|
Post by mikeb on Dec 10, 2015 19:41:19 GMT -5
Some dumbass was using snares in the Manchester area off of route 96 and caught a dog-now the news has ahold of it-what is this person thinking illegaly setting snares-just what we do not need !!!I hope the DEC catches this idiot!!!
|
|
|
Post by crabbait on Dec 10, 2015 19:48:38 GMT -5
Yes, saw that on the Channel 10 News this morning. Awful for us no matter how you look at it. I hope they catch whoever done it and was also hoping they searched the area for more stupidity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 19:51:38 GMT -5
There illegal to use in this state and any good trapper that has half a brain knows this so why should we get the black eye for this stupity? I'll bet a pair of obamas dirty underware that it was a deer hunter who's trying to eliminate the elusive coywolves that are killing all his deer on his hunting property!!!!!!!! cause good trappers don't do crap like this
|
|
|
Post by dereka on Dec 10, 2015 21:54:34 GMT -5
oh boy....! Idiot...
|
|
|
Post by slyfox74 on Dec 10, 2015 23:06:15 GMT -5
Was the dog injured?
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Dec 11, 2015 14:47:31 GMT -5
Yes snares are illegal and the trapper is wrong for having set them but I am sick and tired of people letting cats and dogs run wild in the fields a long way from their homestead. If you don't want to risk your pets life keep it within visual boundaries. Once it crosses the first knoll and or enters a big woodlot I don't want to hear about it anymore. I have hunting dogs which all remain close because I care about them!
|
|
|
Post by bluetickboy on Dec 11, 2015 15:22:30 GMT -5
I'm guessing you don't have hounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2015 15:23:30 GMT -5
Here's the thing i don't get from anyone of you, You all keep saying trapper, why?? it could of been the priest from the local church that set the snare some kid that looked it up on the internet until we hear some good hard facts on the case stop eluding to the trapper .There are tons of Anti's that guest this page and take what you say and use it for there agendas you keep fueling the fire were all going to get burnt!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by slyfox74 on Dec 11, 2015 16:04:26 GMT -5
Well said. No trapper I know would do that.
|
|
|
Post by REDNECK on Dec 11, 2015 17:41:33 GMT -5
Well stated
|
|
|
Post by proratman on Dec 11, 2015 18:19:30 GMT -5
A loose dog. Would it have made the paper and TV if the same dog was hit by a motor vehicle?
|
|
|
Post by mikeb on Dec 11, 2015 20:00:08 GMT -5
yes very true I said trapper and should not have as no respectable trapper would do that-sorry and yes I feel very strongly about people who let ther dogs and cats run wild then cry when something happens WTF-as far as I know dog is recovering!!
|
|
|
Post by mole on Dec 12, 2015 6:22:29 GMT -5
You all seem to be looking in the wrong direction.
Had the dog been hit by a car driven by a unlicenced driver, drunk, on drugs it might have made the news.
The main point is a Snare on land. a snare that was not checked. What if a Fox was in it to starve, a deer or any other animal.
Bottom line, The individual that placed that snare in the field is the one responsible for the act.
|
|
|
Post by saquelie on Dec 12, 2015 8:43:51 GMT -5
IF there is a bright side to the story it showed that the CABLE RESTRAINT held an animal with out harm. And yes I would not call the person who set it a Trapper.
|
|
|
Post by herm on Dec 12, 2015 9:14:18 GMT -5
I too saw it on tv. One of the bad things about this is the reporter was stating that these traps were outlawed because they are cruel and I don't believe that was the case as much as they were catching deer with them. Not a good thing to see on tv when NYSTA is trying to get them legalized. I also know for a fact that this has been going on in Ontario County for a while and the DEC has been trying to solve this issue. I myself would not rule out the fact, as Joel stated, that the persons doing this could very likely be deer hunters. Many of them are pushing hard to stop any protection on the coyotes and want it classified as a varmint.
|
|
|
Post by slyfox74 on Dec 12, 2015 17:08:12 GMT -5
The news station did that to sensationalize the story. Cable Restraints are not illegal because they are cruel. They are illegal because they are misunderstood. You should look up the phone number to that station and post it here so we can call them and complain that they misinformed the public. at least PM me with it and I'll call them.
|
|
|
Post by herm on Dec 12, 2015 17:37:21 GMT -5
WHEC channel 10 Rochester NY. Good luck in getting them to correct the story.
|
|
|
Post by mikeb on Dec 12, 2015 18:07:07 GMT -5
yes very true -they will never change there story-very anti trapping news station!!
|
|
|
Post by slyfox74 on Dec 13, 2015 11:03:16 GMT -5
News Channel 10 Rochester PH. 1-866-912-7090 (585) 232-1010There is also an email option through their contact us tab I sent the following email. I urge you all to send one as well. There is also an email option through their contact us tab I sent the following email. I urge you all to send one as well.
On Dec. 10th, your station ran a story regarding a dog caught in a restraining device made of cable. Your station inaccurately referred to it as a "snare", which it was not. Additionally, you stated that these restraining devices were illegal in NY due to their being "cruel", that is also false. Cable restraints are illegal in this state, because our lawmakers fear that they will catch deer accidentally. Additionally, cable restraints are legal for people who are specially licensed, Nuisance Animal Control Operators. I find the lack of research and false sensationalism in this story appalling. I ask that you correct the story and the information publicly and issue an apology
|
|
MF
Posts: 106
|
Post by MF on Dec 13, 2015 11:47:10 GMT -5
I just watched the video and no where did it say the "snare" was illegal because it was cruel from what I saw. The only time the word cruel was used was regarding the charge that could be levied.
|
|
|
Post by herm on Dec 13, 2015 19:57:23 GMT -5
You are correct. I guess that's what happens when you recall something by memory and the person who was with you when you were watching it was talking over the tv. Still the way it was presented making the statement that they are not legal in NYS could be read to imply the reason they are not is because ----. Then again if they were legal the story most likely would not have been on tv.
|
|