A Wisconsin trapper who lost track of one of his body-grip traps eventually learned that the trap had never gone far at all, after a conservation warden found it near a beaver lodge with a badly decomposed animal still caught inside.
The encounter was featured by the bodycam channel Arrest Cam, whose host explained that the warden traced the trap back to its owner and went to his home to discuss why it had apparently been left unchecked for an extended period.
The man insisted that he had returned to the area several times looking for the missing trap and believed an animal had dragged it away. The warden, however, said the trap was essentially still where it had originally been set and told him that a missing trap should have been reported when he could not locate it.
What followed was a long argument over responsibility, intent and whether someone who had tried to find a trap should still be cited when the trap ultimately remained in place with a dead animal inside.
Warden Says The Trap Was Still Near The Lodge
The conservation warden, identified in the footage as Ben M., told the trapper that he had found one of his 330 Conibear-style traps with a dead beaver caught in it.
The man initially believed the warden might be talking about another trap and said he had lost one after an otter or beaver apparently pulled it loose.
He described setting two traps in the area, including one near a lodge and another in a small channel, using vertical poles and crosspieces to hold them in position underwater.
According to the trapper, he returned later and could no longer find one of them.
He said he searched while the area was still icy and came back on later occasions wearing hip boots, walking through the water and looking around the lodge.
His working theory was that a large beaver or otter had become caught, broken the support pole and swum away with the trap.
The warden said that was not what he found.
He showed the man photographs and explained that the trap had been right near the lodge entrance, close enough that he could see part of the setup while standing nearby.
“That thing didn’t move,” the warden told him.
The Trapper Could Not Explain How He Missed It
The man repeatedly questioned how the trap could have remained there without him seeing it.
He said he had walked through the same area, searched around the lodge and even returned after water levels dropped.
“Why couldn’t I not see that?” he asked at one point.
The warden did not have an answer for how the man missed it, but he was clear that the trap had not been carried away as far as the trapper had assumed.
The condition of the animal also showed that it had been there for some time.
The warden said the carcass was badly decomposed, with the skin slipping when he attempted to remove it.
That detail mattered because trapping regulations are built around regular checks precisely to prevent animals from remaining in traps unnoticed for extended periods.
Arrest Cam’s host emphasized the same point in the introduction, saying anyone who sets a trap remains responsible for checking it and dealing with animals caught in it.
The Warden Asked Why He Never Reported The Missing Trap
The central issue eventually became less about whether the man had searched and more about what he did after failing to find the trap.
The warden asked why he had not called conservation authorities.
If the trapper believed an animal had carried the trap away, the officer said, he could have reported it missing so wardens would know about the situation if someone later found it.
That would also help distinguish a genuinely lost or stolen trap from one that had simply been abandoned.
The man defended himself by saying he believed the animal had swum off with it and that he had made repeated efforts to search the surrounding area.
He compared it to a hunter wounding an animal that later escapes.
The warden did not accept that comparison.
He said the trap was still an active device that had to be checked and eventually removed, and that leaving it unreported created the possibility of another animal being caught long after the trapper believed the equipment was gone.
That is a reasonable concern because intent is only part of responsible trapping; equipment left in the field can continue functioning regardless of what the person who set it believes happened.
“It Ain’t Like I Did Something On Purpose”
The trapper became increasingly defensive once it became clear that the warden intended to issue a citation.
“It ain’t like I did something on purpose,” he said.
The warden acknowledged that.
He told the man he believed he had gone back and looked for the trap, but said the result still left him in a difficult position because an animal had died in an unchecked trap that had not been reported missing.
The officer explained that there were several possible violations he could cite.
Rather than stacking charges, however, he said he wanted to return to the office, look through the available options and choose the least expensive appropriate citation.
The man did not seem particularly reassured.
“What’s it to work on? You’re going to issue me a citation?” he asked.
The warden explained that “working with” him meant declining to pursue multiple possible violations and choosing the least severe option he thought fit the facts.
The Warden Said He Was A Trapper Too
The officer tried to explain his reasoning through his own experience.
He told the man that he also trapped and had lost a trap himself that season.
In his case, he was fortunate enough to find it.
If he had not, the warden said, he would have called his supervisor and reported it missing so there would be a record in case it later appeared somewhere else.
He also described situations where people steal traps and reset them illegally, explaining that advance notice protects the original owner from being blamed for something they did not do.
That was the practical lesson he kept returning to: once the trapper realized he could not locate the device, he should have notified someone.
The defendant continued to argue that he had no reason to believe the trap remained active in that location and said he would never knowingly set another trap beside a dead animal.
The warden responded that the problem had already occurred.
The trap was not checked as required, the animal was not removed, and the missing trap was never reported.
Arrest Cam Says The Officer Gave Him A Break
Arrest Cam’s narrator said the officer ultimately followed through on his promise to limit the consequences.
The man received only one charge, for failing to check submersion traps and remove animals as required.
The channel host said he was somewhat surprised the warden remained so accommodating because of the trapper’s argumentative attitude throughout the conversation.
Still, the officer did not issue several citations or select the most expensive available charge.
Instead, he mailed the citation and told the man he could either pay it, enter a plea or contest the case in court.
The trapper chose to fight it.
The Case Actually Went To Trial
According to Arrest Cam, the man pleaded not guilty rather than resolving the citation through payment or an agreement.
The case eventually proceeded to trial.
The conservation warden testified and evidence related to the trap and the incident was presented.
The channel said the defendant did not cross-examine the warden and later testified himself.
After the brief trial, the court found him guilty.
He was ordered to pay $350.60, an amount Arrest Cam said he later paid.
The case was relatively small compared with many wildlife prosecutions, but it illustrates why trapping rules place responsibility on the person who sets the equipment even when something unexpected happens.
The man’s explanation that he believed an animal had dragged the trap away may explain why he stopped looking, but it did not remove the continuing risk created by a trap he could no longer account for.
The warden’s advice was straightforward: if a trap disappears and cannot be found, call.
Doing that may not guarantee there will never be a problem, but it gives wildlife officers a chance to help and creates a record showing the trapper did not simply leave the device behind and forget about it.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
