I made a hundred snares with 285 lb, break aways planning on using in Wyoming next week. They are legally required there. I liked
The thoughts of a deer or antelope breaking away if accidentally leg snared. So, I built another hundred with them. Now, Kentucky states we must use a one piece closing device. In my opinion the break away is beneficial here as well but do you think it could be argued that with the break away added its now a two piece closing device, even though extra cost and an improvement? Or is it simply an extension of the end attached to the closing device? It may be something we need to discuss with KDFWR.
2 Likes
Good question. That is kinda a grey area and would probably differ between game wardens if you know what i mean. But in my opinion, it really doesn’t assist in the closing or locking of the snare.
The way I see it the break away has zero effect on the lock it does not add it or hender it only attaches it to the main cable it’s an extinction.
That’s how I see it.
Colt
Mine either. We had a dilemma when we first ironed this out 20 years ago. As far as closing devices I understand it. No cam locks, no amberg locks, no added kill springs. We’re getting a lot of new game wardens it seems and the ability to make field determinations are PROBABLY left to letter of the law to most of them.
Colt, I will look at it as more of a cable connector than anything. I would hope if checked and a man explained it’s purpose there would be no problems.
1 Like
I would think the intent of the device would be such that it would not be a problem, and if ever cited by an over zealous officer, could easily be beaten in court!
3 Likes
It is not a part of the closing device as the closing device will function as designed without the break away device. The breakaway while part of the snare is no more a part of the closing device than the stop button that holds the lock on the snare. The argument can logically be made that it decreases the effectiveness of the lock rather than enhancing it
3 Likes