Strictly Trapping


No Profanity *** No Flaming *** No Advertising *** No Anti Trappers *** No Politics
No Non-Target Catches *** No Links to Anti-trapping Sites *** No Avoiding Profanity Filter


Home~Trap Talk~ADC Forum~Trap Shed~Wilderness Trapping~International Trappers~Fur Handling

Auction Forum~Trapper Tips~Links~Gallery~Basic Sets~Convention Calendar~Chat~ Trap Collecting Forum

Trapper's Humor~Strictly Trapping~Fur Buyers Directory~Mugshots~Fur Sale Directory~Wildcrafting~The Pen and Quill

Trapper's Tales~Words From The Past~Legends~Archives~Kids Forum~Lure Formulators Forum~ Fermenter's Forum


~~~ Dobbins' Products Catalog ~~~


Trading Post
(Please support F&T Trading Post, our sponsor for the Trapping Only Forum)



TrappersPost
Please support Trappers post, a sponsor of the Strictly Trapping Forum



Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Missouri proposed changes #8427703
06/28/25 09:48 PM
06/28/25 09:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2024
Missouri
M
MoFur25 Offline OP
trapper
MoFur25  Offline OP
trapper
M

Joined: Oct 2024
Missouri
What’s all Missouri people’s thoughts on the 220 and snares on private land proposed changes?

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8427755
06/29/25 12:23 AM
06/29/25 12:23 AM
Joined: Nov 2023
West central Missouri
R
Raghorn67 Offline
trapper
Raghorn67  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: Nov 2023
West central Missouri
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.

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8428496
06/30/25 01:26 PM
06/30/25 01:26 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
St. Louis Co, Mo
B
BigBob Online happy
trapper
BigBob  Online Happy
trapper
B

Joined: Dec 2006
St. Louis Co, Mo
Not so sure about this one. Just wait till fifi or a Beagle/Coon hound get killed by one.


Every kid needs a Dog and a Curmudgeon.

Remember Bowe Bergdahl, the traitor.

Beware! Jill Pudlewski, Ron Oates and Keven Begesse are liars and thiefs!
Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8428563
06/30/25 03:37 PM
06/30/25 03:37 PM
Joined: Nov 2023
West central Missouri
R
Raghorn67 Offline
trapper
Raghorn67  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: Nov 2023
West central Missouri
I'm dang sure not against it.

Curious what regulations other states have for dry land sets ?

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8428578
06/30/25 04:29 PM
06/30/25 04:29 PM
Joined: May 2025
kansas
D
D.U.B. Offline
trapper
D.U.B.  Offline
trapper
D

Joined: May 2025
kansas
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

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: Raghorn67] #8428698
06/30/25 08:52 PM
06/30/25 08:52 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
South Ga - Almost Florida
Swamp Wolf Offline
trapper
Swamp Wolf  Offline
trapper

Joined: Apr 2009
South Ga - Almost Florida
Originally Posted by Raghorn67
I'm dang sure not against it.

Curious what regulations other states have for dry land sets ?


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.


Thank God For Your Blessings!
Never Half-Arse Anything!

Resource Protection Service

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8428758
06/30/25 10:35 PM
06/30/25 10:35 PM
Joined: Oct 2011
Idaho
B
bearcat2 Offline
trapper
bearcat2  Offline
trapper
B

Joined: Oct 2011
Idaho
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.

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: BigBob] #8430073
07/03/25 09:26 AM
07/03/25 09:26 AM
Joined: Mar 2018
NC
T
Tailhunter Offline
trapper
Tailhunter  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Mar 2018
NC
Originally Posted by BigBob
Not so sure about this one. Just wait till fifi or a Beagle/Coon hound get killed by one.


Thats why it’s called private land.

People need to keep their precious pets contained.

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8430174
07/03/25 01:39 PM
07/03/25 01:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
St. Louis Co, Mo
B
BigBob Online happy
trapper
BigBob  Online Happy
trapper
B

Joined: Dec 2006
St. Louis Co, Mo
Not possible to "Contain" a hunting dog doing it's job.


Every kid needs a Dog and a Curmudgeon.

Remember Bowe Bergdahl, the traitor.

Beware! Jill Pudlewski, Ron Oates and Keven Begesse are liars and thiefs!
Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: Tailhunter] #8430190
07/03/25 02:14 PM
07/03/25 02:14 PM
Joined: May 2011
Garden,Michigan
B
Buck (Zandra) Offline
trapper
Buck (Zandra)  Offline
trapper
B

Joined: May 2011
Garden,Michigan
Originally Posted by Tailhunter
Originally Posted by BigBob
Not so sure about this one. Just wait till fifi or a Beagle/Coon hound get killed by one.


Thats why it’s called private land.

People need to keep their precious pets contained.

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.


Buck(formely known as Zandra)
Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: BigBob] #8430243
07/03/25 03:34 PM
07/03/25 03:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2023
WI
WI Outdoors Offline
trapper
WI Outdoors  Offline
trapper

Joined: Mar 2023
WI
Originally Posted by BigBob
Not possible to "Contain" a hunting dog doing it's job.

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.

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8430282
07/03/25 05:01 PM
07/03/25 05:01 PM
Joined: May 2025
kansas
D
D.U.B. Offline
trapper
D.U.B.  Offline
trapper
D

Joined: May 2025
kansas
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.

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: D.U.B.] #8430322
07/03/25 06:15 PM
07/03/25 06:15 PM
Joined: Nov 2023
West central Missouri
R
Raghorn67 Offline
trapper
Raghorn67  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: Nov 2023
West central Missouri
Originally Posted by D.U.B.
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.

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8431050
07/05/25 09:01 AM
07/05/25 09:01 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Wisconsin
Muskrat Offline
trapper
Muskrat  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2006
Wisconsin
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?


Lifetime member of WTA and NTA
Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: Muskrat] #8431072
07/05/25 10:01 AM
07/05/25 10:01 AM
Joined: Feb 2015
Iowa
T
trapdog1 Offline
trapper
trapdog1  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Feb 2015
Iowa
Originally Posted by Muskrat
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.

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: trapdog1] #8431159
07/05/25 01:23 PM
07/05/25 01:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Wisconsin
Muskrat Offline
trapper
Muskrat  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2006
Wisconsin
Originally Posted by trapdog1
Originally Posted by Muskrat
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.


Lifetime member of WTA and NTA
Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8431168
07/05/25 01:33 PM
07/05/25 01:33 PM
Joined: Feb 2015
Iowa
T
trapdog1 Offline
trapper
trapdog1  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Feb 2015
Iowa
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.

Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8431227
07/05/25 03:35 PM
07/05/25 03:35 PM
Joined: Mar 2018
Missouri
H
HayDay Offline
trapper
HayDay  Offline
trapper
H

Joined: Mar 2018
Missouri
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


Easy to vote your way into socialism, but impossible to vote your way out of it.
Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: MoFur25] #8431312
07/05/25 06:22 PM
07/05/25 06:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Georgia
warrior Offline
trapper
warrior  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Georgia
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.


[Linked Image]
Re: Missouri proposed changes [Re: warrior] #8431338
07/05/25 07:41 PM
07/05/25 07:41 PM
Joined: Feb 2015
Iowa
T
trapdog1 Offline
trapper
trapdog1  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Feb 2015
Iowa
Originally Posted by warrior
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.

Page 1 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

Moderated by  Drifter, Wolfdog91 

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1