|
Post by x-demoman on Aug 8, 2009 9:25:55 GMT -6
Probably true but would probably start another round of: do we really need the conibears in the larger sizes on dry land? Using the 280 is a push. Guess it depends on how far someone wants to push the window, then defend it.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Aug 8, 2009 12:16:09 GMT -6
One is not really pushing the window if there is a codified standard. When a trap meets that codified standard; then the trap is legal. What seems to be pushing the window is interpreting "as originally manufactured" as allowing modification of a 280 trigger but not allowing modification of a 330 or 660 trigger. Seems like a lawyer-type that does not know or possibly does not care about common sense history could have a hayday with that application of logic in a legal sense. I for one would not like to be a victim of that exchange.
|
|
|
Post by hillbillyken on Aug 8, 2009 18:24:24 GMT -6
hope this doesn't open a big can of worms like the whole pre staking fiasco we went through this year...HB Ken
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Aug 8, 2009 19:16:38 GMT -6
I think where the problem would arise is in the additional width of the bigger traps. The jaw spread would be fine as defined but the overall kill area would be greatly expanded.
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Aug 9, 2009 13:46:59 GMT -6
But if I understood chrisf when he said in a previous post in this thread "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." the width of the trap is not measured or considered. Under the current codification "as originally manufactured" it is not necessary to measure width to illuminate the undesirable traps. However, if modifications become allowed, then the measurement procedure might be changed to measure both directions to assure that 330's and 660's are not used on land.
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Aug 9, 2009 15:42:29 GMT -6
Bet ya there is an idiot just waiting to screw it up for everyone by setting the dog extended 330s or 660s.
|
|
|
Post by hillbillyken on Aug 9, 2009 16:14:07 GMT -6
Your right Gene.. and then we would lose coni on land all together..... Some times its just better to let dead dogs lie and not try pushing the regulations in a way that would cause the DNR to eliminate land conis all together.
I don't know about you all but I seem to catch alot of coon in 220s. I think if you went to 280s your just asking to catch a dog.......just my thoughts...HB Ken
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Aug 10, 2009 12:49:48 GMT -6
This is one of those times that I think it is best to leave a sleeping dog as manufactured. (Pun intended).
|
|
|
Post by Bristleback on Aug 10, 2009 14:48:44 GMT -6
Personally I think this is a can of ...........that flat out will bite us in the rear! The CODE isn't clear on how to measure CONIBEARS, the CODE IS CLEAR on how to measure snares..... *What's the "width" on said 280, when SET as ORIGINAL from MFG?
|
|
|
Post by Scott W. on Aug 10, 2009 20:05:42 GMT -6
Logic would ask for the total square inches of the opening on a body gripper. Scott
|
|
|
Post by braveheart on Aug 10, 2009 20:43:25 GMT -6
I have used 280's for atleast 5 years.I have never caught a dog.And they are out from day one till the end.The 280 just flat out hammers the coon.I never set one in a road ditch only on private ground.I figure just another take away for us trappers.
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Aug 10, 2009 22:30:23 GMT -6
I have used 280's for atleast 5 years.I have never caught a dog.And they are out from day one till the end.The 280 just flat out hammers the coon.I never set one in a road ditch only on private ground.I figure just another take away for us trappers. Unless you're setting them completely submerged, then they are illegal as all brands of 280s as origionally manufactured measure more than 8" even inside jaw spread. The law doesn't just apply to public ground. I'd hate to be in your shoes when the wrong trespasser gets his/her dog wacked.
|
|
|
Post by hvtrapper on Aug 11, 2009 3:57:54 GMT -6
I, too, used them until the DNR came out with their measurement decision. They're a great trap for dry beaver slides, but I also only used them on private permission ground.
|
|
|
Post by 4fur on Aug 11, 2009 6:41:11 GMT -6
I also loved the BMI and Belisle 280's on beaver dam crossovers. And I doubt I'm the only one who would like to legally use a 330 not completely submerged at a castor mound set or in a hot shallow run.
Discretion and common sense will determine the utility of this new concept.
|
|
|
Post by braveheart on Aug 11, 2009 6:49:03 GMT -6
Every year in areas that I trap I find 330 on cooon trails all the time.So for about 20 yrs.Somebody has been setting them for coon in the road right of way.They kind of smart when they hit you across the foot.When I first moved down here someone had 330 everyplace on dry land.
|
|
|
Post by braveheart on Aug 11, 2009 6:52:56 GMT -6
I am going to separate my 280's out and sell them.They will get the 220 ban soon to.One thing will lead to another.
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Aug 11, 2009 14:27:00 GMT -6
All ya gotta do is check the regs for the surrounding states, then you will realize how good we have it in Iowa. Supose that happend by accident??? I don't think so.
Murphey's law still applies, then it don't take a majority to see things change fast for the worst!!!
|
|
|
Post by Bristleback on Aug 11, 2009 17:49:26 GMT -6
..........I agree we have it good........so what do we do then.....we interpret the law and modify 280's and ~hope, think, pray, wish, they're legal.......nothing like playing with fire.
The silence on measuring conibears is deafening.........
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Aug 12, 2009 11:34:05 GMT -6
I agree thats why I only own the one that was changed. Some time ya just can't win. Anyone currently using the 280s on dry land is jeopardizing everyones future use of conibears on dry land. Seems like I remember something from an earlier controversy about "Policing our ranks"
Gene
|
|
|
Post by dfox on Aug 12, 2009 13:26:53 GMT -6
Hey Gene, I don't want to be stepping over the line or telling you what to do, but maybe if ChrisF brings you your trap back during the convention, it stays in your truck and does not see the light of day again to give anyone any ideas, granted they can read this thread??
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Aug 12, 2009 13:56:59 GMT -6
Been thinking that myself. We do not need to start any unnecessary fights.
|
|
|
Post by Scott W. on Aug 12, 2009 15:39:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by braveheart on Aug 12, 2009 17:40:52 GMT -6
I might save a doz. back but I don't need any problems with DNR.I will sell them off 5 bucks each.That will get rid of the temptation.
|
|