Bills in the Legislature intended to tighten restrictions on the use of body-gripping traps might not prevent the inadvertent trapping of dogs, state officials say.

Some dog owners are even more pessimistic: "It's going to do nothing," said Loren Waalkens of Lake City, whose beagle, Frisbee, was caught in a trap last fall yet survived.

But the Minnesota Trappers Association says the changes will help reduce the chances of dogs being accidentally caught in traps.

"It will make a difference," said Con Christianson of Stacy, a trapper, hunting dog owner and legislative liaison with the Trappers Association.

At least seven dogs have been killed in the conibear-type body-gripping traps since last fall, prompting calls to restrict their use. Language proposed by the Department of Natural Resources was rejected by legislators at the urging of trapping groups, and DNR officials are skeptical the wording will reduce the incidental trapping of dogs.

"It could or couldn't work -- we're unsure because it's unproven," said Bob Meier, assistant DNR commissioner. "We have concerns."

The House on Tuesday approved those revised trap restrictions, part of a large game and fish bill. And it rejected an amendment by Rep. John Ward, DFL-Brainerd, which would have imposed tighter regulations.

"I don't want to eliminate trapping," Ward said. "I used to trap as a teenager. But I want to make our public lands safer for everyone who uses them. Until we reduce the number of accidental catches and deaths [of dogs], we're going to be back here over and over again."

The DNR's language was similar to laws in other states, including Wisconsin, where the restrictions have helped reduce the accidental trapping of dogs. Twenty-six dogs were caught in traps in Wisconsin in 1997, and 16 of those died. Since restrictions were imposed in 1998, just a handful of dogs are caught in traps yearly, with few deaths, said John Olson, DNR furbearer specialist.

Wisconsin's trapping laws apply to both private and public lands, while bills in the Minnesota Legislature affect trapping only on public lands and only 220-size body-gripping traps.

Christianson, who also owns two hunting dogs, says the language proposed by the DNR was simply too restrictive and would have made the body-gripping traps ineffective for bobcat.

"That's what we're trying to save," he said.

He said the issue has been overblown and that there's always some risk taking a dog afield, including risk from road traffic.

"There has to be some owner responsibility," he said.

Devil is in details

A key issue is the size of openings allowed in a box set with a trap. Under the DNR's proposal, the trap would have to be recessed 7 inches in the box, with a maximum opening of 50 square inches (or about 7 inches by 7 inches). The traps usually are baited.

The idea is that a dog's body would prevent it from sticking its head far enough inside the box to be caught, but smaller furbearers, such as fisher, marten, raccoon and bobcat, could fit inside the opening and trigger the trap.

But the House and Senate bills say the traps must be recessed 7 inches or more from the top of the opening, which essentially means putting a "roof" on the box.

"What you'd have is an overhang, with no sides and bottom," said Jason Abraham, DNR furbearer specialist.

Also, the Senate bill says the opening can be no greater than 81 square inches (or 9 inches by 9 inches). The House bill has no square-inch requirement.

"We know the language we proposed would restrict dogs from going into the box," said Meier, based on the experiences of other states.

If trappers don't use the recessed box, they must place their 220 body-gripping traps at least 3 feet above the ground. The DNR had sought a 4-foot elevation and some dog owners had sought a 5-foot requirement, as in Wisconsin.

Those body-gripping traps also could be placed on the ground -- without a box -- if trappers use no bait or other attractant within 20 feet of the trap.

That type of unbaited "ground-set" is what snared Waalkens' beagle, Frisbee, last fall as they were hunting rabbits on public land. Waalken was familiar with conibear-type traps, which are designed to quickly kill by cutting off the windpipe, and he got it quickly off his dog.

Still, he thought it was too late.

"She was as limp as a noodle. I picked her up and held her and started doing chest compressions." And then she was breathing again.

"I dodged a bullet, big time," he said.

Waalkens said trap restrictions at the Legislature were watered down and rushed through with few opportunities for public comment.

"I guarantee you we won't let this go," he said. "If it takes the next [legislative] session or the session after that, I'm not going to quit. I'm fighting for the life of my dogs."

Doug Smith • doug.smith@startribune.com