Home‎ > ‎Trapping‎ > ‎Trapping FAQ‎ > ‎

Why do trappers make vague statements like "... that would make trapping ineffective for some species"?

posted Apr 1, 2012, 10:25 PM by Scott Slocum   [ updated Apr 18, 2012, 3:09 PM ]
  • They're not looking at the alternatives.
    • For instance, neither the meat bait nor the body-gripping traps that endanger dogs are required to trap raccoons.
    • For instance, fishers, martens, and raccoons are good climbers, so it's not necessary to trap them at ground level where dogs are in danger.
    • For instance, bobcats are more reliably caught by leg-hold traps than by the body-gripping traps that kill dogs (but of course, there's extra work required to check leg-hold traps every day, as described below).
  • They're avoiding the extra work.
    • Trappers' main complaint is that it's extra work to check their traps every day.
    • In Minnesota, a trap or snare that generally restrains rather than kills must be checked every day.
    • Body-gripping traps generally kill, so the Minnesota requirement is that they need only be checked every three days.
  • They're very convincing.
    • They make better sound bytes from pithy expressions based on long experience.
    • Their opponents talk too long, and bore their audiences with too many details that are too hard to sort out.