# Trapping citation Out



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

A number of you guys sent me PMs wanting to know what the outcome of my trip to court was and I deleted my inbox and can't remember who all sent me a PM so I will just put the verdict here. Basically the court system was clueless as to what a trap check law violation even was. Strike one. I had to go to court twice and on both occasions they thought it was an animal cruelty case. Strike two. On my second court date the female prosecutor asked the CO if he was sure that this wasn't an animal cruelty case.....to which he replied "not at all....it's a simple trapping rules violation". The female prosecutor asked if I killed the animals for their fur? Strike three......I knew I had an uphill battle at that point. I argued my case and presented the following information in court. Note....this information below is part of an email my friend who is a lawyer put together for me to help me fight my case since I was representing myself. Here's a portion (bold text) of what he sent me.

§*3.600 It shall be unlawful for any person:

(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 snares 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).

You only must check a trap once daily in zone 3 if it is a restraining type trap designed to hold an animal alive. 

Was your trap 1) a restraining type trap and 2) designed to hold the animal alive? I suspect yes on #1 but no on #2. Because you do not answer yes on both it does not apply. Therefore you are not required to check once daily.

And

They will argue that a restraining type trap is always designed to hold the animal alive because it is not designed to kill the animal when triggered. That cannot be what the phrase restraining type trap designed to hold an animal alive means. If it meant all restraining device traps must always be checked once daily then the words designed to hold an animal alive are unneeded and mean nothing. The words designed to hold an animal alive were added to distinguish between the times a restraining type trap is designed to kill and when it is designed to hold an animal alive. 

There is a well known rule for reading statutes and regulations that says every word and phrase must be given meaning. No words or phrases can be ignored. Giving designed to hold an animal alive meaning forces you to conclude that there are different applications of restraining type traps  not different traps but different ways the same traps can be set and used. A restraining type trap designed to kill (by drowning in water) does not need to be checked once daily..(no need to check when purpose of the check is to avoid having animals suffer and starve in restraining traps that hold the animal alive) but that restraining type traps designed to hold an animal alive (placed on ground) do need to be checked (because the animal is alive and will suffer/starve if not checked).
*
So that's it in a nutshell. All of that info was presented to them and all I kept hearing was....."but was it a restraining type trap yes or no?" My replies were always "a restraining device setup to be lethal" and again they would ask "but was it a restraining type trap". After doing that multiple times I was told I had 3 choices.....but since it was an animal case they couldn't take it under advisement so I really only had two choices....plea deal or fight it. The plea deal was admit guilt and get nothing on my record and pay a $10 dollar conservation fee or fight it and if I lost they would seek the max penalty which was a $500 fine, court costs and possible jail time. My lawyer friend told me that the female judges at the 52-3 court in Rochester are known for harsh penalties and if the prosecutor seemed confused over the case then expect the judge to have trouble understanding it as well.....in either case that would be bad news for me. Agreeing to the plea deal was a hard pill to swallow but based on everything that went on I was not confident that it would go well for me no matter how much information and facts I thru at them. When the judge made her ruling the fine ended up being $135 and not the $10 conservation fee that the prosecutor had recommended. So there you have it.....take it for what it's worth.


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

I will have to get ahold of a couple of my CO friends and see what their take is on this. Both of them actually trap.

Looks like I was guilty of this screwed up regulation many times. 

I am glad that if I got a BS ticket like this I live in a suburban county that has judges with brains.


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

multibeard said:


> I will have to get ahold of a couple of my CO friends and see what their take is on this. Both of them actually trap.
> 
> Looks like I was guilty of this screwed up regulation many times.
> 
> I am glad that if I got a BS ticket like this I live in a suburban county that has judges with brains.


I don't doubt that for a second. I am positive Rochester 52-3 was less than the ideal location to do battle. I hope you have better luck with the DNR than I did. I could not get one response from them after multiple emails. I wish I still had my Bobcat survey they mailed me because I would love to be able to mail one back now. It saddens me to know my money for licenses helps pay their salaries. For anyone in the Macomb county area be advised that the CO who wrote my the ticket works in Macomb County normally and said he will ticket everyone who breaks this law.


----------



## DIYsportsman (Dec 21, 2010)

animal cruelty? lol  

BTW:

animal cruelty law:

*MCL 750.50*
(11) This section does not prohibit the lawful killing or other use of an animal, including the following:


(b) Hunting, trapping, or wildlife control regulated under the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.101 to 324.90106.


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

if they prosecution didn't even understand the law they have no business fining any one ...another crock of shhh...

Sent from my ALCATEL_one_touch_988 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

I had all but forgotten about this over the past month and a half.


----------



## shoelessjoe (Dec 13, 2012)

I do not trap myself, but I was wondering why one wouldn't want to check the trap at least once a day? I watch the show on TV that follows the California CO's and have seen them bust guys for not checking traps on the 24 hour rule. Myself, I would be afraid of number 1 the animal suffering longer than it should, 2, predators "stealing" the catch, 3, predators destroying the fur and being left with a mess to clean up, all of which could happen inside of the 24 I understand but I would do my very best to prevent it.

The issue I would have with the plea of guilty to "Animal Cruelty" (even for 10 bucks) is that it would be on my record. That in of itself would hurt because I said "I'm that guy" even though it was for the personal best penalty wise. What a dilemma, wow, I hope it works out for you, you don't strike me as "that guy".


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

joe. for most situations you do need to check every 24 hrs. however, in a case where you are water trapping in the winter time it is not necasary if your traps are set to expire the animals. the water temps are hovering around 34 deg and the animal can sit dead in the water for several days without worrying about spoil etc..... in this case the trapper set a drown line for mink and muskrat that a **** got into. the drowning setup didn't function properly so the animal was alive. it is not uncommon for trappers to set waters traps and not check them for a day or 2. I myself will trap 2 locations several miles apart when I am trapping under the ice and check each one every other day.


_Posted from Michigan-sportsman.com App for Android_


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

Just to be clear the plea deal was not animal cruelty. The prosecutors *thought* it was an animal cruelty case........which it was not. The prosecutor told me admit failure to check the trap and it will be a $10 conservation fee and nothing on your record. The judge tacked on an extra $125 + $10 conservation fee.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Sounds like an abuse of power by the judge. The game laws need to be written in simple language that is clear and concise. Sorry to hear the outcome.

Ganzer


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

It sounds like you were the only person who knew the game laws. Sorry to hear the outcome but sometimes it is better to bite the bullet.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Another example of a well intentioned citizen being punished for ambiguities in a law. 

When this gets better defined, I'd work at getting it expunged from my record


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

Don't you mean 'if it gets better defined'? 

Cannot even get them to work on the snaring regs that have been a disaster since implementation :rant:

-Chris


----------



## otterk (Dec 24, 2012)

Thanks for sharing the outcome. The lesson I learned from your ordeal is to not set foothold traps for muskrats when there is a risk of catching a **** or mink and not having it dead/drowned on arrival. Will set conibears only in Feb.


----------

