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 ~~~


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


Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Wildlife Services in the news...not good [Re: waggler] #6432751
01/18/19 04:22 PM
01/18/19 04:22 PM
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,510
South Dakota
T
TravC Offline
"MCnasty"
TravC  Offline
"MCnasty"
T

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,510
South Dakota
Originally Posted by waggler
As a fur trapper I'm opposed to using poison in most of these cases.
Fur bearing animals should be considered an asset, not a liability that should be eradicated.
This article might be bad news for exterminators, but not for fur trappers.


Since when is protecting livestock extermination?
I do beleive you confused or have the retarded notion trapping should only be for harvest
Can you explain to me how doing control work takes away from you? Last i looked extermination and predator control are two diffrent things. A coyote may be an asett to you in winter but what about the people loseing money to them the rest of the time?


There i said it....
Re: Wildlife Services in the news...not good [Re: TRapper] #6432752
01/18/19 04:22 PM
01/18/19 04:22 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 34,872
Central, SD
Law Dog Offline
trapper
Law Dog  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 34,872
Central, SD
Like always the focus the is on the fraction of the 1% and being made into the norm rather then seen for what it really is, one guy alone messed up and he set where he should not of set nothing more then that!


Was born in a Big City Will die in the Country OK with that!

Jerry Herbst
Re: Wildlife Services in the news...not good [Re: Law Dog] #6432754
01/18/19 04:22 PM
01/18/19 04:22 PM
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,510
South Dakota
T
TravC Offline
"MCnasty"
TravC  Offline
"MCnasty"
T

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,510
South Dakota
Originally Posted by Law Dog
Originally Posted by waggler
I don't think the issue is just about dogs, it's wildlife too.
Everyone seems to make it a dog thing.



What are you getting at wildlife? You might me mixing up 1080 with cyanide not the same thing.

I dont think he has a clue


There i said it....
Re: Wildlife Services in the news...not good [Re: TRapper] #6432766
01/18/19 04:33 PM
01/18/19 04:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,971
Peoria County Illinois
Larry Baer Offline
trapper
Larry Baer  Offline
trapper

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,971
Peoria County Illinois
M44 set shave signs posted around them. I saw some in Montana a little over a year ago. They were clearly posted with red and white signs about 12'' square. Super easy to see and read.

What's the name of that guy in the video trailer who used to be a coyote trapper but now is an animal rights activist? He's the one that says he couldn't sleep at night if he had an M44 set out. M44 are not indiscriminate killers like the trailer say they are.

Bad news for trappers of all types. There are lots of regs for this- here they are on signage. Pretty cut and dried.


Additional Guidelines for Complying with M-44 Use Restriction 8(2) include:
M-44s will not be placed within 0.5 mile of occupied residences except for those
belonging to a cooperator who has requested the use of M-44s and has signed a Work
Initiation Document. Within properties where its use is authorized, the M-44 device shall
only be used in areas where exposure to the public and family and pets is not probable,
per Use Restriction 8(2). In certain situations, applicators may request a variance to the
0.5 mile restriction to allow for M-44 devices to be placed between 0.25 and 0.5 mile of
an occupied residence. After applying the WS Decision Model (WS Directive 2.201) and
determining that the use of an M-44 is acceptable and practical for the situation, the
applicator may request a variance by completing WS Form 205. The applicator will use
the WS Form 205 to document the characteristics of the Cooperator’s property and
surrounding area.
WS Form 205 must be submitted by the applicator through their supervisor to the
Regional Director, who will evaluate each WS Form 205 on a site-by-site basis and
render a decision based on the totality of information provided. Variance applications
will be granted only if they demonstrate that potential for human or pet exposure to M44s at the site is not probable. The Regional Director will evaluate a variance approval
annually, or more frequently as appropriate. If approved, copies of WS Form 205 will be
maintained by the applicator, District Supervisor, State Director, and Regional Director.
Variance requests approved by the Regional Director are contingent on the subsequent
notification of residents located within 0.5 miles of the proposed M-44 location(s). It is
the supervisor’s responsibility to ensure that resident notifications are performed and
documented by WS staff prior to setting M-44s in the area covered by the variance.
Wildlife Services 2.415 Page 3 of 4
WS will notify the owner or lessee occupying any residence between 0.25 and 0.5 miles
of an M-44 device prior to their use in the area. Documentation of the notification will be
maintained by the WS State Director.
The identity of the Cooperator and of the Cooperator’s property, must not be shared
directly with the notified individuals unless the Cooperator has authorized disclosure in
writing.
WS personnel are expected to accurately identify property boundaries where M-44
devices are to be placed. If the property boundaries are not clearly posted, or the
landowner or lessor is unable to accurately identify the property boundaries, WS
personnel shall use electronic mapping or aerial imagery to identify: a) cooperator
property boundaries to ensure devices are placed on the property covered by the
agreement; and b) non-cooperator residences, to ensure none are within 0.5 mile of the
device and/or residences that may require a variance using WS Form 205. Buildings that
are obviously abandoned or not actively occupied are not residences for purposes of this
interpretation.
Additional Guidelines for Complying with M-44 Use Restriction 23
On properties where no fence lines exist to identify property boundaries or display
warning signs, appropriate warning signs shall be erected to indicate that M-44 devices
have been placed on the property (“premise sign”) per Use Restriction 23(a). A WS
authorized elevated sign (“device sign”) as required by Use Restriction 23(b), must be
securely anchored to a stake, post or wire and positioned vertically above ground level or
hung from a low hanging tree limb in a manner that renders it clearly visible and legible
from the device. One elevated device sign will be required for each M-44 device set. WS
requires elevated device signs to be placed within 15 feet of each individual M-44
Device, a more stringent requirement than the EPA label Use Restriction. Applicators
should use the most recent version of the device and premise signs available through the
Pocatello Supply Depot. Signs that become faded, ripped, or otherwise illegible must be
replaced.



Last edited by Larry Baer; 01/18/19 04:42 PM.

Just passin through
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread