management. "Dog Height" is key for the perception issues.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am glad you are clarifying your stance with the use of conibear traps. Conibear traps are very safe and effective tools for wildlife management. "Dog Height" is key for the perception issues.

Hopefully our trapper friends start working towards reasonable limitations, as I know hundreds of MN hunters who are about ready to turn their backs on so-called outdoorsman's organizations who dig their heels in on this. Regulating conibears on public lands to reduce risk for dogs is a small simple solution to sportsman who care greatly about this issue. Avid hunters are a shrinking population, the antis will always be antis, but when core partners are turned off by unreasonable positions there are consequences.

 

[VikingsGuy]

We have to stand for each other in fights against us. We should decide our own fate in our hunting realm not an Anti.

It cuts both ways. I am asking you to stand by trapping that does not unnecessarily kill hunting dogs, do you stand with me? If you won't stand with me, then why would I stand with you?

This issue is beginning to get more attention in my area and it is a loser - suburban dog owners who have never hunted have far more votes than trappers. If this hits the ballot in MN trapping will be outright banned. If we can get a little compromise in the legislature we can keep trapping below the radar and save our dogs. But I think a number of hunters who have tried the the quiet way are getting tired and if they push this to the larger public we all lose. If advocates revert to all or nothing battles, sometimes they get nothing - brinksmanship works on some issues but fails on others - this is a loser - time to take the worst of it off the table. Hard to get the average person excited about protecting racoons and muskrats, but dogs - hell some folks care more about their dogs than their kids.

 

[tjones]

How about reasonable regulations instead of banning?• The use of Conibear or “body-gripping” traps are not allowed unless:
► they are placed as part of a water set.
► they are placed as part of an elevated set that does not
include a leaning pole.
► they have a jaw spread of less than or equal to 5 inches (a Conibear #120 or smaller).
► they are placed in a leaning pole set with a pole diameter of no larger than 4 inches and with trap and bait set at least 48 inches above the ground; or
► if they have a jaw spread of >5 inches, they are placed with the trigger recessed a minimum of seven inches and contained in a wood, plastic, or metal enclosure or cubby with an opening no larger than 52 square

 

[huronmtns]

Hopefully our trapper friends start working towards reasonable limitations, .

After reading through the Minnesota trapping regulations in my opinion there is one adjustment to the conibear rules that might help.

1. increase the minimum height from 36" to 48" off of the ground.

The rest of the regulations look pretty solid and if the accidental dog catch is as high as you are painting in your thread response, it is not caused by the legal trapping efforts going on out there it's likely being caused by illegal trapping practices.