# Houndsman strike blow agains trappers



## Mallard (Jan 9, 2002)

never mind then....


----------



## Buddy Lee (Dec 17, 2003)

This should be a good thread. :sad:


----------



## Big50blaster (Feb 4, 2005)

with Buddy G. oh I mean Lee.:sad: 

Lock this hear thread up fore it gits started!


----------



## Big50blaster (Feb 4, 2005)

I knows that in other states thats already what the laws say bout snares and 24 hr check time. Some places won't let snares be used at all. I know nobody wants to be reglated, everyone has to lern to git a long. This goes for all hunters. 

They has probably had two many cougars being illegally killed in snares.:lol:


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

Actually, in all fairness the new rules were not purposed by the houndsmen. The new rules were purposed by the DNR based on the results of their Fox/Coyote Trapping survey, and a current study being done by a USDA trapper.

Houndsmen are not aganist trapping or snaring. In fact, houndsmen originally supported snaring. It wasn't until some problems surfaced that some, not all houndsmen, started questioning snaring.

The funny part to this whole issue is I know as many houndsmen who also trap then I know houndsmen who don't trap. As much as some individuals from both groups want to pit each group aganist the other, I believe there is much more common ground than some are willing to admit on both sides.

I am a houndsmen who traps. I don't support all the rule changes, but do feel some issues needed attention. The fact that both sides couldn't come to an agreement has contributed to both sides losing. Yes both sides losing. Anytime any outdoor pursuit diminishes, all outdoor groups suffer.

I have a quote on my door. It says, "In the absence of truth perception is reality." I say any time any group whether it is an outdoor group or not questions an outdoor activity we as outdoorsmen need to bust our butts to educate those individuals. At the same time we as outdoorsmen should never discount anothers concerns as unimportant. Let's educate not alienate.

JMO on the topic.


----------



## 2-BIG (Oct 17, 2002)

What did I miss?  I'll go to the MTA site and see if it is posted there.


----------



## Joe R. (Jan 9, 2002)

This subject has pushed by blood to the boiling point more than anything else I have ever been involved with. I've been to several meetings where the leaders of the dog hunting groups were present. I've tried to educate them on the methods and ways of snaring. Guess what. The only thing that ever happened out of those situations was that I was interupted more times then I care to mention. When someone won't let you finish a sentence without interupting you, it doesn't show an eagerness to learn. I find it hard to believe that the houndsmen weren't behind these proposed changes. I had a houndsmen at Outdooramma causing a scene at our booth preaching the very regulations that were proposed to the NRC. I know this because I listened to the guy. When I tried to speak I was interupted over, and over, and over...... The changes may have been introduced to the NRC by a biologist, but I will wager next weeks pay check that he has some sort of ties to one of the dog hunting groups. In all of the meetings that I have been there has never been one problem with a legal snare. All instances that were mentioned involved the ILLEGAL use of snares. Sorry, but I have a right to be upset when a group of individuals wants to impose more stringent regulations on trappers due to the ILLEGAL activities of some individual. To put that in perspective for everyone. The next time some one nails a platform to a tree on state land we should outlaw treestands. The next time someone catches an overlimit of walleye lets close the season all together. The next time someone fishes for suckers on a designated trout stream without a trout stamp lets make it illegal to fish period. Now I know most of you are going to read that and say that is rediculous, and it doesn't have anything to do with the issue. That is where you are wrong. Rules and regulations are there for a reason. If you don't follow them you are a violator. Why punish those that follow the rules for the ILLEGAL acts of others. Once you take away the rights of the people operating in a legal and ethical fashion all you have left is violators, and isn't that where this whole mess started to begin with.
Larry I'm not picking on you here so don't take this personally. I recieved one of the furharvesters surveys this year and there weren't any questions on there that would have given them any information to come up with the regulation changes that are proposed. I also find it funny that the houndsmen groups are now all of a sudden in favor of regulation changes based on a study that isn't completed yet. Wasn't too long ago that was considered taboo when they tried to stop the new trapping season on bobcats in the NL. Once again Larry this isn't anything personal against you just the information which you received.

Joe


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

No problem Joe. I know for a fact that there was one major item on the questionaire that bothered them. The sources of information trappers used for snaring. There were two very good answers, but the majority of the trappers didn't select either. I also think the number of dogs listed as being caught may have bothered them too. Anyway, there was information there that could have been interpreted that maybe a problem did exist.

I do know this I am a houndsmen who don't believe that law biding individuals should be held accountable for a few slobs, and I believe that as it pertains to snares. As a trapper I know, trapping in of itself is a very volatile subject. Based on that fact alone, I really think trappers should be doing more within our ranks. I also know this isn't a popular subject, but trappers need to start to embrace what science can do for them. We all should be looking for ways to insure the legacy of trapping continues. Whether we like it or not that means working within a system that we don't necessarily agree with all the time.

I believe the houndsmen of the state over reacted twice last year. I believe the issues weren't handled properly. I also believe that both groups don't have a clue on how to negotiate. Both groups are letting their emotions rule over good judgement. Both groups had a golden opportunity last year and both messed it up. I know from teaching my own boys. That I give them a chance to work out problems. If they can't come to a solution, then I step in. Now while one boy may think I favor the other, the truth is I am not. In the long run they both lose. I know right now the trappers think the houndsmen are gloating, but I don't see that. I see two groups who both lost credibility in the last year.


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

Larry. The times of free casting dogs has come to an end. More property is privatly owned, or at least those property owners are more concerned with being sued then ever before. Unwanted trespass is no longer tolerated as it was in the past. Hounds-mae must be aware of this because I constantly read of conflicts due to the runing of hounds on private property. It seems to always boil down to "dogs can't read signs, and we have the rite to retreive our dogs". I see these as to ages old excuses used by dog owners that do not want to change with the times. I have never read where hound hunters are traning their dogs to return when their called. How about blowing the truck horn three times to siginel the dogs to come back? Is this any different than using a whistle for training retrievers? I don't think I have ever heard the hounds-men discuss compensation to land owners for the disturbence their dogs have caused. Lets say a hound dog went onto private property and bit the land owner, maybe scared a little girl or killed a pet. Do you think that the public should sensationalize these incidents in the media and suggest banning hound hunting? That is what this is all about. You may say that trappers need to come into the future, but what are the hounds-men doing? What have they done to aliviate the problem of their dogs going onto private property. Hounds-men always seem to think that they are the only ones to lose something when a dog is caught in a snare. A trapper has spent hours driving, scouting and placing that snare. There is a cost for each snare and a loss of money from the pelt that snare will not produce. These costs can be in the hundreds of dollars. Has any hounds-men you know told a trapper, hey my dog got into your snare here is a hundred bucks for your losses? It is a two way street. I'll tell you a little about me. I would not want mu dog to get into a snare, then again, I would not want to lose my snare to a dog.


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

Fixedblade,

I am confused. First of all, a snare is a one time used instrument especially if you don't have ample swivels. The more swivels the more likely you could reuse a snare. Second, a couple of hundred dollars for a snare? They average out to about $2.00 a piece ... well at least the ones I bought this last fall did. Then add a $25.00 coyote pelt to the cost ... frankly, I don't see where you get a couple hunderd dollars.

Next, if you reread my post, I am not blaming one group. I am blaming both groups. We, all outdoorsmen and women, are supposed to be adults who live in a society where compromise is a fact of life. We have to move beyond the finger pointing and the he said they said crap. We have to start using our heads instead of our emotions and acting like adults. Until we do, I see big brother stepping in and making rules that neither of us like. Then one day those rules will change and make this argument mute as those freedoms will be lost forever.


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

Larry, time is money. I think that my time is worth 50. an hour. When you spend time knocking on doors, scouting land, setting traps, checking traps, gas, snares, swivels and pelts. I come up with a couple hundred. But my point is do houndsmen compensate trappers for their loss. The answer is no. Maybe both groups could set aside money to help cover the losses of the other. I think this is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Kevin Smith (Jul 16, 2003)

Apparently I've been doing it wrong all these years and teaching my boys wrong....it's all 'bout money???? Somebody shoulda' told me years ago. I've been doing it all this time just because I enjoy it :lol: Same with my dogs, it's a big drain of money but I sure enjoy them.


----------



## Rondevous (Mar 14, 2005)

I would strongly suggest that all the different sports people contact their own orgs. and tell them "We need to come up with some open table talks and solutions"

The in fighting that has prevailed will only damage all the outdoor sports.

No simple answers from me, only the fact that we are hurting our own causes is starkly apparent.

Trappers and hunters, all need to realize we are under fire from outside sources DAILY.
Become part of a solution.


----------



## Velgang (Jan 17, 2004)

Mallard see what you started! LOL.

Larry you mention we as Trappers need to do more in our ranks. Well you should talk to a man named John Caretti the education chairman of the MTA. This man has put countless hours in over the last year and a half putting together a Trappers education program that the DNR will accept. 

Or Joe R. that has been posting on here, he and a large group of Trappers spent the week at outdoorama promoting our sport, answering questions and giving accurate information on Trapping and snaring.

Or the President of the MTA Mike Seelman who has worked with the NTA to get out videos of " Destroying the myth". And also working with other sporting groups accross the state.

Or Dave Lyons working with groups of kids and trapping.

Or Jack O. giving a Trappers novice class on his property with the DNR.

I could go on and on about what the people of the MTA do for Trapping but that will take all night. And all of these peaple do this for free.

When someone says the MTA needs to do more, well our next board meeting is June 5th at 10:00am at Elm hall Mi. come and do more.

What this all boils down to is like what was already said, If someone is not following the law then they are violating.

If someone is caught speeding on I-75 should we close that highway down? A little common sense goes a long way.

Just my 2 cents.

Joe


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

Joe,

E-mail me, and I will explain what I mean. I know how many of the members volunteer time and dollars to promote trapping. I also know I have personally worked over a half dozen outdoor shows myself sitting at a trapping booth promoting the sport. I would never question the MTA membership's loyality to the MTA or trapping. 

If anything can be said, a little too much passion may have been exhibited rather than rational well thought out dialogue on both sides of the issue.
I could start listing precise mess-ups in this whole deal, but no one would benefit from it. At this point, all I want to do is avoid further damage to the creditability of both groups.


----------



## Mallard (Jan 9, 2002)

In the mean time.....the houndsman are now going to go after bodygrippers on private land, or so I'm told. They will not stop until their dogs are safe for free casting. Well fellows....there's two ways to go about this: ban all land set conibears, or eliminate free casting dogs. It's my opinion that we need to eliminate free casting dogs immediately in defence of our right to trap these PRIVATE lands with a very humane and practical tool....namely the conibear. If free casting is eliminated, then we needent worry about loosing this tool in the name of free cast dogs safety.

The best defence is a strong offence, and many are in support of this action. 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but the houndsmen aparently aren't going to stop until we're stuck with using nothing but a 1.5 softcatch trap for everything. 

Free casting has to go. Period.


----------



## predatordave (Feb 24, 2003)

great thread  

this all started over some stupid little bobcats. heck if you guys want to kill some cats why dont we go over to wisconsin and have some fun. 

if you believe that free casting should be banned good for you. great way to solve things. heck we might as well ban all dog hunting. 

man i keep telling myself i should be a tree hugger, there wouldnt be any of this silly drama. they just blow up SUV's when they get mad.

later, dave


----------



## Mallard (Jan 9, 2002)

So dave...just sit back and let the houndsmen have their way with trapping regs in order to preserves their dogs safety as it trespasses across the state eh? Give up snares, give up coni's, give up all non-padded traps over 1.5 size etc.....

Remember....the snare regs were unleashed against all LAW ABIDING trappers due to a few ILLEGAL snares catching free cast dogs. Don't you see the validity in trappers uniting against free casting in order to preserve the tools we're left with, or do you feel the free cast folks should simply write the rules for all of us?


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

Mallard,

With all due respect, you should get your facts straight first. First and foremost, I seem to remember houndsmen supporting snares when snaring had not been legal in this state for many decades.

Secondly, when do a few emotional posters on a message board speak for all members of an orgainzation?

I will extend to you the same offer that I did to Joe, if you want to reasonably discuss the issues.


----------



## predatordave (Feb 24, 2003)

i dont think you have to give up things. i just dont think you should fight back in the manner that you are. i thought it has always been better to be the better person when it comes to conflict. i may not always do that, but i also didnt say they should ban trapping did i. 

sorry larry, if you think i am just one of those emmotional posters. but i am when somebody says the way i hunt should be banned period. once again though i never said we should ban trapping and i dont think anybody is saying that so why ban free casting.

especially when not all of us are trespassers.

i will keep my fingers from moving now. 

later, dave


----------

