[vipershooter]

You want paid for a 3 dollar **** or do you want to pay for the lifetime worth of my dog ? Bucket traps are a lazy slob trappers method now with the extended size trap. There is no argument to these statement.

Where is anyone talking about bucket sets?

Last time I checked it was perfectly legal to use conibear traps on dry land as long as the opening didn't exceed 5"

 

[170BC]

Dogs can not trespass . How ever if said owner crosses property lines he is trespassing

 

[UncleSlayer]

eric thinks every trapper is after his dogs. In reality every trapper hopes eric doesnt live 100 miles from where he traps.

 

[PHhunter]

op:op:op:op:op:op:op:op:

 

[Eric Rudolf]

Where is anyone talking about bucket sets?

Last time I checked it was perfectly legal to use conibear traps on dry land as long as the opening didn't exceed 5"

Have you seen the new regulations.

 

[vipershooter]

Have you seen the new regulations.

Enlighten me!

 

[Eric Rudolf]

eric thinks every trapper is after his dogs. In reality every trapper hopes eric doesnt live 100 miles from where he traps.

Never once have I said I am against trapping. Certain methods are not needed and pose a threat to non targeted animals.

 

[Eric Rudolf]

Enlighten me!

If you're using conibears you are golden this year.

 

[vipershooter]

If you're using conibears you are golden this year.

Could you explain more or point me in the direction to read more.

 

[Eric Rudolf]

Could you explain more or point me in the direction to read more.

Bigjohn has a thread on the subject in this forum. Sorry I can't do links.

 

[UncleSlayer]

eric have you lost a dog to a conibear? not trying to start fights just wondering why you think they are terrible. maybe if your dog is the size of a fox or raccoon that might be a concern. but they would have to crawl on there bellies to get there head in a coni.

 

[Eric Rudolf]

eric have you lost a dog to a conibear? not trying to start fights just wondering why you think they are terrible. maybe if your dog is the size of a fox or raccoon that might be a concern. but they would have to crawl on there bellies to get there head in a coni.

Got three killed in one night.

 

[bigjohn]

Bigjohn has a thread on the subject in this forum. Sorry I can't do links.

I think Eric is referring to the new regs allowing water set conibears being partially exposed. The conibear has to be set deep enough to cover the pivot rivets on the jaws.

This reg was passed to help with the harvest of beaver and otter.

At most this would leave a 3 1/2 inch opening above water with a 330 size conibear trap and I can't see a dog submerging it's head to allow a problem.

No bait or lure can be used within 1 foot of said set.

To get this reg passed we( Mo. Trappers Assoc ) had to have the dog associations on board or it would never have been passed. The Sporting Dog Assoc. and **** Hunting Assoc. had no problem with this reg.

Eric,several of our surrounding states are allowed to use the 160 size conibear (6 x 6 jaw spread) on dry ground and have not experienced any dog death issues.

Foot hold traps set on a positive drowner could be viewed as a hazard to dogs but I've never heard of any issues with dogs using this method either.

If I were to be so worried about the hazards my dogs face while hunting I'd never run them.

And yes I own and run beagle dogs.

 

[Steelman]

Got three killed in one night.

I guess your dogs were running where they shouldn't have been running.

You ever consider talking with the local landowner's during the day to find out if it's okay to run your hounds in their area before you turn them loose at night?

Might save your dogs from being caught in a trap and might save you some headaches as well.

 

[Eric Rudolf]

I guess your dogs were running where they shouldn't have been running.

You ever consider talking with the local landowner's during the day to find out if it's okay to run your hounds in their area before you turn them loose at night?

Might save your dogs from being caught in a trap and might save you some headaches as well.

I had permission. This happened in the 1970s. The guy dug holes in the ground, put meat in the holes and fitted them with conibears.
To you it is always the dog or hunters fault. So yeah, I am 100% against any unsubmerged kill trap.

 

[bigjohn]

Eric I'm sorry for your lose of your dogs.

The use of the 220 was lost due to folks not thinking thru their actions or making sets to avoid dog conflicts. It can be done as in the 70's I ran several 220's without any conflicts with dogs in areas of heavy **** hunter activity.( Not all the hunters had permission)

Baited 5 x 5's are far less efficient than trail sets with their uses. One can crowd a **** in a narrow trail avoiding dogs due to the heigth of the trap in the trail. Dogs travel trails totally different than **** and are easily avoided. Even going thru a crawl under at fences are approached differently by dogs than ****.

The fact that dryland 5x5's are a legal trap set,as is the 1/2 submerged bodygrips, means you'll either have to deal with it or not run your dogs reguardless of your opinion of the law.

 

[Steelman]

I had permission. This happened in the 1970s. The guy dug holes in the ground, put meat in the holes and fitted them with conibears.
To you it is always the dog or hunters fault. So yeah, I am 100% against any unsubmerged kill trap.

Your entitled to your opinion to be against unsubmerged kill traps and cable restraints and laws against being able to hunt on the "kings lands", etc. etc. etc. no matter how wrong you are and even though by your own admission it's been around 35 years since you had a dog killed in a trap and you've never had one killed in a cable restraint.

Sorry but considering what you have written about your opinion on here your story sounds a little far fetched.

Back in the 70's, you had permission (you don't want to ask permission now but we're supposed to believe you did back then) but the land owner either didn't bother to tell you or you ignored the fact that he had dug holes, baited them with meat and set conibears and you turned your dogs loose there anyway. I reckon if it's true, that shows really bad judgment for one of you.

To tell you the truth, I find it hard to believe that a landowner who had kill sets like that would give you permission to run your dogs on his property without a least a warning that the traps were there. On the other hand your story is much more believable if in fact you didn't have permission and were just running your dogs.
I remember in the 70's a group of coyote hunters around Foristell that would let their dogs run all of God's creation and just drive up and down the roads to try and cut the coyotes off at points where they would generally cross at. These guys never asked anyone for permission and didn't care if they messed anyone else's hunts up. This is probably why I don't have a good opinion about owners running their hounds without permission.

Carry on.....

 

[Redonthehead]

I'll chime back in as the OP. Got a dozen boxes built and stained dark with walnut juice. Have a bunch of buffalo chunked up for bait. Looking forward to fall.

The boxes/body grips are per the law. Also have a 6+" overhang to keep out dogs. I'm certainly not wanting to catch a dog.

 

[beardsNspurs78]

I initially spray painted all my boxes black. They didn't really blend in that well. When I redo em I'll paint em a tan color. That will match much better in the weeds, cattails, brown leaves, etc of fall/winter than black does. Of course a **** dont care either way but I like to camo em against prying eyes as much as possible.

Dont forget to prop the front of your boxes up off the ground 3 or 4 inches when setting. I dont know why a **** is more apt to work a set like that but they do. Maybe it has something to do with being able to see in the box better....dunno. I usually just got an old rotted limb bout 3 inches through the middle and laid it on the ground perpendicular to the front of the box before setting the box on it. Little harder to get the box stable but its doable.

Oh and dont forget to take off the safety latches. Dont catch much with em still engaged....says the voice of experience

 

[UncleSlayer]

Your entitled to your opinion to be against unsubmerged kill traps and cable restraints and laws against being able to hunt on the "kings lands", etc. etc. etc. no matter how wrong you are and even though by your own admission it's been around 35 years since you had a dog killed in a trap and you've never had one killed in a cable restraint.

Sorry but considering what you have written about your opinion on here your story sounds a little far fetched.

Back in the 70's, you had permission (you don't want to ask permission now but we're supposed to believe you did back then) but the land owner either didn't bother to tell you or you ignored the fact that he had dug holes, baited them with meat and set conibears and you turned your dogs loose there anyway. I reckon if it's true, that shows really bad judgment for one of you.

To tell you the truth, I find it hard to believe that a landowner who had kill sets like that would give you permission to run your dogs on his property without a least a warning that the traps were there. On the other hand your story is much more believable if in fact you didn't have permission and were just running your dogs.
I remember in the 70's a group of coyote hunters around Foristell that would let their dogs run all of God's creation and just drive up and down the roads to try and cut the coyotes off at points where they would generally cross at. These guys never asked anyone for permission and didn't care if they messed anyone else's hunts up. This is probably why I don't have a good opinion about owners running their hounds without permission.

Carry on.....

Maybe landowner was trying to get back at him. Sounds like a Disney movie waiting to happen.