Home Main Category Hunting

Trapping problems in N. Idaho

CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior MemberPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
With the prices of fur way up, every swinging dick is trying to trap bobcats. In doing so, a couple yuppie hikers with their dogs in Nat'l Forest lands witnessed the dogs being killed in conibear 330s intended for bobcats. That had to suck really bad. The trappers were not cited for illegal trapping practices.

1) The only dogs allowed off-leash in the nat'l forest must be actively hunting. ALL OTHER DOGS MUST BE LEASHED.
2) Idaho does not require signage to notify people that traps are in the area.
3) Traps are required to be 5 feet from the center of a trail.

The yuppies went to the press and now trappers are pitted against "everyone that loves their dogs". They are demanding everything from outright bans to everything in between. Idaho's Constitution has an amendment that enshrines the right to trap, but no one seems to care, not even F&G.

There are conflicts in the law. Hunters with dogs are at risk, by no fault of their own. Dogs on six foot leashes can also be trapped if the trap is 5 feet from trail centerline. I do NOT want to post signs, because we suffer enough theft already. Also, traps have "trapper tags" that include personal info. The last thing I want is some PeTA militant knowing where I live.

This is gonna be a beotch.

Rant over.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

Adam J. McCleod


Replies

  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    Some **** sets traps without posting signs is gonna know first hand what a "kevlar padded elbow from an ICON racing jacket" feels like. Ain't against trapping but those woods belong to everyone.

    If I'm out walking my dog and see a sign stating "traps in area", okay fine, I'll go somewhere else. If not and my dog, kid ...whatever gets nailed...:mad: it will be hell to pay. Just like owning a firearm, trapping comes with personal responsibility also.
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    I've had numerous confrontations with people ignoring the leash laws. Is this trap some sort of instant kill thing? i.e. there's no way to spring it and release the dog?

    Edit, nrvermind, I googled it.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    This is tough. If I'm out and about with my dog on public land and there are traps about, It should be posted that they are there. If I lost my dog like that there would be hell to pay.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 14,296 Senior Member
    What are you going to do Cali? Just get farther off the beaten path with the sets? PETA militants, I think you already have had some thought on that, LOL.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • Six-GunSix-Gun Senior Member Posts: 8,155 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    We can't set a killing type trap unless its under water. Which, is what I forsee in your future.
    We USED to have to label our traps with same and address, but they changed it so that we can use our conservation number. (Basically the number we are assigned once passing the hunter safety course)

    As to the leash law, well, I reckon they should have followed it. Your dog got squished because it wasnt on a leash? Your fault.

    I'm a fan of using the conservation # in lieu of personal info. You are held accountable for violations but your personal info is shielded from the animal terrorists. In Nevada, we have no requirement to ID your traps at all. Me and a friend witnessed first-hand how this can be an issue when someone decides to illegally bait a trap and my friend's German Shorthair runs over to check it out while quail hunting. Thankfully, it was just a foothold trap. The dog yelped mercilessly until I got him free (more thankfully, the owner at least had the 1/8" spacers in, so no broken bones). Despite taking pictures of the illegal trap setup and reporting it, the DOW basically ignored our complaint because there was no way to positively ID who owned the traps short of setting up a sit-n-wait type sting for the owner. Effectively, you can do whatever the hell you want with traps in this state because the wardens have no practical instrument in place to catch you.
    Accuracy: because white space between bullet holes drives me insane.
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    As to the leash law, well, I reckon they should have followed it. Your dog got squished because it wasnt on a leash? Your fault.

    What about the lion or bear hunter with a $5000.00 Walker or other breed? Granted good strike dogs are usually leashed to a strike board but when cut loose there are no leashes nor are they required where hunting with hounds is legal.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    My biggest issue with all of this: I don't want to give an inch to "compromise" any trapping rules. The kid and I do not set conibears on land except in trees for pine marten. The hunting dog guys are the most vocal, even though a hunting dog has NEVER been killed in a body-gripping trap. I've caught dogs in foot-holds and released them every time. I am not legally required to release a captured dog. Ironically, when a loose dog is torn to shreds by a predator, the owners call....wait for it....a trapper to avenge little Fluffy.

    I spoke with the F&G regional director Here are the current proposals:

    1) Require trapping signs at trail heads. Sounds like a fair plan, but there have been people caught in other states actively looking for traps. Animal rights people and people looking to steal valuable fur. I asked F&G if the penalties for stealing or vandalizing traps can be ramped up. He said they can consider that.

    2) Remove conibears from land trapping. I countered this proposal with "Allow conibear use AFTER hunting seasons have ended." I will give no allowance to people that are breaking the law by letting their dogs run loose, even though I am sympathetic to the dogs.

    3) Trapper ID #s will replace name and address on traps. This is not a proposal, this is done. We will need to switch all of our tags. Sounds simple until you realize you have about 400 traps between the kid and I.

    4) Change the five feet rule to XX feet. Anti-trappers want 1000 feet and we think 10 feet is fair.

    There are many more, but none that I, or F&G consider realistic. Like outright bans or flashing LEDs in trees near traps.

    If F&G caves, and trappers end up on the losing end of most of these proposals, I'll never release another dog. I'll consider all of them invasive fawn killers, worse than coyotes. The trappers I know, said the same thing.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Dr. dbDr. db Senior Member Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    I was hiking a 14er once. There was a momma mountain goat with a kid. A girl, couldn't have been more than 20, was hiking with a chow mix dog off the leash. Dog gets excited by scenting the kid goat. Dog slips and falls 3000 ft. Best argument for trail leash laws I ever saw. Now for the punch line. It was her roommate's dog and the roommate wasn't there!
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Dr. db wrote: »
    I was hiking a 14er once. There was a momma mountain goat with a kid. A girl, couldn't have been more than 20, was hiking with a chow mix dog off the leash. Dog gets excited by scenting the kid goat. Dog slips and falls 3000 ft. Best argument for trail leash laws I ever saw. Now for the punch line. It was her roommate's dog and the roommate wasn't there!

    Did she blame the Forestry Dept for not fencing the cliff? /sarc
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »



    If F&G caves, and trappers end up on the losing end of most of these proposals, I'll never release another dog. I'll consider all of them invasive fawn killers, worse than coyotes. The trappers I know, said the same thing.

    Why give more support to the anti hunting crowd with that kind of logic and bullheadedness? I do understand that a dog that is allowed to roam wild from home becomes a menace to livestock and wildlife and is fair game for a bullet, that I have no problem with. HOWEVER, for everyday people who are just out taking a walk, fishing, picnic or some other outdoor activity and letting their dogs stretch their legs close by or the hunter running hounds/birddogs is where I draw the line. I'd be more than willing to compromise with my fellow hunters and their hunting methods to insure everyone is allowed their fair and equal "playtime".

    Trapping comes under enough fire already from the PETA fanatics so why on earth would you want to piss off your fellow hunting bretheren with "no compromise"? The woods don't just belong to you Cali. There are people of all sorts and types who love nothing more than being outdoors with their dogs. I don't care if it's some tie-dye wearing hippy tree hugger having a peacefull zen moment communing with 'Earth Mother' or the hunter after pheasants with his pointer...the woods belong to everyone and for various reasons.

    Years ago, while living in north eastern Arizona, I worked at a cattle ranch for 4 years as a ranch hand. We had a dog problem you would not believe. In just one year the owner/operator lost over 30 calves to free roaming dogs. We put up flyers warning dog owners to keep their mutts contained, or starting the following week, their dogs would be shot on sight. We even had the blessing of the Navajo County Sherrif Dept. That summer over 40 dogs were destroyed on 95 sections of land. It was a nasty chore as no one wants to kill someones dog ....we hated doing it and not all kills were clean. At the same time it wasn't rocket science either, meaning it wasn't hard to distinguish those who were just out having a good time with Rin Tin Tin to those who were letting "Cujo" have free roam of the high desert each night and wreaking havoc on the herd, wildlife or even worse ...people. It was always a fair and honest judgement call before we lowered the boom on a dog. Many times the ranch owner or myself would pull up to those out walking their unleashed dogs (many were out of towner's) and just let them know about the dog problem without being blunt and rude about it. It was just simple neighborhood politics (...though you can be sure that they had been watched with the glasses beforehand). One time the owner was about to tap one off several hundred yards away when we saw the mutt dragging a 20' leash behind itself...again, another fair and honest judgement call. We rounded up the dog, put her in the pickup bed and dropped her off at the owners house with a stern but friendly warning to keep the dog contained. Don't get me wrong Cali, I feel your frustration but to state "no compromise" with your fellow hunters is wrong. Sounds like a City Hall meeting should be in the works to hash out the issues.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Trapping comes under enough fire already from the PETA fanatics so why on earth would you want to piss off your fellow hunting bretheren with "no compromise"? The woods don't just belong to you Cali. There are people of all sorts and types who love nothing more than being outdoors with their dogs. I don't care if it's some tie-dye wearing hippy tree hugger having a peacefull zen moment communing with 'Earth Mother' or the hunter after pheasants with his pointer...the woods belong to everyone and for various reasons.

    The tree huggers that do not buy licenses do not get a say in F&G policy. ID F&G is funded by sportsman, not bird watchers. Sportsman fund the conservation programs. They should be told plainly and often that they are violating state law by free running their destructive dogs. If they want to run their dogs they can do it between March 31st and Nov 15th. That sounds like two groups "sharing" the woods, doesn't it? That would be a real compromise.

    Until the two dogs were killed these holes didn't even know we existed. These people (Fudds and tree huggers) want trappers to surrender what we already have, at no cost to them. How in blue hell is that a compromise? If we give them the kill traps this time, they will demand foot holds next time. Next, they will demand all traps removed from public land. Then it will be ONLY live traps on private property. This is EXACTLY what happened in California.

    I have learned that the loudest voice wins the race. There is a fur auction this weekend. There are a lot more trappers in the ranks because of rising fur prices. If I have to charter a bus and fill it with toothless, smelly, blood stained trappers to make the trip to Boise I will.

    NOT ONE INCH WITHOUT A FIGHT.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Senior Member Posts: 6,083 Senior Member
    Fight them hard Cali.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    The tree huggers that do not buy licenses do not get a say in F&G policy. ID F&G is funded by sportsman, not bird watchers. Sportsman fund the conservation programs. They should be told plainly and often that they are violating state law by free running their destructive dogs. If they want to run their dogs they can do it between March 31st and Nov 15th. That sounds like two groups "sharing" the woods, doesn't it? That would be a real compromise.

    Until the two dogs were killed these holes didn't even know we existed. These people (Fudds and tree huggers) want trappers to surrender what we already have, at no cost to them. How in blue hell is that a compromise? If we give them the kill traps this time, they will demand foot holds next time. Next, they will demand all traps removed from public land. Then it will be ONLY live traps on private property. This is EXACTLY what happened in California.

    I have learned that the loudest voice wins the race. There is a fur auction this weekend. There are a lot more trappers in the ranks because of rising fur prices. If I have to charter a bus and fill it with toothless, smelly, blood stained trappers to make the trip to Boise I will.

    NOT ONE INCH WITHOUT A FIGHT.

    Well, you go in with no compromise and piss off your fellow hunters you're gonna lose this fight plain and simple because they DO have a say in F&G Policy ...and I'm willing to bet over 90% worth. ...and that's not even counting the folks who fish and don't hunt.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Well, you go in with no compromise and piss off your fellow hunters you're gonna lose this fight plain and simple because they DO have a say in F&G Policy ...and I'm willing to bet over 90% worth. ...and that's not even counting the folks who fish and don't hunt.

    This is not main stream hunters that are complaining. THEY want us killing wolves. It is a handful of bird doggers that are raising a stink. I want them as allies, but they need educating. They've never lost a dog to a trap, because they don't generally hunt after the snow flies. This needs to be repeatedly explained to them. If they still side with the strays, then we fight in Boise.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    This is not main stream hunters that are complaining. THEY want us killing wolves. It is a handful of bird doggers that are raising a stink. I want them as allies, but they need educating. They've never lost a dog to a trap, because they don't generally hunt after the snow flies. This needs to be repeatedly explained to them. If they still side with the strays, then we fight in Boise.

    Regardless of our views I hope you trappers find common ground with your fellow hunters and defeat the eco terrorists.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement