|
Post by bobwendt on Aug 8, 2007 9:37:21 GMT -6
amen. according to some of these guys I think they do believe animals can read. never saw a fox or coyote that could build a rocket to the moon yet.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 8, 2007 9:55:11 GMT -6
of course they can't read and of course semantics don't matter..
what matters is its fun to talk about, its fun to play around debating, and it brings me and a few other guys pleasure. I look forward to fun posts like this-
|
|
|
Post by lumberjack on Aug 8, 2007 10:23:39 GMT -6
To me a hole of any size would be considered a dirthole and the lure smeared on something or hidden under something would be a flat set.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Aug 8, 2007 11:16:09 GMT -6
I thought it was common knowledge that all Maine coyotes must read at a grade 9 level or leave the state. Numeracy is not as important as the criteria is only at 7th grade level.
Mac
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 8, 2007 13:47:48 GMT -6
so Mac...nah, I'll let that fastball go...LOL
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Aug 9, 2007 23:38:22 GMT -6
I understand what you are trying to convey Steve.
But...
I'll get to the but in a second.
Yeah I am sure I could go out and set five foothold traps on a lake for beaver and have 3 in the morning. Or I could have set 5 conibears for beaver and would have those same three beaver.
I am as proficient with one as the other trap for trap.
But...
Now the real debate begins and I suppose it all a matter of philosophy.
But does speed always need to be a factor?
Almost always absolutely. Only thing I would maybe concede on is cats.
For me it all about productivity.
That means speed and effieciency.
I am not a productive as I could be. Maybe never will be, too lazy sometimes.
Or indeed does "bigness" always matter? For example, if numbers are the #1 thing- then by doubling the mileage and doubling the number of traps, one would accomplish that
Maybe missing the forest for the trees a bob would say.
Say if I catch three hundred beaver this year I dont necessarily want to catch 400 next year. I just want to catch 300 in a shorter period of time with less miles driven and less traps set.
Than maybe I'll go after four hundred.
Speed and productivity.
I think that certain sets for each critter lends itself to that moreso than others.
Mink in MN its the pocket. I honestly dont think that say if I cold rolled into an are I could catch the same amount of mink with blind sets as I could with pockets even if I was profecient with one as the other.
I also honestly dont think that gerald could have caught 700 mink that year using primarily blind sets. I've been wrong before though.
Same with beaver. I think that a certain way lends itself to being more productive.
Same with fox.
Same with coyotes.
Sure you will see some regional variances. Ie rocky streams.
But if one makes sets 50/50- then I think either will produce the same.
But...
If you have two sets that are equally proficient but one is faster than the other allowing you to set more traps in a day or spend less time running the line are they equally productive.
Productivity and proficiency arent the same.
Proficiency is for basketball players and golfers. I'm not in a free throw shooting contest and I sure in the hell aint going golfing.
I've got all the time in the world
And here is what it all boils down to.
Philosophy.
I dont have all the time in the world.
I want to be able to trap, fish, hunt, spend time with the family and maybe once every three years indulge myself in some cocktails all in about a three month season.
Not much time to lollygag in anyone of them if I want to do all of them(other than the family thing of course).
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 10, 2007 6:50:57 GMT -6
the difference in speed is so minor, that I don't consider it even a factor. but even so- I can make a footholds set with a beaver in the same time as setting a 330- I can make a blind mink set in less time than a pocket, a flat set in less time than a hole set... so I really don't see speed being a factor in saying one is better than the other.
In well under an hour, I can have my Harley engine sitting on the bench with the heads and jugs off.... how long would it take you? the point being- I know exactly what to do, when to do it, etc... familar tools take less time to use for anyone.
you mentioned cats- limit is but a handful- speed in setting traps, is a non factor. Location.
our beaver season is almost 6 months long- you can trap beaver any of those days you choose. Seems like all the time in the world....Now- over that six month period- does running in te woods between traps, really give you more beaver? Unless you are running all 6 months, day in day out.
No, you pick the time you trap- and ice fish, snowmobile, etc, etcd for a vast share of those 6 months. Priorities. I'd rather trap some each day- then accomplish my season in a few weeks.
But thats me and my circumstances.
as far as Gerald- I don't know his blind set skills- but if he is a a good blind setter- the mink numbers would be the same, in my opinion.
Becuase I do know my skills- and I'll take any mink out there with a blind set just as easily as a pocket. Location for mink, as probably anything, is the key, not the set.
Understanding animals movements is the key-
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Aug 11, 2007 22:11:23 GMT -6
the difference in speed is so minor
Once you get to a certain level steve isnt that all that left?
The minor stuff.
Listen to the guys that catch 800, 1000, 1200 coons. They are trying to icrease 2 percent here, 3 percent there.
Minor percentages? Maybe. If I catch 300 beaver and can do something to add three percent its 9 beaver. Pay the gas bill for a week.
When I mention cats I wasnt talking to our situation per se. Because yes it is location.
the mink numbers would be the same, in my opinion.
You think the numbers would be the same per trap set or the same per season.
I dont think they would be the same per season.
In my opinion it wouldnt even be close.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 11, 2007 22:19:12 GMT -6
Without a doubt power season, Why would you think different steven? If a mink is working the creek, I'll take him over a season in blind sets- and any good blind set man could do te same.
thats like saying a castor mound setter would take more than Rally and his underice snares
I can only ask you- are you a blindsetter for mink in any volume/ no disrepect, but you seriously underestimate blind sets for mink. I don't know how you would ever prove it, but I'd bet the farm no pocket setter would take more mink than me on my creeks Indeed, any of tme are hit early for 2-3 weeks before I get there- and I still take as many or more mink as anyone around here. I might not have been trapping coyotes for 4 decades, but I've been trapping mink in blind sets that long.
|
|
|
Post by shagnasty on Aug 12, 2007 6:44:13 GMT -6
edited: maybe you should quit being a smart ass
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Aug 12, 2007 8:24:19 GMT -6
First off steve is I dont know how many rally snares under the ice. He has never told me and I have never asked.
But I know of several guys who take 4-5 hundred by themselves in 30 days with castors in the spring. 30 days.
No offense to Rally but its the nature of the beast. Underice by definition doesnt lend itself to being efficient as a open water castor mound.
I know full well what you are saying about catchaing A mink on your creek.
But how about if you go into a new area, I give you a couple hundred traps and a pocket man a couple hundred. Who is going to catch more mink in 10 days. Think it will be about equal.
And although we are talking about the pocket vs blind for mink, how about which one is going to catch flat out more fur in those ten days.
I'm not worried about who is going to take more mink on your creeks. I'm worried about the final score. If I lived where you lived "my" creeks would run out to Pipestone and Luverne. I'd get into that tilled farm country and set like hell while watching the windmills go round and round.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 12, 2007 8:49:10 GMT -6
But how about if you go into a new area, I give you a couple hundred traps and a pocket man a couple hundred. Who is going to catch more mink in 10 days. Think it will be about equal.
cold rolling mink is easy. And I don't mean that in any sarcastic way, but it really is. We had a mink day out in PA a few years ago that was really entertaining. We had oldmink, nittney lion, me, computerhater, and a couple of other guys and we went out to Nls creeks, and talked about set locations. Everyone had a half a doz set locations within a few secs of glancing around. Some were the same of course- but many were unique to that person-
the point was, we all knew what we needed, and looked for that in descending order.
I cold roll mink quite a bit. While mostly the same streams, as you know, hill streams change with every flood- so features change every year. We actually had a creek last year- where we set under a big tree on a high bank, a week or so later that tree was down and over the trap- we managed to dig it out- and 2 weeks later another flood made that whole tree disappear. We also ad and subtract locations each year. this year for example, we are making a major expansion of a new 100+ trap loop, and will be running all blind and 110s.
When you come to a creek, whether pocket or blind setter- you know where a mink would be, on that stretch of creek. Almost 100% I can tell you what side he will be on most of the time and why. Its then a simple matter to determine where the trap should be.
So many think blind setters wander up and down a creek and are forced to either make stuff or randomly set traps. Its not true.
Maybe its just easy because I do have the time minking- I've been blind setting mink traps for 49 years and it was the trapping I grew up on. But thats my point- if a tool is the one you use, you learn to use it well as Bogmaster says.
I haven't a doubt in the world, that I'd get those 200 traps in less time for sure, and with just a much success, as the man using 100% baited/lured pockets.
why wouldn't I? What would make a mink get caught in a baited pocket- noticed when hes working the creek- or a blind set put in in the areas where he would be working?
And I have to make the distinction on pockets as baited or not- because a small depression scooped into the bank with a trap in front of it and a tunnel effect producing stick on the opposite side- will take that mink as sure as if lure was at that depression. Because he WANTS to go there, and I oblige him.
And don't get me wrong- I feel I'd do just as well with baited pockets- but coon are enough of a problem as it is on pure blind sets- let alone adding lure.
For the first 30 years of my mink trapping, I was an early season (opening day) take vacation and run, run type of guy. I don't have to do that anymore. But that experience showed me, that its almost 100% location, and not the set.
On mink now.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 12, 2007 8:51:40 GMT -6
And although we are talking about the pocket vs blind for mink, how about which one is going to catch flat out more fur in those ten days.
incidentals? I'll take more rat incidentals in blind sets, the lured pocket man will take more coon.
Which is why every creek I set that has good coon potential, gets a minimum of 2 up to 6 baited/lured coon pockets.
|
|