Found a possible illegal line?

[180-GRAIN]

So stumbled onto a trap line today. They were using the old body hold traps. Found quite a few sets. Also no ID on them anywhere. I don’t trap at all or know the rules at all really but aren’t the old body hold traps illegal? And isn’t there supposed to be some sort of tag or Id on them? Also they were buried in snow so been out awhile. Anyhow educate me guys, I want to know if I’m thinking wrong about these things and I’m to lazy to look in the book

[WildlifeAssassin]

Body gripping traps are illegal. ID tags are required. 24 hour mandatory check required. Report it.

[JakeLand]

Any body grip on dry land is illegal regardless of tags or no tags
With a permit you can use body grip in water

[Born2late]

Not legal.
They must not have been hidden to good if you were able to find multiples of  them buried in the snow.

[Cougartail]

The guy must be a Claude Dallas fan?

[greenhead_killer]

Call it in. Our warden friend says they like catching trappers because normally it is so difficult. you are correct, no body grips on land and have to be tagged with id of some sort (wild id or name)

[dreamunelk]

Report it!
If someone else finds or a dog gets caught they will just say a trapper did it.  Report it so they can say a trapper/ hunter found and reported criminal behavior.

[180-GRAIN]

Not legal.
They must not have been hidden to good if you were able to find multiples of  them buried in the snow.

Marked and very easy to see

[Tracker0721]

I wouldn’t mess with the traps, like pull the line or anything, but definitely bring a warden to check it out. If they were foothold traps with the rubber jaws you can get a permit to use them and the tag can be wrapped around the chain near the stake or under the trap. Font only needs to be 1/16” or larger but the tags aloud to be wrapped around itself. The part about them being left though is a no no, 72 hours for a water kill set and 24 for a live trap.

[h20hunter]

10 points!

[KFhunter]

marked and easy to see you say?

I wonder if it would be WDFW bios trying to collar more wolves?


were they rubber jaws? 


It doesn't sound like a rogue trapper whose traps would NOT be marked OR easy to see.

[180-GRAIN]

One was showing up out of the snow because it was sprung. Conibear for sure and on land. There were water sets as well. Can a state hired trapper use the old style traps by chance?

[Humptulips]

Do not mess with them. Let Enforcement figure it out. It is unlikely but they could be legal. Tribal members can set these type traps on land. Also APHIS is not required to follow the law on bodygripping traps however they do voluntarily to my knowledge.
As mentioned you can get a special trapping permit but you cannot get one to set conibears on dry land.

[KFhunter]

I didn't even think of tribal 

[180-GRAIN]

Do not mess with them. Let Enforcement figure it out. It is unlikely but they could be legal. Tribal members can set these type traps on land. Also APHIS is not required to follow the law on bodygripping traps however they do voluntarily to my knowledge.
As mentioned you can get a special trapping permit but you cannot get one to set conibears on dry land.

Can they use them on other than tribal land?

[Skyvalhunter]

Was this area away from private property not that it matters much.

[The scout]

Most likely just from posting it on here you will be getting knock at the door and you will be reporting it weather you wanted to or not

[180-GRAIN]

Most likely just from posting it on here you will be getting knock at the door and you will be reporting it weather you wanted to or not

I called it in and left a message. Got a number for a warden I will try tomorrow if I don’t get a call back.

[KFhunter]

Do not mess with them. Let Enforcement figure it out. It is unlikely but they could be legal. Tribal members can set these type traps on land. Also APHIS is not required to follow the law on bodygripping traps however they do voluntarily to my knowledge.
As mentioned you can get a special trapping permit but you cannot get one to set conibears on dry land.

Can they use them on other than tribal land?

ceded lands

[180-GRAIN]

Was this area away from private property not that it matters much.

Yeah a few were on my company’s property so that’s a different issue in itself.

[Kit Carson]

Any body grip on dry land is illegal regardless of tags or no tags
With a permit you can use body grip in water

Nope, wrong. 
Rubber padded legholds with tags and permit on dry land....Legal

[JakeLand]

Any body grip on dry land is illegal regardless of tags or no tags
With a permit you can use body grip in water

Nope, wrong. 
Rubber padded legholds with tags and permit on dry land....Legal

rubber padded leg holds aren’t body grips now are they !!! Body grips ( conibear traps ) can ONLY be in water 

[Tracker0721]

So if this comes up on my exam I’d say it can be legal to use bodygrips on land with the permit following the book regulation. Would that be wrong?

[wags]

I doubt it's really a fur trapper who set these traps, if that were the case you probably wouldn't have found them so easily.
Most likely it's a wannabe who found them in his grandfather's garage and doesn't have a clue what he's doing, probably doesn't even know what he's doing is illegal.

[Humptulips]

I doubt it's really a fur trapper who set these traps, if that were the case you probably wouldn't have found them so easily.
Most likely it's a wannabe who found them in his grandfather's garage and doesn't have a clue what he's doing, probably doesn't even know what he's doing is illegal.

[180-GRAIN]

Turns out there is a USDA trapper running this line. Just talked to a warden. He was going to contact the trapper though. I assume because of the no ID tags and maybe the fact they were out for who knows how long?

[SuperX]

USDA "trapper"    Not checking traps daily is not cool, unless they were snapped?

[KFhunter]

Turns out there is a USDA trapper running this line. Just talked to a warden. He was going to contact the trapper though. I assume because of the no ID tags and maybe the fact they were out for who knows how long?

good job getting to the bottom of it 

[Born2late]

Turns out there is a USDA trapper running this line. Just talked to a warden. He was going to contact the trapper though. I assume because of the no ID tags and maybe the fact they were out for who knows how long?

You said they were on your company's land. Did he get called by them to trap or was he not on the correct property?
I don't know much about how they work.Who calls them and why?

[WildlifeAssassin]

What is the USDA targeting?

[Kit Carson]

Any body grip on dry land is illegal regardless of tags or no tags
With a permit you can use body grip in water

Nope, wrong. 
Rubber padded legholds with tags and permit on dry land....Legal

rubber padded leg holds aren’t body grips now are they !!! Body grips ( conibear traps ) can ONLY be in water 

Now are they? Here's the WA legal terms.

 

"Body-gripping trap" as defined by RCW 77.15.192 means a trap that grips an animal's body or body part. Body-gripping trap includes, but is not limited to, steel-jawed leghold traps, padded-jaw leghold or padded foot-hold traps, Conibear traps, neck snares, and nonstrangling foot snares.

[huntingfool7]

One was showing up out of the snow because it was sprung. Conibear for sure and on land. There were water sets as well. Can a state hired trapper use the old style traps by chance?

What is the USDA targeting?

x2  Would like to know what USDA is targeting with conibears on land.   Were the water sets conibears?

[180-GRAIN]

One was showing up out of the snow because it was sprung. Conibear for sure and on land. There were water sets as well. Can a state hired trapper use the old style traps by chance?

What is the USDA targeting?

x2  Would like to know what USDA is targeting with conibears on land.   Were the water sets conibears?

Yes they were all conibears. It seemed like they were targeting beaver.

[180-GRAIN]

New plot twist though! Just got another call from a warden. He said he’s going up to try and check the traps. He said they usually issue permits to the USDA trappers and there is not one on file for this guy.

[huntingfool7]

I'm surprised USDA is allowed to use conibears on dry land for beaver.  Were they 220 or 330 size?

[Rainier10]

Oh boy, stay tuned.

[Special T]

Tag

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Cylvertip]

When I have run into USDA traps in the past, they were meant to follow the rules of the WCO permits.  That was several years ago. 

Requirements for conibears changed not that long ago.  From "submerged in water" to "in water".   They can be set in a puddle, per that change, away from a body of water.

Was this in the city limits for Marysville by chance?  They had USDA on contract for problem animals. 

[Cougartail]

When I have run into USDA traps in the past, they were meant to follow the rules of the WCO permits.  That was several years ago. 

Requirements for conibears changed not that long ago.  From "submerged in water" to "in water".   They can be set in a puddle, per that change, away from a body of water.

Was this in the city limits for Marysville by chance?  They had USDA on contract for-profit animals.

The original text of I-713 was "in water".

[180-GRAIN]

When I have run into USDA traps in the past, they were meant to follow the rules of the WCO permits.  That was several years ago. 

Requirements for conibears changed not that long ago.  From "submerged in water" to "in water".   They can be set in a puddle, per that change, away from a body of water.

Was this in the city limits for Marysville by chance?  They had USDA on contract for-profit animals.

Nope it was up by Acme.

[Cylvertip]

When I have run into USDA traps in the past, they were meant to follow the rules of the WCO permits.  That was several years ago. 

Requirements for conibears changed not that long ago.  From "submerged in water" to "in water".   They can be set in a puddle, per that change, away from a body of water.

Was this in the city limits for Marysville by chance?  They had USDA on contract for-profit animals.

The original text of I-713 was "in water".

Yeah, the change was on the wording of the WCO permits.

[Humptulips]

Prior to 2000 there was  a WAC that specified traps with a jaw spread of greater then 7 inches had to be submerged in water so 280s and 330s had to be submerged. Sometime after I-713 passed that WAC was deleted and the wording of the Initiative was substituted which is "in water" . USDA does not have to abide by any provisions of I-713. If they do it is voluntary.
Confusion about the word bodygripping is understandable because the common usage has always been a description of conibears type traps. The legal description in WA though includes all traps except cage and box traps, suitcase type beaver traps and common rat and mouse traps.