Twisp Families dog gets in wolf trap

[KFhunter]

Sounds like an anti-trapping wolf hugger


traps with teeth?  This whole story wreaks of BS


edit

It's probably a local trapping stray dogs thats chasing deer 

[dreamunelk]

How about some facts?   

[Ned]

Sounds like an anti-trapping wolf hugger


traps with teeth?  This whole story wreaks of BS


edit

It's probably a local trapping stray dogs thats chasing deer 

Well, the story was told by the villageidiot!!!

.

[bearpaw]

Sounds like an anti-trapping wolf hugger


traps with teeth?  This whole story wreaks of BS


edit

It's probably a local trapping stray dogs thats chasing deer 

I wondered about the comment about teeth on the trap, I didn't think WDFW used traps like that, shouldn't the traps be padded jaw traps? 

[bearpaw]

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Pretty much.

If the trapper was trying to trap a wolf way back in the boonies, and there was one near populated areas then folks would be making fun of the trapper for not trapping where the wolves are.

Just to clarify, if the story is true and this was a WDFW trap, you guys support the fact that it was placed within 200 yards of a residence having pets and young children without notifying them of the trap?

Wouldn't some simple contact with the residence have been in order? 

When I ran my trapline when legholds were legal, I never placed traps that close to anyone's home, that is just asking for trouble.

[Knocker of rocks]

Just to clarify, if the story is true and this was a WDFW trap, you guys support the fact that it was placed within 200 yards of a residence having pets and young children without notifying them of the trap?

Wouldn't some simple contact with the residence have been in order? 

When I ran my trapline when legholds were legal, I never placed traps that close to anyone's home, that is just asking for trouble.

If the story is broadly true as VI states:

1) Yes, the trapper or the WDFW should have done a better job of notifying the public.  There may have been concern about unduly causing concern amoung the general population, but so what - that concern is not the concern of the WDFW.

2) Dogs should be under control.  That means anything from being inside, to being on a leash, to being inside a fence, to staying on the owners property.  I spent the second half of my childhood on seven acres with a lab.  Our lab had the run of the property when we were home.  I can count on one hand the number of times she left the actual legal property in her 12 year life.  As described by the OP, these dogs were several hundred feet away from their home, on USFS land and not under control by the owner who at the time were inside their own home when the dog wandered into the trap.  The dogs could raise heck in several more ways.

3) What is the proper type of trap there?  Is the OP's story even credible?

[jackelope]

Sounds like an anti-trapping wolf hugger


traps with teeth?  This whole story wreaks of BS


edit

It's probably a local trapping stray dogs thats chasing deer 

I wondered about the comment about teeth on the trap, I didn't think WDFW used traps like that, shouldn't the traps be padded jaw traps? 

We've seen pictures of wolves in traps and they've always been padded. I think this story wreaks of BS. If it's true, it's weird that the trap was there without the family knowing, yes. However I don't hold the trapper responsible for catching a dog that shouldn't be running around unchecked either. What if a wolf got the dog...There would be an enormous uproar. We've all seen the posts where the wolves are coming right in to people's back yards, etc. Seems like the dog owners are pushing their luck anyway. If the traps are 200 yards from the house, somebody knows the wolves are spending time there too. If I knew there was wolves running around that close to my back yard/property/pasture/whatever, I'd keep a better check on my dogs.
 
 

[CAMPMEAT]

Dog control is different in Twisp than in the Puget Sound area...........

[Knocker of rocks]

Oh I know that.  It's just that the OP wanted the WDFW to pickup the bill for what the dogs did after they wandered off their property

[CAMPMEAT]

Oh I know that.  It's just that the OP wanted the WDFW to pickup the bill for what the dogs did after they wandered off their property

I was being a smart guy.......

[AspenBud]

Dog control is different in Twisp than in the Puget Sound area...........

Does that make wolves the "dog catchers?"   

[wolfbait]

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Pretty much.

If the trapper was trying to trap a wolf way back in the boonies, and there was one near populated areas then folks would be making fun of the trapper for not trapping where the wolves are.

Just to clarify, if the story is true and this was a WDFW trap, you guys support the fact that it was placed within 200 yards of a residence having pets and young children without notifying them of the trap?

Wouldn't some simple contact with the residence have been in order? 

When I ran my trapline when legholds were legal, I never placed traps that close to anyone's home, that is just asking for trouble.

The story is true, although there are a couple of changes, the traps did have rubber on the jaws, and it wasn't the WDFW trapper who released the second dog, it was the owners of the dog.

There were signs of wolf trapping on the county road, with the home owners house 200 hundred yards above the road. Unless the home owner drove past his drive way up the road he would not know WDFW had set traps so close to his house.


The "trapper" has a "degree in tracking" not trapping. Probably one of Fitkin's hippy friends from conservation NW. 

I wonder if "the trapper" realizes by now that the wolves are not bedding down outside the house, perhaps next time he will go a bit further up the road and set his traps.  Or maybe being a certified tracker, he set his traps at the first tracks he found 


Spot On BP-"Wouldn't some simple contact with the residence have been in order? 

When I ran my trapline when legholds were legal, I never placed traps that close to anyone's home, that is just asking for trouble."--

Years ago I also trapped, and like BP, it was common knowledge trapping in the front yard or around homes would only foul your traps with dogs and cats and piss people off.

Sometimes the open stupidity of WDFW is hilarious.

[Curly]

I wonder if "the trapper" realizes by now that the wolves are not bedding down outside the house, perhaps next time he will go a bit further up the road and set his traps.  Or maybe being a certified tracker, he set his traps at the first tracks he found 

Now that IS funny!    The funniest things have truth in them.  And I think you are onto something.  The trapper/tracker likely saw the dog tracks and mistakenly thought they were wolf tracks so he placed the trap there.  He probably caught exactly what had been making the tracks.

Anyway, I am glad the dog is okay.

[mountainman]

rural are, dogs dont always stay within property boundries, the trapper is an idiot in my book. Place the traps farther away from the house, especially as they have young kids. If for whatever reason he thought he needed to place the traps that close, let the homeowner know the location of the traps. Fact of the matter, should not be any wolves in the area in the first place!!

[Humptulips]

As had been said it's pretty poor thinking to set traps that close to houses. Just asking for trouble.
I would point out though these are pretty big traps and the dog was not injured other then possibly a sore paw. Says a lot about just how safe and humane the traps are.
Legally the traps have to be padded. Teeth? I can relate to that because I've read reports wolf traps with teeth cause less damage to their feet then without. Teeth on traps are not sharp so they are not intended to penetrate but they do prevent mopvement of the foot in the trap which can cause abrasion.
Teeth on a trap would be legal under the RCWs but WDFW has WACs keeping trappers from using them. I'm not sure if they could write a permit for themselves to make it OK. Maybe?