I had originally posted this on the general talk forum, moving it here for better match to the discussion.

I see we have until February 12 to comment on the new definition of “relaxing snare lock”.

I just spent some time trying to figure out what that definition is, and all I can find is that it is defined as:
“ The DNR interprets "relaxing snare lock" as a lock that releases pressure on a captured animal when an animal stops pulling.”

It appears to have already been changed on NWCO Rules, so it may have been done already as administrative code, and I don’t see it in the IAC code (state law) that I’ve found. It may change when the new code out after the rule change.

Can anyone out there help make sense of this? So if it allows the loop to open even 1/64 of an inch, is that legal? Does it mean that the loop must just be free to open up back to full loop size (that’s not a lock at all).

Anyone out there have this conversation with the wardens who will have to interpret this rule? Are they just going to give us a list of the allowed locks?

I did read the previous thread on this back in August, just wondering if we have any clarification. I sure do like Kentucky’s “one piece” definition. That seems much simpler.

Based on that definition, as long as it releases any pressure at all, its legal.

That’s what I think also. I was just dreaming up a device that could measure this. Even 1/32 greater circumference meets that definition.

I do agree with cattails that we would be unwise to push the limits, but why make this up to trappers to argue with law enforcement and potentially a judge.

The more I think about it, the more I like the “single component lock” way of defining it. No ambiguity in that. Otherwise we need a lock by lock directive from DNR.

I bet every single component lock opens at least a few thousandths of an inch when pressure is released. But I may be wrong about that?

I think you’re right, but proving a minute amount of “release” may be tough. I would think that as long as you can see the lock move over the cable as it releases, its good. Thats just an assumption of course. I think they write some laws with grey area with good intentions, but sometimes it makes thing harder than they need to be.

I don’t know of a single lock that moves backward along the cable. I’ve used reverse bend washers on both coyote and beaver and I’ve never had one actually slide backwards on the cable. Well not until it was used more than once and lost its “grip”.

Even the long tab relaxing locks don’t slide backwards on the cable, they just rotate the long tab to release some pressure. The hole does not slide backwards on the cable as far as I can tell.

I don’t mean move backwards, but as it relaxes the cable will move somewhat in the hole of the lock. I may not be wording that well, I just mean being able to physically see the lock “relax”.

With that definition nothing will be legal.
A lock can not "release pressure" nor can it apply "pressure", only the animal can do either.

The definition you want it that it ceases to tighten when the animal ceases to pull, but given the popularity of saying "pressure" try for Mo.'s definition, from the Mo. CR training manual- "Missouri regulations state that cable restraints must be equipped with a relaxing-type sliding lock, which stops exerting pressure when an animal quits pulling on it".
https://huntfish.mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/4157_6377.pdf (page 12)

That sounds as good as single component lock to me. I think the key is that it needs to be something anyone can easily assess. I can easily assess if a locks stops tightening when the animal stops pulling. I can easily assess if a lock has a single component.

This definition we have is not at all easy to assess. I fear we are about to have a new definition that is no better than not having a definition in terms of everyone knowing what is legal and having a way to know what is legal without arguing before a judge.

I just followed the links to comment on the proposed rule changes, and I can not even find a way to comment on the snare lock definition. Can anyone find that? If so I would like to comment if you ca tell me how.

I believe they are talking about the use of spring loaded snares or power snares

ALL LOCKS (with out spring) HAVE TO BACK UP TO LOCK. Yes even cams

Sounds like Ohio's snare lock law.

We went to a one piece closing device to alleviate any individual interpretation of what a “ relaxing” lock was. Too many different opinions by conservation officers. We also included no spring assisted devices in the change.

Newt, that’s exactly what I discovered when I started playing with measuring how much various locks “relax” when the animal stops pulling. It may only be 1/16th of an inch greater circumference, but they do in fact allow an increase.
Kytrapper - that is a very sound and reasonable rule. I also like “ceases to tighten when the animal ceases pulling”. Either remove ambiguity and are easily assessed. Single component locks are the easiest to assess IMO but either definition works.
I still can not figure out how to comment on this rule, so I suspect it is being done administratively. The potential upside of that is that an administrative rule is much simpler to change than IAC code.

Well I heard back from an administrative specialist about this. The rule was actually finalized in September 2019, and is not currently up for comment as the email the DNR seemed to suggest when I read it.

Here is the final wording:
"relaxing snare lock" means a snare lock that allows the snare loop to release constriction
pressure on the captured animal when the cable is not taut.

What a mess to interpret that! Does it have to release just some constriction, or does it have to loosen and stop constricting completely, which means it does not lock at all and just loosens until there is no more constriction. That would not be a lock at all, but a sliding loop that would be worthless for holding most animals. I have snared rabbits and squirrels with twisted loop “lock” in fine brass wire (they don’t lock at all, squirrels and rabbits just don’t get out of them, and they actually sort of do lock when the single strand wire kinks, would not be the same with cable), but certainly a cable with a loop for a lock would not hold animals on land.

I asked the specialist who administrates nuisance permits, and she has referred me to another specialist who can answer my questions more in depth.

Sometimes I have found its better to not ask, just read it as you think it is and go about your business. People forcing the DNR to define things often comes at a loss for trappers.

Yes I do get that. I guess as long as I’m not being fined that’s what I will do. But that definition is still ambiguous. And they have stated that some locks being sold as relaxing don’t meet this definition. I say either they all meet it, or none of them do - depending on how you interpret that definition.
Truth is I never did want it defined, but now that they have defined it I want to what locks I can still legally use under that definition.

You could end up with a list of one lock, the 180 degree reverse bend lock, like they intended all CR's to use. I know it doesn't function different than some other locks but most of us know more about snare locks than the people making the rules... as I'm sure you know. Good luck to you.

Michigan regs used to say washer style relaxing locks. Now it only reads relaxing locks. That leaves the interpretation to the conservation officer I guess. Don't matter to me right now anyhow cuz with work so busy I am not hanging any now. Bad thing is I am working a few miles from Northwoods Outdoors and they have cool stuff. I have already bought 20# flake was, new dirt hole auger, a dozen 330s, new muck boots, a dozen 110 h stands and am looking at a dozen #5:Bridger's next stop. By the way, they have ,5 dozen MB 550s 2 coil offset....look at me ramble when I was just posting about locks. Lol.

Well the DNR wildlife biologist whom I was told by the NWCO specialist to contact about questions regarding the relaxing lock definition was at the ISTA fur sale this past Saturday. I asked her and she seemed to indicate that if a lock was sold as “relaxing” it was allowed.

I do not know how this reconciles with the following quote from the link in the DNR email that says:

“ The term "relaxing snare lock" is used in the Indiana hunting and trapping guide, but some locks are being sold as "relaxing" that do not meet the DNR's interpretation, causing confusion and ambiguity. The DNR interprets "relaxing snare lock" as a lock that releases pressure on a captured animal when an animal stops pulling.”

She mentioned that the definition is at least partially based on BMP study results.

So I have decided I’m full circle here. I’m just going to do what I do, use what I use, and if I am ticketed for it I will take the ticket quietly and save it for the judge. I am confident that I could show any of the locks sold as relaxing do, in a measurable way, release some pressure on the animal, and I could show that with ANY lock that is not spring assisted, as Newt said. They can’t possibly mean that the lock must release all pressure since that would not be a lock at all, and no lock on the market would meet that interpretation of the definition.

"They just rotate the long tab to release some pressure " This is what their looking for. A micro relaxing lock cannot release as much pressure.

I am finding it increasingly difficult to get any kind of firm answer on anything from game depts. They used to do that but now they want to leave everything very ambiguous so they can squirt out the other way. It’s very hard to get any kind of reply by email from them. They know those can be forwarded and saved. They seem to put stuff off as long as possible and then come up with a “ semi solution” until something comes up. Lots of kids, recent college degrees, making decisions now that have very little or no real experience concerning trapping. Let’s face it. Trappers are, in most states, just considered a sidebar. Most depts. won’t come out blatantly anti trapping but they chip away bit by bit if that’s their intent. Kentucky was very good for a while. Now it seems everyone is afraid of losing their jobs so silence is the route they choose instead of sound positive decisions. Any time you have any kind of legislative branch in the state govt. with their toe in the door you start to see sportsmen start to lose. We worked directly across the table with them to get our one piece nomenclature. It has worked out fine. Now, if we could get Sportsmans Warehouse to stop selling cam lock snares to people who don’t know or care to hang them in a horse fence around Lexington.

Before we got the any one piece lock regulation in KY it was anyone's guess as to what a relaxing lock was. I like the one piece lock definition as it is simple for the warden to see if you are legal or not.

Kytrapper - I agree on the cam lock snares being sold everywhere. Seems every farm store and feed mill around here sells them. I tell them they are not legal here but they don't care.

As if a cam lock snare is any different from one with any number of other one piece locks??? A sure lock for example will lock up so tight you can't get your cutters under the snare loop, and its not the only one one-piece lock that will do the same. Plus any snare set in a stupid location like that is bad no matter the lock.

ADC - I agree, but the law we had before was so ambiguous a warden in one county would say you were OK and in the next you would get a ticket. At least this way there is no question what a one piece lock is. I think this way the only locks that are illegal are cam locks and Ambergs, and any snare with a kill spring. That I can live with, it is the only snare restriction we have and hopefully it will stay that way.

We went from no one being sure what was legal that varied from county to county to an easily understood definition. To further eliminate any confusion we deemed SOME closing devices not to be used on land. This was basically the camlock, Amberg, and any that had a kill spring including RAMS. We have a tremendous free roaming dog problem and you can understand the spring assisted devices not being a good idea. Yes, any knowledgeable trapper could use anything with very few problems. I feel our compromise was a very workable one with all parties involved including the hound people. What we have to think about is there are fewer and fewer of us and more YouTube watchers that run down to Sportsmans Warehouse and buy anything and think nothing of setting the back fence of a Lexington subdivision. I saw a recent post on a Kentucky outdoor site with a coyote in a Camlock for the world to see. I don’t think the guy even realized he was illegal. I’m seeing so many Facebook and YouTube kids and I worry they’re going to be the death of us. I say kids but some of them are old enough to know better. Some very poor stuff out there and other kids watch other kids and want to do it that way. Even the string of comments on a picture are a turn off to non trappers. Twenty years ago, even if we had social media, you wouldn’t see a lot of snared coyote pics with a cigarette in their mouth or a beer bottle. You wouldn’t see a few on there trying to “out graphic” another posters pic with a staged coyote in a fence. We had more respect for the animals and the sport of trapping. These new ones will not join a trapping organization and care nothing about showing it in a good light. They are strictly in it so everyone can “look at me”.

Anthony, you’re post at the same time as mine is right.

True. They don’t release as much. But the definition says absolutely nothing amount how much relaxing it takes to meet the definition.

I know, your advice is not to push it for fear of losing out in the end. And I understand why you say that, and I agree. I’m not pushing it. When I used locks that were purchased, I used reverse bend washer and have been actually quite happy with them for every species I’ve snared.

Nonetheless I’m skeptical that the DNR could actually win in court if I am ticketed for using a micro lock (which I’m not going to do!). They might come back with a new definition that was more restrictive after the fact, but as it stands the letter of the law as I read it allows every lock that does not have a spring assist. A good friend who has some sort of college degree in technical writing looked at it and she agreed. Without qualifiers in the definition, if that loop can be shown to increase at all when the anchored end goes slack, even 30 thousandths of an inch, it passes that definition. I don’t want any trouble with the DNR, and I’m not trying to flout the intent of the rule and definition, so I will probably never have any problem.

Oh wow, I posted that after not looking for a while, there has been a lot of discussion since that I have not read... I will get caught up later, a friend needs emergency help getting his wood furnace hooked back up after chimney cleaning.

In all my years of experience and asking / dealing with DNR and Game and Fish. . .
A) None of them have a clue
B) Looks okay to me ( does your snare have a tag ?)
C) Bigger things to worry about / a grey area anyway. No complaint, No problem, carry on
D) All of the above.

If it doesn't have teeth or a spring , they all seem to fit the bill.
Now, those garbage B.A.D. S Hooks, I have to use, that coyotes are opening up as if they were aluminum. . . ( now there's an argument !)

Nobody says you have to use the S-hook bads. There's other legal options if you wish to use BADs

Gregerson L4 or a deer stop and I'm not EVER using a deer stop !

There are legal jhook bads and release ferrules