|
Post by mole on Jan 19, 2007 10:27:10 GMT -5
The recent development concerning the 160 and 220 on land is said to be related to the hazard posed to dogs. Which I believe to be true. Could there be another reason like to many fisher being caught? Just a question. Ed
|
|
|
Post by TI trapper on Jan 19, 2007 10:38:23 GMT -5
I dont think so Ed if that was the case wouldn,t they (DEC) just say oh by the way no more fisher season along with 220 and 160 bodygrips because we said so. I think they find it easier to regulate the hell out of us trappers than stand there ground in the publics eye....Brian
|
|
|
Post by Itrapny on Jan 19, 2007 11:12:17 GMT -5
I have to agree with TI trapper Ed. They just instituted the extended season with the provision that they could resind it if too many were being taken. I haven't heard anything to that order as yet but I will ask Andy McDuff that very question on the 27th at the BOD meeting since he will be the DEC rep in attendance and he heads the fisher study. The fisher have been extending their range further and further South and West the past 10 years, very rapidly at that I might add but I still don't think that has anything to do with the proposed restrictions on bodygripper son land. I think it is solely in response to the 6 known incidental dog catches in them in just over a 2 month period.
|
|
|
Post by fishguts on Jan 19, 2007 12:05:14 GMT -5
cant help but wonder how many of them 6 were staged by the sickos? i know for sure thay aint above it. lots of them idots are rite up there with terroists.
|
|
|
Post by charlielambjr on Jan 19, 2007 13:09:14 GMT -5
i have heard tell that this year was supposed to be a down year for fisher and as last i knew there had been as many caught this year as last witht he extention
|
|
|
Post by rex on Jan 19, 2007 13:47:23 GMT -5
I think the new proposed bodygrip regs are the result of negative feedback from the accidental dog catches. The DEC has to respond to pressure from the general public, not just hunters and trappers. Many people in modern society are so disconnected from nature that they no longer support or are "on the fence" regarding trapping. If trappers, and society in general, are to keep some of the few freedoms that we have left, then the public needs to recognize that we all must be willing to accept and swallow a certain amount of "honest accidents or mistakes" that create misfortune in our lives, without passing more laws against each other. However, I think that trappers need to continue to learn good ethics and judgement to help avoid future incidents. The DEC must also continue to improve public education and awareness about trapping.
|
|
|
Post by TI trapper on Jan 19, 2007 13:53:00 GMT -5
I wondered that also guts but staged or not we (all trappers) have one hell of a fight ahead of us and weather you ever have used a bucket set or not at the very least join the NYSTA and help make this go away....
|
|
|
Post by king368m on Jan 19, 2007 14:50:48 GMT -5
I recently went to the Niagara County trappers assoc. meeting and they were going to send a letter to the DEC and the state reps in regards to the current situation. They were going to suggest that they limit the use of the bodygrippers to state and federal property and not private property. I think this was also suggested on this forum before. Maybe we can try to do something to push for this.
|
|
|
Post by trapper72 on Jan 19, 2007 19:07:27 GMT -5
You know not everyone has private property to trap.
|
|
|
Post by herm on Jan 19, 2007 19:59:57 GMT -5
What will happen in Western NY when the fisher arives in numbers.Will they shut our land trapping down on Dec. 10 too?
|
|
|
Post by Itrapny on Jan 19, 2007 20:54:37 GMT -5
I doubt that Herm, I have more fisher in my area than in the Adirondacks and my season doesn't close on Dec 10th.
|
|
|
Post by buckhunter649 on Jan 19, 2007 22:10:09 GMT -5
I have dogs, labs that are part of the family and also love to hunt and be outdoors. My 10 yo yellow male has been caught in so many traps he is trap shy now. He almost comes to a point when he finds a set. My 3 yo chocolate female has had a taste of several canine sets over the last few years. She is still dumb to them and will get caught again I am sure. Hopefully not in a 220. With that said, I am also a trapper, and I use 220's. If my dog was to get caught in one while out bird hunting I might be able to get them out...maybe not. As a hunter I know I am putting my dog at risk knowing that the woods are shared with fellow trappers. I have NEVER seen any warning written to dog owners about the hazards of traps. Other than the recent (too late) posts. It would seem to me that instead of outlawing, or regulating the use of a good tool to the trapper (220's, 160's) that educating the dog owners to the hazards would be quite effective. Lets say when you relicense your pet the town/state supplies you with a flyer stating the hazards of set traps and when they may be set? In big letters "YOUR PET WILL DIE"!!! if you let them run loose and they get into a trap. Not to mention the before mentioned trailhead signs and warnings posted. Regulating the way to set or use a 220 may stop a dog or 2 from getting caught, but not all. I think some, if not all of the responsability should be put on the pet owner. If you put your pet at risk, then they are at fault. The pet owner needs to be aware of the hazards that are out there. After all...how many dogs are hit by cars every single day. I'll bet that # is higher than the # of dogs caught in 220's in a whole year. Bottom line is, the pets safety is the responsability of the petowner, not the responsability of a law abiding trapper. Educating the pet owners is the answer, not regulating the use of traps. Just my 2 cents. Steve
|
|