Owen Sound Times Articles

The local paper has been writing articles all this week about trapping in the area. Several dogs have been killed in conibear traps locally. The MNRs response has been to remind dog owners that their pet should be leashed in areas with wildlife to avoid harassment. I get that but what about if the dog is accompanying a hunter?

I hunt grouse with a cocker spaniel. She has zero interest in any other wildlife. How do I avoid a trap encounter? I was told by a licensed ttrapper in the Ottawa Valley that conibears are either set in elevated box traps for marten or underwater for beaver and muskrat. I'm surprised to find they can be set on the ground with a marshmallow as a bait.Is this a legal set with a conibear?

Can somebody educate me here

The next article in the paper did indicate the conibear can be set on the ground. Trappers in Eastern Ontario have attempted to pressure the Provincial Trappers Association and the MNR to make these sets illegal. It has fallen on deaf ears.

I would suggest the Trappers Association get out in front of this before public pressure is brought to bear and they are handed new regulations by the government.

All licensed trappers in southern Ontario require written permission from the landowner to trap, that includes county forests, parks, ditches, road allowances, etc. These dogs that are getting caught in traps, do they have permission from the landowner to let there dogs run unleashed? In the municipality that I trap, all dogs are required to be leashed. As a trapper I have laws to follow, dog owners have laws to follow too.....not just for their safety, but for the public. My wife was eight months pregnant and was tackled to the ground by a unleashed dog, a couple nights in the hospital her and the baby were fine.....so I’m not a big fan of any dog being off the leash, just like some people are not fans of trappers.
When I set up on a property, I always ask the land owner if there any pets that have access. If no pets, I then explain the sets I’m using, and tell them that they will kill a pet if caught. If they say that John Doe is seen walking his dog on the property line twice a week then I change my sets so that they don’t kill.

Trappers have a responsibility to make their sets for the conditions at hand to ensure that they don’t trap a nontarget critter,and of course follow the law. Dog owners have a responsibility to control there dogs and follow the law too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skull1

All licensed trappers in southern Ontario require written permission from the landowner to trap, that includes county forests, parks, ditches, road allowances, etc. These dogs that are getting caught in traps, do they have permission from the landowner to let there dogs run unleashed? In the municipality that I trap, all dogs are required to be leashed. As a trapper I have laws to follow, dog owners have laws to follow too.....not just for their safety, but for the public. My wife was eight months pregnant and was tackled to the ground by a unleashed dog, a couple nights in the hospital her and the baby were fine.....so I’m not a big fan of any dog being off the leash, just like some people are not fans of trappers.
When I set up on a property, I always ask the land owner if there any pets that have access. If no pets, I then explain the sets I’m using, and tell them that they will kill a pet if caught. If they say that John Doe is seen walking his dog on the property line twice a week then I change my sets so that they don’t kill.

Trappers have a responsibility to make their sets for the conditions at hand to ensure that they don’t trap a nontarget critter,and of course follow the law. Dog owners have a responsibility to control there dogs and follow the law too.

---

Excellent reply, I suspect that the majority of the domestic animals caught are the fault of the owners who let them off leash because they don't need to "follow" the leash rules.

https://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ne...s-common-sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skull1

All licensed trappers in southern Ontario require written permission from the landowner to trap, that includes county forests, parks, ditches, road allowances, etc. These dogs that are getting caught in traps, do they have permission from the landowner to let there dogs run unleashed? In the municipality that I trap, all dogs are required to be leashed. As a trapper I have laws to follow, dog owners have laws to follow too.....not just for their safety, but for the public. My wife was eight months pregnant and was tackled to the ground by a unleashed dog, a couple nights in the hospital her and the baby were fine.....so I’m not a big fan of any dog being off the leash, just like some people are not fans of trappers.
When I set up on a property, I always ask the land owner if there any pets that have access. If no pets, I then explain the sets I’m using, and tell them that they will kill a pet if caught. If they say that John Doe is seen walking his dog on the property line twice a week then I change my sets so that they don’t kill.

Trappers have a responsibility to make their sets for the conditions at hand to ensure that they don’t trap a nontarget critter,and of course follow the law. Dog owners have a responsibility to control there dogs and follow the law too.

---

I totally agree with you about off leash dogs. My problem is with a spaniel that I'm hunting with. She'd get nailed for sure. I hunt crownland mostly.

Just curious as to why you can't use a dog resistant trap set all the time. You mention if the landowner identifies dogs walking on his property you use different techniques. Time consuming? Not as efficient?

BTW. I'm certainly not anti just wondering how to coexist.

Every trapper south of the French river requires written permission to trap even on crown land. When I trap a parcel of land that the public has access to, all my land sets are live restraining sets. On private land.....I judge what’s the safest. The article in the Suntimes doesn’t say for sure that the couple walking the property had written permission to walk there dog on the golf course.

Live sets by law have to be checked every 24hrs preferably in the morning. Conibears don’t require to be checked everyday. I prefer conibears.....that’s just me.....do I use them all the time.......NO. It all depends on the situation. There are some years that I only use dog proof legholds.....no conibears. It all depends on the situation and location.

If you are worried about crown land, look into who looks after it, ie. Provincial Park, MNR, Conservation authority, ask them if there is anyone trapping the land...they will know.
There is a strip of crown land beside a property I trap. The nearest Provincal Park looks after it......hunting is allowed. I asked the Park permission to trap water sets for mink....but it was decided that with the amount of people using the trails that I was denied permission to trap. Although I’m pretty confident that I can trap mink without any issues....I have to respect their decision.

Dano O, there is absolutely no reason why body gripper kill traps need to be set on the ground, other than it's a perceived right for trappers to do so because it's allowed in the regs. I've trapped for 35 years now and all my fisher, marten, and racoon sets are elevated out of dog range, using either a pail or box cubby on a running pole. I've never had any problem luring the target animal to run the pole to encounter the baited cubby. Any trapper that argues you'll catch more on the ground in a blind trail set, etc. has not been trapping for very long. Why would you want the animal trapped on the ground anyway, as there is a very good chance it will get damaged grade from mice, soiled fur , and possibly belly taint from the part of the carcass that was insulated from contact with the ground. How can you feel OK about leaving a baited kill trap on the ground knowing that there is a very good chance someone's dog is going to die in it? Did your neighbour's yellow Lab from two farms over read the latest copy of the regs before he did his daily walk across the property to come visit the kids and play with your dog. So you have a registered line on crown land that gives you the privelege to be the sole manager of the fur populations on that block of land. How can you possibly not think of the others who will also legally access and use that same piece of land? eg. the licenced hunter who's walking all the trails with his pointer, hoping to shoot a grouse, the hunter running two beagles on snowshoe hare, the couple from the city who are at the cottage and bring the kids and dog for a walk in the bush. The dog is legally off leash, under supervision and control by the owner, not "running at large" as specified by definition under the FWCA, but goes and investigates something that smells real good, 50 yds off the trail they're walking on. So as a trapper, you're going to argue that they should have known better and you have the right to set your kill traps on the ground?
There's a pile of non-thinking going on and OFMF is not seeing the trees because of the forest on this one. They're investing all their time and resources in an attempt to do damage control on the never -ending wave of dog kill events, while adamantly resisting any logical improvement to the regulations. They should be leading the push to revise the regs.
The public has had enough and rightly so. Social media and petitions will force regulation changes soon once MNR gets pressured. I wonder if there will be any industry left.

Thanks Fenelon, very well thought out and written, using a lot of common sense.

As a trapper it's frustrating to see the stance that ofmf has/is taking on this issue. They've done some really good beefing on their course training manual to emphasize humane trapping techniques and dog friendly sets. The problem is the material is not mandatory under law, and the trapper education approach does not seem to be working, as we continue to see trappers doing ground sets and killing dogs. Perhaps it's also time to make it law that all farmers must take the provincial fur course if they are going to be in possession of traps and are going to trap on their own property. Mnr is to blame for some of the problems the industry is facing. They've gone and legalized the use of rcrs by a bunch of untrained trappers and farmers. Ofmf pushed hard to get mandatory training as a requirement for use of the equipment. Mnr balked on it so now we have a pile of lethal snares being set by trappers and some farmers in southern Ontario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Thanks Fenelon, very well thought out and written, using a lot of common sense.

---

I agree 100% . :thumbup: Just because you can do something, (legally), does not mean you should. By the way, my son is a licenced trapper.

I learned a lot from what you wrote Fenelon, thanks.

The recent incident that caused this in the Dundalk area was 100 percent illegal , I’m completely sick of trappers getting thrown under the bus for (expletives not suitable for use here ) idiots who get ahold of traps and do this stuff , I’ve been involved in the dog and trap issue in southern Ontario for over 15 years now and been round and round on this issue , recently had someone ask in a Facebook trapping group ask what was the best body grip trap to make bucket sets for foxes , just a disaster in the making , luckily was able to steer the fella in the direction of a trappers course instructor and headed off a Potential bad issue , I am of the opinion that bait , lure and killer traps are a completely poor combination on the ground because of the attraction to dogs , and it seems anytime we have an issue it involves this combo and trappers need to regulate themselves accordingly , we have the knowledge and ability’s to set to avoid dog catches and need to do it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenelon

Dano O, there is absolutely no reason why body gripper kill traps need to be set on the ground, other than it's a perceived right for trappers to do so because it's allowed in the regs. I've trapped for 35 years now and all my fisher, marten, and racoon sets are elevated out of dog range, using either a pail or box cubby on a running pole. I've never had any problem luring the target animal to run the pole to encounter the baited cubby. Any trapper that argues you'll catch more on the ground in a blind trail set, etc. has not been trapping for very long. Why would you want the animal trapped on the ground anyway, as there is a very good chance it will get damaged grade from mice, soiled fur , and possibly belly taint from the part of the carcass that was insulated from contact with the ground. How can you feel OK about leaving a baited kill trap on the ground knowing that there is a very good chance someone's dog is going to die in it? Did your neighbour's yellow Lab from two farms over read the latest copy of the regs before he did his daily walk across the property to come visit the kids and play with your dog. So you have a registered line on crown land that gives you the privelege to be the sole manager of the fur populations on that block of land. How can you possibly not think of the others who will also legally access and use that same piece of land? eg. the licenced hunter who's walking all the trails with his pointer, hoping to shoot a grouse, the hunter running two beagles on snowshoe hare, the couple from the city who are at the cottage and bring the kids and dog for a walk in the bush. The dog is legally off leash, under supervision and control by the owner, not "running at large" as specified by definition under the FWCA, but goes and investigates something that smells real good, 50 yds off the trail they're walking on. So as a trapper, you're going to argue that they should have known better and you have the right to set your kill traps on the ground?
There's a pile of non-thinking going on and OFMF is not seeing the trees because of the forest on this one. They're investing all their time and resources in an attempt to do damage control on the never -ending wave of dog kill events, while adamantly resisting any logical improvement to the regulations. They should be leading the push to revise the regs.
The public has had enough and rightly so. Social media and petitions will force regulation changes soon once MNR gets pressured. I wonder if there will be any industry left.

---

Nobody wants to kill anyone’s dog but the use of never ending wave of dog killing events is maybe a little excessive , these incidents are by and large a small number when you take let’s say 90 days of trapping season with 6000 trappers in the province, even if they only set one trap each , pretty large number of potential interactions, let’s be realistic in that yes dogs have been captured and killed but I’m sure not going to let the trappers of this province be accused of “a never ending dog killing wave “

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trappermatt

The recent incident that caused this in the Dundalk area was 100 percent illegal , I’m completely sick of trappers getting thrown under the bus for (expletives not suitable for use here ) idiots who get ahold of traps and do this stuff , I’ve been involved in the dog and trap issue in southern Ontario for over 15 years now and been round and round on this issue , recently had someone ask in a Facebook trapping group ask what was the best body grip trap to make bucket sets for foxes , just a disaster in the making , luckily was able to steer the fella in the direction of a trappers course instructor and headed off a Potential bad issue , I am of the opinion that bait , lure and killer traps are a completely poor combination on the ground because of the attraction to dogs , and it seems anytime we have an issue it involves this combo and trappers need to regulate themselves accordingly , we have the knowledge and ability’s to set to avoid dog catches and need to do it

---

A question I have is that if only licensed trappers are to possess or set traps, why are they not only sold to licensed trappers? It would seem to be a fairly simple control for retailers to only sell traps to someone who can produce a trappers license. It's gonna be the wild west out there as long as anyone can buy traps retail and there's no onus on the seller to confirm they are legally entitled to purchase and use them.

Re: "never-ending wave of dog kill events". I don't know what else you'd call it, and it's not just this province. I hit Google and it made me sad to see how many of these events occur, literally on a weekly basis in BC, NFLD, Manitoba, etc. Just in my neck of the woods there are 2-5 dogs killed per year and the majority of these do not go viral and/or are not even reported to the local news agencies. This is just my local area. There's no reporting on it, so how many incidents are there that we don't hear about? Try calling your local district office and have a discussion with either a CO who patrols the area, or talk to the Enforcement Coordinator. You'll be shaking your head for sure. I personally know of 3 more dead dogs this past October - mid Dec. in my area, just from word of mouth. A beagle in the Victoria Co forest in late November - baited ground cubby while hare hunting (I work with the owner of the dog), fox hound dead in fisher cubby during the deer hunt over at Bass Lake in Harvey Twp. This would have been a registered line area and whoever left the trap must have had baited ground sets when hunters were legally running their dogs during the hunt. I ran into this crap myself this past October when I decided to go for a grouse walk with my dog. We were back in the truck within 20 mins after I found a Belisle 220 coon set in a plastic pail baited with fish, on the ground. I'm literally afraid to hunt my dog now on public lands, worrying that my dog is going to encounter a ground set. I hope this set didn't kill the next guy's dog that hunted that trail behind me. There is absolutely no possible way the trapper could not expect a dog encounter when they've left their equipment like this.
The Strain incident in Kawartha Highlands really caused news when a 100,000 + petition went directly to MNR and and from what I heard, a Working Group was made to address it. Saddest thing here is there were no reg changes and it happened again - same situation with ground cubby set and it was less than 10km away from the first incident ! Again, still no reg changes to get this stuff off the ground. Now the Dundalk dog incident. Matt - where did you hear that it was not a legal set, as I heard the opposite from a CO ? . I imagine you could get the truth on it if you called over to enforcement at Aurora District. It just baffles me why there's such a reluctance to make a positive change to the regs to get this stuff off the ground. The only drawback I can see is the extra 10 mins it takes to find a running pole and attach the cubby. Once it's there, it's faster than doing a new ground set every time IMO. You step off the machine, bait the box, add a trap, and attach your C-biner or wire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by be2man

A question I have is that if only licensed trappers are to possess or set traps, why are they not only sold to licensed trappers? It would seem to be a fairly simple control for retailers to only sell traps to someone who can produce a trappers license. It's gonna be the wild west out there as long as anyone can buy traps retail and there's no onus on the seller to confirm they are legally entitled to purchase and use them.

---

As far as I know there is no onus on the seller. It's the individual that has to comply with the regs. I was in to the Cabelas in Barrie and saw that they didn't even have signs up on the shelves. I told the clerk this was the least thing a reputable company like Cabelas could do. Under the Ont law you have to either hold a licence, or have taken the fur course within the past 5 years in order to be in possession of an operable trap. A farmer that meets the definition of farmer can possess and use traps on their own property without a licence. It would probably be good optics for Cabelas to have a store policy where you show documentation before they sell the traps - eg. fur course diploma, trapping licence, OMAFRA reg. number, etc. but I don't think it's required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by be2man

A question I have is that if only licensed trappers are to possess or set traps, why are they not only sold to licensed trappers? It would seem to be a fairly simple control for retailers to only sell traps to someone who can produce a trappers license. It's gonna be the wild west out there as long as anyone can buy traps retail and there's no onus on the seller to confirm they are legally entitled to purchase and use them.

---

Talk like that and soon we'll be into trap registries, TPAL, and Mayor Tory calling for a ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Talk like that and soon we'll be into trap registries, TPAL, and Mayor Tory calling for a ban.

---

Have to produce a license to buy ammunition. Don't hear about a rash of dogs being shot accidentally. I would think as a dog guy you'd be concerned about your dogs getting caught in irresponsibly set body grip traps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by be2man

Have to produce a license to buy ammunition. Don't hear about a rash of dogs being shot accidentally. I would think as a dog guy you'd be concerned about your dogs getting caught in irresponsibly set body grip traps.

---

Of course I am however working on the wrong end of the equation. Got to make those who use them irresponsibly punishable to an extent sufficient to make it a deterrent.
A retailer only sells ammo and guns to licensed people but some how it still gets in the hand of criminal should they be held accountable?
A couple of cases where the perpetrator was nailed to the cross would go further than setting up a system for retailers to check paper.

Sounds like there's no appetite for self regulation by the Trappers or for accountability of the Trappers involved from the MNR's perspective. Would seem pretty simple not to sell them to people who aren't supposed to have them if that reg's already on the books. The Trapper's association is shooting themselves in the foot by not acknowledging this is a problem and working on solutions. They will continue to get crucified in the court of public opinion on social media and eventually they will have legislation pushed upon them for failing to be proactive and getting ahead of the problem.

Fenelon I’m not going to take this any farther , I’m going to be in north bay , stop by and we can talk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by be2man

Sounds like there's no appetite for self regulation by the Trappers or for accountability of the Trappers involved from the MNR's perspective. Would seem pretty simple not to sell them to people who aren't supposed to have them if that reg's already on the books. The Trapper's association is shooting themselves in the foot by not acknowledging this is a problem and working on solutions. They will continue to get crucified in the court of public opinion on social media and eventually they will have legislation pushed upon them for failing to be proactive and getting ahead of the problem.

---

Very reasonable position to take and I am sure shared by the majority on this forum.When they do not self regulate the government will do it for them and life is even more difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Very reasonable position to take and I am sure shared by the majority on this forum.When they do not self regulate the government will do it for them and life is even more difficult.

---

it seems the bulk of this problem is in certain areas of the province, certainly not everywhere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenelon

Dano O, there is absolutely no reason why body gripper kill traps need to be set on the ground, other than it's a perceived right for trappers to do so because it's allowed in the regs. I've trapped for 35 years now and all my fisher, marten, and racoon sets are elevated out of dog range, using either a pail or box cubby on a running pole. I've never had any problem luring the target animal to run the pole to encounter the baited cubby. Any trapper that argues you'll catch more on the ground in a blind trail set, etc. has not been trapping for very long. Why would you want the animal trapped on the ground anyway, as there is a very good chance it will get damaged grade from mice, soiled fur , and possibly belly taint from the part of the carcass that was insulated from contact with the ground. How can you feel OK about leaving a baited kill trap on the ground knowing that there is a very good chance someone's dog is going to die in it? Did your neighbour's yellow Lab from two farms over read the latest copy of the regs before he did his daily walk across the property to come visit the kids and play with your dog. So you have a registered line on crown land that gives you the privelege to be the sole manager of the fur populations on that block of land. How can you possibly not think of the others who will also legally access and use that same piece of land? eg. the licenced hunter who's walking all the trails with his pointer, hoping to shoot a grouse, the hunter running two beagles on snowshoe hare, the couple from the city who are at the cottage and bring the kids and dog for a walk in the bush. The dog is legally off leash, under supervision and control by the owner, not "running at large" as specified by definition under the FWCA, but goes and investigates something that smells real good, 50 yds off the trail they're walking on. So as a trapper, you're going to argue that they should have known better and you have the right to set your kill traps on the ground?
There's a pile of non-thinking going on and OFMF is not seeing the trees because of the forest on this one. They're investing all their time and resources in an attempt to do damage control on the never -ending wave of dog kill events, while adamantly resisting any logical improvement to the regulations. They should be leading the push to revise the regs.
The public has had enough and rightly so. Social media and petitions will force regulation changes soon once MNR gets pressured. I wonder if there will be any industry left.

---

Sorry guys, I haven't checked this thread for a while. Fenelon, your response is about the same as the response I got from an Eastern Ontario trapper I visited with while hunting one day. Thanks for the detailed post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trappermatt

it seems the bulk of this problem is in certain areas of the province, certainly not everywhere

---

Trappermatt you summed it up! In Eastern Ontario I hunt with my cocker without any concerns. In Grey and Bruce county I don't hunt with a dog. Can't risk it!

I get that the Trappers association don't want to be told what to do by government, then I'd suggest you solve the problem yourselves before you get regulated.

Sometimes people do not do the right thing, even when they know it to be true, and are forced to by law, instead of by their
conscience.:ashamed: They are also the ones, that usually say, that there is too much government intervention in our lives.

Matt's right that this dog/trap issue is not a problem everywhere in the province. A trapper running a registered line up north in the boreal forest would be wondering what all the commotion is about. A baited/lured ground cubby up there is only going to connect eventually with a furbearer. It's common to see baited 330 cubby sets on the ground for lynx in many areas. The problem is in the high density populated areas of the province, mainly southern and central Ontario, or the rural limits of larger cities.
The townships that prohibit suspended land snaring are probably also the same areas in the province that are having the dog catches. Whatever changes occur will probably need to be applied to these same areas.

There are some good options available to trappers to make your sets dog proof, but the problem is they're suggested and encouraged, but not regulation. Fur Manager's has an excellent publication that shows how to make good dogproof cubbies. I really like the double pail set for raccoon that's illustrated. Two square plastic icecream pails wired mouth to mouth, with the set 160 or 220 trap in the middle of the two pails. The trap is 16-18" recessed from the pail opening. The cut hole for access to the pail can be cut any size for animal entry. A 5" hole would let any fisher I've caught in, but would stop any medium or large breed dog from getting near the trap. Most of the caught dogs appear to be larger breed retrievers, hunting hounds, etc. Only problem would be if someone was walking a small toy breed or terrier, etc. then I could still see an issue with it gaining access. If coon prices ever came back, I'd seriously look at using the new "paw catch" leghold traps that are specific for raccoon. You can set them right on the ground, even in high density dog areas like around farm houses, barns, poultry coops, etc. and you're only going to connect with a raccoon. I can't personally comment on them much as I've never gave them a try.