I have no objection to the term "cable restraint" but to make people believe these are something other than snares is absolutely preposterous. If you hand a cable restraint to anyone knowledgeable in the field of snaring, and ask them what it is, they will tell you it's a snare. I really hate to tip anyone's hand, but this has gone far enough. It was trickery, plain and simple. This foolishness went so far as to include a second device, with a slightly different configuration, which was in fact labeled a "snare".
However, the "snare" could only be used in water. This is so damn silly it makes me wanna puke! Our trappers only use cable restraints on land. Snares can only be used in the water. But now trappers have been swept up in this nonsense. We now have trappers even trapper associations, for cryin' out loud! Trappers are being lulled into some false sense of security that the lock, the cable, and other magical components make these snares non-lethal.
I predicted this would happen. With certain exceptions, it is not the components that make a snare lethal, it's the entanglement. Cable restraint devices bear no special province in being non-lethal.
The laws that require these devices to be set in non-entanglement situations is what makes the device non-lethal. I set snares in non-entanglement situations all the time to keep them non-lethal. Read that again, I said snares. By the same token, as I said elsewhere, you give me one of those cable restraints, and a fence to hang it in, and I'll give you a dead coyote, dead dog, dead kitty cat, or whatever.
The purpose of this site is to be educational, and I hope I am being so in this matter. However I would like to take an informal poll here, just to see how pervasive this mis-information has become.
If you at least up to this point thought there was, or still think there is, a substantial difference between snares and cable restraints, please tell me so below. There's no repercussion in this, we are here to educate. I would just like to know how many people have been mislead with the advent of "cable restraints". Or, if you have questions in this regard, please ask them.
I'll be honest. I always thought that cabel restraints were snares that had relaxing locks and a stop to prevent the animal from forcing the snare closed enough to suffocate itself. Thus, you could release non-target animals, much as you can do with a foot hold. The reason that they didn't want it in a tangle situation was because the animal could end up hanging himself anyways, just like a dog with a collar can hang themselves trying to jump over a fence when tied off.
Snares on the other hand are designed with locks that don't relax, and with the ability to close all the way. Thus as the animal struggles to get free, it just tightenes the snare loop to the point that it can't breath. A tangle situation just helps to speed this process some. I must admit that the thread a few days ago that referenced "cable restraints" had me do a double take.
My first thought was "Isn't that just a snare? I think the concept is rather dumb, a snare is just that a snare, some are simple and some have all kinds of bells and whistles. For starters, a cable restraint has a "deer stop" on it, which is meant to let a deer shake its foot out of a snare. The but the loop will still close down to 2. That's enough to choke a coyote. If you're looking for a non-lethal stop, you'll have to go to Michigan.
Their current regulation requires a stop that keeps the loop from closing down below 4 inches. Good luck catching a fox in that. As for relaxing locks -- again trappers who should know better are coming to believe there is a lock that somehow doesn't lock. Think about that. If you want "no lock" on a snare, you'll have to visit Kentucky, their regulations preclude have any sort of locking device on a snare.
Now as for locks that "back up a little bit" -- they all do. Without entaglement your not going to collect to many coyote. Our coyotes will chew out in a heartbeat We'll never know now beav. At some point, I'm sure in your lifetime, snares were legal in Wi. Far as I know we never had the legal use of snares In WI.
How about on dry land? And that's as far as It went. I was trapping In the 50s and as far as I know no one used snares. And If they did It was kept a secret. But those who use them trappers in southern Ontario as far as I know,are glad to have them. There was no way lethal snares would ever have been legalized in southern Ontario.
The MNR was clear about that. They were willing to go to bat for the CR method though,and supported them after the sucessful results of the field study. I know there were only a couple chewouts during the study,and non targets were sucessfully released. The checking was twice a day in the study,and I;m sure that had something to do with the low number of chewouts. I am not sure if there is a twice daily check requirement now that they are legal,but the norm in southern ontario for live trapping is daily check,so likely the same for the CR.
I dont care about snares if someones going to use one use a legal one not an illegal one that can kill. With out loosing one to chew outs. Used the same NJ legal in Texas to snare coyotes. NO live market Killed every one. Which I wanted to do. Guess its just called Knowing what your doing? Maybe experance has someting to do with it?
Or do you call it just Luck? I just read the wolf regs that DNR posted today. It actually looks like they are legal for wolf season! Print Thread. Powered by UBB. Hop To. Whats the difference between a cable restraint and a snare "You reap what you sow" Im 15 and still the best trapper in glenwhite.
Tom If my feet aren't wet,I must not be trapping. Joined: Jan Posts: 2, S. Ohio M M. Magis trapper. Re: Cable restraint vs snare [ Re: M. Magis Maybe I was mistaken, but to me the difference is the relaxing lock in the cable restraint. That is my understanding as well. Cable restraints will close as far and as tightly as any snare but the CR lock will "relax" when pressure is taken off.
The snare lock won't. Good to know that Newt looks to President Biden for inspiration! The forum Know It All according to Muskrat. This is misinformation. Snares can be made with the same exact locks as CRs and designed to kill every animal they catch. CR's are made with certain cable lengths and sizes with stops and such designed to keep animals alive but if you set them certain ways they are killing machines.
Well except the Mi ones. I imagine the thought process was "it'll be better than no snares" and maybe it is, but I don't think any state that gets saddled with CR rules will EVER get to use real snares. I hope I'm wrong and someday your grandkids can use the real deal but I won't hold my breath. IMO the time to fight for the real deal was before allowing them to stick you with CRs.
I wish I was in the know when they developed the snare regulations we're saddled with too. Yes its way better than CRs but needs major improvements and trying to get back something we gave up to the DNR is next to impossible. I do hear they may be considering a BAD vs deer stops, but I've heard that for years and haven't seen anything yet. So, I think you are saying the lock doesn't stay where they pulled it down to, but slides backwards on the cable and just loosely holds them?
If so that is incorrect there are no locks that do that on the market that I am aware of. They all "lock" in position due to the burr on the hole catching on the rough sides of the cable.
Until that burr is worn off they don't back off. The term relaxing lock does make it sound like they would back off and hold loosely but they really don't. The short cables, swivels and no entanglement are what keeps them from setting the lock so tightly as to kill the coyotes.
Now after they fight the cable for a period of time the burr will wear off and by the time you get there, they are loose fitting often times. Nobody stuck us with anything. WTA Member. I ralize you have not gotten either if people stuck to their guns and demanded snares but you'll never know now. Joined: Aug Posts: 33, james bay frontierOnt.
B Boco trapper. Joined: Mar Posts: wantage n. E eric space trapper. Joined: Aug Posts: 1, Texas N newtoga trapper. Originally Posted by eric space Beav: Did WI change there cable requirement since their book was published? From the Wi regulations booklet I think beav is legal, but I know the booklet isn't the complete regulations, so if the complete regulations spell it out as you have posted he'd be illegal but IMO he'd win in court if he showed them this booklet.
Joined: Oct Posts: Indiana cattails trapper. You don't have a clue ADC. Getting Lethal snares wasn't going to happen.
Every person that owned a dog would have had our head on a pike. WE had to do a lot of testing and campaigning just to convince them CRs were safe.
When I set a snare, I fully expect it to dispatch the critter its targeting. The biggest difference between "Cable Restraints" and "Snares" is entanglement.
This does not include powered snares or compression springs, which can take the place of entanglement. To simplify the answer. Yes and No. Cable restraints can be built to have the same lethal capabilities as "old fashioned" snares or they can utilize modern advancements and be used as a live restraint device. Perhaps Hal or another accomplished snareman can fill you in on the details of similarities and differences between C.
They are the same thing, except for some foolishness in Wisconsin. For awhile, I was against this term "cable restraint" but upon further consideration I'm not so sure it is a bad idea.
One might consider this to be similar to the terms "leghold" trap, and "foothold" trap. I insist on using the term foothold, because it is more descriptive of that device, and it is more politically acceptable to the non-trapping public - particularly given the past concern over animal's legs. So I don't want to appear to be too hypocritical in opposing the term "cable restraint". However, for the Wisconsin DNR to use the term "snare" and "cable restraint" both in promulgating their regulations is just one more example of the silliness with which typifies this project.
I don't know if these people were trying to be cute or cleaver, but they achieved neither. What they have done, however, is confuse the trappers, the very people they were supposed to be "helping". Let's write a regulation that says "legholds" can only be used in water at a lethal set, but "footholds" can be used on dry land in a restraining set. Are you beginning to see the siliness in this? Oh sure, we could and many places do limit the size of a foothold trap that can be used on land, but if you use a bigger trap in the water it's still the same kind of trap!
Yes, the "cable restraint" has different requirements in these regulations but it's still a snare!! And, you give me one of these Wisconsin "snares", and a clear non-entanglement situation in which to set it, and presto-chango I'll make it into a cable restraint without doing a darn thing to it! One term or the other would be fine, not both.
0コメント