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 ~ Live Chat

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 ~~~


Minnesota Trapline Products
Please support our sponsor for the Trappers Talk Page - Minnesota Trapline Products


Print Thread
Hop To
160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? #8583229
7 hours ago
7 hours ago
Joined: Jun 2007
Illinois
foxkidd44 Offline OP
trapper
foxkidd44  Offline OP
trapper

Joined: Jun 2007
Illinois
Guys,,, I personally like 160s because I feel that 160s kill a coon faster.. just my opinion. And I really like them.
But this past season I really got to thinking,,, am I getting more refusals than I realize because of the smaller size compared to the 220??
I know some guys who use the 5x5 for raccoon in boxes because of limited regulations , do kill raccoon,, but they do get more refusals.

Any of you guys with cameras ever catch this on your camera???


Stand by your principles, Stand by your guns, and victory complete and permanent is sure at last.
Abraham Lincoln
Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583246
7 hours ago
7 hours ago
Joined: Nov 2010
Rochester, MN
Teacher Offline
trapper
Teacher  Offline
trapper

Joined: Nov 2010
Rochester, MN
When I use conibears for coon I reach for 160s. We’ve upped our fisher box traps to 160s and coon have no trouble sticking their heads into wooden box cubbies with this trap. Minnesota coon don’t seem to care about avoidance, in my humble opinion.

That being said, if you cut a hole in a plastic bucket cover that’s 6x6, a coon will stick its’ head in no matter what size the trap is. Curiosity and hunger will get the better of them at some point.

The guys using 5x5 conibears have smaller coon to deal with. A big coon in MN, IL, Wi, Mich, northern IA and at least half of NE will be 25+ pounds. A big coin in the states restricted to the 5x5 traps might be 12+ pounds. Size matters but a 160 whether in a bucket or on a stand will take bery big coon if they’re there to begin with.


Never too old to learn
Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583272
6 hours ago
6 hours ago
Joined: Jan 2007
mo.
N
nate Offline
trapper
nate  Offline
trapper
N

Joined: Jan 2007
mo.
Foxkidd
Just curious, do you think bucket cubbies work where dps get refusals?

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583276
6 hours ago
6 hours ago
Joined: Dec 2006
Ames, IA
MikeTraps2 Offline
trapper
MikeTraps2  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2006
Ames, IA
I use 160's in boxes, BUT I have hardware cloth backing on the box so they can see through, I use a PAN, on the coni, I also RAISE the front of the box 3-4 inches from the ground. I feel adding these steps helps make the box more inviting, and on trails and dry creeks where I had boxes and DP set, never caught a coon in a D{ unless a coon was already DOA in the box.


Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure

Theodore Roosevelt
Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: nate] #8583278
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
Joined: Jun 2007
Illinois
foxkidd44 Offline OP
trapper
foxkidd44  Offline OP
trapper

Joined: Jun 2007
Illinois
Originally Posted by nate
Foxkidd
Just curious, do you think bucket cubbies work where dps get refusals?

I think that would depend on bait and time of year.in my personal experience.
a coon would absolutely go after a chunk of oily carp in the back of a box than they would over cat food in a DP in slightly colder temperatures..I’ve noticed that coon tend to avoid the sweeter stuff when it’s colder.
In early season it would be a toss up,,, because sweets and fish are equally attractive.


Stand by your principles, Stand by your guns, and victory complete and permanent is sure at last.
Abraham Lincoln
Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: MikeTraps2] #8583281
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
Joined: Jun 2007
Illinois
foxkidd44 Offline OP
trapper
foxkidd44  Offline OP
trapper

Joined: Jun 2007
Illinois
Originally Posted by MikeTraps2
I use 160's in boxes, BUT I have hardware cloth backing on the box so they can see through, I use a PAN, on the coni, I also RAISE the front of the box 3-4 inches from the ground. I feel adding these steps helps make the box more inviting, and on trails and dry creeks where I had boxes and DP set, never caught a coon in a D{ unless a coon was already DOA in the box.


Mike , all my boxes are still deployed,, I leave them in the woods year round because I hate lugging them around,, but I’ll try to snap a picture tomorrow of how I have built mine.

Mine are elevated and have hardware screens in the back.


Stand by your principles, Stand by your guns, and victory complete and permanent is sure at last.
Abraham Lincoln
Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583284
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
Joined: Jun 2010
Iowa
~ADC~ Offline
The Count
~ADC~  Offline
The Count

Joined: Jun 2010
Iowa
I'll stick with 220's.

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: ~ADC~] #8583287
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
Joined: Jan 2007
mo.
N
nate Offline
trapper
nate  Offline
trapper
N

Joined: Jan 2007
mo.
Originally Posted by ~ADC~
I'll stick with 220's.

Trail's or bucket's or both?

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583292
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
Joined: Dec 2022
illinois
J
jalstat Offline
trapper
jalstat  Offline
trapper
J

Joined: Dec 2022
illinois
Both but I like 160’s also and also like them in paths

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583311
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
Joined: May 2017
ontario
K
k9-hunter Offline
trapper
k9-hunter  Offline
trapper
K

Joined: May 2017
ontario
i believe if your making boxes and have no restrictions i think a coon wouldn't hesitate on a 220 as i have noticed smaller boxes with 160 usually will have reach in also found on a smaller box seems to work better if the front of the box is elevated a couple of inches off the ground i make all my new boxes 9x9x24 with slots 12" deep now all my boxes are universal for trap makes and can take 160 and 220

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583326
4 hours ago
4 hours ago
Joined: Jan 2007
MN
160user Offline
trapper
160user  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
MN
160 is ALWAYS the right answer. grin grin grin grin


I have nothing clever to put here.





Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583334
4 hours ago
4 hours ago
Joined: Aug 2013
Louisville, Nebraska
jabNE Offline
trapper
jabNE  Offline
trapper

Joined: Aug 2013
Louisville, Nebraska
Depends on the trail but for boxes I like 160s and some tight trails I use them there too.
Jim


Money cannot buy you happiness, but it can buy you a trapping license and that's pretty close.
Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583373
3 hours ago
3 hours ago
Joined: Dec 2006
Northern Illinois
M
MChewk Offline
trapper
MChewk  Offline
trapper
M

Joined: Dec 2006
Northern Illinois
I like the 160 magnum traps in my boxes...tight closure helps a lot.
John have you caught any fox or coyotes in your boxes yet? I know
the Minnesota guys catch bobcats in their boxes.

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: nate] #8583382
3 hours ago
3 hours ago
Joined: Jun 2010
Iowa
~ADC~ Offline
The Count
~ADC~  Offline
The Count

Joined: Jun 2010
Iowa
Originally Posted by nate
Originally Posted by ~ADC~
I'll stick with 220's.

Trail's or bucket's or both?

Both. No matter how good you think a 160 is for coons, a 220 is always better unless they are already squeezing through a 160 sized hole already. You'll get refusals even with 220's and 160s are even smaller.

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583385
3 hours ago
3 hours ago
Joined: Aug 2010
Asheville, NC
C
charles Offline
trapper
charles  Offline
trapper
C

Joined: Aug 2010
Asheville, NC
Used to use 5-gallon buckets. Mant had lids. With the lids, the 160 worked well. Used 220 if I didn't have a lid.

I remember one small possum caught around its shoulders that was still alive, and I released it. Don't recall the trap. I expect it was a 160.

I think buckets with lids out caught those w/o lids. I trapped some in coastal marsh areas where otters were present. Caught at least one per year in a bucket. Bait was fresh fish, mostly tuna.

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583390
2 hours ago
2 hours ago
Joined: Jan 2014
Virginia
5
52Carl Offline
trapper
52Carl  Offline
trapper
5

Joined: Jan 2014
Virginia
Bellisle 160.

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583427
1 hour ago
1 hour ago
Joined: May 2017
ontario
K
k9-hunter Offline
trapper
k9-hunter  Offline
trapper
K

Joined: May 2017
ontario
there is another design of box that works well also for varied size conis and thats in a pyramid shape with opening 10" and narrows down too 4"approx 24" long the advantage too these also is if you pull your boxes they stack nicely

Re: 160 vs 220 for raccoon in boxes? [Re: foxkidd44] #8583459
20 minutes ago
20 minutes ago
Joined: Jun 2008
sseMinnesota
blackhammer Offline
trapper
blackhammer  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jun 2008
sseMinnesota
You will catch more coon with fewer refusals imo in 220s. You can catch some big coon in 160s but you put a 160 inside a 220 and look at the difference . I think your refusal percentage would be higher and some of it would be determined by time of year and how hungry that coon is with boxes or pails. In trails the 220 rules with no exceptions.


Ah,for the life of a millionaire,say some,but just let me stay a trapper. Bill Nelson
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread