|
Post by Kelly on Feb 20, 2008 11:16:53 GMT -6
Right now the way the law reads with deer stops needed on all snares we can't use them for mink. So, what do we need to do in order to get a change in the law just for mink/very small snares to be able to use them without deer stops?
I envision the vast majority of places one would set a snare for mink to be in a place where a deer would not be caught, ie. small holes, undercut banks, small tiles, etc.
|
|
Nick C
Active Trap Talker
Posts: 73
|
Post by Nick C on Feb 20, 2008 11:22:02 GMT -6
I asked this a few months back, and the consensus was that, with the current legislation, this isn't the best time to open up trapping laws. Was also advised to discuss snaring mink with your local game warden, and tell or show him the circumstances of which you'd attempt to snare mink, and they might approve, after all, they're the ones that will write you the ticket. Just curious, you don't see many deer crawling under the undercut banks on cricks like they do around here? lol
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Feb 20, 2008 11:31:43 GMT -6
We'd have to change the law to allow either a 285# BAD (break-away-device) or a deer stop, and stipulate if the cable has a lighter breaking strength than the BAD's that neither is required. That would allow us lots of advantages. We could actually snare mink, rabbits, squirrels, muskrats, etc... and we could kill our neck caught coons and foxes much more effectively with the snares and adequate entanglement. We could then use 3/64 cable for mink/rats/etc... because its breaking point is only 270#. That said, from what I gather, right now with people we have in power here in Iowa, it wouldn't be a good idea to "rock the boat". ~ADC~
|
|
|
Post by minnow on Feb 20, 2008 17:19:18 GMT -6
You have my vote.
It would be awsome tool for late winter mink. I would like to try some bottom edge set with snares under water, A mink snare would fit a field tile perfect every time.
It should be on a list of needs when the timing is right. Who is in charge of such a list?
Minnow
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Feb 20, 2008 17:25:22 GMT -6
Its on the wish list. Don't really know how to proceed right now. I would love to be able to use them also.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by minnow on Feb 20, 2008 17:29:53 GMT -6
Thats good to know, Thanks Gene
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Feb 20, 2008 21:02:47 GMT -6
There are several things with the snares that have been discussed by all trappers. Why not go to a break away and eliminate the deer stop? The main reason is because there is no uniform way to measure breakaway pressure cause most are different. A lot of snaremen make their own snares and would try, and some already do, make their own break aways. They are all at different pressures.
Use smaller cable with less strength. Some use very small cable with the chock spring for killing.
Any suggestion?
Gene
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 20, 2008 21:42:56 GMT -6
We have a valuable resource in Neil Bock. He has helped several states draft break away language for thier laws and define what is and is not a proper break away snare.
I think having studied this pretty in depth, that most CO's would not even test the breaking strength on a break away snare proactively. The testing would more likely be reactive, after a deer was caught and held. So you catch and hold a deer, CO gets a complaint called in to him, he shows up and picks up a few more of your snares that are in the area. Those would be the snares that would be tested most likely, including the snare that held the deer.
I have aways felt this to be an easy fix. I would like to see them allow either option, a break away device or a deer stop, so trappers can pick and choose. I think break away devices are most effective in trail snaring situations. Trails are the most likely places for a foot catch. I think most deer that would be caught in fence duck unders will be neck snared and dead, and a break away or deer stop is a moot point.
I think for mink snaring, if they rewrote the law, no stop or break away should be required. Beaver snaring they should, as a lot of deer use beaver trails. I think a CO can tell the difference between a mink snare and a deer snare, and if you catch one in a mink snare the hand of God has apparently made it happen.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Feb 20, 2008 23:06:44 GMT -6
There better not be any deer neck snared in fence duck unders since it is illegal to set a snare that when fully extended can reach a fence here in Iowa so that is moot.
I see no problem with deer stops or a break away device for all other animals except mink/muskrat since the loop size required to catch them is 2.5-3" for starters.
|
|
|
Post by redbone on Feb 20, 2008 23:26:05 GMT -6
I think this rule is for snares set in public ROW only.
|
|
Nick C
Active Trap Talker
Posts: 73
|
Post by Nick C on Feb 20, 2008 23:29:35 GMT -6
Yeah, snares can't touch the fence when set in the Road Right-Of-Way
But out in the middle of a section, you can set snares under fences.
|
|
|
Post by TexA on Feb 21, 2008 6:38:39 GMT -6
Snares that can reach the fence are OK, IF they are Not set in a Right-of-Way.... Out in the section it IS OK.......
|
|
|
Post by Coydog on Feb 21, 2008 7:08:06 GMT -6
I would love to see the option between the two. My understanding is to get that changed would open ALL regulations up for review and possible change.
If this is the case, Beaver season got shortened, Bobcat and Otter seasons were opened without any major regulation reviews, and to me those are changes. One way to look at it, adding BAD's as an alternative to deer stops is not a change to any current regulation ,its an addition to the current regulations .
I would bet that if they are not already in the process, WHEN they do BMP's on snares BAD's will be standard.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Feb 21, 2008 9:38:36 GMT -6
Sorry, my bad! Since so many here only trap ROW that is where I was thinking.
This year it looks like we will be wishing for that longer beaver season back!
|
|
|
Post by Coydog on Feb 21, 2008 13:35:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 21, 2008 17:26:17 GMT -6
I know Niel helped draft the North Dakota language, not sure about the other states.
If this was a DNR administrative issue I think it would be a done deal and sells itself. However I learned when I gave my presentation to ITA board a number of years ago, that this is a legislative issue. That means we open it up to the legislators which is dangerous ground to travel on.
Many of our seasoned ITA directors still have battle scars from the legislative battles of the fur boom era. They are rightfully cautious because they know what a fickle place the Capitol can be. Facts and truth do not always win the day there.
I am all for this, but if our legislative liason tells us the time is wrong, I am all for waiting for the time to be right. I feel that someday our hand will get forced to defend ourselves on some issue in the legislature, and when that happens we might as well take this up then.
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 21, 2008 17:28:38 GMT -6
Take a hard look at what is being done in the legislature right now and what thier priorities are. I have always felt that if we get in trouble farmers will be on our side. They are gonna go after farmers who smoke in their tractors. I would say we have little or few loud voices on our side right now, and the antis would have more clout than we in our current political environment.
|
|
|
Post by Coydog on Feb 22, 2008 7:03:00 GMT -6
When it gets into politics, I am ignorant. Bruce, we will have to get together for some fishing or bait grinding and you can help me understand how all that crap works.
When that time comes, I would like to be knowlegable enough to be of some help.
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 22, 2008 7:51:24 GMT -6
I am pretty sure when we get together the learning is done by me According to ITA during the last meeting I went to and presented this, this falls into a change that requires legislative action. Bad news for us. If it was just a DNR administrative action would probably be a done deal. Simply a matter of even thought it's a great idea, is it worth opening the books for and risking a major war with the antis, especially when the House and Senate are likely to be friendly to thier cause. For those of you from Jasper. Senator Black puts himself out there as a big friend of the sportsman. I know he was not our friend on the colony trap issue, and I have heard from others that he has been unfriendly to us in the past. He will tell you he is for you, but watch out.
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Feb 22, 2008 10:51:17 GMT -6
Good info Bruce. You think when they get the books opened we could leave out the loop size restrictions as well? May as well shoot for the whole ball of wax... ~ADC~
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 22, 2008 17:54:56 GMT -6
I am all for doing away with the loop sizes, however I found when I presented information to the ITA Directors that it seems the break away snare is an easier idea to sell. I think a strong majority of ITA leadership would be all for the break away idea. I think they are a little shy on loop sizes.
We have a wide variety of experience on the ITA board. Some understand snaring and some do not. A lot of these laws came into being during the fur boom when some pretty radical stuff was taking place and our snaring rights were at great risk. Some very real compromise took place. I think one guy even went so far as to bring a deer head into the Capitol with a snare on it's neck.
So, when we got our 8 inch loops the logic was that a coyote can fit his head into it. Really, only coyote snaremen care about having a larger loop. The fact is, just because he "can" fit his head into it, does not mean he "will" fit his head into it.
So I presume ITA needs to consider all trappers needs. Not just a few serious coyote snaremen. Not being snotty or superior, but I think there is only a handfull of serious coyote men in the state who understand the value of "invisible" snares as far as loop size, cable diameter, etc are concerned. Quite frankly, if we had unlimited loop sizes I would still only use the bigger loops in very select locations. Most of mine would be around 10 inches in most scenarios. Some trail snaring I would go bigger if I could, to keep from making the coyote feel "crowded" and reduce visibility.
So the question is, do we risk fighting over bigger loop sizes when only a small number of Iowa trappers will use them properly? Or even understand thier value? I run into very few snaremen who put much thought to avoidance by coyotes. They catch a few so they are happy, and they are oblivious to the ones they have missed.
I think we have an easy sale on the breakaway snare. I think we have a tough sale on the bigger loops, and would have to educate the right people to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Feb 22, 2008 19:59:48 GMT -6
You may be right. I'm thinking for the most part the loop size law goes basically unenforced anyway because I see lots of 9-10" loops out there.
I would certainly like to be able to use loaded faster snares with bigger loops for coyotes though but the un-loaded one's tear drop shape of the 8" wide loops actually makes the coyotes more willing to enter IMO.
But what if we just left out the mention of loop sizes all together in the presented new wording of the regulations? Would it just go un-noticed? I mean opposed to saying let's open it 12" loops... etc... Seems like it may be more in the presentation, ...but its all Greek to me.
~ADC~
|
|
|
Post by Coydog on Feb 22, 2008 20:36:06 GMT -6
Well said K9.
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 22, 2008 21:02:20 GMT -6
If it ever became reality and we were drafting such language, I could see deer hunting groups opposing bigger loops and pressuring politicians to oppose the issue. However I could see the same deer hunting groups embracing break away snares.
That being said, the general public is starting to have a negative opinion of deer. Not that we should throw caution into the wind and try to snare deer, but it is not as big of a deal as it was during the fur boom, when deer were far more scarce.
I think the current loop size law is a different sort of law to enforce Jayme. If I were in a CO's shoes, and came across a big loop, I would want to look at several of the same trappers snares and see if this is the norm for the trapper before writing him a citation. Why? Because I have come up to snares before that I knew for a fact were set legal, and had them smaller or bigger then when I left them. Wind wobble, pheasants, rabbits, humans messing around with it, are just a few of the variables that can make a snare different than when the trapper left it.
I am betting that most CO's are not overly proactive about such a thing, unless they have a complaint or a trapper catches a deer. Then they probably start checking things out in the area, unless they encounter the snare in thier normal travels. I highly doubt that they get up in the morning setting a goal of checking those 8 inch loops all day long.
Most ditch snaring is coon and fox oriented. I have snared a lot of coyotes in the road ditches, and often intentionally do so, but many trappers do not. If I could use bigger loops in the road ditches it would only be on cross over snaring for coyotes, where they cross a level B road or hit a ditch across from a field drive or ridge top. Lot's of deer hit those too, but the snare will be too low for most deer, and feet are more of a concern for trail snaring.
Where the deer get neck snared is in the fences on the private ground. Therei s nothing you can do for such a deer, because he will be dead. Obviously if you see deer tracks in a dry wash do not set there. However some of it is flat out unpredictable and unavoidable, just like hitting one with a car is. The more deer we get, the higher the incidence of deer getting into snares.
Beaver trails is another place a guy really has to be on his game to avoid deer. I am talking coyote snaring on those trails, not low beaver snaring.
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Feb 24, 2008 13:36:19 GMT -6
Well said K9.
|
|
|
Post by TexA on Apr 28, 2008 5:52:45 GMT -6
You see how easy the "subject" of the origional post here got changed, spread out, lots of different ideas..... That is EXACTLY the reason we do not want to Open the IOWA Code to a bunch of Law Makers and turn them lose in there. You never know what they might endup with. We are all trappers and understand what we would like to see, but "they" are "different" than we are. I don't feel that the RISK is worth taking the chance, right now... Personally, I think Snaring Mink would be loads of fun. Like (I think it was ADC) he said, Breaking Strength of fine cable or wire would serve nicely on a Mink Snare. No problem with snaring a Deer under an overhang or ?.... But, for now, let's just be content to use what we have available and make the best of it..... HUH? We are a lot better off than some states around us, lets keep it that way.....
|
|
|
Post by justwannano on May 3, 2008 10:11:25 GMT -6
So how many deer are/were caught in snares anyway? I've used snares sucessfully for years and never caught a deer. Seems like to me the breakaway would just make it more expensive to set snares and the fact that they are cheap and more difficult to spot by thieves was my reason for using them anyway. New here and like this site already. have a good one just
|
|
|
Post by k9 on May 3, 2008 10:31:56 GMT -6
Its not how many get caught, it only takes one in the right situation to cause us problems. Let the right person see a deer in a snare and they will act like a major sin has occurred.
Then there is the other extreme. I had one by the bridge of the nose a couple years ago, caught between the nose and the eyes. The small loop kept it from being neck snared but it got in enough that the deer stop didn't help. I let it loose.
I can promise you this, had that farmer who owned that land known I let it loose, he would have been very POed. He would have wanted it dead.
I agree Tex, but if for some reason the law ever opens up, I think we should go for it.
|
|
|
Post by justwannano on May 5, 2008 7:29:57 GMT -6
Yeah but I'll tell you what..If we are all scared about what someone might do we'll soon be giving up all our rights. Since I've been snaring we gave up the right to set snares and traps in roadway fences. We've given up the right to set snares and traps near buildings. We've been told not to set the loop of our snares larger than 10 inches sometimes 8 inches. We've been told we have to add deer stops. Snares worked pretty well before those regulations. I never caught a deer and can't recall catching any ones pet that was hurt in any way before they cow towed to someones whineing about what might happen. have a good one just
|
|
|
Post by k9 on May 5, 2008 18:55:40 GMT -6
Duly noted.
We did not give those rights up without a fight. A big fight.
With rumors of $40 coon some of you trappers who are new to the sport will get to meet the reasons why we gave up many of those rights.
Disrespectful money driven guys with traps. Not trappers. Just guys with traps.
Guys willing to push the limits of common sense, disrespecting landowners by setting right by thier buildings in the road ditches, leaving snares with coon hanging off the top wire of the fence in road ditches for all to see for days at a time, and on and on.
Middle ground was agreed to, cause the antis, and even some hunting groups wanted it all.
Once fur prices go down the laws never roll back.
I am not looking forward to the crop of money seekers we are bound to see this coming fall and the trouble they bring with them.
|
|