# NRC meeting today in Lansing



## DeereGuy (Jul 1, 2011)

I doubt I will have anything new until mid Januaru


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> The "cable stop size" is the problem. It lets more than half of the animals escape and then there is an increased amount of damage do to hip catches.


What is more important than some animals escaping is the number of dogs that were killed by snares with the smaller diameter. Those snares have been illegal for some time, however some trappers still use them illegally. 
My understanding is that the fine for using these illegal snares has been increased and included in bill 244.

L & O


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Liver and Onions said:


> What is more important than some animals escaping is the number of dogs that were killed by snares with the smaller diameter. Those snares have been illegal for some time, however some trappers still use them illegally.
> My understanding is that the fine for using these illegal snares has been increased and included in bill 244.
> 
> L & O


Most all of the dogs that were killed were not there legally. If they had been on the property legally l, the owner would've been informed of the snares. So the legislation is for the violators.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> .......... So the legislation is for the violators.


Not sure if I'm following correctly. You mean the violators who set illegal snares ?

L & O


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Dogs on property illegally +95% of the time are the ones injured or killed.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> Dogs on property illegally +95% of the time are the ones injured or killed.


I can't find that 95% number anywhere. Can you supply a link ?
Are you saying that you support the use of illegal snares to kill hunting dogs because most of those dogs are where they should not be ? Such a position does not seem possible coming from you or from any other sportsman for that matter. Again, legal snares are not the problem for hunting dogs, it's the illegal ones.

L & O


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Liver and Onions said:


> I can't find that 95% number anywhere. Can you supply a link ?
> Are you saying that you support the use of illegal snares to kill hunting dogs because most of those dogs are where they should not be ? Such a position does not seem possible coming from you or from any other sportsman for that matter. Again, legal snares are not the problem for hunting dogs, it's the illegal ones.
> 
> L & O


No I'm referring to how the snare laws got changed. I'm also referring to the dog owners purposely allowing their dogs on property that they don't have permission on. 
I support no illegal use of snares and we know that some people use them anyway. I value my sporting opportunities and would never jeopardize it.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> No I'm referring to how the snare laws got changed. ...................


I'm not sure if I'm following this correctly. The snare laws were changed a number of years ago after a bunch of dogs were killed in what were legal snares at the time. Is this what you are referring to ? 

L & O


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Liver and Onions said:


> I'm not sure if I'm following this correctly. The snare laws were changed a number of years ago after a bunch of dogs were killed in what were legal snares at the time. Is this what you are referring to ?
> 
> L & O


Bingo
The hound hunters were very organized, had enough money and political pul to make it happen.


----------



## wolverines (Jan 29, 2007)

FREEPOP said:


> I'm also referring to the dog owners purposely allowing their dogs on property that they don't have permission on.


Are you talking about neighbors with dogs, letting them run loose wherever they please? Or hunting dogs? I'm not familiar with the dogs getting caught in snares that you 2 are talking about...


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

wolverines said:


> Are you talking about neighbors with dogs, letting them run loose wherever they please? Or hunting dogs? I'm not familiar with the dogs getting caught in snares that you 2 are talking about...


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/THEBOOKweb_101732_7.pdf
I posted this in the Trapping forum. Published in '06 so I'm wondering if this is still up to date. No answer yet from anyone.
I'm trying to get all of the correct information. Looks like before '06 the legal size was 2 1/2". This resulted in a number of hunting dogs getting caught and choked to death. The size and maybe the locking system diameters were increased to current diameters.
These dead dogs were documented by both the DNR and the Michigan Hunting Dog Group. 
Since increasing the size to 4 1/4" I can not see where any dog has died in a legal snare, however some trappers(should I even call them a trapper?) are still using the smaller snare resulting in deaths. I recently heard about the fine being increased to $1000 so that sparked my interest. My background in snares is very limited, but I do have a hunting dog so I want to know more.
I'm not saying everything that I written here is correct.........please correct me if I'm wrong. Documentation is always good.

L & O


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/mi-legal-snares.491831/


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/mi-legal-snares.491831/


Interesting for sure. Thanks for the link. Too bad the recent meetings did not accomplish much. The opportunity was there. The opportunity was missed. We all want the same thing........successful trappers and the chance to release dogs unharmed.

L & O


----------

