Ohio State Trapper Forums
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  6
Author: Subject: 160 thread
computer hater
CLOWN CAR DRIVER ( needs tires )
**********************




Posts: 1391
Registered: 6-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: seeing spots

[*] posted on 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.




Randy
View user's profile View All Posts By User
FishDaddy
COONSLAYER(coonfat's a flying)
*****************




Posts: 477
Registered: 11-3-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 11-11-2011 at 09:54 AM


i dont see any more danger in a 160 as a 5x5
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ric
Jumbo Northern Supreme Coon
******




Posts: 99
Registered: 10-2-2005
Location: Wellington
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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.









Ric McCaslin
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JanWV
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 11
Registered: 24-2-2010
Location: West Virginia
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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




Janet Hodge
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Ohio Wolverine
COONSLAYER(coonfat's a flying)
*****************




Posts: 498
Registered: 18-3-2010
Location: Lodi, Ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: Thinking?

[*] posted on 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.




Bill
View user's profile View All Posts By User
FishDaddy
COONSLAYER(coonfat's a flying)
*****************




Posts: 477
Registered: 11-3-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 11-11-2011 at 12:48 PM


imo a 110 on land is useless
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ric
Jumbo Northern Supreme Coon
******




Posts: 99
Registered: 10-2-2005
Location: Wellington
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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.



Ric McCaslin
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Keith Daniels
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 5628
Registered: 4-11-2002
Location: Arlington Ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: Optimistic about OSTA

[*] posted on 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]




Keith Daniels, O S T A President
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hal
#1 GRAY FOX ( sly little devil)
***********




Posts: 216
Registered: 28-9-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 11-11-2011 at 02:13 PM
Snaring vs. the 160


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
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JanWV
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 11
Registered: 24-2-2010
Location: West Virginia
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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.



Janet Hodge
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
computer hater
CLOWN CAR DRIVER ( needs tires )
**********************




Posts: 1391
Registered: 6-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: seeing spots

[*] posted on 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.




Randy
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hal
#1 GRAY FOX ( sly little devil)
***********




Posts: 216
Registered: 28-9-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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


View user's profile View All Posts By User
FishDaddy
COONSLAYER(coonfat's a flying)
*****************




Posts: 477
Registered: 11-3-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 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
View user's profile View All Posts By User
FishDaddy
COONSLAYER(coonfat's a flying)
*****************




Posts: 477
Registered: 11-3-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 12-11-2011 at 03:25 AM


anyone ever hear of any problems from ky and their 220s on land?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Lt44
GRASSHOPPER( greenhorn trapper)
*******




Posts: 265
Registered: 7-2-2003
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Lt44
GRASSHOPPER( greenhorn trapper)
*******




Posts: 265
Registered: 7-2-2003
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Keith Daniels
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 5628
Registered: 4-11-2002
Location: Arlington Ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: Optimistic about OSTA

[*] posted on 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.




Keith Daniels, O S T A President
View user's profile View All Posts By User
podunk
XL Male Mink
*****




Posts: 73
Registered: 25-3-2010
Location: Carey, Ohio - Wyandot County
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 12-11-2011 at 08:13 PM


got mine well over a week ago
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hal
#1 GRAY FOX ( sly little devil)
***********




Posts: 216
Registered: 28-9-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hal
#1 GRAY FOX ( sly little devil)
***********




Posts: 216
Registered: 28-9-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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
View user's profile View All Posts By User
FishDaddy
COONSLAYER(coonfat's a flying)
*****************




Posts: 477
Registered: 11-3-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 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]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
computer hater
CLOWN CAR DRIVER ( needs tires )
**********************




Posts: 1391
Registered: 6-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: seeing spots

[*] posted on 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.




Randy
View user's profile View All Posts By User
FishDaddy
COONSLAYER(coonfat's a flying)
*****************




Posts: 477
Registered: 11-3-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 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
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Keith Daniels
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 5628
Registered: 4-11-2002
Location: Arlington Ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: Optimistic about OSTA

[*] posted on 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.




Keith Daniels, O S T A President
View user's profile View All Posts By User
computer hater
CLOWN CAR DRIVER ( needs tires )
**********************




Posts: 1391
Registered: 6-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: seeing spots

[*] posted on 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




Randy
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  6

  Go To Top

Powered by XMB 1.9.11
XMB Forum Software © 2001-2012 The XMB Group