smitty71
Hyper-Active Trap Talker
Posts: 104
|
Post by smitty71 on Jul 28, 2009 13:58:20 GMT -6
On another site a guy put up a bunch of pictures of coni caught (dry land) coon. When he did this he labeled how big each one of his traps was and in one picture he had it labeled as a 280. It was my understanding that we could not use anything over a 220 on land so I pm'd him and told him about it. He wrote back that he had just checked the 2009 regs and that his 280's were 8x8 from the factory and that is what the law reads.
I just got done checking on the DNR website and it reads
Humane traps, or traps designed to kill instant-
ly, with a jaw spread as originally manufactured
that exceeds 8 inches, are unlawful to use except
when placed entirely under water.
So what gives? I don't own any 280's so I have nothing to measure.
Thanks,
Smitty
|
|
|
|
Post by minnow on Jul 28, 2009 14:41:07 GMT -6
smitty, Your right. The way it was explained at the ITA Board meeting that it is to be measured to the out side of the 280 jaw spread. The 280 exceeds the 8" opening. (by just a little too). So it can not be used on land. At least not in Iowa.
|
|
Nick C
Active Trap Talker
Posts: 73
|
Post by Nick C on Jul 28, 2009 14:41:28 GMT -6
I believe there is some 280's that measure to fit Iowa's requirements.
Like the Northwoods 280s??
|
|
smitty71
Hyper-Active Trap Talker
Posts: 104
|
Post by smitty71 on Jul 28, 2009 18:43:43 GMT -6
Minnow - I thought that's how you were supposed to measure them, but wasn't sure. I just want to be able to give him the right info so he doesn't have problems in the future.
Nick - So the Northwoods measure 8 or under? I figured different brands would measure just a bit different, but didn't think that any would meet the Iowa requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by trapperray on Aug 1, 2009 6:44:31 GMT -6
As Nick said, the Northwoods 280's supposedly meet the under 8" requirement. These are popular with Red O'Hearn on his coon lines. I hope I spelled his name right? Can't say I own any of these traps myself, but a DNR personnal confirmed this at a convention a couple of years ago. Later Ray.  |
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Aug 1, 2009 7:58:07 GMT -6
No 280s are legal in Iowa. The northwoods were 250 not 280's they never made a 280 but still are NOT legal. The DNR standardized their measuring of the jaw spread to say "outside" jaw spread like minnow said, a couple years ago. Below is a NW 250 often called a 280....   They are 8" INSIDE jaw spread but not OUTSIDE jaw spread. The regulations we all see don't include the word OUTSIDE though so you could MAYBE have legal leg to stand on if you were ticketed and taken to court, but not with my luck. lol Check out this post from the archives as well.... www.iowatrapperstalk.com/index.cgi?board=laws&action=display&thread=531~ADC~ |
|
smitty71
Hyper-Active Trap Talker
Posts: 104
|
Post by smitty71 on Aug 1, 2009 12:19:51 GMT -6
Thanks for all the info and especially the pics Jayme. I tried once more to convince this guy that 280's are not legal, but he came back at me that they would never write him a ticket because of the way the law reads. Told me that it would never stand up in court and that they wouldn't waste their time with it. He also informed me that the Jasper county DNR doesn't even know what a coni is. He did however thank me for the info, which I didn't really know how to take. Guess a guy can only try and help so much with the information he puts out there. The people he is trying to help have to be willing to listen for any of the info to be worth anything. I just don't want 1 man to give all the trappers in Iowa a black eye if something should happen... ie an incidental catch made in an illegal trap.   Thanks for all the info guys Smitty |
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Aug 1, 2009 15:12:54 GMT -6
Yep, if he catches the wrong persons attention with them 280's you can bet he'll get more than a small fine too. He catches a high dollar bird dog or a wealth old lady's cat...  ~ADC~ |
|
smitty71
Hyper-Active Trap Talker
Posts: 104
|
Post by smitty71 on Aug 1, 2009 16:42:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trapperray on Aug 3, 2009 6:25:30 GMT -6
ADC thanks for the up to date info, my info was from a couple of years ago, thank goodness I don't have any of the 250 Northwoods, hate to get a citation!! Later Ray. |
|
|
|
Post by Bristleback on Aug 3, 2009 9:02:31 GMT -6
Just a "what if" question..............are we completely SURE of how jaw spread is measured? I am NOT sure. Take the TV industry......it's measured diagonally~.....if so, this would ELIMINATE a bunch more traps.
If we think this is going to open an unnecessary can of worms, please delete my question, comments, no hard feelings, I getting used to my stuff being deleted, LOL..........just not on here THANKFULLY! LOL
My point is, there's plenty of things left to "interpretation"......and this can vary from person to person.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Aug 3, 2009 9:06:18 GMT -6
How to measure the jaw spread of a conibear trap has been determined. At the annual meeting of Iowa DNR Officers the following direction was given. The Officers were directed to measure outside to outside of the jaws. The following 280s were too big even if they are measured inside to inside. The Duke 280 BMI 280 Victor 280
Gene ~ADC~ |
|
|
|
Post by Bristleback on Aug 3, 2009 10:46:19 GMT -6
My point still stands...........measure a 220 diagonally..........outside to outside...........?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Aug 3, 2009 13:47:46 GMT -6
My point still stands...........measure a 220 diagonally..........outside to outside...........? It is not diagonally. If it were 220's would not be legal. Furthermore, it is not rivet to rivet either. They are measured from the farthest point of one jaw to the same position of the other jaw when the trap is set. The farthest point is the bends at ends/corners of jaws-those that supposedly keep the springs from going around the corner. My problem with the way they are measured is that footholds are not measured the same way. They are measured to inside of jaws at the dog when set. All that said, why would anyone want to set 280's on land anyway, when 220's are more than efficient. However, I would like to see trappers able to use 280's and 330's in a partial submerged situation and not totally submerged. |
|
|
|
Post by Bristleback on Aug 3, 2009 15:01:20 GMT -6
Is it clearly stated that the measurement is to be taken horizontally?.........or is this one's interpretation? Again, what if, we get a "greenie".......they measure diagonally........"it doesn't say to measure horizontally~" I know for sure it would eliminate 220, I'm wondering how 160 would measure up.
I'm just looking at "what if".........how someone else MAY interpret.
Agree 1000% on the partially submerged 280-330-660.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Aug 3, 2009 16:46:14 GMT -6
My Duke 160's are 9" diagonally.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Aug 3, 2009 19:27:25 GMT -6
Is it clearly stated that the measurement is to be taken horizontally?.........or is this one's interpretation? Again, what if, we get a "greenie".......they measure diagonally........"it doesn't say to measure horizontally~" I know for sure it would eliminate 220, I'm wondering how 160 would measure up. I'm just looking at "what if".........how someone else MAY interpret. Agree 1000% on the partially submerged 280-330-660. Regardless of how you measure them there are NO 280's that measure 8" or less in jaw spread, none. I believe I have personally measured EVERY brand of body grippers on the market today or once were and none measures less than 8" even inside the jaws, to answer Smitty's original question. Common sense dictates that they measure straight across the jaws either side to side or up and down to me. There are lots of laws that can be twisted to fit ones needs on the books but there has to be some common sense on the part of both the trapper and DNR officer. If the laws were written to define ever little circumstance they would look like a set of encyclopedias. lol  ~ADC~ |
|
|
|
Post by chrisf on Aug 3, 2009 19:56:54 GMT -6
All new conservation officers go through the same trapping enforcement training, and are taught how to measure both footholds and conibears. In addition to this new officer training which I have headed up for 11 years, I have also presented several programs on trap measurement to all officers at the annual statewide Conservation Officer's in-service training, so all officers should be on the same page when it comes to measuring traps. Both body-grippers and footholds are measured the same way, which is across the jaws, rather than from spring to spring. Neither conibears nor square jaw footholds are measured diagonally.
The inside jawspread is obtained by taking a measurement from outside of one jaw to the outside of the other jaw of the trap as set, rather than from spring to spring. This measurement will include any jaw laminations added to the trap. The reason for this method of measurement is that the face of the jaw, is inside the set trap. All officers, both new and veteran, have been instructed to measure conibears across the center of the jaws, and not take into consideration the bends in the corner of the jaws.
ADC is absolutely correct when he states that no current production 280 meets the 8" requirement, regardless of how it is measured.
There are ways to make a 280 legal, and I'll leave that to Gene to spill the beans on that method if he so chooses. Yes Gene, Law Enforcement says your trap when set with your modification would be legal. And I will get your trap back to you one of these days, but the prototype does look rather good temporarily sitting in my collection!
cf
|
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Aug 3, 2009 20:34:34 GMT -6
If Chris brings my trap to the convention, and he better, it will be on display for all to see. The change in the trap configuration was suggested and made by Coon trap. Jim can chime in and tell ya all what we did.
Gene
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Rector on Aug 3, 2009 20:40:51 GMT -6
chrisf....Doesn't the law state as "origonally manufactured", how can it be legal if it has been "modified", just curious?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bristleback on Aug 3, 2009 20:41:18 GMT -6
I'm not suggesting 280's are legal........what I'm asking are what are the LAWS......in measuring. My question of a "greenie" isn't a CO, but an anti, a greenie, tree hugger.........
Chris I fully understand you're an accomplished trapper. I'm simply raising a what if question.
.......all traps are measured the same way.........I see not all understand/agree with that, some think inside, some outside....the jaws. I wasn't sure, so I didn't give my "opinion"
Some "whatever" rich lady, looses fluffy along a road, 1/4mile from her house........hires hot shot attorney...........think the Attorney can argue how to measure............just think about it.
Again, is there a LAW that states how to measure conibears.
|
|
|
|
Post by coontrap on Aug 5, 2009 22:46:55 GMT -6
What we did is made a longer dog so when the 280 is set it is
just under 8". The jaws were not changed in any way. All you
have to do is cut the dog in half and extend it so the trap can't
be set with a jawspread any larger than 7and 15/16".
coontrap
|
|
|
|
Post by Bristleback on Aug 7, 2009 13:59:34 GMT -6
Hummm, so with the longer dog, the "280" is partially "closed", I'm just trying to picture this? This begs the question, if your new "dog" makes a 280 legal, in that it doesn't exceed the 8" rule........then what are you gaining? Strength?
Back to measuring conibears........compare the wording on measuring snares vs conibears..........IMO, the wording on measuring snares is very explicite.........conibears, not so.
|
|
|
|
Post by minnow on Aug 7, 2009 15:18:46 GMT -6
Awesome idea! Longer dog. coon trap you are a great thinker! You saved the 280 in Iowa!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by braveheart on Aug 7, 2009 15:34:14 GMT -6
If they sell the 280 duke as a 8-8.Then why when someone else measures them they are to big sounds like a fish story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Aug 7, 2009 18:08:37 GMT -6
chrisf....Doesn't the law state as "origonally manufactured", how can it be legal if it has been "modified", just curious? ou812, I too am curious. If one modification is OK, why would others not be?  How is one to know which modifications are OK?? |
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Aug 7, 2009 20:05:37 GMT -6
What is in question is the jaw spread. The jaws have not been changed. The jaws are measured for enforement when set and measured vertically outside to outside. With this trigger configuration as Jim described the jaw spread we adjusted for is just under 8" and depending on your trigger length could be even smaller.
The only 280 I own is the one that we reconfigured. Regardless of what a manufacturer states as the size, the real test is when set measured outside to outside vertically. You can even get different measurements by setting in a different slot on the dog.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4fur on Aug 8, 2009 6:43:55 GMT -6
That is ingenious! On your organ donor card coontrap, could you leave your brain to 4fur?  |
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Aug 8, 2009 7:08:00 GMT -6
When the regulation setting the 8" jaw limit was written the part "as originally manufactured" was inserted to prevent the adding of new jaws inside the jaws of a 330 type conibear. At that particular time the 330s were legal on dryland.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Aug 8, 2009 7:45:57 GMT -6
Hypothetically then, You could use 330's on land then too or 660's with longer dogs to keep them only open 7 15/16" tall? You could really cover a wide coon trail with a 660. |
|
How is one to know which modifications are OK?? 