VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Sounds like it should be a 60's vegas lounge act.
H.R. 8828 introduced -Leghold and conibear traps
- Thread starter Brandon270
- Start date
RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter
Well-known member
I now live in Washington where I cannot trap with any sort of body-grip style trap. The idea being that holding an animal to be killed is inhumane. That said, you can trap and kill with a have-a-heart style trap (but only under pretty strict conditions). I have trapped and killed hundreds of animals related to agricultural damage (in a different state), it's not my favorite thing to do, but if you wanna eat (including vegatables) it's being done for you.
I find arguments like this to be morally inconsistent on several levels. First, a conibear does not "hold" a live animal, it kills it. In fact most sets are designed to kill (think about a beaver set designed to drag the animal underwater). Second, no-one...I mean no-one is advocating the outlaw of glue traps for rodents, which are arguably the same level of "inhumane" as a foothold non-kill set. The animal still has to suffer, wait, and eventually die (which by-the-by also applies to the have-a-heart). We consider the classic mouse-trap to be plenty humane, yet a conibear that kills exactly the same way is somehow evil?
My theory is that big cities deal with rats and mice, but not coyotes (or wolves). As long as we have a system where a large urban population center can dictate terms of living to the rest of the rural population, the rural population will get hit with regulations that make no sense to them. This is why we need to push back on every one of these issues, more so we need to push for "science-only" based wildlife management. Ballot box biology is a bad idea, regardless of your stance on the ethics of method of take, a popular vote is always the wrong way to change policy when it comes to wildlife and our interactions with them.
I find arguments like this to be morally inconsistent on several levels. First, a conibear does not "hold" a live animal, it kills it. In fact most sets are designed to kill (think about a beaver set designed to drag the animal underwater). Second, no-one...I mean no-one is advocating the outlaw of glue traps for rodents, which are arguably the same level of "inhumane" as a foothold non-kill set. The animal still has to suffer, wait, and eventually die (which by-the-by also applies to the have-a-heart). We consider the classic mouse-trap to be plenty humane, yet a conibear that kills exactly the same way is somehow evil?
My theory is that big cities deal with rats and mice, but not coyotes (or wolves). As long as we have a system where a large urban population center can dictate terms of living to the rest of the rural population, the rural population will get hit with regulations that make no sense to them. This is why we need to push back on every one of these issues, more so we need to push for "science-only" based wildlife management. Ballot box biology is a bad idea, regardless of your stance on the ethics of method of take, a popular vote is always the wrong way to change policy when it comes to wildlife and our interactions with them.
BrdHntr
Member
RG Onset, did you really think an explanation of how a conibear works necessary? I think 99.9% of us know they're not a "live trap".
Not sure I understand your logic. I'd much rather have one of my dogs caught in a humane designed foot hold vs. DEAD in a conibear. I'm guessing you think by catch, including hunting dogs and pets is just obligatory collateral damage and no biggie. You do seem to hold house mice and norway rats in high regard....
Not sure I understand your logic. I'd much rather have one of my dogs caught in a humane designed foot hold vs. DEAD in a conibear. I'm guessing you think by catch, including hunting dogs and pets is just obligatory collateral damage and no biggie. You do seem to hold house mice and norway rats in high regard....
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Not sure you read the thread, but for the most part this was not about trapping in general, but rather trapping in a manner that results in many deaths of hunting dogs and other pets. How many hunting dogs and pets are acceptable to be killed by body-grip traps is not a science question, it is a social policy question. I agree that wildlife management should be science based - but not every question facing outdoorsmen is a scientific wildlife question. Science cannot answer what is the right number of accidental dog deaths we should accept.
BuzzH
Well-known member
True, and the first question that needs to be asked, by science, is exactly how many dogs are killed in traps per year.
You used 30 over a 7 year period in Minnesota IIRC, which is a highly populated area with very little public land and a lot more likely to have conflicts that say, MT or WY.
How many dogs are there in MN? According to the google machine about 950,000.
So, per year, 4 dogs out of 950,000 are killed by traps year...probably wayyyyy less than that in WY, MT, NV. etc.
In contrast, how many dogs a year are left in vehicles in the sun and bite the dust? How many fall out the bed of the truck, get flung out during a vehicle rollover? Hit by vehicles?
Multitudes of thousands per year more, why? Because only 16% of pet owners restrain their pets in vehicle...and fair to note, there is no law that says you have to. We also don't hold drivers of vehicles that hit dogs liable either when fluffy gets turned into road pizza. Its an accident, same as when an unrestrained pet gets killed in a trap or snare, its an accident. Nobody is intentionally setting a snare or trap to kill a dog.
Yet, the science and statistics are ignored when 4 dogs a year are killed in traps, while several hundred to a few thousand are ran over, left in hot vehicles, die in rollover accidents, jump out the car window, etc.
This "logic" being used to ban trapping over a few dogs being killed is the exact same "logic" used to pass anti-gun legislation because someone may use one to shoot up a school. Its the IDEA of it happening that causes irrational phobia's, the same as irrational fear that you're going to die in a airplane crash. Statistically its extremely unlikely rover is dying in a trap, folks dying in an airplane crash, or your kids getting shot up by a wingnut with a firearm.
The same people that are calling for a ban on snares and body grip traps that will kill a dog, will turn right around and fight any legislation to limit ANY regulation on firearms when kids are getting shot up in a school.
That's as hypocritical as it is mind numbing...
BrdHntr
Member
BiffH:
The same people that are calling for a ban on snares and body grip traps that will kill a dog, will turn right around and fight any legislation to limit ANY regulation on firearms when kids are getting shot up in a school.
I, for one, am calling for a ban on ground snares and body grip traps that will kill a dog. Biff, if you think for one second that I would stand by in idle mode while kids in schools are getting killed by uzies is, well, biff'd up. You're trying to bolster your argument with....well, expletive censors won't let me post it.
The same people that are calling for a ban on snares and body grip traps that will kill a dog, will turn right around and fight any legislation to limit ANY regulation on firearms when kids are getting shot up in a school.
I, for one, am calling for a ban on ground snares and body grip traps that will kill a dog. Biff, if you think for one second that I would stand by in idle mode while kids in schools are getting killed by uzies is, well, biff'd up. You're trying to bolster your argument with....well, expletive censors won't let me post it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
My odds of being killed by a dog, are exponentially higher than your dog being killed in a trap, that's what the science says.
Maybe we should ban pet ownership.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
New bunch of people out there Buzz. They will fight the trapping, but not firearms regulations. Just as long as it doesn't affect them. mtmuley
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,426
Dude enough with the Biff shit, what are you 12, make your point but that crap just makes you look like a tool.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Seemed more appropriate than the strawman this time . . . .
BuzzH
Well-known member
Don’t make me break out the photo of your friend the straw man again.
Someone posted before my reply...not my straw man problem...I was asking BrdHntr a question regarding his outlandish claim...see above quote.
To which I replied with my question.
I know you just cant wait to bust my balls on anything I say, but you got the wrong guy this time.
Sort of thought my post was self explanatory, and I was fresh out of crayons.
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Comparing gun control to conabears is why you got the flag - 15 yards and loss of down.
BuzzH
Well-known member
That's fine...but the self appointed referee got that straw man call wrong. Instant replay already provided...Comparing gun control to conabears is why you got the flag - 15 yards and loss of down.
RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter
Well-known member
My point was aimed at the fact that the name of a bill and the logic by which is enacted often have little to do with the effect of the law itself. If the aim is to prevent dog deaths (which is an easy thing to support on an emotional level), why take aim at leghold traps?
From the bill itself:
"(1) STEEL-JAW LEGHOLD TRAP.—The term “steel-jaw leghold trap”—
(A) means any spring-powered pan or sear-activated device with one or two opposing steel jaws, whether the jaws are smooth, toothed, padded, enclosed (dog-proof), or offset, that is designed to capture an animal by snapping closed upon the animal’s limb, foot, or part thereof; and
(B) does not include any cage or box trap; suitcase-type live beaver trap; or mouse or rat snap trap."
Rather than consider whether or not the bill matches the logic I get accused of wanting to kill dogs or being totally OK with it. Do you honestly think that is true? My point is that as sportsmen when bills are introduced that effect us we need to pay attention to the way the bill is being written and the way it's sold to us. If it's designed to stir our emotions against the tide of reason then it never passes the smell test for me.
From the bill itself:
"(1) STEEL-JAW LEGHOLD TRAP.—The term “steel-jaw leghold trap”—
(A) means any spring-powered pan or sear-activated device with one or two opposing steel jaws, whether the jaws are smooth, toothed, padded, enclosed (dog-proof), or offset, that is designed to capture an animal by snapping closed upon the animal’s limb, foot, or part thereof; and
(B) does not include any cage or box trap; suitcase-type live beaver trap; or mouse or rat snap trap."
Rather than consider whether or not the bill matches the logic I get accused of wanting to kill dogs or being totally OK with it. Do you honestly think that is true? My point is that as sportsmen when bills are introduced that effect us we need to pay attention to the way the bill is being written and the way it's sold to us. If it's designed to stir our emotions against the tide of reason then it never passes the smell test for me.
Badlandcat
Active member
And who checks to make sure they are being used?
Fish and Game.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I found the recent meat eater podcast, Fur Will Never Shine Again, swayed me again back towards supporting trapping. Even though Steve was once again more of an annoyance than an asset to the conversation, and the old man had a bit too much, 'suck it' attitude for my liking.
Badlandcat
Active member
Maybe in Idaho
