What’s all Missouri people’s thoughts on the 220 and snares on private land proposed changes?

It looks like they're proposing to let us use conibear and similar traps with 7" openings for dry land sets on private land. I haven't read into it a lot yet so I'm not going to spread unfounded rumors beyond what I typed out here.

Not so sure about this one. Just wait till fifi or a Beagle/Coon hound get killed by one.

I'm dang sure not against it.

Curious what regulations other states have for dry land sets ?

Ks is anything over 220 has to be halfway under water snares have to be 50 ft off the fence bordering a road unless you own the property then you can set snares in fence

Georgia:

Bodygrips in excess of 9.5" must be set in water or within 10' of water. So, 280s and smaller can be used on land. Also, "water" is not defined...could be a mud puddle or a 1000 acre lake....all qualifies.

Snares are legal only when set for beaver and also must be in water or within 10' of water. Any other furbearer caught in a beaver snare is not legal to possess. There are no restrictions related to lock type or entanglement.

Idaho they changed it a few years ago to where you can't use baited 330s on dry land. Bait in Idaho is defined as animal products, so say a beaver set with fresh cut sticks as bait would not be considered a baited set (not that I've ever heard of anybody making one of those on dry land). This change was actually proposed/approved by the ITA because there was an issue with a couple of trappers making a bunch of 330 bobcat sets in some very popular bird hunting sites in southern Idaho and catching bird dogs in them. The rumor was they were intentionally using 330s in an attempt to cause the bird hunters to stop hunting there. The ITA decided to accept the restriction on baited dryland 330 sets as a compromise instead of the original proposed change to restrict 330s to water only sets. Wolf snares must have either a deer stop or a breakaway, I believe all other snares are not required to have either, but have not checked the regs on that in a few years and it is possible it has changed.

Thats why it’s called private land.

People need to keep their precious pets contained.

Not possible to "Contain" a hunting dog doing it's job.

If a dog crosses property lines and gets caught it won't matter,if the Missouri game dept is anything like our DNR.They folded and bowed to the houndsmen gods when they started squawking.

You're right. No bad dogs, just bad owners. I do believe the chances of it happening are slim. We can play the what if game till the cows come home.

Get permission to turn loose instead of just running the country thinking your all clear. Gets annoying when you go through all the hoops to gain permission and follow all the regs to have a group of hound hunters think they are free to roll through the whole county.

Citiot deer hunters and the freak'n Amish are notorious for going anywhere they want to and believing that the laws don't pertain to them.
We have an occasional coon hunter that gets treed and they always come to the door. I will take a coon hunter over a citiot or Amish and day.

Not from Missouri, but will interject some thoughts here. A dog killed in a trap will be perceived the same whether it occurred on public or private property. Doesn't matter how many dogs get killed in traps. What matters is whose dog it is and what commences afterwards.

One possible path initiates a movement to ban trapping. Could be size of trap, location of traps set, might even push for an all out ban on trapping. Could start with the township and move up.

Another probable path would find the trapper in civil court. That rarely ends well for the trapper, no matter if everything was done legally.

Other pathways exist, few if any turn out positive for the trapping community. Basically comes down to this: is it worth it?

This is nuts. ANY expansion of the ability to use new tools and sets should be celebrated, especially on private property. Being afraid of something that may or may not happen is just plain silly. These tools should absolutely be allowed on private property.

Any expansion? Apparently you haven't met Murphy yet.

I'll bet everyone has met Mr. Murphy at some point in life! Probably more than once. But still no reason not to use these traps in a legal manner on private property.

Proposed changes........OK by me. At the farm, can think of a few places where the body grips or snares could be used in place of foot holds. With killing traps, non-targets I would be concerned about are barn cats and neighbor's dogs, which sometimes roam a mile or two. First dead dog would get the owner riled up, followed by remaining dogs tied up or otherwise restrained. May not be a bad thing. Prevents stunts like a year ago when two dogs showed up to kill all the chickens. They came from over a mile away when the invisible fence went down and they got loose.

MO not all the different from Iowa and if that is causing problems in IA, not aware of it.

https://mdc.mo.gov/newsroom/mdc-proposes-expanding-furbearer-hunting-trapping

I despise the defeatist attitude within the trapping community that is afraid of "upsetting the apple cart" when it comes to our responsible use of tools. None of us that value what we do set out to do harm and avoid conflict. What we can't do is assume responsibility for the stupid and possibly criminal actions of others.
We could what if ourselves right into an outright prohibition on what we do.

Well said, Warrior.

Despise? Defeatist attitude? Oh my . . . "we could what if ourselves right into an outright prohibition on what we do." Yea, okay.

Somehow Wisconsin trappers are able to trap target critters without unenclosed 7x7 bodygrip traps or dryland snares . . . public or private property.

When you calm down enough to write coherent sentences, take a peek at our regs for the upcoming season. Then come back and share with us how Wisconsin trappers could "what if" ourselves into an outright prohibition.

https://widnr.widen.net/s/pwmrrrp7kg/2025-trapping-regulations

Okay, how about this.

I despise other trappers that attack other trappers for suggesting updating regs to allow the use of recently developed modern and pet safe tools.

Because exactly that happened to me more than once for suggesting the use of the collarum device.

You do you and your state, but don't jump me because I'm tired of chickencrap cowards who won't fight for what we do.

Calm down, drama queen. There is no attack here. Reread my first sentence. I interjected some thoughts. And no . . . there's no jumping you. Please.

Get through those WI regs yet?

In Iowa, snares and 220s are legal on public (ROW) and private lands. Been that way for years.

Are there any beagles left in the state of Iowa? I love dogs and hate some dog owners. Looking forward to the use of 220s.

Thankfully, haven't heard of any problems in a long time. I'm not sure, but I think there may be some restrictions on some public hunting areas and such. But public or private, people need to use their heads and be careful where you make sets. And with lots of things in life, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

If these proposed changes are adopted, they aren't mandatory. So, if you don't agree with the changes, don't use them. There are changes I'd like to see in my home state, and I certainly would take advantage of them if our DNR would approve them. It just seems unusual that trappers are being given an opportunity for more ways to trap at their disposal, and some are turning away from them.

I run a lot of 220s for coon here on private ground and have had zero issues using them. Be smart where you set them of course/ tightest spots on coon trails are great and so are trails long creeks and ditches. Im not really a fan of coon snaring but I was never good at it and had too many damaged coon in my snares for my liking. I’ll set 220s all day right with DP and some cages, plus blind setting with footholds too. The 220 it’s a great tool and hope they do open that up for you. I run a few 160s too. They can be a little too small though for our coon.
Jim

I'm not complaining about the potential new rules allowing us to use a 220 on dry land. I like the idea.

I'm with you. I welcome it and I think it'll be a great tool to have available to us. The coon population is insane around my area and I will buy a bunch of 220's to add to my arsenal of traps.

That's coming from a man that grew up with beagles, bird dogs and coon hounds.

I’m all for it personally, there’s places I wont use them ( not taking a chance burning a bridge with landowners) just use common sense and it’ll be alright as I’m sure trappers in states with this already in place do. I try and be as transparent with landowners as I can be with what I’m using