# Checking rat traps



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

It was also my understanding that the "trap" did not begin and end at the jaws. Everything from the chain to the staking system to the physical trap itself would all be considered part of the trap. One of the exact questions I asked was what happens when someone stuffs a 110 in a coffee can with a couple sardines and a **** comes along and grabs for the sardines and gets caught by the leg..........is the **** restrained? The answer I got was "it's physically restrained but not subject to the 24 hr check law because the traps intent was designed to dispatch. And what is the intent of a drowning system? To dispatch the animal!! Both systems are designed to achieve the same result which ideally is a dead animal........but like Joe said nothing is 100% and there is a standard deviation for everything. I had to go to the court for arraignment this a.m. and the magistrate couldn't have looked more confused when she asked what the ticket was for and how I wanted to plead. That's probably a bad sign.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

You guys are honestly making this more complicated than it needs to be. 

Anchoring systems are not part of a trap. Anchoring systems are part of the set. A foothold trap is designed to restrain and animal, a conibear is designed to kill an animal. The design of the set does not change the design of the trap. 

Easily searched in the internet......

"Probably most commonly associated with trapping, the foothold trap is made up of two jaws, one or more springs, and a trigger in the middle which is usually a round pan. When the animal steps on the trigger the trap closes around the foot, preventing the animal from escaping."

"Body-gripping traps are designed to kill animals quickly. They are often called "Conibear" traps after Canadian inventor Frank Conibear who began their manufacture in the late 1950s as the Victor-Conibear trap."


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Officer Short, this is a good discussion, please don't take any offense to it 
Okay, a couple more thoughts from me. A car, a baseball bat and a shovel are very useful tools. Their designed intent was never for them to be a leathal weapon but each of them can be used as one if one intends to. My point is that a tool may have more than one use.

A thought about the anchor:
A cable restraint is a legal catching devise as long as it's anchored. A drag is a legal devise also but once you hook that drag to a restraint, it becomes illegal. Is the restraint illegal or the drag at that point? or the combination?
Or
A snare is legal if in the water. If anchored to rerod or a cable stake it isn't legal but hooked to a drowner slide, it's legal.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

FREEPOP said:


> Officer Short, this is a good discussion, please don't take any offense to it
> Okay, a couple more thoughts from me. A car, a baseball bat and a shovel are very useful tools. Their designed intent was never for them to be a leathal weapon but each of them can be used as one if one intends to. My point is that a tool may have more than one use.
> 
> A thought about the anchor:
> ...


Trust me, I'm definitely not offended  and you're absolutely right, this is a good discussion. It definitely has prompted a few conversations on the topic between myself and the officer I work with in my county, and going over a few "what if" scenarios. 

I can certainly understand some of the the frustrations that go along with decoding some of the hunting/trapping/fishing regulations. I hear about them all the time. Sometimes in a daily basis, depending on the season. This is how the actual WCO reads regarding trap check....5.52(8) is in regards to a Nuisance Animal Control Business so it doesn't apply here. 

(12) To set a catching device designed to hold an animal alive unless any catch is released or removed upon checking the catching device. Restraining type traps and cable restraints designed to hold an animal alive shall be checked at least once daily in zones 2 and 3 and within a 48 hour period in zone 1, except as noted in
Section 5.52 (8).

The way it reads, when you break it down is, a restraining type trap needs to be checked once daily in 2&3 and cable restraints designed to hold animals alive need to be checked in 2&3 once daily. This section does not discuss the type of set being used, only the type of trap being used. 

If that section contained the wording....other than a restraining type trap set in a fashion to hold an animal completely submerged, or something similar to the beaver snare regulation, there would be no confusion. 

It can be down right perplexing (and somewhat discouraging) for people to find out that something they've been doing for a long time with no ill intent is actually outside the regulations. It happens, and seems to be the case here. If a rule needs to be re-worded to be clarified, there is a means to do that. I'm all for the rules (all inclusive) being easier for everyone to understand. 

Regarding the drag on a cable restraint, the WCO reads like this....

(h) Snares shall not have any type of drag attached and shall be affixed to a stake or other object of sufficient strength to hold a fox or coyote at the point of capture.

If I were to write it up, it would read "unlawful snare - use of drag" or something like that and I would cite WCO 3.609(h) on the citation. 

As far as the snare in the water, you are correct. This section not only discuses the type of trap used, but also specifically the manner in which it is set. 

(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this order, a snare may be used for taking beaver in water or under ice. Snares shall be made of 1/16 inch or larger cable. Snares not under ice must have a loop which is at least half submerged and be set in a fashion to hold the beaver completely submerged. Snares shall be removed from the
water and made inoperative within 24 hours after the close of the period in which snares may be used to take beaver.


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

For the benefit of everyone I think this thread should be moved to the main trapping forum for the guys who will be running their spring beaver lines with footholds very soon.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

dead short said:


> (12) To set a catching device designed to hold an animal alive unless any catch is released or removed upon checking the catching device. Restraining type traps and cable restraints designed to hold an animal alive shall be checked at least once daily in zones 2 and 3 and within a 48 hour period in zone 1, except as noted in
> Section 5.52 (8).


My tangent about anchoring systems was to show how relevant it is to the whole set. It can take a legal set to an illegal set and a live catch set to a lethal set. 

Okay, lets narrow it down to the letter of the law. "Designed to hold an animal alive" I feel are the key words. Is it just the trap that defines if the set is lethal or is it the set. For example, with cable restraints, the use of entanglement makes it illegal, in Michigan. If the catching devise has the appropriate loop size and BAD it is legal but if there is entanglement, the "set", not the type of devise, is illegal. The same with my previous examples. That is why I see the set has to be interpreted in it's entirety and not by individual components.

It all boils down to the interpretation of the spirit of the law. The trap may be a restraining type trap but it's user's intent was to restrain it to the bottom of the drowner slide.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

The two parts you highlighted are two separate regulations. 

The first highlight is in regards to checking and removing animals. It simply says that you must release or remove an animal when you check the trap. It doesn't allow you to knowingly leave an animal in a trap. 

The second highlight is in regards to the check time frame.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

dead short said:


> The two parts you highlighted are two separate regulations.
> 
> The first highlight is in regards to checking and removing animals. It simply says that you must release or remove an animal when you check the trap. It doesn't allow you to knowingly leave an animal in a trap.
> 
> The second highlight is in regards to the check time frame.


and they both refer to catching and restraining an animal alive. Which was not the intent of the set in question. After we define the designed intent of the set, then we can look at the timeframe of when it should be checked, according to the regulations.


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

Doesn't putting a leg hold trap on a slide wire to drown an animal change a restraining device into a lethal device?

I have had a couple of mink that got through a 110 far enough that they did not die. Luckily I had the connis wired off so they did not crawl off with the trap. 

Not every thing works 100% as designed all the time but considering a leg hold beaver trap or any other leg hold for that matter set on a slide wire a restraining device is not right.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

multibeard said:


> Doesn't putting a leg hold trap on a slide wire to drown an animal change a restraining device into a lethal device?


Apparently not Tom


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

I guess it does not matter to me any more as the PC people made all my leg hold beaver traps illegal any way.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

FREEPOP said:


> and they both refer to catching and restraining an animal alive. Which was not the intent of the set in question. After we define the designed intent of the set, then we can look at the timeframe of when it should be checked, according to the regulations.


Actually, the way i read it, the first part refers to removing or releasing an animal (dead or alive) as soon as you check a restraining device - not the time frame in which you must check the trap. To me this means you can't walk up to a trap that belongs to you with a dead or alive critter in it and just walk on by. As soon as you know it has an animal in it (by checking it) you must remove it or release it.

The second part in that WCO refers to the time frame in which you must check the traps.

It could very easily be broken up into two separate sections as a person could violate either one, separate from the other.

If it needs to be changed or clarified, as I wrote earlier, the following words could be added to the WCO in the section on checking traps....

....other than a restraining type trap set in a fashion to hold an animal completely submerged.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

dead short said:


> Actually, the way i read it, the first part refers to removing or releasing an animal (dead or alive) as soon as you check a restraining device - not the time frame in which you must check the trap. To me this means you can't walk up to a trap that belongs to you with a dead or alive critter in it and just walk on by. As soon as you know it has an animal in it (by checking it) you must remove it or release it.
> 
> The second part in that WCO refers to the time frame in which you must check the traps.
> 
> ...


(12) To set a catching device designed to hold an animal alive unless any catch is released or removed upon checking the catching device. Restraining type traps and cable restraints designed to hold an animal alive shall be checked at least once daily in zones 2 and 3 and within a 48 hour period in zone 1, except as noted in
Section 5.52 (8).

It says nothing about a dead animal, only a live one


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

dead short said:


> Regarding the drag on a cable restraint, the WCO reads like this....
> 
> (h) Snares shall not have any type of drag attached and shall be affixed to a stake or other object of sufficient strength to hold a fox or coyote at the point of capture.
> 
> If I were to write it up, it would read "unlawful snare - use of drag" or something like that and I would cite WCO 3.609(h) on the citation.


and this is the point that I've been trying to make. If that drag (anchoring device) can transform that otherwise legal restraining device into an illegal one, I don't think it a stretch at all to believe that another type of anchoring device can't transform a restraining device into a lethal set.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

FREEPOP said:


> and this is the point that I've been trying to make. If that drag (anchoring device) can transform that otherwise legal restraining device into an illegal one, I don't think it a stretch at all to believe that another type of anchoring device can't transform a restraining device into a lethal set.


If the section contained this wording......other than a restraining type trap set in a fashion to hold an animal completely submerged, or something similar....

I would agree.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

In many places that I trap, there is a very high likelihood that I will catch a domestic. Wide faced jaw foot hold traps via. laminations or cast jaws prevent injuries (I've had zero with over a dozen animals). The incidental catches that I've made have promoted responsible ownership, as most all of the owners utter the same thing "I shouldn't be letting him/her run like that".
I would never set a body grip kill trap in those areas exactly like I would never anchor to a drowner slide into water with a foot hold restraining device.

BTW, I have never used slides with footholds for extended checks because of my inexperience with them and lack of confidence. I plan to use them in the future, as my experience and confidence increases.


----------



## DIYsportsman (Dec 21, 2010)

There are also ermine trappers out there who use the old jump-traps as a killing type trap, they should also read this.. Most probably don't check every day as well...


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Mister ED (Apr 3, 2006)

dead short said:


> You guys are honestly making this more complicated than it needs to be.
> 
> Anchoring systems are not part of a trap. Anchoring systems are part of the set. A foothold trap is designed to restrain and animal, a conibear is designed to kill an animal. The design of the set does not change the design of the trap.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you should have posted all of the info in the paragraph pertinent to the discussion (not that I particularly put a lot of stock in WIKI, but that's where your quote came from):


WIKI said:


> Probably most commonly associated with trapping, the foothold trap is made up of two jaws, one or more springs, and a trigger in the middle which is usually a round pan. When the animal steps on the trigger the trap closes around the foot, preventing the animal from escaping. Usually some kind of lure is used to position the animal, or the trap is set on an animal trail. *Foothold traps set for beaver, **mink**, **river otter**, and **muskrat** are positioned in shallow water along the shores and banks of rivers, lakes and ponds. Sometimes the trap is attached to a weight sunk in deeper water. The animal, when caught by the foot, tries to escape by diving into deep water and drowns*.


The paragraph does go on, but begins talking about closing tightly, sizes and rounded teeth ... which aren't pertinent here. No matter how you cut it, that foothold used on an adequate drowner is not *designed* to restrain an animal alive.



dead short said:


> If the section contained this wording......other than a restraining type trap set in a fashion to hold an animal completely submerged, or something similar....
> 
> I would agree.


I'm sorry dead short, add whatever words you want, but I do believe that you "are honestly making this more complicated than it needs to be". 

Are you telling me my under ice footholds for either beaver or rats are "Restraining type traps ... designed to hold an animal alive"?


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

dead short said:


> Trust me, I'm definitely not offended  and you're absolutely right, this is a good discussion. It definitely has prompted a few conversations on the topic between myself and the officer I work with in my county, and going over a few "what if" scenarios.
> 
> I can certainly understand some of the the frustrations that go along with decoding some of the hunting/trapping/fishing regulations. I hear about them all the time. Sometimes in a daily basis, depending on the season. This is how the actual WCO reads regarding trap check....5.52(8) is in regards to a Nuisance Animal Control Business so it doesn't apply here.
> 
> ...


Here is where I respectfully disagree, as you are using 'device' and 'trap' as the same definition ~ I have always read this to be the overall package. Let's break this down into easier terms using the same device. A cable restraint is a snare is a cable restraint. By design they are one in the same, yet for K9's it is a restraining device and for under ice beaver they are a 'kill' device. Same cable, locks, swivels, etc... just used to kill(drown) vs restrain.

Now back to the wording. No where in the definitions you provided was the word 'trap' mentioned... except when you added it in. Therefore couldn't one consider the overall 'package' a device? If I buy an Ipod, which by definition is a 'device', doesn't that very definition include the entire package ~ not just the SD Memory inside of it? Couldn't a fishing rod/reel be considered a device ~ not just the rod or reel? The point I'm trying to make is that the wording says 'device' not trap....

-Chris


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Mister ED said:


> Are you telling me my under ice footholds for either beaver or rats are "Restraining type traps ... designed to hold an animal alive"?


I'm not arguing that a leghold trap cannot be used in a lethal set. Of course they can be, and have been for generations probably. 

However, I would say that the leghold trap, in itself, is designed to hold an animal alive, the set you are describing is designed to be a drowning set, killing the animal. 

You are not changing the design of a trap, only the function of a trap. What is the difference between a "trap" and a "set"?

Simple Solution....Until the check section includes this type of wording...... other than a restraining type trap set in a fashion to hold an animal completely submerged, or something similar the possibility of disagreement on interpretation is going to be there.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

magnumhntr said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that the wording says 'device' not trap....
> 
> -Chris


The wording is there. The first three words of the second sentence of (12) were restraining type traps......

That is directly from the WCO. What it does need, to prevent this sort of a problem, is an exception for a restraining type trap set in a fashion to hold an animal underwater.


----------



## Mister ED (Apr 3, 2006)

dead short said:


> However, I would say that the leghold trap, in itself, is designed to hold an animal alive, the set you are describing is designed to be a drowning set, killing the animal.


The foothold trap is designed to restrain an animal, no question. It is the application that determines if the trap is lethal or not. Like was mentioned before, you cannot disregard those items attached to the trap that make it function as intended (stake vs drowner). If you take that trap you posted a diagram of ... what is the intent of the swivel on the very end of the chain? 1) you can put rebar right through it 2) you could connect it to more chain, etc (of course both would then be to restrain an animal alive) or 3) run your drowning wire (or cable) right through the open hole in the end of the swivel which would then not, by design, restrain an animal alive.

Again, an application question (which was brought up earlier) ... what about a weasel box with a #1 or #1.5 long spring? Definitely no drowning application. However, that trap, by design, will render the target animal DOA. So, by your logic, I have to check those once a day?

However, for those same weasel boxes where I use a rat trap (as in barn rat) ... those do not need checked each day, because they are not a "foothold"? And for record I have ran both from the same boxes, so it is not some way out there hypothetical question.


----------



## Joe R. (Jan 9, 2002)

Technically all traps are designed to restrain the animal. The type of restraint is determined by the trap. Body crops restraint via the body (head, neck, body), and footholds restrain via the foot. Footholds have been used in drowning sets since their very creation when this country was first colonized. To make the assumption that a foothold is designed to hold an animal alive is simply an assumption of its use. A simply designed to hold the animal by the foot/paw. In the diagram the swivel on the end is labeled as the anchor. This what determines the final outcome of the restraint. Once a drowning system is applied it is no longer designed to restrain alive. Just run a stake through it and that design and intent changes.

As a side note I just want to thank everyone for keeping this discussion civil and educational. There have been several good points made. Been awhile since we've had a good open discussion lime this here.

Sent from my DROID4 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

dead short said:


> You guys are honestly making this more complicated than it needs to be.
> 
> *Anchoring systems are not part of a trap.* Anchoring systems are part of the set. A foothold trap is designed to restrain and animal, a conibear is designed to kill an animal. The design of the set does not change the design of the trap.
> 
> ...


Sorry Dead Short, but according to the Furbearer Specialist, the Assistant Chief of the Wildlife Division (the group that writes the verbiage that goes into the WCO) and the Assistant Chief of the Law Division- you are mistaken. In face-to-face discussions I had with each of them, they agreed that an anchoring system is indeed part of the trap; and traps equipped with a submersion cable anchored in water of sufficient depth and with an anchor capable of holding the captured animal- foothold traps did NOT require a 24 hour check. 

There was another thread on this forum that discussed a situation that led to a ticket- and the anchoring system was a little less, shall we say- "robust and reliable". However, if I got a ticket for having a dead beaver down a drowner cable in a foothold that wasn't checked daily, my witness list at the trial would all be wearing green uniforms. It is incumbent upon the trapper to make sure that the set works as designed, but the anchoring system is as much part of the trap as the chain, the swivels and the pan or trigger. 


If the anchoring system doesn't count, why do the regs around open water beaver snares revolve around the anchoring system?


This is an issue I'll be pushing to get resolved as part of the clarification of the regulations. We need it to be done once and for all. I will add one thing to the trappers, though. During the development of the Trapper Education Program the CO on the Team and I discussed this very topic at length. He is an experienced trapper and agreed with my statements above. He did say, however: "A trapper better not let me find a **** standing in 6" of water at the 'deep' end of their drowner or they are going to get a ticket!" (And I supported him completely). The privilege of leaving lethal sets outside of the daily/48 checks puts a level of responsibility on the trapper to ensure these sets are lethal. In other words, "it pulled up my anchor"; "it got tangled up and didn't go down the cable"; or "just staking the trap in deep water works for 'rats, how could I know I'd catch a '****/beaver/otter?" won't (and IMO shouldn't necessarily) save you from a ticket.

John


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Mister ED said:


> Again, an application question (which was brought up earlier) ... what about a weasel box with a #1 or #1.5 long spring? Definitely no drowning application. However, that trap, by design, will render the target animal DOA. So, by your logic, I have to check those once a day?


There has been at least one instance lately where the literal black and white interpretation has been addressed in the field, hence the start of this thread. Could it be possible that another officer could view it like that again somewhere else? It's not my logic, it's just the way it's written. Should the words trap and set be used interchangeably? The way that section is written leaves it open to interpretation by both a trapper and an officer who in this situation (for sure) did not interpret it the same way. There is no doubt that the OP probably thought he was doing everything right, as far as having a foothold on a drowner and it being a kill set. Like I mentioned, the thread has sparked discussions on the topic between my partner and I, what if situations if you will, and also discussing the things we've seen over the years and how we've handled them over that time. The WCO is full of very specific regulations on how certain traps are set in certain locations. I am not disagreeing that there are sets made with restraining type traps that are every bit as deadly as a body gripper, we all can agree that there are. 

In this circumstance, that section (12) in the WCO could specifically (more clearly) address the way a trap is set or used and not just what type of trap is being used and help eliminate the varied interpretations. 

Any suggestions?


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> If the anchoring system doesn't count, why do the regs around open water beaver snares revolve around the anchoring system?


References were made earlier by both myself and others regarding just that, and I suggested in a few posts earlier that the way a trap is set should specifically (more clearly) be included in the section regarding the 24 hour check, not just the type of trap being used. The way it's written in there now leaves it open to conflicting interpretation.



Beaverhunter2 said:


> This is an issue I'll be pushing to get resolved as part of the clarification of the regulations. We need it to be done once and for all.


Thank you.


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

So if we're clarifying how the regs should read it might also be a good idea to define what type of drowning system would be considered "robust and reliable" for beaver or ***** or whatever the intended target species is.


----------



## frostbite (Dec 22, 2004)

Quite honestly I believe many of the game laws, trapping, hunting or fishing are designed for interpretation. I honestly do my best to abide by the laws, but highly doubt I can hunt fish or trap without breaking some interpretation of the game laws along the way most of the time, unintentionally. The game laws are written so easily a third grader can understand them is the laugh of the century. They are written for the lawyers to battle it out over. Common frigging sense left us many moons ago.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

> The privilege of leaving lethal sets outside of the daily/48 checks puts a level of responsibility on the trapper to ensure these sets are lethal. In other words, "it pulled up my anchor"; "it got tangled up and didn't go down the cable"; or "just staking the trap in deep water works for 'rats, how could I know I'd catch a '****/beaver/otter?" won't (and IMO shouldn't necessarily) save you from a ticket.


 So you're saying that for a rat set to be lethal and checked longer than 24hr, the trap needs to be able to drown a beaver????? I can't believe you're serious!


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

Seldom said:


> So you're saying that for a rat set to be lethal and checked longer than 24hr, the trap needs to be able to drown a beaver????? I can't believe you're serious!


If I have to setup my rat and mink sets to be lethal on beaver or ***** then I will have a lot of traps for sale. Common sense needs to be factored into the equation whenever we are setting traps. Methods I would use in January and February I wouldnt consider in November or December. Location, time of year and target species should always be considered to do our best to avoid non-targets or incidentals. If the odds of an incidental are high enough that its a concern then steps need to be taken to avoid this but to say we have to beaver proof sets just because there's a chance a beaver could be caught is crazy. There's always the possibility of incidentals so does that mean common sense gets trumped by rigging that setup to hold and dispatch a beaver. Some may not find my setups robust or reliable but I have yet to have issue with them on the intended target animal.


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

Dang I used to wire a #1 long spring to a small stake and shove in the bottom in deep water. Then I put another branch between that stake and the trap for a rat to wrap up on and drown.

In my old minds memory I can only remember one time that I lost a trap to an incidental that was probably a ****. That trap was given to me that winter by a guy trimming sour cherry trees 1/4 mile away. It was in the top of a tree with no evidence what had been in the trap.

I never realized until now that I was such an OUTLAW along with a HECK of a lot of trappers.


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

First and foremost I would like to thank Dead Short for being open minded to at least have a discussion over this and not make it personal ~ and hopefully you haven't taken any of the comments personal in return. Of note I would like to ask the question of interpretation and intent. Isn't one of the variables in law infractions whether there was 'intent' or not? I don't believe the verbiage 'device' limited to only the trap ~ but the overall 'set' and the intent with that set. So if a trapper sets a 'device' with the intent of killing that animal, then wouldn't they therefor making a 'killing device' and not a 'restraining device'? And what happens when you have a situation where one CO agrees with me and you disagree? Shouldn't this be brought up to a higher authority for direction and not just discussions amongst your peers? 

Thank you for your time.

-Chris


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

Yes, I also want to thank Dead Short for his extremely important participation. I'm also glad that this thread has remained in a "discussion" mode rather than shift into a debate.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

I agree, thank you Dead Short for the discussion, we may not agree but that isn't end the world and thank you for your sometimes thankless work in protecting our resources


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

I think discussions like this are important to have and can sometimes result in realizing and correcting an issue. If I didn't feel that way, I would've stayed a lurker. 

Wildlife violations are typically general intent crimes and not specific intent crimes. The elements of the violation only require that the violation itself occurred. 

Although intent does not weigh in on many wildlife violations by statute, it certainly weighs in with me personally (and most other officers I know) as to how situations are handled in the field. That's where the gray area starts. As far as taking this stuff personal, I've been doing this too long to take it personal. 

I can only imagine the direction this thread would've gone in the deer forums.


----------



## DIYsportsman (Dec 21, 2010)

dead short said:


> I can only imagine the direction this thread would've gone in the deer forums.


it would be 90 pages...

here in the trapping forum we are a highly refined respectable bunch of gents (and ladies?)

aren't we?:evil:


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

We could turn it into a thread on Quality Muskrat Management.


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

before we here about QTM 

Thinking ever turkey must have a 12 inch beard before we can shoot it.

dead short

Thanks for being open minded and realizing the problems with this issue.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

multibeard said:


> Thanks for being open minded and realizing the problems with this issue.


I know how things go. I hunt and fish too. Regs that are easy to understand make it easier for everyone.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Seldom said:


> So you're saying that for a rat set to be lethal and checked longer than 24hr, the trap needs to be able to drown a beaver????? I can't believe you're serious!


That is not what I said. What I said was [under the current law] if you hold something alive and don't check the traps every 24 hours you are at risk for a ticket. That's the way it's written. Not, "As long as it's lethal to what you wanted to catch you don't have to check it until you're ready."

A more "robust and reliable" drowning system, NW? A drowner cable leaps to mind....

My whole point is we have the regs allowing us to not have to check lethal sets every 24 hours so we can continue to trap when we can't check daily. Screw with it enough and we'll lose that, too. As of right now, if deep water staking kills your catch- you are golden. There's no better defense than a dead critter. The day you catch something else and/or your favorite anchoring system fails, you are exposed.

We are trying to get the regs clarified so that is something goes seriously wrong the trapper is protected. Maine has a definition of a drowning set. Here it is:

"Whats a drowning set?

A drowning set is a trap that is set completely under water and rigged in such a way as to reasonably ensure the drowning of any species of trapped furbearer that would reasonably be expected to visit the set location and be held in the type of trap used at the set."

The "reasonable" parts concern me but all in all this seems like a definition that's pretty accommodating to the trappers. I'm not sure where we'll end up but until then- be careful and good luck!


John


----------

