Just a friendly reminder that anti trapping groups like Alaska Safe Trails monitor open forums like this one. AK Safe Trails quoted part of a post made by Pete and, in my opinion, incorrectly interpreted what Pete said in a manner to misinform their membership. The following is a post from their Facebook page.


Alaska Safe Trails
April 18 at 4:58 PM ·
ALERT! Pete Buist, the spokesman for the Alaska Trappers Association (interviewed by KTVA), posted a recent comment in one of the public trapper chat forums (Trapperman). In his comment on the chat forum, he relates the story of a skier whose dog was killed in a snare set approx. 100 yards off a popular trail. He, of course, blames the skier for not having his dog leashed, but more importantly, he reveals a disturbing opinion. Here is his final sentence from his post:
“…It is also reasonable to conclude that if the snare had been immediately adjacent to the trail, his dog would also be alive, because he would have readily discovered it.”
Therefore, Pete Buist is appearing to advocate for trapping next to trails. Keep in mind that spring-loaded snares and conibears are “killer” traps, so his statement about rescuing your dog is completely absurd and would only increase the likelihood of domestic pets being trapped. Penny, killed in a conibear, is an unfortunate example.



The following is Pete's post for comparison.

Setbacks can have unintended consequences. Case in point:

On some trails just W of Fairbanks a few years ago, a very responsible trapper made some sets, none closer than about 100 yards from the main trails. These trails are on State land and are used by a number of different types of trail users. Setting back 100 yards seems reasonable.

A local skier was skiing along the trail, accompanied by his UNLEASHED dog. (We have a "leash law" in the Fairbanks North Star Borough.)

The dog wandered off on one of the trapper's side trails and became caught in a fox snare. When the skier returned to his vehicle after dark, he noticed that his dog was missing.

He went back to look for the dog, BUT, since the set was 100 yards from the main trail, he never found the dog until the next morning. It was dead in the snare.

It is reasonable to conclude that had the skier obeyed the Borough leash law, his dog would still be alive. It is also reasonable to conclude that if the snare had been immediately adjacent to the trail, his dog would also be alive, because he would have readily discovered it.

Pete

From a passive snare to powered snares that I doubt are used very much in Alaska. Talk about misleading.

I think they (AK Safe Trails) are referring to snares with dispatch springs not powered snares. It seems they like to use trapping terms, but they are using them incorrectly because they don't fully understand how certain traps and snares actually work.

There is little we can do about being taken out of context or "partly quoted!" Herk Eng's point is very well taken. I always imagine conniving activists looking at my posts before I push the "post reply" button. The bottom line is that we are dealing with people who are convinced that the end justifies the means. They will stoop to all sorts of dishonest tactics to try and get there way. To THEM it all makes sense.

What is very telling about the anti's comment on my post is that the individual shows such distain for the whole concept of having the dog on a leash..

Pete

I work with people like that, and no matter what you do or say, how rational your argument is, what facts exist, they are offended that you don't think like they do. You can't fix stupid.

These are the times I wish this world were not so bubble-wrapped so that Darwinism would stand a better chance.

I noticed that right away also. As usual no respect for the law or anything else that doesn't line up with their twisted logic. Funny how you never hear a sportsman or woman railing against being vegan or nature loving or conservation minded. Oh that's right because we all have that in common. The only time they get sass from me and people like me is when they use unethical, underhanded actions and falsehoods to get their way or prove their point. I bet the trapper felt bad about the dog even though he or she was totally legal. Heck I have pets but I keep them on my property or on a leash or in a kennel when they aren't. I have the utmost respect for others pets. I have zero respect for pet owners that let their pets effect others.

It's possible that in the 10hr. time frame between when Pete posted this on trapperman, and it was reposted on the Alaska safe trails site that Paul could see exactly who viewed this post and have a good idea, or at least narrow it down as to who this anti/spy is.

This forum is open to all viewers. A simple cut and paste, or screen shot is all that is needed. It could be anyone from "that" group of wingnuts.

Perhaps this forum should be only seen by logged in viewers.

They sometimes put their spin on things they see on here

AJE. I removed that link. We don't want even one click going to that cretin nor his name mentioned. Not getting on your case...just making that general prohibition known. White17

If not that the pictures should only be viewable by being logged in.

AJE - the person that has that page is mentally whacked. Appears to have a fetish towards hicks, probably Daddy issues.