# NRC / DNR Response



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

Wrote a civil email last week to the NRC. Got my response just now.

My email:

Ms. Gloden,

Upon reviewing the proposed changes to the current Michigan trapping regulations, I would request the NRC, not move at this time and take further time to research and get more input from experienced trappers, animal control experts and biologists. I feel some of the proposed changes are "knee jerk" and are very inappropriate. 

Please take more time and gather more input / information before acting, especially on the subject of open water beaver snaring. The stops make it about as ineffective as the current regs make dryland canine snaring. In effect, it actually is more in-humane, causes pelt damage and makes many trappers (including myself) not snare due to this. 

Thank You,

Erik L. Johnson

A Michigan Trapper


The Response:

Thank you for your April 17, 2009 correspondence to the Natural Resource Commission (NRC) regarding the proposed furbearer regulations. The NRC has asked me to respond.

Trappers in Michigan have requested the use of open water beaver snaring for several years. The Department reviewed the issue on multiple occasions. In discussions with various trappers, trapping organizations, dog hunters, biologists, and law enforcement personnel, the three primary concerns for open water beaver snaring were the potential to increase incidental catch of otters, the limited potential to snare water retrieving dogs, and potential pelt damage. 

In order to expand trapping opportunities, it was necessary to reduce these concerns. A 5 inch stop reduces the chance of a dog becoming snared, while allowing snares to be only half submerged rather than completely submerged. A 5 inch loop may allow most otters to escape but will capture beaver. Most catches would likely be body catches. In order to address concerns with pelt damage the proposed regulations require that the snares be drowning sets. Trappers would always have the option of not using open water snares if damage seems too significant.

Thank you again for your interest in the management of Michigan&#8217;s furbearers. The NRC will be reviewing the proposed regulations changes for information on May 7, 2009 with action scheduled for the June 4, 2009 meeting. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me at 517-373-XXXX.

Sincerely:


Adam Bump
Furbearer and Bear Specialist


Cc: Natural Resource Commission
Russ Mason, Chief,
Michael E. Bailey, DNR


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Hmmmmmmmm....??????


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Hmm...defies logic...

Sounds like beaurcrats regulating something they don't understand...


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

Is as full of crap as a xmass turkey.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Lang- you nailed it. 

Paul Dobbins told me he uses snares outside the fur season to AVOID incidental otter. We asked the DNR to contact Paul but, of course, they didn't. Apparently our DNR knows more about otter avoidance than a man that takes several hundred beaver each year and, as he told me, hasn't taken an incidental otter in *eight years!*

Guys- just follow Adam's advice. Leave the snares at home and use your 330s and 280s. When an otter goes through one of those- you'll have your limit. Unfortunately, as another trapper put it, you'll just have to "release" any more that try to go through them. What a shame. At least with a snare the otter would have had a chance.

John


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

In order to expand trapping opportunities, it was necessary to reduce these concerns. A 5 inch stop reduces the chance of a dog becoming snared, while allowing snares to be only half submerged rather than completely submerged. A 5 inch loop may allow most otters to escape but will capture beaver. Most catches would likely be body catches. In order to address concerns with pelt damage the proposed regulations require that the snares be drowning sets. Trappers would always have the option of not using open water snares if damage seems too significant.

Ok I've taken a few blows to my noggen over the years.:help: But were going to put a stop on to protect my retriever then run him down a wire with a drowning lock. I don't understand!

Griff


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

Way to go Griff! I wondered when somebody was going to post that scenario!


> But were going to put a stop on to protect my retriever *then run him down a wire with a drowning lock*. I don't understand!


Mr. Bump? Mr. Specialist? Knock, knock, hello, hello, Mr. Bump, Mr. Specialist, anybody home?


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

While it does sound like typical rhetoric. I did reply and thank him for actually responding in a timely fashion and told him if he can sort through the BS, there is some good discussion on this site, MTA Forum and several others. I even gave links and offered to try to find contact information of posters if he wanted..

I hope all that discuss this on here actually take the time to email or send letters also. If you wait till the river gets narrow, it gets pretty hard to turn the boat...


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

I received a response from Adam also and he wants to drown my dog too. Seems that common sense is lacking and we are in for a rough time. He wanted a phone call but I am emailing and copying the NRC.

Dale


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

What you guys have to remember is these people are not trappers. They have little or no knowledge of what works and what doesn't work. I have no doubt who ever thought up this stop deal thought he just came up with the holy grail.

What really bothers me though is instead of working with us or talking to the experts we recommend, we get this garbage. Just because they have 4 years of college behind them they know what works and what wont.

Now do you really think there worried about catching a animal we can already trap or they just wanted to come up with something else to justify a stop? Why would a snare in the water be anymore of a problem for my duck dog than a castor mound set with a mb750 on a lock? 

OOPS maybe I shouldn't of pointed that out. Next year that set will have to be in a 12 by 12 box with a opening not to extend more than 6 in from the bottom and be half submerged in the water.:help:

Griff


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon (Jan 15, 2003)

Griff,
has anyone ironed out if this will affect under ice snares as well or will they be left as is?


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

At least you got a responce. I didn't. They need to drop the open water snaring issue for now and do somw testing on their proposed loop size. When they do address open water snaring they need to set rules on it as a separate traping form and not align it with under ice snaring.


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

Brandon in Adam's reply to me he said that there was no intent to change the under ice regulations however in reality it will depend on the exact wording and the C.O's interpretation.Mr. Hendershot:

Thank you for your April 15, 2009 correspondence to the Natural Resource Commission (NRC) regarding the proposed furbearer regulations. The NRC has asked me to respond.

*Bobcat Trapping*
Bobcat harvest amounts by month were evaluated to determine the impacts of various season structure options. While some segments of the bobcat population may be more available in February, there is not a significant increase in harvest in the month of February by either hunting or trapping. The proposed season structure will result in a similar reduction to the harvest as a concurrent hunting and trapping season in December and January.

*Dryland Body Gripping Traps*
Changes have been proposed to dry land body-gripping trapping regulations to reduce the potential for dogs to be caught in these traps, while retaining this important tool for trappers. Changes were proposed to both private and public lands due to incidents on both ownerships. These situations create conflicts that can potentially have a significant negative impact on the future of trapping.

The DNR recognizes the importance of dry land body-gripping traps, especially for the harvest of raccoon. The regulations allow for the placement of 160 size traps, which are not placed in a box, provided they do not utilize a bait, lure, or attractant. Box set restrictions are intended to reduce the likelihood of incidents with dogs, but retain most of the functionality of the trap.

There are also many other trap options available to trappers. Some of the more recent raccoon specific foothold traps are proving to be at least as efficient as dry land body-gripping traps for the targeted harvest of raccoons.

*Open Water Beaver Snaring*
Trappers in Michigan have requested the use of open water beaver snaring for several years. The Department reviewed the issue on multiple occasions. In discussions with various trappers, trapping organizations, dog hunters, biologists, and law enforcement personnel, the three primary concerns for open water beaver snaring were the potential to increase incidental catch of otters, the limited potential to snare water retrieving dogs, and potential pelt damage. 

In order to expand trapping opportunities, it was necessary to reduce these concerns. A 5 inch stop reduces the chance of a dog becoming snared, while allowing snares to be only half submerged rather than completely submerged. A 5 inch loop may allow most otters to escape but will capture beaver. Most catches would likely be body catches. In order to address concerns with pelt damage the proposed regulations require that the snares be drowning sets. Trappers would always have the option of not using open water snares if damage seems too significant. It was not our intention to require a stop on under ice snares.

The trapping community has been involved in many discussions over the past year on these changes. While the proposed changes may not be exactly what the trappers would prefer, their input was very important in the development of these regulations. All of the proposed changes were presented at the March furtaker's meeting. We did go back and examine some of the issues brought forward at that meeting prior to submitting the proposed regulations changes as we had discussed at that meeting.

Thank you for your comments on the bobcat season in the northern lower peninsula (NLP). Bobcat season changes in the NLP are not proposed for this year but we will consider your input in the future. We are aware that the NLP bobcat season is of interest to trappers.

Thank you again for your interest in the management of Michigans furbearers. The NRC will be reviewing the proposed regulations changes for information on May 7, 2009 with action scheduled for the June 4, 2009 meeting. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me at 517-373-1263.

Sincerely:


Adam Bump
Furbearer and Bear Specialist


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

Just a note Adam wanted me to call but I will email and copy the NRC so I know they get my responses and there is a paper trail of exactly what is said. If you haven't written yet it is not to late PLEASE SEND A LETTER.

Thanks
Dale


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

I have received the same form letter that you all have received from the DNR.


----------



## fowl (Feb 15, 2003)

I am not taking sides on this one. But, I can tell you that these guys do hunt and trap. 

Also, just to clarify the whole concept behind drowning sets, as most of you know. When beaver (or other water dwelling mammals) get trapped, they dive. If my retriever were to get caught I don't think that he would dive. Thus, a drowning set would not be effective on a critter that doesn't dive.

I'm really not taking sides, but I 'll probably catch he-- for this one anyway :chillin:


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

fowl said:


> If my retriever were to get caught I don't think that he would dive. Thus, a drowning set would not be effective on a critter that doesn't dive.


I can't speak for you but, I would much rather see my retreivers head caught in a snare (even one without a stop) than a 330 conibear. Atleast I'd have some time to free him. In a Conibear...well...


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon (Jan 15, 2003)

Racoons dont dive very often yet they go down a drowner just fine. 

Honestly it looks to me like these proposed rules were written by hound hunters and any input from the trapping comunity was ignored. 


Taking away trapping practices we already had and telling us they are giving us more. Of course what they are giving us is not very useful in the field.


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

BHB I agree. dont wizz down my back and tell me its raining.


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

Brandon,

Absolutely not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Honestly it looks to me like these proposed rules were written by hound hunters"

The hound hunters were very supportive of conibear use at the meetings. You should look back and read Gary's post about that fact.

Last fall at the furharvesters meeting I stated that conibear use should be left to the discretion of the trapper and that we ought to give trapper education a chance.

We have enough issues to over come, we don't need imaginary issues mixed into the mess.


----------

