# sad article from eric sharp



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

bentduck said:


> I think conibear traps should not be legal on dry land unless elevated.


Bentduck,

I'm glad you're not the one making trapping regulations. The laws regarding conibears on dry land are perfectly adequate. I recommend you educate yourself on the subject before weighing in. Currently, the regulations prohibit placing conibears greater than 6" (measured between the hinges) on dry land. There is little if any chance of the average lab, beagle, or whatever getting caught and held in one. 



bentduck said:


> Snare traps on the other hand are legal and designed to release "non target animals unharmed. They are also very effective on dry land.


Another misinformed statement- first off, I don't even know what a "snare trap" is. If it is snares you speak of, they are not legal on public land. Secondly, snares (as they exist under current Michigan regulations) are not a humane tool for the taking of canines as they cause a great deal of damage to the animal, rather than killing it outright. Contrary to what you've stated, they (when fabricated as required by the Michigan law) are not at all effective!


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

_Another misinformed statement- first off, I don't even know what a "snare trap" is. If it is snares you speak of, they are not legal on public land. Secondly, snares (as they exist under current Michigan regulations) are not a humane tool for the taking of canines as they cause a great deal of damage to the animal, rather than killing it outright. Contrary to what you've stated, they (when fabricated as required by the Michigan law) are not at all effective!_

I spoke with a DNR officer last year who told me an area trapper caught three (3) bobcat while coyote trapping in my area (in snares). He is a pretty well known trapper in the area and all three cats were released unharmed. The snares ARE legal and conformed to state law. Conibear laws very from state to private land and I would suggest that before you start pointing a finger you check the regulations yourself.

If you go back an re-read my original post I clearly stated I was not familiar with the current laws on conibear traps but if the law allowed for the situation that occured on state land, it should be changed. I should have been more clear that I wasn't talking about 110's ..my bad. The point is that snares are legal and used with great effectivness. Fool proof? Nope, but a good legal solution for trapping on state land for canines.


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

I have talked with people in the area who have talked with the CO who investigated the incident. The set was perfectly legal. The hunter was not the saint that the article insinuated. This is another case of irresponsible reporting by a one sided writer. The damage is done and while we can write a rebuttle in a "letter to the editor", it is not the same as a published article. Free speech is a great right in this country, unfortunately free speech does not mandate including all the facts.
On the subject of snares for canines, they can only be used in January and February.


----------



## augustus0603 (Oct 24, 2005)

Gary A. Schinske said:


> I have talked with people in the area who have talked with the CO who investigated the incident. The set was perfectly legal. The hunter was not the saint that the article insinuated. This is another case of irresponsible reporting by a one sided writer. The damage is done and while we can write a rebuttle in a "letter to the editor", it is not the same as a published article. Free speech is a great right in this country, unfortunately free speech does not mandate including all the facts.
> On the subject of snares for canines, they can only be used in January and February.


How is your story any more credible than Eric Sharp's? 

I'm not portraying Eric Sharp as a saint, but if there was no identification on the trap, it makes it illegal. 

*Anyone who hunts, fishes, or traps illegally gives the sport a bad name. *


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

Kind of sounds like those boys may have been tressapassing on private property. Am I right Gary?


----------



## augustus0603 (Oct 24, 2005)

FixedBlade said:


> Kind of sounds like those boys may have been tressapassing on private property. Am I right Gary?


If you're referring to the guy that lost his dog, the article states he was in the Mason Tract, which is state land. 

But maybe he heard from someone who heard from someone else, who heard differently from someone else.


----------



## superposed20ga (Dec 14, 2005)

the rapids said:


> i think youre giving those type of people too much credit. they dont have balls like that. if anything the animal rights people would be to hunting dogs what christian missionaries are to indigenous peoples, trying to convert them into something unnatural. in this case, not acting as hunting dogs are bred to act.





Gander Club said:


> Why has no one given any thought to the fact that the trap may have been set for a dog? No responsible trapper would make a set like the one described, but an animal rights person could kill two birds with one stone by setting it up for a dog. Kill a dog...blame the trapper. Now you have set into place the possiblity of having one option of trapping made illegal and killed an evil hunting dog as well.


 
I would not put it passed certain animal rights' people of doing something like this, although the evidence posted in recent comments seems to point that this was a terrible set of events involving a legal set but a trap made illegal by lack of an ID tag. Some animal rights' people are less concerned about animals and more concerned about having a cause to fight for. The death of one or even several animals is of little meaning when they consider the attention that they can garner for themselves and their cause. While some people in that camp are legitimately concerned for animal welfare, many more simply want attention for themselves. This is why they cannot conceive of the benefit managed hunting and trapping has for animal populations. We should all redouble our efforts to put forth responsible images.


----------



## Nwing (Aug 17, 2005)

Gary A. Schinske said:


> I have talked with people in the area who have talked with the CO who investigated the incident. The set was perfectly legal. The hunter was not the saint that the article insinuated. This is another case of irresponsible reporting by a one sided writer. The damage is done and while we can write a rebuttle in a "letter to the editor", it is not the same as a published article. Free speech is a great right in this country, unfortunately free speech does not mandate including all the facts.
> On the subject of snares for canines, they can only be used in January and February.


How was the bird hunter "not a saint"? If he was hunting legally, and lost his dog to an illegal(unmarked, or oversize) trap....he's got a valid complaint(legally). Even if everything WAS "legal", it does not change the fact that the trapper in question was entirely irresponsible for setting a potentially lethal(to canines) trap on public land frequented by bird hunters(and thus, their dogs). It also won't change how terrible the bird hunter feels, and trying to make him the "bad guy" some how, is just adding fuel to the fire.
Yes, I know, the set may have been legal..but the damage to trapping it's likely caused in the public eye is likely irreversible...and it all could have been avoided by a bit of common sense on the part of the trapper(set a smaller trap, and set it in a way that a dog won't put it's head thorough it, and most importantly, pick an area or time that's not frequented by bird hunters or other dog owners).
I'll likely get slammed for this..but we as outdoorsmen cannot continue to pretend that every "legal" activity we do, is the RIGHT one at that time, and that place. Some times...we have to change our tactics to accommodate someone else. I don't trap, but if I did, it would be in a way and place so as to do everything I could to avoid even the chance of an encounter such as this one.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

I'll likely get slammed for this..but we as outdoorsmen cannot continue to pretend that every "legal" activity we do, is the RIGHT one at that time, and that place. Some times...we have to change our tactics to accommodate someone else. I don't trap, but if I did, it would be in a way and place so as to do everything I could to avoid even the chance of an encounter such as this one.

You are right .... your gonna' get slammed 

I agree with you though!


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

augustus0603 said:


> How is your story any more credible than Eric Sharp's?
> 
> I'm not portraying Eric Sharp as a saint, but if there was no identification on the trap, it makes it illegal.
> 
> *Anyone who hunts, fishes, or traps illegally gives the sport a bad name. *


 

Eric Sharpe is a tool, look at the article he wrote about Fred Trost when he passed away. I do not have any respect for the man, his articles frequently are 'motivated'. 

It is possible that the tag was knocked off when the dog struggled or the guy knocked the tag off when he was wrestling the trap trying to get it off the dog. It is a sad story, and I would never wish this upon anyone, I believe the story could have been a little more informative. Like trap size, that is the biggest question in my mind.

Everyone seems to be getting excited about the 'fact' the trap did not have a tag on it, maybe it popped off? Let me ask you this........if the trap had a tag on it........the dog would have still been killed right? I would really like to know what size connibear it was.


----------



## Nwing (Aug 17, 2005)

soggybtmboys said:


> Eric Sharpe is a tool, look at the article he wrote about Fred Trost when he passed away. I do not have any respect for the man, his articles frequently are 'motivated'.
> 
> It is possible that the tag was knocked off when the dog struggled or the guy knocked the tag off when he was wrestling the trap trying to get it off the dog. It is a sad story, and I would never wish this upon anyone, I believe the story could have been a little more informative. Like trap size, that is the biggest question in my mind.
> 
> Everyone seems to be getting excited about the 'fact' the trap did not have a tag on it, maybe it popped off? Let me ask you this........if the trap had a tag on it........the dog would have still been killed right? I would really like to know what size connibear it was.


So would I. However as I said..even if the set was totally legal..it does not change the fact that it was set in a way as to allow a dog to be killed. 
Given it was on public land, that's simply irresponsible of the trapper, regardless of if it was "legal" or not. If it was set to kill coyotes..then common sense dictates it will also kill a dog of similar size. If any other hunting with dogs is going on on the land...it was completely irresponsible to set it there, in that manner.
Fire away..but deep down, most of you will know I am right.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Nwing said:


> So would I. However as I said..even if the set was totally legal..it does not change the fact that it was set in a way as to allow a dog to be killed.
> Given it was on public land, that's simply irresponsible of the trapper, regardless of if it was "legal" or not. *If it was set to kill coyotes..then common sense dictates it will also kill a dog of similar size.* If any other hunting with dogs is going on on the land...it was completely irresponsible to set it there, in that manner.
> Fire away..but deep down, most of you will know I am right.


 
Again, I would like to know what size trap was set. This is a legal size trap to be set on the ground on public land, it is a 160



This trap is 6x6 and is legal. This trap is not designed to kill yotes, it is designed for the taking of fisher, martin, raccoon, opossum, skunks, groundhogs. 

The size connibear needed to target something like a yote is illegal to place on public land.

When I use this trap, generally it is above the ground and in a bucket inaccessible to dogs. It's really too bad for the dog and his owner, but I will say this as well, it's public land and everyone uses it. The set may not have been in best judgement considering how much dog traffic in the area...but it is also not in good taste to want to necessarily fry the trapper either.

Neighborhood speed limit is 25 mph, your dog runs out in front of my car. I am traveling 25mph, dog gets hit and killed. It's my fault???????


----------



## ottertrapper (Jan 6, 2006)

Nwing said:


> Given it was on public land, that's simply irresponsible of the trapper, regardless of if it was "legal" or not. If it was set to kill coyotes..then common sense dictates it will also kill a dog of similar size. If any other hunting with dogs is going on on the land...it was completely irresponsible to set it there, in that manner.
> Fire away..but deep down, most of you will know I am right.


First off I would like to say that is terrible news about the guys dog I can feel his pain for the loss of his hunting dog and pet.

Second I highly doubt this trap was set for coyotes I have never heard of anyone targeting coyotes with a conibear nor do I know anyone who has ever taken a coyote in a conibear. Not saying it has never happened, but it wouldn't happen often. We can't be quick to judge here. This whole situation is unfortunate for everyone involved and I do agree it was a poorly written article. OT


----------



## Northcountry (Feb 4, 2004)

Obviously a bad situation for both parties, but one point I'd like to make, because I didnt see it stated yet....

It is assumed that the trapper used poor judgement in locating his trap. Nobody in their right mind would set traps near upland bird cover, with trail roads nearby, etc. I cant even begin to count all the places I have declined to set, because I thought upland bird hunters might show up.

But...

What if the trapper was set in a "**** area" and it was the bird hunter who was hunting a goofy area, that wouldnt be considered upland bird habitat?

Not saying this is the case at all...but trying to make the point that even with consideration, foresight and good intentions, a well-placed trap may become the subject of scorn if a wayward bird hunter is hunting outside traditional upland bird cover.


----------



## Nwing (Aug 17, 2005)

I am not saying this was an illegal trap...there is nothing in the article even, to point to that. 
All I'm saying is that it was set in a way, or location, that obviously a dog could get into it. 
The article said it was set on top of a pile of sticks, using canned meat for bait. Common sense would dictate that is a very dangerous set on public lands where it's possible hunting dogs will be active.
I think we MUST hold our own accountable when they screw up this badly.
(edited to be a bit more PC...sorry, this kind of thing makes us all look bad..and we must police our own, or others will).


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Nwing said:


> I am not saying this was an illegal trap...there is nothing in the article even, to point to that.
> All I'm saying is that it was set in a way, or location, that obviously a dog could get into it. Given the nature of the intended targets that are legal on public land...every one can be caught in a trap set high enough that dogs cant get into it. The article says it was on top of a pile of sticks, and used canned meat for bait? Come on....ANYONE can see what the problem with that set is, particularly on public land.
> THAT is the point...love or hate Sharpe, he made the same point.
> If we don't do it, and put feet to fire of those who do things this detrimental to the lifestyle we all love...someone else will.
> Fire away, at least I can sleep at night knowing I said what needed to be said.


 
Nwing, do you trap? If not, you are basing your opinion on emotion and no fact. 

I asked this question earlier:

Neighborhood speed limit is 25 mph, your dog runs out in front of my car. I am traveling 25mph, dog gets hit and killed. It's my fault???????

So if I follow your logic, then it would stand to reason that the speed limit should be reduced to 5 miles per hour then......right?

No, I am not missing your point and I am not trying to be antagonistic, but the bottom line are couple of points.

1. If the set was legal and trap was legal, it was by and large a terrible accident....I am sure everyone involved feels very bad about.

2. When Sharp wrote the article he did not site any relevant facts. Pile of sticks could have been anything......or the stabilizing sticks trapper use for their connibears.

3. Canned meat is commonly used for trapping *****, skunks, opossums, and a plethora of other critters. Dogs are curious and had something different been used, the result would have been the same. Canned meat is legal bait.

4. Poor judgement could have been on either party, noone knows for sure and it is speculative at best at this point.

5. Hunting and the outdoors in general, has it's hazards and everyone should get familiar with them. Read the sticky on releasing dogs from traps.

Furthermore, before you go blasting and making some sort of generalizations....just remember...the trappers are the ones helping to make better hunting for the upland guys by ridding some furbearers who prey on upland game......especially fowl.

Again, and I feel that I have state enough....if it were me.....it would have been off the ground. You cannot be certain exactly what happened, there are too many missing variables in Sharp's write up......and it is clear to me that the man does not care for trappers much, otherwise he would have written his story alot more carefully and explained the situation very clearly.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Here is a pic with my hand, to give you a reference to the size of a 160, they are not some sort of big trap. Not a big fella neither


----------



## Nwing (Aug 17, 2005)

soggybtmboys said:


> Nwing, do you trap? If not, you are basing your opinion on emotion and no fact.
> 
> I asked this question earlier:
> 
> ...


First, no, I am not a trapper. I have however defended trapping often on here(see the various dog hunter/bobcat trapping threads), AND I have helped with sets before, and am moderately familiar with them.
However..in this case, this may be an advantage for me, as I can see the big picture here perhaps better then someone who(understandably enough) wants desperately to think that this was NOT the fault of the trapper.
I am going only by the end results..
IF the trap had been placed high, which is a completely viable set for any of the animals legal for that area...the dog would still be alive, and this thread would not exist.
The fact is, it was low enough for the dog to get caught. There is no reason for this. I AGAIN am not saying it was an illegal trap set...never have said that. Due to the location and nature of the set..the size of the trap is almost irrelevant..it was evidently large enough for a dog to put it's head into, AND it was set low enough for a dog to reach. The first point is not at the heart of this(although initially for me it was...) The second point is.
If every trapper took the time to set traps on public land that would not catch dogs(which is entirely possible..again, set them high) then this simply would never happen. Given the nature of the target species...the high sets work just as well as a ground set, thus, they should be strongly encouraged.
Again...legal does not always mean right.
I don't want to argue with people who I really think mean well(all of you here)..but really...the fact remains that this was a completely avoidable situation, had the trap just been set with some common sense.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

lang49 said:


> Bentduck,
> 
> I'm glad you're not the one making trapping regulations. The laws regarding conibears on dry land are perfectly adequate. I recommend you educate yourself on the subject before weighing in. Currently, the regulations prohibit placing conibears greater than 6" (measured between the hinges) on dry land. There is little if any chance of the average lab, beagle, or whatever getting caught and held in one. ,,,,,
> !


A brittany,, maybe???


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

A couple of items here Nwing:



Nwing said:


> IF the trap had been placed high, which is a completely viable set for any of the animals legal for that area...the dog would still be alive, and this thread would not exist.


Just so you're aware, a 160 is humane option for taking a wide range of furbearers- one of the reason it is so popular. 160's can easily used for ****, mink, muskrat, skunks, porcupine, and probably others I've forgotten. I don't know what the "trapper" in question was attempting to catch. But, If you can tell me how to make a "completely viable set" for mink, muskrat, or skunk anywhere but on the ground, I'll be all ears. 



Nwing said:


> If every trapper took the time to set traps on public land that would not catch dogs(which is entirely possible..again, set them high) then this simply would never happen.


Aside from the "trapper" involved in this incident, Trappers can and do attempt to make sets that shouldn't catch dogs. However, please recognize that state land is not exclusively for the enjoyment of bird hunters. Bird hunters can and should stay close to their dogs so as to exercise control. Ultimately, the trapper has no control over where your dog goes. You the owner have the ability and responsibility to know where your dog is at all times (not to confuse the issue- as I have no idea if that was an issue in this incident). The closer you are to your dog, the more rapidly you can assist your dog in the event that something like this should happen. 

In the end, trappers and bird hunters share a resource. Trappers are responsible for the location of their traps- bird hunters are responsible for the location of their dogs- period.


----------

