Well, here it goes.

[Nameless Range]

Nameless, it's obvious that you aren't real familiar with trapping. Very few traps are out in the spring when you would go looking for sheds. Pelts in good shape are the reason a person traps.

Shoots-Straight, you're jumping the gun. I'm simply sharing my own personal experience of avoiding traps with a dog. Me and the lab have been picking up whitey sheds for a month now - during furbearer season, including wolf. He's a dope, but I like to let him run ahead and roll in the muck.

Ethics may be what we do when no one is watching, but what is/isn't 'ethical' must be grounded in something, otherwise it is arbitrary and easy to dismiss. I proposed the reduction/management of animal suffering as what our ethics should be grounded in. I'm not anti trapping and would vote NO on this initiative, but I do see some discrepancies in what are deemed perfectly reasonable methods of harvest when it comes to trapping, but would be highly illegal when it comes to other species. For Example:

-Why does baiting deer and bear exceed our acceptable threshold in Montana, but doesn't for furbearers?

-Why is it acceptable to immobilize(trap) certain critters before dispatching them, but for others would be considered poaching?

I can think of more, but I understand the answers may be complicated. This isn't about a few bad apples. When I engage in discussion and justification of hunting with anti-hunters, I put my best arguments forward in defense of our lifestyle. Problem is, very few of those arguments that justify hunting work in defense of trapping, and I find that troubling.

The somewhat commercial, non-consumptive nature of trapping, the (ultimately) indiscriminate function of traps, and the thus far unjustified use of an entirely different set of criteria regarding what is ethical for furbearers, but not for other animals, I find problematic.

At Orion the Hunter's Institute they deal with some of these issues by parsing them into two categories: Ethics vs Preferences. But I can't find any literature created by them relating these two categories to trapping. This isn't about attacking trappers or their lifestyle, it's about having good arguments in defense of trapping, otherwise, when it comes time to defend it to the antis out there, the arguments of trappers will seem arbitrary and inconsistent, and thus, easy to dismiss.

 

[shoots-straight]

-Why does baiting deer and bear exceed our acceptable threshold in Montana, but doesn't for furbearers?

Glad you brought that up. The banning of baiting for Big Game has always been controversial. It's also how one looks at it. I see thousands of Big Game hunters in Montana hunting deer or elk over Alfalfa fields. Ducks and geese in wheat stubble. Are these no less baiting than a guy that puts out a bucket of corn at a feeder?

How about sitting over a wallow? Is that ethical?

Much of the baiting issues come from people who feel themselves above anyone else and the way they do it is righteous.

It's more about perception than reality. We want to be perceived as hunting ethically so are willing to ban things that make us look better to the non hunting public. Many states allow baiting of bears, and deer, are those states unethical because of it?

I see many people right here on hunt talk that look down on baiting bears, but when asked if they've ever done it, the answer is always no. The thicker areas of Western Montana aren't fun to spot and stalk bears. The Bitterroot Valley is such a place. The best bear county is thick, and nasty. You can glass all season and never see a bear.

There's many pluses to baiting, but because we're so righteous in Montana it's not allowed. Just 12 miles from my front door it's legal. Snares, and bait for wolves are legal too, but here it's not. Ethical or just a feel good thing? Lets not be hypocrites in our convictions.

We don't eat wolf, so are we going to ban the hunting of wolves because they aren't consumed? We now have to take bear out of the hills. You should see the parasites that live in the tissue of an old bruin. I'm sorry but not interested in eating and old bore, and I'm not interested in killing a young one to eat. So am I unethical to kill bear in Montana?

It's the same argument I hear when talking about running cats with dogs. The guys will sit there and tell me how "UNSPORTING" it is, (even though he's never done it) but in the next breath will tell me how great it is working his dog while Pheasant hunting.

Many animals (muskrat, marten, beaver, skunk, fox, coyote, wolf, Raccoon etc. are mainly nocturnal. How else other than trapping are we going to manage those species?

Can you imagine what our upland game species will be like if trapping is banned on public lands. How many eggs will be left? Raccoon weren't in Montana when Lewis and Clark came though. Very few skunks.

The wolf was relocated by the use of trapping. Why is it so good to hold them for that, but not for harvest?

 

[shoots-straight]

Nameless, ask those people that have a problem with trapping if they let mice live in there home?

I know for fact that many people that think trapping is bad throw decon mouse poison around like it's dog food. They saturate the basement or garage at the first sign of mice. Why are mice out of the equation? Are they not high enough on the totem pole that they don't count?

Most animals don't have the nervous system we humans do. Their tolerance to pain is different. The foot of an animal caught in a trap will numb up after a bit and not cause any grief to that animal. A wolf I caught last year, was patiently waiting and not in any visible distress.

Hunting is a messy business. We all like to visualize the simplistic scenario where the guy stalks up to the pristine meadow with the sun glistening off the dew, and spots a large bull elk feeding off on the edge of cover, and makes the perfect one shot kill in less than a second. The reality is often very much different, and not pretty at all.

How about the guy that stalks up to the meadow, and slips and falls knocking his scope off, then sees a bull moving fast out of the meadow, and throws a haphazardly round in the direction of the bull, only to take the bull at the knee. The bull get out of range, and the hunter can't keep up because of the deep snow, and downfall. The bull loses body weight, and fevers up because of the wound, only to be taken down by a wolf 3 months later.

I would venture to say that a messy kill is more common than the pristine kill we all posses in our minds.

I have witnessed the ethics of our brothers in the field, and can honestly say that people who live in glass houses should not through stones.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Nameless, ask those people that have a problem with trapping if they let mice live in there home?

I know for fact that many people that think trapping is bad throw decon mouse poison around like it's dog food. They saturate the basement or garage at the first sign of mice. Why are mice out of the equation? Are they not high enough on the totem pole that they don't count?

Mice are a health issue when close to your house. A wolverine is never a health issue to humans, neither are marten, etc.

 

[Nameless Range]

There is quite a difference between shooting an elk over a wallow, which occurs naturally, as opposed to killing something over a bag of C'mere Deer or Bear Crack. Alfalfa fields and the like are surely a gray area. It's not reasonable to try to control animal behavior near ag lands, but we can keep people from introducing artificial forms of bait. As I said earlier, many of these things are threshold issues.

Many animals (muskrat, marten, beaver, skunk, fox, coyote, wolf, Raccoon etc. are mainly nocturnal. How else other than trapping are we going to manage those species?

This is the argument of "they are too difficult to harvest any other way". And it is an argument. It's the same argument IDF&G used to hire out the eradication of those packs in the River of No Return. It works for some people and not too well for others.

I see many people right here on hunt talk that look down on baiting bears, but when asked if they've ever done it, the answer is always no. The thicker areas of Western Montana aren't fun to spot and stalk bears.

Your fun is irrelevant. I'm one of those "righteous" people who thinks baiting exceeds an acceptable threshold in terms of what is sporting. The two bears I've killed in the thick and nasty west of Missoula were without bait. In fact, all people who kill bears legally in Montana do so without bait. Not a big deal, a hell of a lot more sporting, and IMO achieves a desirable hunting aesthetic. If your bear meat is tainted with Trichinella then don't eat it. But if you don't want to eat an old boar, don't shoot one, otherwise you are wasting meat, and will be in violation of Montana law.

You have an interesting point as to what effect trapping has on upland bird populations on public land.

I catch and kill mice without too much personal grief all the time, precisely because I ground my ethics in animal suffering. For one, as you pointed out, animals suffer differently than humans(though not all that differently) and at different magnitudes, which is what gives me pause when we have different ethical frameworks for species that don't seem to take into account an animal's ability to suffer. Secondly, as Ben pointed out, they are a health issue, which could cause suffering in the animals I value most: humans.

You are the one who pointed out earlier that there will always be bad apples, and not to judge an activity based on those, so what are you bringing hunting mistakes up for? I concede that terrible kills occur - I have been a part of them - which is why I said our hunting ethics need to be based on the reduction and management of suffering, not the eradication of it.

What is and isn't sporting is about preferences. I am fully aware of that, which is why I am on the fence about trapping. That said, I am glad that Montana is conservative with what it decides are acceptable preferences for harvest (i.e. no baiting). Does difficulty of harvest justify an entirely new ethical framework when it comes to preferences? What do we ground our preferences in? I don't mean this to be a back and forth. I don't claim to have an answer, I do have questions.

 

[shoots-straight]

Do you use bait on your hook when fishing? Might want to go bare hook, or better yet, bare handed.

It's all in your perception, or your group of people that you hang out with. I can guarantee that if you baited bears in Idaho, you'd change your tune on how sporting it is. Better for both man, and beast.

I can argue why baiting is ethical but that's not the point here. Opinion is.

I'm saying that people tend to be hypocrites in the name of "ethical" game management.

I hunt mostly with a bow, comparatively speaking using a rifle isn't very sporting. I don't use a long bow, but one could make the case that a long bow is more ethical because it's harder to use.

Did you shoot those bears with a rifle? I've shot a lot of bear, but only one with a rifle. So ethically what I"m doing must be more righteous?

 

[shoots-straight]

Mice are a health issue when close to your house. A wolverine is never a health issue to humans, neither are marten, etc.

If a wolverine wanted your house, I think it very well could be a health issue.

 

[mtmuley]

I still say with every opportunity we lose as sportsmen, those that don't agree gain a foothold for taking something else away. Anyone on the fence needs to decide which side to stand on. Can't be on both. mtmuley

 

[Ben Lamb]

If a wolverine wanted your house, I think it very well could be a health issue.

A wolverine has a lot more smarts than wanting to live in Helena. Or any town for that matter.

 

[schmalts]

If you guys just made Granola illegal in MT this would not be a problem

 

[Sytes]

Shoring up support to assure a majority of support is often found in identifying and reasonably addressing issues that cause / may cause conflict.

To say we all support one regardless... at all cost - often leads to all cost lost.
There is a reason arrogance is not bold enough to place traps in the center of populated trails for people to step over. There is reason to discuss what range from the recreationalist is reasonable for both parties.

If the 3,000 license holders in Montana seek the support of the 100's of thousands in a vote - if it ever came to such, the public need to understand not only the history and conservation aspects but also need to find a comfort w/ a reasonable expectation for recreational safety. If that is a problem for a trapper... well, good luck.

As Montana continues to build it's population from these city folk whom declare they dislike the laws of their former area YET start pushing their crap when they make residence here... As Montana's human footprint extend further into our wildlife more incidents will occur. Our population will continue to expand, It is a recipe that one must identify and find reasonable conformity to this inevitable fact. If you do not... you will eventually lose.

And to think this thread died... Haha!

 

[shoots-straight]

Sytes, we get it. Much of what your complaining about has been addressed by the Trappers themselves. They have asked for further set backs, and have helped close off heavily used recreational areas. Education is always the key element that has to take place with more people around, whether it's hunting or trapping. The reality is there has been very little of those conflicts this year. I think you'll see more regulations coming down from this group. They do seem to understand what it will take to continue the heritage that was handed down to us.

It was the Trappers that didn't want to include snares for wolf trapping because they figured it would be a PR nightmare.

There was a push to get a mandatory trappers education bill passed two sessions ago. It died because of some political paybacks. It had lots of support.

 

[Sytes]

S-S,

There are 25 trails state wide with special distance regulations that are reasonable (500 feet). This is an exceptionally few set of trails. Aside from these, public land road and trails everywhere else only require 50 ft. - 1/10th! :W:

Respect is the name of the game when discussing recreationalists and trappers both valuing our land. Personally, I respect trapping for it's rich history, conservation and it's own recreational value. However, this must be a reciprocal means of respect. 50 feet is a joke. If trappers want the reasonable voters to back you against these footloose and fancy free clowns, trappers need to show voters that reasonable boundaries are present for everyone to enjoy our land.

The distances promoted are a good step in the right direction. People inquiring to better understand the issue would value reading how trappers were directly involved in this process not just from a blurb in a newspaper article. Maybe some reasonable PR work via the MTA website. It has good general info though it could, in my opinion, boost it's promotion of valuing the recreational activities of all - showing inclusion of trappers and their own dogs, etc. There is a fire brewing, as declared in the OP. Some inviting headlines related to respecting everyone's use of our public land may serve better than defensive "myth vs fact" talk... That may hold good info though it comes across as if trappers have placed these nutjobs as an equal... dispel their myths by sharing snippet comments promoting trapping for it's value and blend it into the overall conservation effort.

 

[shoots-straight]

S-S,

There are 25 trails state wide with special distance regulations that are reasonable (500 feet). This is an exceptionally few set of trails. Aside from these, public land road and trails everywhere else only require 50 ft. - 1/10th! :W:

Respect is the name of the game when discussing recreationalists and trappers both valuing our land. Personally, I respect trapping for it's rich history, conservation and it's own recreational value. However, this must be a reciprocal means of respect. 50 feet is a joke. If trappers want the reasonable voters to back you against these footloose and fancy free clowns, trappers need to show voters that reasonable boundaries are present for everyone to enjoy our land.

The distances promoted are a good step in the right direction. People inquiring to better understand the issue would value reading how trappers were directly involved in this process not just from a blurb in a newspaper article. Maybe some reasonable PR work via the MTA website. It has good general info though it could, in my opinion, boost it's promotion of valuing the recreational activities of all - showing inclusion of trappers and their own dogs, etc. There is a fire brewing, as declared in the OP. Some inviting headlines related to respecting everyone's use of our public land may serve better than defensive "myth vs fact" talk... That may hold good info though it comes across as if trappers have placed these nutjobs as an equal... dispel their myths by sharing snippet comments promoting trapping for it's value and blend it into the overall conservation effort.

I said"

Sytes, we get it. Much of what your complaining about has been addressed by the Trappers themselves. They have asked for further set backs, and have helped close off heavily used recreational areas. Education is always the key element that has to take place with more people around, whether it's hunting or trapping. The reality is there has been very little of those conflicts this year. I think you'll see more regulations coming down from this group. They do seem to understand what it will take to continue the heritage that was handed down to us.

It was the Trappers that didn't want to include snares for wolf trapping because they figured it would be a PR nightmare.

There was a push to get a mandatory trappers education bill passed two sessions ago. It died because of some political paybacks. It had lots of support.

You drove your point home about 4 posts ago. :W:

 

[Sytes]

A dead horse deserves further flogging until it feels... something!

On another note, are predator traps regulated the same? I reviewed the regulations on the fwp site and under general trapping regulations they are however not the distance portion. That portion is under the furbearer regulations. Is the general the principle that covers all trapping regulations or are coyote traps exempt?

 

[twodot]

Stytes, yes the traps are regulated the same for predator as fur-bearers. (or at least that is the way it reads in the reg book)
I may as well weigh in here also. I am a life long (small time) trapper. Life long hound hunter, (recently changed to Curs) and an avid hunter. Also a dog owner, (three at present)
As a trapper, I gladly would support further setbacks from roads, marked trails, boat ramps etc. Every site is of course different and while a 25 yard setback would be good in some places, 500 yards may well not be enough in others. Arrive at number, and as long as I can still trap public ground I am happy. I can't buy thousands of square miles to trap, so I don't mind walking away from the roads/trails.
Now where are the dog owners who use/abuse public trails, ramps, and etc willing to give in.
On my recent ill fated wolf excursion over into the more used part of the state, I was twice in a couple of days bayed by, first a nasty German Shithair Pointer, then a Saint Bernard cross running loose with the biggest fattest Golden Ret. I have ever seen. In the first case all I could do is stand like an idiot for about 5 long minutes while I waited for the owner who was probably about half a mile behind to jog up and call him off. The two big dogs cam rushing out of the timber above me and proceeded to throw a fit for a minute or two until their owners came rushing by at warp speed on snowboards heading back down the mountain. I would have gladly traded my rifle for my almost always present walking stick that day. I might add that I noticed on a couple trails around Bozeman that for fully the first 2 miles, you were never out of sight of dog crap, the parking areas were an absolute mess with crap.
Being accosted by someones loose running dog has long been a pet peeve of mine. Almost every boat ramp I have been to in MT has some brain dead Lab running amuck with an equally stupid owner somewhere in the vicinity assuring everyone that the dog is not bothering anything. Have I mentioned what a pain in the butt loose dogs are when you are trying to ice fish? Anyway, you get the point, it is Public land, therein is the problem. We all have different ideas, and expectations as to what should or should not be done there. As for me personally, if my dog is not hunting, she is at my property. If my dog ever threatened someone in public, I would see about altering that behavior, or be looking for a new dog. It is tough, there are no easy answers for sure. Glad you have not written off trappers yet, reading your posts helps gives me hope that there may be a few responsible pleasure dog owners left out there.

 

[HSi-ESi]

What is the most effective way to get the message out to the voting public? From what's been stated in this thread - as well as the limited press I have seen on this issue - I feel like MTA and individual trappers are more than willing to go out of their way to work around some of these issues.

Part of me feels like MTA needs to get more aggressive. How hard is it to shut down a motorized trail that is going to take decades to recover from past abuse? Not that I want MTA to be viewed in the same light as some of the ATV groups - but they are very effective at keeping their interests/activities open and possible.

I believe that Footloose is able to make progress because of inherited mis-conceptions that the Montana public has about trapping. Of course the biggest hurdle is to explain why killing something and not eating it is OK. Are their studies from others states that can be leveraged to show why population control and trapping are directly related? What are consequences from banning trapping on public land?

I think that we need some hard facts to present. If the simple emotional positions are argued, I feel like the trappers will lose.

 

[Sytes]

It is tough, there are no easy answers for sure. Glad you have not written off trappers yet, reading your posts helps gives me hope that there may be a few responsible pleasure dog owners left out there.

Truth be told, I would never write off trappers. They would just piss me off to no end if my dog ever gets hooked into a trap within an irresponsible distance from myself seeking to enjoy our land from an established camp, trail, or road. When I take him/them out of that "reasonable" range to explore and God forbid my dog gets clamped - I just hope I've learned enough to be able to release him while he is scared shitless. I'll be frustrated though will have to accept - it may not be part of the natural wild though I'll just have to pay the piper for sharing the forest.

Mtmiller has some great pics of himself and his dog out in the forest. I do not hold his photogenic skill (that a word? heh!) Though after rummaging the boxes for a couple pics for Ben's throwback thread, I came across this one of my earlier days and my best darn dog ever. Passed away many years ago.
This was maybe 1999 Minnesota Boundary Waters area - I think.

We all love our dogs - heck they are man's best friend.

 

[mtmuley]

"Sharing the forest". One thing anti-trappers do not want to do. mtmuley

 

[npaden]

The thing that I have a hard time with is how dramatically overblown the average persons understanding of how a trap works and what it does.

If you are hiking with your dog and it's foot gets in a trap, it shouldn't be a big deal at all. You would need to walk up to the trap and release the dogs foot and go on your way.

That's not saying that you should expect to have your dog caught in a trap by any means, but if you do it shouldn't be something to become unhinged over. I've caught myself in my own traps and it hurt, but it didn't break my fingers or anything like that. These were coyote traps, not wolf traps, but a dogs foot is a lot thicker than my fingers and I would expect them to be fine 99% of the time if they ended up in a trap and were released in a short period of time.

I've caught a decent number of animals in traps and have yet to see one ever have any damage to their foot, even when it was a non target animal like a porcupine or possum that ended up in a bobcat set intended for a larger animal.

At our church camp they have some old traps hanging on the wall for decoration and sometimes when we are standing in line waiting for meals I'll take one down and set it and then stick my hand in there and trigger it on my hand. I've had people scream out loud thinking the thing was going to plumb take my fingers off before. Nope. It has a slight pain for a split second and then it is just clamped onto your fingers until you release it. Less painful than getting snapped with a thick rubber band.

Most trappers now do everything they can to modify their traps to make sure the pressure is distributed over as large an area as possible (laminated traps are so common now you can generally buy them already modified) so they don't pinch or dig into an animals skin.

You hear these horror stories about peoples pets getting trapped and ending up at the vet, but I just don't see how that happens. Either the owner is no where around and the pet is stuck in the trap until the trapper comes around to do their trap check and it gets frostbite or something in it's toes or the owner of the pet must try to yank the dogs foot out of the trap or something.

Maybe I'm just not experienced enough to see a bad catch that injures an animal but so far I haven't seen anything like that.

Here's a picture of a coyote that I trapped about 250 yards from my house.

At the time I didn't keep my dogs fenced in and didn't really worry about them getting into the traps that I had set out. If they got caught I would go let them out. They never got caught, but I would have expected them to be perfectly fine if they did.

The anti-trappers have scared the crap out of folks into thinking traps are these hideous torture devices that will snap an animals leg in half. They aren't anything close to that. They hold onto an animals foot until they are released.

My 2 cents on the subject. Nathan