Ohio State Trapper Forums

160 thread

 Pages:  1  

Ohio Andy - 7-11-2011 at 03:11 PM


I made this post before i saw that the site was down and we lost threads. i was a little ticked when it was gone, so i am sorry if the tone is that.

What happened to the thread on the 160's that i started? I asked legitimate questions. I was out of town for a couple of days and i come back and it was gone. Maybe they were answered???

I have heard lots of rumors about this 160 issue and the committee. i am just trying to get some answers as a member.

So, I ask again. Where did the poll come from? Was the 160 committee involved in it? In the wording of the options, the timing, the responce? If the 160 committee was not involved, why not?

I was asked "why is the responce going to just one individual?" I have my BT now, so i can see it is going to a trustworthy person, but the question was legitimate as he did not know.

Randy, i asked you about some specific questions about densities and regulations of ALL of our neighboring states. You said you have this info, let's hear it (maybe it was in there). On Tman you stated those around us that are favorable to your position of gaining access to 160's, what about the other states? How about West Virginia? How about Kentucky? Or Michigan's convoluted regs? PA's with the definition of "water course" from their regs?

It seems as though i am in the minority on this issue, but i know i am not just speaking for myself based on conversations i have had with other trappers. I will happily be the dissenting voice for them as well.



[Edited on 11/7/2011 by Ohio Andy]

[Edited on 11/7/2011 by Ohio Andy]

[Edited on 12/15/2011 by Ohio Andy]

Keith Daniels - 7-11-2011 at 05:03 PM

Andy, some of what you must have missed is, this came from the September board meeting, it was decided there to get the poll going. Response is actually going to two individuals, one for mailed in, one for e-mail.

Russ said he made copies of the thread, hopefully he has some information on there that Scott can use to pull up what was lost, if not, I'm sure it will be easy to start over, but lets see if Scott can come up with something first.

computer hater - 9-11-2011 at 03:58 AM

Andy,

I'll try a shorter version.

Kentucky, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, North Carolina, Tennessee - 220's and down are legal on land.

Michigan - 220's and down are legal on land but not on public land.

Wisconsin - Less than 60 square inches is legal on land. Most 220's if not all would be legal as well as all 160's.

Virginia - 220's and down are legal on land but they can not be used with bait.

Illinois - 160's and down are legal on land. They allow up to 7 inches on land.

New York - 160's and down are legal on land. They may not be set with bait, they cannot exceed 6 inches, and no part of the trap can be more than 8 inches off the ground. The maximum you could set one off the ground would be 2 inches.

Pennsylvania - 160's and down are legal on land between the water's edge and the top of the bank. The law states that it is " unlawful to set bodygripping traps outside a watercourse, waterway, marsh, pond, or dam."

West Virginia - Bodygrippers are not legal on land. Doesn't matter what size. Interestingly enough it appears that you can set 330's in a half inch of water and be legal.

Population densities of the states are as follows:

Ohio 277 people per square mile.
Pa - 274
WVA - 75
Ky - 102
IND - 170
VA - 179
MICH - 175
MINN - 62
Iowa - 52
N CAR - 165
Wisc - 99
New York - 402
ILL - 223
TENN - 138

Before the thread was lost I was home for lunch and I believe some other questions were asked. I didn't have time to answer them then. Based on my bad memory I think one question had something to do with urban versus rural population. The recent census for the whole country said that 84% of the people in this country live in urban areas. I don't have a breakdown for each state.

I also saw a question or statement about setting coon snares in the trails along the creek and the catch circles not scaring other coon. They might not scare too many coon but some mink, not all, will avoid those torn up areas. I've seen the evidence in the snow before. The 160 is an excellent trap for the coon and the mink that run those trails. 110's are too small for coon and a lot of mink refuse to enter 110's especially in more open trails. The 160 helps to solve the problem. In the tighter more constricted trails the 110 works fine until the coon bulldozes his way over top of it.

If there are more questions, ask on here or U2U me. Now that season is here I may only get on here once a week for the next couple of weeks.

Thanks.

Ric - 9-11-2011 at 12:36 PM

That was my question about population distribution, Randy.

Distribution is a factor to be taken into consideration when looking at a matter such as this. New York state is the glaring example here. 402 is the listed population density. Take out the 5 Boroughs of NYC and there area and it is 208. ~75% of Ohio's density. 2010 Census data.

Do we have moderators on this site?

"West Virginia - Bodygrippers are not legal on land. Doesn't matter what size. Interestingly enough it appears that you can set 330's in a half inch of water and be legal."

***********
Definition.
"A trap is a device used to catch and hold animals and includes box traps, killer-type traps, leghold traps and snares."

Illegal act
"set traps with an open jaw spread of more than 6½ inches except as underwater sets for beaver."

Illegal act
"set body gripping (killer) type traps for terrestrial trapping, but they may be used in water sets."

Taken from WVDNR

***********

It is clearly illegal to set a 330 in 1/2" of water.


This is a serious issue folks. I bring out the above points to illustrate the lack of thought brought forth in some statements that have been made on this subject.



Edit. Clarification of WVDNR quotes..Ric




[Edited on 9-11-2011 by Ric]

Ohio Andy - 9-11-2011 at 02:32 PM

Here is the link to michigan.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10363_10880-243436-...



[Edited on 11/9/2011 by Ohio Andy]

Pasadena - 9-11-2011 at 03:46 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Ohio Andy  
Here is the link to michigan.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10363_10880-243436-...

160's are areally the max on dry that without being in an enclosure from what i see there.


Public Grounds Only.
"All legal body-gripping traps of any size may be used if they are four or more feet off the ground without set restriction." This is on public grounds only.

On private grounds. "It is unlawful to set a body-gripping or conibear-type trap larger than 7.5 inches in width (as measured inside the jaw hinges) on drylands that are privately owned." Which the way I read this is up to "220" size trap set in any manner the user wishes.

Ohio Andy - 9-11-2011 at 06:34 PM

I missed that portion JD.

FishDaddy - 9-11-2011 at 07:13 PM

West Virginia - Bodygrippers are not legal on land. Doesn't matter what size. Interestingly enough it appears that you can set 330's in a half inch of water and be legal.

yep cept in march have to be underwater

computer hater - 9-11-2011 at 07:21 PM

Ric,

That is why I said "IT APPEARS". Any regs that I posted may have been misinterpreted by me, may have changed since I took them off the web or may not have been a complete set where I read them. Not an issue of "lack of thought." I do and can make mistakes.

We do have moderators. Your point? As if they would necessarily know. I'm a moderator and I made the mistake or didn't have the whole set of regulations at my disposal. I pulled all the regs 18 months or so ago so I don't remember the exact site I used. Thanks for finding the mistake.

Lets take the population of New York City out of the equation. Now do we get to take Clev., Columbus, Cinncinnati out of Ohio's equation which would drastically reduce Ohio's people per square mile. It's a 2 way street. Then can we take Buffalo, Albany, Toledo, Youngstown, Etc? Can we stop yet? Lets take the 84% as the census suggests. Where does that leave each respective state?

Andy and JD thanks for your input. See how easy it can be to miss something in the regulations of each state.

computer hater - 9-11-2011 at 07:23 PM

FishDaddy,

Are you saying you can set 330's in a half inch of water except in March? If so where can this be found? Also what is the reasoning behind it?
Thanks in advance.

Lt44 - 9-11-2011 at 10:19 PM

Randy, on your observations in the snow when a mink shied away from the torn up area where did he go?...........Ron

Lt44 - 9-11-2011 at 10:25 PM

Randy, sorry for another question but do you use a 5x5 bg for mink in trails?.....Ron

Ric - 9-11-2011 at 11:39 PM

The point being that population distribution plays an important role in the discussion being had, not just population per square mile.

And that as important as the subject being discussed is. It deserves more to a cursory search of the web to glean the information used to support ones case, pro or con


Coondawg - 9-11-2011 at 11:49 PM

Im curious about something. Weve heard the reasoning behind all of the pro 6" trap guys. I want to hear some reasoning behind the ones who arent. This is a legitimate question, not trying to "fire anyone up" as they say.

The only reasoning that Ive heard so far is because they are afraid people will catch domestics (cats and dogs). If that is the only reason, then I dont buy it. If the same restrictions were applied to them as they are snares, then I dont see a big deal. Dont use them on public land, and use common sense and ask the landowner if they have any roaming pets. I especially dont see a threat if they are not baited, between the bank lines (high water marks), and not elevated.

I personally think that it would be a great tool for those coon trails along creeks and undercut dry banks.

Coondawg - 9-11-2011 at 11:53 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Lt44  
Randy, sorry for another question but do you use a 5x5 bg for mink in trails?.....Ron


Im not Randy, but I have used the 5x5's in trails for mink, and still do. They seem to work pretty good for mink. I dont have very good success with coon though. Most of the few coon I catch in them are smaller coon. I bought them to use for coon, but mainly just use them for mink now and hope that I may snag a passing coon, but I dont expect it.

Keith Daniels - 10-11-2011 at 02:18 AM

You guys might as well start your comments over, doesn't look like the old ones are coming back. Mike had a couple posts that were pretty good if he can get something similar back on, I know at least one other from Stackhouse.

Just remember, no attacks on a personal or positional level, they will be deleted, just give your opinions and experiences.

FishDaddy - 10-11-2011 at 03:01 AM

Quote: Originally posted by computer hater  
FishDaddy,

Are you saying you can set 330's in a half inch of water except in March? If so where can this be found? Also what is the reasoning behind it?
Thanks in advance.


no idea the reasoning behind it it says water sets here is the regs.
http://www.wvdnr.gov/hunting/Regs1112/General_regs.pdf

FishDaddy - 10-11-2011 at 03:05 AM

we got an otter season this year and allowed 1 season ends in feb but if we trap beaver in march (only thing we can trap in march)we are only allowed body grippers no foot traps so if we get an otter no way to realease it alive.

Lt44 - 10-11-2011 at 08:42 AM

I deleted my last thread after thinking about it, I don't think this is a secured site, if I'm wrong let me know, although I believe what I said, I forgot that OSTA members isn't the only ones that scour our site, if it isn't secured, it would be best if I deleted it no sense in providing ammo...........Ron

[Edited on 11-10-2011 by Lt44]

Keith Daniels - 10-11-2011 at 12:49 PM

Ron, you are correct, anyone can view this site, and as with any site I know of, if you can view it, comments can be copied and pasted from it, that's why we caution people about posting things that can be taken out of context.

The way you had your position worded in the first post, that was lost during the transition, was a little better to get the point across and be a little more politically correct.

Ohio Andy - 10-11-2011 at 03:56 PM

If you simply discount the possibility of domestics being caught in 160's then you are really missing the issue. A cat and a small dog can be caught the same as a 20 pound coon. To discount this real possibility as an insignificant issue in this discussion is missing the discussion. How do our trapping right come under fire, by who and what is the motive?

Catching and killing some one's pet is the quickest way to losing land and losing a person who would otherwise be our ally in a fight to keep trapping and may become and advocate to initiate a ban. Trappers make up a small percentage of the overall population, therefore, we need the non trapping public on our side as much as possible.

A responsible, experienced trapper is not the one i am most worried about with 160's in his hand. It isn't Randy setting for mink. It is the 14 year kid out there setting in his back 10 acres with neighbors all around and pets running free. That is the trapper i worry about handling the potential future of our sport. If Mrs. Beakman's jack russel gets whacked in a 160, 20 foot off her property by Junior trying to catch a coon, that doesn't look good for trappers as a whole. ESPECIALLY if he was legally set. Keep in mind, Junior has no mentor or family member to show him the way and he took his test online, so he has no interaction with trappers that could teach him the ethical way to set and where.

You may says its a stretch, but i think we all know that it is not.

I have talked to experienced trappers that have made comments about breaking the law with regard to BG's. Some, when confronted with the actual law seemed to be unaware of the current size restriction. So let's not play naive and pretend that if the use of 160's are restricted that it won't bring widespread use by uninformed users in a non-legal manner. Yes they would be breaking the law and we could distance ourselves, but in the poll of public opinion does that really matter? If it were on the ballot and Mrs. Beekman shows the photos of her beloved Jack, will that matter to the uninformed?

I am sure this post goes to far, but if we are going to have an open discussion about the realities of this matter, then these possibilities need discussed, especially when we have potential real issue of domestic confrontation. In a foothold, that animal lives and could be released be the owner, in a 160, its dead. What else is there to the matter? That is really what the issue comes down too. Do we as an organization what to to open our sport to the possibility of more negative interaction with the general public that are unwilling to control their pets? Or worse yet, the hunters that would otherwise be on our side?

I emailed KD to review my post, i made the change he requested.

[Edited on 11/10/2011 by Ohio Andy]

[Edited on 11/11/2011 by Ohio Andy]

FishDaddy - 10-11-2011 at 05:55 PM

a 160 is only an inch bigger trhan a 5x5 am i right?

Lt44 - 10-11-2011 at 06:22 PM

By measure FD, 11 square inches of opening difference ,this makes a world of difference.Take a 5x5 and hold it to a 6x6 you'll be able to see what i'm talking about.......Ron

Lt44 - 10-11-2011 at 06:28 PM

O.A very well put your more politically correct than my thread I deleted lol.......Ron

Ohio Andy - 10-11-2011 at 07:17 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Lt44  
By measure FD, 11 square inches of opening difference ,this makes a world of difference.Take a 5x5 and hold it to a 6x6 you'll be able to see what i'm talking about.......Ron


A 6x6 is 44% bigger than a 5x5 when you look at the area of the opening.

computer hater - 11-11-2011 at 08:20 AM

The key is EDUCATION. Just as we have done and continue to do with snares. We heard the same stories when snaring was brought up. We will lose our rights etc. Well, how many years have we had snaring now? EDUCATION EDUCATION.

Mrs. Beakman's dog would be just as dead in a 5 x 5 and even in a 110 also. Or what if that 14 year old kid legally sets a 160 legal in a half inch of water and he puts it in front of a hole and throws a hunk of bait in that hole near where Mrs. Beakman lets her Jack Russell run free.

I'm setting a lot more drowners this year because we have more water in the creeks. What if Mrs. Beakmans dog runs to the creek and gets caught in one of my sets?
Geesh maybe I shouldn't run any drowners.

Guns are kind of related. Take our guns, take our guns because if we have no guns we will have no murders. Guns kill people you know. Take our semi automatics. Some nut can't go postal with an UZI if they are outlawed. That's the way to do it. Take the rights from every law abiding citizen because there may be a nut or two amongst us. Kind of the same in my eyes. Don't use this or don't use that because some uneducated kid may make a mistake with it. You mean he can't go to the hardware store and buy a 160 or bigger today and make the same mistake? I caught a kid setting a 330 under a bridge on dryland and he had a fish on the trigger. Don't think stuff isn't happening out there now. But, again the key is EDUCATION.

Put on demos about 160 useage and make it a part of all trapper education classes and put some restrictions on 160 usage.

Yes hold up a 160 and center a 5 x 5 inside it. Yep 1/2" bigger all 4 sides. Make a big difference on coon refusals but it isn't the monster you are making it out to be.

Numerous other states are using them and have been using them for years. I'm sure there are Mrs. Beakmans and dogs living in those states.

FishDaddy - 11-11-2011 at 09:54 AM

i dont see any more danger in a 160 as a 5x5

Ric - 11-11-2011 at 12:06 PM

In response to:



"The only reasoning that I've heard so far is because they are afraid people will catch domestics (cats and dogs). If that is the only reason, then I don't buy it."



That is the crux of the issue. One needs to look into the ramifications of what such an occurrence could evolve into.



One, just one incident latched onto by people with an anti trapping agenda and trapping,all trapping will be in jeopardy. Frankly at this time we do not have the resources financial or human to fight this issue in the public arena. Issue 2 in 1977 cost over $1,000,000 and countless volunteer hours and that was a lot closer win than most perceive.In today's dollars that means about 4+ million in just cash outlay to fund a similar defense. With the changes in demographics in the last 35 years a similar defense would more than likely ensure a defeat for us. The AR organizations can and will out spend and out "PR" us into oblivion.



Are there trappers who could use the 6" BG traps with a reasonable expectation that domestic catches would not become a problem? Certainly. Remember that this change will be for everyone that traps.Only 20-25% of Ohio trappers are even members in the OSTA. The irresponsible will be lumped in the "trapper" category along with those who could use them responsibility. The OSTA will be tied to the recommendation that changed the law. This will severely damage OSTA as a voice for responsible trapping in public opinion. Never forget we continue to trap only as long as the general public allows us to.



The addition of 6" BG traps is not going to increase the take of raccoons dramatically. That could be a sound wildlife management reason for it's addition to legal tools we can use.We already have all the tools necessary for active trappers to harvest all the raccoon they can. It falls into that "would be nice to have" category, but the down side dramatically outweighs any benefits.



As I have stated before in this thread. This issue goes far beyond what the general membership wants. It is a issue that has serious implications as to weather recreational trapping will be passed on to up coming generations or not.As such it is not a decision that should be made by consensus of the membership.We have elected and appointed representatives in the association that are intrusted to make decisions based on information and knowledge not easily available to the average member. As stated in official OSTA publications "OSTA... Serving the trapper... Protecting Our Trapping Heritage" . This should mean more than just following the uniformed whims of the masses. It is a directive to protect trapping into the future, in a changing world.






JanWV - 11-11-2011 at 12:42 PM

To add a little more information about body grips in WV, the law does plainly state that body gripping traps and traps with a jaw spread of more than 6-1/2" are illegal on land.
However, although it is not actually stated in writing, the 6-1/2" jaw spread limit was written with the foothold in mind...not the body gripping trap.
Body gripping traps can only be used in water sets. The law does not go into detail regarding how much water constitutes a water set. And body gripping traps (in legal water sets) are the only sets which can be used in March.
To the best of my knowledge (and I did check with law enforcement before posting this), no one has yet to be fined if a 330 is only partially submerged.
The WV Trappers Association has been working on a similar issue with body grips on land for the past few years, and it appears that we are close to seeing limited body grips on land.
We only requested that a #110 (jaw spread ranging from 4"x4" to 4-1/2"x4-1/2") be permitted on land. Although we were offered the possibility of petitioning for all sizes of body grips on land, we chose, as an organization, to support only the #110.
Why?
West Virginia is a hound friendly state. Many members of our organization are not only trappers, but also houndsmen (rabbit, coon, bear, waterfowl) as well. Our organization has worked closely with some of the hound organizations, and have actually depended on their members to help us with trapping legislation. Given our historical background of trappers vs. houndsmen, this is a major accomplishment in our state.
Although other states permit various sizes of body gripping traps on land with success, we purposly chose to limit ourselves in order to have a better working relationship with other sporting organizations in our state.
We realize that other states have plenty of houndsmen and trappers alike, and land body grips are allowed in their respective states; however, given the ground that we have achieved in the past few years with other sporting organizations in our state, we felt that limiting ourselves to one size of body grips was a small price to pay for the united front that we have been working so hard to achieve.
We teach our students about exercising caution about traps and domestic animals, and stress to them the importance of trying to eliminate the possibility of catching dogs.
The majority of problems we've had regarding trapping this state has been from the use of illegally set traps. Regardless of what laws are in place, you'll always see a few that have total disregard for those laws, and ultimately it reflects poorly on our sport.
In our way of thinking, limiting our body grip sizes will be in the best interest of helping keep trapping a viable sport into the future in WV. We are in no way trying to influence the thoughts or regulations for other states.
There are many organized groups looking for excuses to attack trapping. All one has to do is look at what has happened in some of our northeastern states to see what these organizations can accomplish when they have public opinion on their side. In WV, while we may question the public opinion of trapping, we are presenting a solid front with other sporting organizations regarding our sport, and attribute much of that solidarity to a little give and take on all our parts.

Janet Hodge
WVTA President

Ohio Wolverine - 11-11-2011 at 12:44 PM

From what I understand, a 6x6 or 7x7 can be used as long as it's set in water.

I can see the 6x6 or 7x7 used in the upside down cubie set on the side of a tree.
Or a deep box cubie set at least 12 inches back in the cubie.

Here again we have what Ric pointed out "It would be nice to use !" but there are so many other options that are easier and safer to use.

LOL I know it's nice to catch nice dry clean coon , but this is OHIO !
Any more it seems there isn't going to be any clean dry coon this year as wet as it's been.

FishDaddy - 11-11-2011 at 12:48 PM

imo a 110 on land is useless

Ric - 11-11-2011 at 12:49 PM

This hasn't been asked so I will. Why do you want the option to use 6'" BG traps on land? What makes them more effective than what is already available to us.

Keith Daniels - 11-11-2011 at 01:11 PM

A couple points to keep in mind for all of you. Traps are tools, just like a knife, hammer, screwdriver, chainsaw etc. There is a potential for misuse and abuse of everything, but potential misuse of any tool should not be used in any argument/debate about any other tool. It has to stand on it's merits alone. In no circumstances do you throw one under the bus to make another look better, it is counterproductive.

I hope you all also understand the board has never taken the position of, whatever the poll says we do. The first step is to find out the real feeling of the members (serve the members), after that, formulate a proposal and direction, if needed, that would be put to the membership, after they have had opportunity study the concerns of people with differing opinions on the matter.

I was reading back through th thread and saw I made a mistake earlier, I added not.

[Edited on 11-14-2011 by Keith Daniels]

Snaring vs. the 160

Hal - 11-11-2011 at 02:13 PM

Snaring vs. the 160

I've heard this issue regarding a 6x6 trap compared to the issue surrounding the snare couple of times now. I was there through the whole snaring drive, so I have firsthand knowledge of that. Let me remind everyone that it took almost 10 years to get snares in Ohio.

Let me point out one glaring difference. Yes at first, back in 1986-87 when we introduced the idea, there were a couple people on the board who opposed it. However, when it came time to finally address the issue of snares seriously (about 1995) with the DOW, the OSTA board was 100% in favor of doing that.

When we went to the Division with our proposal, we had the full backing of the BOD. There was not one individual on that board who thought snares were too dangerous to use, or represented a threat to the future of trapping.

Right now we have a significant number of people on the BOD who are strongly opposed to using traps larger than 5x5 on land. And this opposition is not new, it has existed for a number of years.

So, from an internal standpoint, this issue of the 6x6 trap is remarkably different from the snare and should not be compared.

Hal

JanWV - 11-11-2011 at 02:33 PM

Fishdaddy - I respect your opinion; however, the use of #110s on land will help benefit those who wish to trap channels and trails for rats and mink. It can also benefit ADC trappers who can use this as a tool for gutter trapping squirrels.

computer hater - 11-11-2011 at 11:30 PM

LT 44,

Sorry forgot to answer your questions.
No, I have never used the 5 x 5 for mink. I would have the same problems as I do with 110's. Some mink would refuse in certain spots and the coons would bulldoze right over top of them.

The mink usually crossed the stream and the tracks would then appear on the other side. I've seen this numerous times and it took several times of seeing it to finally come to the conclusion that the mink "appeared" to be avoiding the torn up location created by the coons that were previously caught. Don't get me wrong. Not all mink shy away from coon scent. Thank goodness they don't, because if they did, I'd never catch too many. I've caught numerous mink in sets after catching coons first. But it's no fun to be following a set of tracks only to see him avoid your set location like the plague. LOL

Ric,

Why do I want to use 6" BG's on land? See above. I can catch most of the coon and most of the mink running those bank trails in the 160's. Will some coons still go over the top? Yes, but you'll catch a good portion of them and eliminate them from constantly snapping your smaller traps. The 160, in my opinion, is a far superior trap for mink in most instances than the 110 or 120's. Tight constricted spots that the mink is crawling through are idea for 110's. Most bank trails are somewhat more open and trying to force the mink into the 110 in those trails can be difficult at times. The 160 has more head room and that is important in my opinion. I've observed the habits of the mink on a working longline for over 20 years now. I've experimented with numerous ideas and options. I was wrong more times than right. But, finally I figured out how to consistently catch mink in bodygrippers with minimal refusals. The mink showed me what I needed to know. I started to consistently catch mink in bodygrippers and still do. A few years ago, over half of my mink were caught in bodygrippers.

Maybe wanting to use a more efficient tool like the 160 can be summed up this way. I can get to the store by riding my bicycle and I can get to the store by taking my truck. One is just so much more efficient.

Hal - 12-11-2011 at 12:44 AM

Josh said earlier. "The only reasoning that Ive heard so far is because they are afraid people will catch domestics (cats and dogs). If that is the only reason, then I dont buy it."

How things fade over time. It's been almost 35 years since "Issue 2". Many of you young folks weren't even born then. You don't remember November 8, 1977. You don't remember sitting in front of the TV, watching the election results, and wondering if you would ever trap again in Ohio.

Since that day (and before) the OSTA has been about preserving our privilege to trap here in Ohio. We have made strides in receiving equitable treatment from our DOW and we have worked to clarify and correct trapping regulations

We've just come off another election and interestingly enough, another Issue 2. This time the Issue 2 was about collective bargaining. It was soundly rejected by the voters. The governor "over-reached" on that one.

That's a weak analogy, but there's a cautionary tale in this. To promote using 160s on land, is over-reaching. And if such an over-reach exposes us to a ballot initiative, another Issue 2, I am not at all certain we can fight them off. Old Issue 2 cost about $1,00,000. Break out your inflation calculator, and (based on the consumer price index) that's about $3,500,000 in today's pennies. Where you gonna get that money?

And the demographics have changed remarkably over 35 years. Our population has become more urbanized. I strongly suspect we would not get as much public support now as we did 35 years ago -- provided we can come up with that 3.5 million for the campaign.

This is an issue of risk verses reward.

It is noted that coons are hard to catch in a 5x5 trap and a 6x6 would be better. There is no arguing that. However, as the 6x6 presents an increased potential for catching coons, it presents an increased potential for catching dogs. That's inarguable as well. There's the risk.

Risk verses reward.

Just exactly how much more effective would a 160 be? What will be the reward? Frankly, I can't see any significantly increased production with a 160. The 220 is the real dryland coon trap. But thank god no one is asking for that! So the 160 represents some sort of under-gunned compromise. We can catch plenty of coons with current methods. What is the reward? As far as mink go, I'm sorry but I can't see anything but a miniscule advantage of a 6x6 over a 5x5. And that miniscule advantage is most definitely not worth the risk.

Remember, risk verses reward.

Frankly, we should probably count ourselves lucky that we still have 5x5 traps on land. West Virginia doesn't, neither does Tennessee (I trust Randy will correct that in his earlier post.) In Pennsylvania you can only set 5x5 "in the water course" whatever that means. And it would be good to note that Pennsylvania tightened its bodygrip regulations not too many years ago.

In that light, I don't know of any state that has liberalized the use of bodygrip traps in recent memory. Please advise me if there are. The fact is most states are going the other way, and placing greater restrictions on bodygrip traps.

Now, Janet has said that they are asking for a 5x5 on land in WV. I would endorse that. If we didn't have a 5x5 in Ohio, I would petition to get one. The 5x5 is virtually pet proof. The 6x6 is not. We still retain the unlimited use of the 5x5, which as noted puts us ahead of West Virginia and Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Putting the 6x6 trap on land is gambling. The proponents of this issue are gambling that the 6x6 trap will not cause us any problems that could ultimately cost us our trapping privileges. Frankly, that's a gamble that I'm not willing to take.

As I said at the onset, one of the primary purposes of OSTA is to preserve our trapping privileges here in Ohio. Gambling on a 6x6 trap for dryland use in Ohio is not, in my humble opinion, a furtherance of that goal.

I do not want to sit in front of the TV again, watching election results and wondering if I'm going to be able to continue to trap in Ohio.

Hal



FishDaddy - 12-11-2011 at 03:24 AM

, Janet has said that they are asking for a 5x5 on land in WV

nope asking for 110s on land

FishDaddy - 12-11-2011 at 03:25 AM

anyone ever hear of any problems from ky and their 220s on land?

Lt44 - 12-11-2011 at 03:22 PM

Fish Daddy I believe she said a 110 4 1/2 x 4 1/2 is all the bigger they asked for. anyway Randy, While I do value your arguments I have used 6x6 in states where it was legal to do so on land, and quit using them because of problems. I just dont see where the benefits of having them legalized on land in Ohio is for the betterment of trapping as a whole.................Ron

Lt44 - 12-11-2011 at 03:26 PM

Keith what was the deadline for the survey ? Who should I call if I never get my BT ?.........Ron

Keith Daniels - 12-11-2011 at 04:07 PM

The deadline is 12/15/11 Ron. I really wonder if anybody in N W Ohio has got their BT yet. I haven't, I know Wayne hasn't got his in Clyde either.

You can either e-mail to Linkhart at his e-mail address, or write a note and mail it to Wayne at the OSTA P O Box, put 160 on the outside of the envelope.

podunk - 12-11-2011 at 08:13 PM

got mine well over a week ago

Hal - 12-11-2011 at 10:44 PM

When I said: "Janet has said that they are asking for a 5x5 on land in WV." Fishdaddy said: "nope asking for 110s on land"

The problem with delineating traps as 110, 220 etcetera, is there are no technical "standards" to go with that numbering system. If I want to make a trap 7x7 inches and call it a 110, there is nothing to stop me. And if we had a regulation saying 110s are legal, you can set my 7x7.

We used to have such regulations on the books here in Ohio. For example, our regulations used to say (and I paraphrase here)," traps larger than #2 may not be used on dry land." OSTA had all those regulations changed over 10 years ago. The legal definition of a trap is now given in inches.

We can have all the informal discussions we want, talking about 110, 160, 220 and the like, but when it comes time to write a regulation, you have to break out your ruler. I trust that when push comes to shove, the WV trappers will specify, in inches, the size of the trap they want on dry land.

If perchance they wanted a trap that was the "ordinary" size of a 110, they could ask for a trap that was 4.5x4.5 inches and has only one spring. HOWEVER, the WV trappers would find that some of their "110s" slightly oversize, say 4-5/8 inches, and would become illegal. (In point of fact, the old Northwoods 110 traps were in fact 5x5 inches.)

Our own, Ohio State Trappers Association, foresaw that problem. That's why we designated that trap at 5", measured on the vertical height. That encompasses all 110/120s on the current market. Some manufacturers have pushed the limit right up to the 5" mark. The OV 150 being an example.

It will be up to the WV trappers to make the final decision as to what "size" trap they want, and whether or not to regulate the number of springs on the trap, but I am confident that in the end they will not ask for it in terms that lack specific definition.

Hal

Hal - 12-11-2011 at 10:57 PM

"anyone ever hear of any problems from ky and their 220s on land?"

I can't speak to that, but Randy has done a lot of research on this. Population density in KY is 102 people per sq. mi. Population density in Ohio is 277. That's almost three times as much. Frankly I don't want to compare KY results, were are at 300% greater risk than they are!

Look at it this way, if you're gonna play Russian roulette with your trapping privileges, the six shooter from KY has one bullet in it, and the one from Ohio has three bullets in it.

Give it a whirl.

Hal

FishDaddy - 12-11-2011 at 11:23 PM

ohio has a lot bigger cities where most of the people are that ups the %

[Edited on 12-11-2011 by FishDaddy]

computer hater - 13-11-2011 at 12:18 AM

Hal was wrong on his remarks regarding the Pennsylvanis regulations when he said 5 x 5's were legal in a watercourse. Traps up to 6.5 inches are legal. Also a watercouse as defined to me by 3 PA game wardens means from the water's edge to the top of the creek bank.

Hal says I was wrong by stating Tennessee allows 220's on land. His regulations differ from mine so I am going to make a post on Trapperman and ask the Tennessee trappers to help us out.

"IT APPEARS" that I may be right on the West Virginia regulations regarding bodygrippers. Thanks Jan and Fishdaddy for your input.

FishDaddy - 13-11-2011 at 01:53 AM

i wish we could get 220s on land here i know where a lot of drain pipes are that are dry most of the time

Keith Daniels - 13-11-2011 at 02:53 AM

Hal is right on the Northwoods 110, they are 5" and I believe they actually called them 110's back then. Stainless steel trigger wires too, still have some, wish I had more. My recollection is we had inch measurements on body grips, mostly because of the Bigelow, he raised such a fuss at the shouting matches they called game hearings so much I think I remember remember a special measurement if round for a time. The foot traps were by size. Somebody questioned me recently where the 5 5/8" came from. I believe at the time measurements were put in place instead of numbers that was going off the size of the #2 coil square jaw, which was still a pretty popular fox trap at the time. This was probably early 80's? I remember asking my local officer what he'd do if he found somebody setting a #3 long spring on land, his reply was he'd write a ticket. I set one and gave him a ruler and he said something like oops!

Yes. specifying inches, and the way it's measured, are very important.

computer hater - 13-11-2011 at 08:30 AM

The Tennessee trappers say Hal is right. No bodygrippers on land in Tennessee unless 12" back in a hole or something like that. Thanks Hal.

The info I had evidently is wrong. Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read on the internet. LOL

Hal - 13-11-2011 at 11:23 AM

"Hal was wrong on his remarks regarding the Pennsylvanis regulations when he said 5 x 5's were legal in a watercourse"

The devil he is!

Here's my quote:

"In Pennsylvania you can only set 5x5 "in the water course" whatever that means."

You show me in Pennsylvania were you can set a 5x5 outside the watercourse, then I'll be wrong. YOU CANNOT SET A 5X5 OUTSIDE THE WATER COURSE IN PENNSYLVANIA. And that's what I said. Ohio has more liberal regulations.

And, yes, Hal was right about the Tennessee regulations. He can read the regulations just as good as the folks on trapperman.

Gee whiz.

Hal

computer hater - 13-11-2011 at 10:42 PM



[Edited on 11-14-2011 by Keith Daniels]

Hal - 13-11-2011 at 11:52 PM




[Edited on 11-14-2011 by Keith Daniels]

computer hater - 14-11-2011 at 01:49 AM



[Edited on 11-14-2011 by Keith Daniels]

FishDaddy - 14-11-2011 at 02:26 AM

ive traped in 3 states and ky has the best trapping laws of all 3

Keith Daniels - 14-11-2011 at 03:16 AM

Keep it civil and on topic, what your personal experiences, expectations and/or concerns are. Shots of any kind at others, and retaliation will not be tolerated.

catman - 14-11-2011 at 07:11 PM

Here is something to add to Hal's remarks on Issue 2, 1977. One or two years later the bodygrip regs were changed. That is when 220's became illegal on land. Not sure when the actual wording on 160 size was added. To my knowledge OSTA at that time had no idea they were changing.

Hal - 14-11-2011 at 10:11 PM

Here's where the problem arose between Randy and I on the Pennsylvania regulations. One of the following statements is correct (regarding PA regs.) the other is not.

A.) "In Pennsylvania you can only set 5x5 "in the water course" (That was my quote.)

B.) In Pennsylvania you can set only 5X5 "in the water course." (Not my quote)

As I said, one of those is incorrect.

Language is terribly important in these things. With only two words transposed, the above statements take on an entirely different meaning.

You think not? As the folks in Indiana. They had to trap with nothing larger than a 5 inch loop for years and years because somebody didn’t know the difference between diameter and circumference. A 15 inch maximum circumference means a 5 inch loop, and that’s how their law was written.

Hal


[Edited on 11-14-2011 by Hal]

coonskinner - 15-11-2011 at 01:11 AM

I think Randys statement is correct. Just sayin.

catman - 15-11-2011 at 06:44 PM

Hey Hal, you forgot: pi x D = C. Actual snare loop would be about 4 3/4 dia. (lol)

[Edited on 11-15-2011 by catman]

Hal - 15-11-2011 at 09:18 PM

Harry, it would be 4.774637127578304, to be precise.

Back to the 160 issue. Here are three questions.

1.) I asked this earlier. I'll repeat it. Will someone tell me of any state that has become more liberal with their bodygrip trap regulations in the past 20 years? I'm just asking for one -- any state.

2.) It was not too many years ago that Pennsylvania tightened its regulations. (Ohioans have an advantage over Pennsylvanians in that we can set a 5x5 trap anywhere we choose.) But, why did Pennsylvania tighten its regulations?

3.) West Virginia, a state with a much less dense population than Ohio, doesn't have any bodygrips out of the water right now. (They may stand to serve as an answer to Question #1 in the future.) They are in the process of asking for a 5x5 on land. Why did they choose the 5x5 as their upper limit?

Three questions. Does anybody have any answers? In this venue, I believe in this venue speculation will do.

Hal

minker - 16-11-2011 at 04:40 AM

#220's were made illegal in 1973 , apparently i'm the only one who trapped back then.

anyone bringing up issue 2 , apparently you weren't involved in it , it was about foothold traps , not bodygrippers . its not relavant at all to this issue.

get your facts right before you post them , i'm going to start banning people for spreading crap on here for there own agenda's , political , financial or otherwize .

catman - 16-11-2011 at 06:42 AM

Mark, I used 220's til 1978? then read regs that I couldn't. Maybe they were illegal but I never saw anything til then. I think the comments about issu 2 make a point in this dicusssion. Sometimes we get off track abit about things and we do need somebody to get us back on the subject. I haven't really said much on the 160 issue but personally hope it doesn't cause too much fighting amongst ourselves. It is a very touchy issue. I personnally am not in favor of them on land but will support it if the bod votes in favor of it.

Coondawg - 16-11-2011 at 11:58 AM

Harry, my thoughts exactly (but opposite :D). I am for having them on land, with restrictions, but will support whatever the body votes for.

Keith Daniels - 16-11-2011 at 02:09 PM

I wasn't involved in issue 2 as a voter, I couldn't vote until the next election, but I was involved with the local group of what eventually became WLFA. My take on it was, it used foot traps as the target but would have effected all trapping, a mouse trap was even used in the campaign for our side.

If Denver Hill still remembers I think he would tell you that the 220 was a concession made coming up to issue 2 to help get the hound men to stand with us. I know several who thought the OSTA sold them out on that issue, but they still stuck with the OSTA. The trapper education program was also born out of issue 2, somewhat of a PR move at the time, but a good thing in the end.

The point is, any issue with any trap or regulation can have the potential of affecting trapping as a whole.

Ric - 16-11-2011 at 02:12 PM

I beg to differ, the text of the proposal (issue 2 1977) was.........

"Prohibits use of leghold traps or any trapping device causing prolonged suffering (Adopts Art. XIX) "

It was not about just "leghold" traps.

The point of bringing up issue 2 as an example of what we could expose trapping to if we pursue the relaxation of bodygrip regulations. Is a very valid reason for bringing it up.

This is all about the potential of adverse repercussions from the relaxation of current law .

Can anyone on here advocating the expansion of allowable dry set bodygrip traps to 6". State how this is not going to increase the chance that we will need to defend that position and trapping in general ?

As stated before, cost vs. benefit needs to be considered very closely here. There is no way that I can see the potential cost of the expansion to 6" traps off setting any potential benefit.





Corrected grammar


[Edited on 16-11-2011 by Ric]

Hal - 16-11-2011 at 08:48 PM

1973

A little history is good. Mark is correct. 1973 is the first year trap size regulations took effect. Technically, before that, you could set a 330 on dry land in Ohio. Keith, I don't actually think that was a "trade off" for Issue 2 as Issue 2 was yet three years away (1977), maybe it was. I believe... somebody's dog got killed in a 220.

However, there were ill-winds about in that era. In 1974 (correct me if I'm wrong) Florida lost both foothold and bodygrip traps. That's right the whole shebang except cage traps and snares. Maybe ODNR was trying to get ahead of the game.

I think that's the point at which trapping regulations began to become "dog centric". The size of foothold traps was regulated to 6.5 inches. Since the only bodygrip traps produced at that time were the 110, 220, and 330. That's where the regulations diverged. When states wanted to eliminate 220's, they applied the 4.5X4.5 (later 5x5) maximum barrier. Or, wrote regulations such as "all traps 220 and above" had to be set in water. Harry asked earlier about when did a 160 get regulated? Well the 160 wasn't even born back then and nobody thought about that. The truth is, the 160 trap was designed to circumvent the 220 regulations.

At any rate, having watched Florida lose its traps, I was sure scared we were going to lose ours in 1977. I don't want to go through that again. Risk verses reward. The reward just isn't there.

I asked three questions earlier and I don't want them to get lost in the shuffle so indulge me as I repeat them.

1.) Will someone tell me of any state that has become more liberal with their bodygrip trap regulations in the past 20 years? I'm just asking for one -- any state.

2.) It was not too many years ago that Pennsylvania tightened its regulations. (Ohioans have an advantage over Pennsylvanians in that we can set a 5x5 trap anywhere we choose.) But, why did Pennsylvania tighten its regulations?

3.) West Virginia, a state with a much less dense population than Ohio, doesn't have any bodygrips out of the water right now. (They may stand to serve as an answer to Question #1 in the future.) They are in the process of asking for a 5x5 on land. Why did they choose the 5x5 as their upper limit?


Hal


Keith Daniels - 16-11-2011 at 09:11 PM

My understanding from Denver was that what eventually became issue 2 actually started at least a couple years earlier, so that would put the time line with the 220 about right. Trade off might not be the correct phrase, but I'm pretty sure that was part of the organising leading up to the issue. I spent a lot of time at Denver's place years ago, got filled in on a lot of stuff.

Good questions.

Lt44 - 17-11-2011 at 12:53 AM

Hal,After rereading Janet Hodges post on page 2 sounded like they chose the trap size that would keep the unity between the WVTA and the houndsmen.Per your Question 3...............Ron

minker - 17-11-2011 at 04:20 AM

i was heavily involved locally in the issue 2 event , there was nothing ever mentioned about bodygrippers even remotely .

ric, i beg to differ , a bodygripping trap doesn't cause prolonged suffering , it kills quickly .









Ric - 17-11-2011 at 09:06 PM

OK, back to school again. Civics class. The legislative branch writes the laws, judicial branch interprets the law. The meaning of "or any trapping device causing prolonged suffering" was never subject to interpretation because the constitutional amendment did not pass.



What issue 2 said or didn't say irrelevant . What is relevant is the example it provides of the dangers and costs increasing our exposure to another "issue 2" type initiative would entail.



"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it"
"George Santayana"


Hal - 18-11-2011 at 10:39 AM

"Hal,After rereading Janet Hodges post on page 2 sounded like they chose the trap size that would keep the unity between the WVTA and the houndsmen.Per your Question 3."
Thank you Ron. I believe you are correct. I would like to know how that's working in Ohio. How are Ohio's houndsmen responding to the proposal to put a 160 on dryland? (Ain't it funny how one question just leads to another.)

There are still two questions left.

1.) Will someone tell me of any state that has become more liberal with their bodygrip trap regulations in the past 20 years? I'm just asking for one -- any state.

2.) It was not too many years ago that Pennsylvania tightened its regulations. (Ohioans have an advantage over Pennsylvanians in that we can set a 5x5 trap anywhere we choose.) But, why did Pennsylvania tighten its regulations?


(And any of the proponents of this issue who can tell me how Ohio's houndsmen are responding to 160s on land, may feel free to respond.)

Hal

Ohio Andy - 18-11-2011 at 07:36 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Coondawg  
Harry, my thoughts exactly (but opposite :D). I am for having them on land, with restrictions, but will support whatever the body votes for.


Shouldn't you be representing the will of the majority in your district as their designated representative?

as for the "prolonged suffering" and issue 2 <- tree hugger language for an animal alive in a trap. I think most of us that have trapped any length of time have seen an animal still alive in a BG Trap. As mink trappers, i would think this is a little more common unless you use all magnum type 110's or 5x5'x or 160's in wet trails.

I also think it highly inappropriate for a director and admin of the site to direct threats about bans to those openly discussing this topic. How is this discussion furthering ANYONE's livelihood or promoting propaganda? We are discussing a topic that could lead to another ballot initiative. A topic that could affect us all as trappers. Just because our views do not coincide with that of at least two admins is no reason to threaten banishment. We are conveying our positions. Reference to Issue 2 ARE valid and are a valid concern. Does the OSTA have the funds to defend one? Would the houndsmen be on our side again if expanding our regs got us there?

So if you want an open discussion, then leave the threats at home. If you just want to hear your side, then keep them. Here i thought that the forum was for an open discussion. If its not, then close it down.

For that matter, go ahead and ban members over discussing this issue and see how that works out for the Association. i would bet that a ban would result in immediate resignation. Is that the goal? Get rid of those of a dissenting position or just shut them up.

[Edited on 11/18/2011 by Ohio Andy]

Coondawg - 18-11-2011 at 07:49 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Ohio Andy  
Quote: Originally posted by Coondawg  
Harry, my thoughts exactly (but opposite :D). I am for having them on land, with restrictions, but will support whatever the body votes for.


Shouldn't you be representing the will of the majority in your district as their designated representative?


Thats what the "but will support whatever the body votes for" comment was for. Meaning the membership body, not just the body of directors and officers.


Ohio Andy - 18-11-2011 at 07:56 PM

Thanks for the clarification Josh.

coonie - 18-11-2011 at 11:19 PM

A lot has been mentioned lately about a new proposal to the Ohio Wildlife Laws. I have read were the OSTA is a democratic organization and the members need to vote on the acceptance or rejection of this proposal. I have also read where Directors need to represent the majority in their District.

As a former Officer and Director of the OSTA I feel that I am obligated to correct some misconceptions.

The OSTA is an organization bound, as any formal organization is, by a Constitution and Bylaws. As structured the OSTA is not a democracy. Rather, it is a representative organization. As stated in the OSTA Constitution, Article I – Purpose: Section A. To promote the fur industry within the state of Ohio and nationally. Section B. To promote sound professional wildlife management and the harvest of the surplus of a renewable natural resource.

Any member in good standing can ask or petition the Board to address any issue. As such, Board Members considering a vote on something as important as changing the trapping laws in Ohio are duty bound to vote guided by these principals defined in the Constitution and Bylaws, and not by the popularity of any given issue.

A hypothetical example of this would be if the membership proposed to the Board that a bodygripping trap 10”x10” (330) be legalized for dryland trapping in Ohio with a petition of over 80% of the OSTA members in support of such a proposal. Would a Board Member be required to support such a petition, given the 80% support? Absolutely not. As governed under the principals of Section A and B they would be REQUIRED to oppose such a change.

Currently, the OSTA is seeking input from the membership on a proposed rule change. Whether you support or oppose such a change the OSTA would like to hear from its members. But at the end of the day, when a formal vote is taken that vote must, “… promote the fur industry within the state of Ohio…” and …”promote sound professional wildlife management”. It is incumbent on those who seek the changes to the Wildlife Laws to meet these standards.

Michael L. Conrad, Former OSTA President and Director

Cat Scratch - 19-11-2011 at 03:05 AM

Answers to Hal’s Questions

1.) Will someone tell me of any state that has become more liberal with their bodygrip trap regulations in the past 20 years? I'm just asking for one -- any state. Maryland

2.) It was not too many years ago that Pennsylvania tightened its regulations. (Ohioans have an advantage over Pennsylvanians in that we can set a 5x5 trap anywhere we choose.) But, why did Pennsylvania tighten its regulations? They were one incident away from having more strict regulations and the incident came within the year of that initial conclusion.

3.) West Virginia, a state with a much less dense population than Ohio, doesn't have any bodygrips out of the water right now. (They may stand to serve as an answer to Question #1 in the future.) They are in the process of asking for a 5x5 on land. Why did they choose the 5x5 as their upper limit? While I am certain they sought the support of houndsmen, one would think they also took note of developments in Pennsylvania as well as what has thus far worked for Ohio.

Lt44 - 19-11-2011 at 04:04 AM

Cat Scratch, so as I read the Maryland regs. am I safe to say that they are not allowed any bg's on dryland? I read the regs on Maryland Trappers assoc .site..........Ron

Hal - 19-11-2011 at 10:02 PM

Here's the MD regulation:

(a) Body-gripping traps with a diameter of greater than 8 inches cannot be set unless partially submerged in water.
(b) Body-gripping traps with a diameter of 8 inches or less can be set in tidal wetlands, flooded non-tidal wetlands, fresh water marshes, wooded swamps, bogs in areas where water covers the surface of the soil, or in areas where the soil is waterlogged to the surface.

I don't see a dry trap in the bunch, not even a 5x5. What were the regulations before they were "liberalized".

As to the Pennsylvania question: "They were one incident away from having more strict regulations."

One incident.

As to the WV question: "one would think they also took note of developments in Pennsylvania as well as what has thus far worked for Ohio.

One would think.

So now you tell me you wanna put bigger bodygrip traps on land in Ohio?

Really?

Hal

FishDaddy - 24-11-2011 at 06:48 PM

.) West Virginia, a state with a much less dense population than Ohio, doesn't have any bodygrips out of the water right now. (They may stand to serve as an answer to Question #1 in the future.) They are in the process of asking for a 5x5 on land. Why did they choose the 5x5 as their upper limit? While I am certain they sought the support of houndsmen, one would think they also took note of developments in Pennsylvania as well as what has thus far worked for Ohio.

not 5x5 as far as i can tell its 4 1/2

racer - 24-11-2011 at 08:16 PM

Ohio Andy did your last post get taken off. I thought i read it and then it was gone.




Russ

Ohio Andy - 25-11-2011 at 06:06 PM

Russ,

My last two posts are on the previous page. None are missing that i can see.

Skinner - 26-11-2011 at 10:19 PM

I have been busy for awhile , but finally got to read all these posts .There are some good points both for and against the issue. I was not around for issue 2 wasnt born until 1981, but sure dont want to see anything like that happen again, but we are talking about 1" wider and 1" taller than what is legal now. I feel like with some restrictions there would be few if any problems with 160's. I understand watching out for our rights is more important than a few more pelts in the freezer, but we all know there are some people who dont follow the laws and they might just get us all in trouble any way.

Skinner - 26-11-2011 at 10:22 PM

I have been busy for awhile , but finally got to read all these posts .There are some good points both for and against the issue. I was not around for issue 2 wasnt born until 1981, but sure dont want to see anything like that happen again, but we are talking about 1" wider and 1" taller than what is legal now. I feel like with some restrictions there would be few if any problems with 160's. I understand watching out for our rights is more important than a few more pelts in the freezer, but we all know there are some people who dont follow the laws and they might just get us all in trouble any way.

Hal - 27-11-2011 at 03:26 PM

We can always discredit individuals who don't follow the law, criminals are not an issue here. However, if we put ourselves in a pickle by people following sanctioned behavior, we are going to be in serious trouble. If we follow the rules we have made for ourselves, and it backfires, somebody else will make the rules for us.

"we are talking about 1" wider and 1" taller than what is legal now"

That 1 inch may be more than you think it is. The opening in a 5x5 is 25 square inches. The opening in a 6x6 is 36 square inches. (36-25)/25=.36 That opening is almost 40% larger. More importantly, that 1-inch expansion makes those traps more susceptible to dogs. Like I said earlier, the 160 was developed to circumvent 220 regulations.

I have a friend to traps coon on miles of the Ohio river bank on the Kentucky side, where 220s are legal. In an effort to make his activities less domestically injurious, he stepped down to 160s instead of using the allowable 220s. According to him, it didn't work. He now uses mostly DP traps.

But here's another argument. Risk verses reward. "we are talking about 1" wider and 1" taller than what is legal now" So, is the reward gained from increasing that traps just 1 inch, really worth the risk? Just 1 inch?

I hope our members see this for the danger it represents.

I know there are a lot of you just visiting here and not posting. If you haven't sent your vote yet send it now to: kdmlink@juno.com. Let your officers and directors know that this is a horribly ill-founded idea. Just say "No to 160s".

Hal

coonie - 27-11-2011 at 05:26 PM

“We are talking about 1" wider and 1" taller than what is legal now”

From the above statement, I will assume the author was making the point that only one more inch isn’t that big of a deal. While I don’t have any experience on how much difference one inch will make, I do have plenty of experience on how much one-half of an inch will.

For seven years I trapped using 120’s (4.5” x 4.5”) in baited boxes. I used two and a half dozen traps each year and caught approximately 300 raccoons in these traps over that time. I did several things to reduce sprung and empty traps. This included cutting off the trigger wires and moving the trigger assembly as far to the side of the trap as possible. The largest raccoons that I caught with this set-up were 22 lbs. The majority of large raccoons were caught right behind the ears, 12-17 lb. coons were suitcased neck and chest, with small raccoon’s chest, abdomen or even hip caught. Once, I caught a 6 lb possum coming OUT of the box. I could tell by sign around sprung traps that I was still missing the largest raccoons.

For the last eight years I have used 150’s (5” x 5”) in baited boxes. I set three dozen every year and have caught approximately 400 raccoons in these traps over that time. I cut off the trigger wires and set the trigger assembly to the side as far as possible when I started using these traps. I started hip catching more raccoons, up to 18 lb. raccoons. I caught one 24 lb. raccoon by the chest. To remedy this situation I moved the trigger assembly to the middle of the trap. I get perfect strikes on 20-25 lb raccoons (the first, and only, 25 lb raccoon I ever caught by the way); mid-sized coons are chest caught while the smaller ones are still hip caught half of the time. Over this time I have also caught 2 possums and 4 raccoons coming out of the box. The largest raccoon was 11 lbs.

To me, this one-half inch difference has been huge. It is my opinion that the 5” trap is just a shade too large, and that a 4.75” x 4.75” would be the perfect size. Regardless, these are the differences that I noticed with a one-half inch difference. Increasing the size by another one full inch would increase these differences exponentially, and not for the better.

ack - 27-11-2011 at 05:27 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Hal  
So, is the reward gained from increasing that traps just 1 inch, really worth the risk? Just 1 inch?

Hal


So is it 1 inch bigger or 11?

coonie - 27-11-2011 at 05:30 PM

It is one inch over the outside dimensions of the traps, but it increases the opening area by 11 square inches.

[Edited on 27-11-2011 by coonie]

Hal - 27-11-2011 at 05:59 PM

That's exactly the point.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Inches? It's one inch wider and/or one inch taller. The other figure, 11, is not unified to the inch. It is square inches, that is one side multiplied by the other. It is a measurement of area.

The answer to your question is: the 160 is 1 inch larger in both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The 160 has opening 11 square inches larger.

So, by 1 inch or by 11 square inches. It's still a matter of risk verses reward. Frankly, I think the extra 11 square inches makes it seem even more risky myself.

Hal

minker - 27-11-2011 at 06:33 PM

its a shame the fur takers of america's dvd on use of bodygriiping traps on land isn't available on line, it shows how easily and safely they can be used without problems with non target catches.

a 160 set in a trail is safer than a 5 x 5 set elavated off the ground in a box/paper tube cubby. that 11 sq. inches more is enough to make a 160 work on the ground with a crossing stick or sticks , the 5 x 5 is just to small of a target area for a trail set but they will work baited IF you get them 4 to 6 inches off the ground and build boxes/cubby for them.

hal , i'm really surprized that you haven't added a bodygripper series of book and dvd's to your list of self help info for trappers along with your snaring book and dvd since its very obvious of your interest in promoting proper fur taking methods . you keep talking about the issues with bodygrippers only though , you don't seem to want to mention the issues with snares for some reason.

you mentioned about finding a state that has made more liberal methods for bodygripping traps , well i don't have time to dig thru all the states reg.s but i'll guess you already have and haven't found any. so what ? why is it wrong to change ? why would it be wrong to add another tool for trappers to use in ohio? some of you keep throwing up the fact that we don't need 160's because we have snares . that doesn't look good , particularily on you since you sell snaring books, dvd's and snares . that doesn't put you in a very good postion in alot of peoples eyes to even be discussing it at all .


Keith Daniels - 27-11-2011 at 08:30 PM

For the record, there is no regulation on the width of any trap, body grip or foot trap, a body grip with five inch jaw spread can be an infinite width (distance between the hinges) and be perfectly legal.

Again ,keep it to numbers and experiences, do NOT make any suggestions or accusations to or about anyone as to motives.

Lt44 - 27-11-2011 at 08:31 PM

While i'm not Hal, all I can go on is my experience. Were discussing using a 6x6 on dry land,legal in water . I must be the only one that has wacked non targets and yes I had them both ways on stabilizers and sticks on ground to keep from freezing down.You can ask Doug how it felt coming up and finding a non target laying next to the sprung trap the hunter didnt know how to get the trap off quick enough, and finding out the hunter was a member of the hunt club where we were staying. In the end the hunter apologized to us for his non target getting into our set and ruining the location,how many times will this happen? Remember that guy we got in the Whitehouse sold alot of people about change,we got change allright.I'm all right with adding tools for trappers the dp was a example but when it comes down to a tool where we have a protental to lose all its a no brainer to me anyway. As for the 6x6 /snare mention, earlier in this long list of posts when issue 2 was mentioned it was said while the issue stated all legholds and tools causing prolonged suffering it was written that bodygrippers werent in the issue because they kill quickly, at least i got a better chance of releasing a non target in a snare..So this topic will be cussed and discussed for awhile. I guess a trapper has to stop and think real hard on what is sense to him personally, my mind is made up based on my experience and i'm sure everyone else has theirs made allready.........Ron

Hal - 27-11-2011 at 09:31 PM

I'll match my credentials against anybody.

Character assassination is poor, poor substitute for logical and reasonable arguments and reeks of desperation.

I hope the members and especially the officers and directors are following this post. Is this really acceptable behavior for OSTA personnel???

Is this our leadership?

Hal


[Edited on 11-27-2011 by Hal]

podunk - 28-11-2011 at 12:51 AM

One concern i have is a lot of farmers are buying 220s and setting for ground hogs, just one publicized non target in these 220s and the change to the 160s would be blamed. Whether it was set legally or not the 160s would be the blame. With all the tools i presently have to catch coon with, the reward is not great enough for the risk. I am in the livestock industry and this industry has been the major target of the hsus for some time now. I prefer not to give them the reason to target trapping which would be way worse of a fight than 1977 was.
I have a read a lot of good feed back on this forum, please let the disscusion continue BUT WITHOUT THE PERSONNEL ATTACKS. The attacks are totally uncalled for. Let the opinions about the 160s continue but in a professional manner! If the attacks continue I for one will sign off permanently, i didnt pay my life membership for that crap.

Podunk

minker - 28-11-2011 at 02:00 AM


ron , sounds like you need to watch that dvd , its pretty easy to steer non-targets away . and the same tragic result could of happened if it had been a snare .

hal , is it acceptible behavior for you ? character assassination ? really ?

your credentials ? please explain what you consider them to be ? experiance and knowledge , trappers have that with time and effort.

leadership is sticking around thru thick and thin , for the common good of all concerned .

you have a valid point about the jaw spread and not the width keith . i might have to tinker with that idea . dog proof's are just to easy to use so i doubt i'll bother but that is an interesting idea.

Skinner - 28-11-2011 at 02:08 AM

coonie you ever had any problems with non targets in your 5x5 baited boxes ? I never have but I am very careful about where i set em and what I bait em with, maybe a feral cat but never any dogs. I just dont think it is that much of a risk with some resrictions . I have used 5x5's in fence holes for coon and never had any problems. If you are afraid one minor change in the rules is going to end it all maybe you should quit now. Anythhing can happen when your trapping I have seen alot of things you would never think possible like a deer in a snare with a 5" loop 4" off the ground and I mean behind the ears not on the leg, how in the world did that happen? , but did I stop snaring ? no i didnt and that only happened 1 time in 10 years. If we are afraid of something this minor maybe we should look at our other regs. like a foothold trap on a slide wire out in deep water IF a dog got in that trap we all now what would happen . Dont be afraid of what ifs follow the rules and set your traps and if a fight comes this is a strong association and we'll deal with it..

Dusty Chambliss District 5 Director

coonskinner - 28-11-2011 at 03:12 AM

Hal, Mark is what I want in our leadership. At least he is speaking his mind and letting us know his thoughts on the issue. What about the directors from other regions? Why haven't they spoke up? I, for one would like to hear from them.

I also wish things would pick up on Sullivans Line. Just sayin!!!



Lt44 - 28-11-2011 at 03:54 AM

Dont think so Mark dogmen know choker chains this hunter was right there couldnt figure the bg out quick enough, snare laws in Arkansas is same as Ohio relaxing lock, deer stop. so better chance it would just be standing there,like on a choker chain.wont know it wasnt relaxing. As for the other non targets they were roamers.I never heard of that dvd until you mentioned it, i scour the catalogs and have never seen it .i'm always open for new education may get it just to have it.What percentage is the steering effective ?podunk mentioned earlier farmers in his neck of the woods is buying 7x7s for the grounghogs if there like the farmers around here getting rid of groundhogs is mission #1 strong minded bunch they are. With a dozen price difference of $2-$17 (Funkes)chances they will buy the 6x6 because of cost.You could have education at conventions and Trapper Ed courses to teach people, phamplets at farm bureaus etc.A person can only be taught if they want to be.But once if there legalized i doubt very few dvds will be bought and theyll be set anywhere without steering . At this point the non relaxing feature will come into play.Is it worth potentally losing all because of one trap I dont think so.......Ron

Lt44 - 28-11-2011 at 04:02 AM

A ways back some one mentioned the houndsmen and what they thought of 6x6 on land ,since they supported the snares and stood with trappers on Issue 2 . Did anyone ever contact them and see what they thought?.......Ron

160

racer - 28-11-2011 at 12:53 PM

Being a director of Dist.13 i have not said much on yhis thread.And i won't till i read the minutes of the last BOD meeting. I was not present at that meeting and do not know what all was said. It will be interesting.


Russ

 Pages:  1