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

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3    5  6
Author: Subject: 160 thread
Hal
#1 GRAY FOX ( sly little devil)
***********




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


[*] posted on 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
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 10:42 PM




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




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


sad.gif posted on 13-11-2011 at 11:52 PM





[Edited on 11-14-2011 by Keith Daniels]
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 14-11-2011 at 01:49 AM




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




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 14-11-2011 at 02:26 AM


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



Keith Daniels, O S T A President
View user's profile View All Posts By User
catman
Administrator
********




Posts: 1402
Registered: 14-1-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 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.
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 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 didnít know the difference between diameter and circumference. A 15 inch maximum circumference means a 5 inch loop, and thatís how their law was written.

Hal


[Edited on 11-14-2011 by Hal]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
coonskinner
QUACKHEAD ! (snorts duck feathers)
*******************




Posts: 1912
Registered: 9-9-2003
Location: butler county, ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: High on castor

[*] posted on 15-11-2011 at 01:11 AM


I think Randys statement is correct. Just sayin.



Dan
View user's profile View All Posts By User
catman
Administrator
********




Posts: 1402
Registered: 14-1-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

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




Posts: 4472
Registered: 3-11-2002
Location: Fayette County , Washington C.H., ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: KamiKazi Rock Hauler

[*] posted on 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 .




Mark D. Stackhouse , Region C Director. Life Member OSTA , NTA , NRA , Member of the U.P. Trappers Assn., Alaska Trappers Assoc., Fur Takers Of America. \" Far better it is to dare mighty things , to win glorious triumphs , even though checkered by failure , than to take rank with those poor spirts who neither enjoy much nor suffer much , because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat \" - Theodore Roosevelt
View user's profile View All Posts By User
catman
Administrator
********




Posts: 1402
Registered: 14-1-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

[*] posted on 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.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Coondawg
MANGEY COYOTE
*****************




Posts: 642
Registered: 25-5-2008
Location: Jackson
Member Is Offline

Mood: If it flies, it dies!

[*] posted on 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.



View user's profile Visit user's homepage 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 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.




Keith Daniels, O S T A President
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 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]




Ric McCaslin
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 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

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 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.




Keith Daniels, O S T A President
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Lt44
GRASSHOPPER( greenhorn trapper)
*******




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


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




Posts: 4472
Registered: 3-11-2002
Location: Fayette County , Washington C.H., ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: KamiKazi Rock Hauler

[*] posted on 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 .












Mark D. Stackhouse , Region C Director. Life Member OSTA , NTA , NRA , Member of the U.P. Trappers Assn., Alaska Trappers Assoc., Fur Takers Of America. \" Far better it is to dare mighty things , to win glorious triumphs , even though checkered by failure , than to take rank with those poor spirts who neither enjoy much nor suffer much , because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat \" - Theodore Roosevelt
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 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"





Ric McCaslin
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 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
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ohio Andy
Administrator
********




Posts: 664
Registered: 11-2-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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]




Andy
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Coondawg
MANGEY COYOTE
*****************




Posts: 642
Registered: 25-5-2008
Location: Jackson
Member Is Offline

Mood: If it flies, it dies!

[*] posted on 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.





View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Ohio Andy
Administrator
********




Posts: 664
Registered: 11-2-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 18-11-2011 at 07:56 PM


Thanks for the clarification Josh.



Andy
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3    5  6

  Go To Top

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