Wisconsin's definition of "enclosed trigger" trap

[mustelameister]

Couldn't post this on the DP thread, it was locked. The question finally found its way through legal channels and here's WDNR's Law Enforcement's definition (at this time) of enclosed trigger trap. This is the answer I received:

The following is the legal definition. A trap with a push activated trigger would not be considered an "enclosed trigger trap".

NR 10.001(9c)
(9c) "Enclosed trigger trap" means any trap with a pull-activated trigger, inside an enclosure, and recessed 11/4 inches or more, from an opening that is no greater than 13/4 inches in diameter.

It is illegal to "Set, place, operate or possess while trapping, any trap other than a steel jawed trap, enclosed trigger trap, cage or box trap, body gripping trap, colony trap, snare or cable restraint for the purpose of taking, capturing, or killing furbearing animals. Cage or box traps shall be constructed so that after an animal has been captured, no additional animals may enter the trap until the captured animal is removed and the trap is reset."

So unless it meets the definition of a steel jawed trap, cage or box trap, body gripping trap, colony trap, snare or cable restraint, it would not be legal. If it does meet the definition of one of these other 6 legal types of traps, then a trapper would have to comply with the rules on using that type of trap.

NR 10.001
(3u) "Body gripping trap" means a trap that is designed to allow the animal's head, neck or torso to enter the trap opening and be held by compression of the jaws around the head, neck or torso when the trap is sprung and which is not a cage trap, enclosed trigger trap, snare, cable restraint or steel jawed trap.

(5g) "Cable restraint" means a noose used for restraining furbearing animals in a non-water set.

(5j) "Cage or box trap" means a trap that is not used as a water set or in conjunction with a steel jawed trap, an enclosed trigger trap or body gripping trap, and that is designed to allow an animal to enter the trap enclosure, be captured and remain alive inside the cage or box type enclosure until it can be released unharmed or reduced to possession by the operator of the trap.

(5v) "Colony trap" means an enclosure device designed to allow the capture of one or more fur-bearing animals in a single setting as a drowning set. Entrance to the device is gained by one or more one-way entrances with overall dimensions of the trap not to exceed 6 inches in width, 6 inches in height and 36 inches in length.

(25e) "Snare" means a noose used for catching furbearing animals in a water set.

(25k) "Steel jawed trap" means a trap, constructed of metal, designed to catch an animal by the foot, but does not include enclosed trigger traps or body gripping traps.

[trappnman]

mike- not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV.....

but, to me, saying only "push trigger" in the definition, and not specifying "only" or "exclusively", would leave the legal interpretation that a trap that HAS a pull trigger is legal, irregardless if it has other options like a push trigger.

If all they offered was that short definition you posted, then I'm thinking there is a loophole in the law, and that dnr saying push/pull are illegal, is wishful thinking and closing the barn door type of reasoning- I doubt that whoever drafted the law, consider a dp WITH both a push and pull.



James, any other lawyers here willing to give an opinion?

[mustelameister]

Jul 18, 2011 14:53:59 GMT -6 trappnman said:

I doubt that whoever drafted the law, consider a dp WITH both a push and pull.

Agreed. Coon cuffs? They've been around for quite awhile. Do they meet the definition?

This will get very interesting.

[trappincoyotes39]

it does state with a "pull" activated trigger and not just "A" trigger inside so I think if taken to court one would loose if they where to right a citation for such as it is defined as any trap with a pull activated trigger and diameter dimensions, would be easy enough to get the language changed at the legislative level I would think.

[swifty]

It seems obvious to me that a push/pull dp would at least meet the definition of a steel jaw trap, so should not be illegal. But may not be able to use them in situations where an "enclosed trigger" trap is required. Someone may have to test it in a legal sense, to see if it could meet "enclosed trigger" trap definition.

(25k) "Steel jawed trap" means a trap, constructed of metal, designed to catch an animal by the foot, but does not include enclosed trigger traps or body gripping traps.

[trappincoyotes39]

NO beav the simple solution is to clean up the wording to add in new technology that will allow either way to be legal!!! Every year our legislators clean up wording in rules and regs in our state and much is due to new technology in many forms, doesn't take much discussion and if your game dept is for it, then all the much easier to get it re written. Can be a simple bill to strike and add words.

[swifty]

Just out of curiosity and not being familiar with Wisconsin rules, what are the situations when an "enclosed trigger" trap would be legal and a "steel jaw" trap would not?

[mustelameister]

This is a big one:

You may not operate trap sets which permit the trapped animal to reach water, except when the muskrat, mink, beaver, or otter trapping season is open in the zone you are trapping, or unless using a commercially manufactured enclosed trigger trap.

Meaning that, during the full two weeks dryland 'coon season is open, you may use an enclosed trigger trap for 'coon in the water.

And the other that I consider a big one:

You may not set a trap, cable restraint, or snare other than a commercially manufactured enclosed trigger trap closer than 15 feet from any beaver dam.

Both major ramifications for those who are marketing an enclosed trigger trap in Wisconsin that is capable of firing while being pushed or pulled.

[trappnman]

I still think, under the wording of the law, that enclosed traps with a push/pull would fit both the above stipulations, and be legal under the definition of needing a "pull trigger" as the law states.

a judge would look at the law- and it states a trap NEEDS a PULL trigger to be legal for the special setting rules (in water before water opens).

so the point of law would be- DOES it have a pul ltrigger?

answer: yes.

the law does NOT forbid additions, to this PULL trigger, in any way, or word.

so the choice isn't a legal issue, it would come down to ethics I guess- does one follow the spirit, or the letter of the law?

very similar to the law "capable of drowning". As I told the dnr here- if I put a coyote trap on shore, with a 10 foot chain next to deep water, that trap is indeed, capable of drowning that coyote. They hem and haw and stutter- but they cannot, by the defintion of the law, say its illegal for me to do so for extended checks.

I don't do so, however, because the danger is the new law, eliminating that loophole, could well be more restrictive.

its also legal in Mn, to have no check times, for traps capable of taking only non protected animals only- so in theory, a trap with enough tension to only catch a coyote, would be uncovered by check law limits.

I think any of the above scenarios, would be very winnable in a court of law- but again, the backlash from the dnr (they have little sense of humor about such things) might be more than we would want.

I predict, that next year, the wording will be "Pull triggers only"

[mustelameister]

Jul 19, 2011 7:30:08 GMT -6 trappnman said:

I predict, that next year, the wording will be "Pull triggers only"

Maybe, depends on what size the hornet's nest is this year. You've already got trappers in WI who have purchased enclosed trigger traps with push/pull triggers and some who have modified their existing pull-types to push or pull.

They'll be using them in the field this coming season.

Could be a cluster$%#@ in the making, depending on law enforcement's attitude towards the whole thing.

As it is, we have an interpretation. Where it will go from here will be interesting.

[trappnman]

mike- did you have any interaction in the opinion, or was it a written one?

I'd be curious as to how they would pursue a push trigger option as illegal, when the pull is there as well.

cause the law clearly states- enclosed dp WITH a pull trigger. and it clearly does not go beyond that definition to say "exclusively".

would the push/pull be then, in their opinion, totally illegal, or would it fall under "steel jawed traps" and then need to follow those guidelines?

[mustelameister]

Steve, what I posted above was the answer I got through DNR channels. I had no interaction in the opinion. You can decipher where a "push/pull" triggered enclosed trigger trap lies yourself.

Clearly an issue unforeseen. Hopefully logic and reasoning will prevail to provide a solution that is agreeable to most, yet maintain the integrity of the original purpose of the enclosed trigger trap here in WI.

[trappnman]

and thats what I think it comes down to- by using an exclusive pull trigger, you have extended opportunites and thats a bonus, thats worth keeping by following the dnrs wishes, if not the law.

I can accept that, just like I don't set 10 foot chains on coyote "drowning sets". but if their opinion is that push/pull are illegal when reg traps (steel jawed traps) are allowed, then I'd set them and take my chances in court, which is what I'd guess, people will do.

[packerfan]

I have to agree with Beav(not easy for me,lol). Went with him ONCE to the state capital to witness the "dog and pony show", that is our system. I was so amazed and the WASTE of time and tax dollars, that I wanted to move out to my farm and never return to my hometown.
That said, I feel bad for the wardens (out in the field) having to enforce laws that are so mucked up. As Beav stated, getting things changed here is tough.
I would also like to take this opportunity to THANK Beav for spending time at the capital, working to make Wisconsin better for trappers. With all the "do gooders" and "deep thinkers" in downtown Madison, I only go down there to bid jobs or work.
Also, for telling me about the dp's in water last year. We overlap a few roads on our line, so he had reason not to. It gave me a few extra coon.

[blackhammer]

I'm guessing the the powers to be have little interest in prohibiting a dp trap or zealous enforcement of such.But stirring up the issue on the net may indeed get them thinking,let's pinch a few guys.Who really are doing no harm or I feel gaining any advantage over there fellow trappers. Just my opinion for what it's worth, not too much probably.lol I'm sure the state could change it in a minute.But of course they won't it would make too much sense.

[mustelameister]

Jul 19, 2011 14:20:20 GMT -6 blackhammer said:

I'm guessing the the powers to be have little interest in prohibiting a dp trap or zealous enforcement of such.But stirring up the issue on the net may indeed get them thinking,let's pinch a few guys.Who really are doing no harm or I feel gaining any advantage over there fellow trappers.

The "powers to be" have great interest in prohibiting traps that are not deemed legal to use. Go ahead and set a TS-85 in an area bound to be checked by wardens and see how that goes over. Not zealous enforcement, just enforcement.

Here's what prompted the "stirring up the issue":

EDITED: Gary, the regulation doesn't state a "pull only" just that it has to have a "pull trigger". under that definition, the daggers would be legal as the do have a pull trigger.

Without exploring further into this situation, most trappers will probably assume that push-type triggers are just fine to use in WI. So I posted the question through DNR channels and got a clarification. Then posted here with their interpretation. You call that "stirring up the issue?" I call that doing your homework, then sharing the results.

WDNR game wardens need no "get them thinking" prompts to pinch anyone. If anything, a warden reading through these threads will discover there is a problem with the interpretation of the enclosed trigger trap definition. Hopefully those higher on the ladder will address this issue and deal with it in a logical manner.

[trappnman]

well said

hoepfully, it will ehiter be clarified, or no violations will occur- as getting into the water early, is nothing but a bonus, bonus, bonus! and I agree, its not something you want to lose.

[motrapperjohn]

That law would be very easy to get around, like beav posted, just dont set it where can reach water. Thats one of the big pluses with useing Dps is you dont have to have water to drown the coon to prevent chew outs. Dps you dont have to worry about it. But with multiple day checks like beav does it could raise some eyebrows. What is the difference between opening dates 2 weeks before and one late. And the dagger can be changed to pull only by twisting the trigger 45 deg and set on back of dog, you will have to use a file to change the angle slightly. and it will still work as a 2-way, but you lose the saftey feature

[motrapperjohn]

Beav, what is the deal with them reaching water anyhow, are they afraid of catching a muskrat or a mink? just cant figuire that one out. Tell you the truth I dont think I set one trap where the coon was in the water unless it rained last year and the water came up. I dont like muddy coon!

[motrapperjohn]

Registered: 22/12/06
Loc: Warsaw, MO I never said using two way triggers was illegal,

If you would have read what I typed instead of looking at it through beer goggles I said;"Some area managers are restricting the use of the push pull triggers used in their areas, this is because they aren't pet friendly and ducks can be caught in them." I know of two areas so far that are DP or cage only. In these areas the managers have stated if someone is caught using a DP with a push trigger they will not be allowed back. When you change the trigger you change what type of trap it is as they see it. Now since you called me out I will see how many other areas I can get to dis-allow their use.



I dont think the Griz hatchet crew would help out, the $8 doz coon grabber guy is so scared its going to hurt his business, he is trying to get the 2-way outlawed. this is the pm he sent me