|
Post by crabbait on Jan 29, 2015 18:29:31 GMT -5
Good evening, I need some advice. I have been asked to remove some beaver under an "article 11" permit. I am happy to help of course, but have a question about an authorized technique. As I read it, cable restraints are legal. Am I right? As always, thanks for the help.
|
|
|
Post by Itrapny on Jan 29, 2015 20:50:44 GMT -5
Only if the permit specifically states cable restraints may be used and you have taken the DEC cable restraint class you can
|
|
|
Post by crabbait on Jan 30, 2015 5:51:28 GMT -5
Thank you for the answer.
|
|
|
Post by squash on Jan 30, 2015 7:00:30 GMT -5
Our permit Article 24 Freshwater wetlands/ Article 11 Interference with fish & wildlife, states that cable restraints may be used if you are certified by the DEC. Also, we can trap, or shoot beaver as well as trap within 15 feet of dam or lodge, and disturb or remove dams with the use of machinery.
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Jan 30, 2015 8:58:04 GMT -5
Our permit Article 24 Freshwater wetlands/ Article 11 Interference with fish & wildlife, states that cable restraints may be used if you are certified by the DEC. Also, we can trap, or shoot beaver as well as trap within 15 feet of dam or lodge, and disturb or remove dams with the use of machinery. yes, you can blow the whole place up with dynamite and obliterate the landscape if you wish. But... BUT... if you are in the southern zone where otter avoidance regs are in place and you set bodygrips larger than 9" without otter avoidance triggers b.s. in place, you will be subject to a fistful of tickets at the ECO's whim. for the love of God...don't do anything that might harm one hair on a sacred, muskrat, mink & gamefish eating otter.
|
|
|
Post by greggwny on Jan 30, 2015 9:48:26 GMT -5
[/quote]yes, you can blow the whole place up with dynamite and obliterate the landscape if you wish. But... BUT... if you are in the southern zone where otter avoidance regs are in place and you set bodygrips larger than 9" without otter avoidance triggers b.s. in place, you will be subject to a fistful of tickets at the ECO's whim.
for the love of God...don't do anything that might harm one hair on a sacred, muskrat, mink & gamefish eating otter. [/quote]
That is why I stopped using 330's. Too many tail or back catches and to many still alive in shallow water beaver. Now 4 miles away across the NY/PA border I have friends trapping beaver with standard V triggers and they are catching lots of beaver....no otters.
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Jan 30, 2015 9:54:40 GMT -5
I sold most of my 10" bodygrip traps and stocked up on Duke 9" traps instead. Now when I walk up to beavers caught at any set with triggers positioned properly for the intended (not incidental) target, I find large beavers stone-cold dispatched on the spot. I don't agree with those otter-avoidance regs at all, so I adjusted my traps inventory to comply
|
|
|
Post by squash on Jan 30, 2015 12:40:29 GMT -5
yes, you can blow the whole place up with dynamite and obliterate the landscape if you wish. But... BUT... if you are in the southern zone where otter avoidance regs are in place and you set bodygrips larger than 9" without otter avoidance triggers b.s. in place, you will be subject to a fistful of tickets at the ECO's whim. for the love of God...don't do anything that might harm one hair on a sacred, muskrat, mink & gamefish eating otter. [/quote] That is why I stopped using 330's. Too many tail or back catches and to many still alive in shallow water beaver. Now 4 miles away across the NY/PA border I have friends trapping beaver with standard V triggers and they are catching lots of beaver....no otters.[/quote] Jesh, cool your jets, we get permits to obliterate these beaver and dams when they are flooding and washing out our logging roads. Lewis County has the second highest unemployment rate in the state, muskrat, mink, etc be dammed when the Forest Industry is one of the few employers in our region. Plus, in the 50's & 60's there were few beaver on Tug Hill, and that's why the native Brook trout fishery here was second to none. Since the explosion of the beaver population, they have single handedly destroyed the Brook trout fishery here. Beaver ponds, destroy the shade integraty that kept the water cool, stagnate the water, flooding naturally acidic forest soil, leaching more acid into the water, and the list goes on. So they help one part of the ecosystem while destroyingg another part.
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Jan 30, 2015 13:13:00 GMT -5
To be clear, I'm all for killing beavers where applicable. My point was, when it's time to remove beaver, let's not worry about what else might be caught incidentally. That goes for open beaver seasons and ADC beaver work outside of the open fur seasons.
Nevermind any nonsense about degrading beaver trap performance for the sake of any other incidental catches that may occur. Let us trap beaver correctly and whatever else may be swimming around is irrelevant to that act.
|
|
|
Post by bobsamuelson on Jan 30, 2015 16:02:11 GMT -5
I hate to be bearer of bad news, Austin, but the "Duke" loophole will be closed for next season! All BG traps larger than 8.5 inches will now be subject to the trigger regulation!
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Jan 30, 2015 16:09:52 GMT -5
I hate to be bearer of bad news, Austin, but the "Duke" loophole will be closed for next season! All BG traps larger than 8.5 inches will now be subject to the trigger regulation! no worries... I'll stock up on #280s and set them center-triggers instead. They kill beavers like a boss in tight runs, slides, castor mound sets which is what I do. Not sure how good otter are at avoiding those traps, but it's beaver I'm after regardless of 8.5" or 9" or 10" or 7" traps if that's what it comes to. Many other guys will do the same. Next time beaver prices jack up, waters here in southern zone will be filled with #280s in every channel.
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Jan 30, 2015 16:33:33 GMT -5
on a similar note, Bob... if the DEC really wants to pass some worthwhile legislation, they can skip the whole beaver bodygrip nonsense and go straight to a 48-hour check law for water sets here in the southern zone. That would make a substantial difference in the lives of all water trappers down here.
the DEC is pushing a string with their size restrictions on otter triggered bodygrips. 8.5" traps are fine for beaver, if they try to take those away then all they are doing is eliminating the best tool beaver trappers have for use... big bodygrips set properly for BMP dispatch of all targeted catches. As it stands now, the current otter-trigger regs would fail miserably in BMP standards humane dispatch rate when small and even medium sized beaver catches are studied.
|
|
|
Post by trappermac on Jan 30, 2015 18:26:53 GMT -5
I hate to be bearer of bad news, Austin, but the "Duke" loophole will be closed for next season! All BG traps larger than 8.5 inches will now be subject to the trigger regulation! That's too bad, but saw it coming. How people can use forums to brag about how they get around the regs and somehow think that will make a difference is beyond me. You'd think they'd understand that those making the decisions read this stuff and all it does is create spite. Further evidence to me that common sense is a tool that many lack. Air out your anger over a reg and how you circumnavigate it...that'll help trappers. Thanks.
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Jan 30, 2015 18:44:42 GMT -5
That's too bad, but saw it coming. How people can use forums to brag about how they get around the regs and somehow think that will make a difference is beyond me. You'd think they'd understand that those making the decisions read this stuff and all it does is create spite. Further evidence to me that common sense is a tool that many lack. Air out your anger over a reg and how you circumnavigate it...that'll help trappers. Thanks. Are you seriously saying that the upper echelon of NYS DEC makes policy decisions based on alias posts in a tiny little public message board? That the whole policy has nothing to do with mass collective field checks of actual traps set across the entire southern zone of NYS from the PA border west to Seneca River east? Using 9" traps or 8.5" traps is not avoiding regulations any more than using 6" bodygrip traps on land is avoiding #220 regs... it is merely complying with regs. Once again, you personally crawl out from under your rock to take the other side of anything I opine based on some sort of personal spite... and your argument is weak. The only thing I've seen in this message board that's spiteful and stupid spills from your keyboard.
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Jan 30, 2015 18:48:17 GMT -5
fact: I know of four (4) southern zone trappers who caught otter this year in legally set #1.5 coilspring foothold traps set on muskrat feedbeds in shallow water, this season alone.
Three of those four trappers are active members of this forum. Three of those four otter were dead on arrival, one was released. This post ain't about discussing non-target catches or dancing around the serious subject of sacred otter dictating trapper effectiveness. What's next... restrict or ban foothold traps for muskrats because a few otter got killed while hunting muskrats?
edit: before any skirts get ruffled with this post, all four otter from four different trappers in four different counties were turned over to DEC immediately. I was present at the public WMA when one of those big males was taken at a shallow feedbed in the middle of a shallow cattail marsh.
everything was legal, proper and 100% by the book. Fact is, enough otter exist to get themselves killed where trappers like you and me are going about our normal routine. Now why aren't we NYS trappers talking about an open otter season for at least 1 tag per trapper here in the southern zone, as opposed to more restrictive and ineffective trap regulations?
time to talk about open otter seasons, not otter avoidance fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jan 30, 2015 20:34:09 GMT -5
... if the DEC really wants to pass some worthwhile legislation, they can skip the whole beaver bodygrip nonsense and go straight to a 48-hour check law for water sets here in the southern zone. That would make a substantial difference in the lives of all water trappers down here. The DEC does not pass legislation (laws) - the legislature does. The DEC can pass regulations (rules). The trap check is in the law and therefore it's up to our disfunctional legislature. There is a bill still floating around that would do just what you want. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so maybe this year enough people squeak to get this out of the Environmental Conservation committee for some votes. This link shows the full info - Bill to change trap check law and here's the basics: A01016 Memo:BILL NUMBER:A1016 TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to exempting traps set in water from the requirement of being visited every twenty-four hours PURPOSE: Exempts traps set in water from the requirement that they be visited once every 24 hours. SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section 11-1105 of Environmental Conservation law is amended to exempt traps set in water from the requirement of being visited every twenty-four hours. JUSTIFICATION: Trapping in New York State is not only a pastime for some, but is also a method of animal population control and offers economic benefits to the producers and consumers of food and products from the wild game industry. Throughout New York State, there are fourteen species of furbearing animals. When trapping animals such as mink, beaver, muskrat and otter, water trapping is a method commonly used. Trappers are bound by many rules and regulations to ensure the safety and security of wildlife populations. These rules are regulated by New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation. Included in the regulations that trappers must abide by are rules governing the checking of traps. In the Southern Zone, all traps must be checked once in each 24 hour period. The Northern Zone provides some leeway, allowing for traps set in water, as well as several other types of traps, to be checked once in each 48 hour period. The proposed legislation would allow for underwater traps in all areas of New York to be exempt from the requirement that they be visited once in each 24 hour period. This would remove some of the burden placed on trappers when checking their traps, in addition to achieving a consistent regulation throughout the entire state, It would also have little to no impact on the animal or environment, as animals expire within a short period of time during underwater trapping. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2013-14: A1105 referred to Environmental Conservation/S3563 passed Senate 2011-12: A9173 referred to Environmental Conservation/S6166 referred to Environmental Conservation FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately.
|
|
|
Post by greggwny on Jan 31, 2015 4:50:25 GMT -5
... if the DEC really wants to pass some worthwhile legislation, they can skip the whole beaver bodygrip nonsense and go straight to a 48-hour check law for water sets here in the southern zone. That would make a substantial difference in the lives of all water trappers down here. The DEC does not pass legislation (laws) - the legislature does. The DEC can pass regulations (rules). The trap check is in the law and therefore it's up to our disfunctional legislature. There is a bill still floating around that would do just what you want. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so maybe this year enough people squeak to get this out of the Environmental Conservation committee for some votes. This link shows the full info - Bill to change trap check law and here's the basics: A01016 Memo:BILL NUMBER:A1016 TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to exempting traps set in water from the requirement of being visited every twenty-four hours PURPOSE: Exempts traps set in water from the requirement that they be visited once every 24 hours. SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section 11-1105 of Environmental Conservation law is amended to exempt traps set in water from the requirement of being visited every twenty-four hours. JUSTIFICATION: Trapping in New York State is not only a pastime for some, but is also a method of animal population control and offers economic benefits to the producers and consumers of food and products from the wild game industry. Throughout New York State, there are fourteen species of furbearing animals. When trapping animals such as mink, beaver, muskrat and otter, water trapping is a method commonly used. Trappers are bound by many rules and regulations to ensure the safety and security of wildlife populations. These rules are regulated by New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation. Included in the regulations that trappers must abide by are rules governing the checking of traps. In the Southern Zone, all traps must be checked once in each 24 hour period. The Northern Zone provides some leeway, allowing for traps set in water, as well as several other types of traps, to be checked once in each 48 hour period. The proposed legislation would allow for underwater traps in all areas of New York to be exempt from the requirement that they be visited once in each 24 hour period. This would remove some of the burden placed on trappers when checking their traps, in addition to achieving a consistent regulation throughout the entire state, It would also have little to no impact on the animal or environment, as animals expire within a short period of time during underwater trapping. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2013-14: A1105 referred to Environmental Conservation/S3563 passed Senate 2011-12: A9173 referred to Environmental Conservation/S6166 referred to Environmental Conservation FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately. I have seen similar legislation written every year to allow cable restrains for fox and coyotes. It's always booted back and doesn't surface again until the following year where it again goes nowhere. How do our downstate friends say it... Forgetaboutit!
|
|
|
Post by trappermac on Jan 31, 2015 7:05:40 GMT -5
That the whole policy has nothing to do with mass collective field checks of actual traps set across the entire southern zone of NYS from the PA border west to Seneca River east? . How many field checks have you been through? I’ve got 46 years of active trapping and never had one, many of those years trapping beaver. Have only seen one ECO in those years, didn’t even ask me about my catch. Where do these “massive field checks” occur?...and where can I find the results of those checks? I’m certain regs are not made based upon what’s written on a forum, I’m also certain that certain things written on a forum are not helpful to our cause at all. Don’t whine about that which you do not like, go do something about it. We have elected officers in the NYSTA working on our behalf to protect our rights and to work on regs along with county orgs and certain boards; people in the trenches. Go fight the battle if you don’t like something. Whiners whine, doers do. And Austin, c’mon, every post you make to me you resort to some type of name calling, one apparently bad enough that a mod removed it from the coyote trap thread. I thought you were bigger than that. I could be wrong. There are young ones on here, set an example.
|
|
|
Post by silverfox on Jan 31, 2015 7:21:41 GMT -5
"Three of those four otter were dead on arrival, one was released" and "before any skirts get ruffled with this post, all four otter from four different trappers in four different counties were turned over to DEC immediately",,,,,,,,
so was it 3 otter KIA, one released, or all 4 KIA and turned over, i ask cause you have stated both scenarios, no offense but change of story is usually an indicator of embellished facts or 2nd hand (un verified) info, or you simply mis spoke (typed), either way inconsistency breeds question of legitimacy
|
|