# Illegal trap



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)

Anyone see the front page of the Flint Journal this morning? There is an unfortunate article that gives us a bad name. Sure don't need any more bad press.


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

Call the reporter and advise him/her that an illegal trapper is just a poacher.
If by illegal they mean someone didnt like where the trap was set that is something else.

Also about August invite the reporter for a days ride along on a real trap line.


----------



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)

Headline says "Pet falls prey to illegal traps"
The traps in question were set in an area without permission(poacher) and the pet owner was in violation of the leash law. It is an unnecessary situation that could have been prevented with a little education.


----------



## Kevlar (Jul 21, 2004)

I heard that the story said something about the trapper being illegal because the trap was set within 40 feet of the road. If the guy had permission to trap (which I don't know if he did) what law says you have to be 40 feet from the road. Probably just a reporter enhancing the story.

Kev


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

I suggest folks go to the Flint Journal site and read the entire article.


----------



## Mister ED (Apr 3, 2006)

http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/03/in_flintarea_debate_grows_over.html

There's the link. Actually, given the situation ... the article could have been a lot worse. The reporter talked with two DNR Officers and an experienced trapper.

Thought it was also pretty clear that the set was not legal. A bucket set w/connie, placed in a garden of some type, at a Sinagogue no less. Don't people freaking think anymore? Even though the artical could have been worse, this idiot has given us all a black eye.



Looks like we both had the same thought at the same time Seldom.


----------



## SNAREMAN (Dec 10, 2006)

Very bad for everyone:sad: IMO,that "EXPERIENCED TRAPPER" did as much harm to our sport,as the guy who set the trap!!!!I would LOVE to have a "TALK" with him!!!!!!:rant::rant::rant: Who need enemy's with "FRIEND'S" like that!!!!


----------



## fisheyejack (Mar 6, 2007)

I agree with snareman, I wonder if the journal would be open to printing the words of a trapper who respects and protects our sport?


----------



## Mister ED (Apr 3, 2006)

After rereading the trappers comments ... I have to agree with you guys. I must have just skimmed over the snareing part when I originally read it.

So, nicely presented by two DNR officers. Also, did you catch the shot the Lt. put in about not enough officers in the field?? Thought that was great. Also, have to give the author credit for presenting both sides and in what I thought (on her part at least) a good light. As far as the 'experienced trapper' .... your right .... he shot us in one foot and the person that set the trap shot us in the other.

Have an old friend that is a photo editor for the Journal. We have been exchanging emails on this article. In fact, I told him last night that if the author (or anyone else) wanted to ride along to do a story to let me know and I'd help them find someone from over there. Between 'Movie Star' JoeR and Griff (both MTA directors from over that way) ... I'm sure we could get something set up.


----------



## ArrowHawk (Apr 1, 2003)

I'm very disappointed at what you guys are saying because of something you read.

I am going to get bashed here and I know that because I am a good personal friend and coworker of the guy at fault here.

Let me start of by saying the story in the paper is not 100% true.

This was my buddies first year of Trapping and all of his Traps were borrowed. He did have permission to Trap the area, He had his Furbears License, what he did do was remove the Tag off the trap of the person he borrowed them from and didn't put new ones on. The traps were on private property near a pond/swamp not in a garden. Also My buddy had told others that there were traps in the area.

My buddy screwed up and received a Ticket for not having the Trap Tagged, this was his only screw up and he is paying for it and not just out of pocket but mentally as well.

He also has talked to the owner of the dog and the owner told him he knows how sorry he is and admitted to letting his dog run free as well.

My buddy is a great guy and has never had any issues like this or anything like it. 

Yes he screwed up and didn't Tag his Trap which was the only thing that wasn't legal. If the Trap would have been tagged he would have been 100% legal.

So go ahead and fire away at me for standing beside him for for not tagging his trap (which he learned from) and for something he know has to live with for the rest of his life.


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

Your buddy should correspond with the reporter and get him/her straightened out and/or a letter to the editor section with the facts!


----------



## ArrowHawk (Apr 1, 2003)

He is working with the DNR to get things cleared up as we speak.

Also to add to what I have already said this also took place over a month ago and did anyone stop to think how they found out it was my friend. Well when he found out what had happened he turned himself in.


----------



## Mister ED (Apr 3, 2006)

ArrowHawk said:


> I'm very disappointed at what you guys are saying because of something you read..


Well, since the incident happened the end of Jan, and this is the only reference anyone has seen on it .... what would you expect?



ArrowHawk said:


> I am going to get bashed here and I know that because I am a good personal friend and coworker of the guy at fault here..


Not you getting bashed.



ArrowHawk said:


> Let me start of by saying the story in the paper is not 100% true.


So, this set was on private property that your friend had permission to trap on (not doubting your word ... just clarifiing)?

Here are a couple cut/pastes from the paper:
_...hidden in the snow-covered *garden at his family's Flint Township synagogue.*_
_Son Evan's spunky cattle dog, Indy, ran off to sniff around the *edge of the small pond just north of the gazebo. *_
_....*on private property intended for family use*._
The way I read this, was that the small pond was in the garden, at the synagogue, and the gazebo was in the garden (probably) overlooking the pond.

Help us understand the REAL layout here!! Is there a 'garden' at all? Rock, Flower, water or otherwise??? How far from the garden/gazebo to the pond? How far to the property line and where was the trap in the REAL layout of the land?

Another snippet from the paper:
_Department of Natural Resources conservation officer Linda Scheidler said the *trap's owner has been identified* and faces arraignment on pending charges. He was a novice trapper who may not have thoroughly understood good trapping technique and etiquette rather than a habitual offender, she said. _
_Dog owners have a responsibility, too, said Scheidler, who handled the case._
_*"The trapper did not have permission to trap on the property.*_ _But Mr. Levine was also advised his dog should have been on a leash as required by law," said Scheidler._

By reading this (supposed direct quote from Officer Scheidler) I concluded that the trap must have been tagged. And what is inferred here is that the charges were for having the set on private property without permission (think that was everyone's take). ArrowHawk, can you verify that teh trap was not tagged and the set was not on the Synagogue property and your friend had permission to trap the property? (Just getting things straight, before I get egg on my face ... AGAIN).

Again, don't take offense to my questions ... just trying to make certain of what you are saying. As I stated, I have said some things in e-mails off this site ... and your new info puts it in a diff light. So, I need to put the facts straight to those I was writting to.


----------



## hartman886 (Aug 29, 2004)

Well no good will come out of this no matter how you look at it.
There is a fine line you have to walk every time you set a trap.Gone are the days when you could set a trap and not have to worry about someones pet.For the life of me can't think of even the most remote place around me that there is not at least some chance of it.Even my own property is not safe with all the neighbors that let there pets run.LETTING YOUR PET RUN IS ILLEAGLE.{{But Mr. Levine was also advised his dog should have been on a leash as required by law," said Scheidler. "If the dog had been on a leash, chances are this situation never would have happened}} The trapper had permission as corrected by arrow hawk and the reason he was ticketed was for not having his trap tagged.The pet owner was also in the wrong for letting his pet run ILLEAGLE and recieved no ticket.
Now back to that fine line ,most tappers work hard to keep a good reputation and to keep that reputation we HAVE TO WALK THAT LINE.There are many many places around here that are leagel to trap but might as well have no trapping signs posted becous of possible conflicts with other user groupes and every year there seems to be more.It seems no matter who is at fault when there is an issue it is the trapper that loses.I am glad arrow hawk stepped in and filled in some more of the story.Weather this trap was set with bad judgement is not really clear as there is half of the story missing.
Chris


----------



## ArrowHawk (Apr 1, 2003)

Yes the Trap didn't have his personal info on it, he borrowed some traps this year from another coworker and took the tags that were on them off because the info wasn't his info. He said he took off those tags because he was the one setting the traps.

The traps were set on private property which he had permission to be on and the traps were in a very swampy area (No Garden).

He had also talked to the owner of the Dog a few weeks before hand and told him that the Traps were there. 

It was his first year trying trapping that is why the traps were borrowed.

When he went to check his trap he found a note on it stating what happened and instead of not calling the number on it he owned up to his mistake and took the responsiblity.

Today he is beside himself and planning on getting rid of the Traps he has bought since then.

Th guy is a Huge Dog Lover with several of his own who has just put one of his own dogs down and feels the pain of the owner.

If the DNR could have nailed him with more then just not having his name on the trap do you think they would have?


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

hartman886 said:


> Well no good will come out of this no matter how you look at it.
> There is a fine line you have to walk every time you set a trap.Gone are the days when you could set a trap and not have to worry about someones pet.For the life of me can't think of even the most remote place around me that there is not at least some chance of it.Even my own property is not safe with all the neighbors that let there pets run.LETTING YOUR PET RUN IS ILLEAGLE.{{But Mr. Levine was also advised his dog should have been on a leash as required by law," said Scheidler. "If the dog had been on a leash, chances are this situation never would have happened}} The trapper had permission as corrected by arrow hawk and the reason he was ticketed was for not having his trap tagged.The pet owner was also in the wrong for letting his pet run ILLEAGLE and recieved no ticket.
> Now back to that fine line ,most tappers work hard to keep a good reputation and to keep that reputation we HAVE TO WALK THAT LINE.There are many many places around here that are leagel to trap but might as well have no trapping signs posted becous of possible conflicts with other user groupes and every year there seems to be more.It seems no matter who is at fault when there is an issue it is the trapper that loses.I am glad arrow hawk stepped in and filled in some more of the story.Weather this trap was set with bad judgement is not really clear as there is half of the story missing.
> Chris


IMHO, you are absolutely right Chris! 
I admit wholeheartedly that I get frustrated with folks and folks get bent sideways with me when they don't seem to understand that this is 2008 and* perceptions*, regardless of whether who is legal or who's not legal, doesn't matter one dang wit to the non-trapping public!!! Suburbia is pushing out into the rural areas around me at an alarming rate. Who are these people? They're young families mostly, which means they're probably in their early 30's to 40's. What does that mean? It means that most of them have *NEVER* had any experience or association with trapping as possibly did they fathers and grandfathers. They have no *positive* perception of trapping which means their perception of trapping and trappers comes to them through what they hear and read in the news! If you read the article, you also read at least the 1st response on the website. 

We, us trappers, will be the losers if we don't smarten up and go the extra mile to present a truthful and positive perception!!!


----------



## skyhawk1 (Jun 20, 2006)

It is up to us as sportsmen and women, and trappers to walk a thin line between legal and ethical. only you as a trapper can decide if the area your setting is safe enough to place a trap such as a #220 on the ground. It is nobodys fault but your own if you are too stupid to try to learn a pastime like trapping without a mentor to help you make the decisions as to what is or isn't ethical for each area you trap in. Just because something may be legal, doesn't make it right for every situation. his "mistake" is no different than going out on a private hiking trail and setting snares. It might be legal, but probably a recipe for disaster. 
As far as the dog owner is concerned, he deserves a ticket for breaking the leash law. the reporter needs to get her facts straight once again...she's the same reporter that wrote the story about the "novice" trapper (using this term lightly) that set #1 LS in the park in holly and caught a guys dog a few years back. I spoke with my Uncle, former publisher of The Flint Urinal and current publisher at Booth news, and this story may cost her her job if the details prove to be incorrect.


----------



## Mister ED (Apr 3, 2006)

Don't get me wrong ...I agree with what you guys are saying 100%!! I've never set a bucket/connie box set, don't really think I need to. And as I have stated before, the couple areas that I have with high yote populations are in the National Forest. However, there are too many bird hunters and horseback riders (with their dogs walking beside unleashed) tor me to be even comfortable in putting in a yote set.



skyhawk1 said:


> the reporter needs to get her facts straight once again...she's the same reporter that wrote the story about the "novice" trapper (using this term lightly) that set #1 LS in the park in holly and caught a guys dog a few years back. I spoke with my Uncle, former publisher of The Flint Urinal and current publisher at Booth news, and this story may cost her her job if the details prove to be incorrect.


Another interesting twist to this writer! I think that incident was last year sometime.


----------



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)

ArrowHawk said:


> I'm very disappointed at what you guys are saying because of something you read.
> I am going to get bashed here
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## ArrowHawk (Apr 1, 2003)

Fur-minator said:


> ArrowHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very disappointed at what you guys are saying because of something you read.
> ...


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Arrowhawk,

I would suggest that your friend go to the MDNR website and study the Michigan Trapper Education Manual. Here's the link:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10880_12399-174841--,00.html 

I would make the same suggestion to all new trappers.

I do use a lot of conibear buckets, but I choose my locations with great care, bait them with sweet baits only, and if there's any doubt, I make a different set- or none at all! I've trapped mostly state and federal land for 35 seasons and, unlike the "experienced trapper" in the article, I have yet to catch a domestic dog. (A few years ago, I did catch two wild ones that were targetted due to stock damage.)

I'm not perfect. I've made mistakes and had a few incidents occur I would like to go back and change. But you won't find me hanging my hat on the fact that I was legal. I try to hold myself to higher standards than just following the law. And I learn from my mistakes and try to help other learn from them as well.

I never want anyone to be able to say I helped the Anti's ban trapping by going for just one more **** hide.


John


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

For the sake of learning from our mistakes, does anybody know what size conibear was involved? Was this a situation where a 220 was used but a 160 may have worked fine?


----------



## ArrowHawk (Apr 1, 2003)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> Arrowhawk,
> 
> I have yet to catch a domestic dog. (A few years ago, I did catch two wild ones that were targetted due to stock damage.)



Domestic or not unless its on the the Furbearer list its illegal to trap them unless you are assisting or written approval by the DNR, as far as I know.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

As I said, they were "were targetted due to stock damage." The DNR was involved.

The point is, by being very, very careful, and probably with a little luck thrown in, it is possible to trap and not catch dogs. In a lot of cases, you just have to be willing to walk away from a location with a high likelyhood of a furbearer catch- because there is some likelyhood of a domestic.

John


----------



## Opie (Feb 12, 2008)

yah trappers never win. If we don't have permission to trap on some land and get caught the law would fine us big time but when a person walking their dog or doing other things on land they don't have permission to be on the law never takes action against them!!! The Flint Journal was wrong interviewing everybody EXCEPT the trapper himself! In my opinion pet owners should take some of the fault because Michigan has a leash law and where I live u can set a trap in the middle of a square mile with no houses within that square mile and still catch someones pets. So who's fault is it? The trapper or the pet owners?


----------



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)

Now comes the backlash.

For 2 days in a row the journal printed peoples opinions about this incident and let me tell you it wasn't pretty.


----------



## wild bill (Apr 20, 2001)

here is the response from the reporter as to her facts for the article. In reply to the supposed "errors" in the story:

I specifically checked on whether the trapper had permission from the synagogue, and was told by the DNR officer who handled the case that he did NOT have permission to trap there.

BUT they rarely will pursue a trespassing violation for a lot of vague reasons that have to do with the landowner having to have first warned the person to leave the property, and then if they refuse or they return, it is trespassing.

Conibear traps are supposed to be set underwater, at least four feet off the ground, or in a container inaccessible to dogs. The DNR didn't want to prosecute the trapper -- they really don't like to do that if they don't have to since a huge part of their mandate is to encourage and protect hunters, trappers and fishers -- and were willing to consider the bucket a suitable "container."

The DNR did in fact point out (and we printed it) that the trapper was new to the sport and was not a habitual offender. It is true that they have decided to ticket him only for not properly tagging the trap. That does not mean there was nothing else wrong (see above), only what they were willing to prosecute.

It is also true that the DNR pointed out the dog should have been on a leash -- that was duly noted in the story by both the DNR and a comment by a trapper not involved in the incident, that by law the dog should have been on a leash, and the accident may not have occurred if indeed the dog had been leashed.

The exact location of the gazebo, pond or anything else was not specified in the story, only that they are off the parking lot of the synagogue, and the general direction.

As to an earlier conversation with the dog owner: Yes, I was told by the dog owner that there was an earlier conversation. 

According to Mr. Levine, he met a another man out walking HIS dogs in the same area a week or two earlier. The man told him to be careful because he'd "seen" a trap somewhere in the area. I discussed this with the DNR, who confirmed that she had been told the same story, and that the man never identified himself as a trapper or that he had in fact set traps in the area. 

I chose not to use this anecdote in the story because I did not want to use hearsay to attribute any statement to the trapper, which I felt would have been unfair to the trapper himself.

I stand by the facts in the story.

It is obviously an emotional issue on both sides. 

But readers should note that in NO WAY was the issue of legal, ethical and safe trapping brought into question.

This story was NOT about whether or not trapping should be legal. 

It IS legal, protected by Michigan law and encouraged by the state DNR as a recreational sport, business venture and wildlife management tool -- as was pointed out in the story. The issue was ONLY about the dangers of unsafe or illegal trapping methods.

Elizabeth Shaw
[email protected]
The Flint Journal
200 E. First St.
Flint, MI 48502
810-766-6311
fax 810-767-7518


i wish she would get her laws straight on the use of conibears. i think she needs to be aware of her wrong info.


----------

