The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
MEMORANDUM
Posted: January 17, 2013 11:07 AM
From: Representative Gary Haluska
To: All House members
Subject: Increase the penalty for the illegal setting of a body gripping traps (Former HB721)
I plan on re-introducing legislation that will amend Title 34 (Game) to increase the penalty for the illegal setting of body gripping traps. Presently all traps of this description must be set inside an established waterway, marsh, pond, dam. A violation of this section of Title 34 is a summary offense of the 5th Degree with a fine of $100 to $200. My Bill will raise that offense to a Summary of the First Degree with a fine structure of $1000 to $1500 and possible imprisonment of up to three months.

Too often body gripping traps are placed outside waterways inadvertently luring dogs and causing a quick death or serious injury.

I have met with the Game commission and the Pennsylvania Trappers Association on new regulations restricting the size of openings for these traps. Those regulations were recently passed by the Board of Commissioners.

Both the Commission and the trappers support my measure to increase the penalty on illegal traps. With my bill and new Pennsylvania Game Commission regulations, the frequent occurrence of dogs being caught in body gripping traps will be greatly lessened. When used properly, these devices are an effective and legitimate means of trapping; when placed illegally, they can pose a serious danger.


http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legi...;cosponId=11097
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
The bill stinks, it doesn't address the ilegal setting of body gripping traps, it is a general raising the penalty for the unlawful taking of furbearers. If it was supposed to be to address the unlawful placing of traps it should have addressed the traps and further define where a trap may be set in a watercourse. The way it rerads now leaves a lot of people who think they understand it but really don't. To raise a penalty to that level should require a better definition af where the traps may be set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,933 Posts
i agree with john . plus a regulation should be set and enforced for free roaming dogs . why target just us trappers . i never use bodygrips but have no problem with people who do . just saying we get a hard time while dog owners trample on us
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
As somebody who loves to trap, I would like to see all body grips be required to be at least partially submerged. A single pet caught in one of these does far more harm to trappers than is gained by their use.

The "inside the water course" definition is debated every year by trappers on many sites.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,235 Posts
hdt said:
As somebody who loves to trap, I would like to see all body grips be required to be at least partially submerged. A single pet caught in one of these does far more harm to trappers than is gained by their use.

The "inside the water course" definition is debated every year by trappers on many sites.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,576 Posts
Some may see that it is easier to attack the trap instead of the free roaming and unattended dogs.
In our metro area, the county dog catcher or animal control, recently caught three dogs roaming the local city streets. Guess his trap is legal. And the dogs didn't come back.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
Do you know anyone who hunts with dogs?
And a well behaved dog can be left off the leash when with his owner in many of the areas where traps are likely be set. A foothold is no big deal, but lethal traps have very limited sensible use in PA.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top